I think the author’s argument makes sense because social class affects more than how someone describes themselves. It affects how they earn a living and how much control they have at work. Someone might call themselves middle class, but if they depend on a paycheck, they still have to work for an employer to support themselves. The author does recognize that class can be part of someone’s identity. His point is that it is also an economic relationship that exists whether people identify with it or not. I think this helps explain why workers with different incomes can still share concerns about pay, job security, and working conditions.
The close dependency means that workers and owners rely on each other. Workers need jobs to pay for things like food and housing, while owners need employees to produce goods and keep their businesses running. However, this relationship usually gives owners more power because losing a paycheck can put a worker in a difficult situation. For example, a restaurant owner depends on cooks and servers to serve customers, while those employees depend on the restaurant for their wages. If the employees act together and go on strike, the owner could lose business. This shows how depending on each other can also give workers power to push for better conditions.

1) Owners are people who own businesses or companies and make money from other people’s work. Employees work for the owners and get paid wages. For example, a restaurant owner is an owner, while a waiter working there is an employee.

2) I think Adam Smith is saying that labor is what gives things their value. People have to work to make products and provide services, which helps create wealth.

3) I agree because class is more about your position in the economy than who you are as a person. Your job, income, and whether you own a business can affect your class.

4) It means workers depend on owners for jobs, while owners depend on workers to do the work that makes them money. For example, a store owner needs employees to run the store, and the employees need the job to earn money.

Reading 4.3 shows owners being those who own (capital, property, and assets ) which in turn they gain profit from their businesses making them a CEO or owner of a factory. Employees do not own capital which in turn is their time and dedication working for a wage in exchange for their mundane life.

Adam Smith’s quote is highlighting labor as the foundation of society. Wealth doesn’t come from money alone, but from human efforts, time and labor which in turn produce goods and services that are needed.

Class being a non-identity is suggestive of being an objective material instead of a subjective cultural label. I can agree with this perspective because your systemic access to wealth and power is directly tied to your outcome in life regardless of what you identify as.

The “close form of dependency” is the owners and workers locked together . Owners won’t make any profit without the labor being exploited and the workers can’t survive without said wages from those same owners. For example, take a major corporation like Amazon. They rely on the warehouse workers heavily to move goods and the workers depend on Amazon for their livelihood.

Discussion Board 4.2

1. the distinction between owners and employees is that owners live off the work done by employees or they have investments, which can include stocks, bonds, rent, mineral royalties, and other property income, while employees live mostly off wages and salaries. An example of an owner would be someone who owns something of high value, like a large company with employees, or who has enough investments that most of their income comes from them. An employee could be someone who basically lacks “wealth” and has to work for that company, whether they are in an entry-level position, a manager, or even a director, because they still, for the most part, depend on a salary from their job.
2. I understand Adam Smith’s quote as acknowledging the importance of workers and the value of their labor. Without the work being done, there would be no product for a corporation or owner to make money from. If you’re going to sell a product or service, labor has to go into it, whether that is producing it, marketing it, etc. To me, he is saying human labor is ultimately the most expensive thing that allows businesses and owners to make a profit.
3. My thoughts on the main argument that class is not an identity are that I agree for the most part because I see class as a bigger structural issue. This is something I’ve always thought about, but could never really get people to understand. Race, gender, sexuality, and many other things can shape our identities and the different struggles we experience, but class goes beyond how we identify ourselves. It involves a larger structure of power dependency between workers and capitalism. I think acknowledging the bigger picture matters more because many of the inequalities we experience almost always connect to economic power. Issues like racism, misogyny, homophobia, or other forms of oppression should rightfully be addressed individually, but we should also question them from the top down and understand how, though they’re separate issues, we can address all by addressing the issues at the top. Class structures can reinforce this, and addressing these issues requires confronting economic inequality.
4. I understand this argument as meaning that class structures are built around dependency because, as the reading explains, you basically have to give in order to get. As workers, we have to give our labor, time, and hard work to an employer in exchange for the income we need to survive, whether that is to pay rent, buy food, or pay our bills. At the same time, employers also depend on workers because without our labor, they could not produce and make a profit. For example, I work for a large corporation. I depend on that company for my paycheck, but the company also depends on its employees to keep the business running and making money. Without employees, there is no business; without an employer, there is no food on the table or a roof over my head.

1. The difference here has to do with the source of the income. While the income of owners is derived mainly from providing the use of property. It can be stated that owners benefit from the efforts of others rather than their own work and labor. On the other hand, the income of employees is defined in terms of the wages or salaries they earn. For example, it may be illustrated by showing a business owner who earns money from the work of his staff, rather than doing that work himself or herself, and an employee of some company, who is paid for the work performed by themselves.

2. Smith argues that the determinant of value is not money but labor. According to Smith, while money is only a “nominal price” and a “number provided for convenience,” it is human labor that creates the”value.” A tree on its own has no value; however, it gains value when it is transformed into furniture or paper through the processes of cutting, manufacturing, logistics, and selling. This idea contributes to the larger argument on surplus value. Since labor only produces real value but employees receive less remuneration than the worth of what they have produced, it is the difference between the wage paid and the value produced by employees that brings profit to the employer.

3. I would definitely support the argument as it is true that class cannot be treated just as a status. When we talk about class, we cannot just talk here about the ranking system based on such indicators as income or education. Class is the relation that is built on dependency and exploitation. A worker needs their employer to obtain income, while the employer needs the worker to provide sufficient labor to make sure that the business stays successful and profitable. The relationship has a functional nature, which means that it is more than just a shared characteristic among people, which allows claiming that there is a difference between class and race/gender. However, I believe that the reading exaggerates the division. In the end, the author acknowledges that class can be considered a kind of identity, which demonstrates that the main argument should not be that class has nothing to do with identity.

4. Being a worker does not only confer an abstract label, it denotes a direct dependency on a certain employer. The worker has to depend upon that specific employer to get their wages, while the employer depends upon the labor of their workforce to be able to realize profit and survive as a capitalist. This is not like race because identity does not depend upon being linked to some specific person. For instance, the payroll employee depends on their employer to get his salary, while the employer depends on him to get profits.

1. From the reading, owners and employees are distinguished based on the source of their income, as opposed to how much they make. The owners’ sources are stocks, bonds, rents, mineral royalties, and/or other property income. On the other hand, the employees’ sources are wages, salaries, and/or fees paid earned through their labor.

An outside shareholder (that is, a shareholder that owns shares, but has no other relation to the company) that has enough of a stake in the corporation that they can live off the dividends and stock appreciation, without doing any labor for the company itself, would be an example of an owner. An example of an employee could be a diamond grader. These individuals earn their salary from the labor of grading the dozens of diamonds they must get through each day, not from owning or selling the diamonds or reports themselves.

2. Adam Smith’s quote about money being the nominal price, while labor is the “real price” is arguing that labor is the real measure of something’s value, not money. An item’s worth is the effort of transforming a raw material into the end product — the building, the planning, the assembling, etc. I believe Parenti included this quote to illustrate the idea that if labor is the source of value, then wages should reflect the value labor creates; and that this does not happen in practice.

3. I agree with Heideman, but I would argue that his point isn’t simply, “class is not identity.” In the reading, he concedes that class can, in fact, function as identity: that class can be a basis for identities every bit as salient as race or gender. He continues that a core part of the socialist project is actually encouraging workers to identify with their class politically. What he is arguing is that class is not a shared status, but a structural position. Someone’s identity shapes how they are treated regardless of their actions, e.g. an antiracist and a racist can both still be white. By contrast, class doesn’t work that way: being a worker isn’t just a label, it’s a subordinate relationship to an employer for survival: a conflict of interest between the employer’s profit motive vs the value of the worker’s labor. This structural conflict, not shared income or status, is what makes class distinct.

4. The close dependency is what makes the worker-employer relationship structural rather than just a matter of status: the worker’s survival is tied to one specific employer and the employer’s wealth is tied to that same relationship continuing. The diamond grader’s paycheck depends directly on their employer continuing to need graders and choosing to keep them employed. If people stop buying diamonds and the employer’s business fails or the role gets automated, the grader’s income disappears. At the same time, the employer depends on skilled graders working quickly and accurately each day to keep the business running and profitable. In contrast, the outside shareholder’s dependency is diffuse, tied to company performance rather than any worker specifically. 

1. Distinction between owners and employees?

Owners belong to the owning class, which have the wealth of society. They make money by investments, such as stocks, bonds, real estate, and financial assets. They can still earn money even while sleeping. However, employees belong to the working class, which must work for a living. They must sell their physical or mental labor for salaries. For example, a real estate investor who owns a lot of apartments is the owning class because she can earn money by collecting rent from tenants. In contrast, the real estate agent is the working class because he must actively facilitate property deals to earn a commission.

2. The quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28

Adam Smith considers labor as the real value of all commodities. Money is merely a symbol and medium used for transactions. The item itself doesn’t have that much value, but the labor increases it. For instance, Parenti points out that raw materials can’t generate profit by itself. Workers need to chop trees, operate machines, and transport goods to make raw materials as valuable commodities. The labor from workers during this process gives the real value of the product.

3. Class is NOT an identity

In my opinion, class is not a simple identity label because other identities tend to culture recognition, but class is related to the conflict of economy. For race, gender or other identities, people can through respecting each other and eliminating prejudge to live together peacefully. It has nothing to do with the economy. However, for social class, economic conflict always exists. The bosses want to use the minimum wage to make the biggest profit, while workers want less labor with high salaries. This is the direct conflict over money, being polite or respectful can’t resolve the problem over the social class. Therefore, class is a real economic conflict, not just an identity label.

4. Class structures are built around a close form of dependency

From my perspective, the close form of dependency means workers and capitalists are structurally bound together. Being a worker structurally requires dependency on an employer for a job, they need bosses to pay their salaries for living. While being a capitalist requires exploitation of workers to remain capital. Without the labor of the workers, the capitalist cannot generate more profit and remain capital value. For instance, a fast food worker depends on the salary to survive, and the owner depends on the labor of the worker to keep running their restaurant. Therefore, this structural dependency forces workers to stay in the system to survive, leaving them in a vulnerable position compared to capitalists.

1. Reading 4.3 says owners make money from things they own. This can include businesses, property, or investments. Employees make money by working for wages or a salary. An owner could be someone who owns a restaurant. An employee could be a server who works there.
2. I understand Adam Smith’s quote as saying that labor is what gives things value. A product does not become useful or profitable on its own. Workers are the ones who put in the time and effort to create it.
3. I think Reading 4.4 is saying that class is more than just an identity. It is also about where someone stands in the economy. A person’s class depends on whether they work for wages or make money from owning property and businesses.
4. I understand “class structures are built around a close form of dependency” to mean that workers and owners need each other. Workers need jobs to make money. Owners need workers to keep the business running and make profit. A restaurant is a good example because the owner needs the staff and the staff needs the job.