Lee tachman new york city

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323432129/epubcfi/6/56%5B%3Bvnd.vst.idref%3DP700049025300000000000000000792C%5D!/4/2%5BP700049025300000000000000000792C%5D/2/2/4%400:0

Chapter 10 Social Class in the United States

Listen to Chapter 10 on MySocLab

Learning Objectives

After you have read this chapter, you should be able to:

1. 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 façade, the power elite, and status inconsistency. (p. 257 )

2. 10.2 Contrast Marx’s and Weber’s models of social class. (p. 264 )

3. 10.3 Summarize the consequences of social class for physical and mental health, family life, education, religion, politics, and the criminal justice system. (p. 269 )

4. 10.4 Contrast the three types of social mobility, and review gender issues in research on social mobility and why social mobility brings pain. (p. 272 )

5. 10.5 Explain the problems in drawing the poverty line, how poverty is related to geography, race-ethnicity, education, feminization, age, and the culture of poverty; analyze why people are poor; and discuss deferred gratification and the Horatio Alger myth. (p. 275 )

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 floating 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.

I felt indignation swelling within me. Confronting me were life-size, 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 strutting about as they modeled 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.

“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 that 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 way 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?

1. 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 façade, 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 (Sosnaud et al. 2013). 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 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.)

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: 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

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 $2.8 billion, she is the 215th richest person in the United States. Winfrey has given millions of dollars to help minority children.

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. 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, combined with the high cost of gasoline, fertilizers, and machinery, can cause the income to dry up. Others have much income and little wealth. An executive with a $250,000 annual income may be debt-ridden. Below the surface prosperity—the exotic vacations, country club membership, private schools for the children, sports cars, and an elegant home—the credit cards may be maxed out, the sports cars in danger of being repossessed, and the mortgage payment “past due.” Typically, however, wealth and income go together.

income

money received, usually from a job, business, or assets

Distribution of Property

Who owns the property in the United States? One answer, of course, is “everyone.” Although this statement has some merit, it overlooks how the nation’s property is divided among “everyone.”

Overall, Americans are worth a hefty sum, about $49 trillion ( Statistical Abstract 2013 :Table 735). This includes all real estate, stocks, bonds, and business assets in the entire country. This wealth is highly concentrated. From Figure 10.1 , you can see that just 10 percent of the nation’s families own 75 percent of the nation’s wealth.

Explore on MySocLab

Activity: The Distribution of Wealth: Characteristics of Wealth in Southern Connecticut

Figure 10.1 Distribution of the Property of Americans

Source: By the author. Based on Beeghley 2008 .

As you can also see from this figure, 1 percent of Americans own more than one-third of all U.S. assets.

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.”

Actually, if each block were 1½ inches tall, the typical American would be just 12 feet off the ground, since the average per capita income in the United States is about $42,000 per year. (This average income includes every American, even children.) The typical family climbs a little higher, since most families have more than one worker, and together, they average about $60,000 a year. Compared with the few families who are on the mountain’s peak, the average U.S. family would still find itself only 15 feet off the ground. Figure 10.2 portrays these differences.

The fact that some Americans enjoy the peaks of Mount Everest while most—despite their efforts—make it only 12 to 15 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 on the next page shows, the top 20 percent of the population receive half (50.2 percent) of all income in the United States. In contrast, the bottom 20 percent of Americans receive only 3.3 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, about 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 (Thurm 2013). Their median compensation (including salaries, bonuses, and stock options) came to $10,100,000 a year. (Median means that half received more than this amount, and half less.) On Table 10.1 on the next page, you can see the pay of the five highest paid CEOs.

The average income of these five CEOs is 1,225 times higher than the average pay of U.S. workers ( Statistical Abstract 2013 :Table 693). This does not include their income from interest, dividends, or rents. Nor does it include the value of company-paid limousines and chauffeurs, airplanes and pilots, and 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 every year from then until now. Let’s also assume that you earned today’s average per capita income of $42,000 every year for all those years. You would still have to work another 250 years to earn the amount received by the highest-paid executive listed in Table 10.1 .

Imagine how you could live with an income like this. 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 lifestyles. 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.

Figure 10.2 Distribution of the Income of Americans

Source: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2013:Tables 693, 711.

Figure 10.3 The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Dividing the Nation’s Income

Source: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 1960:Table 417; 1970:Table 489; 2013:Table 708.

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 poverty, choices may revolve around whether to spend the little they have at the laundromat or on milk for the baby. The elderly 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 Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.

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 might think. Certainly I don’t make the decision to send soldiers to Afghanistan or Iraq. I don’t order drones into Pakistan. I don’t decide to raise taxes, lower interest rates, or spend $700 billion 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 just doesn’t go far enough. Such views of being a

Table 10.1 The Five Highest-Paid CEOs

Note: Compensation is for 2012. It includes salary, bonuses, and stock options.

Source: Thurm 2013 .

Executive

Company

Compensation

Lawrence Ellison

Oracle

$95 million

Leslie Moonves

CBS

$59 million

Robert Iger

Walt Disney

$36 million

Mark Parker

Nike

$34 million

Philippe Dauman

Viacom

$33 million

Down-to-Earth Sociology How the Super-Rich Live

It’s good to see how other people live. It gives us a different perspective on life. Let’s take a glimpse at the life of John Castle (his real name). After earning a degree in physics at MIT and an MBA at Harvard, John went into banking and securities, where he made more than $100 million ( Lublin 1999 ).

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 $11 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 ).

At his beachfront estate, John gives what he calls “refined feasts” to the glitterati ( “On History . . .” 1999 ). If he gets tired of such activities—or weary of swimming in the Olympic-size pool where JFK swam the weekend before his assassination—John entertains himself by riding one of his thoroughbred horses at his nearby 10-acre ranch. If this fails to ease his boredom, he can relax aboard his custom-built 42-foot Hinckley yacht.

The yacht is a real source of diversion. John once boarded it for an around-the-world trip. He didn’t stay on board, though—just joined the cruise from time to time. A captain and crew kept the vessel on course, and whenever John felt like it he would fly in and stay a few days. Then he would fly back to the States to direct his business. He did this about a dozen times, flying perhaps 150,000 miles. An interesting way to go around the world.

How much does a 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 spend extravagantly, too. Lee Tachman threw a four-day party for three friends. They had massages; ate well; took rides in a helicopter, a fighter jet, Ferraris, and Lamborghinis; and did a little paintballing—all for the bargain price of $50,000. At the 1Oak Lounge in New York City, some customers pay $35,000 for a bottle of champagne (Haughney and Konigsberg 2008). Of course, it is a large bottle.

Parties are fun, but what if you want privacy? You can buy that, too. Wayne Huizenga, the founder of Blockbuster, 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 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. He had a 414-foot yacht built. On the Octopus are two helicopters, a swimming pool, 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 $25 million ticket for a rocket ride to the International Space Station. Simonyi liked the experience so 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

· What effects has social class had on your life? (Go beyond possessions to values, orientations, and outlooks on life.) How do you think you would see the world differently if you were John Castle, Lee Tachman, Paul Allen, Charles Simonyi, or Mrs. Wayne Huizenga?

Participants in the regatta at Genoa, Italy, are dwarfed by Paul Allen’s yacht.

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. Sociologists Daniel Hellinger and Dennis Judd ( 1991 ) call this the “democratic facade” that conceals the real source of power in the United States.

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. He 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 some 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.

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

Read on MySocLab

Document: C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite

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, 2010). This elite wields extraordinary power in U.S. society, so much so that most U.S. presidents have come from this group—millionaire white men from families with “old money” (Baltzell and Schneiderman 1988).

Continuing in the tradition of Mills, sociologist William Domhoff (2006, 2010) argues that this group 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 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 (respect or regard). 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.

prestige

respect or regard

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 white-collar jobs are at the top of the list, the blue-collar jobs at the bottom.

One of the more interesting aspects 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 25 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 queens required that subjects walk backward as they left the room—so that they would not “turn their back” on the “royal presence.”

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

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. Clearly, only the wealthy can afford certain items, such as yachts and huge estates—or the $35,000 bottle of champagne mentioned in the box on page 261 . But beyond affordability lies a class-based preference in status symbols. For example, people who are striving to be upwardly mobile flaunt labels on their clothing or conspicuously carry shopping bags from prestigious stores to show that they have “arrived.” The wealthy, who regard the symbols of the “common” classes as cheap and showy, flaunt their own status symbols, such as $75,000 Rolex watches and $50,000 diamond earrings. Like the other classes, they, too, 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 $30,000-a-night suite at the Four Seasons in New York City, saying that it was “rather nice” ( Feuer 2008 ).

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 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.

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 positions, so they may respond according to these people’s lowest rankings.

A 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

Table 10.2 Occupational Prestige: How the United States Compares with Sixty Countries

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.

“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 confront one frustrating situation after another ( Dogan 2011). They claim the higher status but are 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 heart attacks (Braig et al. 2011).

There are other consequences as well. Lenski (1954 ) found that people who are status inconsistent tend to be more politically radical. An example is college professors. Their prestige is very high, as you saw in Table 10.2 , but their 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. Teachers 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 Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page, provides an interesting case of status inconsistency.