I know we have our Marxist definition and all that, but it seems to be a really pervasive 
, everywhere I go. Some people I’ve talked to think for instance, all scientists are silver spooned and never worked a day in their life because they don’t do construction, or whatever.
How do you argue with people like this? Can you?
I ask them if they get a wage aka sell their labor. Then follow that with: “If you lost your job, how long would you be able to pay for your living costs?”
So it’s essentially just the if you work for a living, you are a worker.
I think it helps that I work with people who are all living examples of what happens when people can’t sell their labor. I can always tell the libs that most of them are two paychecks away from that same position.
Idk, I was a regular warehouse/factory worker for less than 2 years, and when I quit, I was able to cover my living costs for over a year.
If I had worked for 6 years and bought a house, and then another 2 years to fully cover baseline living expenses for at least the next 10 years of not working, would I no longer be a worker at that point?
Must be some very favourable conditions if that is the case. From where I am from, most people could not do a month unless they have savings beyond the wage. So this resonates with the people I am around well enough.