I think "survive" has a really wide range of definitions. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, both the $1m+ per year NYC bankers and the $50k per year midwest mailman.

Both could survive on far less.

So a FAANG employee pulling in $600k a year is "working class"?

Hell no. If you're in the top 1% of income (~$400k per year) you are wealthy.

"Working class" in the sense of political economy, not Western shorthand for "blue collar".

And yes, I believe that if you sell your labor for a living, whether it be for $400k at Apple or otherwise, you have more in common with someone making $24k bussing tables than you do with the person who owns property for a living.

While they definitely are not “blue collar”, income is not wealth. It is a mistake to conflate income and wealth, the implications are very different. One can have a high income today and be destitute tomorrow absent wealth. Wealthy people are a subset of those with high incomes.

Your definition doesn't really align with how "wealthy" is used.

If you're making $400k per year, how long before you start to accumulate substantial wealth? Pretty quickly I'd say. Sure it might not be millions, but if you sock away $200k at age 25 after 3 years, you have more wealth than 99% of people your age.

"Wealthy" is not limited to wealth alone. If you're making $2M a year and have no savings, you're still "wealthy".

And people with large amount of wealth (your definition) can still become destitute. There are plenty of examples.

Starter homes in San Francisco start at $1M.

That $400k post tax is mostly going into housing.

Being able to own a starter home outright within 3 years or so sounds pretty sweet to me. Many people need decades to pay off their mortgage.

Yeah, but owning a single family home in one of the most desirable cities in the US makes you rich. That’s something 90% of America couldn’t dream of doing.