What is "rich"?

[Torie]

We've had this thread before, of course.  I always say it is anyone who can live upon the returns of their capital - in other words political privilege allows them to live without working, upon the toils of others. 

Realistically of course this classification includes quite a lot of very minor capitalists who can make do with $20 or $30K in rental income from a few old shanties.  Its a bit of a stretch to call such people 'rich' in a meaningful sense, though they are obviously on the oppressor side of the divide.  I think it would be reasonable to say 'lives upon return on capital, with at least enough income to securely command what is commonly thought of as an upper middle class lifestyle'.  So, the bottom end of rich would, under this definition, be people like my parents.  (coincidentally memphis they are provided with around $200K).

200K per year parses out to about 4-5 million in net worth more or less exclusive of personal residence. However that is eroded by inflation, so to maintain the status quo in real dollars, one needs closer to 6-7 million, or one needs to buy an annuity.

$200K does not afford a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle in my zip code really, unless one does not have dependents other than maybe a spouse, and certainly not kids in college. $350K is more like it, whether from capital or compensation from sweat and toil, or both.

I am not sure why someone who has earned every penny they own honestly and ethically and has reached financial "critical mass" should be deemed some sort of "oppressor."  But I am confident Opebo that you will give me an at once cogent and arresting explanation for me to savor and ponder.

[Torie]

200K per year parses out to about 4-5 million in net worth more or less exclusive of personal residence. However that is eroded by inflation, so to maintain the status quo in real dollars, one needs closer to 6-7 million, or one needs to buy an annuity.

The decrepit progenitors are slumlords, Torie.  The inflation hedge is built in.

$200K does not afford a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle in my zip code really, unless one does not have dependents other than maybe a spouse, and certainly not kids in college. $350K is more like it, whether from capital or compensation from sweat and toil, or both.

Yeah, I meant $200K in Sant Louie.

I am not sure why someone who has earned every penny they own honestly and ethically and has reached financial "critical mass" should be deemed some sort of "oppressor."  But I am confident Opebo that you will give me an at once cogent and arresting explanation for me to savor and ponder.

Well, sure.  The whole reason it is so desirable to get into that position is in order to oppress.  Once you have a certain 'position', legally defined - call it wealth, call it membership in an aristocracy, whatever, you receive by right a share of the production from the toils of your serfs.  In the middle ages it was a bit more obvious, as they were right outside stinking of dung, and even now my parents serfs can be visited easily (and must often be at the first of the month, the recalcitrant rednecks), but even in your post-modern case there are serfs somewhere serving you due to your investments.

The truth is that most such 'position' in our heirarchical society is not gained from earning but rather from past advantage, inheritance, etc.  You may have 'worked hard', Torie, but you come from a particular class.  It is seemly to admit this.

Opebo, be patient with me, but I am still confused as to why I am an "oppressor."  I grant you I was lucky in that I was born with brains to parents with a high level of education, who gave me a "free" and long and extensive education of my own, after which it was up to me to make with it what I was able or wanted, or was disciplined enough to achieve. I also had some luck along the way, although I was pretty careful to stack the odds in my favor when I could.

What I don't understand is that if I enter in contracts that also benefit what you describe as the "serfs" which not only they, but I, consider as benefiting them as well as me, and I engage in full disclosure and don't take advantage, and am honest in my dealings - all of them - why that kind of conduct label's me an oppressor, whereas if I did a minimum wage job, and just hung out, then I would not be an oppressor. I think indeed that the former conduct benefits the polity as a whole more than semi-vegetating.

I appreciate such  terms of "oppressor" and the "ruling class" are slung around like some high velocity Frisbee in some quarters as the coin of the realm, but I am struggling to give them some meaning, that has at least of modicum of practical as opposed to polemic use in the public square. To the extent that you can further enlighten me, and walk me through this, step by step, I would be most appreciate kind sir. I really will.

[Torie]

You seem uncomfortable with the concept of property rights Opebo.  Is that a fair inference on my part?  Once we get this little matter nailed down, perhaps we can explore this matter further.