Of course. And Sakai's point is precisely that the "local proletariat" in the US was historically never the white settlers, it was the Indigenous, the Africans, the Chinese, then other Asians once the Chinese were massacred and expelled by the Settlers who then "annexed" their jobs and the economy they created, later the Eastern and Southern European migrants (until they too became Americanized) and so on and on.

Not to disagree exactly, but to speak on the point of millions: If every worker in the US was a millionaire, it would almost certainly mean absurd amounts of inflation has happened and the millions don't mean much. I don't think the capitalists would allow most people to have that kind of money in its current worth because then they'd be able to put it into electoral PACs and such, and have more of a chance to get their interests represented. So keeping most relatively weak in spending power is part of how the system keeps the capitalists in power while being able to maintain the illusion of possible representation for the working class through narratives about getting out and voting (fine print: voting for the candidates the capitalists picked as options). If it came down to it, they could assert the power in other ways (e.g. by force) but it's easier if people genuinely believe in the electoral system as a means of getting seen.