Order 2451681: Explore and analyze

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323432129/epubcfi/6/56%5B%3Bvnd.vst.idref%3DP700049025300000000000000000792C%5D!/4/2%5BP700049025300000000000000000792C%5D/2/2/4%400:0

Chapter 10 Social Class in the United States

 Listen to  Chapter 10  on MySocLab

Learning Objectives

After you have read this chapter, you should be able to:

1. 10.1 Explain the three components of social class—property, power, and prestige; distinguish between wealth and income; explain how property and income are distributed; and describe the democratic façade, the power elite, and status inconsistency. (p.  257 )

2. 10.2 Contrast Marx’s and Weber’s models of social class. (p.  264 )

3. 10.3 Summarize the consequences of social class for physical and mental health, family life, education, religion, politics, and the criminal justice system. (p.  269 )

4. 10.4 Contrast the three types of social mobility, and review gender issues in research on social mobility and why social mobility brings pain. (p.  272 )

5. 10.5 Explain the problems in drawing the poverty line, how poverty is related to geography, race-ethnicity, education, feminization, age, and the culture of poverty; analyze why people are poor; and discuss deferred gratification and the Horatio Alger myth. (p.  275 )

Ah, New Orleans, that fabled city on the Mississippi Delta. Images from its rich past floated through my head—pirates, treasure, intrigue. Memories from a pleasant vacation stirred my thoughts—the exotic French Quarter with its enticing aroma of Creole food and sounds of earthy jazz floating through the air.

The shelter for the homeless forced me back to an unwelcome reality. The shelter was like those I had visited in the North, West, and East—only dirtier. The dirt, in fact, was the worst that I had encountered during my research. On top of that, this was the only shelter to insist on payment in exchange for sleeping in one of its filthy beds.

The men here looked the same as the homeless anywhere in the country—disheveled and haggard, wearing that unmistakable expression of sorrow and despair. Except for the accent, you wouldn’t know what region you were in. Poverty wears the same tired face wherever you are, I realized. The accent may differ, but the look remains the same.

I had grown used to the sights and smells of abject poverty. Those no longer surprised me. But after my fitful sleep with the homeless that night, I saw something that did. Just a block or so from the shelter, I was startled by a sight so out of step with the misery and despair I had just experienced that I stopped and stared.

I felt indignation swelling within me. Confronting me were life-size, full-color photos mounted on the transparent Plexiglas shelter of a bus stop. Staring back at me were images of finely dressed men and women, proudly strutting about as they modeled elegant suits, dresses, diamonds, and furs.

A wave of disgust swept over me. “Something is cockeyed in this society,” I thought, as my mind refused to stop juxtaposing these images of extravagance with the suffering I had just seen.

“My mind refused to stop juxtaposing these images of extravagance with the suffering I had just seen.”

The disjunction—the mental distress—that I felt in New Orleans was triggered by the ads, but it was not the first time that I had experienced this sensation. Whenever my research abruptly transported me from the world of the homeless to one of another social class, I experienced a sense of disjointed unreality. Each social class has its own way of thinking and behaving, and because these fundamental orientations to the world contrast so sharply, the classes do not mix well.

What Is Social Class?

1. 10.1 Explain the three components of social class—property, power, and prestige; distinguish between wealth and income; explain how property and income are distributed; and describe the democratic façade, the power elite, and status inconsistency.

If you ask most Americans about their country’s social class system, you are likely to get a blank look. If you press the matter, you are likely to get an answer like this: “There are the poor and the rich—and then there’s us, neither poor nor rich.” This is just about as far as most Americans’ consciousness of social class goes. Let’s try to flesh out this idea.

Our task is made somewhat difficult because sociologists have no clear-cut, agreed-on definition of social class (Sosnaud et al. 2013). As was noted in the last chapter, conflict sociologists (of the Marxist orientation) see only two social classes: those who own the means of production and those who do not. The problem with this view, say most sociologists, is that it lumps too many people together. Teenage “order takers” at McDonald’s who work for $15,000 a year are lumped together with that company’s executives who make $500,000 a year—because they both are workers at McDonald’s, not owners.

Most sociologists agree with Weber that there is more to social class than just a person’s relationship to the means of production. Consequently, most sociologists use the components Weber identified and define  social class  as a large group of people who rank closely to one another in property, power, and prestige. These three elements give people different chances in life, separate them into different lifestyles, and provide them with distinctive ways of looking at the self and the world.

Let’s look at how sociologists measure these three components of social class.

Property

Property  comes in many forms, such as buildings, land, animals, machinery, cars, stocks, bonds, businesses, furniture, jewelry, and bank accounts. When you add up the value of someone’s property and subtract that person’s debts, you have what sociologists call  wealth.  This term can be misleading, as some of us have little wealth—especially most college students. Nevertheless, if your net total comes to $10, then that is your wealth. (Obviously, wealth as a sociological term does not mean wealthy.)

social class

according to Weber, a large group of people who rank close to one another in property, power, and prestige; according to Marx, one of two groups: capitalists who own the means of production or workers who sell their labor

property

material possessions: animals, bank accounts, bonds, buildings, businesses, cars, cash, commodities, copyrights, furniture, jewelry, land, and stocks

wealth

the total value of everything someone owns, minus the debts

A mere one-half percent of Americans owns over a quarter of the entire nation’s wealth. Very few minorities are numbered among this 0.5 percent. An exception is Oprah Winfrey, who has had an ultra-successful career in entertainment and investing. Worth $2.8 billion, she is the 215th richest person in the United States. Winfrey has given millions of dollars to help minority children.

Distinguishing Between Wealth and Income

Wealth and income are sometimes confused, but they are not the same. Where wealth is a person’s net worth,  income  is a flow of money. Income has many sources: The most common is wages or a business, but other sources are rent, interest, and royalties. Even alimony, an allowance, and gambling winnings are part of income. Some people have much wealth and little income. For example, a farmer may own a lot of land (a form of wealth), but bad weather, combined with the high cost of gasoline, fertilizers, and machinery, can cause the income to dry up. Others have much income and little wealth. An executive with a $250,000 annual income may be debt-ridden. Below the surface prosperity—the exotic vacations, country club membership, private schools for the children, sports cars, and an elegant home—the credit cards may be maxed out, the sports cars in danger of being repossessed, and the mortgage payment “past due.” Typically, however, wealth and income go together.

income

money received, usually from a job, business, or assets

Distribution of Property

Who owns the property in the United States? One answer, of course, is “everyone.” Although this statement has some merit, it overlooks how the nation’s property is divided among “everyone.”

Overall, Americans are worth a hefty sum, about $49 trillion ( Statistical Abstract 2013 :Table 735). This includes all real estate, stocks, bonds, and business assets in the entire country. This wealth is highly concentrated. From  Figure 10.1 , you can see that just 10 percent of the nation’s families own 75 percent of the nation’s wealth.

 Explore on MySocLab

Activity: The Distribution of Wealth: Characteristics of Wealth in Southern Connecticut

Figure 10.1 Distribution of the Property of Americans

Source: By the author. Based on  Beeghley 2008 .

As you can also see from this figure, 1 percent of Americans own more than one-third of all U.S. assets.

Distribution of Income

How is income distributed in the United States? Economist Paul Samuelson ( Samuelson and Nordhaus 2005 ) put it this way: “If we made an income pyramid out of a child’s blocks, with each layer portraying $500 of income, the peak would be far higher than Mount Everest, but most people would be within a few feet of the ground.”

Actually, if each block were 1½ inches tall, the typical American would be just 12 feet off the ground, since the average per capita income in the United States is about $42,000 per year. (This average income includes every American, even children.) The typical family climbs a little higher, since most families have more than one worker, and together, they average about $60,000 a year. Compared with the few families who are on the mountain’s peak, the average U.S. family would still find itself only 15 feet off the ground.  Figure 10.2  portrays these differences.

The fact that some Americans enjoy the peaks of Mount Everest while most—despite their efforts—make it only 12 to 15 feet up the slope presents a striking image of income inequality in the United States. Another picture emerges if we divide the U.S. population into five equal groups and rank them from highest to lowest income. As  Figure 10.3  on the next page shows, the top 20 percent of the population receive half (50.2 percent) of all income in the United States. In contrast, the bottom 20 percent of Americans receive only 3.3 percent of the nation’s income.

Two features of  Figure 10.3  stand out. First, look at how income inequality decreased from 1935 to 1970. Then notice how inequality has increased since 1970. Since 1970, the richest 20 percent of U.S. families have grown richer, while the poorest 20 percent have grown poorer. Despite numerous government antipoverty programs, the poorest 20 percent of Americans receive less of the nation’s income today than they did decades ago. The richest 20 percent, in contrast, are receiving more, about as much as they did in 1935.

The chief executive officers (CEOs) of the nation’s largest corporations are especially affluent. The Wall Street Journal surveyed the 300 largest U.S. companies to find out what they paid their CEOs (Thurm 2013). Their median compensation (including salaries, bonuses, and stock options) came to $10,100,000 a year. (Median means that half received more than this amount, and half less.) On  Table 10.1  on the next page, you can see the pay of the five highest paid CEOs.

The average income of these five CEOs is 1,225 times higher than the average pay of U.S. workers ( Statistical Abstract 2013 :Table 693). This does not include their income from interest, dividends, or rents. Nor does it include the value of company-paid limousines and chauffeurs, airplanes and pilots, and private boxes at the symphony and sporting events. To really see the disparity, consider this:

Let’s suppose that you started working the year Jesus was born and that you worked full time every year from then until now. Let’s also assume that you earned today’s average per capita income of $42,000 every year for all those years. You would still have to work another 250 years to earn the amount received by the highest-paid executive listed in  Table  10.1 .

Imagine how you could live with an income like this. And this is precisely the point. Beyond these cold numbers lies a dynamic reality that profoundly affects people’s lives. The difference in wealth between those at the top and those at the bottom of the U.S. class structure means that people experience vastly different lifestyles. For example,

a colleague of mine who was teaching at an exclusive Eastern university piqued his students’ curiosity when he lectured on poverty in Latin America. That weekend, one of the students borrowed his parents’ corporate jet and pilot, and in class on Monday, he and his friends related their personal observations on poverty in Latin America.

Figure 10.2 Distribution of the Income of Americans

Source: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2013:Tables 693, 711.

Figure 10.3 The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Dividing the Nation’s Income

Source: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 1960:Table 417; 1970:Table 489; 2013:Table 708.

Few of us could ever say, “Mom and Dad, I’ve got to do a report for my soc class, so I need to borrow the jet—and the pilot—to run down to South America for the weekend.” What a lifestyle! Contrast this with Americans at the low end of the income ladder who lack the funds to travel even to a neighboring town for the weekend. For parents in poverty, choices may revolve around whether to spend the little they have at the laundromat or on milk for the baby. The elderly might have to choose between purchasing the medicines they need or buying food. In short, divisions of wealth represent not “empty” numbers but choices that make vital differences in people’s lives. Let’s explore this topic in the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.

Power

Let’s look at the second component of social class: power.

The Democratic Facade

Like many people, you may have said to yourself, “The big decisions are always made despite what I might think. Certainly I don’t make the decision to send soldiers to Afghanistan or Iraq. I don’t order drones into Pakistan. I don’t decide to raise taxes, lower interest rates, or spend $700 billion to bail out Wall Street fools and felons.”

And then another part of you may say, “But I do participate in these decisions through my representatives in Congress, and by voting for president.” True enough—as far as it goes. The trouble is, it just doesn’t go far enough. Such views of being a

Table 10.1 The Five Highest-Paid CEOs

Note: Compensation is for 2012. It includes salary, bonuses, and stock options.

Source:  Thurm 2013 .

Executive	Company	Compensation
Lawrence Ellison	Oracle	$95 million
Leslie Moonves	CBS	$59 million
Robert Iger	Walt Disney	$36 million
Mark Parker	Nike	$34 million
Philippe Dauman	Viacom	$33 million

Down-to-Earth Sociology How the Super-Rich Live

It’s good to see how other people live. It gives us a different perspective on life. Let’s take a glimpse at the life of John Castle (his real name). After earning a degree in physics at MIT and an MBA at Harvard, John went into banking and securities, where he made more than $100 million ( Lublin 1999 ).

Wanting to be connected to someone famous, John bought President John F. Kennedy’s “Winter White House,” an oceanfront estate in Palm Beach, Florida. John spent $11 million to remodel the 13,000-square-foot house so that it would be more to his liking. Among those changes: adding bathrooms numbers 14 and 15. He likes to show off John F. Kennedy’s bed and also the dresser that has the drawer labeled “black underwear,” carefully hand-lettered by Rose Kennedy ( Bloomfield 2012 ).

At his beachfront estate, John gives what he calls “refined feasts” to the glitterati ( “On History . . .” 1999 ). If he gets tired of such activities—or weary of swimming in the Olympic-size pool where JFK swam the weekend before his assassination—John entertains himself by riding one of his thoroughbred horses at his nearby 10-acre ranch. If this fails to ease his boredom, he can relax aboard his custom-built 42-foot Hinckley yacht.

The yacht is a real source of diversion. John once boarded it for an around-the-world trip. He didn’t stay on board, though—just joined the cruise from time to time. A captain and crew kept the vessel on course, and whenever John felt like it he would fly in and stay a few days. Then he would fly back to the States to direct his business. He did this about a dozen times, flying perhaps 150,000 miles. An interesting way to go around the world.

How much does a custom-built Hinckley yacht cost? John can’t tell you. As he says, “I don’t want to know what anything costs. When you’ve got enough money, price doesn’t make a difference. That’s part of the freedom of being rich.”

Right. And for John, being rich also means paying $1,000,000 to charter a private jet to fly Spot, his Appaloosa horse, back and forth to the vet. John didn’t want Spot to have to endure a long trailer ride. Oh, and of course, there was the cost of Spot’s medical treatment, another $500,000.

Other wealthy people spend extravagantly, too. Lee Tachman threw a four-day party for three friends. They had massages; ate well; took rides in a helicopter, a fighter jet, Ferraris, and Lamborghinis; and did a little paintballing—all for the bargain price of $50,000. At the 1Oak Lounge in New York City, some customers pay $35,000 for a bottle of champagne (Haughney and Konigsberg 2008). Of course, it is a large bottle.

Parties are fun, but what if you want privacy? You can buy that, too. Wayne Huizenga, the founder of Blockbuster, who sold a half ownership in the Miami Dolphins for $550 million ( “Builder Stephen . . .” 2008 ), bought a 2,000-acre country club, complete with an 18-hole golf course, a 55,000-square-foot-clubhouse, and 68 slips for visiting vessels. The club is so exclusive that its only members are Wayne and his wife ( Fabrikant 2005 ).

Withdrawing behind gated estates is one way to gain privacy, but Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen has found another way. He had a 414-foot yacht built. On the Octopus are two helicopters, a swimming pool, and a submarine ( Freeland 2011 ).

While the length of Allen’s yacht creates envy among the plutocracy that would make Freud break into a sweat, some might say that Charles Simonyi has even outdone this. He bought a $25 million ticket for a rocket ride to the International Space Station. Simonyi liked the experience so much that he bought a second ticket ( Leo 2008 ). No frequent flyer miles included. But at the pace that prices are increasing, $50 million isn’t worth what it used to be anyway.

For Your Consideration

·  What effects has social class had on your life? (Go beyond possessions to values, orientations, and outlooks on life.) How do you think you would see the world differently if you were John Castle, Lee Tachman, Paul Allen, Charles Simonyi, or Mrs. Wayne Huizenga?

Participants in the regatta at Genoa, Italy, are dwarfed by Paul Allen’s yacht.

participant in the nation’s “big” decisions are a playback of the ideology we learn at an early age—an ideology that is promoted by the elites to legitimate and perpetuate their power. Sociologists Daniel Hellinger and Dennis Judd ( 1991 ) call this the “democratic facade” that conceals the real source of power in the United States.

Let’s try to get a picture of where that power is located.

The Power Elite

In  Chapter 1 , I mentioned that in the 1950s, sociologist C. Wright Mills pointed out that  power —the ability to get your way despite resistance—was concentrated in the hands of a few. He met heavy criticism, because his analysis contradicted the dominant view that “the people” make the country’s decisions. This ideology is still dominant, and Mills’ analysis continues to ruffle some feathers. Some still choke on the term  power elite,  which Mills coined to refer to those who make the big decisions in U.S. society.

power

the ability to carry out your will, even over the resistance of others

power elite

C. Wright Mills’ term for the top people in U.S. corporations, military, and politics who make the nation’s major decisions

 Read on MySocLab

Document: C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite

Mills and others have stressed how wealth and power coalesce in a group of people who look at the world in the same way—and view themselves as a special elite. They belong to the same private clubs, vacation at the same exclusive resorts, and even hire the same bands for their daughters’ debutante balls (Domhoff 2006, 2010). This elite wields extraordinary power in U.S. society, so much so that most U.S. presidents have come from this group—millionaire white men from families with “old money” (Baltzell and Schneiderman 1988).

Continuing in the tradition of Mills, sociologist William Domhoff (2006, 2010) argues that this group is so powerful that the U.S. government makes no major decision without its approval. He analyzed how this group works behind the scenes with elected officials to determine both foreign and domestic policy—from setting Social Security taxes to imposing tariffs on imported goods. Although Domhoff’s conclusions are controversial—and alarming—they certainly follow logically from the principle that wealth brings power and extreme wealth brings extreme power.

Prestige

Let’s look at the third component of social class, occupational prestige.

Occupations and Prestige

What are you thinking about doing after college? Chances are, you don’t have the option of lying in a hammock under palm trees in some South Pacific paradise. Almost all of us have to choose an occupation and go to work. Look at  Table 10.2  to see how the career you are considering stacks up in terms of  prestige  (respect or regard). Because we are moving toward a global society, this table also shows how the rankings given by Americans compare with those of the residents of sixty other countries.

prestige

respect or regard

Why do people give more prestige to some jobs than to others? Look again at  Table 10.2 . The jobs at the top share four features:

1. They pay more.

2. They require more education.

3. They involve more abstract thought.

4. They offer greater autonomy (independence, or self-direction).

Now look at the bottom of the list. You can see that people give less prestige to jobs with the opposite characteristics: These jobs pay little, require less education, involve more physical labor, and are closely supervised. In short, the professions and the white-collar jobs are at the top of the list, the blue-collar jobs at the bottom.

One of the more interesting aspects of these rankings is how consistent they are across countries and over time. For example, people in every country rank college professors higher than nurses, nurses higher than social workers, and social workers higher than janitors. Similarly, the occupations that were ranked high 25 years ago still rank high today—and likely will rank high in the years to come.

Displaying Prestige

People want others to acknowledge their prestige. In times past, in some countries, only the emperor and his family could wear purple—it was the royal color. In France, only the nobility could wear lace. In England, no one could sit while the king was on his throne. Some kings and queens required that subjects walk backward as they left the room—so that they would not “turn their back” on the “royal presence.”

Occupation	United States	Average of Sixty Countries
Physician	86	78
Supreme Court judge	85	82
College president	81	86
Astronaut	80	80
Lawyer	75	73
College professor	74	78
Airline pilot	73	66
Architect	73	72
Biologist	73	69
Dentist	72	70
Civil engineer	69	70
Clergy	69	60
Psychologist	69	66
Pharmacist	68	64
High school teacher	66	64
Registered nurse	66	54
Professional athlete	65	48
Electrical engineer	64	65
Author	63	62
Banker	63	67
Veterinarian	62	61
Police officer	61	40
Sociologist	61	67
Journalist	60	55
Classical musician	59	56
Actor or actress	58	52
Chiropractor	57	62
Athletic coach	53	50
Social worker	52	56
Electrician	51	44
Undertaker	49	34
Jazz musician	48	38
Real estate agent	48	49
Mail carrier	47	33
Secretary	46	53
Plumber	45	34
Carpenter	43	37
Farmer	40	47
Barber	36	30
Store sales clerk	36	34
Truck driver	30	33
Cab driver	28	28
Garbage collector	28	13
Waiter or waitress	28	23
Bartender	25	23
Lives on public aid	25	16
Bill collector	24	27
Factory worker	24	29
Janitor	22	21
Shoe shiner	17	12
Street sweeper	11	13

Concern with displaying prestige has not let up. Military manuals specify who must salute whom. The U.S. president enters a room only after everyone else attending the function is present (to show that the president isn’t waiting for others). Everyone must also be standing when the president enters. In the courtroom, bailiffs, some with a gun at the hip, make certain that everyone stands when the judge enters.

Status symbols vary with social class. Clearly, only the wealthy can afford certain items, such as yachts and huge estates—or the $35,000 bottle of champagne mentioned in the box on page  261 . But beyond affordability lies a class-based preference in status symbols. For example, people who are striving to be upwardly mobile flaunt labels on their clothing or conspicuously carry shopping bags from prestigious stores to show that they have “arrived.” The wealthy, who regard the symbols of the “common” classes as cheap and showy, flaunt their own status symbols, such as $75,000 Rolex watches and $50,000 diamond earrings. Like the other classes, they, too, try to outdo one another. They casually mention the length of their yacht or that a helicopter flew them to their golf game ( Fabrikant 2005 ). Or they offhandedly bring up the $30,000-a-night suite at the Four Seasons in New York City, saying that it was “rather nice” ( Feuer 2008 ).

Do you try to display prestige? Think about your clothing. How much more are you willing to pay for clothing that bears some hot “designer” label? Purses, shoes, jeans, and shirts—many of us pay more if they have some little symbol than if they don’t. As we wear them proudly, aren’t we actually proclaiming, “See, I had the money to buy this particular item!”? For many, prestige is a primary factor in deciding which college to attend. Everyone knows how the prestige of a generic sheepskin from Regional State College compares with a degree from Harvard, Princeton, Yale, or Stanford.

Status Inconsistency

Ordinarily, we have a similar rank on all three dimensions of social class—property, power, and prestige. The homeless men in the opening vignette are an example of these three dimensions lined up. Such people are  status consistent.  Some people, however, have a mixture of high and low ranks. This condition, called  status inconsistency,  leads to some interesting situations.

Sociologist Gerhard  Lenski (1954 ,  1966 ) analyzed how people try to maximize their  status,  their position in a social group. Individuals who rank high on one dimension of social class but lower on others want people to judge them on the basis of their highest status. Others, however, are also trying to maximize their own positions, so they may respond according to these people’s lowest rankings.

A classic study of status inconsistency was done by sociologist Ray  Gold (1952 ). After apartment-house janitors unionized in Chicago, they made more money than some of the tenants whose garbage they carried out. Residents became upset when they saw janitors driving more expensive cars than they did. Some attempted to “put the janitor in his place” by making

Table 10.2 Occupational Prestige: How the United States Compares with Sixty Countries

Note. The rankings are based on 1 to 100, from lowest to highest. For five occupations not located in the 1994 source, the 1991 ratings were used: Supreme Court judge, astronaut, athletic coach, lives on public aid, and street sweeper.

Sources:  Treiman 1977 : Appendices A and D; Nakao and Treas 1990, 1994: Appendix D.

“snotty” remarks to him. For their part, the janitors took delight in finding “dirty” secrets about the tenants in their garbage.

People who are status inconsistent, then, are likely to confront one frustrating situation after another ( Dogan  2011). They claim the higher status but are handed the lower one. This is so frustrating that the resulting tension can affect people’s health. Researchers who studied the health of thousands of Europeans over a decade found that men who were status inconsistent were twice as likely to have heart attacks as men who were status consistent. For reasons that no one knows, status inconsistent women do not have a higher risk of heart attacks (Braig et al. 2011).

There are other consequences as well.  Lenski (1954 ) found that people who are status inconsistent tend to be more politically radical. An example is college professors. Their prestige is very high, as you saw in  Table 10.2 , but their incomes are relatively low. Hardly anyone in U.S. society is more educated, and yet college professors don’t even come close to the top of the income pyramid. In line with Lenski’s prediction, the politics of most college professors are left of center. This hypothesis may also hold true among academic departments; that is, the higher a department’s average pay, the more conservative are the members’ politics. Teachers in departments of business and medicine, for example, are among the most highly paid in the university—and they also are the most politically conservative.

Instant wealth, the topic of the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page, provides an interesting case of status inconsistency.

How do you set yourself apart in a country so rich that of its 4.6 million people 79,000 are millionaires? Saeed Khouri (on the right), at an auction in Abu Dhabi paid $14 million for the license plate “1.” His cousin was not as fortunate. His $9 million was enough to buy only “5.”

Sociological Models of Social Class

1. 10.2 Contrast Marx’s and Weber’s models of social class.

The question of how many social classes there are is a matter of debate. Sociologists have proposed several models, but no single one has gained universal support. There are two main models: One builds on Marx, the other on Weber.

 Watch on MySocLab

Video: Social Class in the United States: Fact or Fiction?

status consistency

ranking high or low on all three dimensions of social class

status inconsistency

ranking high on some dimensions of social class and low on others; also called status discrepancy

status

the position that someone occupies in a social group

Updating Marx

As  Figure 10.4  illustrates, Marx argued that there are just two classes—capitalists and workers—with membership based solely on a person’s relationship to the means of production. Sociologists have criticized this view, saying that these categories are too broad. For example, because executives, managers, and supervisors don’t own the means of production, they would be classified as workers. But what do these people have in common with assembly-line workers? The category of “capitalist” is also too broad. Some people, for example, employ a thousand workers, and their decisions directly affect a thousand families. Others, in contrast, have very small businesses.

Consider a man I know in Godfrey, Illinois, who used to fix cars in his backyard. As Frank gained a following, he quit his regular job, and in a few years, he put up a building with five bays and an office. Frank is now a capitalist: He employs five or six mechanics and owns the tools and the building (the “means of production”).

But what does this man have in common with a factory owner who controls the lives of one thousand workers? Not only is Frank’s work different, so are his lifestyle and the way he looks at the world.

Down-to-Earth Sociology The Big Win: Life after the Lottery

If I just win the lottery, life will be good. These problems I’ve got, they’ll be gone. I can just see myself now.”

So goes the dream. And many Americans shell out megabucks every week, with the glimmering hope that “Maybe this week, I’ll hit it big.”

Most are lucky to get $20, or maybe just another scratch-off ticket.

But some do hit it big. What happens to these winners? Are their lives all wine, roses, and chocolate afterward?

We don’t have any systematic studies of the big winners, so I can’t tell you what life is like for the average winner. But several themes are apparent from reporters’ interviews.

The most common consequence of hitting it big is that life becomes topsy-turvy ( Bernstein 2007 ;  Susman 2012 ). All of us are rooted somewhere. We have connections with others that provide the basis for our orientations to life and how we feel about the world. Sudden wealth can rip these moorings apart, and the resulting status inconsistency can lead to a condition sociologists call  anomie (AN-uh-me).

First comes the shock. As Mary Sanderson, a telephone operator in Dover, New Hampshire, who won $66 million, said, “I was afraid to believe it was real, and afraid to believe it wasn’t.” Mary says that she never slept worse than her first night as a multimillionaire. “I spent the whole time crying—and throwing up” (Tresniowski 1999).

Reporters and TV crews appear on your doorstep. “What are you going to do with all that money?” they demand. You haven’t the slightest idea, but in a daze you mumble something.

Then come the calls. Some are welcome. Your Mom and Dad call to congratulate you. But long-forgotten friends and distant relatives suddenly remember how close they really are to you—and strangely enough, they all have emergencies that your money can solve. You even get calls from strangers who have ailing mothers, terminally ill kids, sick dogs . . .

You have to get an unlisted number.

You might be flooded with marriage proposals. You certainly didn’t become more attractive or sexy overnight—or did you? Maybe money makes people sexy.

You can no longer trust people. You don’t know what their real motives are. Before, no one could be after your money because you didn’t have any. You may even fear kidnappers. Before, this wasn’t a problem—unless some kidnapper wanted the ransom of a seven-year-old car.

The normal becomes abnormal. Even picking out a wedding gift becomes a problem. If you give the usual juicer, everyone will think you’re stingy. But should you write a check for $25,000? If you do, you’ll be invited to every wedding in town—and everyone will expect the same.

Here is what happened to some lottery winners:

When Michael Klinebiel of Rahway, New Jersey, won $2 million, his mother, Phyllis, said that half of it was hers, that she and her son had pooled $20 a month for years to play the lottery. He said they had done this—but he had bought the winning ticket on his own. Phyllis sued her son ( “Sticky Ticket” 1998 ).

Mack Metcalf, a forklift operator in Corbin, Kentucky, hit the jackpot for $34 million. To fulfill a dream, he built and moved into a replica of George Washington’s Mount Vernon home. Then his life fell apart—his former wife sued him, his current wife divorced him, and his new girlfriend got $500,000 while he was drunk. Within three years of his “good” fortune, Metcalf had drunk himself to death ( Dao 2005 ).

When Abraham Shakespeare, a dead-broke truck driver’s assistant, won $31 million in the Florida lottery, he bought a million dollar home in a gated community. He lent money to friends to start businesses, even paid for funerals ( McShane 2010 ). This evidently wasn’t enough. His body was found buried in the yard of a “friend,” who was convicted of his murder ( Allen 2012 ).

Winners who avoid anomie seem to be people who don’t make sudden changes in their lifestyle or their behavior. They hold onto their old friends and routines—the anchors in life that give them identity and a sense of belonging. Some even keep their old jobs—not for the money, of course, but because the job anchors them to an identity with which they are familiar and comfortable.

Sudden wealth, in other words, poses a threat that has to be guarded against.

And I can just hear you say, “I’ll take the risk!”

Dorice Moore, who swindled and then killed Abraham Shakespeare, one of the lottery winners mentioned here.

For Your Consideration

·  How do you think your life would change if you won a lottery jackpot of $10 million?

Figure 10.4 Marx’s Model of the Social Classes

Source: By the author.

Table 10.3 Wright’s Modification of Marx’s Model of the Social Classes

Source: By the author.

1. Capitalists

2. Petty bourgeoisie

3. Managers

4. Workers

To resolve this problem, sociologist Erik  Wright (1985 ) suggests that some people are members of more than one class at the same time. They occupy what he calls  contradictory class locations.  By this, Wright means that a person’s position in the class structure can generate contradictory interests. For example, the automobile-mechanic-turned-business-owner may want his mechanics to have higher wages because he, too, has experienced their working conditions. At the same time, his current interests—making profits and remaining competitive with other repair shops—lead him to resist pressures to raise their wages.

contradictory class locations

Erik Wright’s term for a position in the class structure that generates contradictory interests

anomie

Durkheim’s term for a condition of society in which people become detached from the usual norms that guide their behavior

Because of such contradictory class locations, Wright modified Marx’s model. As summarized in  Table 10.3 , Wright identifies four classes: (1) capitalists, business owners who employ many workers; (2) petty bourgeoisie, small business owners; (3) managers, who sell their own labor but also exercise authority over other employees; and (4) workers, who simply sell their labor to others. As you can see, this model allows finer divisions than the one Marx proposed, yet it maintains the primary distinction between employer and employee.

Problems persist, however. For example, in which category would we place college professors? And as you know, there are huge differences in the power of managers. An executive at Toyota, for example, may manage a thousand workers, while a shift manager at McDonald’s may be responsible for only a handful. They, too, have little in common.

Updating Weber

Sociologists Joseph Kahl and Dennis Gilbert (Gilbert and Kahl 1998;  Gilbert 2011 ) developed a six-tier model to portray the class structure of the United States and other capitalist countries. Think of this model, illustrated in  Figure 10.5  on the next page, as a ladder. Our discussion starts with the highest rung and moves downward. In line with Weber, on each lower rung, you find less property (wealth), less power, and less prestige. Note that in this model, education is also a primary measure of class.

The Capitalist Class

Sitting on the top rung of the class ladder is a powerful elite that consists of just 1 percent of the U.S. population. As you saw in  Figure 10.1  on page  258 , this capitalist class is so wealthy that it owns one-third of the entire nation’s wealth. This tiny 1 percent is worth more than the entire bottom 90 percent of the country (Beeghley 2008).

Power and influence cling to this small elite. They have access to top politicians, and their decisions open or close job opportunities for millions of people. They even help to shape the consciousness of the nation: They own our major media and entertainment outlets—newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, and sports franchises. They also control the boards of directors of our most influential colleges and universities. The super-rich perpetuate themselves in privilege by passing on their assets and social networks to their children.

 Explore on MySocLab

Activity: Collars and Colors in America

The capitalist class can be divided into “old” and “new” money. The longer that wealth has been in a family, the more it adds to the family’s prestige. The children of “old” money seldom mingle with “common” folk. Instead, they attend exclusive private schools where they learn views of life that support their privileged position. They don’t work for wages; instead, many study business or become lawyers so that they can manage the family fortune. These old-money capitalists (also called “blue bloods”) wield vast power as they use their extensive political connections to protect their economic empires (Sklair 2001; Domhoff 1990,  2006 , 2010).

At the lower end of the capitalist class are the nouveau riche, those who have “new money.” Although they have made fortunes in business, the stock market, inventions, entertainment, or sports, they are outsiders to the upper class. They have not attended the “right” schools, and they don’t share the social networks that come with old money. Not blue bloods, they aren’t trusted to have the right orientations to life. Even their “taste” in clothing and status symbols is suspect ( Fabrikant 2005 ). Donald Trump, whose money is “new,” is not listed in the Social Register, the “White Pages” of the blue bloods that lists the most prestigious and wealthy one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. population. Trump says he “doesn’t care,” but he reveals his true feelings by adding that

Figure 10.5 The U.S. Social Class Ladder

Source: By the author. Based on Gilbert and Kahl 1998 and  Gilbert 2011 ; income estimates are inflation-adjusted and modified from  Duff 1995 .

his heirs will be in it ( Kaufman 1996 ). He is probably right, since the children of new money can ascend into the top part of the capitalist class—if they go to the right schools and marry old money.

Many in the capitalist class are philanthropic. They establish foundations and give huge sums to “causes.” Their motives vary. Some feel guilty because they have so much while others have so little. Others seek prestige, acclaim, or fame. Still others feel a responsibility—even a sense of fate or destiny—to use their money for doing good. Bill Gates, who has given more money to the poor and to medical research than anyone else in history, seems to fall into this latter category.

With a fortune of $66 billion, Bill Gates, a cofounder of Microsoft Corporation, is the second wealthiest person in the world. His 40,000-square-foot home (sometimes called a “technopalace”) in Seattle, Washington, was appraised at $110 million.

The Upper Middle Class

Of all the classes, the upper middle class is the one most shaped by education. Almost all members of this class have at least a bachelor’s degree, and many have postgraduate degrees in business, management, law, or medicine. These people manage the corporations owned by the capitalist class, operate their own businesses, or pursue professional careers. As Gilbert and Kahl (1998) say,

[These positions] may not grant prestige equivalent to a title of nobility in the Germany of Max Weber, but they certainly represent the sign of having “made it” in contemporary America. . . . Their income is sufficient to purchase houses and cars and travel that become public symbols for all to see and for advertisers to portray with words and pictures that connote success, glamour, and high style.

Sociologists use income, education, and occupational prestige to measure social class. For most people, this works well, but not for everyone, especially entertainers. To what social class do Di Caprio, Smith, Swift, and Carey belong? Leonard DiCaprio makes about $37 million a year, Will Smith $30 million, Taylor Swift $57 million, and Mariah Carey $60 million.

Consequently, parents and teachers push children to prepare for upper-middle-class jobs. Around 15 percent of the population belong to this class.

 Watch on MySocLab

Video: Education and Financial Success

The Lower Middle Class

About 34 percent of the U.S. population are in the lower middle class. Their jobs require that they follow orders given by members of the upper middle class. With their technical and lower-level management positions, they can afford a mainstream lifestyle, although they struggle to maintain it. Many anticipate being able to move up the social class ladder. Feelings of insecurity are common, however, with the threat of inflation, recession, and job insecurity bringing a nagging sense that they might fall down the class ladder.

The distinctions between the lower middle class and the working class on the next rung below are more blurred than those between other classes. In general, however, members of the lower middle class work at jobs that have slightly more prestige, and their incomes are generally higher.

The Working Class

About 30 percent of the U.S. population belong to this class of relatively unskilled blue-collar and white-collar workers. Compared with the lower middle class, they have less education and lower incomes. Their jobs are also less secure, more routine, and more closely supervised. One of their greatest fears is that of being laid off during a recession. With only a high school diploma, the average member of the working class has little hope of climbing up the class ladder. Job changes usually bring “more of the same,” so most concentrate on getting ahead by achieving seniority on the job rather than by changing their type of work. They tend to think of themselves as having “real jobs” and regard the “suits” above them as paper pushers who have no practical experience and don’t do “real work” ( Morris and Grimes 2005 ).

The Working Poor

Members of this class, about 15 percent of the population, work at unskilled, low-paying, temporary and seasonal jobs, such as sharecropping, migrant farm work, housecleaning, and day labor. Most are high school dropouts. Many are functionally illiterate, finding it difficult to read even the want ads. Believing that no matter what party is elected to office their situation won’t change, they are not likely to vote (Beeghley 2008).

Although they work full time, millions of the working poor depend on food stamps and local food banks to survive on their meager incomes ( O’Hare 1996b ;  Bello 2011 ). It is easy to see how you can work full time and still be poor. Suppose that you are married and have a baby 3 months old and another child 3 years old. Your spouse stays home to care for them, so earning the income is up to you. But as a highschool dropout, all you can get is a minimum wage job. At $7.25 an hour, you earn $290 for 40 hours. In a year, this comes to $15,080—before deductions. Your nagging fear—and recurring nightmare—is of ending up “on the streets.”

The Underclass

On the lowest rung, and with next to no chance of climbing anywhere, is the  underclass.  Concentrated in the inner city, this group has little or no connection with the job market. Those who are employed—and some are—do menial, low-paying, temporary work. Welfare, if it is available, along with food stamps and food pantries, is their main support. Most members of other classes consider these people the “ne’er-do-wells” of society. Life is the toughest in this class, and it is filled with despair. About 5 percent of the population fall into this class.

underclass

a group of people for whom poverty persists year after year and across generations

The homeless men described in the opening vignette of this chapter, and the women and children like them, are part of the underclass. These are the people whom most Americans wish would just go away. Their presence on our city streets bothers passersby from the more privileged social classes—which includes just about everyone. “What are those obnoxious, dirty, foul-smelling people doing here, cluttering up my city?” appears to be a common response. Some people react with sympathy and a desire to do something. But what? Almost all of us just shrug our shoulders and look the other way, despairing of a solution and somewhat intimidated by their presence.

The homeless are the “fallout” of our postindustrial economy. In another era, they would have had plenty of work. They would have tended horses, worked on farms, dug ditches, shoveled coal, and run the factory looms. Some would have explored and settled the West. The prospect of gold would have lured others to California, Alaska, and Australia. Today, however, with no frontiers to settle, factory jobs scarce, and farms that are becoming technological marvels, we have little need for unskilled labor.

A primary sociological principle is that people’s views are shaped by their social location. Many people from the middle and upper classes cannot understand how anyone can work and still be poor.

© Boris Drucker/The New Yorker Collection/ www.cartoonbank.com

Consequences of Social Class

1. 10.3 Summarize the consequences of social class for physical and mental health, family life, education, religion, politics, and the criminal justice system.

The man was a C student in school. As a businessman, he ran an oil company (Arbusto) into the ground. A self-confessed alcoholic until age forty, he was arrested for drunk driving. With this background, how did he become president of the United States?

Accompanying these personal factors was the power of social class. George W. Bush was born the grandson of a wealthy senator and the son of a businessman who, after serving as a member of the House of Representatives and director of the CIA, was elected president of the United States. For high school, he went to an elite private prep school, Andover; for his bachelor’s degree to Yale; and for his MBA to Harvard. He was given $1 million to start his own business. When that business (Arbusto) failed, Bush fell softly, landing on the boards of several corporations. Taken care of even further, he was made the managing director of the Texas Rangers baseball team and allowed to buy a share of the team for $600,000, which he sold for $15 million.

When it was time for him to get into politics, Bush’s connections financed his run for governor of Texas and then for the presidency.

Does social class matter? And how! Think of each social class as a broad subculture with distinct approaches to life, so significant that it affects our health, family life, education, religion, politics, and even our experiences with crime and the criminal justice system. Let’s look at some of the ways that social class affects our lives.

Physical Health

If you want to get a sense of how social class affects health, take a ride on Washington’s Metro system. Start in the blighted Southeast section of downtown D.C. For every mile you travel to where the wealthy live in Montgomery County in Maryland, life expectancy rises about a year and a half. By the time you get off, you will find a twenty-year gap between the poor blacks where you started your trip and the rich whites where you ended it. ( Cohen 2004 )

The principle is simple: As you go up the social-class ladder, health improves. As you go down the ladder, health gets worse ( Masters et al. 2012 ). Age makes no difference. Infants born to the poor are more likely to die before their first birthday, and a larger percentage of poor people in their old age—whether 75 or 95—die each year than do the elderly who are wealthy.

How can social class have such dramatic effects? While there are many reasons, here are three. First, social class opens and closes doors to medical care. People with good incomes or with good medical insurance are able to choose their doctors and pay for whatever treatment and medications are prescribed. The poor, in contrast, don’t have the money or insurance to afford this type of medical care. How much difference the new health reform will make is yet to be seen.

A second reason is lifestyle, which is shaped by social class. People in the lower classes are more likely to smoke, eat a lot of fats, be overweight, abuse drugs and alcohol, get little exercise, and practice unsafe sex ( Chin et al. 2000 ;  Dolnick 2010 ). This, to understate the matter, does not improve people’s health.

With tough economic times, a lot of people have lost their jobs—and their homes. If this happens, how can you survive? Maybe a smile and a sense of humor to tap the kindness of strangers. I took this photo outside Boston’s Fenway Park.

There is a third reason, too. Life is hard on the poor. The persistent stresses they face weaken their immune systems and cause their bodies to wear out faster (Geronimus et al. 2010; John-Henderson et al. 2012). For the rich, life is so much better. They have fewer problems and vastly more resources to deal with the ones they have. This gives them a sense of control over their lives, a source of both physical and mental health.

Mental Health

Sociological research from as far back as the 1930s has found that the mental health of the lower classes is worse than that of the higher classes ( Faris and Dunham 1939 ; Srole et al. 1978;  Sareen et al. 2011 ). Greater mental problems are part of the higher stress that accompanies poverty. Compared with middle- and upper-class Americans, the poor have less job security and lower wages. They are more likely to divorce, to be the victims of crime, and to have more physical illnesses. Couple these conditions with bill collectors and the threat of eviction and you can see how they deal severe blows to people’s emotional well-being.

People higher up the social class ladder experience stress in daily life, of course, but their stress is generally less, and their coping resources are greater. Not only can they afford vacations, psychiatrists, and counselors, but their class position also gives them greater control over their lives, a key to good mental health.

Family Life

Social class also makes a significant difference in our choice of spouse, our chances of getting divorced, and how we rear our children.

Choice of Husband or Wife

Members of the capitalist class place strong emphasis on family tradition. They stress the family’s history, even a sense of purpose or destiny in life (Baltzell 1979;  Aldrich 1989 ). Children of this class learn that their choice of husband or wife affects not just them but the entire family, that it will have an impact on the “family line.” These background expectations shrink the field of “eligible” marriage partners, making it narrower than it is for the children of any other social class. As a result, parents in this class play a strong role in their children’s mate selection.

Divorce

The more difficult life of the lower social classes, especially the many tensions that come from insecure jobs and inadequate incomes, leads to higher marital friction and a greater likelihood of divorce. Consequently, children of the poor are more likely to grow up in broken homes.

Child Rearing

As discussed on page  79 , lower-class parents focus more on getting their children to follow rules and obey authority, while middle-class parents focus more on developing their children’s creative and leadership skills ( Lareau and Weininger 2008 ). Sociologists have traced this difference to the parents’ occupations ( Kohn 1977 ). Lower-class parents are closely supervised at work, and they anticipate that their children will have similar jobs. Consequently, they try to teach their children to defer to authority. Middle-class parents, in contrast, enjoy greater independence at work. Anticipating similar jobs for their children, they encourage them to be more creative. Out of these contrasting orientations arise different ways of disciplining children; lower-class parents are more likely to use physical punishment, while the middle classes rely more on verbal persuasion.

Education

In  Figure 10.5  on page  267 , you saw how education increases as one goes up the social class ladder. It is not just the amount of education that changes but also the type of education. Children of the capitalist class bypass public schools. They attend exclusive private schools where they are trained to take a commanding role in society. These schools teach upper-class values and prepare their students for prestigious universities (Beeghley 2008;  Stevens 2009 ).

Keenly aware that private schools can be a key to upward social mobility, some upper-middle-class parents do their best to get their children into the prestigious preschools that feed into these exclusive prep schools. Although some preschools cost $37,000 a year, they have a waiting list ( Anderson 2011 ). Figuring that waiting until birth to enroll a child is too late, some parents-to-be enroll their child as soon as the woman knows she is pregnant ( Ensign 2012 ). Other parents hire tutors to train their 4-year-olds in test-taking skills so they can get into public kindergartens for gifted students. Experts teach these preschoolers to look adults in the eye while they are being interviewed for these limited positions ( Banjo 2010 ). You can see how such parental involvement and

On the left is one of Jennifer Lopez’s homes, this one in Miami Beach. She also has a home in California and a $10 million summer getaway in the Hamptons in New York. To the right is a middle-aged couple who live in an old motor home parked in Santa Barbara, one of the wealthiest communities in California.

resources make it more likely that children from the more privileged classes go to college—and graduate.

Religion

One area of social life that we might think would not be affected by social class is religion. (“People are just religious, or they are not. What does social class have to do with it?”) As we shall see in  Chapter 18 , however, the classes tend to cluster in different denominations. Episcopalians, for example, are more likely to attract the middle and upper classes, while Baptists draw heavily from the lower classes. Patterns of worship also follow class lines: The lower classes are attracted to more expressive worship services and louder music, while the middle and upper classes prefer more “subdued” worship.

Politics

As I have stressed throughout this text, people perceive events from their own corner in life. Political views are no exception to this symbolic interactionist principle, and the rich and the poor walk different political paths. The higher that people are on the social class ladder, the more likely they are to vote for Republicans (Hout 2008). In contrast, most members of the working class believe that the government should intervene in the economy to provide jobs and to make citizens financially secure. They are more likely to vote for Democrats. Although the working class is more liberal on economic issues (policies that increase government spending), it is more conservative on social issues (such as opposing abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment) (Houtman 1995; Hout 2008). People toward the bottom of the class structure are also less likely to be politically active—to campaign for candidates or even to vote ( Gilbert 2003 ; Beeghley 2008).

Crime and Criminal Justice

If justice is supposed to be blind, it certainly is not when it comes to one’s chances of being arrested (Henslin 2013). In  Chapter 8  (pages 207–209), we discussed how the social classes commit different types of crime. The white-collar crimes of the more privileged classes are more likely to be dealt with outside the criminal justice system, while the police and courts deal with the street crimes of the lower classes. One consequence of this class standard is that members of the lower classes are more likely to be in prison, on probation, or on parole. In addition, since those who commit street crimes tend to do so in or near their own neighborhoods, the lower classes are more likely to be robbed, burglarized, or murdered.

This debutante is making her formal entrance into society, announcing her eligibility for marriage. Like you she has learned from her parents, peers, and education, a view of where she belongs in life. How do you think her view is different from yours? (This photo was taken at the annual debutante ball of the Society of Martha Washington in Laredo, Texas.)

Social Mobility

1. 10.4 Contrast the three types of social mobility, and review gender issues in research on social mobility and why social mobility brings pain.

No aspect of life, then—from work and family life to politics—goes untouched by social class. Because life is so much more satisfying in the more privileged classes, people strive to climb the social class ladder. What affects their chances?

Watch on MySocLab

Video: Opportunity and Social Class

Three Types of Social Mobility

Janice’s mom, a single mother, sold used cars at a Toyota dealership. Janice worked summers and part-time during the school year, earned her BA, and then her MBA. After college, she worked at IBM, but she missed her home town. When her mom’s boss retired, Janice grabbed the chance to put a down payment on the Toyota dealership. She has since paid the business off and has opened another at a second location.

When grown-up children like Janice end up on a different rung of the social class ladder from the one occupied by their parents, it is called  intergenerational mobility.  You can go up or down, of course. Janice experienced  upward social mobility.  If her mother had owned the dealership and Janice had dropped out of college and ended up selling cars, she would have experienced  downward social mobility.

intergenerational mobility

the change that family members make in social class from one generation to the next

upward social mobility

movement up the social class ladder

downward social mobility

movement down the social class ladder

We like to think that individual efforts are the reason people move up the class ladder—and their faults the reason they move down. In this example, we can identify intelligence, hard work, and ambition. Although individual factors such as these do underlie social mobility, we must place Janice in the context of  structural mobility.  This second basic type of mobility refers to changes in society that allow large numbers of people to move up or down the class ladder.

structural mobility

movement up or down the social class ladder that is due more to changes in the structure of society than to the actions of individuals

Janice grew up during a boom time of easy credit and business expansion. Opportunities were abundant, and colleges were looking for women from working-class backgrounds. It is far different for people who grow up during an economic bust when opportunities are shrinking. As sociologists point out, in analyzing social mobility, we must always look at structural mobility, how changes in society (its structure) make opportunities plentiful or scarce.

The third type of social mobility is  exchange mobility.  This occurs when large numbers of people move up and down the social class ladder, but, on balance, the proportions of the social classes remain about the same. Suppose that a million or so working-class people are trained in some new technology, and they move up the class ladder. Suppose also that because of a surge in imports, about a million skilled workers have to take lower-status jobs. Although millions of people change their social class, there is, in effect, an exchange among them. The net result more or less balances out, and the class system remains basically untouched.

exchange mobility

a large number of people moving up the social class ladder, while a large number move down; it is as though they have exchanged places, and the social class system shows little change

 Read on MySocLab

Document: A Different Mirror

How much social mobility is there? For an overview of intergenerational social mobility today, read the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.

The term structural mobility refers to changes in society that push large numbers of people either up or down the social class ladder. A remarkable example was the stock market crash of 1929 when thousands of people suddenly lost their wealth. People who once “had it made” found themselves standing on street corners selling apples or, as depicted here, selling their possessions at fire-sale prices. The crash of 2008 brought similar problems to untold numbers of people.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Researching “The American Dream”: Social Mobility Today

“The American Dream” can mean many things. Sociologically, it refers to children being able to pass their parents as they climb the social class ladder. That children can do this is one of the attractions of the United States. It has been a driving force in immigration and American life. But just how much upward mobility is there today? We are fortunate to have national research that compares today’s adult children with their parents (Lopoo and DeLeire 2012). As you look at the findings summarized in  Figure 10.6 , you will see that the United States has considerable upward mobility. Relative to their parents, one third (35 percent) of adult children have moved up at least one rung on the social class ladder. Contrary to the many dismal reports of current social life, the American Dream might be ailing, but it is still vibrant.

Some of the most interesting findings in this research concern changes in income. (The incomes of the parent and adult child generations were adjusted for inflation, so the dollars have the same base.) An impressive 84 percent of today’s American adults have family incomes higher than their parents had at the same age. One of the surprises is that those most likely to surpass their parents are the children who were reared at the bottom of the income ladder. Of the adult children who started life there, 93 percent have incomes higher than their parents did at the same age. With incomes stagnating and even going backward during the past several years, many fear that the “American dream” has been shattered. Certainly poverty has increased, but it is not likely that the Great Recession has crushed the dream, just deflated it a bit. We’ll have to await the next round of social mobility research to find out.

Stickiness at the ends.  Figure 10.6  summarizes the change in income from one generation to the next. Of children who were reared in the bottom fifth of the nation’s income, as adults, 43 percent stayed where they started, while 57 percent moved upward. Four percent moved to the top quintile of the nation’s income. Now look at the adult children who were reared in the top quintile. As adults, 40 percent stayed where they started, while 60 percent moved downward. Eight percent of these adult children moved to the bottom quintile.

The main avenue to the upward social mobility reviewed here has been higher education.

Figure 10.6

Income of Adult Children Compared with That of Their Parents

Source: Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility Across Generations, p.  6 . © July, 2013 the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Note: This figure is difficult to understand. Here is the explanation. Lopoo and DeLiere (2012) divided the parents’ generation into five groups (quintiles) according to their share of the nation’s income. The left bar represents the fifth of Americans of the parents’ generation who had the lowest income, the bar on the right the quintile with the highest income. The divisions within the bars represent where the adult children ended up in terms of their own income.

What Do These Findings Mean? People have a lot of things they want to prove, and they like to use statistics to make their point. These findings will discourage some and elate others. Some will see a half-full glass, others one that is half empty. You can go either way. You can stress that 43 percent of the very poorest kids never got out of the bottom—or you can point to the 57 percent who did. It is the same with the richest kids: Forty percent stayed in the top quintile, and 60 percent dropped down.

No matter what your opinion, any way you look at it this is a lot of social mobility. Within all this, don’t lose sight of the broader principle: The benefits that high-income parents enjoy tend to keep their children afloat, while the obstacles that low-income parents confront tend to weigh their children down. As you can see, though, the benefits don’t keep most of the children up, nor do the obstacles keep most of the children down.

For Your Consideration

·  What is your social class? In ten years, do you think your social class will be higher, lower, or the same as that of your parents? Why?

Women in Studies of Social Mobility

About half of sons pass their fathers on the social class ladder, about one-third stay at the same level, and about one-sixth fall down the ladder. (Blau and Duncan 1967; Featherman 1979)

“Only sons!” said feminists in response to these classic studies on social mobility. “Do you think it is good science to ignore daughters? And why do you assign women the class of their husbands? Do you think that wives have no social class position of their own?” ( Davis and Robinson 1988 ;  Western et al. 2012 ). The male sociologists brushed off these objections, replying that there were too few women in the labor force to make a difference.

These sociologists simply hadn’t caught up with the times. The gradual but steady increase of women working for pay had caught them unprepared. Although sociologists now include women in their samples, research on the social class of married women is still in its infancy, and sons are sometimes still singled out in the research (Lopoo and DeLeire 2012).

Upwardly mobile women report how important their parents were in their success, how they were encouraged to achieve when they were just children. For upwardly mobile African American women, strong mothers are especially significant ( Robinson and Nelson 2010 ). In their study of women from working-class backgrounds who became managers and professionals, sociologists Elizabeth Higginbotham and Lynn Weber ( 1992 ) found this recurring theme: parents encouraging their girls to postpone marriage and get an education. To these understandings from the micro approach, we need to add the macro level. Had there not been a structural change in society, the millions of new positions that women occupy would not exist.

The Pain of Social Mobility

If you were to be knocked down the social class ladder, you know it would be painful. But are you aware that it also hurts to climb this ladder?

Sociologist Steph  Lawler (1999 ) found that British women who had moved from the working class to the middle class were caught between two worlds—their working-class background and their current middle-class life. Their mothers found the daughters’ middle-class ways “uppity.” They criticized their preferences in furniture and food, their speech, even the way they reared their children. As you can expect, this strained the mother–daughter relationships. Studying working-class parents in Boston, sociologists Richard Sennett and Jonathan Cobb ( 1972/1988 ) found something similar. The parents had made deep sacrifices—working two jobs, even postponing medical care—so their children could go to college. They, of course, expected their children to appreciate their sacrifice. But again, the result was two worlds of experience. The children’s educated world was so unlike that of their parents that even talking to one another became difficult. Not surprisingly, the parents felt betrayed and bitter. Their sacrifices had ripped their children from them.

Upward social mobility, though welcome, can place people in a world so different from their world of childhood orientation that they become strangers to their own family.

Torn from their roots, some of those who make the jump from the working to the middle class never become comfortable with their new social class ( Morris and Grimes 2005 ;  Lacy 2007 ). The Cultural Diversity box on the next page discusses other costs that come with the climb up the social class ladder.

Poverty

1. 10.5 Explain the problems in drawing the poverty line, how poverty is related to geography, race-ethnicity, education, feminization, age, and the culture of poverty; analyze why people are poor; and discuss deferred gratification and the Horatio Alger myth.

Many Americans find that the “limitless possibilities” of the American dream are quite elusive. As illustrated in  Figure 10.5  on page  267 , the working poor and underclass together form about one-fifth of the U.S. population. This translates into a huge number, over 60 million people. Who are these people?

Cultural Diversity in the United States Social Class and the Upward Social Mobility of African Americans

The overview of social class presented in this chapter doesn’t apply equally to all the groups that make up U.S. society. Consider geography: What constitutes the upper class of a town of 5,000 people will differ from that of a city of a million. In small towns, which have fewer extremes of wealth and occupation, family background and local reputation are more significant.

So it is with racial–ethnic groups. All racial–ethnic groups are marked by social class, but what constitutes a particular social class can differ from one group to another—as well as from one historical period to another. Consider social class among African Americans ( Landry and Marsh 2011 ).

The earliest class divisions can be traced to slavery—to slaves who worked in the fields and those who worked in the “big house.” Those who worked in the plantation home were exposed more to the customs, manners, and forms of speech of wealthy whites. Their more privileged position—which brought with it better food and clothing, as well as lighter work—was often based on skin color. Mulattos, lighter-skinned slaves, were often chosen for this more desirable work. One result was the development of a “mulatto elite,” a segment of the slave population that, proud of its distinctiveness, distanced itself from other slaves. At this time, there also were free blacks. Not only were they able to own property but some even owned black slaves.

After the War Between the States (as the Civil War is known in the South), these two groups, the mulatto elite and the free blacks, formed an upper class that distanced itself from other blacks. From these groups came most of the black professionals. After World War II, the black middle class expanded as African Americans entered a wider range of occupations. Today, more than half of all African American adults work at white-collar jobs, about 22 percent at the professional or managerial level (Beeghley 2008).

An unwelcome cost greets many African Americans who move up the social class ladder: an uncomfortable distancing from their roots, a separation from significant others—parents, siblings, and childhood friends ( hooks 2000 ;  Lacy 2007 ). The upwardly mobile enter a world unknown to those left behind, one that demands not only different appearance and speech, but also different values, aspirations, and ways of viewing the world. These are severe challenges to the self and often rupture relationships with those left behind.

An additional cost is a subtle racism that lurks beneath the surface of some work settings, poisoning what could be easy, mutually respectful interaction. To be aware that white co-workers perceive you as different—as a stranger, an intruder, or “the other”—engenders frustration, dissatisfaction, and cynicism. To cope, many nourish their racial identity and stress the “high value of black culture and being black” ( Lacy and Harris 2008 ). Some move to neighborhoods of upper-middle-class African Americans, where they can live among like-minded people who have similar experiences ( Lacy 2007 ).

For Your Consideration

·  In the box on upward social mobility on page  82 , we discussed how Latinos face a similar situation. Why do you think this is? What connections do you see among upward mobility, frustration, and racial–ethnic identity? How do you think that the upward mobility of whites is different? Why?

Drawing the Poverty Line

To determine who is poor, the U.S. government draws a  poverty line.  This measure was set in the 1960s, when poor people were thought to spend about one-third of their incomes on food. On the basis of this assumption, each year, the government computes a low-cost food budget and multiplies it by 3. Families whose incomes are less than this amount are classified as poor; those whose incomes are higher—even by a dollar—are considered “not poor.”

poverty line

the official measure of poverty; calculated to include incomes that are less than three times a low-cost food budget

 Read on MySocLab

Document: The Compassion Gap in American Poverty Policy

This official measure of poverty is grossly inadequate. Poor people actually spend only about 20 percent of their income on food, so to determine a poverty line, we ought to multiply their food budget by 5 instead of 3 (Uchitelle 2001). Another problem is that mothers who work outside the home and have to pay for child care are treated the same as mothers who don’t have this expense. The poverty line is also the same for everyone across the nation, even though the cost of living is much higher in New York than in Alabama. On the other hand, much of the income of the poor is not counted: food stamps, rent assistance, subsidized child care, and the earned income tax credit ( Short 2012 ). In the face of these criticisms, the Census Bureau has developed alternative ways to measure poverty. These show higher poverty, but the official measure has not changed.

That a change in the poverty line can instantly make millions of people poor—or take away their poverty—would be laughable, if it weren’t so serious. Although this line is arbitrary, because it is the official measure of poverty, we’ll use it to see who in the United States is poor. Before we do this, though, how do you think that your ideas of the poor match up with sociological findings? To find out, go to the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.

High rates of rural poverty have been a part of the United States from its origin to the present. This 1937 photo shows a 32-year old woman who had seven children and no food. She was part of a huge migration of people from the Dust Bowl of Oklahoma in search of a new life in California.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Some Facts about Poverty: What Do You Know?

Can you tell which of these statements are true?

1. Poverty is unusual.  False. Over a four-year period, one-third (32 percent) of all Americans experience poverty for at least two months (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2010. About half of the entire U.S. population will experience poverty at some time before they reach age 65 ( Cellini et al. 2008 ).

2. People with less education are more likely to be poor.  True. Most definitely.

3. Most poor people are poor because they do not want to work.  False. About 40 percent of the poor are under age 18, and another 10 percent are age 65 or older. About 30 percent of the working-age poor work at least half the year ( O’Hare 1996a ,  1996b ).

4. The percentage of children who are poor is higher than that of adults.  True. Look at  Figure 10.7 .

5. Most children who are born in poverty are poor as adults.  False ( Ratcliffe and McKernan 2010 ). Also see  Figure 10.6  on page  274 .

6. There is more poverty in urban than in rural areas.  False. We’ll review this in the following section.

7. Most African Americans are poor.  False. This one was easy. We just reviewed some statistics in the box on upward mobility on page  276 —plus you have  Figure 10.7 .

8. Most of the poor are African Americans.  False. There are more poor whites than any other group. Look at Part 2 of  Figure 10.7 .

9. Most of the poor live in the inner city.  False. Most of the poor live in the suburbs ( Kneebone and Garr 2010 ).

10. Most of the poor are single mothers and their children.  False. About 38 percent of the poor match this stereotype, but 34 percent of the poor live in married-couple families, 22 percent live alone or with nonrelatives, and 6 percent live in other settings ( O’Hare 1996a ,  1996b ).

11. Most of the poor live on welfare.  False. Only about 25 percent of the income of poor adults comes from welfare. About half comes from wages and pensions, and about 22 percent from Social Security ( O’Hare 1996a ,  1996b ).

For Your Consideration

·  What stereotypes of the poor do you (or people you know) hold? How would you test these stereotypes?

Figure 10.7 Race–Ethnicity and U.S. Poverty

Note: Only these groups are listed in the source. The poverty line is $22,314 for a family of four.

Source: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2013:Tables 36, 722, and 724.

Figure 10.8 Patterns of Poverty

Source: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2013:Table 721.

Who Are the Poor?

The Geography of Poverty

The Social Map above illustrates how poverty varies by region. The striking clustering of poverty in the South is a pattern that has prevailed for more than 150 years.

 Watch on MySocLab

Video: Social Class: The Basics

A second aspect of geography is rural poverty. At 16 percent, rural poverty is higher than the national average of 15 percent. Helping to maintain this higher rate are the lower education of the rural poor and the scarcity of rural jobs ( Latimer and Woldoff 2010 ).

A third aspect of geography is the suburbanization of poverty. With the extensive migration from the cities to suburbs and the collapse of the housing market, poverty hit the suburbs—so hard that most of the nation’s poor now live in the suburbs ( Kneebone and Garr 2010 ). This major change is not likely to be temporary.

Geography, however, is not the main factor in poverty. The greatest predictors of poverty are race–ethnicity, education, and the sex of the person who heads the family. Let’s look at these factors.

Race–Ethnicity

One of the strongest factors in poverty is race–ethnicity. As you can see from  Figure  10.7 , 11 percent of whites are poor, followed closely by Asian Americans at 13 percent. From there, the poverty rate jumps. Twenty-seven percent of Latinos and African Americans live in poverty. For Native Americans, it is 28 percent. Because whites are, by far, the largest group in the United States, their lower rate of poverty translates into larger numbers. As a result, there are many more poor whites than poor people of any other racial–ethnic group. As Part 2 of  Figure 10.7  shows, 44 percent of all poor people are whites.

Poverty comes in many forms. Families who go into debt to buy possessions squeak by month after month until a crisis turns their lives upside down. I took this photo of a family in Georgia, parked alongside a highway selling their possessions to survive our economic downturn.

Figure 10.9 Who Ends Up Poor? Poverty by Education and Race–Ethnicity

Source: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2007:Table 694. Table dropped in later editions.

Education

You are aware that education is a vital factor in poverty, but you may not know just how powerful it is. Look at  Figure 10.9 , which shows that 1 of every 4 people who drop out of high school is poor, but only 3 of 100 people who finish college end up in poverty. As you can see, the chances that someone will be poor become less with each higher level of education. Although this principle applies regardless of race–ethnicity, you can also see that race–ethnicity makes an impact at every level of education.

 Read on MySocLab

Document: Doubly Divided: The Racial Wealth Gap

The Feminization of Poverty

One of the best indicators of whether or not a family is poor is family structure. Families headed by both a mother and father are the least likely to be poor, while those headed by only a mother are the most likely to be poor ( Statistical Abstract 2013 :Table 728). The reason for this can be summed up in one statistic: Women average only 72 percent of what men earn. (If you want to jump ahead, go to  Figure 11.8  on page  312 .) With our high rate of divorce combined with the large number of births to single women, mother-headed families have become more common. Sociologists call this association of poverty with women the  feminization of poverty.

feminization of poverty

a condition of U.S. poverty in which most poor families are headed by women

Old Age

As  Figure 10.7  on page  278  shows, the elderly are less likely than the general population to be poor. This is quite a change. It used to be that growing old increased people’s chances of being poor, but government policies to redistribute income—Social Security and subsidized housing, food stamps, and medical care—slashed the rate of poverty among the elderly.  Figure 10.8  also shows how the prevailing racial–ethnic patterns carry over into old age. You can see how much more likely elderly African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are to be poor than elderly whites. The exception is elderly Asian Americans, who show an unexplained jump in poverty.

Children of Poverty

Children are more likely to live in poverty than are adults or the elderly. This holds true regardless of race–ethnicity, but from  Figure 10.7 , you can see how much greater poverty is among Latino, African American, and Native American children. That millions of U.S. children are reared in poverty is shocking when one considers the wealth of this country and our supposed concern for the well-being of children. This tragic aspect of poverty is the topic of the following Thinking Critically section.

Thinking Critically The Nation’s Shame: Children in Poverty

One of the most startling statistics in sociology is shown in  Figure 10.7  on page  278 . Look at the rate of childhood poverty: For Asian Americans, one of seven children is poor; for whites, one of five or six; for Latinos, an astounding one of three; and for African Americans, an even higher total, with two of every five children living in poverty. These percentages translate into incredible numbers—approximately 16 million children.

Why do so many U.S. children live in poverty? A major reason is the large number of births to women who are not married, about 1.7 million a year. This number has increased sharply, going from one out of twenty in 1960 to eight out of twenty today. With the total jumping eight times, single women now account for 41 percent of all U.S. births (Statistical Abstract 2013:Table 89).

But do births to single women actually cause poverty? Consider the obvious: Children born to wealthy single women don’t live in poverty. Then consider this: In some industrialized countries, the birth rate of single women is higher than ours; yet our rate of child poverty is higher than theirs ( Garfinkel et al. 2010 ). Their poverty rate is lower because their governments provide extensive support for rearing these children—from providing day care to health checkups. As the cause of the poverty of children born to single women, then, why can’t we point to the lack of government support for children?

Apart from the matter of government policy, births to single women follow patterns that have a negative impact on their children’s welfare. The less education a single woman has, the more likely she is to bear children. As you can see from  Figure 10.10 , births to single women drop with each gain in education. As you know, people with lower education earn less, so this means that the single women who can least afford children are those most likely to give birth. Their children are likely to face the obstacles to building a satisfying life that poverty brings. They are more likely to die in infancy, to go hungry, to be malnourished, and to have health problems. They also are more likely to drop out of school, to become involved in crime, and to have children while still in their teens—thus perpetuating a cycle of poverty.

Figure 10.10 Births to Single Mothers

Note: Based on a national sample of all U.S. births in the preceding 12 months.

Source:  Dye 2005 .

For Your Consideration

·  With education so important for obtaining jobs that pay well, in light of  Figure 10.10 , what programs would you suggest for helping women attain more education? What policies would you suggest for reducing child poverty? Be specific and practical.

The Dynamics of Poverty versus the Culture of Poverty

Some have suggested that the poor get trapped in a  culture of poverty  ( Lewis 1966 ;  Cohen 2010 ). They assume that the values and behaviors of the poor “make them fundamentally different from other Americans, and that these factors are largely responsible for their continued long-term poverty” ( Ruggles 1989 :7). Lurking behind this concept is the idea that the poor are lazy people who bring poverty on themselves. Certainly, some individuals and families do match this stereotype—many of us have known them. But is a self-perpetuating culture—one that poor people transmit across generations and that locks them in poverty—the basic reason for U.S. poverty?

culture of poverty

the assumption that the values and behaviors of the poor make them fundamentally different from other people, that these factors are largely responsible for their poverty, and that parents perpetuate poverty across generations by passing these characteristics to their children

Contrary to the stereotype of lazy people who contentedly sit back sucking welfare, poverty is dynamic. First, we should note that many people live on the edge of poverty. They manage to keep their heads above poverty, although barely, but then comes some dramatic life change such as a divorce, an accident, an illness, or the loss of a job. The poverty trigger propels them over the edge they were holding onto, and they find themselves in the poverty they fiercely had been trying to avoid ( Western et al. 2012 ).

Second, most poverty is short-lived, lasting less than a year. As  Figure 10.11  shows, only 12 percent of poverty lasts five years or longer. Yet from one year to the next, the number of poor people remains about the same. This means that the people who move out of poverty are replaced by people who move into poverty. Most of these newly poor will also move out of poverty within a year. Some people even bounce back and forth, never quite making it securely out of poverty.

Figure 10.11 How Long Does Poverty Last?

Source:  Gottschalk et al. 1994 :89.

Few poor people enjoy poverty—and they do what they can to avoid being poor. In the end, though, poverty touches a lot more people than the official totals indicate. Although 15 percent of Americans may be poor at any one time, for those under age 30, 40 percent will be poor in the next ten years ( Western et al. 2012 ). Before they turn 65, about half of the U.S. population will experience poverty ( Cellini et al. 2008 ).

Why Are People Poor?

Two explanations for poverty compete for our attention. The first, which sociologists prefer, focuses on social structure. Sociologists stress that features of society deny some people access to education or training in job skills. They emphasize racial–ethnic, age, and gender discrimination, as well as changes in the job market—fewer unskilled jobs, businesses closing, and manufacturing jobs moving overseas. In short, some people find their escape route from poverty blocked.

A competing explanation focuses on the characteristics of individuals. Sociologists reject explanations such as laziness and lack of intelligence, viewing these as worthless stereotypes. Individualistic explanations that sociologists reluctantly acknowledge include dropping out of school and bearing children in the teen years. Most sociologists are reluctant to speak of such factors in this context, since they appear to blame the victim, something that sociologists bend over backward not to do.

A third explanation is the poverty triggers that were just mentioned, the unexpected events in life that push people into poverty.

What do you think causes poverty? Your view is important because it not only affects your perception but also has practical consequences. To see why, read the following Thinking Critically section.

Thinking Critically The Welfare Debate: The Deserving and the Undeserving Poor

Throughout U.S. history, Americans have divided the poor into two types: the deserving and the undeserving. The deserving poor are people who are thought to be poor through no fault of their own. Most of the working poor, such as the Lewises, are considered deserving:

Nancy and Ted Lewis are in their early 30s and have two children. Ted works three part-time jobs, earning $15,000 a year; Nancy takes care of the children and house and is not employed. To make ends meet, the Lewises rely on food stamps, Medicaid, and Section 8 (a federal housing subsidy).

The undeserving poor stand in sharp contrast. They are viewed as bringing poverty on themselves. They are considered freeloaders who waste their lives in laziness and alcohol and drug abuse. They revel in partying and promiscuous sex. They don’t deserve help. If given anything, they will waste it on their immoral lifestyles. Some would see Joan as an example:

Joan, her mother, and her two brothers and two sisters lived on welfare. Joan started having sex at 13, bore her first child at 15, and, now, at 23, is expecting her fourth child. Her first two children have the same father, the third a different father, and Joan isn’t sure who fathered her coming child. Joan parties most nights, using both alcohol and whatever drugs are available. Her house is filthy, the refrigerator is bare, and social workers have threatened to take away her children.

This division of the poor into deserving and undeserving underlies the heated debate about welfare. “Why should we use our hard-earned money to help them? They are just going to waste it. Of course, there are others who want to get back on their feet, and helping them is okay.”

For Your Consideration

·  Why do people make a distinction between deserving and undeserving poor? Should we let some people starve because they “brought poverty upon themselves”? Should we let children go hungry because their parents are drug abusers? Does “unworthy” mean that we should not offer assistance to people who “squander” the help they are given?

·  In contrast to thinking of poor people as deserving or undeserving, use the sociological perspective to explain poverty without blaming the victim. What social conditions (conditions of society) create poverty? Are there social conditions that produce the lifestyles that the middle class so despises?

Deferred Gratification

One consequence of a life of deprivation punctuated by emergencies—and of viewing the future as promising more of the same—is a lack of  deferred gratification,  giving up things in the present for the sake of greater gains in the future. It is difficult to practice this middle-class virtue of deferring gratification if you do not have a middle-class surplus—or middle-class hope.

deferred gratification

going without something in the present in the hope of achieving greater gains in the future

In a classic 1967 study of black streetcorner men, sociologist Elliot Liebow noted that the men did not defer gratification. Their jobs were low-paying and insecure, their lives pitted with emergencies. With the future looking exactly like the present, and any savings they did manage gobbled up by emergencies, it seemed pointless to save for the future. The only thing that made sense from their perspective was to enjoy what they could at that moment. Immediate gratification, then, was not the cause of their poverty but, rather, its consequence. Cause and consequence loop together, however: Their immediate gratification helped perpetuate their poverty. For another look at this “looping,” see the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page, in which I share my personal experience with poverty.

If both structural and personal causes are at work, why do sociologists emphasize the structural explanation? Reverse the situation for a moment. Suppose that members of the middle class drove old cars that broke down, faced threats from the utility company to shut off the electricity and heat, and had to make a choice between paying the rent or buying medicine and food and diapers. How long would they practice deferred gratification? Their orientations to life would likely make a sharp U-turn.

Sociologists, then, do not view the behaviors of the poor as the cause of their poverty but, rather, as the result of their poverty. Poor people would welcome the middle-class opportunities that would allow them the chance to practice the middle-class virtue of deferred gratification. Without those opportunities, though, they just can’t afford it.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Poverty: A Personal Journey

I was born in poverty. My parents, who could not afford to rent either a house or an apartment, rented the tiny office in their minister’s house. That is where I was born.

My father, who had only a seventh grade education, began to slowly climb the social class ladder. His fitful odyssey took him from laborer to truck driver to the owner of a series of small businesses (tire repair shop, bar, hotel), and from there to vacuum cleaner salesman, and back to bar owner. He converted a garage into a house. Although it had no indoor plumbing or insulation (on Minnesota’s Canadian border!), it was a start. Later, he bought a house, and then he built a new home. After that we moved into a trailer, and then back to a house. Although he never became wealthy, poverty eventually became a distant memory for him.

My social class took a leap—from working class to upper middle class—when, after attending college and graduate school, I became a university professor. I entered a world that was unknown to my parents, one much more pampered and privileged. I had opportunities to do research, to publish, and to travel to exotic places. My reading centered on sociological research, and I read books in Spanish as well as in English. My father, in contrast, never read a book in his life, and my mother read only detective stories and romance paperbacks. One set of experiences isn’t “better” than the other, just significantly different in determining what windows of perception it opens onto the world.

My interest in poverty, rooted in my own childhood experiences, stayed with me. I traveled to a dozen or so skid rows across the United States and Canada, talking to homeless people and staying in their shelters. In my own town, I spent considerable time with people on welfare, observing how they lived. I constantly marveled at the connections between structural causes of poverty (low education, low skills, low pay, the irregularity of unskilled jobs, undependable transportation) and personal causes (the culture of poverty—alcohol and drug abuse, multiple out-of-wedlock births, frivolous spending, all-night partying, domestic violence, criminal involvement, and a seeming incapacity to keep appointments—except to pick up the welfare check).

Sociologists haven’t unraveled this connection, and as much as we might like for only structural causes to apply, both are at work ( Duneier 1999 :122). The situation can be illustrated by looking at the perennial health problems I observed among the poor—the constant colds, runny noses, backaches, and injuries. The health problems stem from the social structure (less access to medical care, less capable physicians, drafty houses, little knowledge about nutrition, and more dangerous jobs). At the same time, personal characteristics—hygiene, eating habits, and overdrinking—cause health problems. Which is the cause and which the effect? Both, of course: One loops into the other. The medical problems (which are based on both personal and structural causes) feed into the poverty these people experience, making them less able to perform their jobs successfully—or even to show up at work regularly. What an intricate puzzle for sociologists!

Where Is Horatio Alger? The Social Functions of a Myth

In the late 1800s, Horatio Alger was one of the country’s most popular authors. The rags-to-riches exploits of his fictional boy heroes and their amazing successes in overcoming severe odds motivated thousands of boys of that period. Although Alger’s characters have disappeared from U.S. literature, they remain alive and well in the psyche of Americans. From real-life examples of people of humble origin who climbed the social class ladder, Americans know that anyone who really tries can get ahead. In fact, they believe that most Americans, including minorities and the working poor, have an average or better-than-average chance of getting ahead—obviously a statistical impossibility (Kluegel and Smith 1986).

The accuracy of the  Horatio Alger myth  is less important than the belief that surrounds it—that limitless possibilities exist for everyone. Functionalists would stress that this belief is functional for society. On the one hand, it encourages people to compete for higher positions, or, as the song says, “to reach for the highest star.” On the other hand, it places blame for failure squarely on the individual. If you don’t make it—in the face of ample opportunities to get ahead—the fault must be your own. The Horatio Alger myth helps to stabilize society: Since the fault is viewed as the individual’s, not society’s, current social arrangements can be regarded as satisfactory. This reduces pressures to change the system.

Horatio Alger myth

the belief that due to limitless possibilities anyone can get ahead if he or she tries hard enough

As Marx and Weber pointed out, social class penetrates our consciousness, shaping our ideas of life and our “proper” place in society. When the rich look at the world around them, they sense superiority and anticipate control over their own destiny. When the poor look around them, they are more likely to sense defeat and to anticipate that

A society’s dominant ideologies are reinforced throughout the society, including its literature. Horatio Alger provided inspirational heroes for thousands of boys. The central theme of these many novels, immensely popular in their time, was rags to riches. Through rugged determination and self-sacrifice, a boy could overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles to reach the pinnacle of success. (Girls did not strive for financial success, but were dependent on fathers and husbands.)

unpredictable forces will batter their lives. Both rich and poor know the dominant ideology: that their particular niche in life is due to their own efforts, that the reasons for success—or failure—lie solely with the self. Like fish that don’t notice the water, people tend not to perceive the effects of social class on their own lives.

MySocLab

 Study and Review on MySocLab

Chapter 10 Summary and Review

What Determines Social Class?

10.1 Explain the three components of social class—property, power, and prestige; distinguish between wealth and income; explain how property and income are distributed; and describe the democratic façade, the power elite, and status inconsistency.

What is meant by the term social class?

Most sociologists have adopted Weber’s definition of social class: a large group of people who rank closely to one another in terms of property (wealth), power, and prestige. Wealth—consisting of the value of property and income—is concentrated in the upper classes. From the 1930s to the 1970s, the trend in the distribution of wealth in the United States was toward greater equality. Since that time, it has been toward greater inequality. Power is the ability to get your way even though others resist. C. Wright Mills coined the term power elite to refer to the small group that holds the reins of power in business, government, and the military. Prestige is linked to occupational status. Pp.  252 – 262 .

How does occupational prestige differ around the world?

From country to country, people rank occupational prestige similarly. Globally, the occupations that bring greater prestige are those that pay more, require more education and abstract thought, and offer greater independence. Pp.  262 – 263 .

What is meant by the term status inconsistency?

Status is social position. Most people are status consistent; that is, they rank high or low on all three dimensions of social class. People who rank higher on some dimensions than on others are status inconsistent. The frustrations of status inconsistency tend to produce political radicalism. Pp.  263 – 264 .

Sociological Models of Social Class

10.2 Contrast Marx’s and Weber’s models of social class.

What models are used to portray the social classes?

Erik Wright developed a four-class model based on Marx: (1) capitalists (owners of large businesses), (2) petty bourgeoisie (small business owners), (3) managers, and (4) workers. Kahl and Gilbert developed a six-class model based on Weber. At the top is the capitalist class. In descending order are the upper middle class, the lower middle class, the working class, the working poor, and the underclass. Pp.  264 – 269 .

Consequences of Social Class

10.3 Summarize the consequences of social class for physical and mental health, family life, education, religion, politics, and the criminal justice system.

How does social class affect people’s lives?

Social class leaves no aspect of life untouched. It affects our chances of dying early, becoming ill, receiving good health care, and getting divorced. Social class membership also affects child rearing, educational attainment, religious affiliation, political participation, the crimes people commit, and their contact with the criminal justice system. Pp.  269 – 272 .

Social Mobility

10.4 Contrast the three types of social mobility, and review gender issues in research on social mobility and why social mobility brings pain.

What are three types of social mobility?

The term intergenerational mobility refers to changes in social class from one generation to the next. Structural mobility refers to changes in society that lead large numbers of people to change their social class. Exchange mobility is the movement of large numbers of people from one social class to another, with the net result that the relative proportions of the population in the classes remain about the same. Pp.  272 – 275 .

Poverty

10.5 Explain the problems in drawing the poverty line, how poverty is related to geography, race-ethnicity, education, feminization, age, and the culture of poverty; analyze why people are poor; and discuss deferred gratification and the Horatio Alger myth.

Who are the poor?

Poverty is unequally distributed in the United States. Racial–ethnic minorities (except Asian Americans), children, households headed by women, and rural Americans are more likely than others to be poor. The poverty line, although it has serious consequences, is arbitrary. The poverty rate of the elderly is less than that of the general population. Pp.  275 – 282 .

Why are people poor?

Some social analysts believe that characteristics of individuals cause poverty. Sociologists, in contrast, stress the structural features of society, such as employment opportunities, to find the causes of poverty. There also are poverty triggers. Sociologists generally conclude that life orientations are a consequence, not the cause, of people’s position in the social class structure. Pp.  282 – 284 .

How is the Horatio Alger myth functional for society?

The Horatio Alger myth—the belief that anyone can get ahead if only he or she tries hard enough—encourages people to strive to get ahead. It also deflects blame for failure from society to the individual. Pp.  284 – 285 .

Thinking Critically about Chapter 10

1. The belief that the United States is the land of opportunity draws millions of legal and illegal immigrants to the United States. How do the materials in this chapter support or undermine this belief?

2. In what three ways is social class having an ongoing impact on your life?

3. What social mobility has your own family experienced? In what ways has this affected your life?