1. Distinction Between Owners and Employees

In Reading 4.3, the difference between owners and employees is about who controls the business and who works for it. Owners are people who have businesses or factories and make money from them. For example, a person who owns a big company and earns money from the profits is an owner. Employees, on the other hand, work for these businesses and get paid a set amount for their work. For instance, a worker who makes products in a factory and gets paid by the hour is an employee. In New York the minimum wage per hour is $16.

2. Understanding Adam Smith’s Quote on Labor: 

The quote by Adam Smith on page 28 of our reading 4.3 talks about how important work is in making money and creating value. It means that labor isn’t just about doing physical tasks; it’s about how work contributes to making and improving things that people need. Smith says that labor is key to building wealth and driving the economy forward.

3. Class as Not an Identity: 

Reading 4.4 argues that class should not be seen just like any other identity, such as race or gender. Instead, it suggests that class is more about how people are connected through work and ownership. For example, class isn’t just a label like being part of a social group; it’s about whether you own a business or work for one, and how that affects your role in society. In my opinion, one could identify as a certain gender or race but cannot identify being in a certain class if their position in their workplace contradicts it.

4. Understanding Close Form of Dependency in Class Structures:

 The idea of a “close form of dependency” in Reading 4.4 means that the relationship between business owners and workers is very interconnected and interdependant. Workers need jobs from owners to earn money for their livelihood, while owners need workers to run their businesses and make money. For example, if a restaurant needs cooks and waiters to operate, and the cooks and waiters need the restaurant to earn their salaries, this close connection shows how much they depend on each other to function well. A highly motivated workforce will result in efficient results which will result in higher profits that will pay for the wages of these workers.

1.Employees work for what they do but also have other work for them. 

“Along with factory and service workers, the employee class also includes professionals and managers who in income, education, and lifestyle tend to be identified as”middle ” or”upper-middle” class. Company managers and executives are employees whose task is to extract more value-producing per- formance from other employees.”

“The distinction between owners and employees is blurred somewhat by the range of incomes within both classes. “Owners” refer to both the fabulously wealthy stockholders of giant corporations and the struggling proprietors of small stores.”

Owners don’t really work for their fortunes. 

“The secret to great wealth is not to work hard but to have others work hard for you. This explains why workers who spend their lives toiling in factories or offices retire with relatively little if any funds to speak of, while the owners can amass considerable fortunes.”

2.Basically that labor force is what drives how much and how many there are of things, such as goods and services I think Like the value of things can only be determined by people who make it I think

3.My main thought in class is not an identity. I disagree. I believe that class has identity. Student get label by races, skin color, background etc

4.Close from dependency in the class would be the teachers in the classroom. For example, when the student needs something the teacher is always there. Students depend on the school staff and teacher. 

1. Reading 4.3 clearly distinguishes between two primary social classes: owners and
   employees. Owners possess the wealth and assets of society, living off
   investments such as stocks, rents, and other forms of property income. On the other hand,
   employees must work to earn a living, receiving wages, salaries, or fees for
   their labor.
   For example, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, is a member of the owning class, as he profits
   largely from investments and the labor of his employees, who generate wealth for his company.
   Conversely, a factory worker at Amazon is part of the employee class, working for wages but
   creating much more value than what they earn.
   This distinction is interesting because some small business owners might technically fall under the “owners” category but often don’t enjoy the same security or
   influence as more prominent corporate owners. As the reading mentions, these small proprietors are more vulnerable to being outcompeted or even pushed out of the market by large corporations..
   This distinction between owners and employees and labor exploitation (e.g.,
   workers being paid significantly less than the value they create) is a foundational concept of
   capitalism. Owners profit by paying workers a fraction of what their labor produces, amassing
   great wealth through this process. Despite the different income levels

   among employees, the
   key factor remains that those who control capital benefit from the labor of others.
2. The quote by Adam Smith on page 28, “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,”
   emphasizes that labor is the true source of value in any product or commodity. Smith argues
   that the effort, time, and skills workers put into producing goods and services give those
   items their value, not just the money that is exchanged for them.
   In essence, without the input of human labor, commodities wouldn’t exist in a usable or
   profitable form. For example, a tree in a forest doesn’t have much value on its own. Still, through
   the labor of cutting it down, processing it into lumber, and eventually turning it into furniture,
   value is added. This idea asserts that human work is at the core of economic production and
   value creation, making labor a fundamental factor in any economic system.

Smith’s argument suggests that while the market price (monetary value) might fluctuate based on
supply, demand, and other factors, the real value of a commodity is directly tied to the labor that
went into creating it. This underscores the critical role of workers in generating wealth, even
though the profits often go to the owners of capital rather than the laborers themselves.

3. The reading presents a critique of the concept of class as identity, suggesting that while class
   can be an aspect of one’s identity, it should not be conflated with other identity categories like
   race or gender.
   One of the core arguments is that class operates differently within the social structure compared
   to race or gender. For instance, while race and gender are individual attributes that affect
   personal identity and social interactions, class is a relational and structural concept. It is defined
   by one’s position within the capitalist system and the economic relations that come with it. This
   distinction is critical because it highlights how class is embedded in and influenced by systemic
   power dynamics rather than just personal experience.
   The reading also critiques the liberal notion that class can be simply ranked or categorized like
   socioeconomic status. This perspective can reduce class to just another form of identity politics,
   focusing on individual status rather than systemic exploitation and power. The socialist
   perspective, however, argues that class encompasses a broader systemic structure—capitalists
   and workers have fundamentally different interests and power dynamics. This structural
   relationship shapes societal functions and the distribution of resources, influencing various forms
   of social inequality.
   Furthermore, the reading suggests that addressing other forms of oppression, like racial or gender
   inequality, requires acknowledging and challenging the capitalist system that underpins these
   inequalities. The capitalist structure creates and maintains power imbalances, which affect how
   different forms of identity interact and are experienced in society.
   In summary, the reading emphasizes that while class can influence individual identity, it operates
   within a different framework than other identity categories. Understanding class as a
   structural and systemic issue helps clarify why addressing class power is essential for achieving
   broader social justice and addressing various forms of inequality.
4. Reading 4.4 argues that class structures are built around a “close form of dependency,” which
   refers to the interdependence between different social classes within the capitalist system. This
   dependency is not merely economic but also structural, where the existence and functioning of
   one class are intimately connected to and dependent on the other.
   The “close form of dependency” means that the economic well-being of the working class relies
   on the wealth and profits generated by the capitalist class. For instance, workers depend on
   capitalists for employment and wages, while capitalists depend on workers to produce goods and
   services that drive their profits. This mutual reliance creates a structured relationship where each
   class’s position and power are defined by the other.
   An example of this dependency can be seen in the manufacturing sector. Workers in factories
   depend on capitalists for their jobs, while capitalists rely on workers to operate machinery and
   produce products that are sold for profit. This relationship underscores the economic and social

interdependence between the two classes, highlighting how their roles and statuses are closely
linked within the capitalist system.

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.
2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?
3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT 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?