1. The write differentiate owners and employees identifying owners as individuals that living off their investments, which includes stocks, bonds, rents, minerals royalties, and various property income, whereas, employees lives mostly off wages, salaries and fees.  References are drawn to owners as the fabulously wealthy stockholders or large corporations. (p. 27)

2. I think what it actually implies that men are considered rich or poor base on the degree in which they can afford to experience the conveniences, amusements, and necessaries of human life.  However after the break of labor fully taken place, it is a significantly small part of such necessities where men’s own labor can supply him. I further think Adam Smith implies that men can be rich or poor base on the quantity of that labor, which is derived from the labor of others for those well to do. Labor is the real measure of exchangeable value of all supplies, and the person that possesses it means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other things, is equivalent to the amount of labor it enables to purchase or command.

3. Base on the reading material it would be somewhat irrational not to recognize class as an identity. Class identitarianism, the politics of class as identity may be an ugly term but it is true. The writer discusses class in reference to one’s socioeconomic status, measured in terms of income, wealth, and educational background. Demonstrating a ranking whereby some are of a higher status than others base on income, and other factors. The writer points to the liberal perspective of class as socioeconomic status with a conceptual symmetrical to race and gender, pointing to liberals like Filipovic, not being entirely wrong when they say class is an identity. “Clearly, class can be a basis for identities every bit as salient as race or gender”. The writer pointed out the “core component socialist project encouraging working people to identify with their class politically — and take action on that basis”.

4. Following the statement the writer proceeded with the discuss alluding to “whiteness, for example is dependent on blackness for its meaning” but stating class as different, “insofar as it is not just the concept of “worker” that is dependent on the concept of capitalist for meaning”. As a worker there is an established need and dependency on the capitalist or corporation to provide a job. On the reverse the capitalist or large corporation is engaged in a constant exploitation of the worker to maintain that position. In contrast, a white person’s whiteness is not “dependent on any particular relationship with or actions by nonwhite people”. The writer further discussed stating “Class structures, then, rest on a particularly close form of interdependency. This interdependency means that to be a worker is to always and everywhere be in a 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”.  (p. 6/12)

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

Owners are people who are rich enough to make other work for them, and employees are people who work for others to earn wages. 

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

I agree with Adam Smith, how much work you pay off equals how much you get.

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

I think class is not an identity, because that can be change base on the the income, wealth, and education, unlike race and gender, something that’s a single fact.

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?

We need and work for each other in order to let this society keep going, like we can’t build a house without the base structure.

Question 1

According to reading 4.3, owners are those individuals who lives off investments including stocks, mineral royalties, property income, rents, or bonds. This group involves rich individuals and families. Employees on the other hand represents individuals who live mostly on salaries or wages. They have to work to earn a living.

Question 2

According to Smith, there should be a decrease in profits with an increase in labor wages. The legislative need to rule in favor of employees or workers where land should be distributed equally, and taxation should be equitable.

Question 3

I’m inclined to agree that class is NOT an identity. The term should be used to refer to race or gender. In general, class should categorize as an outcome where individual’s socioeconomic status should be evaluated in terms of generated wealth, income, or education status.

Question 4

The close form of dependency refers to the quality of an individual is dependent on the government or someone else. For example,  if a particular person or the government policies influence another person, then an act of dependency exists, where one cannot survive without the other.

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?