Hi Nino! Agree with you. I actually liked your responses I totally agree with your point on question #3 about how our income shouldn’t be a factor that determines one’s identity. As you explained, income is not connected to one’s thoughts, abilities, or behavior. What people generate yearly financially speaking, should be seen as a factor of identity.

Hi Sady!! Totally agree with your responses. Just as you mentioned, income and education are some of the very important factors that contribute to determining one’s income. About the subway station response, I do believe that of course, in NYC social class people tend to have a pattern when it comes to their decision of where to live. Lower Manhattan, we all can agree, is one of their favorite places lol.

1. Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why?
2. What could be some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities? Do you see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example?

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each. 

In Reading 4.3, the distinction between owners and employees is the range of income between both social classes. Owners are normally of the upper social class, and they live off investments, stocks, bonds, rents, royalties, and other property income. They can be stockholders of giant corporations and the proprietors of small stores. Their incomes are very large, and they come from the labor of others who work for them. Employees are the factory and service workers; they can also include professionals and managers. They live off their salaries and wages earned from working for others.  

2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?  

I understand the quote by Adam Smith to mean that labor makes any commodity more expensive. Labor is what we are all paying for, and the more labor put into the commodity, the more valuable it becomes.  

3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?  

I do not think class is an identity because social classes do not depict an individual’s interests, tastes, attitudes, and/or views. I think some people can look at social classes and believe that they act a certain way or fall under a certain status, such as upper wealthy class are part of high society being considered elite, but I don’t think it is an identity, I think it’s more of a preconception. 

4. How do you understand the argument Reading 4.4 makes when stating that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency?” What is this close form of dependency, and can you think of an example?  

I understand the argument Reading 4.4 is making is that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency,” to means that the different economic classes depend on one another to work. The upper class depends on making its money off the working class’s labor, and the working class depends on the work offered by the upper classes to gain income.  

1. Do you notice any similarities in the way social class is discussed in reading 4.1 and 4.2? Do you notice any differences in the way these two readings DIFFERENTIATE between social classes? 

I noticed that in 4.1 and 4.2, social classes are discussed by the relation between people’s level of income and where they live. The way these two readings differentiated between social class is that reading 4.1 included an impact of education level, age, race, and income, while reading 4.2 focuses on where the individual lives and household income.  

2. Pick the station closest to where you live. Using the concepts from Reading 4.1, what social class tends to live in your neighborhood? Are you surprised (or not) by the answer? Do you feel it is an accurate representation of the people living in your neighborhood?  

The station closest to me is the 3-train station. I live in West Harlem. There is quite a mix of classes that live in my area, but what I see mostly are working class and lower-class people. Although there are some middle- and upper-class people in my neighborhood because of gentrification, I am not surprised by the results because Manhattan does house many middle and upper social classes. I do think it is an accurate representation of my neighborhood because the 3 trains in Manhattan show a variation of income in my area; there are both higher and lower household incomes in this area. 

3. Based on Reading 4.2, do you notice a general pattern about social classes in NYC? 

In reading 4.2, the general pattern about social classes in NYC is that richer families live in Manhattan, while lower-income families live in the other boroughs. The Bronx and Brooklyn had the lowest income, while Manhattan showed the highest household incomes, which were $150,000 and up. 

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.

The distinction reading 4. makes owners & employees would be mainly how owners profit off their employees and how the employees rely heavily on their wages. An example of this would be, an owner of a restaurant would only have to pop in & out to occasionally to make sure things are running smoothly, but can really sit back and have their money being made for them while the servers and cooks prepare and serve to sell the food. Whereas the server, would rely on their service to people, and generally the morals of their customers to leave a good tip, in order to continue living off wages.

1. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?

The quote by Adam Smith is translating to me as him measuring the value and success of a business by how their employees are ran rather than the profit being made. Smith is saying that the labor aspect of a business is very important.

1. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?

My thoughts on class NOT being an identity would be that I agree. Your financial state should not define you as an individual person with your own personality or thoughts. It is just a system used to keep people separate and deem the high incomers more power.

1. How do you understand the argument Reading 4.4. makes when stating that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency”? What is this close form of dependency, and can you think of an example?

The argument “class structures are built around a close form of dependency” means to me that it is a system based on everybody needing one another to keep a successful business. For example, an owner of a restaurant needs chefs and waiters, as it is impossible to cook and serve customers otherwise. But, the waiters and chefs also need people like restaurant owners, because they need a job of their own. Most business rely on another variable in order to keep it running smoothly.

1. Do you notice any similarities in the way social class is discussed in readings 4.1 and 4.2? Do you notice any differences in the way these two readings DIFFERENTIATE between social classes?

In readings 4.1 and 4.2, the way social class was being discussed was different, but also had some similarities. Both readings mentioned the relation between people’s level of income and where they reside to see where they belong as of social classes. The reading differed between social classes because reading 4.2 had considered other factors into your social class, like the individual’s race and age. As for reading 4.2, it was directly talking about an individual’s income and residence.

1. Pick the station closest to where you live. Using the concepts from Reading 4.1, what social class tends to live in your neighborhood? Are you surprised (or not) by the answer? Do you feel it is an accurate representation of the people living in your neighborhood?

The closest station to me is the Q train. Based not he concepts from reason 4.1, the social class that tends to live in my neighborhood is typically lower class. I am not too surprised by this answer. Brooklyn, or anywhere borough other than Manhattan tend to be much cheaper to live in compared to the city. However, it is still really expensive to maintain a life in NYC regardless of where you reside. Just below 50k average income in South Brooklyn can seem a bit shocking to someone who is not from here as there are lots of wealthy neighborhoods close by. I think it is a pretty accurate representation of the people living in my neighborhood.

1. Based on Reading 4.2, do you notice a general pattern about social classes in NYC?

Based on the reading, there is a general pattern about social classes in NYC. It is a huge city with many neighborhoods to it. For example, if there is a mall with nicer stores, or a nicer grocery store like trader joes, it is a high chance you are in a high income area like downtown Brooklyn, or somewhere in Manhattan. Though, there are various ways to see social class is designated to each part of the city.

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.

According to the reading the distinction between owners and employers is clear. Employers have to work to live. On the other hand, we have the owning class who are characterized because they have people who make the work for them. An example of this could be the case of a truck driver that works for a company like Amazon. That person has to get up every day and work in order to earn his/her salary. However, Jeff Bezos, who is the owner of Amazon, doesn’t have to be working a certain amount of hours to maintain his business running. That is because workers are doing the hard part for him for a minimum salary that doesn’t compare not even a little with his actual fortune.

2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?

I believe that what this statement means is that labor is what can really stomate the prices of certain goods and services. To me, I think that labor should be the factor that should be evaluated in order to establish prices. As the quote explains ” [It is their real price; money is their nominal price only.”

3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?

I agree with this actually. Before I started reading this article I thought that class has something to do with one’s dentistry somehow. However, when I started going through the reading I realized that it doesn’t. Class is an indicator of one’s income, location, education, and a lot of factors that are the ones that actually determine if we are part of one class or another. Another Thought comes from the next quote ““What you have determines what you get” and “What you have determines what you have to do to get what you get.” (Wright, p 3). That is clearly one of the most important factors that distinguishes a worker from an owner too. Is the fact that we should think about what we all have ro do in order to get our incomes/salary every week. That is precisely, an indicator of our class to me. Just as the article explained, if you have to work to get paid you’re on the other side (the working class one). I also understand that things like gender or race are the only factors that determine one’s class either. Each one could have a little impact in constructing your class but it doesn’t really.

4. How do you understand the argument Reading 4.4. makes when stating that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency”? What is this close form of dependency, and can you think of an example?

To me, it means that class is a huge indicator of how much independent one is. For example, If I am an employer working for a company, I know that I have to stick to my schedule. I have to be on time, and get into my workplace everyday. This in some way is inferring my independence a little bit. If I didn’t have to work, I could perfectly do whatever I want with my day. I could enjoy and live by following my own routine. I wouldn’t have to follow a schedule or anything like that. This is to me, what independence means in this quote.  

1. Do you notice any similarities in the way social class is discussed in readings 4.1 and 4.2? Do you notice any differences in the way these two readings DIFFERENTIATE between social classes?

After going over readings 4.1 and 4.2, I noticed some differences in how social class is discussed on each one. In the first reading it explains how people often perceive themself as a higher class than what is actually their class position. In that reading I noticed that even though some people had a low income that ranged in a lower class, they still perceive themself as middle class. When I was seeing the graph of the NYC subway I was so surprised at how the scales of income vary according to every station that I clicked on. That made me confirm that the place where you live has a lot to do with your class. I also linked the two readings by the fact that many of the people who identified himself as middle class actually live near those stations where the income is according to a lower class household. 

2. Pick the station closest to where you live. Using the concepts from Reading 4.1, what social class tends to live in your neighborhood? Are you surprised (or not) by the answer? Do you feel it is an accurate representation of the people living in your neighborhood?

The station closest to where I live is Castle Hill Ave. The social class that tend to live in my neighborhood are people who rank in a lower class. I’m actually not surprised by this fact, or maybe a little. I thought that maybe it was going to be in the middle class. That is exactly what the first reading explained about how people often perceived their class in an unrealistic way. I really thought that it was going to be middle class. However, when I looked up at my subway station, I noticed that there is actually a lower class population that lives in my neighborhood. On the other hand, I believe that it may be an accurate representation of the population that lives in my neighborhood. 

3. Based on Reading 4.2, do you notice a general pattern about social classes in NYC?

I think that the general pattern about social classes in NYC is that the people with a higher income are concentrated in the Lower Manhattan area. Other classes with lower incomes are most likely to live in the upper side, Bronx, Queens, and so on.

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.

The distinction made between owners and employees is that the employee class must work hard in order to create value while owners produce nothing and gain money off of the employee class.  For example, an author writes a book and editors, proofreaders, printers, and salespeople all provide additional labor to help a book sell.  All of them are considered to be part of the employee class.  However, the profits of the book go to the owners of the publishing house, who provide no labor to the creation or sale of the book at all.

2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?

I understand Adam Smith’s quote to mean that labor is the true value of something because it is what transforms a thing into something of value.  Without labor, profitable items could not exist because the labor is what creates value.  Labor is necessary for products to exist, whether it is from the person physically creating the items or the executive that is organizing the other employees in order to more effectively work.  Labor is the true value of things, not the monetary value that is assigned to them.

3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?

I think there merit to the idea in how the idea that class is NOT an identity is argued in this paper.  The paper expresses that liberals may see class as an identity because it can be seen as a combination of wealth, income, and education, and as class is divided into different levels, this could create the image of having a common identity.  This is actually the view that I held coming into this paper, as I believe that there can be a community based around social class that is based around those factors.  However, the paper argues that there are instead two classes in the socialist view of class: capitalists and workers. And while they can be perceived as an identity, the dependency and power imbalance makes it unable to be an identity.  This argument makes sense to me, and highlights that the power of one’s social class position is very different than the power inherent to one’s race or gender.  Like the example used in the reading, someone is not more or less white dependent on someone else’s blackness, or vice versa.  The concept of race as an identity is based solely on you and how you identify, whereas social class is defined by the power that capitalists hold and their dependency between both classes.  A worker is dependent on a capitalist for their job, and a capitalist has the power to exploit that worker in order to remain a capitalist.  So, there is too much power at play for one’s class to be an identity.

4. How do you understand the argument Reading 4.4. makes when stating that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency”? What is this close form of dependency, and can you think of an example?

I understand it to mean that the working class is dependent on capitalists for their job, which leads to money and resources needed for survival, while capitalists must exploit the working class in order to continue to be capitalists. Workers will always be in a position to have their interests threatened by the capitalists employing them by nature of those conflicting with the interests of the capitalists, but it also means that the workers have the ability to threaten capitalists’ abilities to remain in power.  So while capitalists have created a system where society is dependent on them, workers still maintain the ability to take that power away from them if they choose to not work.  An example of this would be if a group of workers decided to unionize and strike, such as we have been seeing with Starbucks workers across the country.  By striking, the workers pause production or the distribution of services which in turn stops the capitalist class from profiting, meaning that the capitalist class either will have to replace an entire workforce or meet the working class in the middle towards their own interests.