Marxism is dialectic, it rejects absolute pure categories. Things sort of exist
on a spectrum but sort of don't. The way Marxists use categories is to
understand that everything is connected to each other through a series
of quantifiable interconnected steps, but that something is always
dominant, and this dominant aspect is what determines the overall
quality of the thing in question.
If you're trying to shove everything into a pure category of absolutely
worker, absolutely capitalist, then this is just a useless endeavor.
When we talk of "worker" or "capitalist," we don't mean it as if these
are pure categories, where a worker can't ever own capital, or that a
capitalist can't ever do labor. They may do these things, they may exist
somewhere in between. But clearly at some point, certain
characteristics become dominant over others. Clearly Jeff Bezos's class
interests are not the same as a minimum wage worker, as the latter
likely has next to no capital while the former has far more capital than
he could ever, by his own labor, afford.
There is no reason to try and shove this person you're describing into a
specific absolute box. If they're a salaried worker who runs some very
small business / self-employment on the side as supplemental income, you
could just say they're a worker with petty bourgeois characteristics.
You don't have to say they're absolutely "petty bourgeois" or a
"worker". You can just describe that they have characteristics of
multiple categories. No reason you cannot do this.
aimixin: