It's important first to disentangle the modern vernacular term of 'working class' from class definitions described in the 19th century. A proletarian is defined by their relation to the means of production, i.e. that they sell their labor for a wage and that is the primary source of their wealth. the term 'working class', on the other hand, is colloquial and not strictly defined (although I would remind everyone that all categories are fake.)

But beyond this, it's also important to consider that in the intervening couple centuries ownership of the means of production has had some innovations to manage the contradictions of capitalist production. For instance, there are a great many people who labor for a wage, but who have a significant amount of wealth invested in the stock market in the form of a 401(k) or an IRA. This blurs the lines somewhat, because while they have an interest in their wage and conditions etc. as a laborer, they now have an interest in the broad growth of the economy as well, which has a different relation to production.

So for an actor, we have to first establish exactly what the question we're asking is, and then evaluate what their primary relation to production is and how this affects their interests and how we might identify them as part of this or that class. I would argue that merely using the tools of yestercentury is insufficient to this task. I would also remind that class as described such is an analytic tool and not a direct means of determining whether someone is on this or that side of a divide or if they're 'good'.