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

Reading 4.3 distinguishes between owners and employees based on their relationship to wealth and labor. Owners are characterized as individuals or families who primarily live off investments and property income, while employees rely on wages and salaries earned through work. An example of an owner would be a wealthy stockholder who earns income from dividends and capital gains on their investments. On the other hand, an example of an employee could be a factory worker or office clerk who earns a paycheck for their labor.

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

The quote by Adam Smith on page 28 underscores the fundamental role of labor in determining the value of commodities. Smith argues that the real price or value of goods and services is ultimately determined by the labor required to produce them. In essence, he emphasizes the centrality of labor as the foundation of economic value, highlighting its significance in the production process.

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

The main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is not an identity challenges the notion that class can be reduced to a mere label or category based on income or social status. Instead, the reading suggests that class structures are deeply embedded in societal systems of power and economic relations. Class is seen as a dynamic and complex phenomenon shaped by various factors beyond individual identification, such as access to resources, means of production, and social mobility.

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?  

When Reading 4.4 states that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency,” it refers to the interdependence between different social classes within the capitalist system. This close form of dependency manifests through the exploitation of labor by capitalist owners, who rely on the workforce to generate profits and sustain their wealth accumulation. An example of this dependency can be seen in the relationship between workers and employers in a factory setting, where workers depend on wages for livelihood while employers depend on labor for production and profit.

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.

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. 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. The distinction that reading 4.3 makes between owner and employees is that the Owners live mostly off of investments while the employees live off of wages, salaries and fees. Their income is also different.

2. I understand that the quote “labor … is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only” talks about labor being the reason why a company is flourishing. Its not the money that makes the company great its the labor put into it.

3. My thoughts on the main argument that class is not an identity is that social class shouldn’t be an identity at all regardless of race or economic status.

4. i understand the argument in reading 4.4 about “class structures are built around a close form of dependency” by understanding that being a “worker” means that you are dependent on your firm for a job. This close form of dependency is that the worker needs the employer as much as the employer needs workers.

1. Owners and employees are different in how they relate to labor and income. Owners are the people or families who possess the wealth of the community and who frequently make their living from investments such as bonds, stocks, and income from real estate. Either by owning businesses or getting profits on their investments, they make their living off the labor of others.
   Employees, on the other hand, are those who have to work to support themselves. This group consists of managers, professionals, and employees from factories and services. Wages, salaries, and other types of costs are how employees make ends meet, and their labor is what keeps them going. An example of this is Amazon. Amazon has strict policies for its employees to the point where it’s tedious to get up every day and work for the company while its owner Jeff Bezos attends parties and even goes on space shuttles to go to outer space without a single care in the world while his employees are breaking their backs for him.
   
2. From what I understand, the quote from Adam Smith on page 28 points out that the time and labor required to produce a good is the important cause for its value. It suggests that the effort required throughout different phases of a product’s development, such as the extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, advertising, and selling, determines the true value of the commodity. According to Smith, labor contribution makes up the value of goods as money only acts as a simple representation of those prices.
   
3. My thoughts on Reading 4.4’s argument that class isn’t an identity is that I agree that socioeconomic guidelines shouldn’t be used to restrict class to a single identity. To me, a person’s identity is more diverse and complicated than a social standing based on money, status, or education. The emphasis on accepting a person’s character over social divisions is something I enjoy because it shares my own beliefs about how important it is to take into account each person’s uniqueness. I agree with the author that identity goes far beyond social categories and should be recognized for its complexity and diversity.
   
4. The argument made in Reading 4.4 that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency” can be supported using an example like the actor/ writer strikes from July-November 2023. In the entertainment industry, major production companies or studios owned by the capitalist class employ actors and writers representing the working class. The productions were put on hold when writers/actors went on strike, and when studios were at risk of losing profit, actors/writers were at risk of getting evicted from their homes or not being able to get the basic necessities due to not having a job. This shows a strong connection between those who provide labor and those who control the means of production. This shows the power dynamics and economic connections linked to class structures, showing how dependency significantly influences both sides of the class divide.

1. The distinction between owners and employees is that owners live mostly off investments and off the labor of their employees while employees live mostly off their paychecks because they have no wealth. ” One should distinguish between those who own the wealth of society and those who must work for a living. The very rich families and individuals who compose the owning class live mostly off investments, which include stocks, bonds, rents, mineral royalties, and other property income. Their employees live mostly off wages, salaries, and fees.”
2. The quote is saying that the value of goods is determined by the how much labor went into making it. ” Labor … is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only. What transforms a tree into a profitable commodity such as paper or furniture is the labor that goes into harvesting the timber, cutting the lumber, and manufacturing, shipping, advertising, and selling the finished product—along with the labor that goes into making the tools and whatever else is needed for production and distribution.”
3. Class is not an identity because your social class status could always change while your identity is usually permanent. “But class is different, insofar as it is not just the concept of “worker” that is dependent on the concept of capitalist for meaning. It’s that to be a worker means, necessarily, to be dependent on a given capitalist or firm for a job. Similarly, to be a capitalist means to be engaged in the ongoing exploitation of particular workers in order to maintain that position. A white person’s whiteness, by contrast, isn’t dependent on a particular relationship with or actions by nonwhite people. An antiracist and a racist are equally white.”
4. A close form of dependency is when you both rely both owner and employee rely on one another. ” This interdependency means that to be a worker is to always and everywhere be in s position of having your interests at least threatened by the capitalist that employs you. But it also means that workers everywhere have the potential power to force their employers to the table by threatening their ability to remain capitalists. The close interdepended of the class structure at once threatens workers’ interests and provides the source of the power by which they can beat back that threat.” An example of interdependency was during the writers’ strike that happened recently the writers went on strike because they weren’t getting paid enough and this caused the postpone and cancellation of many films and tv shows they continued to strike until they came to an agreement, they deemed was fair.

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.

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.