If you're looking at it through a Marxist lens, then it depends. Is the FAANGer a part owner of the company? Is the baker using their control of the MoP to extract value/profit from employees who have no stake or say in the bakery?

I think people get wrapped up in how difficult something is perceived to be and how much a particular occupation is compensated (ie, the modern version of "class"), but underlying dynamics are much more important if you're talking about working class vs owner class. The assumption here is that the baker works hard and gets little from it, therefor it's fine if they exploit labor, and the FAANGer plays ping pong all day and gets an assload of money for it, therefor it's okay if they have no say in their place of work.

Granted, then you get into things like the stock market, and suddenly most people are absentee owners in some company they've never set foot into, so things get weird...

the example kinda shows that a basic Marxist analysis doesn't reveal much useful insight about the modern world. the faang engineer's stock is probably worth more than the bakery to begin with, but it doesn't actually give them any control over the MoP. if they really wanted to, they could become the bakery owner. but that would be an indulgence, not a smart financial move.

No because you're still thinking about it in terms of personal economics when actually it's about power and violence.

If you must sell your labor to pay for the requirements of life, then you're vulnerable to being denied access to that transaction and will suffer the consequences.

The marxist analysis is limited in some ways but in this one it is a clarifying advantage. It doesn't matter, for some purposes, how much you earn if you must earn it to survive.

If you've earned enough that you can buy a bakery on a whim, or stop working entirely, then your economic interests are rarely if ever going to align with people forced to sell their labor and so you've partially or completely transitioned to something else, I think.