Response paper Assignment | Cheap Essay Services

Response papers are critical reflections of the readings and are not a simple repetition of the material; instead, they are designed as a critique and reflection.Chapter 10
• •
-…..,oc1a ass 1n
Learning Objectives
After you have read this chapter, you should be able to:
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
fa<;ade, the power elite, and status inconsistency.
10.2 Contrast Marx’s and Weber’s models 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.
10.4 Contrast the three types of social mobility, review gender issues in
research on social mobility, and explain why social mobility brings
• pam.
10.5 Explain the problems in drawing the poverty line and how poverty is
related to geography, race-ethnicity, education, feminization, and age.
10.6 Contrast the dynamics of poverty with the culture of poverty, explain
why people are poor and how deferred gratification is related to
poverty, and comment on the Horatio Alger myth.
10.7 Discuss the possibility that we are developing a three-tier society.
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 drifting 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.
Social Class in the United States 267
I felt indignation swelling within me. Confronting me were life-sized, 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 modeling 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.
The disjunction the mental distress that I felt in New Orleans was triggered by the
ads, but it was not the first time 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 ways 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?
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 fa«;ade, 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. 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 Max 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.)
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.
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: includes
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
• income
money received, usually from a
job, business, or assets
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
$3.0 billion, she is the 239th richest
person in the United States. Winfrey
has given millions of dollars to help
minority children.
268 Chapter 1 O
Wealth and income usually go together, but not always. 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 can cause the income to dry up.
Then there are those who have a large income and no wealth. Here is a real-life
example of someone who makes $375,000 a year and is dead broke:
Gregory Owens is a New York City lawyer who makes $375,000 a year. Yet he is broke.
In his bankruptcy petition, Owens revealed that taxes, alimony, required retirement
contributions, rent, food, and transportation eat up all his income. He spends $52 more
a month than he earns. (Stewart 2014)
DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY If we add up the value of the property in the United
States-all the houses, apartments, cars and trucks, farms, businesses, and bank
accounts-the total comes to about $59 trillion (Statistical Abstract 2017:Table 748). This
certainly is a hefty sum. And who owns this vast property? One answer, of course, is
“everyone,” as this $59 trillion is the total of what all Americans own. What this statement
overlooks, though, is how the nation’s property is divided among “everyone.”
You might be surprised at how concentrated U.S. wealth is. Look at Figure 10.1. Just
1 percent of Americans owns more than one-third of all real estate, stocks, bonds, and business
assets in the entire country. As you can also see from this figure, 10 percent of Americans
own 77 percent of the nation’s wealth.
Figure 10.1 Distribution of the Wealth of Americans
The wealthiest 1 percent
of Americans …
… own 35 percent of the
nation’s wealth
SOURCE: By the author. Based on Wolff 2013.
The wealthiest 10 percent
of Americans …
. .. own 77 percent of the
nation’s wealth
77%
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.”
To better grasp this layering, look at Figure 10.2. You can see that if each block were 11h
inches tall, the typical American would be just 12 feet off the ground. This portrays the average
income in the United States of about $48,000 per year. (This is per capita income, which
includes every American, even children.) The typical family climbs a little higher, since
most families have more than one worker. Together, they average about $67,000 a year
(Statistical Abstract 2017:Tables 705, 723). Compared with the few families who are on the
mountain’s peak, the average U.S. family would still find itself only 17 feet off the ground.
Social Class in the United States 269
The fact that some Americans enjoy the peaks of Mount Everest while most-despite
their efforts-make it only 12 to 17 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
shows, the top 20 percent of the population receive half (51 .1 percent) of all income in the
United States. In contrast, the bottom 20 percent of Americans receive only 3.1 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, 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. Their median compensation (including salaries,
bonuses, and stock options) came to $11,000,000 a year. (Median means that half received
more than this amount, and half less.) On Table 10.1, you can see the pay of the five
highest paid CEOs.
Table 10.1 The Five Highest-Paid CEOs
Name Company Compensation
Marc Lore Wal mart $237 million
Tim Cook Apple $150 million
John Weinberg Evercore Partners $124 million
Sundar Pichai Alphabet $107 million
Elon Musk Tesla $100 million
SOURCE: Melin 2017.
The average income of these highest-paid CEOs is 3,000 times higher than the average
pay of U.S. workers (Statistical Abstract 2017:Table 705). This does not include these
CEOs’ income from interest, dividends, or rents. Nor does it include the value of their
company-paid limousines and chauffeurs, airplanes and pilots, and their 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 starting then. Let’s also assume that each year you earned today’s average per
capita income of $47,669. As of this year, you would still have to work 3,000 more years
to earn what the highest-paid executive listed in Table 10.1 earned in just one year.
Imagine how you could live with an income like Marc Lore’s. 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 lives. 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.
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
Figure 10.2 How the
Income of
Americans Is
Distributed
Some U.S. families
have incomes that
exceed the height of
Mt. Everest,
29,028 feet
Average
Average
U.S. family
•i ncome
$67,000
or 17 feet
U.S. individual
i• ncome
$48,000
or 12 feet
If a 11h-inch child’s block
equals $500 of income,
the average individual’s
annual income of $48,000
would represent a height
of 12 feet, and the average Y
family’s annual income of
$67 ,000 would represent a
height of 17 feet. The income
of some families, in contrast,
would represent a height
greater than that of Mt. Everest.
SOURCE: By the author. Based on
Statistical Abstract of the United States
2017:Tables 705, 723.
270 Chapter 1 O
Figure 10.3 The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Dividing the Nation’s Income
50%
a, 40%
Cl
!’Cl
+”‘ c a, 30%
u
I..
a,
0.. 20%
10%
19351
The top 5th
The fourth 5th
19412
The second 5th
The bottom 5th
1950 1960
The third 5th
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014
1 Earliest year available. 2No data for 1940.
SOURCE: By the author. Based on U.S. Census Bureau. Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2014. Historical Tables, Income,
Households, Table H-2. 2016; Statistical Abstract of the United States 1960:Table 417; 1970:Table 489; 2017:Table 721 .
poverty, choices may revolve around whether to spend the little they have at the laundromat
or on milk for the baby. The elderly poor 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 following Down-to-Earth Sociology.
Down-to-Earth Sociology
How the Super-Rich Live
Larry Ellison, one of the richest men in the United
States, loves basketball so much that he has his own
basketball court on his yacht. When he misses the
basket, a ball sometimes ends up in the ocean. Not
to worry. Ellison has hired a man whose sole job is to
drive a 44-foot powerboat behind the yacht to retrieve
the errant balls.
And when Ellison gets bored with playing on his
yacht’s basketball court? He climbs in his personal
helicopter flown by his personal pilot. Flying above
the yacht, he shoots hoops to his heart’s content. His
personal basketball retriever faithfully trails the yacht,
scooping up those errant balls. (Gay 2014)
As F. Scott Fitzgerald said in The Great Gatsby,
“The rich are different than you and me.” And howl
Let’s take a glimpse at the lifestyle of another very rich man,
John Castle (his real name). John has made more than
$100 million in banking and securities (Lublin 1999). But the
super-rich yearn for more than just money. Displayed in the
right way, vast wealth can bring distinction and create envy.
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
$1 1 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).
John has a yacht, too, a source of pleasure and pride.
How much did his 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 besides Ellison and Castle spend
extravagantly, too. If you are among them, you might spruce
up your Saturday night with a $35,000 bottle of champagne
at the 1 Oak Lounge in New York City (Haughney and
Konigsberg 2008). Or perhaps a $10,000 cocktail at the
Jardin in Las Vegas is more to your liking. But if you are
looking for a bargain, you might consider the Jardin’s
weekend Valentine package. For just $100,000, you can
have this cocktail included (Stern 2016).
Parties are fun, but what if you want privacy? You can
buy that, too. Wayne Huizenga, 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
Social Class in the United States 271
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. On his
414-foot yacht, the Octopus, are
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 two helicopters, a swimming pool, t
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
–
~ What effects has social class
had on your life? (Go beyond
possessions to values and how
you view life.)
$25-million ticket for a rocket ride
to the International Space Station.
Simonyi liked the experience so
At 533 feet, the Eclipse is the world’s second largest
yacht. It is owned by Roman Abramovich of Russia,
the world’s 11th richest person.
~ How do you think you would see
the world differently if you were
Larry Ellison, John Castle, Paul
Allen, Charles Simonyi, or Mrs.
Wayne Huizenga?
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 think. Certainly I don’t make the decision
to send soldiers to Afghanistan or Iraq. I don’t order drones to launch missiles. I don’t
decide to raise taxes, lower interest rates, or spend billions of dollars 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 doesn’t go far enough. Such views of being a 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. Some
sociologists call this the ”democratic facade” that conceals the real source of power in the
United States.
Following this conflict perspective, 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. Mills 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 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.
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, 2014). This elite wields
extraordinary power in U.S. society, so much so that many U.S. presidents have been millionaire
white men from families with ” old money.”
Continuing in the tradition of Mills, sociologist William Domhoff (2006, 2014)
argues that the power elite 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
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
272 Chapter 1 O
Table 10.2 Occupational Prestige: How the United States
Compares with Sixty Countries
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
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.
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 (the respect or
regard people give it). 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.
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 whitecollar
jobs are at the top of the list, the blue-collar jobs
at the bottom.
One of the more interesting a spects 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 twenty-five 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
Social Class in the United States 273
queens required that subjects walk backward as they left the room-so that they would prestige
not ”turn their back” on the ”royal presence.” respect or regard
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. People who are striving to be upwardly mobile
flaunt labels on their clothing or carry shopping bags from prestigious stores to show
that they have ”arrived.” The wealthy regard the status symbols of the ”common” classes
as cheap and tawdry. They, too, flaunt status symbols, but theirs are things like $100,000
Rolex watches and $50,000 diamond earrings. Like the other classes, the wealthy also
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
$40,000-a-night penthouse suite at the Four Seasons in New York City, asking, ”Have you
tried it yet? It’s ‘rather nice”’ (Clemence 2013). Some hold their child’s birthday at places
that charge $3,000, while others outdo them by buying their child an alligator backpack
sold by Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen: just $39,000 (R. Smith 2014; Mose 2016). Then there
is Shane Smith who treated a few guests to a $300,000 dinner that included $40,000 bottles
of French Burgundy (Hagey 2016).
How about yourself? Nothing like this, I know, but how 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 (and the in-vogue taste, of
course) 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.
In classic research, 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 status, so
they may respond according to these people’s lowest rankings.
Another 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 ”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 claim the higher status but be
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 heath attacks (Braig et al. 2011).
status consi• stency
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 (also called
social status)
27 4 Chapter 1 O
There are other consequences as well. Lenski
(1954) found that people who are status inconsis ten
t tend to be more politically radical. An example
is college professors . Their prestige is very high, as
you saw in Table 10.2, but th eir 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 . Teach ers 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 following
Down-to-Earth Sociology, provides an interesting
How do you set yourself apart in a country so rich that of its 4.6 million people type of status inconsistency.
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.”
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 people 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 (Susman 2012; Evans 2013). 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 cryingand
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 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 turn off your phone and change your
number.
You might be flooded with marriage proposals. You
certainly didn’t become more attractive or sexy overnighter
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 a seven-year-old car as ransom.
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.
Social Class in the United States 275
Here is what happened to some lottery winners:
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
wouldn’t change, that she’d drive a regular car, and so on.
Then came the drugs ($380,000 on cocaine), the booze,
the two boob jobs, and the four suicide attempts. Now
broke, a mother, and married to a firefighter, she says, “I’m
the happiest I’ve ever been in my life.” (Evans 2013).
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
Jesus Davila, winner of $265 million in the Illinois lottery,
who is retired, used to drive cars for a living. How do you
think his lottery win will change his life?
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!”
buried in the yard of a “friend,” who was convicted of
his murder. (Allen 2012). For Your Consideration
Callie Rogers was just 16 years old when she won
$3 million in the lottery. She proudly declared that she
—+ How do you think your life would change if you won a
lottery jackpot of $1 O million?
Sociological Models of Social Class
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 Karl Marx, the other on Max Weber.
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.
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
• anomie
Durkheim’s term for a condition
of society in which people
become detached from the usual
norms that guide their behavior
Figure 10.4 Marx’s Model
of the Social
Classes
Capitalists
(Bourgeoisie, those who own
the means of production)
Workers
(Proletariat, those who
work for the capitalists)
, ——————————~ \
I I
: Inconsequential Others :
I I : (beggars, etc.) :
• •
, ______________________________ ,
SOURCE: By the author.
276 Chapter 1 O
contradictory class locations
Erik Wright’s term for a position
in the class structure that generates
contradictory interests
Figure 10.5 Wright’s
Modification
of Marx’s
Model of
the Social
Classes
1 . Capitalists
2. Petty bourgeoisie
3. Managers
4. Workers
SOURCE: By the author.
contradictory class locations. By this, Wright means that a person’s position in the
class structure can generate contradictory interests. For example, the automobilemechanic-
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 shopslead
him to resist pressures to raise their wages.
Because of such contradictory class locations, Wright modified Marx’s model. As summarized
in Figure 10.5, 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 2014) 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 10.6, 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.
Figure 10.6 The U.S. Social Class Ladder
Social Class
Capitalist
Upper,
Midclle
Lower
Middle
Working
Working
Poor
Underclass
Education
Prestigious university
College or university,
often with
postgraduate study
High school
or college;
often apprenticeship
High school
High school or just
some high school
Some high school
Occupation
Investors and heirs,
a few top executives
Professionals and upper
managers
Semiprofessionals and
lower managers,
craftspeople, foremen
Factory workers, clerical
workers, low-paid retail
sales, and craftspeople
Laborers, service workers,
low-paid salespeople
Unemployed and
part-time, on welfare
Percentage of
Income Population
$1,000,000+ 1%
$125,000+ 15%
About 34%
$60,000
About 30%
$36,000
About 15%
$19,000
Under 5%
$12,000
SOURCE: By the author. Based on Gilbert and Kahl 1998 and Gilbert 2014; income estimates are inflation-adjusted and modified from Duff 1995.
Social Class in the United States 277
THE CAPITALIST CLASS
The twenty richest Americans have more wealth than all the Americans (160 million) in
the bottom half of the U.S. population (Collins and Hoxie 2015). One U.S. family, the
Waltons of Wal-Mart Stores fame, has more money than the entire bottom 40 percent of
all Americans, more than 125 million of their fellow citizens (Magdoff and Belamy 2014).
These two facts tell you more about the concentration of wealth in the United States than
almost anything else I could say. But let’s try anyway: The sliver at the top of the capitalist
class, a tiny one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. population, is worth more than the entire bottom 90
percent of the country (Saez and Zuchman 2016).
Power and influence cling to this small elite on the top rung of the class ladder.
With their vast wealth, its members 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 outletsnewspapers,
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.
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 oldmoney
capitalists (also called ”blue bloods”) wield vast power as they use their extensive political
connections to protect their economic empires (Domhoff 1990a, 2006, 2014; Lofgren 2016).
At the lower end of the capitalist class are the nouveau riche, those who have ”new
money