Stratification

more data on increasing stratification due to Recession bailouts.

possible worksheet article for strat/gender strat (and find other, first one about the woman named in the artilce)

what's happening to the middle class? more complex?

video from Omar:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM

Ch. 8: Stratification

Because cultures are so diverse, we find that they differ on almost everything we look at. There are very few cultural universals we can study, one of them has been the "incest taboo." Another universal is that ALL societies rank people systematically in a hierarchy. This is called stratification.

Stratification determines how resources are distributed in a population.
Paradoxically, the more resources a society has, the less equal this distribution is.
This short video explains this paradox that abundance causes inequality (note the material determinism here)

Hunter/gatherers - 1 calorie expended for every 3 calories gained
Horticultural and pastoral - 1:5
Agricultural - 1:50
Industrial - 1:5,000



Stratification has 4 principles:

• It is a property of a society, not of individuals.
• • even though we as individuals tend to think of ourselves (in terms of our talent and effort) relative to others around us.
• It frequently carries over from one generation to the next, depending on the ease of social mobility.
  • How do parents pass on position to kids?
  • Depending on whether the system is "closed" or "open," some people have social mobility, which can be upward or downward, but most people in our society don't move very far over their life courses.
  • Some data on the US here.  Notice that it's hard to move up from the bottom, but also to move down from the top.
• While all societies do it, they vary on the combination of criteria, or socio-economic status factors (SES): prestige, wealth, and power. How does our society do it? A bit of each. Configurations vary widely by occupation. Status consistency refers to whether these factors match up - how commensurable various measures are: money, power, prestige.
• • Religious leaders and politicians have power and prestige, but relatively low wealth.
  • Doctors and entertainers have money and prestige, but relatively low power.
  • Lawyers and business leaders (CEOs) have money and power, but relatively low prestige.
  • College professors like me don't usually make much money; we have a moderate amount of power in that sometimes our research affects public policy and we can influence our students' thinking, and we have a lot of prestige in society. Thus, we have low status consistency.
  • If you are in the military, rank (prestige) comes with certain authority over others in the chain of command (power), and a specific pay grade (money). Thus, they have high status consistency.
• It involves not just inequality in the hierarchy, but also ideologies (a.k.a. belief systems) that explain and justify it. (people get what they deserve vs. cognitive dissonance)(poverty may drain cognitive resources)
  • Systems of inequality must define themselves as fair... for example "it is good for someone to have more money, power, or status than someone else, because they are smarter, work harder, or are in some way better and more deserving." ...societies think there should be reasons linking who you are and what you have... post-hoc rationalizing. (Again, like in the chapter on deviance, if you DON'T think society is just, you are more likely to find criminal actions, or political revolutions, to be plausible.)

Caste -----Class ------ Perfect meritocracy

Caste - one's status in the hierarchy is ascribed rather than achieved. There is little social mobility, and rigid boundaries between the strata.

e.g., in India, caste determines your occupation:

1. Brahmin (priest)
2. Kshatriya (politician/warrior)
3. Vaishya (merchants)
4. Sudra (laborers)

Caste systems keep people in the company of their own kind – norms enforce this with belief in "pollution," which normalizes homophily and endogamous marriage.

Accepting one's place in the social order is seen as a moral duty, which shows merit and loyalty to society, just as a capitalist work ethic became a moral duty for Protestants (Weber)


The United Kingdom – The RISE of Class FROM Caste
Under the aristocratic feudal system, 5% hereditary nobles owned most land, had no “occupation” and viewed work as beneath them. Most people were commoners or serfs, who worked the land and paid rent.

The industrial revolution drained farms of serfs; they moved to cities and got wage-jobs which allowed them to save money and eventually challenge the nobility.

England still retains vestigial caste-like elements, such as the hereditary House of Lords (part of their Parliament, like the Senate is part of our Congress). Less social mobility than in U.S.

The Soviet Union: Classlessness via Communism?
Russian experiment of socialism and perestroika (restructuring).
There still was stratification under "communism":

1. High officials (apparatchiks)
2. Intelligentsia
3. Manual workers
4. Peasants and farmers.

They did virtually eliminate abject poverty (and opulent wealth), but the average standard of living was much less than in other (capitalist) industrial countries.

Gorbechev reduced centralized control to stimulate growth, allowing local industries to expand. This was evidence of structural social mobility – shift in position of large numbers due to changes in society, not individuals.

China – after WWII, went "communist" with central coordination of farms and factories. Mao declared all work equally important. Similar results to Russia.

In the late 70s a gradual shift began to more capitalism and manufacturing, especially along coastal areas. Since then, inequality has increased dramatically, and the current stratification system is a mix of the old political hierarchy and the new business hierarchy.


IDEOLOGY of INEQUALITY
A stratification system also consists of the beliefs that support it.
For example, India's caste system is accepted because of belief in dharma (duty), karma, and reincarnation.
The United Kingdom's old caste system was accepted because of belief in predestination and the "divine right of kings."
The beliefs that allow us to accept our American brand of stratification are beliefs such as that "rich people are rich because they are smart and hard-working, and poor people are poor because they are lazy and foolish."


Structural-Functionalism

Herbert Spencer on "social Darwinism," p. 216 – is inequality a mechanism ensuring the survival of the fittest?

• This view is not supported by modern sociologists, but it is common in pop culture and the media

Davis-Moore thesis, p. 217 – inequality is functional for society. Inequality is found in every society, so it's a pattern, and structural-functionalists look for functions. The greater the importance of a position, the more rewards society attaches to it as symbolic markers. They provide motivation to the smart and talented to work harder, better, and longer. This may explain why many people go into medicine, business, law, politics, etc...

• Does this explain why Oprah makes more in a day than Obama makes in a year? Does society value a talk show more than the leader of our country?
• How many soldiers are worth a CEO of a tech company?
• Does this apply to teachers assigning grades, A through F?

So what's the difference between Herbert Spencer's view and the Davis-Moore Thesis?


Survival of the fittest (social Darwinism) focuses on individual traits that propel certain individuals to the top: how competitive, smart, strong, cut-throat are you? Only the strong survive, the cream rises to the top.

Davis & Moore focus on what positions society thinks are important. So it is the position that gets loaded with rewards that kind magnetically draw people who are competent enough to do it. Thus, inequality is a mechanism that makes sure the smartest, hardest working people are doing the most important kinds of things.

Social Conflict Approach

Marx on conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat.
Scientific management, assembly line, etc. produces alienation, less SES for workers.
Makes workers poorer and poorer, exploits their labor to make profit.

So why no Marxist revolution? Even the poor have a higher standard of living than in the past!
Also, diffusion of ownership through stock programs, etc, allows pressure to be relieved.
Diffusion of power through unions (which "let off steam" and provide a bulwark against low pay and other exploitation), consequently laws to provide safety and security, which is why a conflict theorist would be concerned about the recent political situation in Madison – collective bargaining rights over conditions of labor.


Symbolic Interactionism
Normally takes a micro-level look at peoples' day to day interactions and how we construct their meaning. But, as we have said, stratification happens on the level of society, but of course we, as individuals, find ourselves within certain strata. We generally can see where we stand relative to others, and that colors our perception of the world. We internalize our SES as part of our self-concept, and this affects how we interact with others (via language, and symbols we use) and what we buy (conspicuous consumption).

Remember, this perspective is founded on a philosophical doctrine of ideal determinism, and so we can also see how the material world around us is shaped by the meanings we attach to it!

WEBER – Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (a symbolic interactionist explanation for capitalist structures coming from religious ideology.)


America - have you heard? We've been going through a bit of a recession lately.  (videoWhat has that done to our system of stratification?  This short video on class disparities gives us an idea of how pronounced inequality is today.
What has that done to our system of stratification? Here is a graph of the share of income taken home by different segments of the population.
As we've talked about before, American society kind of measures peoples' status by their monetary worth.
Here is an indication of the magnitude of the gap between rich and poor : if you made minimum wage adjusted for inflation, and you started working in the year 246 B.C. and saved every penny, you would have just caught up to what the CEO of Hewlett Packard took home in just one year, 2009. that's an extreme example, but how does the picture look more generally? How much inequality is there? This closely matches WEALTH chart on p. 201 – difference between income and wealth?

• the wealth of most people as a house and a car, and the wealth of the rich as stocks and investments that PRODUCE income

CLASS IN THE U.S.A.(compare to new class in the U.K.?)

• We are becoming less of a “middle-class” society as inequality grows. A small minority have most of our wealth, better education, health, longer lives, etc.
• prestige of different jobs in America (p.202)?
• What are the classes?
  
  1. Upper class (about 5%)
  • upper-upper class gets their wealth through inheritance (i.e. old money)(a.k.a. "the 1%")
  • lower-upper class may have similar or even greater wealth, but they earned it somehow through their own efforts and abilities
  2. Middle class (about 35%)
  • upper-middle class are doctors, lawyers, engineers, businesspeople who are doing very well in terms of income; they have some wealth and investments that make additional money for them, too.
  • average middle class people tend to have white-collar jobs: they are managers, teachers, civil servants, and even some highly skilled blue-collar workers (tradesmen, contractors).  They usually have a bit of wealth, but it is almost entirely tied up in homes and retirement savings.
  3. Working class a.k.a. "lower-middle class" people (about 35%) are mostly blue-collar or service-industry workers with routinized jobs requiring little creativity.  They get few benefits and have little or no wealth, usually renting or perhaps owning inexpensive homes in poor neighborhoods. Their kids probably won't go to college.  They are vulnerable to illness and unemployment, since they probably lack health insurance and have no wealth to tide them over while looking for work after they lose a job.
  4. Lower class people a.k.a. "the working poor" (about 25%), if they have a job at all, have jobs that pay very little, have low prestige, and certainly offer no benefits or job security.  They are extremely vulnerable to illness and unemployment, and often rely on social safety nets to meet basic needs.

the language of subjective class... 

the continuing relevance of class... 


where is the money, block by block in America?

4:05 - POP QUIZ
FOR NEXT TIME :

• Read 207-217 and 248-252 Due

box on p. 205 – nickel and dimed – shows that low wage service work does not really reflect abilities or work-ethic. Does what a CEO makes really reflect the value of what he produces? Is he really worth 5,000 janitors? We are socialized by meritocratic capitalism to view these people are lazy or lacking ability, but those jobs take serious energy and mental/emotional effort.

How much inequality is there?

Beer and Population Analogy: Imagine that the US is represented by 10 people. The gross national resources are represented by 10 beers. Here are two ways of organizing the economy: the first is according to egalitarian principles. The second is a reflection of the current capitalist system. Which party would you rather attend?

---------------------------------------OR----------------------------------------------

This closely matches WEALTH chart on p. 224 – difference between income and wealth?

• the wealth of most people as a house and a car, and the wealth of the rich as stocks and investments that PRODUCE income

WEBER: “SES” = cla$$ + status + power

Weber differs from Marx in predicting that socialism, while it may reduce MONEY inequality, would only replace it with POWER inequality (power elites in centralized bureaucratic system) (explains USSR)

KUZNETS CURVE – explanation caption p.222– developed by economists in 50's and 60's, predicted current uptick in inequality in post-industrial society. → explains why socialist revolutions took place in agrarian countries like russia and china, rather than industrial countries like US.

Health, Values & attitudes, politics, family and gender (p.231) (top of page on what women want)

Social Mobility – inter/intra generational

chart on p. 232

Is the American Dream still a reality? Or do we need to be asleep to believe it? - p.233

POVERTY

absolute vs. relative

reduce it by providing jobs AND childcare (p.239)

blame the poor vs blame society on p. 238,

Welfare – p. 240

Show poverty game? PLAYSPENT.ORG

OK QUIZ

POP QUIZ?

\



CHAPTER 10" GENDER STRATIFICATION

Patriarchy and institutional sexism

Gender and socialization redux
Why are people concerned about equal pay for equal work?
Why did our congress pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009?
Why do American women make $0.78 for every $1 earned by men? (worse in some states than others)

different tracks (and see the pay gap by occupation)

What are "pink-collar" jobs?

fewer hours

Who does the housework?

less skilled at negotiation

 speaking up for oneself

about 8 cents remain unaccounted for

Effects of shifting from an agricultural, to an industrial, to a post-industrial economy?

as we advance technologically, physicality becomes less important. Computer programmers need less strength than factory workers, who need less strength than farm laborers. But it is still "masculine" to be independant, self-supporting, a "bread-winner," but it is becoming less important to be physically strong to do that.

So is there a gender anomie for males? Is there a cultural compensation?

DEMMIAN FROM REDDIT:

Really? That's what the US Department of Labor says?

Myth Busting the Pay Gap

MYTH: Saying women only earn 77 cents on the dollar is a huge exaggeration – the “real” pay gap is much smaller than that (if it even exists).

REALITY: The size of the pay gap depends on how you measure it. The most common estimate is based ondifferences in annual earnings (currently about 23 cents difference per dollar). Another approach uses weekly earnings data (closer to an18 or 19 cents difference). Analyzing the weekly figures can be more precise in certain ways, like accounting for work hours that vary over the course of the year, and less accurate in others, like certain forms of compensation that don’t get paid as weekly wages. No matter which number you start with, the differences in pay for women and men really add up. According to one analysis by the Department of Labor’s Chief Economist, a typical 25-year-old woman working full time would have already earned $5,000 less over the course of her working career than a typical 25-year old man. If that earnings gap is not corrected, by age 65, she will have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars over her working lifetime. We also know that women earn less than men in every state and region of the country, and that once you factor in race, the pay gap for women of color is even larger.

MYTH: There is no such thing as the gender pay gap – legitimate differences between men and women cause the gap in pay, not discrimination.

REALITY: Decades of research shows a gender gap in pay even after factors like the kind of work performed and qualifications (education and experience) are taken into account. These studies consistently conclude thatdiscrimination is the best explanation of the remaining difference in pay. Economists generally attribute about 40% of the pay gap to discrimination – making about 60% explained by differences between workers or their jobs. However, even the “explained” differences between men and women might be more complicated. For example: If high school girls are discouraged from taking the math and science classes that lead to high-paying STEM jobs, shouldn’t we in some way count that as a lost equal earnings opportunity? As one commentator put it recently, “I don’t think that simply saying we have 9 cents of discrimination and then 14 cents of life choices is very satisfying.” In other words, no matter how you slice the data, pay discrimination is a real and persistent problem that continues to shortchange American women and their families.

MYTH: Women are responsible for the pay gap because they seek out flexible jobs or choose to work fewer hours. Putting family above work is why women earn less.

REALITY: Putting aside whether it’s right to ask women (or men) to sacrifice financially in order to work and have a family, those kinds of choices aren’t enough to explain away the gender pay gap. The gender gap in pay exists forwomen working full time. Taking time off for children also doesn’t explain gaps at the start of a career. And although researchers have addressed various ways that work hours or schedule might or might not explain some portion of the wage gap, there may be a “motherhood penalty.” This is based on nothing more than the expectation that mothers will work less. Researchers have found that merely the status of being a mother can lead to perceptions of lowered competence and commitment and lower salary offers.

The pay gap isn’t a myth, it’s a reality – and it’s our job to fix it.