You did extraordinarily well in breaking down the main ideas! I always agree with your distinction between owners and employees. Owners profit via investments, property, and the efforts of others; whereas employees depend on their paychecks for an income. Your illustrative example concerning the construction worker is excellent: the owner doesn’t engage in the hard work but still gains money from the work of the employees. These are people doing the hard work and, in exchange, getting only a small portion of the reward. It essentially shows how the two groups are in completely different positions.

I also liked how you came to understand Adam Smith’s definition of labor. They’re true because things get converted into real value only if effort is involved in their actual making and not about their sale value. Labor is what gives true worth to something. Money is simply a measure of that value. In this sense, the argument that labor is the heart of economic value makes sense, because people’s work drives all, not just the trade of money.

Your thoughts on class also being an identity are fascinating. I agree that class can be quite an identity for some people, especially for those who have worked very hard to reach where they are today. As you also mentioned, class is not static. You can change classes but race never changes. That isn’t a very good point since moving up in class can be difficult for some people, especially black people. There are a lot of barriers even if changes around class can be made with the right opportunities. Class is a very complex issue much shaped by many factors.

The phrase “close form of dependency between laborers and capitalists” makes sense. Laborers rely on capitalists for jobs, and capitalists rely on laborers to make dollars as well. The tech startup is a good example. Here, the employees are doing the hard work of coding and erecting all these systems but do not share any profit. Capitalists need the workers to make the company operate well, but in turn, the workers rely on the capitalists for their paychecks. It illustrates how both groups are connected and interdependent in each way. 

Finally, I think this is your understanding of the argument in Reading 4.4. It isn’t class limited to how a person assesses himself but rather has to be where it counts-with an economic value that would, however, bring one’s recognition world’s slice between the reality of class versus self-identity. Under-earning from labor or return from investment defines your class. Thus, even when someone is middle class in his self-image, his description of class depends on his means of livelihood. Therefore, class is an economic reality, not just a personal belief. 

This is largely understandable as it breaks down those concepts into good lessons. The examples made it very clear in showing how these concepts work in real life. You got me pondering further about classes and how they affect our lives. Keep up the good work!