Maybe it's different in other places, but have you seen the paychecks of some construction workers? Sure they are working in potentially hazardous conditions, but the pay can be about the same for similarly tenured workers.

It's important to remember that if you're working for a living, you're still working class.

> It's important to remember that if you're working for a living, you're still working class.

absolutely not.

"the social group consisting primarily of people who are employed in unskilled or semi-skilled manual or industrial work."

""Working class" is a socioeconomic term used to describe persons in a social class marked by jobs that provide low pay, require limited skill, "

comparing software engineers with factory workers, etc. is incredibly out of touch. Most SE's wouldn't survive a week in hard labor work.

> Most SE's wouldn't survive a week in hard labor work.

Respectfully, speak for yourself. This isn't as rare, or as difficult imo, as you think it is. I'm speaking from a lot of disadvantage. It is what it is.

> require limited skill

Isn't this site usually full of people whining about smooth talkers with no skill? I know I've whined a lot about that. Also is what it is. The world is only unforgiving to those with narrow perspectives.

Generally, what you do for a living isn't as significant as what you learn and do with the experience gained. It's your choice to commit to what you do, or you can keep growing. Up to you.

So, we agree now that software engineers are not working-class people by any common or accepted terminology?

I still strongly reject your definition of "working class". It's not the common definition by many miles amongst many significant crowds.

It's a long term evolving thing

> The working class is classically defined as that class which must sell its labour-power in order to survive.[0]

It does go on to define working class as essentially blue collar workers, even highly skilled ones. Which would exclude software engineering.

Though I think it should include anyone for which they aren't earning enough to eventually become financially independent through their labour. This would then include quite a number of white collar workers. Certainly there are software engineers outside the silicon valley bubble for which this is true, especially in parts of Asia and India.

A good litmus test is if you feel you should join a union then you're probably working class and if you feel secure negotiating your own pay then you're probably not any more. Though I doubt this fits a traditional definition of working class.

[0]: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority...

Lol tell that to the actively working doctors, lawyers and c-suite execs living in the fanciest neighborhoods of their respective cities that own moderate to significant controlling portions of companies

> actively working doctors, lawyers and c-suite execs

They do work in some sense. They manage resources and dispense expertise from time to time...

> own moderate to significant controlling portions of companies

... but it's a gray area because they're also part of the owning class

Lol these personas work ALL OF THE TIME. Doctors have the weirdest shift hours out there, for example. You have a few that rake in serious cash while working like 20 hours a week, but that's not the norm in these professions.

Does it help road construction workers if we accept lower conditions ?

It's not a zero sum game, and I totally side with other professions to fight for decent working compensations.

Doesn't it actually help with inflationary spending? The Fed making a play at depressing wages and increasing unemployment is what's keeping inflation in check.

God knows the rich won't ever pay their fair share.

Fairness is an illusion in thsi universe, as is God.

That reminds me of this hilarious interview of a British economist: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65308769

> Somehow in the UK, someone needs to accept that they're worse off and stop trying to maintain their real spending power [...]

You're both totally right that giving people enough money to live might increase the inflation. But that's not an option people are (rightly so) going to be happy with. "Just be miserable" is not a plan.

Inflation seems to mainly be driven by corporate profits (>50%) in the first place: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35795299

The current situation is completely absurd.

In addition there also is no skin in the game here, over-hiring or other blunders on core leadership competencies don't matter at all as long as "shareholder value" isn't negatively affected in the short term.

I'm not for crushing the American people to curb inflation either, but that's the play J Pow is making. From an economics perspective, it does help the construction worker if higher wage earners spend less money.

I've been one of the people hurt most by this, and I'm not happy about it either. Software Developers doing mental gymnastics to align themselves with the investor elite instead of their fellow working class Americans is some shit.

Let’s say all workers should get a cost of living adjustment…

This is like the old "athletes are too greedy!" as if the alternative is the team owners (well known for being non-greedy?) should keep that money instead.

There's more to Microsoft than software engineers, even if there probably aren't many road construction workers.

Most working-class people should get their COL adjustment. It should be easily taken from excess profits from raising prices.

Software engineers aren't working-class

Do they work for a salary?