Labor theory of value

Who are these bourgeois creatives that are somehow able to be replaced by tech?
If you work for a living, you aren't bourgeois.
We need class solidarity. Not this shit.
- I always interpreted middle class to be not living paycheck to paycheck. Because that is the more meaningful difference of quality of life in my opinion. Not having some arbitrary line of more and more expensive shit. I would say the next line is having so much you never have to work another day in your life
  Edit: clarity
  
  "Not living paycheck to paycheck" and "not needing to work in order to live" are two vastly different concepts. The former is a member of the working class, the latter is a member of the bourgeoisie
- W2 Menials, identifiable because they have a W2
- They are merely petite
  
  that's not what petit bourgeoisie means either
  
  No.

I don't think many people understand what working class means.
If you have to work to live, then you are working class.
- Me living on basic government help: wassup working class?

This meme fundamentally misunderstands what the working class is.

Bourgeois creatives are people like Hollywood directors and actors who make millions of dollars and could easily retire at any time. They are not the ones being replaced, or trying to be replaced by AI or other tech.
The creatives who do the actual work that get projects done, the ones making just as much as other middle class people are the ones being affected. You know, the ones that actually need the money to live and pay bills. Ironically, it’s also these creatives whose work is being used to train the AI models, without their consent.
So, yeah, this is wildly inaccurate and totally pointed at the wrong people.
- Furthermore, being replaced by tech is nothing new for creatives. Every tech advancement in commercial art has made thousands of jobs obsolete and has been a goal of capital all along.
  Before computers and modern machinery, there were hundreds, if not thousands of jobs that were done by skilled creatives and craftspeople - sign painters, typesetters, draftsmen, carpenters, sculptors, etc.
  Being a creative, doesn’t equate to having an easy life. There’s a reason why the term, “starving artist”, exists.
- To further expand, the term bourgeoisie started because you used to have (all things in this reply simplified for conveniences' sake, there are nuances not discussed)
  Royals / Lords
  Peasants
  Either you owned everything as far as the eye could see, or you lived on that land and you were the property of the owner.
  Then, as industrialization and/or global trade opened up, a new class emerged in the 1200s: "town dwellers" (literally what bourgeoisie means).
  Now you had the aristocracy, peasants and people in between: they had money, property, a small amount of power and it wasn't necessarily acquired by birthright.
  This is still hundreds of years ago, so still not a 1:1 for today.
  Overtime, and after a bunch of revolutions, we end up at a situation where the bourgeoisie needs to split again: haute bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie (roughly 1800) The hautes are your corporate overlords, the petits are your guys who own one SME business and are successful at it. The haute don't labor, but invest, the petit don't labor but manage.
  Today - You could also say haute are CxO, VP; petit are Director; then senior manager and down is just laborers
  Between 1800 and end of WW2 the petit bourgeoisie split again: a new layer between laborer and petit: the middle class, this meant people who still worked jobs, still depended on selling the value of their labor, couldn't stop working on a whim, but were wealthy enough to achieve other markers of the bourgeoisie: property, leisure activities, vacations, travel, cars over horses (at first), more than one hat, inside plumbing...
  Between WW2 and today there are much more layers, probably more akin to job titles and workplaces. "Retail workers" "Middle managers" "Blue collar tradesmen" - which aren't descriptions of their level in society but miniature microcosms of society and economy.
  Some workers can be very rich without owning a business. Some can own their own business and be poorer than their employees. It's not so cut and dried any more.
  All that to say, the "middle class" (in developed countries) both expanded and shrunk at the same time: the majority of people have a high quality of living with disposable income, but also can't retire now or maybe ever.
  The line should always be - if you're under retirement age and quit your job tomorrow, do you have enough assets to comfortably live out the rest of your life with minimal changes to lifestyle until you die of old age?
  Yes? You are not working class.
  No? You are working class.
  As for the rest:
  Are you worth more than 5 million dollars?
  Yes? Petit bourgeoisie
  No? Middle class at most
  Do you and your partner combined earn more than $300,000 a year?
  Yes? Upper Middle class
  No? Middle class at most
  $150k?
  Middle class
  $100k and below?
  Working class.
  "Wow! 100k is a lot"
  No, in the grand scheme of things in 2024, it is not.
  
  To be fair, class isn't determined by income, but relation to the Means of Production, as classes have shared interests.

Thinking artists have money seems incorrect.
- Depends on if they do furry commissions, those are apparently lucrative as fuck

No hate for the middle class.
The middle class is a fiction created by the owning class to divide the working class.
Hate it and those who created it (the fiction, not the people who like to think they are part of it).
image description in source if anyone needs it

Ohh so an office job is "bourgeois" now?! give me a break...
- People who earn less than I do are poor. People who earn more than I do are bourgeois.
- At best some of the most privileged are petite bourgeois near the end of their careers.
  I hate this in fighting, we are all working class. We all starve if we stop working. Yes, some have much more than others, yes it is unfair, however our interests are still broadly aligned.

Creatives have been shit on economically for a long time. Chokepoint Capitalism goes into detail on how artists, writers, and performers have had a hard time getting paid since day one. That's a large reason why the actors and writers guilds exist. You can always find someone who wants to do creative work. If you don't have a union ensuring gigs are paid well it's a race to the bottom.

The fact a lot of people were clamoring for AI so it could do the work and they could stay home and make art only for AI to come about and replace artists is kind a of hilarious in like a dystopian hellscape kind of way.

Middle class people don’t need to work.
Creatives usually don’t make much money.
Are you just hating on the working poor for no reason?
- Middle class people don't need to work
  If you don't need to work, you are not middle class. Middle class still earn a paycheck.
  
  Is $400k/year not enough that they need more?
- Middle class absolutely needs to work though. They just aren't complete wage slaves because they have some personal capital to absorb urgent/unplanned expenses and can survive without working for some time. Ultimately they still need to work to survive though
  
  The GOP defines the middle class as $400k a year. If they make in excess of that, is it coming from work? Are they truly part of the working class living paycheck to paycheck at $400k a year? I don’t think so, but hey who knows.
- Middle class people are not working poor. Creatives are sometimes working poor, and other times are making $250k as UX designers.
  
  And sometimes making minimum wage as UX designers.
- Middle class isn't real, the closest is petite bourgeoisie, who own Capital but also must work to live.

normally bitching about verbiage is straight out of the cia manual for disrupting leftist orgs but holy shit OP I assure you the guy who does the drawings on birthday cards is not an appropriate target for your ire.

Meta: what movie is this template from? I swear I've seen it too.
- The Ballad of Buster Scruggs.

Creatives now need subscription based software to do their jobs so they no longer own the means of production

People have been losing their jobs in all sectors a lot longer than you think, OP. First time?
- That's the entire purpose of the Workers asking "first time?" It's known that it has been happening, lmao
  
  It’s clearly your’s and OP’s first time in noticing literally everyone around you going through the same thing. the world doesn’t revolve around you.

You should go outside some time

Bunch of Donald Trumps in here arguing over the specific dictionary meanings of generalizations in a meme.
White collar and blue collar probably would have been better work choices. Those creatives are engineers, marketing/art, programmers, technical writers, doctors (esp radiologists and other data-driven analysis specialists). AI only needs to get “close enough” to the rank and file to be dangerous to those professions, because AI can do the work 100x more efficient. Will there be long term consequences? Oh, yes. But not until those VCs have long cashed out.

Needed saying

Keep in mind the middle class make $400k a year. Why would anyone making that much money need a job?
- Is this a trick question?
  
  No. Some people make money on investments alone. That’s not much of a job, that’s inheritance or other forms of wealth.
- Because if they don't have a job, they're making $0 a year, which is not really a great salary.
  That's like asking if the slaves really should be freed if they're the master's favourite?
  
  Job meaning working for a living. Wealthy have another option: they can let their money work for them. This isn’t an intro into a trading seminar, just a statement of fact.