this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
1656 points (96.2% liked)

Work Reform

9976 readers
50 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HowManyNimons@lemmy.world 48 points 8 months ago (3 children)

The middle class are working class who can't afford to go to school longer, but did so anyway because they were expected to.

[–] SolarMech@slrpnk.net 28 points 8 months ago (2 children)

In a lot of countries (Canada, Germany, etc.) they can afford to go to school longer because society realizes that it is in it's best interest to make it affordable (free in some cases).

If you believe the US's way is the only way to have a democracy and freedom, you need to learn about other democraties.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 11 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Not Canada. Tuition in Canada is as expensive as comparable schools in the US. We just don't really have the ultra expensive tier like Harvard.

[–] Ignisnex@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Tuition in Canada is subsidised by the provincial government for citizens. The cost is also regulated by the provincial government. Those two amounts differ from province to province. For instance, in Alberta when UCP clawed it's way back into power, they decided to cut funding to post secondary, and imposed tuition caps that prevented cost recovery. Our university had to lay off hundreds of people, and we're still not operating within 80% full staff.

A student at full course load can expect to pay about $10K per year, depending on the university, if they are a citizen. Otherwise, foreign students on a visa will be in the $25k-35k bracket. UofA specifically quotes about $33k. I can't speak on what tuition in the states looks like, but I've heard numbers much closer to the latter example with more frequency.

[–] owen@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

True for university but colleges have pretty good incentives and reasonable costs, also we have high quality colleges imo

[–] SolarMech@slrpnk.net 1 points 8 months ago

It was pretty cheap when I was paying it.

[–] Kase@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Tbf to Harvard and the other ivy leagues, as of when I applied a couple years ago (did not get in lmao), my tuition would've been $0. I don't know how much they actually charge, but they do have an above average scholarship program, at least for those coming from the "lower" class.

I'm not saying it's a good school or anything, I really have no idea. That just kinda stuck with me, it seemed really cool.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

With the way the political landscape is currently looks: I don't think that european democracies shouldn't get too high on their horses with their fascist disasters? Netherlands, anyone? Italy?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The Professional Managerial Class, or Labour Aristocracy, is a broadly recognized sub-class that functions as agents of the bourgeois within the working class. In the same way that an Overseer and a Serf are both "working class" but one holds a clearly demarcated position relative to the other, PMCs and service/factory workers are well defined sub-components structured against one another.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Were u got that theory from? Asking for a comrade.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Its definitely neo-marxist.

You'll get it from folks like Richard Wolff (on the more academic end) and Amber Lee-Frost / November Caldwell Kelly (on the podcasty end). Piketty's "Capitalism in the 21st Century" also takes a deep dive into Managerial Capitalism and the modern method of corporate administration.

More orthodox Marxists tend to dismiss it as a distraction, but I tend to think there's real value in understanding the class elements of the administrative state as distinct from both proletariat labor and bourgeoisie owners.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well, AFAIK, the orthodox marxists tend to be Marxist-Leninists, who kind of want to overlook all that administrative class business, Bakunin warned us all about way before Lenin. Or is that a different bunch alltogether again?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Bakunin never had to be in charge of anything as vast as a Soviet Union. Marxist-Leninists can be the victims of their own success in that regard. But I think Bakunin was more speaking of bureaucrats broadly, while your more modern Marxists are concerned specifically with how the organs of capitalist states function in the era of industrial finance.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's not really a class, it's not a social relation to the Means of Production, that's more of a group of people. A class is more specific, like a Worker, or an owner.

[–] HowManyNimons@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Indeed, point being there's no real class distinction.

[–] owen@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The class distinction is owner vs worker. Do you have to work? You are working class. Do you collect money from people because you and your family “own” an essential pillar of society? You are owner class.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 2 points 8 months ago

Yeh, but there's no class distinction between blue and white collar. That's the joke.jpeg