Pretty sure petit bourgeoisie are managers and small business owners, they employ people. PMCs employ nobody but have either technical skills and/or college education that guarantees them a comfy spot in a company. It's a pretty transient class, I wouldn't rely on it for material analysis tbh.
Well it depends on what role a PMC has within a company. If they are, like you say, just someone that gets to have a well paying job within the company then yeah they aren't the petit bourgeoisie, but to me the term can also mean mid level managers, i.e. a stage below owners/shareholders/executives who represent the bourgeoisie, but who do not rely on their labor for income, instead relying on placing themselves high enough above the proletariat to reap benefits from being a lackey to the bourgeoisie in the form of managing the proletariat, which I would classify as petit bourgeois. However I also think this distinction is not that important when analysing the overall relationship between capital and labor.
Pretty sure petit bourgeoisie are managers and small business owners, they employ people. PMCs employ nobody but have either technical skills and/or college education that guarantees them a comfy spot in a company. It's a pretty transient class, I wouldn't rely on it for material analysis tbh.
Well it depends on what role a PMC has within a company. If they are, like you say, just someone that gets to have a well paying job within the company then yeah they aren't the petit bourgeoisie, but to me the term can also mean mid level managers, i.e. a stage below owners/shareholders/executives who represent the bourgeoisie, but who do not rely on their labor for income, instead relying on placing themselves high enough above the proletariat to reap benefits from being a lackey to the bourgeoisie in the form of managing the proletariat, which I would classify as petit bourgeois. However I also think this distinction is not that important when analysing the overall relationship between capital and labor.