This really about a definition of "working class". What's always interesting to me in these arguments is that it's a Britishism originally tied to class consciousness more than economic circumstances.

Vicars, writers and such were examples of "genteel poverty" who were very well educated but still lived a hand-to-mouth existence. They were not considered part of the working class even though they very much had to work, and were often poorer than many tradespeople. Because of education and contact with the well-to-do, those workers had an expanded world view and thus not considered part of the "working class" who were focused on tawdry gossip, when they were going down to the pub, and what was for lunch.

Taylor Swift net wealth: 1.6 billion.

Ah yes, working class.

Look, I get she works hard performing, ~~and likely started off with nothing~~ but I feel once you hit a certain income level you can't be considered working class. Working class people don't have private jets.

Is this a joke?

Anybody who does not have to work is not working class. That's how it works.

Chris Pratt wouldn't suddenly be "working class" if he quit acting and became a plumber.

He'd be a hobbyist plumber. Perhaps a professional plumber. But he iwoukd not suddenly become working class.

Guy in my city got bonkers rich off of software in his 20s, fucked off to Thailand to idk appease his cultural fetishes, came home with a wife, and now they run a restaurant. He's in his 50s.

They do not need that restaurant. They never did.

Dude works hard. And if I were to ask him if he were working class, he'd laugh, say absolutely not, and buy me a beer.

Is he a restaurant owner? yes. Businessman? Yes. Entrepreneur? Yes. Chef? No, but his wife, yes. Restaurant manager? Yes. Otherwise retired? Yes.

Working class??? No.

If Christian Bale donated all of his assets and money, got arrested and out in jail, and then slummed around auto body shops to legitimately get by, would he be working class? Yes.

If it was all for a role, and he secretly had $3m tucked away in case it didn't pan out, is he still working class? NO.

The fuck??? She makes something like 500 million dollars PER CONCERT, and has a tour of like 8 months straight. She doesn't roadie her own equipment. She doesn't drive the bus. I assume she's not even there for sound check hours before the event. She's given a microphone, told "go sing for 3 hours" and then she's back onto a tour bus that's more lavish than most peoples homes. Meanwhile, 30-100 guys do backbreaking labor of assembling, and disassembling the sets, driving through the night in trucks, getting to the next cities venue at like 6am, unloading the truck, and assembling the set in the next city. All while she's probably in her $2500 a night hotel room sleeping on a fluffy bed.

What part of that sounds working class?

...no? Fuck no? I don't know what kinda debate is going on about how to define "working class", but if you have that kind of fame and that kind of money, you should be disqualified outright.

No. There's no hard-and-fast definition of the working class that everybody agrees upon, but there are some common ones. She's certainly not part of the Marxist proletariat, since I'm certain that she and her management team are smart enough to have invested her money so that she never need work again, if she so desired. Also, she employs a small army of people to put on tours. Similarly, she has far too much money to be part of the working class as loosely defined by people who must sell their labor to survive. From what I understand, she came from an upper-middle class family, so she's not even working class by culture.

I can sort of see an argument that she puts on a very physically-demanding show, exchanging her labor for money, but performers traditionally haven't been considered working class.

She doesn't depend on, need or benefits much from working. It's just a hobby at this point. Or perhaps she likes the influence she has, or is just very greedy.

I'd say "working class" would be people who depend on their job for survival. She's not.

It's an interesting question.

Where is the line between being working class and not?

I don't know the official economic answer, but I suspect that it's where you have enough money for the money itself to generate wealth as opposed to having to generate wealth from a paycheck every week.

Come on Lemmy, look at the name of the Community and stop downvoting honest questions, FFS. I don't know about or care about TSwift and her billions, but there's nothing wrong with the question that the OP posted.

No

About a year ago I constructed a financial instrument that prevents me from having access to my money for several years. I'm now working to live and without a safety net for the first time in my life. And, despite all of this, I still wouldn't call myself "working class" because I've a gigantic advantage in past educational opportunities.

Even my current effort is just a big learning opportunity that the vast majority of people could not choose. I'm not even worried about catastrophic failure because mommy and daddy wouldn't ask, instead plop six digits in my account to tide me over until I've access to my own resources. No matter how hard I try I will never really understand what it means to be "working class".

I'll leave it to you to decide what Taylor is.

apparently her parents ran a like christmas tree business and were well to do before all the fame. I have not verified this... my coworker is a swiftie and I hear way more than i care for... but work relationships and ish.

What is your definition of working class? I would need to know that before I can weigh in. She doesn't meet MY definition, but YMMV.

She was. Now she's not.

With her current amount of money I think that would be a No. However, it is interesting since she directly makes what is she is getting paid for which is her music. There are obviously teams of people she employs to help with this process as well as the spin off products (merchandise, CDs, movies, etc.) but she directly makes what she sells like all musicians. If she was barely scraping by with just her music I think most people would say that she would be working class. So it gets blurry.

I think its similar to athletes who do the core work that they get paid to do (i.e. play the sport). But make additional funds by selling their name and likeness. So they could be considered working class but then you get to the amount of money they make as well.

No. I do not.

Eh, it kinda depends.

Is she running a company or other organisation that derives income from the labor of others? If so, it doesn't really matter what the income level is, she ain't working class in the sense of owner and labor classes.

And it has been a loooong time since her income from just her own work was at a level where she fit the usual ranges of "working class" in terms of pure money flow.

But, she does still at least partially derive income from her own labor (singing, dancing, etc), so you could say she fits by that standard.

However, there's people that would say any entertainer can't be working class because it isn't labor, but they'd say the same about someone working in an office, even if the office worker made less than them.

That's the thing with terms that have multiple usages, it's harder to pin down a single answer.

No.