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

Reading 1 dissects the advantages of the “Owning” class and its dependency on the “Employee” class. There are about three distinctions made that define the differences between these classes. The owning classes live their life off of investments which include “owning stock, bonds, rents, mineral royalties, and other property income”. The employee class lives their life off “wages, salaries, and fees”. Those who are part of the owning class make an income off the labor of other people whilst the employee class makes their money by selling their labor. Though the owning class has to compete with others who own businesses or property it is a different type of competition than those in the employee class who aren’t 100% guaranteed a position as they have to compete with others for jobs and their salary can be broken down by state minimum wage and experience. As mentioned in the reading, only two hours of a private-sector employee is “for herself or himself, and six or more hours are for the boss.” Not including the surplus value for that labor which is measured as “less than a fourth of the market value created by their labor”. It is also mentioned that those in the owning class are only troubled with “exploiting labor and (accumulating more) capital.

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

The amount of labor that occurs for a product to be sold can be measured the product itself cannot. Smith’s quote highlights how much physical expense the worker has while the product it produces only exists because of it. It demonstrates the need of the worker’s presence and how it is essential for the production. Labor is far more valuable than the product itself.

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

I agree with the author’s argument on a socialist bias. I do not believe that the drastic difference between classes is so easily resolved. The first reading goes into detail about the harsh differences in the lives of the upper, middle, and lower class and how each contribute and functions in a capitalist society. This information is important but it does not provide evidence as to what a socialist society would entail, what is needed to deconstruct a capitalist system and the drastic difference between capitalists and workers. Heidman(4.2) reveals the effect and power of capitalism on both an economic and political scale. Economically capitalists rule the economy and are given two tasks create work and create consumers. Workers receive money to consume and consumers spend the money they have worked for all whilst remaining in the same position. In this capitalist system, the only beneficiaries who experience exponential growth are capitalists or “Owners”. Politically capitalists influence the social stance of minorities. In order to “tackle the racial wealth gap” and the difference in “educational experience” money distribution and investment is needed(4.2;7/12). Capitalists also affect gender inequality, roles and wage gap as “the workplace is a site of gender hierarchies where managers and bosses can use their power to sexually harass and abuse”; “employers penalizing women for having children and caring for them”; “employers (must) offer parental leave to both parents, so that women aren’t the default caregivers suffering the consequent career penalties”.- These are all citations from the second reading that provide verification of how capitalism societies on a political and social level, none of which were made in the first reading. As mentioned, though it is important to know the distinctions between the “Owning” and “Employed” classes, it is ever more important to understand the deep roots the owning class has in society and how they are able to rule, flourish, and live differently than others.

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?

In order for capitalist to grow they depend on the labor of their worker, for a worker to live they depend on capitalists to exist. The entire formation of social classes is based on the capitalist system. In order for the upper class to survive it needs the lower class and middle class to use as workers. An example of this would be construction workers. In order for a city to have residents who contribute to its economy, it needs buildings with tenats who pay rent. In order for buildings to exist it needs the construction workers to build these buildings. The construction workers need bosses, and those bosses need clients.

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

The difference between owners and employees that was identified in the reading is that the owners mostly live off of “investments, which include stocks, bonds, rents, mineral royalties, and other property income.” While their employees live mostly off “wages, salaries, and fees.” Another difference that was noted is the owners are wealthy because of them owning the businesses. The owners does not worker they have the employees work for them while they gain all of the money.

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

My understanding of Adam Smith’s quote is that the money price on items is not the real value but rather the item in its raw state. In the reading it talks about how trees is the important aspect. Without trees then there will be no lumberjacks, no paper, or furniture

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

I agree with the argument stated in the reading. Class is not an identity. Class like expressed in the reading is similar to ladder which a person can move up and down on. When it comes to things such as race, gender etc this what a person can not just chose to change. Like Hillary Clinton expressed breaking up with banks will not stop the racism people endure because of their actual identities such as their gender or race

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?

From my understanding of close dependency it is when someone is in direct need of someone else to provide them with necessities. An example that was explained in the reading is how a worker is dependent on their job to pay them their salary or wages.

1. The distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees is that owners are a member of the “owning class” due to their income being large. On the other hand, employees are under a salary and are more often than not paid less than the value that they create for more profit. For example, if a fast-food worker is paid $15 dollars an hour.
2. Simply put, on page 28, Adam Smith is emphasizing the great weight and value that labor holds over the social class. Therefore, without labor there wouldn’t be an overarching system in place that dictates the overall cashflow of society but also a system in place where there are capitalists and the working class.
3. My thoughts from Reading 4.4 that class is not an identity are that social classes are not an identity but rather a status. This is because an individuals status is determined by the amount of wealth that they possess or the place that they may be in within the hierarchy such as the working class as an example. Rather, identities are racial and gender based at its core.
4. My biggest takeaway from Reading 4.4 on class structures being built around a close form of dependency is that capitalists around the country would not exist without the working class. It is because of the working class that the upper class are able to obtain wealth through profit which therefore forms an element of dependency. One prime example would be if a landlord owns an apartment building and suddenly everyone stops paying rent, then there would be no stream of income/profit. This would then lead to the downfall of the entire establishment that the landlord has built.

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each. The distinction between owners and employees is based on the range of incomes within both classes. According to reading 4.3 owners are mainly rich families and individuals who compose the owning class and live mostly off investments that include stocks, bonds, rents, or property income. While employees live mostly off wages, salaries, and fees.
2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor? Adam Smith states,” labor … is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only.” I believe that he is trying to say that many times we put attention to the price without realizing that is just a number and is nothing compared to what it took to create the product. Labor is worth so much and it takes so much time to create something therefore it should be priced equivalent to the amount of work done. In other words, price is determined by its cost of production. He also gave us a very good example of paper and furniture and what it takes for that product to be made but sometimes it’s just seen as a tree/wood and nothing more while it took many steps to make that.

3.What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity? I agree that class is NOT an identity. I believe that people shouldn’t use class to define who they are. This can lead to the people in high class treating the ones who are lower very bad or unfairly. This would make them feel more like they have so much power if class was actually a form of 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? I believe that the argument “class structures are built around a close form of dependency” is based on the worker class and the capital class we read about and how although they are both two different and independent groups they still need each other in order to be successful. For example, the capitalist would need the workers in order to be successful and get their products sold and labor done while the workers need the capitalist because that’s their form of living without any products to sell or work on there won’t be any money made for them. They both contain something at the end of the day that benefits them on their own.

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

One distinction is that there are people who are wealthy thus being the owner  whereas there are people who must work for a living thus being the employees. These extremely wealthy people live off said stocks, bonds, and investments and their employees live off salaries and wages. Like said in the article, “The distinction between owners and employees is blurred somewhat by the range of incomes within both classes.” (Parenti 29).

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

I believe Adam Smith is saying in order to have money, one must work for it. He mentioned a ‘real price’ and a ‘normal price’, by this I think he means that the real price is a metaphor , similar to the one “ paying the price” to which one has to sacrifice a lot in order to make a “normal “ amount of money hence the “ normal price”.

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

I don’t agree. I do believe that your social class is an identity. Your social class is a part of you. For starters, you yourself are the one working, going to work and making an income. So therefore, you are adding a modification to yourself, this modification being your income. Income defines one quite easily as well. If you’re making under 19k, you’re lower class and if you make under 29k you’re part of the working class etc..In all, your class is a part of you and is an important part of you to maintain.

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?

1. The distinction reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees is that owners live off mostly investments. This includes stocks, bonds, rents mineral royalties and other property incomes. Employees live mostly off wages, salaries and fees. The employee most work for their pay while the owner has people work to make him money.
2. The quote by Adam Smith is saying that labor is the ultimate value decider. That labor predicts and controls the cost of everything and that labor is the true value of something. Money is just the value placed on something second to the cost of labor.
3. My thoughts on the main argument in reading 4.4 that class is not an identity is that I believe it is an identity. There are tons of people who identify by the area they live in and the money they make, these both being connected to ones class. Many different races and other groups of people who would not normally get along if in the same class are now acceptant of one another.
4. Class structures being built around a close form of dependency is the authors way of saying that one class would not exist without the other. For example the working class could not exist without the Capitalist class. The working class relies on the Capitalist for employment and money to purchase basic life necessities. On the other side of the dependence is the Capitalist depending on the working class. Without the working class Capitalist would not be able to be Capitalist, they rely on workers to provide labor and make them money.

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

The text identifies owners as people who owns some assets such as bonds, stocks, real estate, mineral royalties and rents. Those are considered the wealth of a society and are owned by only 1 percent of the US population. Owners lives off investments, which means they do not need to work to get an income to survive. Not only their income is very large but they make it mostly from the labor of other people. Also owners are the one who possess the big and giant corporations comparing to small business holders who are struggling to stay on in the market place. In contrast, per the author employees are the working class, they must work for a living. Employees live mostly on salaries, wages, fees, commissions. Even small businesses owners, company managers and executives directors fall into this category because of their range of incomes because they are working for the wealthy people. And they work really hard for the owning class who does not work at all, and who gets all the benefits or profits at the end.

Example of owner: Jeff Bezos who owns amazon and he has almost 1,608,000 employees who work hard in his company to produce the labor. He is the second richest person in the world and Amazon daily revenue is 1.29 billion. In other words Jeff Bezos does not need to work for a living because due his investments profits.

Example of employee: Those people working for Amazon are considered employees. They have to work to get a salary and survive. They must work to pay their rent, provide food to their family. They are the hard workers of Amazon who produce the labor to have this company owner to be situated as one of the most wealthy person in the world.

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

Adam Smith states that “Labor is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only.” In my opinion, in this statement, Smith is trying to give as much value to the labor as the finished products the workers make. To rephrase it, rich people or corporations do not really appraise their workers as the ones who makes their wealth. Instead, they are low paid for all the fortunes they create, they not benefit much. The real estimate of all the finish products, raw material, diamonds, agricultural products, is actually the ones working in agricultural farms, diamond miners who work in small-scale mining digging for diamonds, not the monetary value they bring back to those industries. Nevertheless, workers in place of being valued they are exploited. Their wages do not reflect the value of their work.

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

The main argument of this Reading that class is not an identity can be seen in other words as, that we cannot based on class to identify or categorize the US society. Instead, we need to base the category of capitalist power and their exploitation and oppression on race and gender. The Capitalists power creates a system that discriminates against some groups (color people) and benefits other groups (White people) among the working class. Examples of these systems are racism, sexism, this system enable dominant groups to exert control over target groups by limiting their rights and access to basic resources. Examples are white people are favored over black people. Women are discriminated in Job opportunities, salary levels and increases. In other words, in the same working class white and black, us citizen born and immigrants, men and women are treated differently.

1. 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?

The author said that “class structures are build around a close form of dependency”. In the text the close form of dependency means the relations established between the Capitalists, workers and society. The Capitalists are the ones who owns all the businesses or productive property. Those business are for example farms that provide access for food to the population. All what is necessary in term of consumption for everybody. Therefore, they are important, which in turn make them powerful. Also, they become a necessity, because we all depend on the capitalist or the wealthy owner, workers have to get a job in those productive businesses in order to have salaries which is essential to our survival. We need to make sure that they shall reign forever because they control all resources everyone needs to remain. Capitalists depends on the society and workers as well. They depend on workers because they are not doing the hard work, they need people to work for them. And the society, to buy and consume their products which in turn will bring back revenues, profits and fortunes to them.

1. The distinction that reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees is blurred somewhat by the range of payments within both classes. For example, an owner is looked upon as they are wealthy because they own the business, but an employee is looked at as they needed assistance therefore, they came to work with this business. It seems as if the owner is much superior to the employee because the owner owns the business and the employee is here to work. One similarity both parties have is that they still earn money but are not exactly the same. I also believe that they both have to pay taxes which makes it a similarity for both the owner and the employee. 

2. The quote that Adam Smith stated “labor … is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only.” (pg.28). From what I understand, I believe that Adam Smith is saying that when someone gets lucky to have the job that is giving them wealth, they should start a business and have employees work for them so that the employees can have a chance to taste the business wealth and to also help them. I also believe that what Adam Smith was saying he meant to cut down big businesses and create small businesses so that they can be useful. 

3. My thoughts on the main argument of reading 4.4 that class is not an identity are agreeable. I definitely agree that class is not an identity but of course, society draws it to be. For example when the author of reading 4.4 stated ‘by treating the class as just another identity—and holding that no identity plays any special role in structuring the distribution of power in society.” (ph 11). I noticed that the author made a point in the previous quote because when class is being defined as an identity, then people think that identity should define what kind of their social position should be economical and that is extremely wrong in my opinion. For instance, there can be white people who are wealthy and then black people that barely have any money. Then as exploring, we find a black group of people who are rich and a white group of people who are homeless, this will lead everyone to acknowledge that class does not have an identity.  It also had to do with whether they are in the LGBTQ group, and so much more. 

4. I understood the argument in reading 4.4 which stated that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency” I believe that this quote meant that for example, white people have their own class and blacks have their own class. So, therefore, this makes whoever is rich depend on each other. For instance, if the whites are much wealthier then, they will look at themselves as they have power over the low class.

1. Understanding the difference between owners (capitalists) and employees (workers) is key to understanding the Marxist definition of class.

Owners are those who possess wealth, or capital. They either own the means of production (i.e. a factory, a restaurant chain) or have enough equity in private property (i.e. owning an apartment building) to live off of the profits. Profit is passive income; income that someone does not have to work for. They make money primarily off the labor of others.

Employees are those who are employed by the capitalists. Their survival depends on selling labor for wages or salary. They do not possess wealth, and therefore if they decided to stop working they would not be able to sustain themselves, even if they have a high salary. Their source of money is their own labor. Examples include construction workers, baristas, and factory workers.

Owners live off of their investments, employees do not.

2. Adam Smith’s quote on page 28 proposes that the real determinant of a commodity’s value is always the labor that went in to producing it. This places an enormous amount of importance on the laborer. However, under capitalism, workers are paid substantially less than the value created by them. This quote is especially ironic considering Adam Smith was a founding father of capitalism.

3. Personally, I agree with the assertion that class is not an identity. While I was a bit confused about the logic of the writer at first, once I re-read and thought about it a little bit more it made sense to me. In the case of gender, racial, or sexual identities, nothing can be withdrawn to challenge the oppressor. A trans person not transitioning does nothing to fight transphobia. However, a worker withholding labor, as well as banding together with other workers to demand fair treatment, does fight class oppression. This is why class should not be viewed as an identity.

4. Reading 4.4 states that class structures “rest on a close form of interdependency.” In a capitalist society, both the workers and the capitalists are wholly necessary and vital to the success of the other. Because capitalists are the producers of goods, as well as the ones who are employing, workers need them to survive. Capitalists need workers because, without them, capitalists would not make money. Capitalists rely on the exploitation of workers to survive. They organize the production of goods, but workers are the ones who actually produce the goods themselves, and give capitalists a way to make profit. This is why strikes and labor unions can be so effective. An example of workers using this interdependency to their advantage is the mass “teacher sickouts” of 2019 in Louisville, KY. To demand better treatment, teachers coordinated to use their sick days at the same time, which shut down several school districts including the two largest in the state.

1.) Reading 4.3 introduces the idea of “owners” and “employees” in an attempt to understand the concept of “social class.” Basically, it serves the purpose of knowing that they are two social classes that differ from each other because of how much income they make and the effort needed in order to obtain it. Owners are considered to be the wealthy while the employees are poor or struggling individuals trying to make ends meet. For example, according to paragraph 1 of page 29 it states, “The very rich families and individuals who compose the owning class live mostly off investments, which include stocks, bonds,
rents, mineral royalties, and other property income.” This quote from the text not only allows an understanding for the owning class to be comprised of the wealthy but how they are able to make their wealth is what aids in their success. Stocks, bonds, rents, etc… are all but a few ways in how someone can earn income without the hassle of working very hard. On the other hand, there are “employees” who make their money as well but from little income and hard work. For example, according to paragraph 1 of page 29 states, “Their employees live mostly off wages, salaries, and fees.” This quote from the text is an ideal summarization of what people in this class live off and why they are not as wealthy. These people practically live off of what they work, if they don’t work there is no pay. They aren’t like the owners who are able to have income come to them passively. Not to mention, they work for the owners and the owners do not pay them enough considering the amount of labor they do.

2.) Adam Smith’s quote on page 28 spoke about labor from a different standpoint. From my understanding, he is trying to say that considering the world we live in there is no such thing as labor being the same. So, considering the amount of hours it takes for an object to be produced is a lot. It would obviously be a lot but the product does not tell the consumer how much effort went into such a process. Although there are labors that require an immense amount of skill more than others, there is no real way in measuring the labor went into creating something. Also, the money that is paid to have the product does compensate for the amount of effort that was put into it.

3.) Reading 4.4 created the argument that “class is not an identity.” This meant that despite various people across the country saying that social class exists because we have the wealthy and poor, it is simply not the way we should be looking at it. “Workers” or those who are considered to be poor and work for low income actually have just as much power compared to the “capitalists.” They practically need each other, one cannot thrive without the other. Capitalists need workers for their cooperation in order to get the necessary labor done. Not to mention, any wrong moves that the capitalist makes can instantly ruin their business. With workers, they need to work in order to make that paycheck but they can either be a “good worker” and do as their told or express themselves and possibly aid their overseer so that business can continue running smoothly. One cannot operate without the other and so, people need each other in order to thrive in this society.

4.) When Reading 4.4 makes the argument that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency,” I believe that they are referring to the relationship of capitalists and workers needing each other. Their businesses cannot thrive without if they have no workers to produce labor. An example I can think of is, let’s say a popular gaming franchise is worth billions. They are known for creating various titles but there is one in particular that sparked public interests for years. The next installment is coming and it’s lead developer suddenly leaves with a couple of game designers and mechanics. Not only are the people who created the infamous installments from the past have left. It will create a uncertain future for the next one. Everyone has different visions for ideas and despite having a new group of workers, the new installment can make or break the company, it’s reputation, and cause a stir for both the workers and the company.