1. The Constitution was written by the Property Holders (white, land owning men, crucially those whose assets were great enough for them to live off) of the time. Not included were the Disenfranchised (nearly all other classes of people, such as slaves, women, Native Americans, and white men who did not own property, among others.) The major difference between the two was that the first class was in a position to exercise power and develop the federal government, and the other was not. It was in the interest of the first group to secure the necessary protections for their financial prospects. This runs counter to the interests of the second. The constitution saddled this second class with debt, and an apparatus capable of preventing any recourse against the power of the elite. 

The property holders understood that the federal government, however onerous, would be a good bulwark against any threat to their wealth. By establishing a system where only they could participate, they were able to create for themselves a system where they truly did lord above everyone else. 

2.Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.

It’s interesting to consider how similar or dissimilar our class structure is today as compared to the late 18th century. Reading 6.1 specifies that in order to participate in politics, one had not only to own land, but have sufficient enough available cash to live freely on. At the outset we already can see a distinction between debt owning property owners (which would likely be considered some tier of middle class now) and those with considerable wealth. This very much continues today. 

There are probably ways in which it’s dissimilar as well, but I’m not sure how much of that is language, or just development. Certainly there’s a sense that mobility between classes is more of a possibility than the framers had imagined, and I can’t help but think that has altered the situation slightly. But it’s also true that this mobility is still within the system, so to the extent to which that’s real change, I don’t know. 

3. The men who wrote the constitution were afraid of direct democracy because they understood the interests they were seeking to protect were markedly different from those of the governed. They were at opposite ends of class, and they knew that without writing in specific protections against the will of the people, they would risk their ability to generate wealth to insurrection. 

1. I’m always struck to see how much the top 1% own in any given article. Mostly because it seems like it becomes a larger number each year. In anycase, it’s an interesting number because it really does beg the question: what is “wealthy.” I’ve actually met a fair degree of wealthy people in my life, and certainly the majority of them are nowhere near the top 1%. Still though, they’re very wealthy. It indicates to me just what the wealth of the 1% must actually be. Wild stuff. 

2. A society with huge wealth inequalities will suffer serious and debilitating consequences. For one, as the gap widens, any chance at addressing the issue shrinks. Those at the top will become increasingly entrenched in their positions, while those below are left with fewer resources. This leads to a situation where, at best, those with money determine that they are in the best situation to control society, as they are the ones with the money. I see this played out all of the time. A really good place to observe this is in the non-profit sector. These organizations are largely funded through private donations, and these donations give the benefactor a tremendous amount of power. I’ve witnessed this at a few different social-service nonprofits I’ve worked for. Very frequently you end up doing work that has less to do with a given mission, or more the whims of a wealthy board member. It’s also worth mentioning that a lot of these donations are for the purpose of tax write offs as well. 

M-C-M’ allows the capitalists to maintain and increase their wealth by creating a monetary cycle where wage labor is purchased at the lowest possible amount, and then harnessed to produce surplus-value. The potentially “limitless,” accumulation of surplus value enhances the purchasing power of the capitalist, thereby giving them greater power through money. The capitalist, for instance, can use the money to purchase more efficient equipment for his factory. This machine allows the workers to complete more work within the hour, but their wage will remain the same. The equipment will, in short order, increase the overall surplus value. 

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.

M. Alexander cites that the United States justice system is unfair and a transformation is therefore needed transform the U.S. punishment policy. She argues that here is a rise in incarceration of colored people. The disproportionate number of people have been relegated to the second-class status, resulting in mass incarceration; a condition that has resulted in racial oppression akin to slavery.

Question 2

One of the major findings of recent research in the drug abuse field has been the documentation of a substantial relationship between the use of illegal drugs and nondrug related criminal activity. Although the relationship has been statistically reduced when other factors such as socioeconomic status, sex, age, class, and ethnicity are controlled for, it is evident that some connection between racial disparities in the rates of incarceration cannot be assessing the rates of drug crimes. This implies that other factors must be considered.

Question 3

I believe the statement attempts to explain that the current justice system is driven by personalities and different opinion about a specific race in the community. For example, the colored population have been categorized as the most people highly involved in criminal activities.