Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why?

The statistic that shocked me the most was the one stating that most people live and die within the class they were for and that there is less social mobility now than there was a generation ago. This shocked me because this would mean that we are living in a less socially inclusive society than 20 to 30 years ago. The turn of the century (and a bit before it) was surely marked with a lot of change with an emphasis on multiculturalism and racial inclusivity. Even still, it is hard to believe that although we have made so many technological advances introduced all of these means of access to people and information it has not only increased the distance between classes but also made the opportunity to move up within there class structure harder.

What could be some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities? Do you see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example? why?

Wealth inequality within our society has so many implications that play out everyday from a lack of social mobility as discussed to decreases in education, unequal access to opportunities an racism. The gap between the mega rich and the “regular” population leads to a lack of access to things like good edcations and that equipped a person to then get a high paying job that could lead t upward mobility. This unequal access to education the leads to an unequal access to jobs and housing. Among these social implications one of the most impactful is racism. Not only is 82 percent of the owning 1 percent of this country white but Hispanic and Black Americans are overrepresented in poverty statistics with Black people making up 20.2 percent of the population and 13.5 percent live poverty and 28.4 percent of Hispanic people make up the total population while 19.3 percent live in poverty. Racism exist both directly and passively everyday ad people ser continuously effete becudre of the there biases these social implications create.

There was switch from a fair market, where a commodity was made then sold in order to buy another needed i.e., C-M-C to a capitalist market where money is put into commodity and the commodity is then sold i.e., M-C-M. this switch resulted in a complete flip of access and immediately put the people with money in a place of power. Those with money would then acquire commodities and therefore build capital. They could afford to continue to buy for the purpose of selling without limitation and in doing sos increase their capital and wealth . Those who existed and benefited from the fair market (C-M-C) aka the laborers did not have the same access to the wealth that makes the M-C-M system work so they continued to sell their products to the capitalist. Still, capitalist grew bored of this system as the surplus value of these commodities could only be realized when the laborer surrendered their products at a lower price than their actual value in order to avoid seeking customers and instead finding comfort in the ease of selling to a trader. When this happened capitalist would make a profit because M (the initial amount put in) would get them their product (C) and then they loud sell that product at the price it was actually worth and then receive the profit (M’). Capitalist saw there being as better chance for financial growth if instead of buying commodities that weren’t being made fast enough they became the manufacturers of the goods that they sold. so with M they paid for the raw materials labor and everything else that went in to making their product (C), and then used part of the profit and wealth they accumulated to start this process over and over. Now with this new system set in place the term surplus value now refers to labor and more spefically the extra labor power an individual has after meeting the total value it took to create their labor. This surplus value is where wealth lies for capitalist. Within this system too capitalist work to intensify labor without adding more labor time and without increasing wages so that though a worker may only work 8 hours they are speeding up, operating more machinery and overseeing more responsibilities all of the sake of increasing the absolute labor value.

1. Two key concepts in this video are the means of production and labor. In your comment, explain how you understand the means of production and labor. Give an example of each.

The term “means of production” refers to the tools used to create a product. These tools can range from factories to computers to machines and vehicles. Labor then can be seen as the most important and necessary means of production because it is through labor that a series of tools undergoes the process that makes it a viable and tangible product.

1. Another important concept in understanding social class is value. Based on the ideas presented in Video 5.1, what is value? What give “value” to value, what makes something valuable?

Value, as Marx described, it iss the amount of time production takes under normal circumstances. This concept means that we determine the value of any given item based on the amount of time spent laboring in order to make the product. This eanstime spent training/ learning to do a specific job adds value to the labor and in turn the product. This is why we see people like doctors and lawyers who have spent many years in education and specialized training making upwards of six figures a year. Similarly this is why we see products made using automated machines costing less because the amount of labor decreases meaning the value will decrease. The specification of time taken to make a product in normal circumstances is important to note here, as slacking off at a job and taking a long time or conversely working very quickly does not implicate a change in value.

1. How are labor and value related? What’s the relationship/connection between the two?

As mentioned in the last question labor is related to value in that the determining factor of value is labor. They are equal because one implicates the other.

1. How do you understand the difference between labor and labor power? Hint: this is a key difference, give it your best shot based on what the video says about it, and your own ideas. We’ll clarify and develop it in our discussions, and in my video comments.

Labor is different than labor power because labor power defines the work it takes for a product to be made and this is controlled by those in power, labor exist as the source of value to the capitalistic system. Labor power, however is the ability to labor and this is exclusively found in people and it is the most important commodity on the world. Labor power is the only commodity that when applied increases value. Through our labor power we create surplus value.

1. Surplus Value: what is it? Why is it important to know about, in our study of social classes? Think about an example of surplus value?

Surplus value is the amount of value we create after all the basic needs that we have in order to create value are met and we are then creating more value on top of it. This is important to know because the wealth of the capitalist lies in the surplus value we create. The surplus value we create goes into the pockets of our employers ensuring that the owing class remains in their position and csptitalism continues as it should. Though the people laboring are the ones that hold the power in this dynamic it is taken away through the ideology of this system.

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

As we explore the distinctions and differences between the owners and employees the seperation between the two seems to be labor. We see very clearly that the employees are making very little monetary profit from their labor in the form of salary and wages while the owners benefit exclusively from the labor expended by the employees. Under the system that is set in place employees have to utilize their labor in order to meet their financial needs while the owners have amassed their wealth through the labor of many employees while granting them the wages they require which is only a small percentage of the value they contribute by being essentially the manufacturers of the owners wealth.

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

“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.” This quote by Adam Smith encapsulates some of the main ideas on which capitalism is founded, Smith points out that without the labor of workers/ employees there is no way for a commodity to become a product that can be profited from and therefore no wealth for the owning class. Further, he highlights the fact that though the financial value of these products can be considered their value the true value lies in the labor that was put into its producing and the manipulation of this value is the true capital on which the owning class has built their wealth.

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

The argument that class is not an identity is very faceted and requires a (re)understanding of what is meant by the term class. The liberal argument, simply put, is that class is just another form of identity politics. Liberals believe that socialist seek to highlight the political, social and economic affects of class and the infrastructures that exist within it and in doing so can often belittle or ignore subjects like racism and gender and the discriminatory roles they play in our society. It is argued in reading 4.4 that the liberals perception of class fails to understand that when class is talked about from a socialist stand point it is not just referring to the educational and financial implications of class, but the structure of class as a whole and the very strongly established logic that classism entails. This article argues that because of the hierarchical class system in which we exist and more specifically because of the economic social and political power of the capitalist class we can not approach the idea of reformation in the way topics like gender, race and sexual orientation are spoken about and perceived by society without first acknowledging and confronting the structure of class.

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 close form of dependency highlighted in this article refers to the necessity of workers to have the safety net of employment to meet their needs while the capitalist equally need the workers to ensure their position at the top of the economic hierarchy. Reading 4.4 makes that claim that class is even more hyper-dependent than subjects like. The concept of whiteness encapsulates a whole race of people without depending on their beliefs and ideals to separate one from another, while class requires an interdependency between workers and capitalist to maintain the structure. More than this, the dependency doesn’t end at just workers because capitalist are also in control of productive property which all of society is reliant on, this means that all of society is compelled to make sure profitability continues to stay high so that production can continue.

1. Do you notice any similarities in the way social class is discussed in readings 4.1 and 4.2? Do you notice any differences in the way these two readings DIFFERENTIATE between social classes?

In both articles we explore the huge disparity in income int his country. Through reviewing statistics and trends we see that essentially the middle class is almost completely depleted and that the ruling class seems to have majority of this countries wealth. The first article titled What Determines How Americans Percieve Their Social Class? seems to not only critique the financial income disparity but also explore the social implications of this disparity. The speaker in the first article slightly involves psychological themes within the social construct by stating that people with the lowest financial income and educational background still don’t categorize themselves as the lowest class while those existing far above the median income in the US are more likely to associate themselves with the upper middle class as opposed to the upper class. I think this article is effective in making us evaluate the usage of these terms and critiquing their actual importance versus their implied importance. The second article works on a more basic level by pointing out the wealth disparity by identifying the range in financial income at such a close proximity. by utilizing the subway station stops to map out the city and categorize the huge fluctuation in capital over the span of just a couple miles.

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?

According to the concepts offered in reading 4.1 my neighborhood social class is identified as lower class. This answer doesn’t surprise me because although there are extremely wealthy people in NYC they make up a very small percentage of the population. Poverty is very prevalent in New York City for a plethora for reasons d the cost of living here as compared t anywhere else means that the term poverty cast a wider net.

3. Based on Reading 4.2, do you notice a general pattern about social classes in NYC?

Based on reading two I would say the general pattern is that wealth exist in very close quarters with poverty and lower income. It seems that in manhattan this disparity is even larger with other boroughs like Brooklyn and queens being more clearly associated with the lower class as far as income is concerned.