Well put, but I'd argue it's the Class B people who invented all the sub-classes for Class A. Class A just passively accepts those divisions thinking that it is of their own ideas and doing--it's not. This is a very important distinction. It's through these divisions that Class A controls Class B. These divisions are not just of social class but also of race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. Basically all the hate points of bigots are power plays by Class B to keep people in Class A down. Class A people that hate each other and create conflicts between each other are the bread and butter of control that Class B depends on to keep this charade going. Without those people stirring shit up, Class A might actually realize what's happening and call for heads of Class B to literally roll. It's happened in the past, but the same order reestablishes itself over and over throughout history.

>It's through these divisions that Class A controls Class B.

Um, did you accidentally mix those two up? I think you meant Class B controls Class A. No?

Ah yes, in one sentence there I did. B, the rich, control A, everyone else.

You nailed it. There was a thread on economics and Piketty's work which summed it up well: do you live off your labor? Or your capital? The comparison perfectly matches your description of Class A and B. The only way for us A folks to get ahead is to acquire capital.

Does anyone know if there is existing terminology for Class A/B ? Investor class / working class ? Or maybe capital class / labor class.

The typically discussed classes in the US are lower, middle, upper which I always took to be one std below the mean income (lower) and one std above mean income (upper). Perhaps if we used mean days until $0 dollars in the bank if you stopped working it would be more useful.

They're generally referred to Bourgeoisie (for Class A) and Proletariat (for Class B). I can understand the hesitation in using those terms directly, as they're quite politically charged.

Crap I got this backwards, but I'm sure you still get the idea.

You mean young people and old people, working age vs retirees. For the most part, that’s how wealth works. The more years a person works, the closer they are to group b. If young people had the same wealth as older people, that would be horrific!

Most retirees are racing against the clock still - they aren't getting ever richer, and instead crunched the numbers and retired with what they hope is enough to get them to their deaths.

Wealth is a side effect of age. Most millionaires and billionaires are seniors. Despite being in the top percentile in terms of capital, most millionaires they don’t feel financially secure, regardless of their age. I think that insecurity is understandable.