How many people here would consider themselves part of the professional managerial class?

[Joij21]

IDK what do you think?
I for one am not sure.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I am. I'm not terribly forthcoming with personal details like my line of work. But I can confess this much about myself.

In fact I have reasons for using that very phrase when I characterize myself in terms of class.

 

[Angst]

i am not. right now i'm teaching. so still worker.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Professional managerial class = boss?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I may not be in the professional managerial class, but I do professionally manage to beat people in video games

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not any more; I am retired. But I was for thirty some years.

 

[Joij21]

Professional managerial class = boss?

Wikipedia:

The professional-managerial class (PMC) is a social class within capitalism that, by controlling production processes through occupying a superior management position, is neither proletarian nor bourgeoisie. Conceived as "The New Class" by social scientists and critics such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the 1970s, this group of middle class professionals is distinguished from other social classes by their training and education, typically business qualifications and university degrees,[1] with occupations thought to offer influence on society that would otherwise be available only to capital owners.[2] The professional-managerial class tend to have incomes above the average for their country, with major exceptions being academia and print journalism.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional–managerial_class

Continued:

James Burnham had proposed the idea of a leading managerial class in his 1941 book The Managerial Revolution, but the term "professional-managerial class" was coined in 1977 by John and Barbara Ehrenreich.[4] The PMC hypothesis contributed to the Marxist debates on class in Fordism and was used as an analytical category in the examination of non-proletarian employees. However, orthodox Marxists consider the PMC hypothesis to be revisionism of the Marxist understanding of class.[5]

The Ehrenreichs defined the PMC as educated professionals who historically did not work in corporate environments, such as doctors, scientists, lawyers, academics, artists, and journalists.[6] In a 2013 follow-up, they estimated that in the 1930s, PMC occupations made up less than 1% of total U.S. employment, but the share had risen to 24% by 1972, and 35% by 2006.[7] In that same essay, they argued that the notion of the PMC as a collective grouping was "in ruins" due to economic shifts in the 1990s and 2000s which changed their professional prospects. Some members (such as highly qualified scientists) "jump[ed] ship for more lucrative posts in direct services to capital"; others (such as lawyers, tenured professors, and doctors) found themselves in increasingly "corporation-like" workplaces; while others still (like those with backgrounds in media or the humanities) "spiral[ed] down to the retail workforce", unable to parlay their skills into higher-income jobs.[7]

Later use
edit:

By the late 2010s, the term was more broadly used in American political discourse as a shorthand reference to technocratic liberals or wealthy Democratic voters.[8][4] Among left-wing commentators, it is typically used as a pejorative description; in 2019, Barbara Ehrenreich expressed disapproval over using the term as an "ultraleft slur".[4] Catherine Liu, in Virtue Hoarders (2021), characterized the PMC as white-collar left liberals afflicted with a superiority complex in relation to ordinary members of the working class.[9][10][11] Hans Magnus Enzensberger had previously written of the "characterless opportunism" of its members, in reference to its constant shifting of allegiances, not only between the leisured and working classes but also among themselves.[12]

 

[lymond]

I was for a long time, but now on a less stressful path and workin' from home....Although I may end up right back in a leadership role again

(edit: and...yeah...i don't really understand the question but see it was just clarified....i was never top managment like ceo or coo ..that sorta thing)

 

[danjuno]

Radioactive Monkeys is the correct answer.

 

[thetrooper]

Yes. Believe it or not

 

[really]

I tick the boxes above so yes.
My job has a lot of churn - my peers have more or less changed totally three times over three years.

 

[Quintillus]

Does the "professional managerial class" even exist? Jacobin.com thinks not:

The most persistent illusion about new classes is probably the notion of a burgeoning managerial class gaining significant influence. The growth of corporations has seen the expansion of hierarchical management structures. Some have argued that a separation of owners from management has meant that managers have taken control of corporate decision-making with primary interest in firm preservation.

Since the Great Depression onward, pundits like James Burnham have touted technocrats and corporate managers of varied forms as the future leaders of postindustrial capitalism. But once again the unilateral power of concentrated corporate ownership to decide production measures, especially under recent neoliberal austerity conditions, has underscored the limited scope of managerial control. In spite of persistent claims about the growing power of a managerial class, upper managers now wield even less influence over firm assets than in previous decades when proponents of the “managerial revolution” were most vocal.

This tracks with my experience. I am a worker bee, but for four levels of management above me, at least, the managers have very little power. Who does? The capitalists who own the company.

If you aren't C-suite, you don't have much power. And if you are C-suite, you are, effectively, a capitalist, considering the amount of stock grants you receive.

The capitalists have been sufficiently greedy in recent times that if there was a "professional management class" that was abetting the capitalists before, much if it has lost its loyalty to the capitalists, at least for the time being. That "PMC" has itself been burned by the capitalists' greed. Even the managers have been heard floating the idea that increased unionization would be a good thing.

So... it's an interesting theory, but I don't see it in practice, and even if some people where I work might identify with it, I do not.

 

[Arwon]

I am a public sector white collar worker who supervises a couple staff I guess?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Does this just mean "are you a manager?"?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Does this just mean "are you a manager?"?

The designation is flexible. Typically if one has both supervisory responsibilities over "some to many" people and decision making permissions beyond or broader than the work and schedules of your "team", then you would be part of the managerial class. The size of the company or corporation can make a difference. In some cases it can just be connected to the person you report to even if you supervise one or none others. If you report to a C suite person, you are likely there.

• Where you stand in the company hierarchy (how close to the top of your company, division, unit, etc.)
• How many staff report to you
• Your decision making authority

All play a part.