I'm so fucking sick of this discussion.

If your income is in the form of dividends, stock selling, or collecting rent money, you're not a worker.

If you work as an employee for a company, and are also a landlord on the side, then yes you are a worker. But you are a worker because of the working for a company part, not the landlord part.

End of discussion.

Now let's look at a paragraph from this dog shit article, breaking it up into points...

I know investment bankers and corporate lawyers who work far more hours and under much greater pressure than me.

And? Nobody ever said investment bankers or lawyers weren't workers. They work for companies and are paid.

They have no inherited income, come from ordinary backgrounds and their wealth is entirely down to their salary.

Ok? What does this have to do with assessing whether someone is a worker or not?

But that salary is simply too large for them to count as working people.

When did the government or anybody ever say that anyone with a decent salary isn't a worker?

In any case, I’ve watched several episodes of Industry, and they are patently the wrong type of working people. And what’s more, they are having way too much sex, although Starmer has not quantified how much coupling working people are allowed.

I don't even know what to say about this. Are they unrelatedly complaining about sex in a TV programme, or do they genuinely think Labour's view on who counts as a worker comes down to how often that person has sex and how many people they have sex with?

It's honestly embarrassing that FT even published this. Under a fucking £39 per month paywall too.

7.2 million people in this country are food insecure, but one bad thing befalls investment bankers and landlords and it's all we hear about for weeks, because guess which segment of society journalists are sourced from.

LOL literally the temporarily embarrassed millionaire meme

TheGrandNagus hit the nail on the head perfectly, but as someone who actually does read the FT every now and then, I'm genuinely shocked they even published this.

Granted, it's under an "Ask Shrimsley" thing, but for a hot minute I was reading it like a normal FT article thinking "what the actual fuck?"

It honestly reads like the comment section of the FT, not something that should've been passed through an editor and published.