The DC Legal Proletariat Isn't Rich - the Bourgeoisie Is

[Anonymous]

The endless debates on DCUM about whether double income families with a $500K to $2 million in HHI are rich seems to result from a conflation of income distribution data-based definitions of "rich" and more reasonable definitions of wealth based on net worth.

Marx provided some useful social definitions of class in a capitalist society.

In our flavor of capitalism, there is no monarchs. aristocracy, nobility, etc. The closest analogues in our society are life-long officials in the Supreme Court, professional politicians Congress and dynasties that have easier access to the Presidential office nationally or the Governorship in States. These comprise a small number of people in our society.

We have a peasantry in our society which tracks with peasantries in history. These are the folks today fighting to survive on or close to minimum wage, struggling economically through life. This is the analogue to the lower social and economic classes in our society.

There is a bourgeoisie which is defined simply as those who are able to live well from the proceeds of their ownership of capital. Work is optional. Some choose to work hard to preserve or expand their capital, but the key is that work is a choice. This is the analogue to the upper social and economic classes in our society.

Finally there is the proletariat which is defined as the class that exchanges their time and labor for money and that is, for all intents and purposes, the only thing that they have to earn a living. This is the analogue to the middle social and economic classes in our society.

Most high legal HHI households in the DMV that are on DCUM either fall in:

the proletariat if they lack enough net worth to produce the income needed to replace their income from work or the income needed to maintain their HHI lifestyle

and

the bourgeoisie if their net worth is greater than the amount they need to generate the income to maintain their high HHI lifestyle independent of what they choose to do for work.

The Bourgeoisie is rich. The Proletariat is struggling to survive socially and economically and to transition from upper middle class to rich.

If you have a $2 million HHI but you are one pink slip away from bankruptcy because you spend in a way that leaves you in a hole every month, it is a tragic position in our society. You don't control your time and your security depends on not being hit by a car or having an event that keeps you from working. But no one will shed a tear if they slip and fall.

Regardless of how you feel about Marx's views on his ideal society, which suffers from a poor economic incentive structure, his observations about capitalism and its structure appear useful.

[Anonymous]

The DC area is primarily just upper middle class. The real money is in and around NYC, Dallas, Miami and San Francisco.

Thrown in Jackson Hole, Park City, Bozeman, Aspen & Telluride which gained a ton of year-round residents post-COVID. Tons of wealth in Austin Hill Country too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The endless debates on DCUM about whether double income families with a $500K to $2 million in HHI are rich seems to result from a conflation of income distribution data-based definitions of "rich" and more reasonable definitions of wealth based on net worth.

Marx provided some useful social definitions of class in a capitalist society.

In our flavor of capitalism, there is no monarchs. aristocracy, nobility, etc. The closest analogues in our society are life-long officials in the Supreme Court, professional politicians Congress and dynasties that have easier access to the Presidential office nationally or the Governorship in States. These comprise a small number of people in our society.

We have a peasantry in our society which tracks with peasantries in history. These are the folks today fighting to survive on or close to minimum wage, struggling economically through life. This is the analogue to the lower social and economic classes in our society.

There is a bourgeoisie which is defined simply as those who are able to live well from the proceeds of their ownership of capital. Work is optional. Some choose to work hard to preserve or expand their capital, but the key is that work is a choice. This is the analogue to the upper social and economic classes in our society.

Finally there is the proletariat which is defined as the class that exchanges their time and labor for money and that is, for all intents and purposes, the only thing that they have to earn a living. This is the analogue to the middle social and economic classes in our society.

Most high legal HHI households in the DMV that are on DCUM either fall in:

the proletariat if they lack enough net worth to produce the income needed to replace their income from work or the income needed to maintain their HHI lifestyle

and

the bourgeoisie if their net worth is greater than the amount they need to generate the income to maintain their high HHI lifestyle independent of what they choose to do for work.

The Bourgeoisie is rich. The Proletariat is struggling to survive socially and economically and to transition from upper middle class to rich.

If you have a $2 million HHI but you are one pink slip away from bankruptcy because you spend in a way that leaves you in a hole every month, it is a tragic position in our society. You don't control your time and your security depends on not being hit by a car or having an event that keeps you from working. But no one will shed a tear if they slip and fall.

Regardless of how you feel about Marx's views on his ideal society, which suffers from a poor economic incentive structure, his observations about capitalism and its structure appear useful.

Proletariat point doesn't make sense because the HHI lifestyle can keep going higher at people's discretion. Meanwhile, someone doing extreme frugal retirement living off their assets would meet your criteria of bourgeoisie.

[Anonymous]

I think one requirement for being wealthy is to have the option to not work. Not sure if you are wealthy, no matter how much you have, without this option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think one requirement for being wealthy is to have the option to not work. Not sure if you are wealthy, no matter how much you have, without this option.

Many, many DC homeowners could sell their home $1.5M home, move somewhere a few hours away & never work again.

[Anonymous]

That's why a lot of wealth disappears when cretin heirs can't keep their inherited wealth from dissipating. The work was a necessary ingredient to the wealth.

[Anonymous]

What about those of us who choose to live off passive income, and therefore have significant capital, but the income is decidedly lower middle class?

We don't quite fit into your definition that the bourgeoisie must have a high income. We must be barely bourgeois!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one requirement for being wealthy is to have the option to not work. Not sure if you are wealthy, no matter how much you have, without this option.

Many, many DC homeowners could sell their home $1.5M home, move somewhere a few hours away & never work again.

I doubt that people who have a lifestyle that includes a $1.5m home will be able to live for life on the proceeds of their home. Will they move to a lower COL location and suddenly live on puppy chow?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about those of us who choose to live off passive income, and therefore have significant capital, but the income is decidedly lower middle class?

We don't quite fit into your definition that the bourgeoisie must have a high income. We must be barely bourgeois!

I think this is a minimum requirement for being rich. I agree with your conclusion. But there is the lesson in history of misers who had vast wealth but were pathologically frugal. That is a trap to avoid in that situation.

[Anonymous]

Gilded cage or golden handcuffs are useful descriptions of the legal professions. What are the statistics of making it out rich out of the profession?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DC area is primarily just upper middle class. The real money is in and around NYC, Dallas, Miami and San Francisco.

Thrown in Jackson Hole, Park City, Bozeman, Aspen & Telluride which gained a ton of year-round residents post-COVID. Tons of wealth in Austin Hill Country too.

I agree with this statement. I live in one of those cities and the wealth discussion and gripes about “unaffordable” Bethesda homes seem so provincial to me. A $2-3M house would basically be a ranch house, albeit renovated, where I live. You’d be one of the “poors” in the private school circle with that kind of house.

Anyway, despite all the complaining here, DC lawyers have a good lifestyle and seem to be respected enough there. They don’t know how good they have it.

[Anonymous]

From what I read in these boards, the "good lifestyle" is just salve for their brutal work and home situations.

[Anonymous]

I have enough money I don’t need to work again. My income isn’t close to 2M per year. I’m still not wealthy. Try again. Anyone with 2M income for a few years should have squirreled away enough to live off of, with or without inter generational wealth transfers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DC area is primarily just upper middle class. The real money is in and around NYC, Dallas, Miami and San Francisco.

Thrown in Jackson Hole, Park City, Bozeman, Aspen & Telluride which gained a ton of year-round residents post-COVID. Tons of wealth in Austin Hill Country too.

I agree with this statement. I live in one of those cities and the wealth discussion and gripes about “unaffordable” Bethesda homes seem so provincial to me. A $2-3M house would basically be a ranch house, albeit renovated, where I live. You’d be one of the “poors” in the private school circle with that kind of house.

Anyway, despite all the complaining here, DC lawyers have a good lifestyle and seem to be respected enough there. They don’t know how good they have it.

There are multiple layers of irony to pull back here. Unintentional, but well done nonetheless.

[Anonymous]

All statistics point to lifestyle inflation meeting rising wages. $2m earners earnestly squirreling away their money is the exception not the rule.