In reading 4.1 social class is mostly determined by things like income and wealth, education, occupation, media representation, etc. People will perceive themselves in certain ways that aren’t really reality and 4.1 emphasizes that. The article talks about how people might rank themself on a higher scale than reality, like how people label themselves as middle class but might actually be lower class. On the other hand reading 4.2 shows more of an accurate statistic. Reading 4.2 uses the subway lines to show data on the social inequality in New York City.

The station closest to me is the 5 train on Baychester. This station mostly consists of lower class. In my opinion this seems to be accurate. There  are a lot of housing buildings and protections. There is also a high volume of minorities that live in the area.

Reading 4.2 the wealth distributed through different areas of New York City. Affluent areas like Greenwich Village, the Upper East Side, Williamsburg in Brooklyn, and Bayside or Forest Hills in Queens generally have residents with higher incomes and better access to resources. In stark contrast, neighborhoods such as the South Bronx, Jamaica in Queens, and East New York face significant economic hardships, characterized by lower income levels and limited opportunities. This disparity is also reflected in the city’s transit system, where differences in accessibility and quality highlight the economic divides. NYC tends to group people of similar socioeconomic status together, which reinforces these social class distinctions and hinders upward mobility.