You missed where I said he had one employee. So he's a capitalist? These definitions are useless when it comes to evaluating wealth and the meaning of being rich. Being a "capitalist" by your definition doesn't mean being wealthy or rich by any stretch, while being a "worker" can result in unimaginable wealth.
He'd be a capitalist if his own labor was an insignificant share of the labor applied to his capital; a small business with one non-owner employee rarely would be that way (it could be, if, e.g., the employee did all the work and the owner was purely a passive investor.)
> These definitions are useless when it comes to evaluating wealth and the meaning of being rich.
They have a lot more to do with wealth than income level does, though, yes, class and wealth are not identical.
> Being a "capitalist" by your definition doesn't mean being wealthy or rich by any stretch
Surviving as one certainly does, unless you can consistently, year over year, manage improbably high returns (and if you can, you'll probably be quite wealthy before long even if you didn't start there; instantaneous inconsistencies between class economic patterns and wealth are more common than durable ones.)
> while being a "worker" can result in unimaginable wealth.
It can in theory, though it doesn't very often in practice, even among the narrow slice of the labor-selling population who experience some period with the kind of income which suggests the possibility of such an outcome.
