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

    The distinction that reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees is that owners are the ones who have many assets (stocks, bonds, shares, real-estate facilities, production factories, etc.) and who make their money by letting others work for them, meaning that the owners are the ones who has control over big firms and company which employee many other employees under them. The employees are the ones who are ‘selling’ their labor in return to a wage or salary (most of the time for just a fraction of the profit that the owners make). The employees, unlike the owners, do not get their income from their assets or holdings, and the money they make come from the labor that they ‘sell’ to the owner.
  2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?

    Adam Smit’s quote: “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 understanding, what Smith is trying to say that the physical hard labor of the employees is the real price for a products and it holds the real value of any commodity. The employees put their heart and soul into the making of each product, and put their time into each product. The amount of time that each link in this vast chain of hands (virtual or physical) put into each product – this is the real value of each commodity, rather than the nominal value. I think what he is trying to say that is that money is one thing, but time (which a person can never get back) that was put into the making of a product is the real price; suffering (physical pain sometimes) in the making of a product is the real price.
    So when we want to understand the real value of a product we should look at the labor that was put into the making of it rather than the price-tag that was put on it. For example, a loaf of bread is priced at around $5-$7 for a loaf, but what about all the hard work and labor that was out into it? What about the time that the farmer spent in the wheat field? The time that was put into making the irrigation systems that water the field? What about the labor that was put to making the wheat into flour? What about the truck driver that brought it from the bakery to the store? And there are many more steps along the way; this is the real labor and real cost of the bread, not just the $5-$7 price-tag.
  3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?

    I think that class is not an identity. A social class is something that a person get born into, but it is rather a ‘fluid’ definition. Most of the time, an identity is something that you are born with, and cannot change it easily; maybe you have a very strong feelings about a certain topic, which makes it a part of how you define yourself, an idea that you identify with. These are much more harder to change than your class. I have heard many stories about how people started at a very low social class, and by luck or by skill, managed to ‘climb’ up the ladder of social classes. There are also the opposite cases, where people started at a very high social class and then made some bad decision which brought them to the lower social classes.
    Whatever the case is, their identity did not change; They still had their name, religion, world view, skin color, etc. The way they defined themselves did not change along with their social class. This is why I believe that social 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?

    In my understanding, reading 4.4 argue that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency” because the workers (or employees) are much dependent on the income that the owners are providing them. They cannot get by without it, no matter how small it is. On the other hand, the owners cannot make their profit without the employees who work for them and ‘selling’ their labor in the making of the products which the owners in turn sell for a profit.
    The employees are ready to suffer and endure the exploitation by the owners because the owners give them the means to survive and thrive, while the owners are ready to pay whatever it takes (in the bounders of their profitable margins) in order to not lose their employees and their profitability with them.
    This is a very close dependency because one side cannot exist (not for the long-term at least) without the other. The owners cannot make their gains and profits without the employees, and the employees cannot make their income and salary without the owners.

    One example I can think about is in the air-traveling industry. The air attendants are the employees/workers who sell their labor for the wages/salary from the owners. The owners of the airlines need the air attendants in order to have someone taking care of costumers, their source of income. The owners will do everything in their power in order to pay the air attendants the minimum that they are ready to get paid – that’s in order to have the most profitability off of their labor. The air attendants can form a union and demand better terms and conditions for them because they know that without them, the owner cannot operate the flights and they will lose their gains/profits, although they will do it carefully because they know that they need the job in order to sustain an income.

Leave a Reply