SS - Social Mobility and the Difference Class Makes in America Lesson
Social Mobility and the Difference Class Makes in America Lesson
So how does social stratification currently affect Americans? The factors that affect social stratification in America include income, wealth, power, occupational prestige and schooling. An income is the monetary earnings a person receives from work or investments. In recent decades the gap between the highest incomes compared to the lowest incomes in America expanded greatly. If you look at the map below, you can see where the United States lies according to national income disparities in comparison to other nations- the darker the color of the nation implies the greater the income disparity . As you can see, the United States is well behind other comparably wealthy nations with regards to income disparity.
Income Disparity Map
Even more pronounced is the difference of wealth in America. Wealth is the total value of money or other assets that an individual owns minus any debts. Wealth inequality measures the difference in how much money and other assets individuals have accumulated. According to one study, the wealthiest 160,000 families in America have as much wealth as the poorest 145 million families in America, making wealth inequality roughly ten times greater than income inequality. The pie chart below illustrates this wealth inequality, the vast majority of the wealth in America- nearly 3/4ths of American wealth- is owned by 10% of the population.
Wealth Distribution Pie Chart
Many sociologists argue that the previous social stratification factor, wealth, affects the next factor- power. Politics is the social institution that distributes power and sets a course of action for a society. Sociologists developed many theories as to how power is disseminated and who is given authority to establish community priorities and make communal decisions, but three stand out the most.
Pluralist Model
Applying the Structural-Functional Approach, this analysis of politics recognizes the spreading of power among different groups. As resources to accomplish individual goals are limited, these different groups compete with one another to push forward their own agendas at the expense of other interest groups. This model sees the United States as a functional and true democracy since power is widely spread throughout society giving all people a voice.
Power-Elite Model
The Social-Conflict Approach, argues that power is consolidated mostly among the wealthy. The name of this model stems from the term coined by C. Wright Mills in 1956-"power-elite." Mills published 'The Power Elite', his explanation of power and class in the United States. It was the culmination of the first comprehensive research done on power in America. At the time, his fellow academics considered him to be something of a conspiracy theorist. But his model is still used by sociologists today.
In 1956, According to Mills, the "power-elite" is a group made up of individuals who are either very wealthy, top political officials or high-ranking military officers (or some combination of those three). This group moves through the most powerful levels of the American branches of government and gradually concentrates all authority into their own hands. As a result, their voices have become so strong that they drown out the rest of American voices with the result that the United States is not really a democracy where the people rule- rather it is a government where the "power-elite" rule.
(For example, if Mills were alive today, he would point to the same names that repeatedly hold different political offices or advisory positions within the American government over periods of decades.)
Marxist Political-Economy Model
Applying the Social-Conflict Approach again, this analysis of politics unites the political with the economic. Unlike the Power-Elite Model that claims certain individuals are responsible for usurping the power from the people, the Marxist Political-Economy Model argues that a capitalist economy creates a system that pushes certain individuals into positions of total power. This model would agree that the United States is not a real democracy but due to its overall economic system rather than due to the actions of any specific individuals.
A fourth factor in American social stratification is occupational prestige. How often do you hear people ask what others do for a living? Depending on the answer, people make judgments on the amount of respect another should receive. Those people doing the types of work that are considered more important commandeer more respect from others and vice versa.
The last factor is schooling or education. This factor has a direct impact on income and occupational prestige. Theoretically, the higher the level of education achieved, the higher the income and social position expected.
American Classes
In America, these factors combine to create a social stratification that divides Americans into classes. Depending on whom you ask, you will hear a number of different class categories describing American social stratification; but most sociologists agree on four main class categories with some sub-categories. Select the chart below to learn more about these categories.
Based on the descriptions of the American class categories above, you can already see the difference class categorization makes in accumulating wealth, earning an income, and achieving higher levels of education. There is more that these categories (and the factors that drive people into them) ultimately affect.
The Difference Social Class Makes
Select in the blue area of each rectangle to show more information in the next interactive.
Naturally, there are no hard and fast rules about a person's future being determined by the class category of which they are a member. We are individuals after all. Making a high income does not preclude a person from having a large family nor does making a low income preclude a person from being well-educated. The above activity simply reflects the trends associated with class in America.
No hard and fast rules say a person in one category in America cannot move to another category over that person's lifetime. This change of category in the social hierarchy is referred to as social mobility and it relies on a number of factors as well.
Within the United States social structure, a person can move in three directions at different points in their lives. A person can move up, a person can move down, and a person can move horizontally. Upward social mobility is usually achieved through completing higher levels of education, getting a job with a higher income or marrying a person that helps you build wealth, power or prestige. Conversely, and perhaps not surprisingly, downward social mobility is achieved by dropping out of school, losing a job or divorcing a spouse (and thereby splitting accumulated income and wealth). Horizontal social mobility comes from changing jobs but maintaining the same class category. (Nearly 80% of American social mobility that occurs within a person's lifetime is in the horizontal direction.) Mostly what affects social mobility in America are societal or cultural changes. This is referred to as structural social mobility. When social norms change that provide more opportunities to more people, Americans experience more upward social mobility. For example, when cultural attitudes changed to allow more women to work outside of the home, more families experienced upward social mobility. The same can be said for when government laws enforced equal opportunities for minorities in receiving loans from banks, more families experienced upward social mobility. Of course, the same can be said about downward social mobility. When American companies chose to off-shore their manufacturing sites in nations with weaker labor laws, more Americans experienced downward mobility as they lost their jobs.
There are two ways to study social mobility. Intragenerational social mobility refers to those short-term changes that occur within a person's lifetime while intergenerational social mobility identifies the longer-term changes that occur over a couple or several generations within a family. Based on data gathered relating to intra- and intergenerational social mobility in America, sociologists drew the following conclusions:
- In the previous century, American social mobility has been fairly high. Most Americans can expect some change from where they stand in the social hierarchy versus where their parents stood. (This is why America has a relatively low status-consistency rating.)
- However, within a single generation the extent of that social mobility everyone is experiencing is fairly small. For the most part, social mobility in America occurs in small increments and not in the leaps and bounds that are so popular in the "rags to riches" stories. The opposite is also true- most people don't "lose their shirt" overnight.
- While social mobility has been fairly high, it has also been on an upward trajectory over the past century as the American economy grew. With economic growth, more opportunities became available that allowed for upward social mobility.
- However, in the last four decades, with the fall of real incomes in America, the upward trajectory of America's social mobility became more irregular in comparison with the previous six decades.
Despite these trends in social mobility, though, poverty still exists in America. Often, social categories (which are different than the class categories explained in the pie chart above) can increase the likelihood of a person being poor in America. Age, race, ethnicity, gender and residential location are all factors in the likelihood of an American experiencing poverty. Unlike the factors associated with social stratification, these categories are ascribed statuses (meaning we are placed within these social categories by forces beyond our control.) We will discuss these factors in a later module. Instead, let's address how Americans explain poverty during a time when most sociologists argue that social mobility has been on the rise.
Poverty
There are two popular schools of thought regarding an explanation of poverty in the United States:
Blame the Poor
Using data that revealed that the poor in America spend very little amounts of time working, the people who subscribe to this school of thought argue that the poor are poor simply from a lack of trying. American anthropologist Oscar Lewis claimed that the poor lived in a self-perpetuating cycle that he dubbed the "Culture of Poverty." According to his theory, the poor create and live within a subculture that promotes underachievement.
Blame Society
Using data that reveals just how little opportunity there is within poor communities to find and keep jobs, the people who subscribe to this school of thought argue that the poor are poor because society has systematically caused work to disappear within poor neighborhoods. American sociologist William Julius Wilson claimed that American cities deindustrialized over the past few decades causing work that might match the skill set and needs of the poor to disappear; thus leaving them with very few opportunities to work.
IMAGES CREATED BY GAVS OR OPENSOURCE