1. The basic distinction between Owner and Employee is that the employee is engaged in wage labor, whereas the owner produces no labor, and extracts profit from the labor of their employee. 
2. The true cost of anything is the sum of the total labor put into it, unlike the monetary price which is subject to the needs of profit for the owning class. 
3. I agree that class is more than identity. Everyone exists within capitalism, and then branches out from there. 
4. The ruling class, those in government, rely on the money of the owning class to survive. This means that almost without exception there has been little done to limit their power. An example could be the owner of the property deciding to sell or renovate their building. There are incentives to sell a building at major profit, and the city regularly extends assistance to developers. These events can have cascading consequences. 

1. Do you notice any differences in the way these two readings DIFFERENTIATE between social classes?

What was interesting to me about the two readings was how location plays into perception. The first reading does mention location in it’s analysis, but compared to the second reading, less so. Because we generally know the area around each subway stop, applying the objective measure (per capita income of each neighborhood) against  the subjective measurement of self-perception is very telling. It’s especially interesting considering how skewed the relative purchasing power of the individual is within New York as opposed to the rest of the country. Certainly there are middle earners within the city who would be considered upper class in other locations. 

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 social class that is historically associated with Sunnyside and Woodside in Queens. This certainly would have been more reflected in the 2010 census. By 2021 however, the neighborhood has changed pretty significantly by any objective measure, but the concepts of the reading are very much reflected in, from what I’ve observed, the self-perception of the neighborhood being working class, even though rents have been steadily raising, and the housing stock changing rapidly over the last few years. 

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

I’m sure the pattern observed in reading 4.2 has basically held steady since it was published. Wealth radiates outwards from the center of Manhattan, and for the most part ebbs and flows geographically from there. One doesn’t need to make too many leaps to make certain assumptions either. Obviously is one is familiar enough with the city, they can make certain deductions about demographics and class based on the stop, which would then likely be confirmed by the median income. 

There were some weird things on the subway map that I am curious about. Again, it’s based on old information, but based on the lines I looked at, the 7 is the one I was maybe most surprised by. For the most part, the median income per stop was substantially lower than I assumed. The “housing boom,” in Long Island City certainly accounts for a lot of this, and it’s interesting how that doesn’t totally explain the other numbers. The other big surprise was the jump to $100,000 median from 111th Street to Mets- Willet Point, and then immediate nose dive at Flushing. I’m not sure what could account for that, given that most of Mets-Willet Point is either a massive city park or stadium parking lot. 

1. Law and order rhetoric allows one to continue to assert previous racist policy in a “race neutral,” way. After the Civil Rights Movement, it was no longer a good look to engage in the language of the virulent racist. However, by focusing on crime, and especially the idea of crime, politicians were able to continue to proffer punitive laws almost directly designed to oppress the black population. 
2. The Southern Strategy continues to influence politics and American Culture. At this point, it has become so ingrained in our culture that it’s hard to argue against at least it’s partial success. At the point the Southern Strategy was laid out, white flight had already started, and the suburbs, absolute strongholds of the Southern Strategy flourished. It should be said that it’s influence isn’t only in the South, obviously. 

1. The thrust of Alexander’s argument is that while increased rates of incarceration were presented as a response to the crack-cocaine epidemic, the evidence one would need to support this is lacking. She writes that the War On Drugs was initiated prior to crack-cocaine entering the marketplace, but through that crisis, found it’s calling. “ The Reagan administration hired staff to publicize the emergence of crack cocaine in 1985 as part of a strategic effort to build public and legislative support for the war.” The reasonable horror one might feel regarding the destruction broadly related to crack wrought upon urban America was transmogrified from what might seem like a benign policy into an “actual war.” She further cites similar rates of drug use and trade between white and black Americans, and concludes that the War on Drugs was specifically, for many reasons, focused on Black and Brown communities. 
2. The rates of drug crimes are similar between white and non-whites, while the overwhelming majority of people incarcerated for drug offenses are people of color. 
3. The violent black hole of the American penal system alters the lives of all those around it. Obviously the incarcerated person is, if they survive prison, an ex-con, burdened with all the connotations that entails. The broader community too feels its pull. The issue of upward mobility, such as it is, is complicated when one needs to support a recently released person.  The threat of prison, and the absolute hell it can subject communities to creates an otherized community, one more directly monitored and punished by the state in less marginalized communities.