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.) 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.

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

There are many crucial differences between the owners who have most of the wealth in society and the employees who must work to survive. Those who live in owning class families can use their stocks, bonds, rents, payments for minerals, and money for owning property to pay for their necessities and luxuries. Those employed by the owning class are forced to live off their wages, salaries, and fees for their labor. However sometimes it gets confusing because owners can be both the wealthy citizens who have stocks in large corporations and can also be struggling business owners. However, those struggling owners don’t meet the requirements of the wealthy owning class citizens. The smaller businesses usually get eaten alive by the larger corporations run by the owning class.  

The employee class consists of factory and service workers, as well as people who are managers and business professionals who fall in the middle or upper-class bracket. Those who are in managerial and executive positions are considered employees who are hired to get their employees to work harder and produce a superior product in all fields of business. Some employees make enough money to climb up the corporate ladder and become members of the owning class themselves. To put it plainly, you belong to the owning class when you have a substantial amount of income and live off the labor that others put in working for your business. Additionally, owners can accumulate a generous sum of money through multiple investments. You don’t become prosperous just by putting in the effort and working hard. You gain wealth by having laborers put in the effort for you. Therefore, many people who worked in factories all their lives retire with extraordinarily little money to show for it, while owners collect a sizable amount of money.  

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

Adam Smith, a man who is considered one of the founding fathers of capitalism, stated 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” (Parenti 28). This means that many things begin to become complicated once products are traded for money. Smith explains that not all work is the same and measuring the amount of labor that was put in to produce an object may not have the capacity to tell us how much effort went into making the product. Certain labor involves more skill than others. There is no straightforward way to solve this issue because there is no real way to figure out the accurate measure of labor. However, a lot of work is put into making each product such as manufacturing, shipping, advertising, and selling the item. Furthermore, only a small amount of the money workers receive for their efforts represents the amount of wealth that was accumulated from that one item. 

 I don’t believe this is the right way to reward the efforts these workers put into making these products. It looks like the product itself holds more value than the demanding work it took to create it. Consumers don’t think about the workers who made their products while purchasing them, they think about the value of the product and how it will make their life easier. It seems as if the owners take advantage of this school of thought while selling items their employees worked hard to make to their consumers. They understand that all consumers care about is product value, and as a result, the owners can get away with paying their employees a wage that is much lower than they deserve. As stated in the Michael Parenti article, workers who were under the employment of Intel and Exxon had one ninth of their value added to their wages. Most of the money accumulated from their business was made up of the surplus value, the money obtained by the owners. In businesses like tobacco and pharmaceuticals, the workers only received one-twentieth of their value added. In the United States, rate of value going to the owner has doubled within the past 50 years.   

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

I agree with the main argument that class should not be part of someone’s identity. Class identity can influence someone’s overall happiness, a person’s sense of safety and security, it can impact who we choose to associate and interact with, and even how we experience law enforcement and the justice system. We should learn to eliminate class from our identities and find a better way of labeling ourselves.  

Even people who claim not to use class as an identity incorporate it into their daily lives. In Paul Heidman’s article Class Rules Everything Around Me, Heidman expresses that class politics is just another form of identity politics. Politicians like Bernie Sanders have run on the platform of attacking big business and billionaires on Wall Street. He has publicly rejected the use of identity politics, but according to Heidman, this isn’t completely true. Class is considered an identity, just like race or gender, but to achieve the balance socialists strive for, they see it as the most important identity. When socialists declare that they oppose identity politics they are simply using their own adaptation of it, leaving aside the key factors of racial and gender discrimination.  

An example of this being used in a harmful way would be during the 2016 primary when Hillary Clinton responded to Bernie Sanders ignoring social issues and focusing too much on class politics. Clinton is quoted asking if the banks were suddenly broken up if it would resolve issues with racism, homophobia, and xenophobia? The answer is clearly no. People who are too heavily focused on issues of class and social standing are not putting their energy towards solving the world’s most serious problems. Furthermore, someone whose main goal isn’t to destroy racial, gender, and other varieties of oppression that don’t include class, cannot call themselves faithful to the left side of the aisle. There are very few social and political movements pertaining to class identity and it’s often used during political campaigns just to seek votes from a particular group of people, like Trump going after working class voters during his 2016 and 2020 campaigns.   

 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 reading 4.4 it states that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency.” Unlike the concept of whiteness being reliant on blackness, the notion of “worker” is not contingent on the capitalist to hold value. A worker is reliant on an owner or capitalist to provide them with a job, and a capitalist is supposed to manipulate his workers so he can continue to hold onto his top position. As expressed by Heidman “a white person’s whiteness, by contrast isn’t dependent on any particular relationship with or actions by nonwhite people” (Heidman 4). Both a racist and a non-racist are white in the same way. Now the system of class structures works in a form of interdependency where you’re constantly under the threat of your capitalist employer. Simultaneously the workers have the option of threatening to remove their capitalist employer from their position at the top. Thus, this is a system of threat vs. threat. The capitalists not only have power over their workers but have power within society. The public depends on the capitalists to produce a product, and the capitalists can choose not to produce that product if they think it won’t make enough money. Society is responsible for making sure the capitalists maintain their success, so they keep producing more items for them.  

1. The distinction that 4.3 makes between owners and employees is that the range of incomes between both classes makes this distinction. To be considered an “owner” in this term refers to the wealthy stockholders of big corporations. An example of the owner would be seen as folks that live off investments, which can include stocks and bonds. The employees in regards to this are those that live off their wages, salaries and fees. So someone at the management level or below a management position would be considered in this title. 
2. Adam Smith quote to me means labor is the value of any product or service that you’re paying for. If you want to place an order for a product or service that is being done it all equals money. What makes something become a profit is that you are taking the time to put work for the product or service. You then may be manufacturing, shipping, advertising and selling products. I believe that he is saying that the labor that you are doing will turn into a profit. 
3. I believe that the statement that class is not an identity. I believe this statement to be false because there is more to say to this argument. Paul Heidman argues that its class is like an identity in regards to race or gender and that socialist believe that it’s the most important identity. They are not rejecting the idea but instead they are promoting their favored version of what it means. 
4. I understand this to mean that there are two parts to understanding what it means to be class structure in different forms of hierarchy. The first part talks about class structures that are built around close forms of dependencies. The second part to this is off the basis of capitalist class power. They have control over their society’s productive assets which forces all of society into dependency at once. An example of this is a worker is always in a position of having their interest at least threatened by employers’ capitalist views. 

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

1. The distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees are, owners ” owning class live off of investments like stock, bonds, rent from the working class, and royalties to name a few. Owners make their money from the labor of other people and crush any competition from small business. Employees which are called “workers” in Reading 4.3 are those who live off of wages and salaries. Workers executives and managers also pull value from other workers to get a high level performance to add more or keep profit moving for owners. And example of an Owners is someone like Mark Cuban who is apart of the 1%, and an example of a worker is the basketball players who work in his team the Dallas Mavericks.

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

1. Adam Smith states on pg 28 “labor…is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and place be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their normal price only”. I understand this quote to mean that the value of services and products is determined by the labor it has t produce the product and services. Labor is the real value and the more labor the more value comes from the product.

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 close form of dependency means that the worker is dependent on the capitalist, firm, cooperation, or job. The capitalist, firm, cooperation, and job is dependent on the worker in order to keep the on going exploration of its workers and the labor to maintain the position. An example of close form dependency is a large cooperation like Macy’s who has thousands of worker and brings in billion in revenue only to pay a lot of their workers minimum wage.

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

1. I do not agree with the reading that class is not an identity. I believe that class along with other life attributes like religion and race do determine identity. Those who come from working class families have different privileges opposed to those who are considered upper class and are shaped different. Access to basic life necessities are harder to get and they are dependent on big corporations.

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.
   1. The distinction that reading 4.3 makes is that employees focus more on wages, salaries and fees while owners focus more on investments, property, and management. The differentiation among proprietors and workers is obscured fairly by the scope of earnings inside the two classes. owners allude to both the astonishingly affluent investors of giant companies and the struggling owners of little stores. Yet, the last option scarcely qualify as a component of the corporate claiming class. Along with plant and administration laborers, the representative class additionally remembers experts and chiefs who for money, training, and way of life will generally be recognized as “middle” or “upper-middle” class. Organization chiefs and leaders are representatives whose errand is to remove additional worth creating performance from different workers. Some top business leaders, corporate regulation yers, and amusement and sports figures appreciate such tremendous wages as to be capable in the long run to live off their speculations, essentially becoming individuals from the claiming class.
2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?
   1. The quote by Adam Smith on pg.28, is saying that labor is the value of service and any product that you are paying for. Labor is the real value of and more labor the more value comes. For instance the more you work the more you get paid. Its like saying the harder you work the greatest it is.
3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?
   1. In reading 4.4, my thoughts were that I believe class is an identity. In some cases people base themselves off their class. How a person or group of persons think of themselves in relation to others in society based on their economic and social position. Even though class is not something you can identify your self as but it is something people do. For example, there are people who is upper class and bully or make fun of people is in the lower class because to them lower class is poor and not capable of making the amount of money they make.

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?