But a doctor always has options--many, many options. Even a doctor who loses his license has options. Part of being working class is being stuck in wage labor--not absolutely, but nonetheless quite predictably. There's even a special term for doctors, professional class, which describes their prospects independent of their present economic situation.

No matter how much money or wealth one has, one almost always feels like they're stuck in their situation. That's part of the human condition. And expenses rising to meet income is also typical, at least in the U.S. But different classes of people have objectively different sets of options available to them, regardless of whether they appreciate those options or not.

Also, $600k/year is a ton of money. I make half that and carry a mortgage, apartment lease (temporarily, hopefully), partial second apartment lease (mother), and office lease all in San Francisco, in addition to paying down $130k in law school debt, as well as typical family expenses (two young children). To blow through $600k/year this doctor must have some serious issues. I can only assume the doctor's home is several million dollars, so even at 5% equity a double-wide trailer and bait shop should be well within his reach. But, again, regardless, this doctor has unfathomably more options than a typical working class family. (As do I, for that matter.) To compare the situations is borderline obscene.

The point is a definition of working class was offered that doesn't exclude this doctor even though most people would agree he isn't working class.

^ this is what my original comment aimed to communicate.

Also, to clarify in case he's reading this: I didn't intend to [and don't believe I did] imply that this particular doctor engages in reckless spending, lives beyond his means, is in financial trouble, or etc -- simply that he considers himself working class for the reasons originally noted

We live in a culture that idolizes the working class, and indulges fantasies of the contented blue collar worker--who for at least a brief period in the 20th century could be securely middle class, not merely fleetingly so as in recent history. And as the middle class hollows out, and victim culture internalized across the political spectrum, we're seemingly forced to choose between identifying as those who work (the good guys) or the wealthy (the bad guys).

It's not surprising that relatively wealthy people self-identify as the good guys. But that doesn't mean we should indulge or lend credence to destructive equivocations that put working and wealth in opposition. We already have a catch-all, no-hurt-feelings, ambiguously safe category--middle class.

Anyhow, FWIW, I've been upvoting both of you because I [feel like I] appreciate what you're saying. I'm mostly objecting to the doctor's sentiments, and the notion that we should sympathize with them. The sentiments are self-serving and socially destructive. That doesn't make him a bad person, but I feel like the sentiments should be called out for what they are.

This is the problem with the check-your-privilege movement. If disempowered groups think they can shame the empowered into giving up power, they're seriously deluded. What will happen--what is happening--is that the wealthy and powerful will self-identify as the disempowered. So I'm not saying that this doctor should "check his privilege", so to speak, but neither should he be doing the exact opposite by willfully denying his privileges. And that's why I say such sentiments are destructive. With privilege comes responsibility; if you can deny the privilege you can shirk the responsibility, such as a civic mindedness that emphasizes constructive cooperation across all groups, and particularly the financial and political participation of those with financial means. If everybody thinks they're not wealthy enough, that it's only the other guy that should pay more taxes, etc, well then we know exactly where that road leads. We shouldn't vilify or shame the privileged (the notion that we can shame people into civility is preposterous), but neither should we condone the privileged pretending that they're not. Those are two sides of the same coin.

I understand your point -- I think in this particular case, the fella was more trying to call my attention to doctoring as an honest day's work, particularly in contrast to passive income / independent wealth, rather than endeavoring to somehow usurp or parasitize the [questionable] cachet of jobs that are not-nearly-as-well-compensated