Please write a paper analyzing the film using the concepts from Chapter 14 on Health Care - Chapter 8 and 10 This is the film: https://www.vudu.com/content/movies/details/title/... I've attached the question and I would like to solve it using text book

20181203173601chapter_8.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Please write a paper analyzing the film using the concepts from Chapter 14 on Health Care - Chapter 8 and 10 This is the film: https://www.vudu.com/content/movies/details/title/... I've attached the question and I would like to solve it using text book

An dr

ew H

ol br

oo ke

/C or

bi s

N ew

s/ Co

rb is

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

169

Social Differentiation and Social Stratification 170

The Class Structure of the United States: Growing Inequality 173

The Distribution of Income and Wealth 175

Analyzing Social Class 179

Social Mobility: Myths and Realities 185

Why Is There Inequality? 187

Poverty 190

Chapter Summary 197

One afternoon in a major U.S. city, two women go shop-ping. They are friends—wealthy, suburban women who shop for leisure. They meet in a gourmet res- taurant and eat imported foods while discussing their chil- dren’s private schools. After lunch, they spend the afternoon in exquisite stores—some of them large, elegant department stores; others, intimate boutiques where the staff knows them by name. When one of the women stops to use the bathroom in one store, she enters a beautifully furnished room with an upholstered chair, a marble sink with brass faucets, fresh flow- ers on a wooden pedestal, shining mirrors, an ample supply of hand towels, and jars of lotion and soaps. The toilet is in a pri- vate stall with solid doors. In the stall, there is soft toilet paper and another small vase of flowers.

The same day, in a different part of town, another woman goes shopping. She lives on a marginal income earned as a stitcher in a textiles factory. Her daughter badly needs a new pair of shoes because she has outgrown last year’s pair. The woman goes to a nearby discount store where she hopes to find a pair of shoes for under $15, but she dreads the experi- ence. She knows her daughter would like other new things—a bathing suit for the summer, a pair of jeans, and a blouse. But this summer, the daughter will have to wear hand-me-downs because bills over the winter have depleted the little money left after food and rent. For the mother, shopping is not rec- reation but a bitter chore reminding her of the things she is unable to get for her daughter.

While this woman is shopping, she, too, stops to use the bathroom. She enters a vast space with sinks and mirrors lined up on one side of the room and several stalls on the other. The tile floor is gritty and gray. The locks on the stall doors are missing or broken. Some of the overhead lights are burned out, so the room has dark shadows. In the stall, the toilet paper is coarse. When the woman washes her hands, she discovers there is no soap in the metal dispensers. The mirror before her is cracked. She exits quickly, feeling as though she is being watched.

Social Class and Social Stratification

● Explain how class is a social structure

● Describe the class structure of the United States

● Identify the different components of class inequality

● Analyze the extent of social mobility in the United States

● Compare and contrast theoretical models of class inequality

● Investigate the causes and consequences of U.S. poverty

in this chapter, you will learn to:

1 70 CHA PTER 8

Social Differentiation and Social Stratification All social groups and societies exhibit social differentia- tion. Status, as we have seen earlier, is a socially defined position in a group or society. Different statuses develop in any group, organization, or society. Think of a sports organization. The players, the owners, the managers, the fans, the cheerleaders, and the sponsors all have a different status within the organization. Together, they constitute a whole social system, one that is marked by social differentiation.

Two scenarios, one society. The difference is the mark of a society built upon class inequality. The signs are all around you. Think about the clothing you wear. Are some labels worth more than others? Do others in your group see the same marks of distinction and status in clothing labels? Do some people you know never seem to wear the “right” labels? Whether it is clothing, bathrooms, schools, homes, or access to health care, the effect of class inequality is enormous, giving privileges and resources to some and leaving others struggling to get by.

Great inequality divides society. Nevertheless, most people think that equal opportunity exists for all in the United States. The tendency is to blame individuals for their own failure or attribute success to individual achievement. Many think the poor are lazy and do not value work. At the same time, the rich are admired for their supposed initiative, drive, and motivation. Neither is an accurate portrayal. There are many hardworking individuals who are poor, but they seldom get credit for their effort. At the same time, many of the richest people have inherited their wealth or have had access to resources (such as the best schools or access to elite networks) that others can barely imagine.

Observing and analyzing class inequality is fundamental to sociological study. What features of soci- ety cause different groups to have different opportunities? Why is there such an unequal allocation of society’s resources? Sociologists respect individual achievements but have found that the greatest cause for disparities in material success is the organization of society. Instead of understanding inequality as the result of individual effort, sociologists study the social structural origins of inequality.

→ SEE for YOURSELF ← Take a shopping trip to different stores and observe the appearance of stores serving different economic groups. What kinds of bathrooms are there in stores catering to middle-class clients? The rich? The working class? The poor? Which ones allow the most privacy or provide the nicest amenities? What fixtures are in the display areas? Are they simply utilitarian with minimal ornamentation, or are they opulent displays of consumption? Take detailed notes of your observations, and write an analysis of what this tells you about social class in the United States.

Social class differences make it seem as if some people are living in two different societies.

AP Im

ag es

/D on

R ya

Al ex

S eg

re /A

la m

SOCIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATIF I CATIO N 1 7 1

Status differences can become organized into a hierarchical social system. Social stratification is a relatively fixed, hierarchical arrangement in society by which groups have different access to resources, power, and perceived social worth. Social stratification is a sys- tem of structured social inequality. Again using sports as an example, you can see that many of the players earn extremely high salaries, although most do not. Those who do are among the elite in this system of inequality, but the owners control the resources of the teams and hold the most power in this system. Sponsors (includ- ing major corporations and media networks) are the economic engines on which this system of stratification rests. Fans are merely observers who pay to watch the teams play, but the revenue they generate is essential for keeping this system intact. Altogether, sports are sys- tems of stratification because the groups that constitute

the organization are arranged in a hierarchy where some have more resources and power than others. Some provide resources; others take them. Even within the field of sports, there are huge differences in which teams—and which sports—are among the elite.

All societies seem to have a system of social strati- fication, although they vary in the degree and complex- ity of stratification. Some societies stratify only along a single dimension, such as age, keeping the stratification system relatively simple. Most contemporary societies are more complex, with many factors interacting to cre- ate different social strata. In the United States, social stratification is strongly influenced by class, which is in turn influenced by matters such as one’s occupation, income, and education, along with race, gender, and other influences such as age, region of residence, eth- nicity, and national origin (see ◆ Table 8.1).

Sports are a huge part of American cul- ture. Whether you are an athlete, a fan, or just an observer, sports are a window into how social class shapes some of our most popular activities.

Start with the ideas of functionalism and the work of classical theorist Emile Durkheim. Durkheim was interested in the cultural symbols and events that bind people together. Think of how many sports symbols, such as jerseys, hats, and bumper stickers, are common sights in everyday life. These symbols project an identity to others that make a claim about being part of a collective group,

Social Class and Sports but sometimes, they reflect social class locations, too. Rich people, for example, are not likely to be wearing NASCAR caps, but may well have yacht club logos on their polo shirts and ties.

As Max Weber would point out, class, power, and prestige are all tangled up in sports. There are significant class differ- ences associated with different sports, some having more prestige than others. Prestige is also interwoven with power, as you can see during political elections, where you see politicians all over the place—at tailgate parties and hanging out in the expensive box seats. Beyond the

connection between power, politics, and prestige, sports is big business.

Corporate profits and sponsorship are very apparent, even in college sports. Look at the advertisements on most college scoreboards. Various plays in a football game might be featured as an “AT&T All- America Play of the Week!” Think of how much money is spent on commercials.

Social class in the world of sports is everywhere, even though the workers who help put on events are often invisible. Some of the athletes are very highly paid, but working-class people serve the food in stadiums, clean up after the fans leave, and take out all the trash. Sports are an amaz- ing example of a class-based social system.

what would a sociologist say?

◆ Table 8.1 Inequality in the United States ● One in five children (19.5 percent) in the United States lives in poverty, including 38 percent of African American children,

30 percent of Hispanic children, 11 percent of White (not Hispanic) children, and 9.8 percent of Asian American children (DeNavas-Walt and Proctor 2014).

● The rate of poverty among people in the United States has been increasing since 2000 (DeNavas-Walt and Proctor 2014).

● Among women heading their own households, one-third live below the poverty line (DeNavas-Walt and Proctor 2014).

● One percent of the U.S. population controls 38 percent of the total wealth in the nation; the bottom half hold none or are in debt (Mishel et al. 2012).

● Most American families have seen their net worth decline, largely because of declines in the value of housing. Households at the bottom of the wealth distribution lost the largest share of their wealth; those at the top, the least (Pfeffer et al. 2014).

● The average CEO of a major company has a salary of $13 million per year; workers earning the minimum wage make $15,080 per year if they work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks and hold only one job (www.aflcio.org).

1 72 CHA PT ER 8

Estate, Caste, and Class Stratification systems can be broadly categorized into three types: estate systems, caste systems, and class systems. In an estate system of stratification, the ownership of property and the exercise of power are monopolized by an elite class who have total control over societal resources. Historically, such societies were feudal systems where classes were differentiated into three basic groups—the nobles, the priesthood, and the commoners. Commoners included peasants (usu- ally the largest class group), small merchants, artisans, domestic workers, and traders. The nobles controlled the land and the resources used to cultivate the land, as well as all the resources resulting from peasant labor.

Estate systems of stratification are most common in agricultural societies. Although such societies have been largely supplanted by industrialization, some societies still have a small but powerful landholding class rul- ing over a population that works mainly in agricultural production. Unlike the feudal societies of the European Middle Ages, however, contemporary estate systems of stratification display the influence of international capitalism. The “noble class” comprises not knights who conquered lands in war, but international capitalists or local elites who control the labor of a vast and impover- ished group of people, such as in some South American societies where landholding elites maintain a dictator- ship over peasants who labor in agricultural fields.

In a caste system, one’s place in the stratification system is an ascribed status (see Chapter 5), meaning it is a quality given to an individual by circumstances of birth. The hierarchy of classes is rigid in caste systems and is often preserved through formal law and cultural practices that prevent free association and movement between classes. The system of apartheid in South Africa was a stark example of a caste system. Under apartheid, the travel, employment, associations, and place of resi- dence of Black South Africans were severely restricted. Segregation was enforced using a pass system in which Black South Africans could not be in White areas unless for purposes of employment. Those found without passes were arrested, often sent to prison without ever see- ing their families again. Interracial marriage was illegal. Black South Africans were prohibited from voting; the system was one of total social control where anyone who protested was imprisoned. The apartheid system was overthrown in 1994 when Nelson Mandela, held prisoner for twenty-seven years of his life, was elected president of the new nation of South Africa. A new national constitu- tion guaranteeing equal rights to all was ratified in 1996.

In class systems, stratification exists, but a per- son’s placement in the class system can change accord- ing to personal achievements. That is, class depends to some degree on achieved status, defined as status that is earned by the acquisition of resources and power,

regardless of one’s origins. Class systems are more open than caste systems because position does not depend strictly on birth. Classes are less rigidly defined than castes because class divisions are blurred when there is movement from one class to another.

Despite the potential for movement from one class to another, in the class system found in the United States, class placement still depends heavily on one’s social back- ground. Although ascription (the designation of ascribed status according to birth) is not the basis for social stratifi- cation in the United States, the class a person is born into has major consequences for that person’s life. Patterns of inheritance; access to exclusive educational resources; the financial, political, and social influence of one’s family; and similar factors all shape one’s likelihood of achievement. Although there are not formal obstacles to movement through the class system, individual achieve- ment is very much shaped by one’s class of origin.

In common terms, class refers to style or sophisti- cation. In sociological use, social class (or class) is the social structural position that groups hold relative to the economic, social, political, and cultural resources of society. Class determines the access different peo- ple have to these resources and puts groups in different positions of privilege and disadvantage. Each class has members with similar opportunities who tend to share a common way of life. Class also includes a cultural component in that class shapes language, dress, man- nerisms, taste, and other preferences. Class is not just an attribute of individuals; it is a feature of society.

The social theorist Max Weber described the conse- quences of stratification in terms of life chances, mean- ing the opportunities that people have in common by virtue of belonging to a particular class. Life chances include the opportunity for possessing goods, having an income, and having access to particular jobs. Life chances are also reflected in the quality of everyday life. Whether you dress in the latest style or wear another person’s discarded clothes, have a vacation in an exclu- sive resort, take your family to the beach for a week, or have no vacation at all, these life chances are the result of being in a particular class.

Class is a structural phenomenon; it cannot be directly observed. Nonetheless, you can “see” class through various displays that people project, often unin- tentionally, about their class status. Do some objects worn project higher-class status than others? How about cars? What class status is displayed through the car you drive or, for that matter, whether you even have a car or use a bus to get to work? In myriad ways, class is projected to others as a symbol of presumed worth in society.

Social class can be observed in the everyday hab- its and presentations of self that people project. Com- mon objects, such as clothing and cars, can be ranked not only in terms of their economic value but also in terms of the status that various brands and labels carry.

SOCIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATIF I CATIO N 1 73

The interesting thing about social class is that a particu- lar object may be quite ordinary, but with the right “label,” it becomes a status symbol and thus becomes valuable. Take the example of Vera Bradley bags. These paisley bags are made of ordinary cotton with batting. Not long ago, such cloth was cheap and commonplace, associated with rural, working-class women. If such a bag were sewn and carried by a poor person living on a farm, the bag (and perhaps the person!) would be seen as ordinary, almost worthless. Transformed by the right label (and some good marketing), Vera Bradley bags have become status symbols, selling for a high price (often a few hundred dollars—a price one would never pay for a simple cotton purse). Presumably, having such a bag denotes the status of the person carrying it. (See also the box “See for Yourself: Status Symbols in Everyday Life.”)

The early sociologist Thorstein Veblen described the class habits of Americans as conspicuous consumption, meaning the ostentatious display of goods to define one’s social status. Writing in 1899, Veblen said, “con- spicuous consumption of valuable goods is a means of respectability to the gentleman of leisure” (Veblen 1953/1899: 42). Although Veblen identified this behav- ior as characteristic of the well-to-do (the “leisure class,” he called them), conspicuous consumption today marks the lifestyle of many. Indeed, mass consumerism is a hallmark of both the rich and the middle class, and even of many working-class people’s lifestyles. What exam- ples of this do you see among your associates?

→ SEE for YOURSELF ← Status Symbols in Everyday Life You can observe the everyday reality of social class by noting the status that different ordinary objects have within the context of a class system. Make a list of every car brand you can think of—or, if you prefer, every cloth- ing label. Then rank your list with the highest status brand (or label) at the top of the list, going down to the lowest status. Then answer the following questions:

1. Where does the presumed value of this object come from? Does the value come from the actual cost of producing the object or something more subjective?

2. Do people make judgments about people wearing or driving the different brands you have noted? What judgments do they make? Why?

3. What consequences do you see (positive and negative) of the ranking you have observed? Who benefits from the ranking and who does not?

What does this exercise reveal about the influence of status symbols in society?

Because sociologists cannot isolate and measure social class directly, they use other indicators to serve

as measures of class. A prominent indicator of class is income. Other common indicators are education, occu- pation, and place of residence. These indicators alone do not define class, but they are often accurate measures of the class standing of a person or group. We will see that these indicators tend to be linked. A good income, for example, makes it possible to afford a house in a prestig- ious neighborhood and an exclusive education for one’s children. In the sociological study of class, indicators such as income and education have had enormous value in revealing the outlines and influences of the class system.

The Class Structure of the United States: Growing Inequality People think of the United States as a land of oppor- tunity where one’s class position matters less than individual effort. According to a recent survey, almost three-quarters of Americans think that hard work is the key to getting ahead in life. Compared to those in other countries, Americans are far more likely to believe in the importance of individual effort, a reflection of the cultural belief in individualism (Pew Research Global Attitudes Project 2014).

Despite these beliefs, class divisions in the United States are real, and inequality is growing. Perhaps this has become more apparent to people in recent years as the nation experienced a recession and a very frag- ile economic situation. Millions lost their homes and retirement savings and other investments. Many in the middle and working class feel that their way of life is slipping away. For the first time in our nation’s his- tory, only 17 percent of the public thinks that children

College graduates who are facing an uncertain job market are experiencing some of the consequences of growing inequality in the United States.

ZU M

A Pr

es s,

In c.

/A la

m y

1 74 CHAPTER 8

today will be better off than their parents; two-thirds no longer believe this (Pew Research Global Attitudes Pro- ject 2014; Rasmussen Reports 2009).

Even aside from the economic recession, the gap between the rich and the poor in the United States is greater than in other industrialized nations, and it is larger than at any time in the nation’s history. Many analysts argue that this gap is the central problem of the age—contributing to crime and violence, political division, threats to democracy, and increased anxiety and frustration felt by large segments of the population (Piketty 2014; Noah 2012; Reich 2010).

Many factors have contributed to growing inequal- ity in the United States, including the profound effects of national and global economic changes. Many think of the economic problems of the nation as stemming from individual greed on Wall Street, and this likely plays a role, but social inequality stems from systemic— that is, social structural—conditions, particularly what is called economic restructuring.

Economic restructuring refers to the decline of manufacturing jobs in the United States, the transfor- mation of the economy by technological change, and the process of globalization. We examine economic restructuring more in Chapter 15 on the economy, but the point here is that these structural changes are hav- ing a profound effect on the life chances of people in different social classes. Many in the working class, for example, once largely employed in relatively stable manufacturing jobs with decent wages and good ben- efits, now likely work, if they work at all, in lower-wage jobs with fewer benefits, such as health care and pen- sions. Middle-class families have amassed large sums of debt, sometimes to support a middle-class lifestyle, but also perhaps to pay for their children’s education.

The economic problems that produce inequality are not, however, purely economic: They are social, both in their origins and their consequences. Home ownership provides an example. For most Americans, owning one’s own home is the primary means of attaining economic security—a central part of the American dream. Owning a home is also the key to other resources—good schools, cleaner neighborhoods, and an investment in the future. Similarly, losing your home is more than just a financial crisis—it reverberates through various aspects of your life. The odds of having a home—indeed, the odds of losing your home—are profoundly connected to social factors, such as your race and your gender.

Housing foreclosure is a trauma for anyone who experiences it, but foreclosure has hit some groups especially hard. The racial segregation of Hispanic and, especially, African American neighborhoods is a major contributing cause to the high rate of mortgage foreclo- sures (Rugh and Massey 2010). African Americans are almost twice as likely to experience foreclosure as White Americans (Bocian et al. 2010). Moreover, women are 32 percent more likely than men to have subprime mort- gages (that is, mortgages with an interest rate higher than the prime lending rate). Black women earning double the region’s median income were nearly five times more likely to receive subprime mortgages than White men with similar incomes (Fishbein and Woodall 2006).

Some might argue that foreclosures occur because individual people have made bad decisions—buying homes beyond their means. But, institutional lending practices also target particular groups, making them more vulnerable to the economic forces that can shatter individ- ual lives. Lenders may see African Americans as a greater credit risk, but they also know that the value of real estate is less in racially segregated neighborhoods. Discrimina- tory practices in the housing market have also been well documented (Squires 2007; Oliver and Shapiro 2006).

The sociological point is that economic problems have a sociological dimension and cannot be explained by individual decisions alone. Economic policies also have different effects for different groups—sometimes

da ve

lo ga

n/ iS

to ck

ph ot

o. co

m ©

V la

di m

ir Ko

ro st

ys he

vs ki

y/ Sh

ut te

rs to

ck .c

The class structure in the United States means very different living conditions for those of vast wealth and everyone else.

SOCIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATI F I CATIO N 1 75

intended, sometimes not. Wealthy people, as an exam- ple, typically pay a far lower tax rate than the middle class, because much of their money comes from invest- ments, not income, and income is taxed at a much higher rate than investment income. Various tax loop- holes (such as home mortgage deductions, tax shelters on real estate investments, or even offshore banking deposits) also significantly reduce the tax burden by those with the most resources.

Corporations benefit the most from the tax struc- ture. The corporate tax rate in the United States is the highest in the world (35 percent), but many corporations pay much less than that, given the various loopholes, offshore investments, and tax subsidies that lessen one’s tax obligation. A study of the Fortune 500 companies (those companies with the highest gross revenue in a given year) has found that most paid only about 20 per- cent in taxes. Many of these big companies paid no tax at all in some years (McIntyre et al. 2014).

The Distribution of Income and Wealth Understanding inequality requires knowing some basic economic and sociological terms. Inequality is often presented as a matter of differences in income, one important measure of class standing. In addition to income inequality, there are vast inequalities in who owns what—that is, the wealth of different groups.

Income is the amount of money brought into a household from various sources (wages, investment income, dividends, and so on) during a given period. In recent years, income growth has been greatest for those at the top of the population; for everyone else, income

(controlling for the value of the dollar) has either been relatively flat or grown at a far lesser rate. Inequality becomes even more apparent, however, when you con- sider both wealth and income.

Wealth is the monetary value of everything one actually owns. Wealth is calculated by adding all finan- cial assets (stocks, bonds, property, insurance, savings, value of investments, and so on) and subtracting debts, resulting in one’s net worth. Wealth allows you to accu- mulate assets over generations, giving advantages to subsequent generations that they might not have had on their own. Unlike income, wealth is cumulative— that is, its value tends to increase through investment. Wealth can also be passed on to the next generation, giving those who inherit wealth a considerable advan- tage in accumulating more resources.

To understand the significance of wealth com- pared to income in determining class location, imagine two college students graduating in the same year, from the same college, with the same major and same grade point average. Imagine further that both get jobs with the same salary in the same organization. In one case, parents paid all the student’s college expenses and gave her a car upon graduation. The other student worked while in school and graduated with substantial debt from student loans. This student’s family has no money with which to help support the new worker. Who is bet- ter off? Same salary, same credentials, but wealth (even if modest) matters, giving one person an advantage that will be played out many times over as the young worker buys a home, finances her own children’s education, and possibly inherits additional assets.

Where is all the wealth? The wealthiest 1 percent own 35 percent of all net worth; the bottom half hold only 1.1 percent of all wealth (see ▲ Figure 8.1; Levine 2012).

Each horizontal band represents an equal fifth of the nation’s people

Richest

Poorest

9.4% of income

2.8% of income

.2% of income

2 1.2% of income

88.9% of income

▲ Figure 8.1 Distribution of Wealth in the United States Source: Mishel, Lawrence, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz. 2012. The State of Working America, 12th Edition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press/Economic Policy Institute.

1 76 CHAPTER 8

Moreover, there has been an increase in the concen- tration of wealth since the 1980s, making the United States one of the most unequal nations in the world. The growth of wealth by a select few, though long a feature of the U.S. class system, has also reached historic levels. As just one example, John D. Rockefeller is typically heralded as one of the wealthiest men in U.S. history. Comparing Rockefeller with Bill Gates, controlling for the value of today’s dollars, Gates has far surpassed Rockefeller’s riches.

In contrast to the vast amount of wealth and income controlled by elites, a very large proportion of Americans have hardly any financial assets once debt is subtracted. Figure 8.4 shows the net worth of differ- ent parts of the population, and you can see that most of the population has very low net worth. One-fifth of the population has zero or negative net worth, usually because their debt exceeds their assets. The American dream of owning a home, a new car, taking annual vaca- tions, and sending one’s children to good schools—not to mention saving for a comfortable retirement—is increasingly unattainable for many. When you see the amount of income and wealth a small segment of the population controls, a sobering picture of class inequal- ity emerges. Students themselves may be experiencing this burden, as levels of debt from student loans have escalated in recent years.

Despite the prominence of rags-to-riches stories in American legend, much of the wealth in this society

“It’s a dog’s life,” or so the saying goes, but even dogs have their experiences shaped by the realities of social class.

Ra di

us Im

ag es

/A la

m y

AP Im

ag es

/R ic

F ie

ld Ba

ca ll,

A ar

on /C

ar to

on St

oc k

SO CIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATIF I CATIO N 1 7 7

Numerous recent reports show that students are struggling over rising levels of debt from student loans. A record one in five 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 8.2 and 8.3 below; Lee 2013; Fry 2012). Leaving college or graduate school with large amounts of debt impedes one’s ability to get financially established.

All students are at risk of accruing debt, given the rising cost of educa- tion and the higher interest rates now

The Student Debt Crisis associated with student loans. Some groups though are more vulnerable than others, adding to the inequalities that accrue across different groups. Among those in the bottom fifth of income earners, student debt, on average, takes up 24 percent of all income; for the top fifth of earners, only 9 percent of income. For those in the middle, student debt consumes 12 percent of income (Fry 2012).

The highest amount of student debt is also 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 influence the experience of those you see in your own environment? What are the sociological causes of this significant social problem?

understanding diversity

1989 1992 1995 1998

Percent with debt

2001 2004 2007 2010

9% 11% 11%

12% 12% 13% 13%

19%

▲ Figure 8.2 Households with Outstanding Student Debt Source: Pew Research Center, Social and Demographic Trends Project. www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/09/26/. Released September 26, 2012. A Record One-in-Five Households Now Owe Student Loan Debt Burden Greatest on Young, Poor by Richard Fry.

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

19921989 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010

$9,634

$11,086 $11,714

$17,942

Average amount of debt

$17,562

$20,022 $23,349

$26,682

▲ Figure 8.3 Average Amount of Household Student Debt Source: Pew Research Center, Social and Demographic Trends Project. www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/09/26/. Released September 26, 2012. A Record One-in-Five Households Now Owe Student Loan Debt Burden Greatest on Young, Poor by Richard Fry.

is inherited. In recent years, more of those who are very rich are “self-made”—that is, starting from modest ori- gins: Bill Gates, a Harvard dropout; Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook; and Oprah Winfrey come to mind. Such examples exist, although for many, if you scratch the surface of the rags-to-riches theme, you will find that they had a significant leg up. Among the now very rich, it has become more common for some to become amaz- ingly rich, even though coming from modest origins. The technology boom has certainly helped, showing again how the historical context of one’s life course can matter.

For most people, however, dramatically moving up in the class system remains highly likely. Children from low-income families have less than a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of earners (T. Hertz 2006). Recently, even the modest wealth of those in the middle class has been significantly eroded by the impact of the recent economic recession; young and minority house- holds have been especially hard hit by these changes, in large part because of being highly “leveraged”—that is, holding too much debt on their homes (Wolff 2014; Kochhar et al. 2011).

1 78 CHA PTER 8

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 prosper- ity. The American middle class is not as secure as it has been presumed to be.

Personal bankruptcy has risen dramatically with more than a million nonbusiness filings for bankruptcy per year recently. How can this be happening in such a prosperous society? Sociolo- gists Teresa Sullivan, Elizabeth Warren, and Jay Lawrence Westbrook have studied bankruptcy, and their research shows the fragility of the middle class in recent times.

Research Question: What is causing the rise of bankruptcy?

Research Method: This study is based on an analysis of official records of bankruptcy in five states, as well as on detailed questionnaires given to individuals who filed for bankruptcy.

Research Results: The research find- ings of Sullivan and her colleagues debunk the idea that bankruptcy is most common among poor people. Instead, they found bankruptcy is mostly a

The Fragile Middle Class middle-class phenomenon represent- ing 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). They also debunk the notion that bankruptcy is rising because it is so easy to file. Rather, they found many people in the middle class so overwhelmed with debt that they cannot possibly pay it off. Most people often file 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 stabil- ity of the middle class. The volatility of jobs under modern capitalism is one of the biggest factors, but add to this the “thin safety net”—no health insurance for many, but rising medical costs. Also, the American dream of owning one’s own home means many are “mortgage poor”—extended beyond their ability to keep up.

The United States is also a credit- driven society. Credit cards are rou- tinely mailed to people in the middle

class, encouraging them to buy beyond their means. You can now buy virtually anything on credit: cars, clothes, doc- tor’s bills, entertainment, groceries. You can even use one credit card to pay off other credit cards. Indeed, it is difficult to live in this society without 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 pay- ments 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 financial catastrophe” (2000: 6).

Questions to Consider 1. Have you ever had a credit card? If

so, how easy was it to get? Is it pos- sible to get by without a credit card?

2. What evidence do you see in your community of the fragility or stability of different social class groups?

doing sociological research

Race also influences the pattern of wealth distri- bution in the United States. For every dollar of wealth White Americans hold, Black Americans have only 26 cents. At all levels of income, occupation, and edu- cation, Black families have lower levels of wealth than similarly situated White families (see ▲ Figure 8.4).

Being able to draw on assets during times of eco- nomic stress means that families with some resources can better withstand difficult times than those with- out assets. Even small assets, such as home ownership or a savings account, provide protection from crises such as increased rent, a health emergency, or unem- ployment. Because the effects of wealth are intergen- erational—that is, they accumulate over time—just providing equality of opportunity in the present

does not address the differences in class status that Black and White Americans experience (Oliver and Shapiro 2006).

What explains the disparities in wealth by race? Wealth accumulates over time. Thus government poli- cies in the past have prevented Black Americans from being able to accumulate wealth. Discriminatory housing policies, bank lending policies, tax codes, and so forth have disadvantaged Black Americans, result- ing in the differing assets Whites and Blacks in general hold now. Even though some of these discriminatory policies have ended, many continue. Either way, their effects persist, resulting in what sociologists Melvin Oliver and Thomas Shapiro call the sedimentation of racial inequality.

SOCIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATI F I CATIO N 1 79

Understanding the significance of wealth in shap- ing life chances for different groups also shows how important it is to understand diversity within the differ- ent labels used to define groups. Among Hispanics, for example, Cuban Americans and Spaniards are similar to Whites in their wealth holdings, whereas Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and other Hispanic groups more closely resemble African Americans in measures of wealth and class standing. Without significant wealth holdings, families of any race are less able to transmit assets from previous generations to the next generation, one main support of social mobility (discussed later in the chapter).

Analyzing Social Class The class structure of the United States is elaborate, aris- ing from the interactions of race and gender inequality with class, the presence of old mixed with new wealth, the income and wealth gap between the haves and have-nots, a culture of entrepreneurship and individu- alism, and in recent times, accelerated globalization and high rates of immigration. Given this complexity, how do sociologists conceptualize social class?

Class as a Ladder One way to think about the class system is as a ladder, with different class groups arrayed up and down the rungs, each rung corresponding to a different level in the class system. Conceptualized this way, social class is the common position groups hold in a status hier- archy (Lucal 1994; Wright 1979); class is indicated by factors such as levels of income, occupational stand- ing, 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 influence people’s placement (or ranking) in the stratification system. Indeed, an abundance of socio- logical research has stemmed from the concept of status attainment, the process by which people end up in a given position in the stratification system. Status attain- ment research describes how factors such as class ori- gins, educational level, and occupation produce class location.

The laddered model of class suggests that stratifica- tion in the United States is hierarchical but somewhat fluid. That is, the assumption is that people can move up and down different “rungs” of the ladder—or class sys- tem. 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 stratification system is less than the popu- lar 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 usu- ally relatively short, as we will see in a later section on social mobility.

The image of stratification as a laddered system, with different 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 sta- tus that have been found to be most significant in deter- mining people’s placement in the stratification 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 2013, median household income in the United States was $51,939 (DeNavas-Walt and Proctor 2014). 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 18 percent on transportation; 13 percent on food; and

$120,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$40,000

$20,000

White, not Hispanic

Black Hispanic Asian

Median income Net worth

$58,270

$110,500

$34,598 $40,963

$89,329

$67,065

$7,683$6,314

▲ Figure 8.4 Median Income and Net Worth by Race Note: Income data for 2013; net worth from 2011. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Net Worth and Asset Ownership of Households: 2011, Table 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, and Bernadette Proctor. 2014. Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov

1 80 CH APT ER 8

11 percent on insurance and pensions (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014a). 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, taxes, communication, entertainment, and so forth)—less than $1000 per month for all other expenses—hardly a lavish income, especially when you consider that half of Americans have less than this, given the definition 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 significant indicator of social class standing, although not the only one.

→ SEE for YOURSELF ← Income Distribution: Should Grades Be the Same? ▲ Figure 8.5 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, different 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 ques- tions 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 sup- port such a distribution? Who would think the system of grade distribution should be changed?

4. What might different 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 stratification maintained by the beliefs that people have about merit and fairness?

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.

Occupational prestige is a second important indica- tor of socioeconomic status. Prestige is the value others assign to people and groups. Occupational prestige is the subjective evaluation people give to jobs. To deter- mine occupational prestige, sociological researchers typi- cally ask nationwide samples of adults to rank the general standing of a series of jobs. These subjective ratings pro- vide information about how people perceive the worth of different occupations. People tend to rank professionals, such as physicians, professors, judges, and lawyers highly, with occupations such as electrician, insurance agent, and police officer falling in the middle. Occupations with low occupational prestige are maids, garbage collectors, and shoe shiners. These rankings do not reflect the worth of people within these positions but are indicative of the judgments people make about the worth of these jobs.

The final major indicator of socioeconomic sta- tus is educational attainment, typically measured as the total years of formal education. The more years of

30%

25%

F D

20%

15%

10%

24.0%

29.5%

4.8%

17.7%

24.0%

Un de

r $ 25

,0 00

$2 5,

00 0–

$4 9,

99 9

$5 0,

00 0–

$9 9,

99 9

$1 00

,0 00

–$ 19

9, 99

$2 00

,0 00

a nd

m or

▲ Figure 8.5 Income Distribution in the United States This graph shows the per- centage of the total population that falls into each of five income groups. Would it be fair if course grades were distributed by the same percentages? Source: DeNavas-Walt, Carmen and Bernadette Proctor. 2014. Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov

SOCIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATI F I CATIO N 1 81

education attained, the more likely a person’s class sta- tus. The prestige attached to occupations is strongly tied to the amount of education the job requires (Ollivier 2000; Blau and Duncan 1967).

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 sys- tem in the United States as being divided into several classes: upper, upper middle, middle, lower middle, and lower class. The different 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 (see ▲ Figure 8.6). 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. Those in this class are elites who exercise enormous control through- out society. 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 con- sider those in the top 10 percent as upper class, but within this class are the superrich, or those popularly known as the “one percent,” so labeled by the Occupy America movement, in contrast to the remaining 99 percent. Since about 1980, the share of income (not to mention wealth) going to the top one percent has increased to levels not seen in the United States since 1920, a time labeled as 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 finds 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 2014, you had to have at least $1.5 billion to be on the list! Bill Gates and War- ren Buffet are the two wealthiest people on the list— Gates with an estimated worth of $79.4 billion; Buffet, $67 billion. Even in the face of the massive economic downturn for so many in the United States, only two people in the top twenty of the group had less money than the year before. 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, con- servative, and Protestant. Members of this class exer- cise tremendous political power by funding lobbyists, exerting their social and personal influence on other elites, and contributing heavily to political campaigns (Domhoff 2013). They travel in exclusive social net- works 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 third wealthiest person in the United States. Ellis has a megayacht that is 482 feet long, five stories high, with 82 rooms inside. The megayacht 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.

Top fifth Second to top fifth Middle fifth Second to bottom fifth Bottom fifth

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$100,000

2 $100,000

$205,985

$68,839

2 $6,029

$7,263

$630,754

▲ Figure 8.6 Median Net Worth by Income Quintile Recall that one’s net worth is the value of everything owned minus one’s debt. A quintile is one-fifth of a population, shown here for five different income brackets. You can see here the vast differences in wealth holdings by those in these different income brackets. How would one’s wealth holdings affect your ability to withstand some sort of emergency—an illness, unemployment, a recession, and so forth? Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Wealth and Asset Ownership, 2011: Table A1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov

1 82 CH APTER 8

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 difficult to estimate exactly how many people fall into this group because of the difficulty of drawing lines between the upper, upper-middle, 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), high-quality 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 define in part because being “middle class” is more than just economic posi- tion. Half of all Americans identify themselves as mid- dle class (Morin and Motel 2012), 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 life- style. The “middle class” is the ubiquitous norm, even though many who consider themselves middle class have a tenuous hold on this class position.

The lower-middle class includes workers in the skilled trades and low-income bureaucratic workers, some who may actually think of themselves as mid- dle 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 fire- fighters. A medium to low income, education, and occu- pational prestige define 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 stratification 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 min- imum-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 pov- erty level. Four percent of all people working full-time and 16 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 9.1 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 2014 d).

The concept of the urban underclass has been added to the lower class (W. Wilson 1987). The under- class 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 Conflict A second way of conceptualizing the class system is conflict theory. Conflict theory defines classes in terms of their structural relationship to other classes and their relationship to the economic system. The analysis of

M 2

Ph ot

og ra

ph y/

Al am

Social class influences many things, including the leisure time people experience. Few can even imagine having something like the yacht pictured on the left, owned by Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle.

Se an

G ar

ns w

or th

y/ Ph

ot od

is c/

Ge tty

Im ag

SOCIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATIF I CATIO N 1 83

class from this sociological perspective interprets ine- quality as resulting from the unequal distribution of power and resources in society (see Chapter 1). Sociolo- gists who work from a conflict perspective see classes as facing off 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 conflict model of class is that class is not simply a matter of what individuals possess in terms of income and pres- tige. Class is, instead, defined by the relationship of the classes to the larger system of economic production (Vanneman and Cannon 1987; Wright 1985).

From a conflict perspective, the middle class, or the professional–managerial class, includes managers, supervisors, and professionals. Members of this group have substantial control over other people, primar- ily 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.

Has this happened? Not to the extent Marx pre- dicted. He thought that ultimately there would be only two classes—the capitalist and the proletariat. To some extent, however, this is occurring. Classes have become more polarized, with the well-off accumulating even more resources and the middle class seeing their income as either flat or falling, measured in constant dollars. Rising levels of debt among the middle class have con- tributed 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 par- ent, divorce, disability, or a prolonged illness can quickly leave middle- and working-class families in a precarious financial 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 work- ing class departs from traditional blue-collar defini- tions of working-class jobs because it includes many so-called white-collar workers (secretaries, salespeo- ple, 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 lit- tle 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.

Whether you see the class system as a ladder or as a system of conflict, you can see that the class structure in the United States is hierarchical. Class position gives different people access to jobs, income, education, power, and social status, all of which bestow further opportunities on some and deprive others of success. The class structure is a system with boundaries built into it, generating class conflict. The middle and work- ing classes shoulder much of the tax burden for social programs, producing resentment by these groups toward the poor. At the same time, corporate taxes have declined and tax loopholes for the rich have increased, an indication of the privilege that is perpetuated by the class system. Whatever features of the class system dif- ferent sociologists study, they see class stratification as a dynamic process—one involving the interplay of access to resources, judgments about different groups, and the exercise of power by a few.

Diverse Sources of Stratification Class is only one basis for stratification in the United States. Factors such as age, ethnicity, and national ori- gin have a tremendous influence on stratification. Race and gender are two primary influences in the stratifica- tion system in the United States. Analyzing class without

Ji m

W es

t/ Th

e Im

ag e

W or

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.

1 84 CH A PTER 8

including race and gender can actually be misleading. Race, class, and gender, as we are seeing throughout this book, are overlapping systems of stratification 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 differently depending on one’s race and gender, just as gender is experienced differently depending on one’s race and class, and race is experienced differently 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 predomi- nantly White middle-class neighborhood may at that moment feel his racial status as his single most outstand- ing characteristic, but at all times his race, class, and gen- der influence 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 2013).

Class also significantly differentiates group experi- ence within given racial and gender groups. Latinos, for example, are broadly defined as those who trace their ori- gins 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 specific national and cultural origins.

The very different histories of those categorized as Latino are matched by significant differences in class. Some may have been schooled in the most affluent settings; others may be virtually unschooled. Those of upper-class stand- ing may have had little experience with prejudice or dis- crimination. 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 ances- try may have substantially different experiences based on their class standing. Neither class, race, nor gender alone can be considered an adequate indicator of different group experiences. As you can see in ▲ Figure 8.7, even one’s household status affects class standing.

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, busi- ness, or a profession. Although wages for Black middle- class and professional workers never matched those of Whites in the same jobs, the Black middle class has had relatively high prestige within the Black commu- nity. Many sociologists conclude that the class structure among African Americans has existed alongside the White class structure—separate and different.

In recent years, both the African American and Latino middle classes have expanded, primarily as the

90,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

20,000

10,000

White, not Hispanic

Black Asian Hispanic

Married-couple family

Female householder, no spouse present

Male householder, no spouse present

▲ Figure 8.7 Median Annual Income by Race and Household Status, 2013 As illustrated in this graph, married-couple households have the highest median income in all racial–ethnic groups; female- headed households, the least , except among Asians. Which groups reach median income status ($51,939 for households in 2013), and what does this tell you about the combined influence of family type, gender, and race/ethnicity? Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Current Population Survey, Table HINC-01. Selected Characteristics of Households by Total Money Income in 2013, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov

SOCIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATIF I CATIO N 1 85

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 effects of race. Asian Americans also have a significant middle class, but they have also been ste- reotyped 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 minor- ity group must adopt alleged dominant group values to succeed. This myth about Asian Americans obscures the significant obstacles to success that Asian Americans encounter, and it 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 mid- dle 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 seg- regation in neighborhoods means that Black middle- class neighborhoods are typically closer to Black poor neighborhoods than the White middle-class neighbor- hoods 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). Black Americans are still much more likely to be working class than middle class; they are also more likely to be working class than are Whites (Horton et al. 2000).

The Influence of Gender and Age. Despite decades of legislation in place to protect women from discrimi- nation 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 full- time, is far below the national median income level. In 2013, when median income for men working year-round and full-time was $50,033, the median income of women working year-round, full-time was $39,157—78 percent of men’s income (DeNavas-Walt and Proctor 2014). This is largely because most women work in gender- segregated jobs, a phenomenon we will explore further in Chapter 11 on gender inequality.

Age, too, is a significant source of stratification. Children are the most likely age group to be poor. A whopping 20 percent of children live in poverty in the United States—almost 15 million children! Although many elderly people are now poor (9.5 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; DeNavas-Walt and Proctor 2014). This shift reflects the greater prosperity of the older segments of the popu- lation—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.

Social Mobility: Myths and Realities Popular legends extol the possibility of anyone becom- ing rich in the United States. The well-to-do are admired not just for their style of life but also for their supposed

40 Percent in poverty

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2013

Children under 18 People 65 and over

▲ Figure 8.8 Poverty among the Old and the Young, 1965–2013 Source: DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, and Bernadette D. Proctor. 2014. Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. www.census.gov

1 8 6 CHAPT ER 8

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 meri- tocracy move up and down through the class system based on merit, not based on other characteristics. Is this the case in the United States?

Defining 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 intra- generational, occurring within a generation, as when a person’s class status changes as the result of business success (or disaster).

Societies differ in the extent to which social mobil- ity 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 exam- ple, 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 difference.

The Extent of Social Mobility 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 finds 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 mobil- ity 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 bot- tom end of the income ladder are very likely to remain there (Economic Mobility Report 2012). Moreover, con- trary to popular opinion, social mobility in the United States is actually lower than in either Canada or western Europe (Jäntti et al. 2006). Research finds that rates of upward social mobility are highest among White men, followed by White women, then Black men, and finally, Black women (Mazumder 2008).

Social mobility is influenced most by factors that affect the whole society, not just by individual charac- teristics. Just being born in a particular generation can have a significant influence on one’s life chances. The fears of today’s young, middle-class people that they will be unable to achieve the lifestyles of their parents

The media have a substantial impact on how people view the social class system and different groups within it. Especially because people tend to live and associ- ate with people in their own class, how they see others can be largely framed by the portrayal of different 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 overrepre- sent the lifestyle of the most comfort- able classes. Rare are the families that can afford the home decor and fashion depicted in soap operas, ironically most likely watched by those in the working

Reproducing Class Stereotypes 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 devi- ant, reinforcing class antagonism and giv- ing viewers a sense of moral superiority (Grindstaff 2002).

Content analyses of the media also find 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 than is actually the case, lead- ing people to overestimate the actual number of Black poor. The elderly and working poor are rarely seen. Repre- sentations 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 differences?

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. Belmont, 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 Marina 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

a sociological eye on the media

SOCIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATI F I CATIO N 1 87

show the effect 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 eco- nomic 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 knowl- edge that their life chances are better here than in their countries of origin. The social mobility that does exist is greatly influenced by education. In sum, however, social mobility is much more limited than the American dream of mobility suggests.

Class Consciousness Because of the widespread belief that mobility is pos- sible, 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- fication 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 identification.

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, mak- ing it seem that such material comforts are available to anyone. The faith that upward mobility is possible ironi- cally 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) inequal- ity. Beliefs that people are biologically, culturally, or socially different can be used to justify the higher posi- tion 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 con- sciousness of subordinate classes who had internalized the view of the dominant class. Marx argued that the ruling class controls subordinate classes by infiltrating their consciousness with belief systems that are consist- ent 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 desig- nated 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 downturn in the U.S. economy and the stag- nation in income for many. Half of all Americans say that they are now not moving forward, and one-third say they have fallen further back (Acs and Zimmerman 2008). Indeed, one-third of the public now say they are lower class, compared to 25 percent only a few years ago (Morin and Motel 2012).

The formation of a relatively large middle class and a relatively high standard of living mitigates class dis- content. Racial and ethnic divisions also make strong alliances within various classes less stable. Growing inequality could result in a higher degree of class con- sciousness, but this has not yet developed into a signifi- cant class-based movement for change.

Why Is There Inequality? Stratification occurs in all societies. Why? This ques- tion 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 pro- found analysis of the class system under capitalism—an analysis that, although more than 100 years old, con- tinues to inform sociological analyses. Marx defined classes in relationship to the means of production, defined 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 lumpenpro- letariat, those who have become unnecessary as work- ers and are then discarded. (Today, these would be the underclass, the homeless, and the permanently poor.)

Marx thought that with the development of capi- talism, the capitalists and working class would become increasingly antagonistic (something he referred to as class struggle). As class conflicts 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 work- ing class. Marx would see now that his analysis was cor- rect 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,

1 8 8 CHAPT ER 8

he also thought that capitalism was the basis for other social institutions. To Marx, capitalism is the infrastruc- ture of society, with other institutions (such as law, education, the family, and so forth) reflecting capitalist interests. According to Marx, the law supports the inter- ests of capitalists; the family promotes values that social- ize people into appropriate work roles; and education reflects 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 profit motive permeates contemporary institutions, such as in how profits of the pharmaceutical industry permeate the delivery of health care (see also Chapter 14). You might ask yourself where you see the values of capital- ism 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 conse- quences of a system based on the pursuit of profit. If goods were exchanged at the cost of producing them, no profit would be produced. Capitalist owners want to sell commodities for more than their actual value— more than the cost of producing them, including mate- rials and labor. Because workers contribute value to the system and capitalists extract value, Marx saw capitalist profit as the exploitation of labor. Marx believed that as profits became increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists, the working class would become increasingly dissatisfied. The basically exploitative character of capitalism, according to Marx, would ulti- mately lead to its destruction as workers organized to overthrow the rule of the capitalist class. Class conflict between workers and capitalists, he argued, was ines- capable, 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 depen- dent 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 similar- ity 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 benefited from capitalist arrange- ments. Marx thought that in the long run, the middle class would pay for their misplaced faith when profits 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 differentiated middle class we have today, not every part of Marx’s theory has proved true. Still, his analysis provides a powerful por- trayal 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 influenced the lives of billions of people under self-proclaimed Marxist systems that were created in an attempt, however unre- alized, to overcome the pitfalls of capitalist society.

Max Weber: Class, Status, and Party Max Weber (1864–1920) agreed with Marx that classes were formed around economic interests and that eco- nomic forces have a powerful effect on people’s lives. He disagreed with Marx, however, that economic forces are the primary dimension of stratification. Weber saw three dimensions to stratification:

● class (the economic dimension); ● status (or prestige, the cultural and social dimen-

sion); and, ● party (or power, the political dimension).

Weber is thus responsible for a multidimensional view of social stratification because he analyzed the connec- tions between economic, cultural, and political sys- tems. Weber pointed out that, although the economic, social, and political dimensions of stratification are usually related, they are not always consistent. Some- one could be high on one or two dimensions, but low on another. A major drug dealer is an example: high wealth (economic dimension) and power over others (politi- cal dimension) but low prestige (social dimension), at least in the eyes of the mainstream society, even if not in other circles.

Weber defined class as the economic dimension of stratification—how much access to the material goods of society a group or individual has, as measured by income, property, and other financial assets. A family with an income of $200,000 per year clearly has more access to the resources of a society than a family living on an income of $50,000 per year. Weber understood that a class has common economic interests and that economic status is the basis for one’s life chances. But, in addition, he thought that people were also stratified based on their status and power differences.

Status, to Weber, is the prestige dimension of stratification—the social judgment or recognition given to a person or group. Weber understood that class dis- tinctions are linked to status distinctions. That is, those with the most economic resources tend to have the highest status in society, but not always. In a local com- munity, for example, those with the most status may be

SO CIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATIF I CATIO N 1 89

those who have lived there the longest, even if newcom- ers arrive with more money. Although having power is typically related to also having high economic standing and high social status, this is not always the case, as you saw with the example of the drug dealer.

Finally, party (or what we would now call power) is the political dimension of stratification. Power is the capacity to influence groups and individuals even in the face of opposition. Power is also reflected in the abil- ity of a person or group to negotiate their way through social institutions. An unemployed Latino man wrongly accused of a crime, for instance, does not have much power to negotiate his way through the criminal justice system. By comparison, business executives accused of corporate crime can afford expensive lawyers and thus frequently go unpunished or, if they are found guilty, serve relatively light sentences in comparatively pleasant facilities. Again, Weber saw power as linked to economic standing, but he did not think that economic standing was always the determining cause of people’s power.

Marx and Weber explain different features of stratification. Both understood the importance of the economic basis of stratification, and they knew the sig- nificance of class for determining the course of one’s life. Marx saw people as acting primarily out of eco- nomic interests. Weber refined the sociological analy- ses of stratification to account for the subtleties that can be observed when you look beyond the sheer eco- nomic dimension to stratification, stratification being the result of economic, social, and political forces.

Together, Marx and Weber provide compelling theoreti- cal grounds for understanding the contemporary class structure.

Functionalism and Conflict Theory: The Continuing Debate Marx and Weber were trying to understand why dif- ferences existed in the resources that various groups in society hold. The question persists of why there is inequality. Two major frameworks in sociological theory—functionalist and conflict theory—take quite different approaches to understanding inequality (see ◆ Table 8.2).

The Functionalist Perspective on Inequality. Functionalist theory views society as a system of institu- tions organized to meet society’s needs (see Chapter 1). The functionalist perspective emphasizes that the parts of society are in basic harmony with each other; soci- ety is held together by cohesion, consensus, coopera- tion, stability, and persistence (Eitzen and Baca Zinn 2012; Merton 1957; Parsons 1951a). Different parts of the social system complement one another. To explain stratification, functionalists see the roles filled by the upper classes—such as governance, economic innova- tion, investment, and management—are essential for a cohesive and smoothly running society. The upper classes are then rewarded in proportion to their contri- bution to the social order (Davis and Moore 1945).

◆ Table 8.2 Functionalist and Conflict Theories of Stratification

Interprets Functionalism Conflict Theory

Inequality The purpose of inequality is to motivate people to fill needed positions in society.

Inequality results from a system where those with the most resources exploit and control others.

Reward system Greater rewards are attached to higher posi- tions to ensure that people will be motivated to train for functionally important roles in society.

Inequality prevents the talents of those at the bottom from being discovered and used.

Classes Some groups are rewarded because their work requires the greatest degree of talent and training.

Classes conflict with each other as they vie for power and economic, social, and political resources.

Elites The most talented are rewarded in proportion to their contribution to the social order.

The most powerful reproduce their advantage by distributing resources and controlling the dominant value system.

Class consciousness/ ideology

Beliefs about success and failure confirm the status of those who succeed.

Elites shape societal beliefs to make their unequal privilege appear to be legitimate and fair.

Poverty Poverty serves economic and social functions in society.

Poverty is inevitable because of the exploitation built into the system.

Social policy Because the system is basically fair, social policies should only reward merit.

Because the system is basically unfair, social policies should support disadvantaged groups.

1 9 0 CHA PT ER 8

According to the functionalist perspective, social inequality serves an important purpose in society: It motivates people to fill the different positions in soci- ety that are needed for the survival of the whole. Func- tionalists think that some positions in society are more important than others and require the most talent and training. The rewards attached to those positions (such as higher income and prestige) ensure that people will make the sacrifices needed to acquire the training for functionally important positions (Davis and Moore 1945). Higher class status thus comes to those who acquire what is needed for success (such as education and job training). In other words, functionalist theorists see inequality as based on a reward system that moti- vates people to succeed.

The Conflict Perspective on Inequality. Conflict theory also sees society as a social system, but unlike functionalism, conflict theory interprets society as being held together through conflict and coercion. From a conflict-based perspective, society comprises competing interest groups, some with more power than others. Groups struggle over societal resources and compete for social advantage. Conflict theorists argue that those who control society’s resources also hold power over others. The powerful are also likely to act to reproduce their advantage and try to shape societal beliefs to make their privileges appear to be legitimate and fair. In sum, conflict theory emphasizes the friction in society rather than the coherence, and sees society as dominated by elites.

From the perspective of conflict theory, social strat- ification is based on class conflict and blocked oppor- tunity. Conflict theorists see stratification as a system of domination and subordination in which those with the most resources exploit and control others. They also see the different classes as in conflict with each other, with the unequal distribution of rewards reflecting the class interests of the powerful, not the survival needs of the whole society (Eitzen and Baca Zinn 2012). Accord- ing to the conflict perspective, inequality provides elites with the power to distribute resources, make and enforce laws, and control value systems. Elites then use these powers to reproduce their own advantage. Others in the class structure, especially the working class and the poor, experience blocked mobility.

From a conflict point of view, the more stratified a society, the less likely that society will benefit from the talents of its citizens. Inequality limits the life chances of those at the bottom, preventing their talents from being discovered and used.

The Debate between Functionalist and Conflict Theories. Implicit in the argument of each perspec- tive is criticism of the other perspective. Functionalism

assumes that the most highly rewarded jobs are the most important for society, whereas conflict theorists argue that some of the most vital jobs in society—those that sustain life and the quality of life, such as farmers, mothers, trash collectors, and a wide range of other laborers—are usually the least rewarded. Conflict theo- rists also criticize functionalist theory for assuming that the most talented get the greatest rewards. They point out that systems of stratification tend to devalue the contributions of those left at the bottom and to under- utilize the diverse talents of all people (Tumin 1953). In contrast, functionalist theorists contend that the con- flict view of how economic interests shape social orga- nization is too simplistic. Conflict theorists respond by arguing that functionalists hold too conservative a view of society and overstate the degree of consensus and stability that exists.

The debate between functionalist and conflict the- orists raises fundamental questions about how people view inequality. Is inequality inevitable? How is ine- quality maintained? Do people basically accept it? This debate is not just academic. The assumptions made from each perspective frame public policy debates. Whether the topic is taxation, poverty, or homelessness, if people believe that anyone can get ahead by ability alone, they will tend to see the system of inequality as fair and accept the idea that there should be a differ- ential reward system. Those who tend toward the con- flict view of the stratification system are more likely to advocate programs that emphasize public responsibil- ity for the well-being of all groups and to support pro- grams and policies that result in more of the income and wealth of society going toward the needy.

Poverty Despite the relatively high average standard of living in the United States, poverty afflicts millions of people. There are now more than 45 million poor people in the United States—a whopping 14.5 percent of the popula- tion. Even more startling is the large number of people living in very deep poverty, or what experts define as extreme poverty (the U.S. measure being living on two dollars or less per day; the world measure of extreme pov- erty 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 prob- lems. Failures in the education system; crime and vio- lence; 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 affluent society?

SO CIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATIF I CATIO N 1 91

Defining Poverty The federal government has established an official definition 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 officially 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 figure is the official poverty line, adjusted slightly each year for increases in the cost of living. In 2013, the official poverty line for a family of four (including two children) was $23,624. Although a cutoff point is necessary to administer antipoverty programs, this definition of poverty can be misleading. A person or family earning $1 above the cutoff point would not be officially categorized as poor.

There are numerous problems with the official def- inition of poverty. To name a few, it does not account for regional differences in the cost of living; it does not reflect changes in the cost of housing nor changes in the cost of modern standards of living that were not imag- ined in the 1930s, when the definition was established (Meyer and Sullivan 2012). Experts have argued that the government should develop alternative poverty meas- ures, such as shelter poverty—a measure that would account for the cost of housing in different regions (Stone 1993). To date, Congress has resisted changing the official definition of poverty—a change that would likely increase the reported rate of poverty and poten- tially increase the cost of federal antipoverty programs.

→ SEE for YOURSELF ← Using the current federal poverty line ($23,264 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 for- get 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?

Who Are the Poor? After the 1950s, poverty declined in the United States. The poverty rate has generally been increasing since 2000, from about 11 to nearly 15 percent of the popula- tion. The majority of the poor are White, although there

are disproportionately high rates of poverty among Asian Americans, Native Americans, Black Americans, and Hispanics. Of those considered poor, 27 percent are Native Americans, 27.2 percent are African Ameri- cans, 23.5 percent are Hispanics, 10.5 percent are Asian Americans, and 9.6 percent are non-Hispanic Whites (DeNavas-Walt and Proctor 2014; McCartney et al. 2013). Among Hispanics, there are further differences among groups. Puerto Ricans—the Hispanic group with the lowest median income—have been most likely to suffer increased poverty, probably because of their concentration in the poorest segments of the labor market and their high unemployment rates (Hauan et al. 2000; Tienda and Stier 1996). Asian American pov- erty has also increased substantially in recent years, particularly 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).

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, includ- ing the dramatic growth of female-headed 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 2013, 20 percent of all children in the United States (those under age 18) were poor,

Child poverty in the United States is higher than one would expect for such an otherwise materially well-off nation.

St ev

e De

be np

or t/

Ge tty

Im ag

1 92 CHA PT ER 8

including 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic White children, 36.7 percent of Black children, 30 percent of Hispanic children, and 9.4 percent of Asian American children (DeNavas-Walt and Proctor 2014).

One-third of all families headed by women are poor (see ▲ Figure 8.9). In recent years, wages for young workers have declined; because most unmarried mothers are quite young, there is a strong likelihood that their children will be poor. Because of the divorce rate and generally little child support provided by men, women are also increasingly likely to be without the contributing income of a spouse and for longer peri- ods of their lives. Women are more likely than men to live with children and to be financially responsible for them. However, women without children also suffer a high poverty rate, compounded in recent times by the fact that women now live longer than before and are less likely to be married than in previous periods.

DEBUNKING Society’s Myths← Myth: Marriage is a good way to reduce women’s depend- ence on welfare. Reality: Although it is true that married-couple house- holds 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 vic- tims of domestic violence (Edin and Kefalas 2005; Scott et al. 2002).

White, non Hispanic

Black

Percent in poverty

AsianHispanic

Married couples

Female head of household Male head of household

▲ Figure 8.9 Poverty Status by Family Type and Race Note: Families with children under 18 present. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. Historical Income Tables, Table POV-02, People in Families, by Family Structure, Age, and Sex, Iterated by Income-to-Poverty Ratio and Race: 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov

The poor are not a one-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 gener- ally higher in the South and Southwest. What the map cannot show, however, is concentrated poverty. Concentrated poverty means that there are areas of counties, cities, or states where larger percentages of people are poor. Such areas then have higher

Although most people associate poverty with urban areas, poverty rates outside of metropolitan areas are actually higher than you might expect.

M ar

io T

am a/

Ge tty

Im ag

SO CIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATIF I CATIO N 1 93

Population in Poverty (Percent)

Poverty in the United States by County, 2010

17.0–19.9 20.0–29.9 30.0–50.1

12.0–16.9 00.0–11.9

Poverty by Rural, Suburban, & Urban Location

Urban

Rural & Small Town

United States

Suburban & Exurban

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Percent in Poverty

17.0%

10.1%

16.1%

13.5%

Mapping America’s Diversity: Poverty in the United States This map shows regional differences in poverty rates (that is, the percent- age of poor in different counties). As you can see, poverty is highest in the South, Southwest, and some parts of the upper Midwest. This reflects

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

map 8.1

rates of crime, poor schools, few job opportunities, poor health and housing, and less access to ser- vices. Concentrated poverty is highest among African Americans and American Indians (including Alaska natives). Among these groups, 10 percent of people live in areas where 40 percent or more of the popu- lation is poor, compared to 3 percent of poor White Americans and 7 percent of Hispanics (Bishaw 2011).

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 grow- ing 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. The truth is that the poverty rate is actually higher outside of metropolitan areas than inside (DeNavas-Walt and Proctor 2014).

Despite the idea that the poor “milk” the sys- tem, government supports for the poor are limited. So-called welfare is now largely in the form of food stamps, not cash assistance. Half of households receiv- ing food stamps are those with children present ; one- fifth of recipients are disabled, and 17 percent are elderly people. Considering that the average monthly coupon value is $134, it is hard to understand why fed- eral support is reviled as overly generous (U.S. Census Bureau 2012a).

Among the poor are thousands of homeless. Depending on how one defines and measures home- lessness, estimates of the number of homeless people vary widely. If you count the number of homeless on any given night, there may be anywhere between 444,000 to 842,000; over an entire year, estimates are that between 2.3 and 3.5 million people experience homelessness,

1 94 CH APT ER 8

though not necessarily for an entire year (National Coa- lition for the Homeless 2014). The transient nature of this population makes accurate estimates of the extent of homelessness impossible.

Whatever the actual numbers of homeless peo- ple, there has been an increase in homelessness over the past two decades. Families are the fastest-growing segment of the homeless—40 percent—and, children are also 40 percent of the homeless. Moreover, half of the women with children who are homeless have fled from domestic violence (National Coalition against Domestic Violence 2001; Zorza 1991). A shocking num- ber of the homeless are veterans (about 11 percent), including those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan (National Coalition for the Homeless 2014; see also ▲ Figure 8.10).

There are many reasons for homelessness. The great majority of the homeless are on the streets because of a lack of affordable 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 homeless- ness. 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 Coali- tion 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. Pub- lic 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 first 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 educa- tional 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 under- stands poverty as rooted in the structure of society, not in the morals and behaviors of individuals.

DEBUNKING Society’s Myths← Myth: The influx of unskilled immigrants raises the poverty level by taking jobs away from U.S. citizens who would otherwise be able to find work and lift themselves from poverty. Sociological Perspective: A state-by-state analysis of poverty and immigration in recent years finds that immi- grants actually improve local economies by increasing the supply of workers, generating labor market expan- sion, and promoting entrepreneurship—in other words, stimulating the economy. In some regions, immigration has actually lessened poverty (Peri 2014).

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 atti- tude is also reflected 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 think- ing 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 gener- ation to generation. Policymakers have adapted the cul- ture of poverty argument to argue that the actual causes of poverty are found in the breakdown of major institu- tions, including the family, schools, and churches.

NOTE: The percentages add to more than 100 percent because some groups may fall into more than one race.

Asian

White African American

Native American Hispanic

20%

38%

42%

▲ Figure 8.10 Who Are the Homeless? Source of data: National Coalition for the Homeless. 2014. www.nationalhomeless.org

SO CIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATIF I CATIO N 1 95

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 cen- tral to the culture of poverty thesis. This attitude pre- sumes 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 evi- dence for these claims?

Detailed studies of the poor simply find no basis for the assumption that the poor hold different values about work compared to every one else (Lakso 2013; Lee and Anat 2008). They simply find that work is difficult to find. 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, fifty-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.

Current policies that force those on welfare to work also tend to overlook how difficult it is for poor people to retain the jobs they get. Prior to welfare reform in the mid-1990s, poor women who went off welfare to take jobs often found they soon had to return to welfare because the wages they earned were not enough to sup- port their families. Leaving welfare often means losing health benefits, yet incurring increased living expenses. The jobs that poor people find 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.

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 pov- erty to a single cause. There are many causes. Two of the most important are: (1) the restructuring of the econ- omy, 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 fed- eral policies in recent years that have diminished social support for the poor in the form of welfare, public hous- ing, 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 work- ers (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 benefits means that fewer men are the sole support for their families. Most fami- lies now need two incomes to achieve a middle-class way of life. The new jobs that are being created fall pri- marily in occupations that offer low wages and few ben- efits; they also tend to be filled by women, especially women of color, leaving women poor and men out of work. Such jobs offer 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 work- ing 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 responsi- bilities make working outside the home on marginal incomes difficult. 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 them- selves, 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 different 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 effect of basic structural changes in the modern American economy on Black and White lower-income groups, changes that include uneven economic growth, increasing technol- ogy and automation, industry relocation, and labor market segmentation” (1978: 154). Wilson’s comments demonstrate the power of sociological thinking by con- vincingly 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.

1 9 6 CHA PT ER 8

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 identified with Black families.

The new 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 five years for people to receive aid and requires all wel- fare recipients to find 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 benefits (Edin and Kefalas 2005; Hays 2003). 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 finds 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 from twelve million to four million (U.S. Census Bureau 2012a). Having fewer people on welfare does not, however, mean that pov- erty is reduced. In fact, as we have seen, extreme pov- erty 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. Although not limited to them, single women with children and people of color have been those most negatively affected by the 1996 welfare reforms (Shaefer and Edin 2014).

Research done to assess the impact of a changed welfare policy is relatively recent. 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 benefits. Because welfare has been decentral- ized to the state level, studies of the impact of current law must be done on a state-by-state basis. Such stud- ies 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 fam- ily 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 off. Marriage rates among former recipients have not changed, although more now live with nonmarital partners, most likely as a way of shar- ing expenses. The number of children living in fami- lies without either parent has also increased, probably because parents had to relocate to find work. In some states, the numbers of people neither working nor receiving aid also increased (Acker et al. 2002; Bernstein 2002). Many studies also find that low-wage work does not lift former welfare recipients out of poverty (Shaefer and Edin 2014; Hays 2003). Forcing welfare recipients

Is It True?*

True False

1. Income growth has been greatest for those in the middle class in recent years.

2. The average American household has most of its wealth in the stock market.

3. Social mobility is greater in the United States than in any other Western nation.

4. Poor teen mothers do not have the same values about marriage as middle-class people.

5. Old people are the most likely to be poor.

6. Poverty in U.S. suburbs is increasing.

*The answers can be found at the end of this chapter.

SOCIAL CLASS AND SOCIAL STRATIF I CATIO N 1 97

to work provides a cheap labor force for employers and potentially takes jobs from those already employed.

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 stigma- tized as lazy and not wanting to work, those who have received welfare actually believe that it has negative con- sequences for them, but they say they have no other viable means of support. They typically have needed welfare when they could not find work or had small children and needed child care. Most were forced to leave their last job because of layoffs or firings 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 affordable 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 recipi- ents want to be self-sufficient and provide for their fam- ilies, but they face circumstances that make this very difficult to do. Indeed, studies of young, poor mothers find 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 finds that when former welfare recipients find 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 dispos- able income. Moreover, studies find 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 beneficiaries of government programs have not experienced the same kind of stigma. Social Secu- rity supports virtually all retired people, yet they are not stereotyped as dependent on federal aid, unable to maintain stable family relationships, or insufficiently self-motivated. Spending on welfare programs is also a pittance compared with the spending on other federal programs. Sociologists conclude that the so-called wel- fare trap is not a matter of learned dependency, but a pattern of behavior forced on the poor by the require- ments of sheer economic survival (Edin and Kefalas 2005; Hays 2003).

What different kinds of stratification systems exist? Social stratification is a relatively fixed hierarchical arrangement in society by which groups have different access to resources, power, and perceived social worth. All societies have systems of stratification, 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- fication is by birth; in class systems, placement is deter- mined by achievement.

How do sociologists define class? Class is the social structural position that groups hold relative to the economic, social, political, and cultural resources of society. Class is highly significant in deter- mining 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 indica- tors 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 conflict with one another.

Is there social mobility in the United States? Social mobility is the movement between class posi- tions. 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- fication 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 stratification do sociological theorists provide? Karl Marx saw class as primarily stemming from eco- nomic forces; Max Weber had a multidimensional view of stratification, involving economic, social, and politi- cal dimensions. Functionalists argue that social ine- quality motivates people to fill the different 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. Conflict theorists see social

Chapter Summary

1 9 8 CHAPT ER 8

stratification as based on class conflict and blocked opportunity, pointing out that those at the bottom of the stratification 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 unem- ployment, 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 five years of support.

caste system 172 class consciousness 187 class system 172 concentrated poverty 192 conspicuous

consumption 173 culture of poverty 194 economic

restructuring 174

educational attainment 180

estate system 172 false consciousness 187 feminization of

poverty 191 ideology 188 income 175 life chances 172

median income 179 meritocracy 186 net worth 175 occupational prestige 180 poverty line 191 prestige 180 social class 172 social mobility 186 social stratification 171

socioeconomic status (SES) 179

status attainment 179 Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families (TANF) 196

urban underclass 182 wealth 175

Key Terms

Is It True? (Answers)

1. FALSE. Income growth has been highest in the top 5 percent of income groups (DeNavas-Walt and Proctor 2014).

2. FALSE. Eighty percent of all stock is owned by a small percentage of people. For most people, home ownership is the most common financial asset (Oliver and Shapiro 2006).

3. FALSE. The United States has lower rates of social mobility than Canada, Sweden, and Norway, and ranks near the middle in comparison to other Western nations (Jäntti 2006).

4. FALSE. Research finds that poor teen mothers value marriage and want to be married, but associate marriage with eco- nomic security, which they do not think they can achieve (Edin and Kefalas 2005).

5. FALSE. Although those over age 65 used to be the most likely to be poor, poverty among the elderly has declined; the most likely to be poor are children (DeNavas-Walt and Proctor 2014).

6. TRUE. Although most of the poor live inside metropolitan areas, poverty in the suburbs has been increasing (DeNavas-Walt and Proctor 2014).

Ch 8: Social Class and Social Stratification

Social Differentiation and Social Stratification
The Class Structure of the United States: Growing Inequality
The Distribution of Income and Wealth
Analyzing Social Class
Social Mobility: Myths and Realities
Why is There Inequality?
Poverty
Chapter Summary