most jobs do not require a bachelor's degree, how do y'all handle the lack of cheap workforce? Who makes the jobs that no one wants to do? Immigrants?

Jhonatan Hernández the children

@@jhonatanhernandez3568 Yes immigrants mostly from Eastern Europe. Eastern Europeans have their own cheap labor...North Koreans. Funny how every country has their own slave labor maybe except communist countries?

Don't underestimate the internet.

We do try our very best. :) - Nick J.

Judging the comments in previous videos it seems like the series being unbiased already serves as a ground for some people to call liberal bias or even communism (as the series doesn't portrait Marx like the boogeyman americans make him).

Saying Marx was the boogeyman isn't bias, it should be common knowledge.

"it should be common knowledge" - A biased opinion. So yeah, it is bias. Not commenting on your opinion by the way just the statement that it is bias.

the Humanities need individual thinking and perspective. It's not like engineering that any idiot can learn, if they just follow the assembly manual. That is why it is so underrated. It requires something society hates: Individuality and thinking.

Chase Warwick Thanks for the LSD and other drugs, thanks for the atomic bomb and the cold war, thanks for the guns and all the murder because of them, thanks for having to throw away my phone every 4-5 years because it "becomes obsolete", thanks for the temples that devide us (somebody had to plan those buildings right?), tanks for the internet-trolls, thanks for the hormones and various poisons in the tapwater, thanks for not having a job (soon) because of automatization, thanks for no real human contact (because everybody wants to talk to each other via facebook and such)... Thank you people of STEM for making my life better and worse at the same time!

HistoricaHungarica life isn't perfect man, get real!

H.H. I think your loneliness mentioned in your comment stems not rom technology, but you being a conspiracy nut. [HISTORICAL HUNGARICA, ONLY YOU CAN SEE THE REST OF THIS COMMENT. I AM LIZURD HEBREWBERGER, FIRST CIRCUMCISOR OF THE JEW-REPTILIAN MOTHERSHIP ILLUMINATUS. YOU KNOW TOO MUCH. WE ARE COMING FOR YOU. BY THE SCALES OF YEHOVA, WE, WILL NOT BE DEFEATED. ILLUMINATI FOREVER]

Chase Warwick whats the point of this comment?

your sunglasses suck

You're sadly mistaken....

ok~ if you say so, lady

Werevampiwolf wht part of ur body is disabled. and how do u wrk? serious question

Darcy Kahler A lot of this is, ironically enough, caused by rent control and minimum wage laws.

1200 is high. I make a lot of money, and even I think this. If you are on the verge of poverty, and 1200 is the lowest you can find in a city, you need to move somewhere cheaper even if it means a longer commute.

She already stated that she was oversimplifying it. These videos aren't long enough to give a comprehensive analysis or definition lol.

well people need proletariat, but the wrld dosent wrk only with proletariat, they need other things too

I always like when someone points out a "mistake" but than doesn't correct it.

Marxist theory often gives a simplistic and reductionistic impression in the US because even in colleges, it is often introduced to students in the most simplistic and distorting way possible (society divided into only two classes; economic determinism; one-sided dichotomy between "base" v.s. "superstructure", etc. ie. all features of vulgarized Marxism.) For example, the small shop keeper the video talked about can easily be categorized as petty bourgeoisie in Marxist analysis, and Marx wrote a lot about the petty bourgeoisie in political works like The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, which discussed their political role in a concrete historical context. The point is, even though Marx thought that there is a set of basic economic regularities that more or less governs the daily life of our capitalist society (which is an idea shared by all economists), society -- consisted in concrete people -- response to these economic imperatives in a concrete historical condition, therefore we can't formulate a generalised theory of society, and we must analyse any society within its concrete historical context. That's why Marx never have a general theory of petty bourgeoisie, or a general theory of middle class, because since these classes are not as closely tied to the central economic contradiction that defines capitalism itself as the bourgeoisie and proletariat are, their interests and relations to the larger society depends on specific context to a much greater extent. Only analysis of specific a middle class (e.g. the US middle class from 2008 to 2017) in a specific historical context (e.g. the socio-economic and political landscape of the US after the 2008 financial crisis) makes sense to historical materialism. This kind of insistence on concrete analysis is perhaps what makes Marxism fail to fit into the mainstream format of social science, where people love to talk only about generalised structure and classifying people into artificial categories, but seldom do they discuss history and what people actually did to each other in detail.

+Noob E It wouldn't have been so grating if she hadn't opened the episode by basically saying "here's Marx's theory but it's too simplistic, so lets use Weber instead." Marx's theory isn't too simplistic, she's just describing it very poorly. Thus the problem is with a poor explanation of the theory rather than the theory itself. It'd be like if I said "The Ancient Greeks thought the world was flat, but that's because they were simplistic and wrong, so now lets talk about Christopher Columbus." The problem isn't that the Greeks didn't know the shape of the planet, they did know the shape of the planet and had a very good estimate of the size, I'm just explaining it very badly.

YES!

Luna? - Nick J.

That's her, I couldn't think of her name.

Thank you, they keep mixing up and not specifying different kinds of average in this course. (A median is still a kind of average; I think you mean "mean" when you say "average" here).

its still vlose enough tough

K F your husband’s job is at the mercy of the economy

So where would you put the minimum for lower middle class?

I'm sweetheart....earning 25K in today's world is low-range dear. At least in the U.S. it is. I'm lower than that but I accept until I can do better after I graduate college. Yes 25,000 per year is not a lot of money.

I think your right

Everfinderer so basically you hqve old money to assist you. What do you do that pays so little?

Fair point on "Old Money;" as for the field, education, specifically public school education (my pay is in no way the norm; nationally, the average is closer to 25k/year, I believe).

Everfinderer so basically you teach in a low income discrict so you dont have to pay back the student loans. My stepmom did that. She taugh on the Eastside of Detroit for years before leaving and becoming a principal in the suburbs

Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) can be another advantage, yes, though that's little more than exception to an absurd tax code than a tangible benefit (loan forgiveness is by default treated as income in the USA, and taxes must be paid on the amount forgiven). However, "so that you don't have to pay" is inaccurate. Our college debts are being paid despite PSLF, originally out of ignorance (being unaware of income based loan repayment, I used up most of my savings paying the default monthly installments), and then our families, or Old Money, as it were, paying on our behalf as a wedding gift.

"the French way of dividing up the Bourgeoisie" The head and the rest of the body?

Bruno Sánchez You can just add up their bills. Thus just talks about how much they make.

Bruno Sánchez Americans don't all get their money monthly. Some get it weekly or every other week.

It's because they receive their income every week. No... wait

Some people, particularly farmers, make their money just once or twice a year based on harvest times, etc. And some people have a seasonal job where they make their whole year's income in just a few months. So yearly income makes more sense in that way.

There can be some big variances on a month to month basis. Think of off and on season (people working in tourism, ski resorts, farmers, etc.) workers or people whose hours do vary on a monthly (weekly or even daily basis!) . Bills don't always come up monthly either (think of taxes, for example) so using a monthly basis can be misleading when comparing income to expenses. Also many people don't get paid monthly. They get paid bi-weekly (every 2 weeks) and this doesn't fit neatly into a month.

thats the petite bourgeoisie...not petty

Which is what's already happening.

Daniel... this is "Crash Course", not "Detailed Lectures". You are right, they oversimplified the subject, but they have to do it in order to bring people some "basic knowledge". It might push folks even to go after certain topics.

Oh, of course, and I do understand it's merits. But again, in 0:27 is she who claims that Marx's views were too simplistic for our world, using as example a wrong definition of class conflict, and I just pointed it out. As you said, this too can push folks to go after the correct definitions too.

Daniel Moreno good explanation

That just means that expensive places force a lot of people to be lower class there (or here, since I'm in California and spending my entire life struggling just to stop borrowing someone else's land), not that we need to adjust the definition of class. Who owns all the capital that so many people in expensive places are borrowing? Banks and landlords, mostly, who are consequently extremely upper-class by this definition. That everybody else in those countries is indebted to that tiny extremely wealthy upper class doesn't call for changing the definition of class, it calls for fixing that situation.

Compared though those on 15-30*

Also, let's not forget to compare mean and median, again. The MEAN income (what people normally think of when you say "average": add up all the incomes and divide by number of people) is about $50k per PERSON, or $100k per household. The medians are closer to HALF that. Meaning that 50% of Americans are making not only less than average (as you would expect), but less than HALF of average. In other words: add up all the incomes and divide by the number of people. Write that number down. Now line up all Americans by income, and pick the person out of the dead center of the lineup. You'd expect their income to be around the number you wrote down, right? Nope. It's half of that. The people making the number you wrote down are halfway again toward the rich end of the lineup, around the 75th percentile. Yes, that means there are three times as many people below average than above it.

And then they went on to say that a quarter of Americans make less then $25k, which implies individuals.

XenomorphYo what did you studied?

So all of it ;)

But mostly your own work, along with intelligence, good decision making, and ingenuity. Thanks for the comment.