Do you think entertainment is not good for society? Something like commercial dance would/should have limited slots. At that most all courses would have limited slots, perhaps decided by demand, and those with the best grades are the ones who get in. Want to be a physicist, well you're gonna have to work to have excellent grades to get the free tuition and after working so hard to get in, you probably aren't a slacker who is going to screw around and fail. Grades could also decide whether you go to an excellent college or not. Or go to trade school, we need a lot of welders and such too.
Whether dorms are free, subsidized or not can be decided, along with how much help for food. Personally I think some subsidies but not free would be ideal.

One I saw was researching diversity in farm crops, you know, the opposite of mono-culture, a good idea. As she had diversity in her title, she was attacked by Musk and crew and forced to quit.

The Doctors I know make pretty good money. Then there's the quality of life, like one American Doctor who came to Canada explaining to the kids that not having cameras on the school bus is fine due to the lack of school shootings. What kind of country produces kids that are freaked out by lack of surveillance due to being so scared of being shot at school.

Here in Canada last week, the 18-35 year old males voted Conservative while the older voters voted Liberal. The left wing NDP's vote collapsed as voting Liberal seemed the best way to stop the Conservatives who have gone extreme right.
The right has figured out that pretending to be pro-union and caring about the youth problems such as housing and cost of living is a winning strategy.

AC is obviously exaggerating. Here's a list of 2 and a half dozen, 2 dozen from before 1930 and all reclassified. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F... Remember that planet originally meant wandering star, anything that moved relative to the fixed stars was a planet including the Sun and Moon. More recently the moons of Jupiter and Saturn were first called planets, satellite planets actually, and some bigger then Pluto and even bigger then Mercury.

That was the great grandchildren of the Luddites who founded the first successful unions, 70 years of chronic underemployment, 3 generations. The problem is that often looking at history is like using a telephoto lens, things look closer together then they really are/were.
Things are often more complex then a quick look at history shows. The Luddite times was also a time of enclosing the commons, which forced a lot of people from farming to city life, at a time when there wasn't enough work for all. Also one of the things the Luddites was pissed off at was the injuries from factory work along with the factory owners attitude to the workers, namely being disposable.

Thing is that for most people, they can only be really productive for perhaps 6 hours a day and after 8 or so hours the opposite happens. I've worked long days where the next day the first half is spent fixing the stupid mistakes I made the night before from being tired.
Those 4 weeks of vacation is another thing that recharges people that is missing here.
So the question becomes, is it more productive putting in 12+ hour days all year or putting in 8 hour days 48 weeks a year.

There's a lot of people now doing gig jobs that pay shit. My parents, with little education made more money, adjusted for inflation, then I do. They had no problem buying a house. I had it harder with 20% mortgage rates but with a good job, you could still buy a house with a couple of years of higher education, even technical (trades) education, and that education was cheap. Today, the young can not buy a house unless they're at the top of the class and luck out at a good job, basically only the top couple of percentile or those with help from the bank of Mom and Dad are buying homes, at least in the areas where the economy is good.

Thing with the trades, and I've family in them, is they're great in a good economy, when the economy crashes, they're shit. They depend on things like construction happening, things being built. They also have the same problem as so many careers, when the number of people getting into them grows larger then the job prospects, well wages crash.
We've had a good run since 2008 when the last big crash happened, but I remember my nephew talking about 2008. He was lucky to be union, which negotiated only a 33% wage drop. Other members of his family not in an union saw 50% wage drops if they were lucky enough to keep working.

The only reason that Canada got single payer is that we have a 3rd party that is actually left wing and now and again when the main 2 parties are close to tied, they hold the balance of power and can demand things like single payer, or last government, dental, pharmacare and cheap childcare. Westminster system makes the 3rd (or 4th) party powerful in some situations.
Today, it is political suicide to suggest getting rid of single payer, so instead it gets starved of funding with the further right party in particular trying to starve it enough that people will give up on it in frustration, and we're close to that. Too many people vote for lower taxes.

Yep, would have been better to stick to lead as an anti-knock additive.

Has there been a civilization without taxes? Civilization corresponds with the farming of grains and the thing about grains is that they were taxable due to being storable and were taxed. With taxes, you could have classes of people who did not produce food, merchants, scribes and soldiers.

I never mentioned correlation being causation as that is hard to claim. Just that employment did the opposite of increasing when trucks and tractors became common.
History since the industrial revolution does show a lag between improvements to productivity and the common people benefiting from it.
In the case of tractors, it caused a consolation of farm owners, eg the ones who could get a loan or out right buy a tractor had their productivity improve enough to buy out their neighbours and grow their farm, leading to unemployed farmers who eventually found new employment. It's complex as there was also droughts and tariffs that affected farming at the time.

Do you really think that in the '30's that more people were employed at high wages? Trucks and tractors started taking off after WWI, took perhaps a decade to really replace horses, and then the economy crashed.

Only if the analogy was made in 1994. In 1894, the number of trucks and tractors was roughly zero. They started getting popular after WWI and a decade and a half later there was 25% unemployment