Consequences of Social Class

Poverty in the United States By all measures, income in the United States is distributed un­evenly. Nobel prize—winning economist Paul Samuelson has described the situation in the following words: "If we made an income pyramid out of a child's blocks, with each layer portraying $1000 of income, the peak would be far higher than Mount Everest, but most people would be within a few feet of the ground" (Samuelson and Nordhaus, 1985:565). Samuelson's analogy is certainly supported by recent data on incomes. In 1986, the top fifth (or 20 percent) of the nation—earning $50,370 or more—accounted for almost 44 percent of total wages and salaries. By contrast, the bottom fifth of the population—earning $13,886 or less— accounted for less than 5 percent (Bureau of the Census, 1987d:428). Remarkably, as Figure 8-1 illustrates, there has been little change in this pat­tern of distribution in more than 50 years.

While income distribution has remained rela­tively stable, the concentration of wealth in the United States has actually increased during the last two decades. According to a study by the Federal Reserve Board, in 1962 the richest 0.5 percent of the population controlled 25.4 percent of na­tional wealth, while the poorest 90 percent of households held 34 percent of all wealth. By con­trast, according to 1983 data, the richest 0.5 per­cent of households (approximately 420,000 fami­lies) held 35.1 percent of the total wealth of the United States (about $3.7 trillion). At the same time, the share of wealth held by the poorest 90 percent of households had fallen to 28 percent (Wines, 1986:3).

What are the consequences of this uneven dis­tribution of wealth and income? Approximately one out of every nine Americans lives below the poverty line established by the federal govern­ment. Yet the category of the "poor" defies any simple definition. Most poor people work irregu­larly, but 40 percent of low-income men and women work full time and throughout the year. A sizable number of the poor live in urban slums, but most of the poor live outside poverty areas. Included among the poor of the United States are elderly citizens, children living in single-parent families with their mothers, and over 10,000 men in military service who cannot ade­quately support their large families.

While only 36 percent of low-income Ameri­cans live in central cities, the urban poor have the greatest visibility and are the focus of most gov­ernmental efforts to alleviate poverty. According to many observers, including sociologist William Julius Wilson (1980, 1987), the plight of the urban poor is growing worse, owing to the devas­tating interplay of inadequate education and lim­ited employment prospects. Traditional employment opportunities in the industrial sector are largely closed to the unskilled poor. For low-come urban residents who are black, these problems have been heightened by and present discrimination. Since World War II, an increasing proportion

the American poor have been female—many "whom are divorced or never-married mothers. In 1959, female- households accounted for 26 percent of nation's poor; by 1986, that figure had risen 52 percent. We will examine is alarming trend, known as the feminization of po verty. Government efforts to deal with the problems the poor have been directed at poverty in both solute and relative terms. Absolute poverty - a minimum level of subsistence below lich families should not be expected to exist. Life standard theoretically remains unchanged from year to year. Policies concerning minimum wages, housing standards, or school lunch pro­grams for the poor imply a need to bring citizens up to some predetermined level of existence.

By contrast relative poverty is a floating stan­dard of deprivation by which people at the bot­tom of a society, whatever their lifestyles, are judged to be disadvantaged in comparison with the nation as a whole. Most of our country's cur­rent social programs view poverty in relative terms. Therefore, even if the poor of the 1980s are better off in absolute terms than the poor of the 1930s or 1960s, they are still seen as deserving special assistance from government.

Our view of poverty in the United States has been greatly refined by the publication of sociolo­gist Greg Duncan's book, Years of Poverty, Years of Plenty (1984, 1987), based on a 15-year study of family income dynamics by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research. Dun­can's analysis reveals that the "poor" are not a static social class. Instead, the composition of the poor continually changes, with some families moving above the poverty level after a year or two while others slip below the level.

According to data from the institute's study, only 2 percent of Americans remain persistently poor. Nonetheless, about 25 percent of the nation's population experiences periods of poverty. Researchers found that, between 1969 and 1978, one in four Americans lived in families that re­ceived some type of welfare income (whether Aid to Families with Dependent Children, general assistance, or Supplemental Security Income). Duncan's findings cast doubt on the image of the poor as a "permanent underclass" trapped in poverty. Yet, at the same time, he documents the fact that a substantial number of Americans live at or near the poverty level (I. Garfinkel, 1985; Hilts, 1984; Piven and Cloward, 1971).

Why does such pervasive poverty continue within a nation of vast wealth? Herbert Gans (1971:21—23) has applied functionalist analysis to the existence of poverty and has identified vari­ous social, economic, and political functions that the poor perform for society. Among these are the following:

The presence of poor people means that society's "dirty work"—physically dirty or dan­gerous, dead-end and underpaid, undignified and menial jobs—will be performed at low cost.

Poverty creates jobs for occupations and pro­fessions which "service" the poor. It creates both legal employment (public health experts, welfare caseworkers) and illegal jobs (drug dealers, numbers "runners").

The identification and punishment of the poor as deviants uphold the legitimacy of conven­tional social norms regarding hard work, thrift, and honesty.

The poor serve as a measuring rod for status comparisons. Within a relatively hierarchical society, they guarantee the higher status of more affluent Americans.

Because of their lack of political power, the poor often absorb the costs of social change. Under the policy of deinstitutionalization, released mental patients have been "dumped" primarily into low-income communities and neighborhoods. Urban re­newal projects to restore central cities have typ­ically pushed out the poor in the name of "progress".

Consequently, in Gans's view, poverty and the poor actually satisfy positive functions for many no poor groups in American society.

Stratification and Life Chances As Herbert Gans's analysis of the functions of poverty re­minds us, stratification makes a difference. Class, status, and power are not merely dimensions of sociological analysis; they have an important in­fluence on people's lives. Max Weber saw class as closely related to people's life chances —that is, their opportunities to provide themselves with material goods, positive living conditions, and favorable life experiences (Gerth and Mills, 1958:181).

Life chances are reflected in such measures as housing, education, and health. Occupying a higher position in a society will improve one's life chances and bring greater access to social re­wards. By contrast, people in the lower social classes are forced to devote a larger proportion of their limited resources to the necessities of life. Sociologist Paul Blumberg (1980:181) points out that those in the lowest tenth of the United States in terms of income spend over 40 percent of their income for food, as compared with only 11 per­cent for the highest tenth.

The affluent and powerful not only have more material possessions than others; they also benefit in many nonmaterial ways. For example, as is shown in Figure 8-2, children from higher-income families are much more likely to attend college. In 1985, 54 percent of all children in families earning more than $50,000 went to col­lege, whereas the comparable figure was 19 per cent for children in families with incomes less than $10,000 (Bureau of the Census, 1987).

As is true of educational opportunities, a per­son's health is affected in important ways by his or her class position. The chances of a child's dying during the first year of life are approximately 70 percent higher in poor families than for the middle class. This higher infant mortality rate results in part from the inad­equate nutrition received by low-income expect­ant mothers. Even when they survive infancy, the poor are more likely than the affluent to suffer from serious, chronic illnesses such as arthritis, bronchitis, diabetes, and heart disease. In addi­tion, the poor are less likely to be protected from the high costs of illness by private health insur­ance. They may be employed in jobs in which health insurance is not a fringe benefit; may not be employed full time and, thus, may be ineligible for employee health benefits; or may simply be unable to afford the premiums. Moreover, the occupations of the American lower classes tend to be more dangerous than those of more affluent citizens (J. Erickson and Bjerkedal, 1982; Paneth, 1982; Szymanski, 1983:301-314).

Like disease, crime can be particularly devastat­ing when it affects the poor. Lower-income Americans, who can hardly afford to lose any of their limited funds, are more likely to be robbed as well as to be assaulted or raped than are more affluent persons (Langan and Innes, 1985). Furthermore, if accused of a crime, a person with low me and status is likely to be represented by a worked public defender. Whether innocent guilty, such a person may sit in jail for months use of an inability to raise the money for bail. Social class standing civilian life can be crucial in determining a per-'s fortunes. Members of lower social classes were more likely to be drafted when the military draft was in operation. Once in the service, peo­ple from low- and moderate-income backgrounds are more likely to die in combat. Research indi­cates that during the wars in Korea and Vietnam, persons from the lower social classes suffered a higher casualty rate than the more affluent, who tended to be among the ranks of officers (Hoult, 1979:144; Mayer and Hoult, 1955; F. Peterson, 1987; Sloan and Rothbart, 1982; J. Willis, 1975; Zeitlin, 1970; Zeitlin et al., 1973).

In these and many other areas of life, stratifica­tion is important. This is true not only in the United States but across the world. For example, despite reforms in Sweden aimed at opening edu­cational opportunities to all classes, the gap be­tween working-class and upper-class young peo­ple remains. Swedish educator Allan Svensson has reported 1982 data showing that the chances of a Swede's becoming a doctor, dentist, or lawyer are nearly 50 times greater if he or she comes from the upper class rather than from the lower class. Similarly, in the Soviet Union, children from a peasant background are one-fifth as likely to go to college as are children from well-educa­ted families (Ryd, 1982; Shipler, 1983:197).

Wealth, status, and power may not ensure hap­piness, but they certainly provide additional ways of coping with one's problems and disappoint­ments. For this reason, the opportunity for ad­vancement is of special significance to those who are on the bottom of society looking up. These people want the rewards and privileges that are granted to high-ranking members of a culture.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11