rwmj
3 days ago
Is white vs blue collar ever a useful distinction? I think worker versus capital owner is a more important one.
zero-st4rs
2 days ago
It is. If you mean electrician/tradesman maybe not a ton, but if you are implicitly opening that up to the majority of non-white collar work - White collar workers are often completely out of touch with the material reality of most people, while blue collar workers often lack the type of income that would provide a "more directed and intentional" sense of future.
White collar workers will tend to place blame on a poor person's character before their situation. To accommodate a worldview that understands most working conditions, white collar workers would need divorce their economic standing from their sense of implicit value. (ie: I deserve 120k a year because I work really hard. Of course you do, but MOST people do.)
I assume I'll get pushback for saying this, but whatever. The fact of the matter, is that nobody seems interested in taking the risks involved with owning more than "their own private slice of problems"
62951413
2 days ago
I started taking community college classes related to electricity/robotics as the only desperate measure I can think of to prepare for the new brave world of mass unemployment among software developers and Industry 4.0. Those are the very same classes required for Electrician Trainees by the great state of CA.
I can assure you that it's a very different crowd from what I see at my day job. We're very used to a being among a self-selected group where something like an EE degree is assumed. Physics/Math majors are not uncommon including some PhDs.
And I don't mean just credentials. It's noticeable in how intellectually curious people are, how they digest information, how comfortable they are with basic school level math (e.g. complex numbers). Not to mention that textbooks at that level are a little watered down in comparison with your first year college textbooks.
mgol94
3 days ago
Capital owners always want to split the workers to more and more groups so it’s easier to antagonize and manage them
atmavatar
3 days ago
A CEO, blue-collar worker, and an immigrant sit down at a table together. In the middle of the table, there is a plate with a dozen cookies.
The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, then whispers in the ear of the blue-collar worker "Hey, I think he wants your cookie."
phs318u
2 days ago
When that cartoon was first published it was about Rupert Murdoch who was using his newspapers to stoke division by targeting immigrants. These days it would a LOT more than 11 cookies and you’d replace Murdoch with Trump.
Henchman21
3 days ago
In that situation, the blue collar worker and the immigrant should beat the CEO to death, take his cookies, and enjoy the cookies & the better world they’ve made.
Do we somehow think the blue collar guy and the immigrant are dumb? Do they not see the theft of the 11 cookies to start?
tstrimple
3 days ago
The blue collar guy has proven himself to be dumb for the last 5+ decades now. Yeah. They prefer the story that the immigrant is taking their cookie. The CEO can do no wrong. He's providing the jobs out of the goodness of his heart after all.
xethos
2 days ago
> the blue collar worker and the immigrant should beat the CEO to death
> Do we somehow think the blue collar guy and the immigrant are dumb?
The country that's so loud about their second amendment that the average English-speaking person, not citizen, knows what it is, still hasn't executed Jeff Bezos; one of the richest men in the world who treats his employees so inhumanely that they have to pee in bottles.
Let me know when Americans as a whole boycott Amazon instead of buying from them, and maybe we can move on to "beat[ing] the CEO to death" from there. I've heard the country might be going back to live executions, but I hesitate to call that a step in the right direction.
MisterMunchkin
2 days ago
The 2nd amendment is about protecting citizens from government overreach. It’s not about executing people you don’t like.
Eg to carry out the holocaust, the Nazis first instituted gun control so that the local population couldn’t fight back.
Amazon pays considerably more than other warehouses and Amazon has been absolutely revolutionary to both retail and computing. You’re insane to suggest we should just shoot people.
ninalanyon
2 days ago
< the Nazis first instituted gun control so that the local population couldn’t fight back.
If having guns protects against government overreach how come there hasn't been an armed uprising against the Orange Dictator and his cronies?
floro
2 days ago
I wonder the same. Also the big pharma guys who likely killed millions
phs318u
2 days ago
I think you’re referring to the Sackler family.
TrnsltLife
3 days ago
That sounds murderous.
They should both go home to their wives who surely have their cookies ready along with a pair of slippers and a backrub.
Now that women are back out of the workforce, there's enough money for the blue collar worker and the immigrant. I hear the 2050s are gonna be a 1950s paradise but with better technology. Here's hoping.
Henchman21
3 days ago
They were incited to violence by the theft. That murder was well earned.
asyx
2 days ago
It’s violent because it used to be reality. Modern workers have the benefits they have (although they are getting less and less every year) because the only option for the working class was to break into the factory owners house and beat them to death. If the factory owners want to get back to that, that’s fine with me. We could have had another couple hundred years of 1 1/2 full time jobs per family, a house that you can afford in an area you like, a few weeks of vacation and health care that makes you feel like this is not something you need to worry about much. But nope. They didn’t want that and it’s gonna be really exciting (in a bad way) when 2/3 of the office workers get replaced by AI and pull down the wages of tradesmen in a desperate attempt to find employment.
user
3 days ago
cindyllm
3 days ago
[dead]
nkmnz
3 days ago
[flagged]
cataphract
3 days ago
That really doesn't speak to the usefulness of the distinction. To the extent that workers, as a whole, have common goals (like capturing a bigger share of the productivity gains, for instance), it probably make sense to organize as a single group to pursue those goals.
The right also organizes humans into us-vs-them: the natives versus the immigrants, the faithful versus the infidels, and so on. Whether those make sense depends only on the values, way of living or material conditions you want to protect and whether the other group is a menace to them.
noduerme
3 days ago
the left books everyone according to socioeconomic status; your point about the right placing everyone into a whole set of "us vs them" categories stands, but, I'm hoping that you're trying to say something like human souls should not be categorized on the basis of... (x,y,x) where any of x,y or z are groups we assign to people. Right?
ElevenLathe
2 days ago
I would push back on this framing. Individuality obviously exists, and we were created in God's image, etc., but there isn't a way to avoid politics forming people into groups of some kind. Let me try to explain.
If we don't band together to help one another, we're stuck playing by the rigged existing rules of the game. Organizing (either in the traditional labor sense, or via super PACs and racism) allows us to change the rules in our own favor, because we can wield more power.
With that laid out, what kind of group should we organize? The bigger the group, the more power it has. But also: the more coherent and lockstep the group is in its actions, the more power it has, at any size. So the goal of all politics is to form the biggest coalition you can that still holds together.
Many socialists think, as a strategic question (not one of ideology), that the goal should be to organize the whole working class (everyone who must sell their labor in order to survive). This is the biggest group you can possibly have that still shares a common interest. The problem is obviously that this is an unwieldy group and it's really really hard to do, particularly in the face of almost infinite money trying to stop us. There are various thoughts on how to address this problem, the classic one being to organize whole shops or industries at once, and slowly building momentum that was, but fundamentally it is about putting together the biggest possible political grouping that coheres.
Right wingers have a different strategy, which is to use identity politics (racism, xenophobia, sectarianism, sectionalism, etc.) to organize a smaller coalition but in a very tight, coordinated way. The play is that a relatively small group of committed actors can use things like propaganda, violence, and dirty tricks to seize or maintain power.
Fundamentally the left and the right are trying to do the same thing, which is to put together a coalition that let's them change the status quo. If we protect our individuality too much, we get rolled by the other side. Establishment oriented people tend to miss this.
disgruntledphd2
3 days ago
In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's just the opposite.
noduerme
3 days ago
[flagged]
jleyank
3 days ago
The conservative Christians enter the conversation.
noduerme
3 days ago
I'm an atheist.
happymellon
2 days ago
I don't think they were necessarily talking about you, more that Christians also exploit women.
From my observations they don't even need to be that conservative.
disgruntledphd2
2 days ago
Whoosh.
toomuchtodo
3 days ago
People always want to believe they’re special, and build systems to recognize their belief system. Religions, capitalism (just another religion), etc.
100 years from now, your birth date and death date, and the life lived in between, will be no different than any other human, lines on a headstone or rows in a database. Maybe you’ll have a Wikipedia page, for the historical ledger, but if not, nothing changes.
noduerme
3 days ago
Unless you're Caesar. Or Elon Musk living in a tank. You're basically right.
But I have to argue with you about one thing: Everyone is special.
toomuchtodo
3 days ago
Elon will die eventually too. Everyone exists, no one is special. We’re just trying to exist until death. Your opinion may differ.
noduerme
3 days ago
I'll repeat: Everyone is special.
There is a vast darkness, eons of empty space around us, and no other known life in the universe.
Every lizard is special. Every crab and spider and snail is special. Every person is especially special.
Your attitude about that is, let's say, demented as a result of hating your own species and your inability to love yourself or the people around you, or even the people you hate.
toomuchtodo
3 days ago
I encourage you to believe this if it helps with the human condition. Remember, the sun will eventually expand, incinerate Earth, and all of this will exist only as light, rf, and other energy others might potentially observe billions of years from now. Enjoy the warmth from the sun on your face on a cool day for what it is.
brazukadev
3 days ago
> Remember, the sun will eventually expand, incinerate Earth, and all of this will exist only as light
You just proved we are all special.
noduerme
3 days ago
Bravo!
noduerme
3 days ago
Yes, yes, yes. Are you trying to sound jaded, cynical, intelligent?
Surely there can be no counterargument to your final analysis of the pointlessness, the end of life.
I'd posit something different that you might sleep on: That your existence is worthwhile and, in fact, unique once and only once in all the history of the universe. That your ability to observe phenomena actually solidifies and collapses indeterminate waveforms. That you're living in the one and only terrarium that we know of, and belong to the most intelligent species that we know of, and that you therefore:
Have an obligation to the universe be worth more than what you're saying you believe in the prior statement. Of course, you can be whatever you want to be, and if that's merely believing that the smartest-sounding thing to say in a chat forum is that we're all meaningless and that the earth will be swallowed by the sun in a few billion years, then have at it; you're no doubt still a credit to your species for realizing things like that. Dogs, for instance, have no idea. But still, it's very disappointing. I mean, you have a vast number of upvotes on HN. Surely you must have something more interesting to impart about Life, the Universe and Everything? Even if it's just about fish?
konart
3 days ago
Hopuflly you do realise you sound exactly like your opponent but with a different polarity.
noduerme
3 days ago
[flagged]
BoxOfRain
3 days ago
If you think all left-wing critiques of capitalism are in defence of totalitarianism, you should read George Orwell's political essays. I can assure you that Orwell of all people had no time for totalitarians.
noduerme
3 days ago
To quote the poster in full:
>> Capital owners always want to split the workers to more and more groups so it’s easier to antagonize and manage them
First of all, is that a profound left-wing critique of capitalism?
Secondly, I've read Orwell extensively. I don't think he would have had much truck with a troll posting Animal Farm style slogans.
BoxOfRain
3 days ago
I'd argue it's an accurate statement about power in general. The powerful have always sought to divide the powerless for political expediency regardless of the ideological framework used to do it, you could read that from Machiavelli as much as Marx. Divide and rule is about the oldest political trick in the book and it works pretty well, why wouldn't capital owners who represent the present elite do it?
noduerme
3 days ago
Yeah, you're right, and that's a thoughtful way to put it which addresses the actual power dynamics and nuance: ANY system is going to have an incentive to divide and conquer. I'm looking at the above two statements:
>> @mgol94 Capital owners always want to split the workers to more and more groups so it’s easier to antagonize and manage them
>> @nkmnz Communists always want to de-individualize humans into a single group with a coherent identity so it's easier to ideologize and agitate them.
And I don't disagree with either of them per se, on the merits, but I see in both of them a major flaw in the way the point is argued.
mgol94
3 days ago
So you don’t disagree, but have no problems doing ad personam arguments citing my karma and assuming my socioeconomic background?
kelseyfrog
3 days ago
You're debating on Hacker News; did you expect anything different? As long as the shit is wrapped in enough bows, it doesn't get thrown out.
user
3 days ago
saghm
3 days ago
Do you go around complaining when people post insufficiently thoughtful criticisms of communism as well? There are a lot of them out there, so it would presumably keep you quite busy.
saghm
3 days ago
Not all critiques need to be profound. Egregious issues should be called out even if wordsmithing is not your forte.
pjc50
3 days ago
Man, this is a stupid discussion. Everything gets taken at its most extreme. Humans see a token like "capitalism" and fire off their parroted responses, like "communism". At no point does anyone try to pin down to more specific details.
user
3 days ago
shafyy
3 days ago
I have an old account and agree with the post you are replying to. But unlike you, I see capitalism as depressing, hopeless and despairing.
I am also not from a totalitarian country =)
noduerme
3 days ago
I feel that this deserves a conversation over a beer, as opposed to a new account posting a one-line communist slogan.
shafyy
3 days ago
Conversations over beer are always better than texting in online forums or social media =)
m4ck_
3 days ago
Believing your system is beyond critique or question, or that anyone who dares must be the enemy, seems pretty commie to me tbh. Like not in the marx textbook theory sense, more in the actual soviet/chinese communist system sense.
I think it’s very obvious that the powers that be are keen to keep people divided and focused on anything but them. Ex: trans issues, trans people have been around for ever, but didn’t start dominating media and politics until about 10 years ago (not long after the global Wall Street protests.) Just mentioning this will send both sides of the issue into a rage (either I’m a genocidal maniac or I support litter boxes in schools, depending on your interpretation.)
noduerme
3 days ago
I'm not sure I understand your point. I never said my system was beyond critique or question...
Not sure what to make of your note about transgenderism... I think that gender, sexuality, race, religion, ethnicity, borders, abortion, and inequality have all been deployed as boogeymen by parties on both the right and left to scare people into voting one way or another.
You helped me clarify my thinking in one way, though: "Divide and conquer", which has been a theme in this thread, implies that both left and right parties are working together simply to confuse the populace. Or to put it more plainly, "divide and rule" implies that there must be a conspiracy in which the people doing the ruling don't give a damn either way; they only use social and economic issues to keep people divided to prevent an uprising.
I don't really think that's how it works, and to tell you the truth, I think that believing in that sort of thing is not just juvenile and historically illiterate, it's actually harmful to a well-functioning society. And I'm seeing it all over the place, even just implicitly in half the comments in this thread. That's not how the world works. Fascists and socialists and centrists don't actually get together with industrialists and arms manufacturers and oil producers to think up things like "how can we distract the genpop with transgender stuff while we pump the atmosphere full of more carbon." The world is a much more complicated and subtle place; many actors are on the stage, each with their own agenda, and no one is pulling all the strings behind the curtain. In fact, that's what's even more terrifying than a cabal of sociopaths: No one is in control, no one at all. The train has no brakes; the ship is burning, but there is no captain; sixteen people are fighting for control in the cockpit of the plane. That's why I don't like those kinds of reductive assessments.
palmotea
3 days ago
>> Capital owners always want to split the workers to more and more groups so it’s easier to antagonize and manage them
> It's always the new accounts like yours with 47 votes who write the most depressing, hopeless, despairing and anti-capitalist slogans around here. Day after day. Why is that?
It's probably time for you to let the scales fall from your eyes, and realize that you're a worker and the the shareholders aren't looking out for your well-being. They want you to be paid as little as possible, so they can keep more for themselves.
> Whichever totalitarian country your little troll army represents, it would be fun if you let your own citizens comment on here without fear of penalty. I suspect they wouldn't mind being labeled white collar or blue collar, if they had an opportunity to speak freely. Or for that matter, why not open up your own country's social media so they can speak without fear of reprisal! Let's get going with that project, I can't wait to see the results!
Where did that come from? Do you think the GP is a Soviet apparatchik time-warped into the present-day? I wouldn't be totally surprised, given a lot of libertarian tracts were written during the cold war, and would pound on the Soviet Union to tar far more reasonable and moderate ideas.
squidmaster
3 days ago
[dead]
shafyy
3 days ago
I agree that we need to change our typical understanding of "working class" to not only include "blue collar" jobs. In the sense of class warfare, it's more meaningful to distinguish between capital owners and dependent workers. But sure, there's a bit of a difference if you're a lawyer making 200 $ / hour vs. a minimum wage cashier at McDonalds.
However, as we have seen, even high paying jobs like software engineering where I and most of my colleagues long assumed we don't need to organize can get exploited almost over night.
iso1631
3 days ago
Part of divide and conquer from the owning class
There's three types of people
1) You rely on a paycheck to live
2) Your passive income is enough to live
3) You are so wealthy you can influence the world
Someone working for a 40k a year payslip, or even a 200k a year payslip, is likely in group 1. Someone with 5 million net worth is comfortably in group 2 - even at 3% in a savings account gives them an income way above people earning from labor. Both of those groups are so divorced from those whose wealth increases 5 million a year, or 5 million a month that they're basically the same.
At some point it ceases to be about money and being able to afford the things you want, and becomes power to control others.
cucumber3732842
3 days ago
The person making $40k/yr and the person making $200k/yr likely have irreconcilable differences of opinion and are equally divorced from each other as they are some billionaire.
BoxOfRain
3 days ago
Regardless of ideology their material interests are much closer to each-other than they are to genuine rentiers.
cucumber3732842
3 days ago
No they are not. The $40k guy wants the material plenty the $200k guy has. The $200k guy wants to scheme up some way to not have his position threatened by the $40k guy while simultaneously trying to become a "genuine rentier" the combined incentives of which results in a hell of a lot of punching down (usually with the government or some other obfuscating intermediary in the middle).
piva00
3 days ago
Do both rely on a salary and being employed to have access to their material needs? If so, they're both from the same class, and being pitted against each other despite that is a mean for controlling both.
"When education isn't liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to become the oppressor." as it was eloquently posited by Paulo Freire.
233mhz
3 days ago
> The $40k guy wants the material plenty the $200k guy has.
This is level -1 of class consciousness and that's exactly how the top 0.x% keeps us down.
jltsiren
3 days ago
Class consciousness is an interesting term. Not too long ago, people were trying to figure out what it would mean in practice to build a society based on that. It turned out that the answer was in class interests. In particular, whether it would be in someone's interests to support communist revolution and the subsequent abolition of private property.
The eventual conclusion was that the interests of the upper middle class did not align with those of the working class. Anyone with substantial non-labor income, such as a small business owner with permanent employees or a professional with enough wealth to have a rental property or other investments of similar value, would not want to have their wealth taken away. That made them class enemies of the working class.
It can be instructive to read what happened to kulaks (wealthy independent peasants) in the early USSR.
user
3 days ago
iso1631
3 days ago
That would be group 2, not group 1
"Your passive income is enough to live"
233mhz
3 days ago
Maybe I'm too naive but I can imagine a whole bunch of scenarios between the current capitalismmaxxing and "ThE GuLAgS".
You don't have to be marxists or revolutionist to notice that you're getting the short end and that a smaller and smaller part of the population is profiting more and more. Wealth inequalities weren't anywhere as bad between the 1930s and 1990s for example, it was still capitalism, still largely the same societal organization, etc.
We're asking that we perhaps should consider doing something about the 0.1%... and people like you are misrepresenting it as "they want to literally kill anyone owning anything". Nobody gives a shit about the local baker, farmer or ice cream shop.
jltsiren
3 days ago
There is a middle ground, but class consciousness does not lie that way. Once you start thinking in terms of class interests, the natural conclusions are unpleasant.
adrian_b
2 days ago
The propaganda of the communist revolution was just a mirage.
The communists confiscated everything of value from the majority of the population and in theory all that became "common property of all the people".
In reality, every valuable property was controlled by a small class of privileged people, who even if they were not the owners on paper, in reality they used and benefited from those properties exactly like or even more than "capitalist" millionaires and billionaires. All the communist revolutions just replaced a few privileged people with other few privileged people and the majority of the people typically became even poorer after the revolution, though frequently some minorities received some advantages after the revolutions, because those in power needed faithful people in some lower jobs, to be able to control the majority.
The only difference between the "capitalist" oligarchs and the "communist" oligarchs is that for the former the amount of money recorded in their bank accounts is important for their power, while for the latter money is of little importance but what is important is their network of allies with which they are connected by family relationships, complete obedience when subordinates, bribes or barter of various favors.
jltsiren
2 days ago
The first decade after the Russian Revolution was characterized by a power struggle and search for direction in the communist party. First there was "war communism" with forced socialization and central control. Towards the end of the civil war, there was a switch to a form of market socialism, for both ideological and pragmatic reasons. Many people even got wealthy during that time. Then Lenin died and Stalin started consolidating his power. The first five-year plan marked the beginning of the kind of communism we now know.
During the civil war, communists saw kulaks as enemies, as their loyalties were at best unclear. And because they were convenient scapegoats. Most Russians were peasants, and kulaks were the neighbors who were better off than you. When things were bad, you could blame kulaks for your misery, because they had more than you.
Later kulaks were tolerated as a necessary evil in market socialism. Then Stalin started his "dekulakization" campaign. Millions of kulaks were deported (mostly to Siberia and Kazakhstan), which was a major contributing factor to the famine in the early 1930s. And when Stalin's purges started, most of the victims were from former kulak families.
BoxOfRain
3 days ago
Right but compared to a billionaire the difference between the two workers is a rounding error, a distinction with an insignificant difference. You're claiming the pecking order of hens matters anything to the fox outside the henhouse.
A million seconds is a couple of weeks, a billion seconds three decades. Comparing a worker at any salary to that singular concentration of socioeconomic power just doesn't make any sense to me, the key distinction of the rentier is that he can avoid the domination non-rentiers must suffer almost by definition when rentiers exist - they are subject to the arbitrary whim of someone who cannot be voted out of power through democratic efforts. In my view liberty is the freedom from domination, and any private individual with the power to dominate in their own right is inherently hazardous to a democratic society. It is in the interests of both workers that the billionaire is prevented from gaining a position of political influence.
helpfulfrond
a day ago
That's a great example of magnitude I hadn't heard before.
CatMustard
3 days ago
Do you really think so? A few years ago I was making ~40k euro a year, now making ~80k a year and my life and opinions are essentially identical, other than the fact I save slightly more and treat myself to a few more things. I would assume 180k euro (200k usd) would net me a slightly higher quality of life and an earlier retirement but otherwise not much else. Amongst my friend group incomes vary from around 12k (dole) to about 150k and apart from some people having less money for leisure (resolved usually by having a night in as opposed to a night out) it doesn't really lead to any tension.
Is this some cultural aspect I'm missing here? Eg lower social cohesion between income levels in the US?
Or maybe it's just a life stage thing. I'm still in my 20s, and none of my friends or myself have children. As time passes and savings mount and people start having families maybe the problems emerge...
user
3 days ago
Rebuff5007
3 days ago
Yea, some ties or jackets clash with a blue collar. White is generally a bit more versatile IMO.
blitzar
3 days ago
White needs money and means to wash and doesn't hide dirt / grease / filth which blue covers up well (blue collar was heavy cotton / denim / canvas)
collabs
3 days ago
Yes, I understood it when a dude said him and his dentist wife who makes a thousand dollar a day are working class because they make money on days they work. If we work to make money, we are working class. If our money works to make money, we are owning class.
HPsquared
3 days ago
A big part of a dentist's income is yield from educational investment. The education and training is the capital.
sharlos201068
3 days ago
And a bricklayer's income is dependent on their investment in food they eat every day. Not a terribly useful distinction though.
HPsquared
3 days ago
Capex vs opex.
CatMustard
3 days ago
By that measure nearly every job is white collar. Eg for any construction job you need to first get training and safe pass certification as well as purchase equipment such as good steel toe boots before you ever step foot in jobsite and start making money. What job do you not need to invest some amount of money into before you get your first paycheque?
strken
3 days ago
If I were interpreting the statement charitably, I'd say there was a sliding spectrum of capital vs labour and most income sources sit between the two at varying positions.
In which case, yes, owning a plumbing business is closer to capital than working at one, which is in turn closer than doing unskilled manual labour on a job site. And on the other end, maybe owning an Airbnb which you clean yourself is closer to labour than owning a portfolio of ETFs.
CatMustard
3 days ago
> interpreting the statement charitably
Something I always intend to do and regularly find myself falling short of! Thank you, your interpretation makes sense (as most interpretations seeking nuance do)
HPsquared
3 days ago
The license to practice is another type of capital. Kind of like a taxi medallion but less transferable.
stkdump
3 days ago
Could the dentist just stop working and continue to make that part of their income?
squidmaster
3 days ago
No worker is safe, its only a matter of time before the revolutionary committees come for you too.
> You're a plumber with years of training? Face the wall, capitalist pig.
VelkaMorava
3 days ago
[dead]
v-yanakiev
2 days ago
Is it a more useful one, especially in the context of modern America, where an enormous amount of workers are also capital owners through their 401(k)s?
It's kind of interesting that some of the people below are identifying "the CEO" as a capital owner, when in fact, all of his actions which are of relevance to the rest of the workers, are as a worker - as an employee of the enterprise he makes hiring/firing decisions, etc. He may well have acquired his position by virtue of holding a lot of stock and thereby influencing the board of directors, but this is not necessary, and there are a lot of big companies where it's not the case.
Marxists had to come up with "labor aristocracy" as a concept relatively quickly, for what it's worth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_aristocracy
ninalanyon
2 days ago
> capital owners through their 401(k)s?
They are small shareholders with vanishingly small shares, they are not the capital owner with power.
akst
3 days ago
We're not talking about capital/labour share, we're talking about which professions are destabilised by technological innovation which are not.
Clearly there is a useful distinction to make here, as clearly some jobs are disportionately robust to technological innovation. Clearly doctors and lawyers have not expected the same amount of replacement as software engineer. Maybe blue or white collar does quite capture it but captial and labour framing provides no explanation for any heterogeneous effects on different trades within the labour force.
palmotea
3 days ago
> Clearly there is a useful distinction to make here, as clearly some jobs are disportionately robust to technological innovation. Clearly doctors and lawyers have not expected the same amount of replacement as software engineer. Maybe blue or white collar does quite capture it but captial and labour framing provides no explanation for any heterogeneous effects on different trades within the labour force.
I think that's post-hoc. A few years ago, you could have reasonably written "clearly software engineers have not expected the same amount of replacement as factory workers."
The only distinction that matters is worker vs. capitalist. And the jobs that seem "disproportionately robust to technological innovation," only haven't been subjected to it yet. And it's not even that hard to see: the AI companies are gunning for doctor and lawyer work. The main difference between those professions and software engineers, is that they have some level or worker-organization and regulatory protection.
Software engineers as a whole, were really, really dumb not embrace unionization before 2022, when we had a lot of economic power. Instead we got confused by our high salaries, and embraced libertarian propaganda like we were temporarily embarrassed billionaires.
xtiansimon
3 days ago
> “…but captial and labour framing provides no explanation for any heterogeneous effects on different trades within the labour force.”
Capital/labor in strict sense, sure, but there is also material support, or a “seat at the table”. A decision maker (in service to Capital).
The division is power—-be it Capital or knowledge or labor.
akst
3 days ago
During the transitionary period between WW2 and 2000 we saw massive unemployment in many typical blue collar jobs in the western developed world, yet women weren't impacted to the same degree, why is that?
Is it because women through out the 1960s-2000s had a seat at the table, which men didn't?
Obviously not, they often faced workplace discrimination and their choice of job was limited to what was socially acceptable for a woman to work in and often those were jobs men weren't interested in the 1940-1960s, but they were working in what we now call the service industry and they didn't experience the displacement which came with global trade at the same rate men did.
> Capital/labor in strict sense, sure, but there is also material support, or a “seat at the table”. A decision maker (in service to Capital).
This just is not an informative framing here for why software engineers are more impacted than doctors
> The division is power—-be it Capital or knowledge or labor.
This simply isn't informative, the blog post is clearly focusing on a definite industry and your fixating on a general class (which the impacts are not being felt equally across).
aabhay
3 days ago
But these two things are essentially merging, which is the implicit thesis here. White collar being those who manage capital and blue collar as those who manage the delivery, service, product, or process. The latter having lower agency than the former, and generally perceived and measured as a liability by the former.
But AI is coming for capital allocators as well, too, so we are seeing more and more white collar people getting “blue collarized”.
groestl
3 days ago
Parent speaks of capital owners, not capital managers.
blitzar
3 days ago
At what size of pension / investment fund invested in stocks does one become a capital owner? 1mil? 10mil? 100mil?
twowaway
3 days ago
"Ownership" relies on institutions, which in turn rely on violence to enforce it.
As AI marches through various institutions, fundamentally shorting their utility, and as these crumble and morph (including law-enforcement & military), I suspect many people will be surprised how little they actually "own".
That includes much of the "capital ownership" class.
Good luck with your squirrelled bank accounts and brokerage accounts!
siva7
3 days ago
Replace the word "software engineer" from this essay with "medical doctor" and the message doesn't change a bit. Replace it instead with "lumberjack" and then you get an better idea what blue-collar work actually is...
epolanski
3 days ago
Most workers are also shareholders, either through their pension funds and/or their personal investments.
Keirmot
3 days ago
You think holding 200 shares out of 13 billion is being owner of capital? If you own your house, you can paint its walls black, put up a painting, or remove all the doors, can you do anything at all with the shares you hold on your little pension fund? Share's market is not owning capital, is creating a system where workers have interest in maintaining the status quo, even when it goes against their own self interest in the long term.
embedding-shape
3 days ago
Most workers neither have pension funds or "personal investments", what rose-tinted clouds you live on? Most workers are dirt poor and can barely survive the current month, some are lucky that the government forces them to build their pension, but it's such a tiny part it'd be unfair to call it "capital owning".
OJFord
3 days ago
And so we've arrived broadly back at white and blue collars after all.
roenxi
3 days ago
How many workers are exposed to the stock market does actually seem a genuinely interesting question. I'm not sure who would be keeping reliable statistics, but the English-speaking world might be hovering up at around 40%-50% households [0].
Seems a bit lopsided though; I wonder if they are only considering selected stock markets or something.
[0] https://hellosafe.ca/en/investing/broker/stock-ownership
pmg101
3 days ago
Maybe that's a reasonable definition of white vs blue collar worker?
If you have enough excess income that you can build wealth in assets/investments until you become financially independent and no longer dependent on selling your labour, you're white collar.
If you don't, so you're condemned to work forever (apart from state support), you're blue collar.
epolanski
3 days ago
White vs blue collar has always been about office/intellectual workers vs non-office/non-intellectual ones.
It has never been about how much money you make.
The overwhelming majority of self employed professionals I know (electricians, mechanics, plumbers) make way more than the average white collar worker (southern Europe).
Just to make it clearer: my SO, which works in governance of a major italian bank, makes way less than her brother painting walls.
jpollock
3 days ago
If it's worker vs capital, I have always been compensated with capital.
rwmj
3 days ago
You've only ever been compensated with shares and have never taken a cent for your time? It's possible, but also quite unusual.
piva00
3 days ago
They will probably come back saying that cash earned from labour is capital, and by completely missing the point will have proven how effectively capital-owners can pit a worker against its own interests.
noduerme
3 days ago
I don't think that's a useful distinction anymore, in a world where the capital owner may be the person who built the software. The more useful distinction is whether someone works in the mines and knows how it works, versus not.
raverbashing
3 days ago
> worker versus capital owner is a more important one.
Is that ever a useful distinction?
A bakery/bodega owner is a "capital owner"
A top NBA player is a worker
But I know who gets more money, has a good retirement margin and sleeps better at night
cassianoleal
3 days ago
> A bakery/bodega owner is a "capital owner"
In communist terms, these are part of the petit burgeois. They are technically capital owners but are as vulnerable as workers. Crucially, they don't own any relevant means of production.
> A top NBA player is a worker
Yes, and if he fails to turn his income into capital, thus becoming a capital owner, he'll be as vulnerable as all other workers or more since his working age is much more limited.
233mhz
3 days ago
> A top NBA player is a worker
It's the "circenses" in "Panem et circenses"
simianwords
3 days ago
Collapsing all identities into labour and capitalists is a nice Marxist rhetorical move. But it makes no sense at all. People move freely into becoming labourers and capital owners. There are managers who kinda fit in the middle. There are CEO's who have to answer to the Board.
Marx tried but failed in his effort to collapse identities into two buckets.
UncleSlacky
3 days ago
> People move freely into becoming labourers and capital owners.
Really? How would that happen? Maybe with a small loan of a million dollars...
user
3 days ago
saghm
3 days ago
Okay, I'd like to move into capital ownership, please. Can you point me in the direction of large enough quantities of capital I can freely obtain?
welshwelsh
2 days ago
A common but boring example: if you max out your 401k each year, it is likely that your investment returns will eventually be larger than your salary, allowing you to stop working if you want.
That wouldn't make you a billionaire or anything, but it would make you someone who primarily relies on capital rather than labor for income. Your economic interests would align much closer to a billionaire than to someone who lives paycheck to paycheck.
smrq
2 days ago
"Common" is doing some heavy lifting there. You're still talking about the top 2-3% of earners (roughly, 10m 401k-maxers out of 350m Americans, based on data from Vanguard and napkin math).
simianwords
3 days ago
Y combinator
vrganj
3 days ago
I'm sorry to break it to you, but they neither give it away for nothing, nor do they give it to anyone. That's not my definition of "freely".
simianwords
3 days ago
ok fair i meant freely in a different way. but you get my point..
saghm
2 days ago
The argument is that there isn't true class mobility because the theoretical ways to move upwards are in practice unattainable for most people. The way of getting capital you describe is essentially "have the existing capital owners subsidize you", which handwaves away the difficulty of getting that to happen. What portion of venture capital funding goes to people who aren't already from above average socioeconomic backgrounds?
bit-anarchist
2 days ago
Getting "the existing capital owners to subsidize you" isn't unattainable either, though, even if rare. If 90% comes from the middle or upper classes [1], 10% must come from the lower class, which isn't favorable to a "unattainable" goal, "just" hard.
[1] https://www.kauffman.org/reports/the-anatomy-of-an-entrepren...
saghm
a day ago
I think you might have misinterpreted what I meant (which in fairness was phrased somewhat ambiguously). It's attainable for some people, but "most people" as a block can't do it; the amount of capital available for them is not large enough for a majority of people to become capital owners in any meaningful way. My point isn't that it's impossible for an individual, but that when there's a fairly low upper limit on how many people are allowed to move between being a worker and being a capital owner, it's at best misleading to refer to say "people freely move" between the two. A small subset of people do, but in general, no, people do not.
bit-anarchist
20 hours ago
A better term might be "ambiguous". There are multiple ways of reading the expression "freely" here. Some may see it as "it's really trivial to do it", or "it's hard, but it's doable", or "it's legal to do it", for example. Some class systems don't have any legal way of moving up, at all.
saghm
20 hours ago
They were explicitly saying that categorizing them separately "makes no sense". If it's hard but doable or legal to do it, that would not be a reasonable explanation for saying that the distinction doesn't make sense. Either it's trivial to do it, or there is some legitimate difference between the two groups, and having words for it makes perfect sense.
I can easily melt ice into water, but for most solids, that's very hard for me to do. It still makes sense for me to categorize ice as a solid though, rather than saying that there's no reason to categorize it separately from other liquids.
vrganj
3 days ago
> People move freely into becoming labourers and capital owners
What? How do I freely become a capital owner? Do people just... give you large amounts of capital? That sure sounds nice and good for you, but for the rest of us, your post is kind of nonsensical.
> Marx tried but failed in his effort to collapse identities into two buckets.
I don't think you know what "collapse" means. If anything, "separate" would be the word here?
bit-anarchist
2 days ago
> How do I freely become a capital owner? Do people just... give you large amounts of capital?
Depending of how you define some words, one could say that. Loans aren't particularly easy to get, have string attached, but they are available and can come from just about anywhere. Or you can just be lucky and have made a series of good investments. Unlikely, but possible. You don't need the party's approval to control capital so, for some, that counts as "freely".
> I don't think you know what "collapse" means. If anything, "separate" would be the word here?
They probably meant "collapse" in similar sense to wave collapse: collapsing the indeterminate sets of identities into two discrete and reduced ones.
233mhz
3 days ago
[flagged]