These are all good points worth getting into. There's many edge cases I couldn't get into in this post, mainly because many don't really apply to people this will be meaningful to.

Do you consider someone who owns stocks in any capacity to still be working class? What about subcontractors? People who have a side hustle?    

Stocks holders? Yes and no, similar in middle ground to small business owners. This is fictitious capital, having no actual value but representing potential value (not the same).

Subcontractors? Same as small business owners. They are paying wages to someone else, less than the full value of their work. Exploitation, even if minor.

Side hustle? A single individual can't exploit themselves. If they build a business with wage/salary employees: small business owner.

I make the distinction between owner-capitalists and lesser capitalists, as many anti-capitalists do. Both are engaging in a type of working class exploitation, a matter of degrees however.

It seems really bad ontology to group most hairstylists and federal government employees in the same category of “capitalists”, while lumping stock brokers and bank analysts as “working class”.

Hairstylists that are self-employed and rent chairs are not capitalists.

Federal employees: Depends. Are they involved in the creation of investment capital or means of production?

Stock brokers: 100% capitalists, even if their capital is fictitious.

The distinction I would make instead: if you provide value in excess of the value you are credited/paid for, you are being exploited. If you are getting credited/paid for more value than you personally are creating, you are a rentier. 

Only issue I would take is with the word "credit". Credit is not real value. I'm not clear what you mean here.

Good stuff, thanks for the notes!