What is "rich"?

[opebo]

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).

[opebo]

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]

70% of the OECD and 10% of the rest of the world.

No.  So some slob who (for the moment) still makes $30,000/year in the USA is 'rich'?  So how do you differentiate between him and billionaires like Boolmberg.

[opebo]

I'd say that the true definition of rich would be where you come to a point where your money works for you rather than you working for your money.

^^^^^

I remember Dazzleman giving this definition years ago.

Why credit that bonehead?  Everyone uses this definition, at least partially.

But do keep in mind, all, that wealth is political power.  Or rather a result of political power.  A proper way to view wealth is not as a 'thing', like a physical object, but as privilege within human society.  Like in an ape-troupe, certain apes have the authority and the position.  This is no different.

So, 'taxation' of the rich is merely a small reduction in their privilege.  Any such policies are an inherent compromise with the brutal system which creates privilege in the first place.

[opebo]

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.

Because there is an enormous power differential enforced by the State between you and your serfs, Torie.  That is why it is so enviable and desirable to be a rich.

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.

Yes, I'm uncomfortable with the term oppressor and the term ruling class, and prefer simply 'owning class'.  Oppression implies all sorts of things.. and as we've seen with Western European capitalism, it is possible to maintain the system but without severe brutality.  Violence is still inherent, but it is well masked and rarely used, unlike here in the US.  Ruling class is also a bit off simply because most owners take no individual involvement and show no individual volition political ('to rule').  No, its a system that is ruling, and yes, the owners are all beneficiaries, but its not as if they have any individual choices to make.  Least of all could they ever choose to upend the system.

No, I think 'owning class' is the best - as a class you have all the political power, and nearly all of the production of society.  Everything is run - at the point of the gun, by the state - for you and your benefit.  However you have no direct control over this as an 'individual' (perhaps the very concept of individual is a bit of a delusion). 

[opebo]

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.

I'm not uncomfortable with them, I just understand them a little differently than you do.  Property rights are political privilege.

[opebo]

When I talk about rich, I think having disposable income is pretty much it in America. Even people who make something like 30k a year can afford to have their own home, car, and really everything they need, with extra money left over, if they spend wisely.

What the f?  on $30K/year you get about $2,000 a month after taxes.  A house payment in most areas is $1,000-1,500.. plus food, car payment, health car bills.  There's no way a $30K/year man can buy a house much less support a family.  Double that, maybe.

If we look at Opebo's opressor/opressed dichotomy, even the "recalcitrant redneck" who shops exclusively at Wal-Mart is an "opressor" in that his "everyday low prices" come from the miniscule cost of labor in impoverished countries. The political power the lowliest American citizen has puts pretty much all of them, even those on welfare, on Opebo's "opressor" side of the equation, since the whole world fuels our cheap goods.
[/quote]

No, that's wrong. 

[opebo]

What the f?  on $30K/year you get about $2,000 a month after taxes.  A house payment in most areas is $1,000-1,500.. plus food, car payment, health car bills.  There's no way a $30K/year man can buy a house much less support a family.  Double that, maybe.

House payment is different than renting a place. I'm not saying $30k is enough to buy a house and start a middle-class family. But I've rented sh**tty places at rates of less than $300 a month. If you go shopping and buy your own food instead of eating out, you can easily get by on $200-$300 a month in food costs. Another $400 or so on bills if you're not in some very cold area & if you're not subscribed to nonsense television service. Then you've got $1,000 for your car and health, which isn't alot admittedly.

It's doable for a single person, not luxurious, not fun, but certainly livable. And of course, there's all the programs for the poor which supplement their income. Welfare etc. is part of the political privelege of being an American, which allows even the worst off among us to "exploit" poor laborers in other countries by shopping at Wal-Mart and buying cheap goods.

I'm not sure how big a factor are these 'cheap goods', anyway.  I mean, nearly all our income goes to housing, car, and food.  Cheap clothes are a small factor, but how often does one really buy consumer electronics?  (anyway the newer clothes fall apart quickly).

By the way, are you in Upstate NY?  Because even in St Louis there is no longer any place to live for $300/month.

[opebo]

Sorry, what!?! Since when were the rich protected by the state in recent US history? Rich people have fallen into poverty, and poor have gained immense wealth. There is nothing stopping you from becoming rich if you work hard, have the right attitude, and get yourself a good education.

Not so, Vapors.  As a class, the poor stay poor, and as a class, the rich stay rich - this is the function of the system of control in our society.  To say that in rare cases something different occurs does nothing to counter the claim that the function of society is to keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

You also seem to think property rights are oppressive. Save the homeless, everybody has some sort of property, be it a car, a house, or even a kitchen table.

In a sense even 'owning' a kitchen table gives one the right of 'command' - one is empowered by the State to command others 'away from my kitchen table', this preserving it for ones own use alone.  However this ability to reserve items that may be used only by a single person or a few people (such as a family) is hardly the same as ownership over the 'productive capacity' of society.  The latter gives one the ability to command more than just the exclusion of his table, etc, but the power to actually tell people what to do upon penalty of death.

That last thing about individuals doesn't even make sense. I am separate from you as you are from Torie and so forth.

Sure, we're separate.. like the various bees in the hive are separate.