- What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.
- How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?
- What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?
- 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?
12 thoughts on “Discussion Board 4.2”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
1. Reading 4.3 explains that owners mostly make their money from investments and the labor of other people, while employees have to work for wages or salaries. An example of an owner would be someone who owns a large company and earns profits from it. An employee would be a security guard who works for a company and gets paid hourly.
2. I understand Adam Smith’s quote as saying that labor is what really gives products their value. For example, a tree does not become furniture by itself. Workers have to cut the wood, build the furniture, ship it, and sell it. Without human labor, many products would not have the value they have.
3. I think the argument that class is not just an identity makes sense because class is also about a person’s position in the economy. The reading explains that workers depend on selling their labor to make money, while capitalists own property or businesses that allow them to make money from workers. So class affects what people have to do to survive, not just how they identify themselves.
4. I understand “close form of dependency” to mean that workers and owners depend on each other. Workers depend on owners for jobs and income, while owners depend on workers to do the labor that allows the business to make profits. For example, a restaurant worker needs the restaurant for a paycheck, but the restaurant owner also needs the workers to cook, serve customers, and keep the business running.
I really liked how you connected the readings to real examples instead of just repeating the definitions.your security guard vs. business owner comparison made the owner employee distinction really easy to picture. I agree with how you explained it that class isn’t just about how someone identifies, it’s about what a person actually has to do to survive and make money, which is a much bigger deal than just an identity label. your restaurant example was a good one. It shows that the dependency goes both ways the worker needs the job for income, but the owner also needs the worker’s labor to keep the business running and making profit.
I totally agree with you. I really like how you explained the part about Adam Smith’s quote using the furniture example. It makes a lot of sense that products don’t gain their value on their own and that human labor is what actually drives it. Your point about class being about economic position rather than just an identity also really hit the nail on the head!
Thank you , you covered every single point wonderfully.
I love your example of furniture! It perfectly explains how without human labor even all the money in the world could not create anything truly valuable.
As for the dependency between owners and workers, it is despairing to think in reality it is just a cycle of power imbalance. The owners hold the power to the workers’ survival, therefore, workers must work to the best of their ability. Whereby, they just simply create more profit for the owners. No chance can even be provided for the workers to decide one day to simply just quit this exploitive system as that would then mean the end of their survival.
Hi Quinton, your restaurant example helped explain how workers and owners depend on each other. One thing I would add is that needing each other does not mean they have equal power. An owner usually has more control over pay and schedules, while workers might accept unfair conditions because they need their paycheck. However, as the reading explains, workers can gain power by acting together. If the cooks and servers went on strike, the owner would have trouble keeping the restaurant running. This shows why employees who have little power individually can have more influence as a group.
I really liked how you connected the readings to real examples instead of just repeating the definitions.your security guard vs. business owner comparison made the owner employee distinction really easy to picture. I agree with how you explained it that class isn’t just about how someone identifies, it’s about what a person actually has to do to survive and make money, which is a much bigger deal than just an identity label. your restaurant example was a good one. It shows that the dependency goes both ways the worker needs the job for income, but the owner also needs the worker’s labor to keep the business running and making profit.
Apologies, looks like my comment got submitted twice by accident. Now i cant delete it. please ignore the duplicate post.
Owners and Employees Distinction: According to Reading 4.3, owners are the people who own society’s wealth (like stocks, bonds, and property) and live off their investments. Employees are people who have to work to make a living, which includes everyone from factory workers to managers and professionals. For example, a major corporate stockholder who lives off investments is an owner, while a retail worker or a salaried corporate lawyer is an employee.
Adam Smith and Labor: The quote on page 28 points out that labor is what actually creates value and produces goods. It means that capital on its own can’t make anything without human labor, making labor the most important and foundational part of the economy.
Class is NOT an Identity: Reading 4.4 argues that treating class just like any other cultural identity or lifestyle hides how economic power and exploitation actually work. The problem with viewing class this way is that it leads to weak strategies like corporate diversity training instead of tackling the actual economic inequalities.
Close Form of Dependency: The reading means that workers and capitalists are locked in a mutual but very unequal relationship: workers need jobs to survive, but capitalists completely depend on workers’ labor to make any profits. A great example of this is a labor strike, where workers use that exact dependency to disrupt business and force bosses to listen to their demands.
It is wild to realize that real wealth does not come from working hard, but from owning things and profiting off other people’s labor. The stat showing manufacturing workers get paid less than a quarter of the value they actually create was honestly shocking to read. It makes total sense when the author points out that money itself cannot build anything without human effort. Corporations are not really trying to help society; their main goal is just to chase bigger profits to stay alive. Ultimately, reading this makes it pretty clear why so many regular people struggle while a tiny percentage holds almost all the country’s wealth.
1. Reading 4.3 makes a distinction between owners and employees by explaining that the majority of an owner’s wealth is made from the labor of the employees, as well as stocks, bonds and various other investments. Whereas, employees are provided with wages, that is in reality much less than what they are deserving of. Think, a clothing store. The owners are raking in all the profits from the sales, whereas the employees are only earning minimum wage, despite, a large percentage of the sales being the fruits of their sales technique.
2. What I understand from Adam Smith’s quote is that money cannot make anything valuable without labor. Even if someone volunteered all the money they owned for a custom-made wedding dress, however, there was no seamstress in town, they would have no dress. Without labor, even all the money in the world could not create any truly valuable.
3. I agree that class is not an “identity.” Class isn’t simply being from a certain culture or race. That may or may not have any impact on you and your life. Whereas class represents a relationship of economic power. Capitalists own property that is “producing” for them whereas workers must sell their labor to survive. Because capitalists control resources that the entire society depends on, class creates a form of social power that other identities cannot create.
4. Capitalists are driven towards maximizing their profits, while laborers are driven to protect their jobs. Therefore, they form a dependency on each other. Workers depend on capitalists for jobs and capitalists depend on workers to produce the most benefits. For example, the employees of a shop depend on the owner to provide them a means of survival, and the owner depends on the employees to ensure the business stays booming and he makes the most sales and profit.
I found your post really interesting, especially the example about the clothing store. It made me think about how we see this in real life all the time. Employees can be doing most of the everyday work, like helping customers, stocking products, and making sales, but they still only receive their set wage while the owner receives most of the profits. I also agree with your point that workers and owners depend on each other. A business cannot really operate without workers, but at the same time workers depend on the business for their income. This makes me wonder, if workers are so important to keeping a business successful, should they have more power when it comes to wages and working conditions?