Homework answers / question archive / Poverty Despite the relatively high average standard of living in the United States, poverty a?icts millions of people

Poverty Despite the relatively high average standard of living in the United States, poverty a?icts millions of people

Sociology

Share With

Poverty Despite the relatively high average standard of living in the United States, poverty a?icts millions of people. There are now almost 40 million poor people in the United States?12.3 percent of the population (Proctor, Semega, and Kollar 2018). Even more startling is the large number of people living in very deep poverty, or what experts de?ne as extreme poverty (the U.S. measure being living on two dollars or less per day; the world measure of extreme poverty is $1.25 per day or less; see also Chapter 9). Extreme poverty in the United States includes 3.5 million children who are living with virtually no income?a shocking fact for such a rich nation (Shaefer and Edin 2014). Poverty deprives people of basic human needs?food, shelter, and safety from harm. It is also the basis for many of our nation?s most intractable social problems. Failures in the education system; crime and violence; inadequate housing and homelessness; poor health care?all are related to poverty. Who is poor, and why is there so much poverty in an otherwise a?uent society? De?ning Poverty The federal government has established an o?cial de?nition of poverty used to determine eligibility for government assistance and to measure the extent of poverty in the United States. The poverty line is the amount of money needed to support the basic needs of a household, as determined by government; below this line, one is considered o?cially poor. To determine the poverty line, the Social Security administration takes a low-cost food budget (based on dietary information provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture) and multiplies it by a factor of three, assuming that a family spends approximately one-third of its budget on food. The resulting ?gure is the o?cial poverty line, adjusted slightly each year for increases in the cost of living. In 2017, the o?cial poverty line for a family of four (including two children) was $24,858. Although a cuto? point is necessary to administer antipoverty programs, this de?nition of poverty can be misleading. A person or family earning $1 above the cuto? point would not be o?cially categorized as poor. There are numerous problems with the o?cial de?nition of poverty. To name a few, it does not account for regional di?erences in the cost of living. It does not re?ect changes in the cost of housing nor changes in the cost of modern standards of living that were not imagined in the 1930s, when the de?nition was established (Meyer and Sullivan 2012). Experts have argued that the government should develop alternative poverty measures, such as shelter poverty?a measure that would account for the cost of housing in di?erent regions (Stone 1993). To date, Congress has resisted changing the o?cial de?nition of poverty?a change that would likely increase the reported rate of poverty and potentially increase the cost of federal antipoverty programs. Who Are the Poor? Since the 1960s when poverty was more than 20 percent, poverty has declined signi?cantly. Poverty is higher now than it was in 2000, but it has been slowly inching down since 2010. By 2017, 12.3 percent of the population was o?cially poor? that is, fell under the federal poverty line (Fontenot, Semega, and Kollar 2018). The majority of the poor are White, although there are disproportionately high rates of poverty among Asian Americans, Native Americans, Black Americans, and Hispanics. Twenty-one percent of African Americans are below the o?cial poverty line; 18.3 percent of Hispanics, 9.8 percent of Asian Americans, and 8.7 percent of non-Hispanic Whites (Fontenot, Semega, and Kollar 2018). Among Hispanics, there are further di?erences among groups. Puerto Ricans?the Hispanic group with the lowest median income ?have been most likely to su?er increased poverty, probably because of their concentration in the poorest segments of the labor market and their high unemployment rates. Asian American poverty is highest among the most recent immigrant groups, including Laotians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Korean immigrants; Filipino, Japanese, and Asian Indian families have lower rates of poverty (White House 2012). See for Yourself Using the current federal poverty line of $24,858 for a family of four, including two children), develop a monthly budget that does not exceed this income level and that accounts for all of your family?s needs. Base your budget on the actual costs of such things in your locale (rent, food, transportation, utilities, clothing, and so forth). Don?t forget to account for taxes (state, federal, and local), health care expenses, your children?s education, and so on. What does this exercise teach you about those who live below the poverty line? The vast majority of the poor have always been women and children, but the percentage of women and children considered to be poor has increased in recent years. The term feminization of poverty refers to the large proportion of the poor who are women and children. This trend results from several factors, including the dramatic growth of femaleheaded households, a decline in the proportion of the poor who are elderly (not matched by a decline in the poverty of women and children), and continuing wage inequality between women and men. The large number of poor women is associated with a commensurate large number of poor children. By 2017, almost 18 percent of all children in the United States (those under age 18) were poor, including 9.5 percent of non-Hispanic White children, 28 percent of Black children, 25 percent of Hispanic children, and 11.3 percent of Asian American children (Fontenot, Semega, and Kollar 2018). Steve Debenport/Getty Images Child poverty in the United States is higher than one would expect for such an otherwise materially well-o? nation. Families headed by women are far more likely to be poor than other families (see Figure 8-9), a fact resulting from the low wages of women, the lack of child care, and the absence of child support from men, especially when the fathers of children are young themselves. Young mothers are increasingly unlikely to have the contributing income of a spouse and are more likely than men to live with their children and be ?nancially responsible for them. Although teen birth rates have declined signi?cantly among all races, when young women have children, the odds of their being married (and thus having two incomes available) have declined. Figure 8-9. Poverty Status by Family Type and Race, 2017 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. POV-02-People in Families by Family Structure, Age and Sex, Iterated by Income-to-Poverty Ratio and Race. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov i Note: Families with children under 18 present. Debunking Society?s Myths Myth: Marriage is a good way to reduce women?s dependence on welfare. Reality: Although it is true that married-couple households are less likely to be poor than single-headed households, forcing women to marry encourages women?s dependence on men and punishes women for being independent. Research indicates that poor women place a high value on marriage and want to be married, but also understand that men?s unemployment and instability makes their ideal of marriage unattainable. In addition, large numbers of women receiving welfare have been victims of domestic violence (Edin and Kefalas 2005; Scott et al. 2002). It is very important to remember that the poor are not a uni-dimensional group. They are racially diverse, including Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. They are diverse in age, including not just children and young mothers, but also men and women of all ages, and especially a substantial number of the elderly, many of whom live alone. The poor are also geographically diverse, to be found in areas east and west, south and north, urban and rural. As map 8-1 shows, poverty rates are generally higher in the South and Southwest. What the map cannot show, however, is concentrated poverty. Concentrated poverty occurs when 40 percent or more of those in a given census area live below the federal poverty line. Hispanic, Native American, and Black Americans are the most likely groups to live in areas with concentrated poverty, although the rate has also doubled for non-Hispanic Whites since 2000 (Jargowsky 2015; Kneebone 2014). Concentrated poverty is known to be linked to higher crime rates, more violence, poor schools, joblessness, less family stability, and other problems that plague such residential areas. Map 8-1. Mapping America’s Diversity: Poverty in the United States This map shows regional di?erences in poverty rates (that is, the percentage of poor in di?erent counties). As you can see, poverty is highest in the South, Southwest, and some parts of the upper Midwest. This re?ects the higher rates of poverty among Native Americans, Latinos, and African Americans, especially in rural areas. What the map does not show is the concentration of poverty in particular urban areas. According to this map, how much poverty is there in your region? Is there poverty that the map does not show? Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Poverty in the United States.” www.census.gov One marked change in poverty is the growth of poverty in suburban areas. One-third of the nation?s poor are now found in suburbs where poverty is growing twice as fast as in center cities (Kneebone and Holmes 2014). Rural poverty also persists in the United States, even though people tend to think of poverty as an urban phenomenon (Fontenot, Semega, and Kollar 2017). Despite the idea that the poor “milk” the system, government supports for the poor are limited. So-called welfare is now largely in the form of food stamps, not cash assistance. To be eligible for food stamps (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program or SNAP), a household must meet three criteria: (1) have a gross family income below 130 percent of the federal poverty line; (2) have a net income (that is, after deductions are applied) below the federal poverty line; and, (3) have total assets under $2250 ($3500 if there is an elderly or disabled person in the household); such assets only include assets that are actually accessible, such as a savings account. You can see that despite the stereotypes of people who use food stamps, the resources of such households are slim indeed. The average food stamp bene?t is $125 per person per month, or $1.40 per person per meal (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2017). Three-quarters of households receiving food stamps include children; 12 percent have a disabled person present; and 10 percent include the elderly. Forty percent of SNAP participants are White, 26 percent are African-American, 11 percent are Hispanic, 2.4 percent are Asian, and 1 percent are Native American (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2014). Poverty is also evident in the numbers of homeless people in the United States. Depending on how one de?nes and measures homelessness, estimates of the number of homeless people vary widely. If you count the number of homeless on any given night, there are estimated to be about 550,000 homeless people. The transient nature of this population makes accurate estimates of the extent of homelessness impossible, but careful monitoring has shown that the numbers of homeless people have been increasing. One-third of the homeless are young people (under age 24). Most of the homeless (65 percent) are individuals, but over a third (35 percent) are families. Family homelessness has also increased signi?cantly in recent years, and many families have experienced eviction from their homes (National Coalition for the Homeless 2017; Desmond 2016). In fact, families are the fastest-growing segment of the homeless?40 percent?and children are also 40 percent of the homeless. Moreover, many of the women with children who are homeless have ?ed from domestic violence. A shocking number of the homeless are veterans (about 11 percent), including those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan (National Coalition for the Homeless 2017). There are many reasons for homelessness. The great majority of the homeless are on the streets because of a lack of a?ordable housing and an increase in poverty, leaving many people with no choice but to live on the street. Add to that problems of inadequate health care, domestic violence, and addiction, and you begin to understand the factors that create homelessness. Some of the homeless have mental illness (about 16 percent of single, homeless adults); the movement to relocate patients requiring mental health care out of institutional settings has left many without mental health resources that might help them (National Coalition for the Homeless 2014). Causes of Poverty Most agree that poverty is a serious social problem. There is far less agreement on what to do about it. Public debate about poverty hinges on disagreements about its underlying causes. Two points of view prevail: Some blame the poor for their own condition, and some look to social structural causes to explain poverty. The ?rst view, popular with the public and many policymakers, is that poverty is caused by the cultural habits of the poor. According to this point of view, behaviors such as crime, family breakdown, lack of ambition, and educational failure generate and sustain poverty, a syndrome to be treated by forcing the poor to fend for themselves. The second view is more sociological, one that understands poverty as rooted in the structure of society, not in the morals and behaviors of individuals. Blaming the Victim: The Culture of Poverty Blaming the poor for being poor stems from the myth that success requires only individual motivation and ability. Many in the United States adhere to this view and hence have a harsh opinion of the poor. This attitude is also re?ected in U.S. public policy concerning poverty, which is rather ungenerous compared with other industrialized nations. Those who blame the poor for their own plight typically argue that poverty is the result of early childbearing, drug and alcohol abuse, refusal to enter the labor market, and crime. Such thinking puts the blame for poverty on individual choices, not on societal problems. In other words, it blames the victim, not the society, for social problems (Ryan 1971). The culture of poverty argument attributes the major causes of poverty to the absence of work values and the irresponsibility of the poor (Lewis 1969, 1966). In this light, poverty is seen as a dependent way of life that is transferred, like other cultural values, from generation to generation. Policymakers have adapted the culture of poverty argument to argue that the actual causes of poverty are found in the breakdown of major institutions, including the family, schools, and churches. Is the culture of poverty argument true? To answer this question, we might ask: Is poverty transmitted across generations? Researchers have found only mixed support for this assumption. Many of those who are poor remain poor for only one or two years; only a small percentage of the poor are chronically poor. More often, poverty results from a household crisis, such as divorce, illness, unemployment, or parental death. People tend to cycle in and out of poverty. The public stereotype that poverty is passed through generations is thus not well supported by the facts. A second question is: Do the poor want to work? The persistent public stereotype that they do not is central to the culture of poverty thesis. This attitude presumes that poverty is the fault of the poor, that poverty would go away if they would only change their values and adopt the American work ethic. What is the evidence for these claims? Detailed studies of the poor simply ?nd no basis for the assumption that the poor hold di?erent values about work compared to everyone else (Lakso 2013; Lee and Anat 2008). They simply ?nd that work is di?cult to ?nd. Several other facts also refute this popular claim. Most of the able-bodied poor do work, even if only part-time. As we saw previously, the number of workers who constitute the working poor has actually increased. You can see why this is true when you calculate the income of someone working full-time for minimum wage. Someone working forty hours per week, ?fty-two weeks per year, at minimum wage will have an income far below the poverty line. This is the major reason that many have organized a living wage campaign, intended to raise the federal minimum wage to provide workers with a decent standard of living. Debunking Society?s Myths Myth: The in?ux of unskilled immigrants raises the poverty level by taking jobs away from U.S. citizens who would otherwise be able to ?nd work and lift themselves from poverty. Sociological Perspective: A state-by-state analysis of poverty and immigration in recent years ?nds that immigrants actually improve local economies by increasing the supply of workers, generating labor market expansion, and promoting entrepreneurship?in other words, stimulating the economy. In some regions, immigration has actually lessened poverty (Peri 2014). Current policies that force those on welfare to work also tend to overlook how di?cult it is for poor people to retain the jobs they get. Prior to welfare reform in the mid-1990s, poor women who went o? welfare to take jobs often found they soon had to return to welfare because the wages they earned were not enough to support their families. Leaving welfare often means losing health bene?ts, yet incurring increased living expenses. The jobs that poor people ?nd often do not lift them out of poverty. In sum, attributing poverty to the values of the poor is both unproven and a poor basis for public policy (Greenbaum 2015). Structural Causes of Poverty From a sociological point of view, the underlying causes of poverty lie in the economic and social transformations taking place in the United States. Careful scholars do not attribute poverty to a single cause. There are many causes. Two of the most important are: (1) the restructuring of the economy, which has resulted in diminished earning power and increased unemployment; and, (2) the status of women in the family and the labor market, which has contributed to women being overrepresented among the poor. Add to these underlying conditions the federal policies in recent years that have diminished social support for the poor in the form of welfare, public housing, and job training. Given these reductions in federal support, it is little wonder that poverty is so widespread. The restructuring of the economy has caused the disappearance of manufacturing jobs, traditionally an avenue of job security and social mobility for many workers, especially African American and Latino workers (Wilson 1996). The working class has been especially vulnerable to these changes. Economic decline in those sectors of the economy where men have historically received good pay and good bene?ts means that fewer men are the sole support for their families. Most families now need two incomes to achieve a middle-class way of life. The new jobs that are being created fall primarily in occupations that o?er low wages and few bene?ts; they also tend to be ?lled by women, especially women of color, leaving women poor and men out of work. Such jobs o?er little chance to get out of poverty. New jobs are also typically located in neighborhoods far away from the poor, creating a mismatch between the employment opportunities and the residential base of the poor. Declining wage rates caused by transformations taking place within the economy fall particularly hard on young people, women, and African Americans and Latinos, the groups most likely to be among the working poor. The high rate of poverty among women is also strongly related to women?s status in the family and the labor market. Divorce is one cause of poverty, because without a male wage in the household, women are more likely to be poor. Women?s child-care responsibilities make working outside the home on marginal incomes di?cult. Many women with children cannot manage to work outside the home, because it leaves them with no one to watch their children. More women now depend on their own earnings to support themselves, their children, and other dependents. Whereas unemployment has always been considered a major cause of poverty among men, low wages play a major role for women. The persistence of poverty also increases tensions between di?erent classes and racial groups. William Julius Wilson, one of the most noted analysts of poverty and racial inequality, has written, “The ultimate basis for current racial tension is the deleterious e?ect of basic structural changes in the modern American economy on Black and White lower-income groups, changes that include uneven economic growth, increasing technology and automation, industry relocation, and labor market segmentation” (1978: 154). Wilson?s comments demonstrate the power of sociological thinking by convincingly placing the causes of both poverty and racism in their societal context, instead of the individualistic thinking that tends to blame the poor for their plight. Welfare and Social Policy The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation (PRWOR) Act governs current welfare policy. This federal policy eliminated the long-standing welfare program titled Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which was created in 1935 as part of the Social Security Act. Implemented during the Great Depression, AFDC was meant to assist poor mothers and their children. This program acknowledged that some people are victimized by economic circumstances beyond their control and deserve assistance. For much of its lifetime, this law supported mostly White mothers and their children. Not until the 1960s did welfare come to be identi?ed with Black families. Current welfare policy gives block grants to states to administer their own welfare programs through the program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF stipulates a lifetime limit of ?ve years for people to receive aid and requires all welfare recipients to ?nd work within two years?a policy known as workfare. Those who have not found work within two years of receiving welfare can be required to perform community service jobs for free. In addition, welfare policy denies payments to unmarried teen parents under age 18 unless they stay in school and live with an adult. It also requires unmarried mothers to identify the fathers of their children or risk losing their bene?ts. These broad guidelines are established at the federal level, but individual states can be more restrictive, as many have been. At the heart of public beliefs about support for the poor is the idea that public assistance creates dependence, discouraging people from seeking jobs. The very title of current welfare policy emphasizes “personal responsibility and work,” suggesting that poverty is the fault of the poor. Low-income women, for example, are stereotyped as just wanting to have babies to increase the size of their welfare checks. Low-income men are also stereotyped as shiftless and irresponsible, even though research ?nds no support for either idea (Edin and Nelson 2013; Edin and Kefalas 2005). Is welfare reform working? Many claim that welfare reform is working because, since passage of the new law, the welfare rolls have shrunk. Since 1996, the year that welfare reform was passed, the number receiving welfare support has declined dramatically. Having fewer people on welfare does not, however, mean that poverty is reduced. In fact, as we have seen, extreme poverty has actually increased since passage of welfare reform. Having fewer people on the rolls can simply mean that people are without a safety net. Holes in the safety net makes those already vulnerable to economic distress even more so. Single women with children and people of color have been those most negatively a?ected by the 1996 welfare reforms, although working families are not immune to these changes (Halpern-Meekin et al. 2015; Shaefer and Edin 2014). Politicians brag that welfare rolls have shrunk, but reduction in the welfare rolls is a poor measure of the true impact of welfare reform because this would be true simply if people are denied bene?ts. Because welfare has been decentralized to the state level, studies of the impact of current law must be done on a state-by-state basis. Such studies are showing that those who have gone into workfare programs most often earn wages that keep them below the poverty line. Although some states report that family income has increased following welfare reform, the increases are slight. More people have been evicted because of falling behind on rent. Families also report an increase in other material hardships, such as phones and utilities being cut o?. Marriage rates among former recipients have not changed, although more now live with nonmarital partners, most likely as a way of sharing expenses. The number of children living in families without either parent has also increased, probably because parents had to relocate to ?nd work. Low-wage work also simply does not lift former welfare recipients out of poverty (Shaefer and Edin 2014; Hays 2003). Forcing welfare recipients to work provides a cheap labor force for employers and potentially takes jobs from those already employed. Table 11-1. * Is It True? 1. Income growth has been greatest for those in the middle class in recent years. ANSWER ↓ True False 2. The average American household has most of its wealth in the stock market. ANSWER ↓ True False 3. Social mobility is greater in the United States than in any other Western nation. ANSWER ↓ True False 4. Poor teen mothers do not have the same values about marriage as middle-class people. ANSWER ↓ True False 5. Old people are the most likely to be poor. ANSWER ↓ True False 6. Poverty in U.S. suburbs is increasing. ANSWER ↓ True False The public debate about welfare rages on, often in the absence of informed knowledge from sociological research and almost always without input from the subjects of the debate, welfare recipients themselves. Although stigmatized as lazy and not wanting to work, those who have received welfare actually believe that it has negative consequences for them, but they say they have no other viable means of support. They typically have needed welfare when they could not ?nd work or had small children and needed child care. Most were forced to leave their last job because of layo?s or ?rings or because the work was only temporary. Few left their jobs voluntarily. Welfare recipients also say that the welfare system makes it hard to become self-supporting because the wages one earns while on welfare are deducted from an already minimal subsistence. Furthermore, there is not enough a?ordable day care for mothers to leave home and get jobs. The biggest problem they face in their minds is lack of money. Contrary to the popular image of the conniving “welfare queen,” welfare recipients want to be self-su?cient and provide for their families, but they face circumstances that make this very di?cult to do. Indeed, studies of young, poor mothers ?nd that they place a high value on marriage, but they do not think they or their boyfriends have the means to achieve the marriage ideals they cherish (Edin and Kefalas 2005; Hays 2003). Another popular myth about welfare is that people use their welfare checks to buy things they do not need. Research ?nds that when former welfare recipients ?nd work, their expenses actually go up. Although they may have increased income, their expenses (in the form of child care, clothing, transportation, lunch money, and so forth) increase, leaving them even less disposable income. Moreover, studies ?nd that low-income mothers who buy “treats” for their children (brand-name shoes, a movie, candy, and so forth) do so because they want to be good mothers (Edin and Lein 1997). Other bene?ciaries of government programs have not experienced the same kind of stigma. Social Security supports virtually all retired people, yet they are not stereotyped as dependent on federal aid, unable to maintain stable family relationships, or insu?ciently self-motivated. Spending on welfare programs is also a pittance compared with the spending on other federal programs. Sociologists conclude that the so-called welfare trap is not a matter of learned dependency, but a pattern of behavior forced on the poor by the requirements of sheer economic survival (Halpern-Meekin et al. 2015; Edin and Kefalas 2005; Hays 2003). Chapter Summary What di?erent kinds of strati?cation systems exist? Social strati?cation is a relatively ?xed hierarchical arrangement in society by which groups have di?erent access to resources, power, and perceived social worth. All societies have systems of strati?cation, although they vary in composition and complexity. Estate systems are those in which a single elite class holds the power and property; in caste systems, placement in the strati?cation is by birth; in class systems, placement is determined by achievement. How do sociologists de?ne class? Class is the social structural position that groups hold relative to the economic, social, political, and cultural resources of society. Class is highly signi?cant in determining one?s life chances. How is the class system structured in the United States? Social class can be seen as a hierarchy, like a ladder, where income, occupation, and education are indicators of class. Status attainment is the process by which people end up in a given position in this hierarchy. Prestige is the value others assign to people and groups within this hierarchy. Classes are also organized around common interests and exist in con?ict with one another. Is there social mobility in the United States? Social mobility is the movement between class positions. Education gives some boost to social mobility, but social mobility is more limited than people believe; most people end up in a class position very close to their class of origin. Class consciousness is both the perception that a class structure exists and the feeling of shared identi?cation with others in one?s class. The United States has not been a particularly class-conscious society because of the belief in upward mobility. What analyses of social strati?cation do sociological theorists provide? Karl Marx saw class as primarily stemming from economic forces; Max Weber had a multidimensional view of strati?cation, involving economic, social, and political dimensions. Functionalists argue that social inequality motivates people to ?ll the di?erent positions in society that are needed for the survival of the whole, claiming that the positions most important for society require the greatest degree of talent or training and are thus most rewarded. Con?ict theorists see social strati?cation as based on class con?ict and blocked opportunity, pointing out that those at the bottom of the strati?cation system are least rewarded because they are subordinated by dominant groups. How do sociologists explain why there is poverty in the United States? Culture of poverty is the idea that poverty is the result of the cultural habits of the poor that are transmitted from generation to generation, but sociologists see poverty as caused by social structural conditions, including unemployment, gender inequality in the workplace, and the absence of support for child care for working parents. What current policies address the problem of poverty? Current welfare policy, adopted in 1996, provides support through individual states, but recipients are required to work after two years of support and have a lifetime limit of ?ve years of support. Key Terms caste system 178 class consciousness 194 class systems 178 concentrated poverty 201 conspicuous consumption 179 culture of poverty 203 economic restructuring 180 educational attainment 188 estate system 178 false consciousness 194 feminization of poverty 200 ideology 195 income 181 life chances 179 median income 187 meritocracy 193 net worth 182 occupational prestige 187 poverty line 199 prestige 187 social class 179 social mobility 186 social stratification 176 socioeconomic status (SES) 186 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 205 urban underclass 189 wealth 181 Chapter 9. Global Strati?cation iStock.com/elenabs In this chapter, you will learn to: De?ne global strati?cation and describe its components Compare and contrast di?erent explanations of global strati?cation Describe the various consequences of global strati?cation Explain the causes and consequences of global poverty Summarize the impact of globalization for social change Introduction “It takes a village to raise a child,” the saying goes, but it also seems to take a world to make a shirt?or so it seems from looking at the global dimensions of the production and distribution of goods. Try this simple experiment: Look at the labels on your clothing. (If you do this in class, try to do so without embarrassing yourself and others!) What do you see? “Made in Indonesia,” “Made in Vietnam,” “Made in Malawi”?all indicating the linkage of the United States to clothing manufacturers around the world. The popular brand Nike, as just one example, contracts with factories all over the world. Most of Nike?s products are made in hundreds of factories throughout Asia. Taking your experiment further, ask yourself: Who made your clothing? A young person trying to lift his or her family out of poverty? Might it have been a child? The International Labour Organization (ILO) distinguishes child labor (those under age 17) from employed children (such as a teenager holding a part-time job or babysitting). Child labor speci?cally refers to “work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential, and their dignity and that is also harmful to mental and physical development” (International Labour Organization 2017). The ILO estimates that about 168 million children around the world are trapped in child labor, almost half of whom are involved in dangerous work and many of whom are separated from their families and possibly held in slavery (International Labour Organization 2017). This does not mean that a child necessarily made your clothing. In fact, most child labor occurs in agricultural work, although a signi?cant component (25 percent) is in service and manufacturing work. The encouraging news is that the use of child labor has declined since 2000 but remains a signi?cant part of global production. Data on child labor indicate that our global systems of work are deeply connected to inequality. Especially in the poorest countries, trying to survive forces people into forms of work that produce some of the world?s greatest injustices?both for children and for adult women and men. As we will see in this chapter, nations are interlocked in a system of global inequality, in which the status of the people in one country is intricately linked to the status of the people in others?a fact that has become apparent to workers in the United States who see their status declining as the result of jobs moving overseas. Such a recognition has even fueled anti-globalization politics in the United States, as voters have responded to political calls to bring jobs back to America. Recall from Chapter 1 that C. Wright Mills identi?ed the task of sociology as seeing the social forces that exist beyond individuals. This is particularly important when studying global inequality. A person in the United States (or western Europe or Japan) who thinks he or she is expressing individualism by wearing the latest style is actually part of a global system of inequality. The adornments available to that person result from a whole network of forces that produce a?uence in some nations and poverty in others. The United States and other wealthy nations are dominant in the system of global strati?cation. Those at the top of the global strati?cation system have enormous power over the fate of other nations. Although world con?ict stems from many sources, including religious di?erences, cultural con?icts, and struggles over political philosophy, the inequality between rich and poor nations causes much hatred and resentment. One cannot help but wonder what would happen if the di?erences between the wealth of some nations and the poverty of others were smaller. In this chapter, we examine the dynamics and e?ects of global strati?cation. Class as a Ladder One way to think about the class system is as a ladder, with di?erent class groups arrayed up and down the rungs, each rung corresponding to a di?erent level in the class system. Conceptualized this way, social class is the common position groups hold in a status hierarchy (Lucal 1994; Wright 1979); class is indicated by factors such as levels of income, occupational standing, and educational attainment. People are relatively high or low on the ladder depending on the resources they have and whether those resources are education, income, occupation, or any of the other factors known to in?uence people?s placement (or ranking) in the strati?cation system. Indeed, an abundance of sociological research has stemmed from the concept of social mobility, that is, a person?s or group?s movement over time from one class to another. Research on social mobility, as we will see in more detail later in this chapter, describes how factors such as class origins, educational level, and occupation produce class location. Understanding Diversity The Student Debt Crisis Numerous recent reports show that students are struggling over rising levels of debt from student loans. A record one in ?ve households in the United States now has outstanding student debt. Not only is the number of those with student debt increasing, but so is the size of the indebtedness (see Figures 8-4 and 8-5; Lee 2013; Fry 2012). Leaving college or graduate school with large amounts of debt impedes one?s ability to get ?nancially established. Figure 8-4 and 8-5. The Share of College Graduates Borrowing has Sharply Increased and the Amount a Typical Borrower Owes has more than Doubled. Source: Pew Research Center. 2014. “The Changing Pro?le of Student Borrowers.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org Median amount borrowed by undergraduates graduating in these years who had student loan debt, in 2013 dollars. All students are at risk of accruing debt given the rising cost of education and the higher interest rates now associated with student loans. Some groups, though, are more vulnerable than others, adding to the inequalities that accrue across di?erent groups. Among those in the bottom ?fth of income earners, student debt, on average, takes up 24 percent of all income; for the top ?fth of earners, only 9 percent of income. For those in the middle, student debt consumes 12 percent of income (Fry 2012). The amount of student debt is highest among those under 35, those who are just beginning careers and, possibly, families. Race also matters. Black students are more likely to borrow money for college than other groups?and to borrow more; 80 percent of Black students have outstanding student loans, compared to 65 percent of Whites, 67 percent of Hispanics, and 54 percent of Asian students. Moreover, levels of debt are highest among Blacks?an average of $28,692, compared to $24,772 for Whites, $22,886 for Hispanics, and $21,090 for Asians (Demos 2014). How does this reality of student debt in?uence the experience of those you see in your own environment? What are the sociological causes of this signi?cant social problem? The laddered model of class suggests that strati?cation in the United States is hierarchical but somewhat ?uid. That is, the assumption is that people can move up and down di?erent “rungs” of the ladder?or class system. In a relatively open class system such as the United States, people?s achievements do matter, although the extent to which people rise rapidly and dramatically through the strati?cation system is less than the popular imagination envisions. Some people move down in the class system, but as we will see, most people remain relatively close to their class of origin. When people rise or fall in the class system, the distance they travel is usually relatively short, as we will see in a later section on social mobility. Doing Sociological Research The Fragile Middle Class The hallmark of the middle class in the United States is its presumed stability. Home ownership, a college education for children, and other accoutrements of middle-class status (nice cars, annual vacations, an array of consumer goods) are the symbols of middle-class prosperity. But the American middle class is not as secure as it has been presumed to be. Teresa Sullivan, Elizabeth Warren, and Jay Lawrence Westbrook have studied bankruptcy, and their research shows the fragility of the middle class in recent times, including an increase in personal bankruptcy. Research Question What is causing the rise of bankruptcy? Research Method Their study analyzed o?cial records of bankruptcy in ?ve states and included detailed questionnaires given to individuals who ?led for bankruptcy. Research Results This team?s research debunks the idea that bankruptcy is most common among poor people. Instead, bankruptcy is mostly a middle-class phenomenon representing a cross-section of those in this class (meaning that those who are bankrupt are matched on the demographic characteristics of race, age, and gender with others in the middle class). The research also debunks the notion that bankruptcy is rising because it is so easy to ?le. Rather, the research found many people in the middle class so overwhelmed with debt that they cannot possibly pay it o?. Most people often ?le for bankruptcy as a result of job loss and lost wages. But divorce, medical problems, housing expenses, and credit card debt also drive many to bankruptcy court. Conclusions and Implications Sullivan and her colleagues explain the rise of bankruptcy as stemming from structural factors in society that fracture the stability of the middle class. The volatility of jobs under modern capitalism is one of the biggest factors, as is the “thin safety net”?no health insurance for many, coupled with rising medical costs. The American dream of owning one?s own home also means many are “mortgage poor”?extended beyond their ability to keep up. The United States is also a credit-driven society. Credit cards are routinely mailed to people in the middle class, encouraging them to buy beyond their means. You can now buy virtually anything on credit: cars, clothes, doctor?s bills, entertainment, groceries. You can even use one credit card to pay o? other credit cards. Increased debt is the result. Many are simply unable to keep up with compounding interest and penalty payments, and debt takes on a life of its own as consumers cannot keep up with even the interest payments on debt. Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook conclude that increases in debt and uncertainty of income combine to produce the fragility of the middle class. Their research shows that even the most secure family may be only a job loss, a medical problem, or an out-of-control credit card away from ?nancial catastrophe” (2000: 6). Questions to Consider 1. Have you ever had a credit card? If so, how easy was it to get? Is it possible to get by without a credit card? 2. What evidence do you see in your community of the fragility or stability of di?erent social class groups? Source: Sullivan, T. A., E. Warren, and J. L. 2000. Westbrook, The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Debt. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. The image of strati?cation as a laddered system, with di?erent gradients of social standing, emphasizes that one?s socioeconomic status (SES) is derived from certain factors. Income, occupational prestige, and education are the three measures of socioeconomic status that have been found to be most signi?cant in determining people?s placement in the strati?cation system. The median income for a society is the midpoint of all household incomes. Half of all households earn more than the median income; half earn less. In 2017, median household income in the United States was $61,372 (Fontenot, Semega, and Kollar 2018). To many, this may seem like a lot of money, but consider these facts: American consumers spend about one-third of their household budgets on housing; almost another 16 percent on transportation; 13 percent on food; 24 percent on health care, and 10 percent on insurance and pensions, a total of 86 percent of income (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2017b). If you do the calculations based on the median income level, you will see there is very little left for other living expenses (clothing, education, entertainment, charities, pets, and so forth)?only $716 per month for all other expenses?hardly a lavish income, especially when you consider that half of Americans have less than this, given the de?nition of a median. (See also the “See for Yourself” exercise on household budgets later in this chapter.) Those bunched around the median income level are considered middle class, although sociologists debate which income brackets constitute middle-class standing because the range of what people think of as “middle class” is quite large. Nonetheless, income is a signi?cant indicator of social class standing, although not the only one. Occupational prestige is a second important indicator of socioeconomic status. Prestige is the value others assign to people and groups. Occupational prestige is the subjective evaluation people give to jobs. To determine occupational prestige, sociological researchers typically ask nationwide samples of adults to rank the general standing of a series of jobs. These subjective ratings provide information about how people perceive the worth of di?erent occupations. People tend to rank professionals, such as physicians, professors, judges, and lawyers highly, with occupations such as electrician, insurance agent, and police o?cer falling in the middle. Occupations with low occupational prestige are maids, garbage collectors, and shoe shiners. These rankings do not re?ect the worth of people within these positions but are indicative of the judgments people make about the worth of these jobs. See for Yourself Income Distribution: Should Grades Be the Same? Figure 8-6 shows the income distribution within the United States. Imagine that grades in your class were distributed based on the same curve. Let?s suppose that after students arrived in class and sat down, di?erent groups received their grades based on where they were sitting in the room and in the same proportion as the U.S. income distribution. Only students in the front receive A?s; the back, D?s and F?s. The middle of the room gets the B?s and C?s. Write a short essay answering the following questions based on this hypothetical scenario: 1. How many students would receive A?s, B?s, C?s, D?s, and F?s? 2. Would it be fair to distribute grades this way? Why or why not? 3. Which groups in the class might be more likely to support such a distribution? Who would think the system of grade distribution should be changed? 4. What might di?erent groups do to preserve or change the system of grade distribution? What if you really needed an A, but got one of the F?s? What might you do? 5. Are there circumstances in actual life that are beyond the control of people and that shape the distribution of income? 6. How is social strati?cation maintained by the beliefs that people have about merit and fairness? Figure 8-6. Income Distribution in the United States. Source: Fontenot, Kayla, Jessica Semega, and Melissa Kollar. 2018. Income and Poverty in the United States: 2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov This graph shows the percentage of the total population that falls into each of ?ve income groups. Would it be fair if course grades were distributed by the same percentages? Adapted from: Brislen, William, and Clayton D. Peoples. 2005. “Using a Hypothetical Distribution of Grades to Introduce Social Stratification.” Teaching Sociology 33 (January): 74–80. The ?nal major indicator of socioeconomic status is educational attainment, typically measured as the total years of formal education. The more years of education attained, the higher a person?s class status. As we will see, education matters a lot for people?s chances for social mobility, but it comes with a price?as we have seen in the skyrocketing level of student debt. As with economic inequality, the United States is also experiencing growing inequality in the ability of children from high- and low-income families to pay for and attend college (Greenstone et al. 2013). This trend is likely to exacerbate the trend toward growing inequality overall. Taken together, income, occupation, and education are good indicators of people?s class standing. Using the laddered model of class, you can describe the class system in the United States as being divided into several classes: upper, upper middle, middle, lower middle, and lower class. The di?erent classes are arrayed up and down, like a ladder, with those with the most money, education, and prestige on the top rungs and those with the least at the bottom. In the United States, the upper class owns the major share of corporate and personal wealth. The upper class includes those who have held wealth for generations as well as those who have recently become rich. Only a very small proportion of people actually constitute the upper class, but they control vast amounts of wealth and power in the United States, witnessed of late by the billionaire-?lled presidential cabinet of Donald Trump?the richest cabinet in U.S. history. Some wealthy individuals can wield as much power as entire nations (Friedman 1999). Even the term upper class, however, can mask the degree of inequality in the United States. You might consider those in the top 10 percent as upper class, but within this class are the superrich, or those popularly known as the “1 percent,” in contrast to the remaining 99 percent. Since about 1980, the share of income (not to mention wealth) going to the top 1 percent has increased to levels not seen in the United States since 1920, a time labeled the “Gilded Age” because of the concentration of wealth and income in the hands of a few. Income distribution now matches that of the Gilded Age and, given the trends, may well come to exceed it. Sociological research ?nds that this new concentration of income among the superrich is the result of several trends, including the lowest tax rates for high incomes, a more conservative shift in Congress, diminishing union membership, and asset bubbles in the stock and housing markets (Saez and Zucman 2014; Volscho and Kelly 2012). How rich is rich? Each year, the business magazine Forbes publishes a list of the 400 wealthiest families and individuals in the country. By 2017, you had to have at least two billion dollars to be on the list! Bill Gates and Je? Bezos are the two wealthiest people on the list?Gates with an estimated worth of $89 billion; Bezos, $82 billion. A substantial portion of those on the list describe themselves as “self-made,” that is, living the American dream, but most of these were still able to borrow from parents, in-laws, or spouses. Although they may have built their fortunes, they did so with a head start on accumulation (Kroll and Dolan 2012). The best predictor of future wealth still remains the family into which you are born (McNamee and Miller 2009). The upper class is overwhelmingly White, conservative, and Protestant. Members of this class exercise tremendous political power by funding lobbyists, exerting their social and personal in?uence on other elites, and contributing heavily to political campaigns (Domho? 2013). They travel in exclusive social networks that tend to be open only to those in the upper class. They tend to intermarry, their children are likely to go to expensive schools, and they spend their leisure time in exclusive resorts. Those in the upper class with newly acquired wealth are known as the nouveau riche. Luxury vehicles, high-priced real estate, and exclusive vacations may mark the lifestyle of the newly rich. Larry Ellison, who made his fortune as the founder of the software company Oracle, is the ?fth wealthiest person in the United States. Ellis has a mega yacht that is 482 feet long, ?ve stories high, with 82 rooms inside. The mega yacht also includes an indoor swimming pool, a cinema, a space for a private submarine, and a basketball court that doubles as a helicopter launch pad. The upper-middle class includes those with high incomes and high social prestige. They tend to be well-educated professionals or business executives. Their earnings can be quite high indeed, even millions of dollars a year. It is di?cult to estimate exactly how many people fall into this group because of the di?culty of drawing lines between the upper, uppermiddle, and middle classes. Indeed, the upper-middle class is often thought of as “middle class” because their lifestyle sets the standard to which many aspire, but this lifestyle is actually unattainable by most. A large home full of top-quality furniture and modern appliances, two or three relatively new cars, vacations every year (perhaps a vacation home), highquality college education for one?s children, and a fashionable wardrobe are simply beyond the means of a majority of people in the United States. The middle class is hard to de?ne in part because being “middle class” is more than just economic position. Forty-four percent of Americans identify themselves as middle class (Newport 2017), even though they vary widely in lifestyle and in resources at their disposal. The idea that the United States is an open class system leads many to think that the most have a middle-class lifestyle. The “middle class” is the ubiquitous norm, even though many who consider themselves middle class have a tenuous hold on this class position. Thus, while a majority may identify as “middle class,” what this means varies a lot across the population. The lower-middle class includes workers in the skilled trades and low-income bureaucratic workers, some who may actually think of themselves as middle class. Also known as the working class, this class includes blue-collar workers (those in skilled trades who do manual labor) and many service workers, such as secretaries, hairstylists, food servers, police, and ?re?ghters. A medium to low income, education, and occupational prestige de?ne the lower-middle class relative to the class groups above it. The term lower in this class designation refers to the relative position of the group in the strati?cation system, but it has a pejorative sound to many people, especially to people who are members of this class, many who think of themselves as middle class. The lower class is composed primarily of displaced and poor. People in this class tend to have little formal education and are often unemployed or working in minimum-wage jobs. People of color and women make up a disproportionate part of this class. The poor include the working poor?those who work at least twenty-seven hours a week but whose wages fall below the federal poverty level. Three percent of all people working full-time and 14 percent of those working part-time live below the poverty line, a proportion that has increased over time. Although this may seem a small number, it includes 8.6 million adults. Black and Hispanic workers are twice as likely to be among the working poor as White or Asian workers, and women are more likely than men to be so (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2017a). The concept of the urban underclass has been added to the lower class (Wilson 1987). The underclass includes those who are likely to be permanently unemployed and without much means of economic support. The underclass has little or no opportunity for movement out of the worst poverty. Rejected from the economic system, those in the underclass may become dependent on public assistance or illegal activities. Structural transformations in the economy have left large groups of people, especially urban minorities, in these highly vulnerable positions. The growth of the urban underclass has exacerbated the problems of urban poverty and related social problems (Wilson 2009, 1996, 1987). Class Con?ict A second way of conceptualizing the class system is con?ict theory. Con?ict theory de?nes classes in terms of their structural relationship to other classes and their relationship to the economic system. The analysis of class from this sociological perspective interprets inequality as resulting from the unequal distribution of power and resources in society (see Chapter 1). Sociologists who work from a con?ict perspective see classes as facing o? against each other, with elites exploiting and dominating others. Related to the work of Karl Marx (discussed in Chapter 1), the key idea in the con?ict model of class is that class is not simply a matter of what individuals possess in terms of income and prestige. Class is, instead, de?ned by the relationship of the classes to the larger system of economic production (Vanneman and Cannon 1987; Wright 1985). From a con?ict perspective, the middle class, or the professional–managerial class, includes managers, supervisors, and professionals. Members of this group have substantial control over other people, primarily through their authority to direct the work of others, impose and enforce regulations in the workplace, and determine dominant social values. Marx argued that the middle class is controlled by the ruling class but tends to identify with the interests of the elite. The professional– managerial class, however, is caught in a contradictory position between elites and the working class. Those in this class have some control over others, but like the working class, they have minimal control over the economic system (Wright 1979). Marx argued that as capitalism progresses, more and more of those in the middle class drop into the working class as they are pushed out of managerial jobs into working-class jobs or as professional jobs become organized more along the lines of traditional working-class employment. Ralph Freso/Getty Images Labor unions, traditionally dominated by White men in the skilled trades, are not only more diverse but also represent workers in occupations typically thought of as “white-collar” work. Has this happened? Not to the extent Marx predicted, but to some extent Marx was correct. Classes have become more polarized, with the well-o? accumulating even more resources and the middle and working classes seeing their income either ?at or falling, measured in constant dollars. Rising levels of debt among the middle class have contributed to this growing inequality. Many now have a fragile hold on being middle class: The loss of a job, a family emergency, such as the death of a working parent, divorce, disability, or a prolonged illness can quickly leave middle- and working-class families in a precarious ?nancial state. At the same time, high salaries for CEOs, tax loopholes that favor the rich, and sheer greed are concentrating more wealth in the hands of a few. Members of the working class have little control over their own work lives; instead, they generally have to take orders from others. This concept of the working class departs from traditional blue-collar de?nitions of working-class jobs because it includes many so-called white-collar workers (secretaries, salespeople, and nurses), any group working under the rules imposed by managers. The middle class may exercise some autonomy at work, but the working class has little power to challenge decisions of those who supervise them, except insofar as they can organize collectively, as in unions, strikes, or other collective work actions. Marx thought that, ultimately, there would only be two classes: the capitalist and the proletariat, but this has not occurred? in part because he did not see the growth of a large middle class. However, there is a great deal of class con?ict, though not in the open way that Marx predicted. The class structure in the United States is quite hierarchical, giving people di?erent access to jobs, income, education, power, and social status. And although the boundaries of class can seem somewhat blurry, you can see class con?ict in the politics around issues like tax reform, health care, and various federal programs to assist those in need. The middle and working classes shoulder much of the tax burden for social programs, producing resentment by these groups toward the poor. At the same time, tax loopholes for the rich have increased, producing suspicion that the wealthy are not paying their share?witnessed particularly when Donald Trump refused to release his tax returns to the public. Whatever perspective on the class system di?erent sociologists employ, it is clear that class strati?cation is a dynamic process?one involving the interplay of access to resources, judgments about di?erent groups, and the exercise of power by a few. Diverse Sources of Strati?cation Class is only one basis for strati?cation in the United States. Factors such as age, ethnicity, and national origin have a tremendous in?uence on strati?cation. Race and gender are two primary in?uences in the strati?cation system in the United States. Analyzing class without including race and gender is misleading. Race, class, and gender, as we are seeing throughout this book, are overlapping systems of strati?cation that people experience simultaneously. A working-class Latina, for example, does not experience herself as working class at one moment, Hispanic at another moment, and a woman the next. At any given point in time, her position in society is the result of her race, class, and gender status. In other words, class position is manifested di?erently depending on one?s race and gender, just as gender is experienced di?erently depending on one?s race and class, and race is experienced di?erently depending on one?s gender and class. Depending on one?s circumstances, race, class, or gender may seem particularly salient at a given moment in a person?s life. A Black middle-class man stopped and interrogated by police when driving through a predominantly White middle-class neighborhood may at that moment feel his racial status as his single most outstanding characteristic, but at all times his race, class, and gender in?uence his life chances. As social categories, race, class, and gender shape all people?s experience in this society, not just those who are disadvantaged (Andersen and Collins 2016). Class also signi?cantly di?erentiates group experience within given racial and gender groups. Latinos, for example, are broadly de?ned as those who trace their origins to regions originally colonized by Spain. The ancestors of this group include both White Spanish colonists and the natives who were enslaved on Spanish plantations. Today, some Latinos identify as White, others as Black, and others by their speci?c national and cultural origins. The very di?erent histories of those categorized as Latino are matched by signi?cant di?erences in class. Some may have been schooled in the most a?uent settings; others may be virtually unschooled. Those of upper-class standing may have had little experience with prejudice or discrimination. Others may have been highly segregated into barrios and treated with extraordinary prejudice. Latinos who live near each other geographically in the United States and who are the same age and share similar ancestry may have substantially di?erent experiences based on their class standing. Neither class, race, nor gender alone can be considered an adequate indicator of di?erent group experiences. As you can see in Figure 8-7, even one?s household status a?ects class standing. Figure 8-7. Median Income by Race and Family Structure, 2017. Source: U.S. Census. 2018. Detailed Income and Poverty Tables, FINC-02. Age of Reference Person, by Total Money Income, Type of Family, Race and Hispanic Origin of Reference Person. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov As illustrated in this graph, married-couple households have the highest median income in all racial–ethnic groups; femaleheaded households, the least. Which groups reach median income status ($61,372 for households in 2017), and what does this tell you about the combined in?uence of family type, gender, and race/ethnicity? The Race–Class Debate The relationship between race and class is much debated among sociologists. The Black middle class goes all the way back to the small numbers of free Blacks in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Frazier 1957), expanding in the twentieth century to include those who were able to obtain an education and become established in industry, business, or a profession. Likewise, Latinos include those who held land for years prior to the U.S. annexation of Mexican lands in the southwest of the country. The Latino class structure is particularly complex given the diversity in the origins of those with this designation (Vallejo 2013). In recent years, both the African American and Latino middle classes have expanded, primarily as the result of increased access to education and middle-class occupations for people of color (Pattillo 2013; Lacy 2007). Although middle-class Blacks and Latinos may have economic privileges that others in these groups do not have, their class standing does not make them immune to the negative e?ects of race. Asian Americans also have a signi?cant middle class, but they have also been stereotyped as the most successful minority group because of their presumed educational achievement, hard work, and thrift. This stereotype is referred to as the myth of the model minority and includes the idea that a minority group must adopt alleged dominant group values to succeed. This myth about Asian Americans obscures the signi?cant obstacles to success that Asian Americans encounter. It also ignores the hard work and educational achievements of other racial and ethnic groups. The idea that Asian Americans are the “model minority” also obscures the high rates of poverty among many Asian American groups (Lee 2009; Chou and Feagin 2008). Despite recent successes, many in the Black middle class have a tenuous hold on this class status. The Black middle class remains as segregated from Whites as the Black poor, and continuing racial segregation in neighborhoods means that Black middle-class neighborhoods are typically closer to Black poor neighborhoods than the White middle-class neighborhoods are to White poor ones. This exposes many in the Black middle class to some of the same risks as those in poverty. This is not to say that the Black middle class has the same experience as the poor, but it challenges the view that the Black middle class “has it all” (Pattillo 2013; Lacy 2007). The In?uence of Gender and Age Despite decades of legislation in place to protect women from discrimination and to provide equal pay for equal work, women?s median income still lags behind that of men. The median income for women, even among those employed fulltime, is far below the national median income level. In 2017, when median income for men working year-round and full-time was $52,146, the median income of women working year-round, full-time was $41,977?80 percent of men?s income (Fontenot, Semega, and Kollar 2018). This is largely because most women work in gender-segregated jobs, a phenomenon we will explore further in Chapter 11 on gender inequality. Women have clearly improved their economic status in the United States, although a careful look at the data show that most gains have been for women at the top. As one example, between 2000 and 2016, women in the bottom 10 percent of income earners increased their wages by 2 percent; women in the top ?ve percent, by 17 percent (Economic Policy Institute 2017). Age, too, is a signi?cant source of strati?cation. Children are the most likely age group to be poor. A whopping 17.5 percent of children live in poverty in the United States?almost thirteen million children. Although many elderly people are now poor (9.2 percent of those age 65 and over), far fewer in this age category are poor than was the case not many years ago (see Figure 8-8; Fontenot, Semega, and Kollar 2018). This shift re?ects the greater prosperity of the older segments of the population?a trend that is likely to continue as the current large cohort of middle-class baby boomers grows older. This cohort of older Americans is also largely White?unlike the more diverse racial–ethnic composition of young people. Figure 8-8. Poverty by Age 1959–2017 Source: Fontenot, Kayla, Jessica Semega, and Melissa Kollar. 2018. Income and Poverty in the United States: 2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov Social Mobility: Myths and Realities Popular legends extol the possibility of anyone becoming rich in the United States. The rich are admired not just for their style of life but also for their supposed drive and diligence. The admiration for those who rise to the top makes it seem like anyone who is clever enough and works hard can become fabulously rich. The assumption is that the United States class system is a meritocracy?that is, a system in which one?s status is based on merit or accomplishments, not other social characteristics. As the word suggests, people in a meritocracy move up and down through the class system based on merit, not based on other characteristics. Is this the case in the United States? De?ning Social Mobility Social mobility is a person?s movement over time from one class to another. Social mobility can be up or down, although the American dream emphasizes upward movement. Mobility can be either intergenerational, occurring between generations, as when a daughter rises above the class of her mother or father, or intragenerational, occurring within a generation, as when a person?s class status changes as the result of business success (or disaster). Societies di?er in the extent to which social mobility is permitted. Some societies are based on closed class systems, in which movement from one class to another is virtually impossible. In a caste system, for example, mobility is strictly limited by the circumstances of one?s birth. At the other extreme are open class systems, in which placement in the class system is based on individual achievement, not ascription. In open class systems, there are relatively loose class boundaries, high rates of class mobility, and weak perceptions of class di?erence. Research on social mobility shows that, despite popular beliefs to the contrary, the mobility in the United States is actually less than that in ?fteen other industrialized nations, including France, Spain, Germany, Japan, Pakistan, South Korea, Canada, and others (Corak 2016). A Sociological Eye On the Media Reproducing Class Stereotypes The media have a substantial impact on how people view the social class system and di?erent groups within it. Especially because people tend to live and associate with people in their own class, how they see others can be largely framed by the portrayal of di?erent class groups in the media. Research has found this to be true and, in addition, has found that mass media have the power to shape public support for policies on public assistance. To begin with, the media overrepresent the lifestyle of the most comfortable classes. Rare are the families that can a?ord the home decor and fashion depicted in soap operas, ironically most likely watched by those in the working class. Media portrayals, such as those found on television talk shows as well as sports, tend to emphasize stories of upward mobility. When the working class is depicted, it tends to be shown as deviant, reinforcing class antagonism and giving middle-class viewers a sense of moral superiority (Grindsta? 2002). Content analyses of the media also ?nd that the poor are largely invisible in the media (Mantsios 2010). Those poor people who are depicted in television and magazines are more often portrayed as Black, leading people to overestimate the actual number of Black poor. The elderly and working poor are rarely seen. Representations of welfare overemphasize themes of dependency, especially when portraying African Americans. Women are also more likely than men to be represented as dependent (Misra et al. 2003). How might people understand class inequality if the media routinely presented the social structural context of class di?erences? Sources: Mantsios, Gregory. 2010. “Media Magic: Making Class Invisible.” Pp. 386–394 in Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology, edited by Margaret L. Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins. Belm ont, CA: Wadsworth; Grindstaf, Laura. 2002. The Money Shot, Trask, Class, and the Making of TV Talk Shows. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 269–296; Misra, Joy, Stephanie Moller, and M arina Karides. 2003. “Envisioning Dependency: Changing Media Depictions of Welfare in the 20th Century.” Social Problems 50 (November): 482–504. See also the film, Class Dismissed: How TV Frames the Working Class, Media Education Foundation. www.mediaed.org The Extent of Social Mobility To what extent does social mobility occur in the United States? Social mobility is much more limited than people believe. Success stories of social mobility do occur, but research ?nds that experiences of mobility over great distances are rare, certainly far less than believed. Most people remain in the same class as their parents. What mobility exists is typically short in distance, and some people actually drop to a lower status, referred to as downward social mobility. The fact is that those born at both the top and bottom end of the income ladder are very likely to remain there. Rates of upward social mobility are highest among White men, followed by White women, then Black men, and ?nally, Black women. Family social mobility has, of late, been somewhat helped by the increased participation of women in the labor force, yet research still ?nds that an increase in men?s wages best predicts upward social mobility for families (Economic Mobility Project 2014). Social mobility is in?uenced most by factors that a?ect the whole society, not just by individual characteristics. Just being born in a particular generation can have a signi?cant in?uence on one?s life chances. The fears of today?s young, middleclass people that they will be unable to achieve the lifestyles of their parents show the e?ect that being in a particular generation can have on one?s life chances. When mobility occurs, it is usually because of societal changes that create or restrict opportunities, including such changes as economic cycles, changes in the occupational structure, and demographic factors, such as the number of college graduates in the labor force (Beller and Hout 2006). Yet, mobility in the United States is not impossible. Indeed, many have immigrated to this nation with the knowledge that their life chances are better here than in their countries of origin. The social mobility that does exist is greatly in?uenced by education. In sum, however, social mobility is much more limited than the American dream suggests. Class Consciousness Because of the widespread belief that mobility is possible, people in the United States, compared to many other societies, tend not to be very conscious of class. Class consciousness is the perception that a class structure exists along with a feeling of shared identi?cation with others in one?s class?that is, those with whom you share life chances (Centers 1949). Notice that there are two dimensions to class consciousness: (1) the idea that a class structure exists; and (2) one?s class identi?cation. There has been a long-standing argument that Americans are not very class conscious because of the belief that upward mobility is possible and because of the belief in individualism that is part of the culture. Images of opulence also saturate popular culture, making it seem that such material comforts are available to anyone. The faith that upward mobility is possible ironically perpetuates inequality because, if people believe that everyone has the same chances of success, they are likely to think that whatever inequality exists must be fair or the result of individual success and failure. Class inequality in any society is usually buttressed by ideas that support (or actively promote) inequality. Beliefs that people are biologically, culturally, or socially di?erent can be used to justify the higher position of some groups. If people believe these ideas, the ideas provide legitimacy for the system. Karl Marx used the term false consciousness to describe the class consciousness of subordinate classes who had internalized the view of the dominant class. Marx argued that the ruling class controls subordinate classes by in?ltrating their consciousness with belief systems that are consistent with the interests of the ruling class. If people accept these ideas, which seem to justify inequality, they need not be overtly coerced into accepting the roles designated for them by the ruling class. There have been times when class consciousness was higher, such as during the labor movement of the 1920s and 1930s. Then working-class people had a very high degree of class consciousness and mobilized on behalf of workers? rights. We see this happening again with the stagnation in income for many. Now, 28 percent of the public identify as working class (Newport 2017). The formation of a relatively large middle class and a relatively high standard of living mitigates class discontent. Racial and ethnic divisions also make strong alliances within various classes less stable. Growing inequality could result in a higher degree of class consciousness, but this has not yet developed into a signi?cant class-based movement for change. Why Is There Inequality? Strati?cation occurs in all societies. Why? This question originates in classical sociology in the works of Karl Marx and Max Weber, theorists whose work continues to inform the analysis of class inequality today. Karl Marx: Class and Capitalism Karl Marx (1818–1883) provided a complex and profound analysis of the class system under capitalism?an analysis that, although more than 100 years old, continues to inform sociological analyses. Marx de?ned classes in relationship to the means of production, de?ned as the system by which goods are produced and distributed. In Marx?s analysis, two primary classes exist under capitalism: the capitalist class, those who own the means of production, and the working class (or proletariat), those who sell their labor for wages. There are further divisions within these two classes: the petty bourgeoisie, small business owners and managers (those whom you might think of as middle class) who identify with the interests of the capitalist class but do not own the means of production, and the lumpenproletariat, those who have become unnecessary as workers and are then discarded. (Today, these would be the underclass, the homeless, and the permanently poor.) Marx thought that with the development of capitalism, the capitalists and working class would become increasingly antagonistic (something he referred to as class struggle). As class con?icts became more intense, Marx predicted that the two classes would become more polarized, with the petty bourgeoisie becoming deprived of their property and dropping into the working class. Marx would see now that his analysis was correct as classes are becoming more polarized with an increasing gap between the very rich and everyone else. In addition to the class struggle that Marx thought would characterize the advancement of capitalism, he also thought that capitalism was the basis for other social institutions. To Marx, capitalism is the infrastructure of society, with other institutions (such as law, education, the family, and so forth) re?ecting capitalist interests. According to Marx, the law supports the interests of capitalists; the family promotes values that socialize people into appropriate work roles; and education re?ects the interests of the capitalist class. Over time, Marx argued, capitalism would increasingly penetrate society. This can be clearly seen in the way that the pro?t motive permeates contemporary institutions, such as in how pro?ts of the pharmaceutical industry permeate the delivery of health care (see also Chapter 14). You might ask yourself where you see the values of capitalism permeating other social institutions. Why do people support such a system? Here is where ideology plays a role. Ideology refers to belief systems that support the status quo. According to Marx, the ruling class produces the dominant ideas of a society. Through their control of the communications industries in modern society, the ruling class is able to produce ideas that buttress their interests. Much of Marx?s analysis boils down to the consequences of a system based on the pursuit of pro?t. If goods were exchanged at the cost of producing them, no pro?t would be produced. Capitalist owners want to sell commodities for more than their actual value?more than the cost of producing them, including materials and labor. Because workers contribute value to the system and capitalists extract value, Marx saw capitalist pro?t as the exploitation of labor. Marx believed that as pro?ts became increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists, the working class would become increasingly dissatis?ed. The basically exploitative character of capitalism, according to Marx, would ultimately lead to its destruction as workers organized to overthrow the rule of the capitalist class. Class con?ict between workers and capitalists, he argued, was inescapable, with revolution being the inevitable result. Perhaps the class revolution that Marx predicted has not occurred, but the dynamics of capitalism that he analyzed are unfolding before us. At the time Marx was writing, the middle class was small and consisted mostly of small business owners and managers. Marx saw the middle class as dependent on the capitalist class, but exploited by it, because the middle class did not own the means of production. He saw middle-class people as identifying with the interests of the capitalist class because of the similarity in their economic interests and their dependence on the capitalist system. Marx believed that the middle class failed to work in its own best interests because it falsely believed that it bene?ted from capitalist arrangements. Marx thought that in the long run, the middle class would pay for their misplaced faith when pro?ts became increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few and more and more of the middle class dropped into the working class. Because he did not foresee the emergence of the large and highly di?erentiated middle class we have today, not every part of Marx?s theory has proved true. Still, his analysis provides a powerful portrayal of the forces of capitalism and the tendency for wealth to belong to a few, whereas the majority work only to make ends meet. Marx has also in?uenced the lives of billions of people under self-proclaimed Marxist systems that were created in an attempt, however unrealized, to overcome the pitfalls of capitalist society. Chapter Summary What di?erent kinds of strati?cation systems exist? Social strati?cation is a relatively ?xed hierarchical arrangement in society by which groups have di?erent access to resources, power, and perceived social worth. All societies have systems of strati?cation, although they vary in composition and complexity. Estate systems are those in which a single elite class holds the power and property; in caste systems, placement in the strati?cation is by birth; in class systems, placement is determined by achievement. How do sociologists de?ne class? Class is the social structural position that groups hold relative to the economic, social, political, and cultural resources of society. Class is highly signi?cant in determining one?s life chances. How is the class system structured in the United States? Social class can be seen as a hierarchy, like a ladder, where income, occupation, and education are indicators of class. Status attainment is the process by which people end up in a given position in this hierarchy. Prestige is the value others assign to people and groups within this hierarchy. Classes are also organized around common interests and exist in con?ict with one another. Is there social mobility in the United States? Social mobility is the movement between class positions. Education gives some boost to social mobility, but social mobility is more limited than people believe; most people end up in a class position very close to their class of origin. Class consciousness is both the perception that a class structure exists and the feeling of shared identi?cation with others in one?s class. The United States has not been a particularly class-conscious society because of the belief in upward mobility. What analyses of social strati?cation do sociological theorists provide? Karl Marx saw class as primarily stemming from economic forces; Max Weber had a multidimensional view of strati?cation, involving economic, social, and political dimensions. Functionalists argue that social inequality motivates people to ?ll the di?erent positions in society that are needed for the survival of the whole, claiming that the positions most important for society require the greatest degree of talent or training and are thus most rewarded. Con?ict theorists see social strati?cation as based on class con?ict and blocked opportunity, pointing out that those at the bottom of the strati?cation system are least rewarded because they are subordinated by dominant groups. How do sociologists explain why there is poverty in the United States? Culture of poverty is the idea that poverty is the result of the cultural habits of the poor that are transmitted from generation to generation, but sociologists see poverty as caused by social structural conditions, including unemployment, gender inequality in the workplace, and the absence of support for child care for working parents. What current policies address the problem of poverty? Current welfare policy, adopted in 1996, provides support through individual states, but recipients are required to work after two years of support and have a lifetime limit of ?ve years of support. Key Terms caste system 178 class consciousness 194 class systems 178 concentrated poverty 201 conspicuous consumption 179 culture of poverty 203 economic restructuring 180 educational attainment 188 estate system 178 false consciousness 194 feminization of poverty 200 ideology 195 income 181 life chances 179 median income 187 meritocracy 193 net worth 182 occupational prestige 187 poverty line 199 prestige 187 social class 179 social mobility 186 social stratification 176 socioeconomic status (SES) 186 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 205 urban underclass 189 wealth 181 Chapter 9. Global Strati?cation iStock.com/elenabs In this chapter, you will learn to: De?ne global strati?cation and describe its components Compare and contrast di?erent explanations of global strati?cation Describe the various consequences of global strati?cation Explain the causes and consequences of global poverty Summarize the impact of globalization for social change Introduction “It takes a village to raise a child,” the saying goes, but it also seems to take a world to make a shirt?or so it seems from looking at the global dimensions of the production and distribution of goods. Try this simple experiment: Look at the labels on your clothing. (If you do this in class, try to do so without embarrassing yourself and others!) What do you see? “Made in Indonesia,” “Made in Vietnam,” “Made in Malawi”?all indicating the linkage of the United States to clothing manufacturers around the world. The popular brand Nike, as just one example, contracts with factories all over the world. Most of Nike?s products are made in hundreds of factories throughout Asia. Taking your experiment further, ask yourself: Who made your clothing? A young person trying to lift his or her family out of poverty? Might it have been a child? The International Labour Organization (ILO) distinguishes child labor (those under age 17) from employed children (such as a teenager holding a part-time job or babysitting). Child labor speci?cally refers to “work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential, and their dignity and that is also harmful to mental and physical development” (International Labour Organization 2017). The ILO estimates that about 168 million children around the world are trapped in child labor, almost half of whom are involved in dangerous work and many of whom are separated from their families and possibly held in slavery (International Labour Organization 2017). This does not mean that a child necessarily made your clothing. In fact, most child labor occurs in agricultural work, although a signi?cant component (25 percent) is in service and manufacturing work. The encouraging news is that the use of child labor has declined since 2000 but remains a signi?cant part of global production. Data on child labor indicate that our global systems of work are deeply connected to inequality. Especially in the poorest countries, trying to survive forces people into forms of work that produce some of the world?s greatest injustices?both for children and for adult women and men. As we will see in this chapter, nations are interlocked in a system of global inequality, in which the status of the people in one country is intricately linked to the status of the people in others?a fact that has become apparent to workers in the United States who see their status declining as the result of jobs moving overseas. Such a recognition has even fueled anti-globalization politics in the United States, as voters have responded to political calls to bring jobs back to America. Recall from Chapter 1 that C. Wright Mills identi?ed the task of sociology as seeing the social forces that exist beyond individuals. This is particularly important when studying global inequality. A person in the United States (or western Europe or Japan) who thinks he or she is expressing individualism by wearing the latest style is actually part of a global system of inequality. The adornments available to that person result from a whole network of forces that produce a?uence in some nations and poverty in others. The United States and other wealthy nations are dominant in the system of global strati?cation. Those at the top of the global strati?cation system have enormous power over the fate of other nations. Although world con?ict stems from many sources, including religious di?erences, cultural con?icts, and struggles over political philosophy, the inequality between rich and poor nations causes much hatred and resentment. One cannot help but wonder what would happen if the di?erences between the wealth of some nations and the poverty of others were smaller. In this chapter, we examine the dynamics and e?ects of global strati?cation. Global Strati?cation In the world today, there are not only rich and poor people but also rich and poor countries. Some countries are well o?, some countries are doing so-so, and a growing number of countries are poor and getting poorer. There is, in other words, a system of global strati?cation in which the units are countries, much like a system of strati?cation within countries in which the units are individuals or families. Just as we can talk about the upper-class or lower-class individuals within a country, we can also talk of the equivalent upper-class or lower-class countries in this world system. One manifestation of global strati?cation is the great inequality in life chances that di?erentiates nations around the world. Simple measures of well-being (such as life expectancy, infant mortality, access to education and health, and measures of environmental quality) reveal the consequences of global inequality. The gap between rich and poor people is also sometimes greatest in nations where poverty rates are highest. No longer can nations be understood without considering the global system of strati?cation of which they are a part. Alice Hartley Some nations have so much wealth that they actually serve gold as food, such as these real gold leaves on a dessert in Dubai! The relative a?uence of the United States means that U.S. consumers have access to goods produced around the world. A simple thing, such as a child?s toy, can represent this global system. For many young girls in the United States, Barbie is the ideal of fashion and romance. Young girls may have not just one Barbie, but several, each with a speci?c role and costume. Cheaply bought in the United States, but produced in China, Indonesia, or Malaysia, Barbie is made by those who are probably not much older than the young girls who play with her. Now, Barbie is played with in over 150 countries around the world. Many of the workers who make them would need a substantial part of their monthly pay to buy just one of the dolls that many U.S. girls collect by the dozens. The manufacturing of toys and clothing is an example of the global strati?cation that links the United States and other parts of the world. Global outsourcing locates jobs overseas even while supporting U.S.-based businesses. Many of the jobs that have been outsourced in this way are semiskilled jobs, such as data entry, medical transcription, and so forth. Increasingly, outsourced jobs are also found in high-tech industries, software design, market research, and product research activities. Although it is di?cult to measure the extent of global outsourcing, it has become a common phenomenon?something you experience when, for example, you engage in a telephone or Internet transaction, such as getting help for your computer or arranging a trip. India, China, and Russia have been major players in the economy of global outsourcing, but other nations, such as Ireland, South Africa, Poland, and Hungary, among others, are playing an increasingly important role. The consequences can be very positive for the economies of the host nations. The practice of outsourcing also lowers personnel costs for U.S.-based companies, given the lower wages in nations where jobs ?ow. Outsourcing is at the expense of jobs for workers in the United States, however. The practice of global outsourcing increasingly links the economies and social systems of nations around the world. Rich and Poor One dimension of strati?cation between countries is wealth. Enormous di?erences exist between the wealth of the countries at the top of the global strati?cation system and the wealth of the countries at the bottom. A very small proportion of the world?s population receives a vast share of all income?a visual reminder of the inequality that characterizes our world. You will recall that we looked at the “champagne glass” of inequality within the United States in Chapter 8. A similar image can show you the inequality of income worldwide (see Figure 9-1). As you can see, a small percentage of the world?s population has a very disproportionate share of world income. As map 9-1 shows, were the world geographically arrayed by wealth, a very di?erent looking globe would result! Figure 9-1. World Income Distribution Data from: Ortiz, Isabel, and Matthew Cummins. 2011. “Global Inequality: Beyond the Bottom Billion.” Social and Economic Policy Working Paper. UNICEF, April. www.worldbank.org Map 9-1. Viewing Society in Global Perspective: The World Seen through the Distribution of Wealth This map shows what the world would look like were geographical boundaries formed by the wealth held by di?erent nations. What perspective does this give you on global strati?cation? Source: © Copyright 2006 SASI Group (University of Sheffield) and Mark Newman (University of Michigan), www.worldmapper.org/posters/worldmapper_map169_ver5.pdf There are di?erent ways to measure the wealth of nations, but the most common is to use the per capita gross national income (GNI). The GNI measures the total output of goods and services produced by residents of a country each year plus the income from non-resident sources, divided by the size of the population. The GNI does not truly re?ect what individuals or families receive in wages or pay. It is simply each person?s annual share of their country?s income if income were shared equally. You can use this measure to get a picture of global strati?cation (see map 9-2). Map 9-2. Viewing Society in Global Perspective: Rich and Poor Most nations are linked in a world system that produces wealth for some and poverty for others. The GNI (gross national income), depicted here on a per capita basis for most nations in the world, is an indicator of the wealth and poverty of nations. Source: The World Bank. 2017. Reprinted by permission. www.worldbank.org Per capita GNI is reliable only in countries that are based on a cash economy. It does not measure informal exchanges or bartering in which resources are exchanged without money changing hands. These noncash transactions are not included in the GNI calculation, but they are common in developing countries. As a result, measures of wealth based on the GNI, or other statistics that count cash transactions, are less reliable among the poorer countries and may underestimate the wealth of the countries at the lower end of the economic scale. The per capita GNI of the United States, one of the wealthier nations in the world (though not the wealthiest on a per capita basis), was $56,180 in 2016. In the poorest countries of the world, the GNI per capita is quite small, as you can see in Figure 9-2. You may also notice that many of the poorest nations are in sub-Saharan Africa, the region of the world most likely to be a?icted by extreme poverty. The United States? per capita GNI shows us to be one of the most a?uent nations in the world (World Bank 2017a). Which are the wealthiest nations? Figure 9-2 shows the ten richest and the ten poorest countries in the world (measured by the annual per capita GNI). Figure 9-2. The Rich and the Poor: A World View Data from: The World Bank. 2017a. Data based on GNI per cap...