there should be 3 (and only 3) class dsitinctions in america:
1) Welfare/gov't dependent
2) Working for a living (whether you earn $8/hour or $600,000 per year)
3) Owners of capital / philathropy class / old money
Any "work" the third group does is purely by choice, not by necessity. The other two groups have to work to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. That's the only distinction that matters.
Some who makes $600K isn't worried about putting food on the table. Someone who makes $17K is. Stupid pubtard.
Class shouldn't really be directly a matter of income or wealth. It should be more a matter of family background. Randy Moss presumably never has to work again, but should he really be considered "high class"?
The Brits have it right. You can go make a hundred million dollars playing "football," but you don't become "upper class" as a result, because being upper class isn't just about income. It's about character and upbringing. David Beckham is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but he is "working class" in his country because that's how he walks, talks, and carries himself.
The Brits have it WRONG. We have it right. Americans bow to NO man or woman. Randy Moss is the same 'class' as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Bushes, the Clintons etc.
pubtards wrote:
Some who makes $600K isn't worried about putting food on the table. Someone who makes $17K is. Stupid pubtard.
No one in America is worried about putting food on the table, since even our homeless people are obese. Thanks for pointing out something totally irrelevant.
Please off yourself, paisano. Your threads are the worst
worse troll on this site
I don't know Randy Moss' particular financial situation, but I wouldn't assume he never has to work again. There are numerous examples of athletes who made 10s of millions in their playing careers but burned through all of it.
paisano wrote:
there should be 3 (and only 3) class dsitinctions in america:
1) Welfare/gov't dependent
2) Working for a living (whether you earn $8/hour or $600,000 per year)
3) Owners of capital / philathropy class / old money
Any "work" the third group does is purely by choice, not by necessity. The other two groups have to work to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. That's the only distinction that matters.
There's no such thing as class, really. It's a construct. When you reach the "middle class", no one gives you a membership card or anything.
Consequently, if you choose view society through these three categories and no other, knock yourself out. Most people see a great difference between minimum-wage working stiffs and higher wage/salaried individuals.
not about the money wrote:
Class shouldn't really be directly a matter of income or wealth. It should be more a matter of family background. Randy Moss presumably never has to work again, but should he really be considered "high class"?
The Brits have it right. You can go make a hundred million dollars playing "football," but you don't become "upper class" as a result, because being upper class isn't just about income. It's about character and upbringing. David Beckham is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but he is "working class" in his country because that's how he walks, talks, and carries himself.
The whole notion of class is idiotic.
Thank you for identifying yourself as an idiot.
Actual Article wrote:
pubtards wrote:
Some who makes $600K isn't worried about putting food on the table. Someone who makes $17K is. Stupid pubtard.
No one in America is worried about putting food on the table, since even our homeless people are obese. Thanks for pointing out something totally irrelevant.
You are completely naive and have probably never stepped out of your den of white privilege if you actually believe that.
pubtards wrote:
Actual Article wrote:
No one in America is worried about putting food on the table, since even our homeless people are obese. Thanks for pointing out something totally irrelevant.
You are completely naive and have probably never stepped out of your den of white privilege if you actually believe that.
Show me where the people dying of starvation in America are. You can't do it.
pubtards wrote:
Some who makes $600K isn't worried about putting food on the table. Someone who makes $17K is. Stupid pubtard.
If you make $17k and are worrying about putting food on the table, then you are very stupif or at least very bad at financial managment. $17K is more than enough for food.
class? what class? wrote:
Most people see a great difference between minimum-wage working stiffs and higher wage/salaried individuals.
99% of all statistics are made up (or whatever the exact wording of this quote is).
Actual Article wrote:
pubtards wrote:
You are completely naive and have probably never stepped out of your den of white privilege if you actually believe that.
Show me where the people dying of starvation in America are. You can't do it.
Nobody said anything about starvation. The point is that there are plenty of people in this country that are worried about providing for their families because of how little they make. So dense.
As long as you don't own the Factors of Production, you are WORKING CLASS.
KarlMarxSub4 wrote:
As long as you don't own the Factors of Production, you are WORKING CLASS.
Then anyone with a pension fund or a non-retirement mutual fund is not working class.