Inequality: class

Framing the problem

Why (or when) is class inequality a social problem?

Critical constructionism

• Constructionism: significant group frames the problem– Who is defining the problem?– How do they frame it?

• Critical: values equality– Critical of social formation (elite interests)– Critical of media frames

Alternative social models (based on Heiner, 24)

Socialism:

Public ownership

Social needs

Gov’t plan

Capitalism:

Private ownership

Private profit

No gov’t regs

Social Democracy:

Mixed model

Political spectrum acc. Heiner(rev. by Shafer)

Left

Socialist

“Big Government”

Democratic Socialism

U.S. Dems

Right

Capitalist

“Big Corporations”

U.S. Reps

Classic liberalism: rights of

individual, property

Classic socialism: rights of equality, society

If this is a class conflict, who is winning?

Social stratification

Structured inequality in terms of access to material or symbolic

rewards

Stratification in U.S.: income (Heiner, p. 27)

• 1977-1994: after tax income– Dropped 16% for bottom 20%– Increased 25% for top 20%– Increased 72% for top 1%

• Richest 1/5 have 11 times income share of poorest fifth in 1996 (7.6 times in 1970)

• “most rapid growth of income inequality in the Western world.” (Wilson)

Census Bureau estimate 2000; categories compiled by Shafer

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

less than 35,000

$35,000-74,999

$75,000-$149,000

$150,000-$199,999

$200,000 or more

number of households, in thousands

estimate

Numbers of households in each income range

2003 income distribution

• Percent Distribution of Households, by Selected Characteristics Within Income Quintile and Top 5 Percent in 2003:

• http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032004/hhinc/new05_000.htm

Wealth even more unequal

• Wealth generates more income for top 1% than salary

• Top 1%:– 19% of all wealth in 1976– 40% in 2000

• Wealth inheritance affects mobility

Case study: Empire of the Pigs

• Role of power elite?– Bresky’s “low profile”, not participants in policy formation

networks– Compensation not that high—from public corp., at least

• But corporate welfare in millions (Barlett & Steele)– Local C of C’s build infrastructure, give tax relief– State also kicks in tax relief– Lenient treatment in the courts, regulatory agencies

• Low wage workforce adds to welfare burden

Cross-national comparison

• Why do Europe, Japan have less inequality?

• Social democratic policies offer more social benefits, protection against hard times

Poverty

• Absolute poverty: can’t afford bare necessities; threat to life and well-being

• Relative poverty: can’t afford “normal” standard of living; poor compared to others

The poverty line

• Formula originated in 1960s, based on ’50s data

• 3X the “thrifty food plan” (e.g., hamburger helper, not cheeseburger)

• Relative cost of necessities has changed; poverty line underestimates

census poverty chart

Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/img/incpov03/fig06.jpg

Job ghetto• William Julius Wilson discovered connections:

– between decline of manufacturing and loss of jobs in inner cities

– between joblessness and other social problems• Newman and Lennon confirm this theory in

Harlem– Manufacturing surpassed by fast food– People seek jobs: applicant/hires=14/1– African-Americans at disadvantage– These are minimum wage jobs, below poverty line– “…it is simply not the case that anyone who wants

a low wage job can get one.” (88)

Wal-Martization

• Wal-Mart wages (Cox):– “A single parent employed full-time at Salina’s Wal-Mart and raising

two children aged 4 and 12 does not earn enough money to supply the family’s basic needs by shopping at…Wal-Mart.” (Cox: 90)

– Welfare programs (child care, food stamps, Medicaid, EITC) subsidize the low wages, get just above poverty line

– Wal-Mart encouraged workers to apply• Wal-Mart consumers (Featherstone):

– Walton’s “real genius”: “how to make money off of poverty” (102)– Consumer identity displaces worker and citizen– Solution: must be engaged citizens, put political pressure

Poverty in the ‘burbs

• 2004: 38.5% of poor in ‘burbs, Cf. 40.6% in inner cities (Dreier: 110)

• Concentrated in inner-rings and fringe (small towns swallowed up)

• 2005: suburban poverty exceeds urban (Brookings Institution)

What are the consequences?

• Braun:– Social disorganization– Anomie– Crime– Violence– Revolution?