Inequality and Poverty Levels, again How much mobility? Inequality and social policy

Levels: What question is one asking? “To what extent do people have equal opportunity” is largely a question at the macro-level about social structural constraints and rates “To what extent do people have any opportunities” is largely a question at the micro level about individual choices. E.g. the question whether “October Sky” ever happens is different from the question whether it is as likely in a poor community in Appalachia, or in Mantua, as on the Main Line. Or half as likely, or a tenth as likely, or a hundredth. That people make their choices under constraints means that there are grossly different college chances in East LA and in 90210

Is there enough mobility so that it does not make sense to speak of a vicious cycle? In the 1950’s and ’60’s Status Attainment research (e.g. Hout and others p.*346-50) argues that The effects of family background on education, occupation and income were substantial, but There is still enough mobility so that we do not have to talk of a “vicious cycle.” However, in the last 20 years, most sociologists have pointed out that 1. Status attainment research looked at effects for white males not living in poverty – less than 1/3 of the work force. 2. It confused structural and circulation mobility 3. It treated “pseudo-mobility” as real, and longitudinal designs find rates of mobility less than half as large. The vicious cycle is real.

Limitations on mobility rates The question of equal opportunities is not whether people have some opportunities and make choices. Whether people are treated the same at age 20 is not the main structural issue about equal opportunity. Inequality of opportunity usually means that different people and different groups do not get the same skills, contacts, job histories, motivations or self-presentation prior to age 20. Different constraints lead to different rates and different choices. Thus, equal opportunities may involve things such as lead paint, food, ear exams, eyeglasses, housing, reading programs, etc. at age 10 The US does a terrible job at such issues, compared to other advanced industrial societies

The example of 187, again Some kids are making bad, immoral choices. All the students are multiply disadvantaged such that No one in the school is competitive with students from Some of these effects are direct ones of school funding, etc. Others are effects of not dealing with problems in the community Others are indirect effects (e.g. role models, expectations, teacher flight. All are affected by social policy, or by the absence of social policy.

The example of The Code of the Streets, again People make choices, both in Chestnut Hill and in North Philadelphia. The different rates of choices are the result of different environments. We can choose to do something, or not to do something about those differences. To ascribe the differences to individual choices is usually a way of justifying the failure to do anything about it.

The example of The Saints and the Roughnecks, again Teachers, merchants, judges, employers, etc. really, sincerely believe that they are treating people the same, and that the “saints” are making good choices, while the “roughnecks are making bad choices, and that people should take the consequences of their choices. But the reality is that a biased educational, criminal justice, and social system is stigmatizing poor kids in a way that reinforces disadvantage.

But even if that is true, isn’t it demoralizing to say it? People always have choices. It may be important to stress to any student that he or she can do well, can stay off drugs, can succeed (at the individual level of analysis). The grossly different life chances of different groups gives a different message (at the social level of analysis.)

What is the policy issue?” One of the reasons that it is important to look at constraints is that the policy issues usually concern whether there is equal opportunity, not whether there is any opportunity. That some people overcome disadvantages is not relevant to whether they are disadvantaged. The persistence of socially remediable inequalities of opportunity is arguably 1. Unjust 2. a source of structural strain and 3. Dysfunctional – a social waste

Anticipation: the army and Colin Powell The army and the navy followed different policies The army found huge racial disproportions at different levels. It argued that the disproportions resulted from unequal opportunities and set up compensatory educational programs. That have produced the single largest fully integrated institution in the society.

Survey questions 1. Only if differences in income and social standing are large enough is there an incentive for individual effort. 2. In the United States, there are still great differences between social levels, and what one can achieve in life depends mainly upon one’s family background. 3. Personal income should not be determined solely by one’s work. Rather, everybody should get what he/she needs to provide a decent life for his/her family 4. In a free society it is alright if a few people accumulate a lot of wealth and property while many others live in poverty. 5. The country has many problems, none of which can be solved easily or cheaply. At the moment, do you think the federal government is spending too much, about the right amount or too little on: 1. Welfare 2. Assistance to the poor.

A Simplistic theory Disadvantaged persons and groups will adopt a functional model of inequality. Advantaged persons and groups will adopt a conflict model of inequality. It is largely true, but there are many other forces operating on each respondent and with regard to each attitude.

Insight of functional theory: We might want or need some kinds of inequality to the degree that the inequality serves crucial social functions. For example it could reward people for doing important work, or it might motivate people to gain training, or it might reflect differences in people’s priorities

Insight of conflict theory We might need to limit inequality to the extent that it becomes divisive, dysfunctional and/or cancerous. Many societies in the past have had to devote more and more resources to coercion and social control, because they were divided by conflicts over inequality.

An example of a question suggesting a functional view: Only if differences in income and social standing are large enough is there an incentive for individual effort. A substantial majority of the national population agrees with that item.

Effect of income on belief in need for incentives INCOME by CLASS?F ( Only if differences in income and social standing are large enough is there an incentive for individual effort.) AGREEDISAGREEMissingTOTAL LOW %39.1% 100.0% MID %41.8% 100.0% HIGH %39.2% 100.0% Miss TOT %40.5% No effect of income. Why?

Effect of gender on belief in need for incentives SEX by CLASS?F (Only if differences in income and social standing are large enough is there an incentive for individual effort.) AGREEDISAGREEMissingTOTAL MALE %37.5% 100.0% FEMALE %42.7% 100.0% TOTAL %40.5% A modest, but statistically significant, effect in which men are more likely to assert the need for inequality for incentives. Why?

An example of a question suggesting a conflict view: In the United States, there are still great differences between social levels, and what one can achieve in life depends mainly upon one’s family background.

Effect of income on belief that there is unequal opportunity INCOME by “what one can achieve in life depends mainly upon one’s family background” AGREEDISAGREEMissingTOTAL LOW %45.4% 100.0% MIDDLE %56.7% 100.0% HIGH %67.0% 100.0% Missing TOTAL %55.7% There is a strong effect. Rich people are far less likely to believe that what one can achieve in life depends mainly upon one’s family background

Another conflict view: And substantial minorities even agree that : Personal income should not be determined solely by one’s work. Rather, everybody should get what he/she needs to provide a decent life for his/her family

The main policy disagreement: There is almost an even split on the issue:

Effect of income on view that accumulation of wealth and poverty is consistent with freedom INCOME by WLTH POV AGREENEITHERDISAGREEMissingTOTAL LOW %15.8%54.0% 100.0% MIDDLE %18.8%44.0% 100.0% HIGH %20.6%31.9% 100.0% Missing TOTAL %18.6%42.8% Upper income respondents are substantially more likely to believe that freedom is consistent with the accumulation of wealth and poverty. 17% more likely – about 12 rather than about 1/3 – Why?

Effect of gender on view that accumulation of wealth and poverty is consistent with freedom SEX by WLTH POV AGREENEITHERDISAGREETOTAL MALE %7.1%37.4% 100.0% FEMALE %21.0%46.1% 100.0% TOTAL %19.3%42.3% Men are substantially more likely to believe that freedom is consistent with the accumulation of wealth and poverty. 13% more likely – about ½ rather than 1/3 – why?

Effect of race on view that accumulation of wealth and poverty is consistent with freedom RACE by WLTH POV AGREE NEITHERDISAGREETOTAL WHITE %18.4%39.1% 100.0% BLACK %18.0%59.0% 100.0% TOTAL %8.3%42.4% White respondents are substantially more likely to believe that the accumulation of wealth and poverty is consistent with freedom 20% more likely; a factor of two. Why?

Policy issues: “welfare” The idea of welfare and the pursuit of welfare was overwhelmingly positively charged at the time of the New Deal As part of the American Dream and the American Creed - the ideal of a society of equal opportunity. It has a powerful negative charge today. This largely depends on the word: the idea of aid to the poor, particularly poor children, is still positively charged While the idea of “welfare” has a powerful “negative charge. “why?

The ideology of welfare: When asked about “welfare” more than half the population say we are spending too much:

The issue of welfare and of aid to the poor: But when asked about “assistance to the poor” nearly 2/3 say we are spending too little and 11% say we are spending “too much”

How did welfare get redefined Some sociologists believe that the main issue has been “The Color of Welfare” (Quadagno) i.e. racial stereotyping of welfare recipients, combined with institutional racism. Some sociologists believe that it is based on a set of myths about welfare. It is also part of the overall shift to the market and to Social Darwinist ideas.