If you have get paid 400,000 a year (so like ~ 250k after taxes) for your labor, you will likely have some left over to make certain investments, sure. Obviously you are not going to have enough left over to purchase a commanding stake in a Fortune 500 company. The investments will probably be more on the level of buying a house or making investments for retirement. Definitely not the high bourgeoisie.
The rule of thumb question is whether you need to sell your labor to secure your livelihood. Most people who earn those sorts of high wages will still need to work for a number of years before they could realistically live solely off investments. In the meantime, in most cases these people, doctors, lawyers, some high-paid tech and finance workers, will live off a combination of labor and investments, making them more-accurately petite bourgeois.
If you make $400k a year, you can easily save enough in 10 years to have several million dollars. $2 million in an S&P500 index fund and $200k in cash to ride out downturns let's you spend $65k a year (average household income!) without working.
Working people don't understand how easy it is to be a bona fide bourgeoisie if you're a well paid professional. Check out a "financial independence" forum because that's exactly what that means.
Sure it’s possible, but again, what sorts of jobs are going to allow someone to earn a wage of 400k for 10 consecutive years? Small segments of Law/medicine/finance/maybe tech.
How many doctors do you know of that retire at 42 and live off investments? Or lawyers?
Almost all of them continue to work. Probably a clearer example of actually owning the means of production is folks with private practices or equity partners in law firms, but even those people generate work for their firm, and are more accurately petite bourgeois.
And if you look at law or medicine, the tendency is away from private practice or partnership, it’s a sort of proletarianization
Like the big capitalists do not generally become big capitalists by building up investments from scratch using wages earned.
True, but they still earn enough W2 wages to easily be bourgeoisie by their 40s. Tech is even more egregious because they can make $300k+ by age 35 without any debt or real hard work (tech workers do not work long hours)
You're missing basically the entire point of this.
Workers who are well paid might over time make enough money to retire early or something, fine.
They definitely do not have the same role in production as high capitalists who own considerable means of production and extract billions of dollars in surplus value.
Doctors choose to work because it's a prestigious job that they spent a lot of time training for. Most of them that are asset poor chose to be that way.
Like the big capitalists do not generally become big capitalists by building up investments from scratch using wages earned.
No, but it's not hard for a six figures earner to get up to $2-3 million in their 40s. A PMC couple can easily hit $5 million. A couple with $5 million can live on $150k, forever, never working again. Just lmfao if you don't think that's the "bourgeoisie"
If you have get paid 400,000 a year (so like ~ 250k after taxes) for your labor, you will likely have some left over to make certain investments, sure. Obviously you are not going to have enough left over to purchase a commanding stake in a Fortune 500 company. The investments will probably be more on the level of buying a house or making investments for retirement. Definitely not the high bourgeoisie.
The rule of thumb question is whether you need to sell your labor to secure your livelihood. Most people who earn those sorts of high wages will still need to work for a number of years before they could realistically live solely off investments. In the meantime, in most cases these people, doctors, lawyers, some high-paid tech and finance workers, will live off a combination of labor and investments, making them more-accurately petite bourgeois.
If you make $400k a year, you can easily save enough in 10 years to have several million dollars. $2 million in an S&P500 index fund and $200k in cash to ride out downturns let's you spend $65k a year (average household income!) without working.
Working people don't understand how easy it is to be a bona fide bourgeoisie if you're a well paid professional. Check out a "financial independence" forum because that's exactly what that means.
Sure it’s possible, but again, what sorts of jobs are going to allow someone to earn a wage of 400k for 10 consecutive years? Small segments of Law/medicine/finance/maybe tech.
How many doctors do you know of that retire at 42 and live off investments? Or lawyers?
Almost all of them continue to work. Probably a clearer example of actually owning the means of production is folks with private practices or equity partners in law firms, but even those people generate work for their firm, and are more accurately petite bourgeois.
And if you look at law or medicine, the tendency is away from private practice or partnership, it’s a sort of proletarianization
Like the big capitalists do not generally become big capitalists by building up investments from scratch using wages earned.
Most lawyers and doctors are owners, not wage earners.
Literally not true, google occupational statistics.
It's like 50/50, and dropping, but it's still a lot more than most professions.
No kidding, they are historically petite-bourgeois professions, but now are increasingly on a wage labor model.
True, but they still earn enough W2 wages to easily be bourgeoisie by their 40s. Tech is even more egregious because they can make $300k+ by age 35 without any debt or real hard work (tech workers do not work long hours)
You're missing basically the entire point of this.
Workers who are well paid might over time make enough money to retire early or something, fine.
They definitely do not have the same role in production as high capitalists who own considerable means of production and extract billions of dollars in surplus value.
And less than a third of doctors own their practices.
Doctors choose to work because it's a prestigious job that they spent a lot of time training for. Most of them that are asset poor chose to be that way.
No, but it's not hard for a six figures earner to get up to $2-3 million in their 40s. A PMC couple can easily hit $5 million. A couple with $5 million can live on $150k, forever, never working again. Just lmfao if you don't think that's the "bourgeoisie"