|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Chapter Outline |
|
|||
|
|
Review Questions |
|
|||
|
|
The UVaWise Webpage |
|
|||
| blank | Dr. W's Webpage |
|
|||
|
|
Course Information Webpage |
|
|||
|
|
Stratification Syllabus |
|
|||
|
|
Stratification Course Resource List |
|
|||
|
|
Stratification Review List |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Social Mobility | |||
|
|
The Methods of Study of Stratification | |||
|
|
E.O. Wright | |||
|
|
Social Mobility of the Elites | |||
|
|
Social Mobility of Blacks | |||
|
|
Social Mobility of Women | |||
|
|
Historical Patterns of Mobility in the US | |||
|
|
Class Attainment | |||
|
||||||||||||||||
| Social Mobility: the frequency w/ which people move up or down in the society's economic hierarchy | ||||||||||||||||
Kerbo points out that the US class structure is very stable:
i.e., there is not great mobility
|
||||||||||||||||
| The Top & the Bottom of the stratification system have the
lowest
levels of social mobility in the US
( i.e. high occupational inheritance w/ lower intergenerational mobility) |
||||||||||||||||
| The Middle of the stratification system has the highest level
of social mobility in the US
( i.e. low occupational inheritance w/ higher intergenerational mobility ) |
||||||||||||||||
| Open stratification systems have a high level of social mobility
Achieved status has substantial influence Ascribed status has little influence |
||||||||||||||||
| Closed stratification systems have a low level of social mobility
Achieved status has little influence Ascribed status has substantial influence |
||||||||||||||||
| Vertical Social Mobility is movement up or down the stratification
system,
i.e. to a better or worse position |
||||||||||||||||
| Horizontal Social Mobility is movement across positions of roughly equal rank | ||||||||||||||||
| Exchange Mobility, aka Churning, denotes a type of social
mobility
where there is little societal social mobility, but high levels of individual social mobility |
||||||||||||||||
| Exchange Mobility, aka Churning, denotes relatively
equal amounts
of upward & downward social mobility, which often gives the illusion of upward class mobility |
||||||||||||||||
| Exchange Mobility, aka Churning, denotes that
There are many people moving up the socio-economic scale & just as many moving down the socio-economic ladder therefore it appears as if many people are moving up the socio-economic ladder People fall in and out of each class ( churning ) because of continuing economic competition Once a person is poor, the chances are good that they will get out of poverty, but not very far |
||||||||||||||||
| While the US has a poverty rate of 15 %,
in a ten year period, 25 % will be in poverty at least once |
||||||||||||||||
| Intergenerational mobility: Attainment by people of a
socio-economic status
that is higher or lower than their parents W/ Intergenerational mobility, there is a changing proportion of higher & lower status families |
||||||||||||||||
| There are SIX types of society
Each type of economic system creates a particular level of social mobility See the Types of Stratification Systems |
||||||||||||||||
| Structural Mobility: a type of mobility where classes
of people improve their socio-economic position
In the industrialized modern, Structural Mobility occurs because of an increasing proportion of jobs in the higher-status, white collar categories changing proportion of higher status jobs Structural Mobility is the opposite of Exchange Mobility |
||||||||||||||||
| The US has a strong value that there is a high level of Social Mobility,
but in reality there is a high level of exchange mobility & little Structural Mobility Mobility in the US is slightly above average for industrialized country, but it is less than most people assume |
||||||||||||||||
| Historically, the US experienced positive Structural Mobility,
but there have also been periods of negative Structural Mobility "The land grab" in the mid 1800s After the Industrial Revolution & the legalization of Unions In the 1930's--the Great Depression After WW2 After the Vietnam War The Reagan Era 1980s & early 1990's From the early 1990's to 2001 Today? |
||||||||||||||||
| 70 % of Americans agree that
"America is the land of opportunity where everyone who works hard can get ahead" 80 % agree that "people who grew up in rich families have an average or better-than-average chance of getting ahead" 50 % believe that blacks, women, & working class families have an "average or better-than-average chance of getting ahead" But these groups have a poorer-than-average chance of getting ahead |
||||||||||||||||
| The Horatio Alger Myth is the belief that anyone, no matter how poor, can succeed on a grand scale | ||||||||||||||||
|
|||
| Most studies of social mobility & status attainment focus on measures
of occupational prestige,
not on income |
|||
| Most studies cannot analyze mobility at the very top of the stratification system | |||
| Most studies of social mobility exclude women, & are thus based solely on men | |||
| Men are the focus because most studies of social mobility focus on
the family,
& only one major earner |
|||
| In the past, the status of women was determined by the status of their husbands | |||
| Inflow Tables identify the % of sons at an occupational
level
who come from that or another occupational level |
|||
| Outflow Tables identify the % of sons who move to another
occupation;
up or down the occupational scale |
|||
|
|
| Wright
believes it a simple, 4 level class structure
is as effective as a more complex one in demonstrating income hierarchy: - capitalists: own the Means of Production ( MOP ) & employ many others - managers: work for capitalist & control their labor - workers: simply sell labor - petty bourgeoisie: own some MOP but employ few others |
|
| Wright found his 4 level class structure was as accurate at
explaining income stratification as
- occupational status - educational level |
|
| The Capitalist Property Dimension has the least amount
of social mobility
The Expertise Dimension has a middle level amount of social mobility The Authority Dimension of class structure has the most social mobility |
|
| Thus the US has more inequality based upon property ownership
than any other industrialized country, putting more power in the hands of capitalists & the corporate class |
|
| Wright also found that fewer people from outside the capitalist property
class
had friendships with people inside the capitalist class. People in other classes had more across class friendships |
|
|||
| Kerbo points out that the US class structure is very stable: i.e., there is not great mobility | |||
| The Top & the Bottom of the stratification system have the
lowest
social mobility in the US
( i.e. high occupational inheritance w/ lower intergenerational mobility) |
|||
| The Middle of the stratification system has the highest
level of social mobility in the US
( i.e. low occupational inheritance w/ higher intergenerational mobility ) |
|||
| "The Elites" include both the Upper Class ( Old Money ) &
the Corporate Class ( New Money )
and make up about 5 % of the population |
|||
| The Upper Class: own large amount of the major means of
production
The Corporate Class is defined mostly by the amount of power they have: they control the corporations |
|||
| Most Social Mobility studies do not analyze the Elites | |||
| There is high inheritability & low recruitment into the Elite class because.... | |||
| Most of the Elites inherit their money:
A study in 1970 foiund that of the 66 riches people, 82 % had upper-class origins |
|||
| The amount of social mobility in the Elites depends on how one defines the Corporate Class | |||
| The Corporate Class by definition has more recruitment than the Upper Class | |||
| Domhoff found that the Corporate Class had slightly less recruitment | |||
| Mintz ( 1966 ) found that 66 % of all cabinet members
between 1897 & 1973
were from the Upper-Class 75 % of these cabinet members were also official of top corporations |
|||
| Useem & Soref show a significant relationship
between multiple corporate directorships & upper-class origins |
|||
| In conclusion, at least 60 % of the Corporate Class come from
within the Elites
& maybe as high as 90 % |
|||
|
|||
| Do social mobility patterns vary among races? Yes
There is a race as well as a sex bias in the occupational structure Class divisions for Blacks are said to be rigid, i.e. there is little movement out of the lower classes |
|||
| Table 11 - 1 Outflow Mobility for Black Men from
Head of Family's Occupation
to Son's Occupation, 1962 & 1973 |
|||
| An analysis of the
Outflow Mobility for Black Men shows that
There has been improvement in every category from 1962 to 1973 ( see the Totals ) |
|||
| In 1962, occupational inheritance at the top was severely limit for
Blacks
Only 13.3% of Black fathers in Upper nonmanual positions could pass that on to their sons In 1973, nearly 57 % could pass their inheritance |
|||
| This lack of inheritance was especially damaging because the son's traveled down the occupational scale | |||
| In the 1960's Blacks had no intergenerational mobility:
families found it difficult to pass on wealth & status A Black Middle & Upper Class did not exist |
|||
| In the 1970, the situation marginally improves
Intergenerational inheritance has increased to allow for the establishing of a small Middle Class |
|||
| 44 % of Black sons of fathers w/ upper nonmanual occupations inherited
that status
Still, nearly 60 % inherited the Lower Manual occupation |
|||
| Those Blacks able to break into the higher occupational positions
are able to form a stable Black Middle Class |
|||
| Gains made by Black & other minorities in education eroded
in the 1980s & 1990s
Chart 11.1 % of Races w/ Four Years of College:
|
|||
| Chart 11 - 2 % of Races matriculating
from High School to College:
1975 Male Whites HS to college 57 Female Whites HS to college 49 Male Blacks HS to college 50 Female Blacks HS to college 46 1985 Male Whites HS to college 55 Female Whites HS to college 52 Male Blacks HS to college 44 Female Blacks HS to college 44 |
|||
| "The anger of lower-class Blacks is likely to be directed toward Middle-Class
Blacks
as toward the White power structure in the next round of riots, which are sure to come if political and economic conditions for Lower-Class Blacks remain the same in coming decades." |
|||
|
|||
| Do mobility patterns differ for men & women? Yes
There is a sex as well as a race bias in the occupational structure Most studies did not include women |
|||
| When using the five job patterns of Upper Nonmanual, Lower Nonmanual,
Upper Manual,
Lower Manual & Farm, the mobility patterns of men & women are very similar. This is because women are concentrated in occupations such as clerical worker, i.e. in the Lower Nonmanual category and the studies are not able to detect important differences in the other occupational categories |
|||
| Studies w/ 18 occupational categories demonstrate differences btwn
men & women
Tyree & Treas (1974) found that daughters of professional fathers were more likely to be in white-collar occupations than were sons of professional fathers Daughters of farm workers were more likely to be in white-collar occupations & less likely to be in blue-collar occupations Overall, working women are less likely to be in an occupational status close to their father's |
|||
| Because women are concentrated in the middle occupations,
they are more likely to be both upwardly & downwardly mobile While Black men are often pushed down in the occupational structure, women tend to stay in the middle w/ some upward & downward mobility |
|||
| Traditionally, the status of women has been assumed to follow that
of their husbands.
With more women than men working ( 50+ % of women & 50- % of men ), this assumption can no longer go untested The status of the unworking spouse is usually determined by that of the working spouse |
|||
| Women marry men w/ similar occupations as their brothers
more than they entered occupations similar to their brothers The marriage market more closely reproduces the intergenerational mobility patterns of men This is because men & women marry people closer to their educational attainment than to their father's status |
|||
| Mobility for women is slightly greater through marriage than is mobility for men through occupation | |||
| It is commonly believed that women had more upward mobility through
marriage
than did men through occupations The old story of the poor but attractive girl marrying a rich man In fact, women are as likely to marry down as to marry up |
|||
| Wright ( 1997 ) has the most complete studies involving women &
men
Men & women have the same patterns of mobility, w/ a few differences the property class boundary was the most impermeable Occupation skill level had a medium level of permeability Authority level was the least restrictive About the same % of men & women move across these barriers |
|||
| Wright found the property class barrier was somewhat more permeable
for women.
Women do marry into the Upper Class more than men do |
|||
| Wright found that women in the US are more able to move up the occupation
ladder
than in other countries |
|||
|
|||
| The study of stratification did not exist before the late 1800s in
the US
Even before the mid-1900s empirical investigation of mobility patterns was almost totally neglected |
|||
| Thermstrom (1970) examined mobility in Boston during the 2nd
half of the 1800s
36 % of Fathers were in white-collar occupation 56 % of their sons ended up in white-collar occupations Sons of white-collar fathers were twice as likely to end up in white-collar occupations as were the sons of blue-collar fathers |
|||
| Rogoff compared mobility in Indianapolis btwn 1910 & 1940
Intergenerational mobility was very similar in 1910 & 1940 The rate of occupational inheritance was about the same in both years Upward & downward mobility were about the same in both years |
|||
| Tully, Jackson, & Curtis (1970) extended Rogoff's work by
comparing 1910, 1940, & 1962
& again conclude that the pattern of social mobility in Indianapolis has varied only slightly over these years |
|||
| Guest, Landale, & McCann (1989) compared mobility in 1880
& 1900
Upward mobility was lower Occupational inheritance was higher than in the 1962 & 1973 data by Blau & Duncan However, excluding farmers, there was only a small difference upward mobility |
|||
| Several researchers found a slight increase in upward mobility since
WW 2
due to an increase in higher-level occupations compared w/ low-level occupation This trend has reversed in the 1980s |
|||
| Remember that traditional mobility studies cannot analyze those
at the top of the hierarchy
Mills (1963) found that 13.2 % of business leader born btwn 1820 & 1829 had blue-collar origins By 1907 only 9.8 % of the business leaders were from blue-collar origins |
|||
| Keller (1953) found that only 3 % of business leader
born around 1820
had white-collar or blue-collar origins |
|||
| Bendix & Howton (1959) found that only 1 to 2
% of business leaders born
btwn 1801 & 1890 had working class origins Another study in six steel & iron industry communities at the turn of the century had no mobility into the upper class |
|||
|
Review Questions:
Stratification:
Chapter 11: Social Mobility
|