1. © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 1 Richard T. Schaefer

2. Slide 2 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Stratification and Social Mobility in the United States Systems of Stratification Sociological Perspectives on Stratification Is Stratification Universal? Stratification by Social Class Income and Wealth Poverty Life Chances Social Mobility Social Policy and Stratification: Executive CompensationSocial Policy and Stratification: Executive Compensation 9

3. Slide 3 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. █ Is social inequality an inescapable part of society? A Look Ahead █ How does government policy affect the life chances of the working poor? █ Is this country still a place where a hardworking person can move up the social ladder?

4. Slide 4 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Stratification and Social Mobility in the United States █ Social inequality: Condition in which members of society have different amounts of wealth, prestige, or power –Stratification: Structured ranking of entire groups of people that perpetuates unequal economic rewards and power in a society –Income: Salaries and wages –Wealth: Encompasses all of a person’s material assets

5. Slide 5 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Systems of Stratification █ Ascribed status: social position assigned to person by society without regard for the person’s unique talents or characteristics █ Achieve status: social position that person attains largely through his or her own efforts

6. Slide 6 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Systems of Stratification █ Slavery: Individuals owned by other people, who treat them as property █ Castes: Hereditary ranks, usually religiously dictated and tend to be fixed and immobile █ Estates (feudalism): Peasants worked land leased to them in exchange for military protection and other services

7. Slide 7 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Figure 9-1: The 50 States: Contrasts in Income and Poverty Levels Note: National median household income was $51,168; national poverty rate, 14.3 percent. Source: 2009 census data presented in American Community Survey 2010: Tables R1701, R1901.

8. Slide 8 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Table 9-1: Human Trafficking Report Note: Table is incomplete; each tier lists only a sample of all nations classified. Since the Human Trafficking Report is created by the State Department, the level of compliance by the United States, although not listed, would presumably be “full compliance.” Source: Department of State 2010.

9. Slide 9 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Social Classes █ Class system: Social ranking based primarily on economic position in which achieved characteristics can influence social mobility █ Rossides (1997) uses five-class model to describe U.S. class system: –Upper class –Upper-middle class –Lower-middle class –Working class –Lower class

10. Slide 10 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Social Classes █ Upper class: 1% to 2% of U.S. population █ Lower class: 10% to 25% of U.S. population █ Upper middle class: 10% to 15% of U.S. population █ Lower middle class: 30% to 35% of U.S. population █ Working class: 40% to 45% of U.S. population

11. Slide 11 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Social Classes █ Factors contributing to shrinking size of middle class –Disappearing opportunities for those with little education –Global competition and advances in technology –Growing dependence on temporary workforce –Rise of new growth industries and nonunion workplaces

12. Slide 12 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Sociological Perspectives on Stratification █ Sociologists hotly debate stratification and social inequality and reach varying conclusions No theorist stressed significance of class for society more strongly than Karl Marx

13. Slide 13 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Karl Marx’s View of Class Differentiation █ Social relations depend on who controls the primary mode of production –Capitalism: Means of production held largely in private hands and main incentive for economic activity is accumulation of profits –Bourgeoisie: Capitalist class; owns the means of production –Proletariat: Working class

14. Slide 14 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Karl Marx’s View of Class Differentiation █ Class consciousness: Subjective awareness of common vested interests and the need for collective political action to bring about change █ False consciousness: Attitude held by members of class that does not accurately reflect their objective position

15. Slide 15 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Max Weber’s View of Stratification █ No single characteristic totally defines a person’s position within the stratification system –Class: Group of people who have similar level of wealth and income –Status group: People who have the same prestige or lifestyle –Power: Ability to exercise one’s will over others

16. Slide 16 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Interactionist View █ Veblen: those at top of social hierarchy typically convert part of wealth into conspicuous consumption: purchase goods in order to flaunt their superior wealth and social standing –Conspicuous leisure –Behavior judged to be typical of the lower class subject to ridicule and legal action

17. Slide 17 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Is Stratification Universal? █ Inequality exists in all societies Does not explain the wide disparity between the rich and the poor –Functionalist view: Social inequality necessary so people motivated to fill important positions

18. Slide 18 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Is Stratification Universal? █ Conflict view: Human beings prone to conflict over scarce resources such as wealth, status, and power –Stratification major source of societal tension –Leads to instability and social change Dominant ideology: Set of cultural beliefs and practices that helps to maintain powerful social, economic, and political interests

19. Slide 19 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Is Stratification Universal? –Emergence of surplus resources expands possibilities for inequality –Allocation of surplus goods and services reinforces social inequality █ Lenski’s view: As a society advances technologically, it becomes capable of producing a surplus of goods

20. Slide 20 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Table 9-2: Sociological Perspectives on Social Stratification

21. Slide 21 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. –Class largely viewed as a statistical category Education Occupation Income Place of residence Stratification by Social Class █ Objective Method Prestige: Respect and admiration an occupation holds in society Esteem: Reputation a specific person has earned within an occupation

22. Slide 22 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. –For many years, social class studies tended to neglect the occupations and incomes of women as determinants of social rank █ Multiple Measures –Socioeconomic status (SES): Measure of social class based on income, education, and occupation Measuring Social Class █ Gender and Occupational Prestige

23. Slide 23 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Table 9-2: Prestige Rankings of Occupations Note: 100 is the highest and 0 the lowest possible prestige score. Source: J. Davis et al. 2009. See also Nakao and Treas 1994.

24. Slide 24 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. –During recession of 1999–2001, median household wealth of Hispanic and Black Americans fell 27% while white households’ wealth grew 2 percent –Wealth in the U.S. is much more unevenly distributed than income Income and Wealth █ Income in U.S. distributed unevenly In 2009, half the population controlled more than 97% of wealth

25. Slide 25 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Figure 9-4: Distribution of Wealth in the United States, 2001 Source: Data for 2009 in DeNavas-Walt et al. 2010:40; Bureau of the Census 2010d: Table H-3.

26. Slide 26 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Research Today █ 9.1: Precarious Work –Has the trend toward increasing reliance on precarious work touched your family or friends? Has anyone you know been unemployed longer than six months? –Looking forward to your own career, can you think of a strategy for avoiding precarious work, frequent job loss, and long-term unemployment?

27. Slide 27 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. █ Relative poverty: Floating standard people at the bottom of a society are judged as being disadvantaged compared to others Poverty █ Absolute poverty: Level of subsistence that no family should live below

28. Slide 28 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. █ In 2009, about 36% of poor working adults worked full-time, compared to 65% of all adults █ Feminization of poverty –Since W. W. II, increasing proportion of poor in U.S. have been women Who Are the Poor? Underclass: long-term poor who lack training and skills

29. Slide 29 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. –Gans: poverty and the poor satisfy positive functions for many non-poor groups Society’s dirty work performed at low cost Creates jobs that serve the poor Upholds conventional social norms Guarantees higher status of more affluent Absorb costs of social change Poverty █ Not a static social class

30. Slide 30 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Figure 9-4: Poverty in Selected Countries Note: Data are averages for mid-2000s, as reported in 2009. Poverty threshold is 50 percent of a nation’s median household income. Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2009a.

31. Slide 31 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Table 9-3: Who are the Poor in the United States? Source: Data for 2009, as reported by the Bureau of the Census; DeNavas-Walt et al. 2010:15.

32. Slide 32 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. –Life chances: Opportunities to provide material goods, positive living conditions, and favorable life experience Life Chances █ Max Weber saw class as being closely related to people’s life chances In times of danger, the affluent have a better chance of surviving

33. Slide 33 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Social Mobility █ Social mobility: Movement of individuals or groups from one position in a society’s stratification system to another

34. Slide 34 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. █ Closed system: Allows little or no possibility of moving up Open Vs. Closed Stratification Systems █ Open system: Position of each individual influenced by the person’s achieved status

35. Slide 35 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. █ Vertical mobility: Movement from one position to another of a different rank █ Intragenerational mobility: Social position changes within person’s adult life Types of Social Mobility █ Horizontal mobility: Movement within same range of prestige

36. Slide 36 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. █ The Impact of Education █ The Impact of Race and Ethnicity █ The Impact of Gender Social Mobility in the United States █ Occupational Mobility

37. Slide 37 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Figure 9-5: Intergenerational Income Mobility Source: Mazumder 2008:10.

38. Slide 38 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Sociology on Campus █ 9.2: Social Class and Financial Aid –How important is financial aid to you and your friends? Without these types of aid, would you be able to cover your college expenses? –Aside from a reduction in individual social mobility, what might be the long-term effects of the shortage of need-based financial aid?

39. Slide 39 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. –In 1965, top executives earned 24 times the average worker’s pay –By 1980 the gap widened to 40 times the average paycheck –By 2009, the gap was 300 times the average Executive Compensation █ Looking at the Issue

40. Slide 40 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. –Functionalist: compensation reasonable given the potential for gain –Conflict theorists: question compensation and process that determine executives’ pay –DiPrete: corporations report executives’ compensation relative to peer compensation  Public comparisons of executive compensation within industries may influence board decisions Executive Compensation █ Applying Sociology

41. Slide 41 © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. –Law now mandates companies publish “summary compensation tables” with retirement packages and “golden parachute” –In 2009, White House appointed Treasury Department official to look into executive compensation  Critics worry companies will just develop new ways to inflate executives’ pay Executive Compensation █ Initiating Policy