Internal
Links

Top
  Review Notes  on    ST 2:  Inequality in Class, Gender, & Race
External
Links
Link
 Intro to Income Inequality in the US   
Link
           Income Inequality in the US 
 
Link
           Intl Comparative Income Inequality / Mobility 
 
Link
 Intro to Wealth Inequality in the US   
Link
           Wealth Inequality in the US
 
Link
 Inequality of Basic Necessities in the US
 
Link
           Inequalities in Governmental Services
 
Link
 A Summary of Gender, Race, & Class Strat   
Link
           Gender Bias in the Workplace  
Link
           Race & the Workplace  

 
Internal
Links

Top
Outline on    Intro to Income Inequality in the US
External
Links
 
 INCOME IS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT A PERSON OR FAMILY RECEIVES OVER SOME DEFINED PERIOD OF TIME, USUALLY A CALENDAR YEAR   
 
 Wealth is the total value of everything that a person or a family owns, minus any debts owed
 
  The causes of income inequality in the US are linked to two social changes including political policies, & US & world economics conditions  
  Over the long run, there has not been much change in the degree of inequality in the United States; but since the mid 1970s, the last 35 yrs., the degree of inequality has increased  
Link
 Table on % of Aggregate Family Income by Fifths,  1947 to 2000  
  An analysis of the  % of Aggregate Family Income by Fifths from 1947 to 2000 shows
   great regularity, i.e. only slow historic change
   the bottom 3 Quintiles are now doing worse,
   the fourth Quintile is doing slightly worse,
   & the top Quintile is doing better		  
  THE TOP FIFTH OF THE POPULATION EARNS AS MUCH AS THE REST OF THE POPULATION, THAT IS, 50% OF TOTAL INCOME   
  THE MIDDLE THREE FIFTHS OF THE POPULATION EARNS ABOUT 45 % OF TOTAL INCOME   
  THE BOTTOM FIFTH OF THE POPULATION EARNS ABOUT 4 % OF TOTAL INCOME   
Link
 Table on  % of Aggregate Household Income by Fifth's of the Population
 
 
 An analysis of the % of Aggregate Household income shows that on average 
    the top fifth of the population earns as much as the rest of the population
    and the bottom fifth earns about 4 % of total income
 
Link
 Table on Average Household Income & Quintile & Top 5 %:  1973, 1979, 1989 ( 1989 $'s )
 
  An analysis of the Average Household Income & Quintile & Top 5 %:  1973, 1979, 1989 shows that 
- conditions became worse for all in the 1970's, but much more worse the lower class positions
- conditions became worse in the 1980's for the lowest 3 classes, but greatly improved for the top 5th & 5 %		  
Link
 Table on  % of Distribution of Families by Race & Income, 1992  &  2000  
  The Distribution of Families by Race & Income shows that 
    the distribution of income by race has a regular pattern
    in 1997 as a  % of the total of each race:
    in the lower class, there are less whites compared to more blacks & Hispanics
         they are about double the % of poor whites
    in the middle range, there are equal numbers of whites, blacks, & Hispanics
    in the upper class, there are more whites compared to blacks & Hispanics
         there are about 3 times the % of rich whites		  

 
Top
  
Table on Aggregate Family Income by Fifths,  1947 to 2000
Kerbo 0302  Kerbo 0502
 
% of Aggregate Income
Year
Lowest 5th
Second 5th
Middle 5th
Fourth 5th
Highest 5th
Top 5 %
2000
3.6
8.9
14.8
23.0
49.6
21.9
1997
3.6
8.9
15.0
23.2
49.4
21.7
1992
4.4
10.5
16.5
24.0
44.6
17.6
1990
4.6
10.8
16.6
23.8
44.3
17.4
1985
4.7
10.9
16.8
24.1
43.6
16.7
1980
5.1
11.6
17.5
24.3
41.6
15.3
1975
5.4
11.8
17.6
24.1
41.1
15.5
1970
5.4
12.2
17.6
23.8
40.9
15.6
1965
5.2
12.2
17.8
23.9
40.9
15.5
1960
4.8
12.2
17.8
24.0
41.3
15.9
1955
4.8
12.3
17.8
23.7
41.3
16.4
1950
4.5
12.0
17.4
23.4
42.7
17.3
1947
5.0
11.9
17.0
23.1
43.0
17.5
Range
3.6 - 5.4
8.9 - 12.3
14.8 - 17.8
23.0 - 24.3
40.9 - 49.4
15.3 - 21.7
Red represents the highest level achieved by a class       Blue represents the lowest level achieved by a class

 
Top
  
Table on % of Aggregate Household Income by Fifth's of the Population

 
% of Total Income
Mean Income
% of Total Income
% of Total Income
 
1992
1992
1997
2000
Highest 5 %
18.6 %
 NA
21.7 %
21.9%
Top 20 %
46.9
$ 91,494
49.4 
49.6
Fourth 20%
24.2
47,235
23.2
23.0
Middle 20 %
15.8
30,794 
15.0
14.8
Second 20 %
9.4
18,281
8.9 
8.9
Lowest 20 %
3.8 
7,328
3.6 
3.6
Kerbo 0402
  
96 mm households
Mean income $39,020
96 mm households
Mean income $51,000

 
Top
  
Table on Average Household Income & Quintile & Top 5 %:  1973, 1979, 1989 ( 1989 $'s )
SP 0403
Bottom 5th
Second 5th
Middle 5th
Fourth 5th
Top 5th
Top 5 %
Average
1973
7,099
17,779
29,051
41,763
74,068
112,876
33,953
1979
6,842
17,018
28,059
28,925
73,896
112,700
33,389
1989
6,994
17,401
28,925
43,753
85,529
138,185
36,520
% Change
  73 - 79
- 3.4
- 4.3
- 3.6
- 1.4
- 0.2
- 0.2
- 1.6
% Change
  79 - 89
- 1.5
- 2.1
- 0.5
4.8
15.5
22.4
7.6

 
Top
  
Table on % of Distribution of Families by Race & Income, 1992 & 2000
Kerbo 0402
Annual Income ( K's of $)
% of All Families
% White Families
% Black Families
% Hispanic Families
% Asian Families
under 5
3          2.9
3         2.3
7         6.1
6         3.3
3.5
5 to 10
 8          6.1
7         5.5
14        10.4
11         7.3
3.1
10 to 15
8          7.0
8         6.6
11         9.5
11         8.3
4.8
15 to 25
 15        13.4
15         13.0
18        16.5
20          18.3
10.6
 25 to 35
 13        12.5
13         12.6
14         12.9
15          14.7
9.4
 35 to 50
 16        15.5
17       15.4
15         16.8
17          17.7
13.5
 50 to 75
 18        18.9
19         19.4
13         15.2
12          17.4
20.1
 75 to 100
  9        10.4
10         11.0
5           6.5
5            7.4
12.1
100 & over
  9        13.4
10        14.2
3          6.1
4            5.7
22.7

 
Internal
Links

Top
Outline on    Income Inequality in the US
External
Links
  -  Project:  Income Inequality in the US
Link
  Income is the amount of money that a person or family receives over some defined period of time, usually a calendar year  
  Wealth is the total value of everything that a person or a family owns, minus any debts owed  
Link
 Table 2 - 3.a   Hourly wages by Occupational Category by Gender in 1997  
  An analysis of the hourly wages for men & women by occupational category, shows that women earn less in every category, but in general they have risen to 74 % of mens' wages from 66 %  
Link
 Table 2 - 3.b   Weekly wages by Occupational Category by Gender in 2000  
  An analysis of the weekly wages for men & women by occupational category, shows that women earn less in every category, but in general they have risen to 73 % of mens' wages from 66 %
 
Link
 Table 2 - 3.c   Hourly Wages by Educational Level by Gender in 1997
 
 
 An analysis of the hourly wages for men & women by ed category shows that women earn less in every category, but in general they have risen to 74 % of mens' wages from 66 %
 
Link
 Table 2 - 3.d   Annual Income by Educational Level by Gender in 1999  
  An analysis of the hourly wages for men & women by ed category shows that women earn less in every category, but in general they have fallen to 57 % of mens' wages from 66 %  
Link
 Table 2 - 5.3   Dist of Families by Income, 1970 - 1992  
  An analysis of household income over the last 30 yrs indicates that the dist of income remains approx the same the income gap is increasing  
  Over the long run, there has not been much change in the degree of inequality in the US but since the 1970s the degree of inequality has increased  
  Looking at the highest level of class achievement demonstrates that as the highest/lowest class improves, then the lowest/highest class does worse  
  Figure 2 - 2   The Gini Index  
  The Gini Index demonstrates, graphically, that income inequality has steadily increased in the US since the late 1960s  
  Income inequality was reduced in the 30s & early 40s due to depression reforms,  i.e. redistribution of income & deficit financing  
  WW II also reduced income inequality, during which the top fifth had their income reduced dramatically  
  There was a slight decrease in income inequality btwn 1947 & 1975 due to the War on Poverty & other social programs to help the poor in the 70s  
  During the War on Poverty, income for the bottom fifth increased & income to the top fifth decreased  
  Since 1980 there has been a significant increase in inequality due to tax reform, welfare reform, & decrease of govt regs & thus the top of the population has increased its share while the bottom has lost its share   
  Over the long run, there has not been much change in the degree of inequality in the US, but since the mid 1970s, the last 25 yrs., the degree of inequality has increased  
Link
 Figure 2-3    Income Gains & Losses, 1980-1989   
  An analysis of the Income Gains & Losses from  1980-1989 demonstrates that the very rich have gained enormously while the very poor have lost enormously  
Link
 Figure 2-3.3   Change in Employment by Wage Category, 1963-86  
  An analysis of the Change in Employment by Wage Category from 1963 to 1986 demonstrates that
-  in the 60s, the number of low paid jobs shrank
-  in the 60s, high paid jobs grew
-  in the early 80s, low paid jobs grew
-  in the early 80s, high paid jobs grew, but at a slower rate than low paid jobs
Furthermore, in the 80s, 55 % of new jobs paid at or below the poverty level		  
  The regularity or consistency in income distribution demonstrates that social forces are at work & that there is little or no vertical social mobility & that income distribution among the classes is relatively fixed  
  The causes of income inequality in the US are linked to two social changes in political policies & in the US & world econs  
  1.  Changes in political policies caused an increase in income inequality as:
-  the total tax load was reduced for the wealthy 
-  the total tax load was increased for the poor 		  
  In the 80s, transfer payments were cut when unemployment was taxed & the amt & availability of AFDC was cut  
  2.  Changes in the the US & world economies caused an increase in income inequality  
  As a result in changes in the US & world economies, 
- the number of middle paying jobs has declined
- the number of the highest & lowest paid jobs has increased
- the 3rd world has decreased subsistence living & increased low level mfr
- from 1979 to 1986 55 % of new jobs paid at or below the poverty level		  
  During the 1990s half the new jobs have been in the higher income levels
In the 1990s mid level paying jobs continue to decrease in number
In the 1990s the number of the lowest paid jobs continue to increase 		  
Link
 Table of Distribution of Household by Income in 1991  
  An analysis of the Distribution of Household by Income in 1991 shows that 90 % of household earn under $ 75 K while 10 % earn over $ 75 k  
Link
 Table on All Households Share of Aggregate Income in 1991  
  An analysis of all Households Share of Aggregate Income in 1991 shows that the bottom 80 % ( i.e. 4/5's ) earn approximately the same amount as the top 20 %  
Link
 Table on All Households Average Income in 1991
 
 
 An analysis of all Households Average Income in 1991 shows that, on average the lowest 80 % of the population earn less than half ( i.e. 43 % ) of the highest 20 % and about one quarter (  i.e. 27 % ) of the highest 5 % 
 
 
 The median family income in the US in 1990 is $35,000
 
 
 The median family income in the US in 2000 is $51,000
 
  The median income for unmarried adults who are not living with their parents in 1990 is $15,000  
  The median income for unmarried adults who are not living with their parents in 2000 is $22,000  
 
 An Analysis of Family  Income of the Upper Class ( 20 % & 5 % of the population )
                by the Official Guide to American Incomes, 1993
 
Link
 Table on Distribution of Families by Income in 1991
 
  An analysis of the Distribution of Household by Income in 1991 shows that 80 % of household earn under $ 75 K while 10 % earn over $ 75 k  
Link
 Tables on All Families Share of Aggregate Income in 1991  
  An analysis of all Families Share of Aggregate Income in 1991 shows that the lowest 80 % earn about the same share of US income as the top 20 %  
Link
 Table on All Families Average Income in 1991  
  An analysis of all Families Average Income in 1991 shows that, on average the lowest 80 % of the families earn less than half ( i.e. 45 % ) of the highest 20 % and about one quarter (  i.e. 29 % ) of the highest 5 %  
Link
 Conclusion on Income Inequality: 
In 1991, the upper 1/5
- has a share of income that is about the same as the rest of the population
- earns on average about $ 100 k while the average of the total population is about $ 38 k
- earns on average about 2.6 times the average of the total population 
- the upper 5 % has a 20 % share of the income & earns on average $ 141 k 
- the distribution of wealth is more unevenly distributed than income		  

 
Top
  
Table 2 - 3.a   Hourly wages by Occupational Category by Gender in 1997
Kerbo0402
 
Median Income
 
Male
Female
Female's 
% of Male
Exec, admin & mgr
$ 22
16
72 %
Professional
23
17
77
Tech, sales, admin support
18
14
75
Sales
15
10
63
Admin support & clerical
13
10
81
Precision production & craft
14
11
75
Operators & laborers
11
8
75
Laborers
9
NA
NA
Kerbo0402
blank
Average
74

 
Top
  
Table 2 - 3b   Median Weekly Wages by Occupational Category by Gender in 2000
Kerbo0502
 
Median Income
 
Male
Female
Female's 
% of Male
Exec, admin & mgr
$ 1,014
686
 68 %
Professional
977
725
74
Tech, sales, admin support
655
452
69
Sales
685
407
59
Admin support & clerical
563
499
89
Precision production & craft
628
445
72
Operators & laborers
487
351
72
Laborers
394
320
81
Kerbo0502
blank
Average
73

 
Top  
Table 2 - 3c    Wages by Educational Level by Gender in 1997
Kerbo0402
 
Median Income
 
Male
Female
Female's 
% of Male
Advanced degree
$ 27
$ 21
78 %
Bachelors
21
16
74
Some college
14
11
78
High school grad
12
9
76
Less than high school grad
9
7
77
Kerbo0402
  
Average
77

 
Top  
Table 2 - 3d    Median Annual Income by Educational Level by Gender in 1999
Kerbo0502
 
Median Income
 
Male
Female
Female's 
% of Male
Advanced degree
$ 81,934
$ 45,510
56 %
Bachelors
47,325
28,594
60
Some college
32,724
19,665
60
High school grad
27,240
14,695
54
Less than high school grad
17,707
9,625
54
Kerbo0502
  
Average
57

 
Top  
Table 2 - 3d    Median Annual Income by Educational Level by Gender in 1999
Kerbo0502
 
Median Income
 
Male
Female
Female's 
% of Male
Advanced degree
$ 81,934
$ 45,510
56 %
Bachelors
47,325
28,594
60
Some college
32,724
19,665
60
High school grad
27,240
14,695
54
Less than high school grad
17,707
9,625
54
Kerbo0502
  
Average
57

 
Top  
Table 2 - 5.3   Distribution of Families by Income, 1967 - 1992
Kerbo0302
 
% Distribution
Median Income
Mean Income
all races
Number of Families 
in the 1,000s
Under
$5
5
to
 10 
10 
to
 15 
15
to
 25 
25 
to
 35 
35
to
 50 
50
to
 75 
75
to
 100 
x100x
&
over
 
 
2003
 
                  
51,000
  
1997
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1992
68,144
3.7
5.8
7.3
15.5
15.0
19.2
19.6
7.7
6.2
36,812
44,483
1991
 67,173
3.5 
5.9 
7.0 
15.6 
15.2 
19.6 
19.2 
7.8 
6.2 
37,021 
44,539 
1990
66,322 
3.2 
5.4 
6.7 
15.4 
15.2 
20.0 
19.4 
8.2 
6.6 
37,950 
45,785 
1989
66,090 
3.0 
5.3 
7.1 
14.8 
14.6 
19.7 
20.1 
8.4 
7.0 
38,710 
46,962
1988
 65,837
 3.2
 5.5
 6.8
15.4
14.7 
 19.9
 20.0
8.1 
6.5
 38,177
45,788
1987
 65,204
3.1 
5.7
6.7 
15.3 
14.8 
20.0
20.3
8.0
6.3 
38,249 
45,553 
1986
 64,491
3.2 
5.7 
6.8 
15.5 
15.3 
20.1 
19.9 
7.6 
6.0 
37,709 
44,707
1985
 63,558
3.2 
6.1 
7.2 
16.1 
15.7 
20.1
19.3
7.1 
5.1 
36,164 
42,956
1984
 62,706
3.4 
6.0
7.7 
16.1 
15.8
20.3 
19.2
6.8 
4.8 
35,693 
41,931 
1983
 62,015
3.6 
6.3 
7.7 
16.6 
16.3 
20.6 
18.4 
6.2 
4.4 
34,757 
40,597
1982
 61,393
3.4 
6.2 
7.9 
16.9 
16.6 
21.0
18.0 
6.0
4.1 
34,390 
40,198 
1981
 61,019
2.9 
5.9
7.6 
17.4 
16.5 
21.4 
18.4 
6.4 
3.5 
34,862 
40,234 
1980
 60,309
2.6 
5.7 
7.4
16.5 
16.8
21.8
19.2 
6.3
3.7 
35,839
 40,869
1979
 59,550
2.4 
5.3 
6.9 
16.4 
15.8 
22.5 
19.9 
6.6 
4.2 
37,136 
42,310 
1978
 57,804
2.4 
5.3 
7.4 
16.3 
16.0 
22.6 
19.9 
6.1 
4.0
36,665 
41,760 
1977
 57,215
2.4
5.5 
7.9 
16.6 
16.9 
22.5 
19.0 
5.7 
3.5 
35,539 
40,545 
1976
 56,710
2.2 
5.7 
8.0 
16.8 
17.0 
23.5 
18.5 
5.2 
3.2 
35,330 
39,846 
1975
 56,245
2.3 
5.9 
8.3
17.4 
17.8 
23.1 
17.5 
4.7 
2.9 
34,249 
38,810 
1974
 55,698
2.3 
5.3 
7.8 
16.7 
18.4 
22.8 
18.4 
5.3 
3.1 
34,878 
39,768 
1973
 55,053
2.1 
5.5
7.5 
16.3
17.5 
23.5 
18.8 
5.5 
3.4 
35,821
40,491 
1972
 54,373
2.3 
5.8 
7.3 
16.6 
18.6 
23.0 
17.9 
5.3 
3.2 
35,126 
39,894 
1971
 53,296
2.6 
6.2 
7.5 
17.8 
19.7 
23.2 
16.0 
4.5 
2.4 
33,480 
37,705 
1970
 52,227
2.7 
5.9
7.5 
17.4 
20.2 
23.1 
16.3 
4.3 
2.5
33,519 
37,728 
1969
51,586 
2.6 
6.0 
7.5 
17.0 
20.0 
24.4 
16.1 
4.0 
2.4 
33,590 
37,664 
1968
50,823 
2.9 
5.9 
8.1 
18.2 
21.3 
23.6 
14.6 
3.4 
2.0 
32,124 
35,987 
1967
50,111
3.1
7.2
7.9
19.4
22.6
21.8
12.8
3.3
2.0
30,661
34,016

Figure 2 - 2   The Gini Index:  Household income Inequality,   1967 - 1997
 
 
Top
  
Figure 2-3  Income Gains & Losses, 1980-1989 
PW
Lowest 20 %
Second 20 %
Middle 20 %
Fourth 20 %
Top 10 %
Top 5 %
Top 1 %
- 4.6 %
- 4.1 %
- 0.8 %
+ 4.6 %
+ 9.1 %
+ 15.6 %
+ 62.9 %

 
Top
  
Figure 2-3.3  Change in Employment by Wage Category, 1963-86
Kerbo0302
Low Wage Wkrs
11,103 & under
Middle Wage Wkrs
$11,104 - 44, 412
High Wage Wkrs
$ 44, 413 & above
   1963 - 
1973
   1973 - 
1979
   1979 - 
1986
   1963 - 
1973
   1973 - 
1979
   1979 - 
1986
   1963 - 
1973
   1973 - 
1979
   1979 - 
1986
- 10 %
85
22
20 
77
6
38
50
15

 
Top
  
Table of Distribution of Household by Income in 1991
GuideAmInc93p2
Median Income
$ 30.1 k
89.6% of households earn 
under $ 75 k
6.0 % of households earn 
$ 75 k to $ 100 K
4.4 % of households earn
over   $ 100 k

 
 
Top
  
Table on All Households Share of Aggregate Income in 1991
GuideAmInc93p6
Lowest 80 % of Households 
earn 53.5 % of income
 Highest 20 % of Households
earn 46.5 % of income
Highest 5 % of Households 
earn 18.1 % of income

 
Top
  
Table on All Households Average Income in 1991
GuideAmInc93p10
All Households 
average $ 37, 922
Highest 20 % of Households 
average $ 88,130
Highest 5 % of Households 
average $ 137,532

 
Top
  
Table on Distribution of Families by Income in 1991
GuideAmInc93p18
80 % of Families earn $ 0  to $ 75 k
w/ a median of $ 35,939
The top 20 % earn btwn $ 75 k to $ 100 k 
The top 5 % earn over $ 100 k

 
Top
  
Table on All Families Share of Aggregate Income in 1991
GuideAmInc93p22
Lowest 80 % of Families
earn 55.8 % of income
Highest 20 % of Families
earn 44.2 % of income
Highest 5 % of Families
earn 17.1 % of income

 
Top
  
Table on All Families Average Income in 1991
GuideAmInc93p26
All Families
average $ 43,237 in income
Highest 20 % of families 
average $ 95,530 in income
Highest 5 % of families 
average $ 147,817 in income


 
Top

Internal
Links
Outline on  International Comparative Income Inequality / Mobility
External
Links
  DATA SHOWS THAT ON MOST INDICATORS OF INCOME, THE US RATES BEHIND MOST INDUSTRIAL NATIONS   
Link
 Table:  Income Inequality in 15 Industrialized Countries   
  An analysis of the Income Inequality in 15 Industrialized Countries shows that 
- the US has more income inequality than other industrialized countries 
- the US has the lowest amount of money going to the lowest 10 % 		  
Link
 Table:  Hourly Pay for Production Workers in 13 Industrial Nations in 1999   
  An analysis of Hourly Pay of Production Workers in 13 Industrial Nations shows that the US ranks 9th of 13 and pays a below average wage of $19.20 which is $1.05 below the average   
Link
 Table:  Comparative Income Inequality of Leading Industrial Nations: Shares of Pretax Household Income   
  An analysis of the Comparative Income of Leading Industrial Nations shows that the US has the smallest share of income going to the lower 20%, and nearly the largest share of income going to the upper 20%, resulting in the upper 20% earning over 15 times what the lower 20% earn, with an average of 8% for the Leading Industrial nations   
Link
 Table:  Comparative Income Inequality in the 1990s   
 
 An analysis of Table:  Comparative Income Inequality in the 1990s shows that the top 10% of people in the US earn by far the greatest percentage of median income, while the bottom 10% earn the smallest percentage of median income, giving the US the highest Gini Coefficient 
 
 
 Since the 1980s the US has had the highest level of income inequality 
 
  From the Table on the Comparative income inequality in the 1990s: 
-  the lowest levels of income inequality are found in Japan 
-  in the US, the highest 5th earn 12 times the mean income of the lowest 5th 
-  in Japan, the highest 5th earn 4 times the mean income of the lowest 5th 		  
 
 The US has attained its highest level income inequality in the 1990s 
 
  From Table 2 - 5  Comparative Income Inequality in the 90s: 
-  in the US the bottom 10% earn only 36 % of our average income 
-  the rich earn 2.1 times the our average income 		  
 
 Austria is in the middle of the ranking of the industrialized nations income distribution 
In Austria the bottom 10 % earn 56 % of their average income 
The rich earn 1.9 times their average income 
 
Link
 The Bar Chart on Income Inequality in Selected Nations shows that the US has about double the income inequality of other core nations & about half the income inequality of peripheral nations   
  Many low & middle income countries have greater econ inequality than the US   
  The US has more economic inequality than most high income nations   
Link
 The Bar Chart on Income & Population Shares of Core, Semi Peripheral, & Peripheral Nations shows that the middle & low income countries, while having over 90 % of the population, earn less than a quarter of global income   
  The relative share of income is such that for every dollar earned by people in low income countries, people in high income countries earn $53   
Link
 The Table on the Wealth & Well Being in Global Perspective demonstrates that the quality of life generally parallels per capita income   
Link
 Table:  Comparative Employee & Executive Incomes, 1992   
 
 An analysis of Table:  Comparative Employee & Executive Incomes, 1992, shows that US CEOs earn more than any others, and American workers earn less than any other workers except the British   
  US workers are paid less than all workers except British workers   
  US White Collar Workers & Mgrs are paid 3rd in the G 7  
  American CEOs are paid at the highest rate in the G 7; over twice the rate of the bottom, the Japanese; & over 10 % higher than 2nd place, France  
  The gap btwn the Top & Bottom workers is the highest in America & lowest in Germany  
Link
 Table:  Comparative Top Corp Exec Salaries, 1997  
  An analysis of   Table: Comparative Top Corp Exec Salaries, 1997  shows that most nation's top executives earn half, or less, of what American executive earn  
  US corp executives earn almost double that of other industrial nation's executive
US executives earn almost 3 times that of Japanese executives
 
  THE US HAS GREATER INEQUALITY OF INCOME & WEALTH, BUT ALSO HAS SLIGHTLY GREATER SOCIAL MOBILITY  
  In general, there is little different in the amount of mobility among modern, class societies  
  Among modern, class societies, mobility from low statuses to high statuses is the exception rather than the rule  
  Among modern, class societies, movement within the middle classes is more common  
  A slightly greater percentage of people in the US move from manufacturing to the professions than in other industrialized countries  
  The slightly greater social mobility in the US reflects slightly higher structural mobility owing to white collar job growth, rather than high exchange mobility (i.e., the upward social movement of people compared to their parents)  
  Great Britain & Brazil have the least social mobility among industrialized nations  
  The US & Japan have similar rates of social mobility, but different measures of mobility yield different results  
  Poland, Hungary, and the US have similar mobility  
  The US & Canada, compared to Sweden & Norway, have slightly more mobility in occupational status, but much less mobility in terms of gaining business ownership  
  Thus, the US has only slightly greater social mobility than other industrialized nations  
  Yet, because of the US culture & its embodiment of the Horatio Alger Myth, & "the land of milk & honey," "streets paved w/ gold" etc., people remain relatively satisfied w/ current policies, refusing to support tax policies that redistribute more wealth or policies to reduce poverty  
  CONCLUSION:  WHILE IN THE 60s THE US HAD AVERAGE INEQUALITY OF WEALTH & INCOME, TODAY THE US HAS HIGHER INEQUALITY   
  During the 1960s: 
-  the US was ranked midway in income inequality compared to other industrial nations
-  France had the highest inequality income inequality
-  Germany, England & Australia had the lowest inequality		  
  As can be seen by the tables & figures on income inequality presented here, the US is now ranked as having among the highest levels of income inequality of the industrial  nations  
Link
 The Bar Chart on the World's Increasing Economic Inequality demonstrates that the gap btwn the richest & poorest people in the world is twice as big as it was a century ago  

 
Top
  

Table:   Income Inequality in 15 Industrialized Countries
IS 09
Country & Year
% of Income
Received by
Lowest 20 % homes
% of Income
Received by
Highest 10 % homes
Ratio of 
Highest 10 % 
to Lowest 10 %
United Kingdom, 1988
4.6
25.3%
6.0
Switzerland, 1982
5.2 
29.8
5.7
US, 1985
4.7
25.0
5.3
France, 1989
5.6
26.1
4.7
Italy, 1986
6.8
25.3
4.4
Canada, 1987
5.7
24.1
4.2
Denmark, 1981
 5.4
 22.3
4.1 
Germany, 1988
 7.0
 24.4
3.5
Finland, 1981
 6.3
 21.7
 3.4
Norway, 1979
 6.2
 21.2
3.4 
Netherlands, 1988
 2.7
 21.9
 2.7
Belgium, 1978-1979
 7.9
 21.5
2.7 
Spain, 1988
 8.3
 21.8
2.6 
Japan, 1979
8.7 
22.4 
2.6 
Sweden, 1981
 8.0
 20.8
 2.6
Average
6.6
23.1
3.6
An analysis of the Income Inequality in 15 Industrialized Countries shows that 
      - the US has more income inequality than other industrialized countries
      - the US has the lowest amount of money going to the lowest 10 %

 
 
Top
  

Table:  Hourly Pay for Production Workers 
             in 13 Industrial Nations in 1999
Kerbo 0502
Nation
Hourly Wages
Spain
$ 12.11 
Canada
  15.60
Great Britain
  16.56
France
  17.98
United States
  19.20
Japan
  20.89
Netherlands
  20.94
Sweden
  21.58
Austria
  21.83
Denmark
  22.96
Switzerland
  23.56
Norway
  23.91
Germany
  26.18
Average
  20.25
An analysis of Hourly Pay of Production Workers in 13 Industrial Nations shows that the US ranks 9th of 13 & pays $19.20 which is $1.05 below the average

 
Top
  

Table:  Comparative Income Inequality of Leading Industrial Nations:
                      Shares of Pretax Household Income, 1986
Kerbo 0402
Nation
Highest 20%
Lowest 20 %
Ratio
US
46
3
15.3
France
47
7
6.7
Britain
46
6
7.7
Canada
41
5
10.2
West Germany
38
5
7.6
Sweden
37
4
9.3
Netherlands
37
6
6.2
Japan
36
8
4.5
Average
41
5.5
8.4
An analysis of the Comparative Income of Leading Industrial Nations shows that
-  the US has the smallest share of income going to the lower 20%,
-  & nearly the largest share of income going to the upper 20%,
-  resulting in the upper 20% earning over 15 times what the lower 20% earn,
-  w/ an average of 8% for the Leading Industrial nations

 
 
Top
  
Table: Comparative Income Inequality in the 1990s
Country
% of median 
of bottom 10 %
% of median 
of top 10 %
Ratio of top 10% 
to bottom 10%
Gini coefficient
US
36 %
208 %
5.78
.343
UK
44
206
4.67
.335
Japan
46
192
4.17
.315
Australia
45
187
4.3
.308
Canada
47
183
3.90
.285
Austria
56
187
3.34
NA
Germany
54
172
3.21
.261
Italy
56
176
3.14
.255
Netherlands
57
173
3.05
.249
Sweden
57
159
2.78
.229
Red numbers signify the highest level of the category
An analysis of Table:  Comparative Income Inequality in the 1990s shows that the top 10% of people in the US earn by far the greatest percentage of median income, while the bottom 10% earn the smallest percentage of median income, giving the US the highest Gini Coefficient

 
Top
  
Bar Chart on Income Inequality in Selected Nations
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2005) and World Bank (2006)


The Bar Chart on Income Inequality in Selected Nations shows that the US has about double the income inequality of other core nations & about half the income inequality of peripheral nations


 
Top
  
Bar Chart on Income & Population Shares of Core, Semi Peripheral, & Peripheral Nations
Sources: Calculated by the author based on UN Development Program (2000) and World Bank (2001)


The Bar Chart on Income & Population Shares of Core, Semi Peripheral, & Peripheral Nations shows that the middle & low income countries, while having over 90 % of the population, earn less than a quarter of global income


 
Top
  
Table on the Wealth & Well Being in Global Perspective




The Table on the Wealth & Well Being in Global Perspective demonstrates that the quality of life generally parallels per capita income


 
Top
  
Table: Comparative Employee & Executive Incomes, 1992
Manufacturing 
Employees
White Collar
Employees
Managers
CEOs
Germany
$ 36,857
Britain
74,761
Italy
219,573
US
717,237
Canada
34,939
France
62,279
France
190,354
France
479,772
Japan
34,263
Germany
59,916
Japan
185,437
Italy
439,441
Italy
31,537
Italy
58,263
Britain
162,190
Britain
439,441
France
30,019
US
57,675
US
159,575
Canada
416,066
US
27,606
Canada
47,231
Germany
145,627
Germany
390,933
Britain
26,084
Japan
40,990
Canada
132,877
Japan
390,723
An analysis of Table:  Comparative Employee & Executive Incomes, 1992 shows that US CEOs earn more than any others, & Am wkrs earn less than any other wkrs except the British

 
Top
  
Table: Comparative Top Corp Exec Salaries, 1997
Country
Salary
% of US Salary
US
901,200
100 %
Australia
476,700
52.9 
Belgium
470,700
52.2
Canada
440,900
48.9
France
523,500
58.1
Germany
423,900
47.0
Italy
450,300
50.0
Japan
397,700
44.1
Netherlands
442,900
49.1
Spain
333,600
37.0
Sweden
340,700
37.8
Switzerland
465,200
51.6
UK
489,700
54.3
An analysis of Comparative Top Corp Exec Salaries, 1997  shows that most nation's top executives earn half, or less, of what American executive earn

 
Top
  
Bar Chart on the World's Increasing Economic Inequality
Source: International Monetary Fund (2000)


The Bar Chart on the World's Increasing Economic Inequality demonstrates that the gap btwn the richest & poorest people in the world is twice as big as it was a century ago


 
External
Links

Top
Outline on an  Intro to Wealth Inequality
External
Links
 
 WEALTH IS THE VALUE OF EVERYTHING THAT A PERSON OR FAMILY OWNS, MINUS ANY DEBTS OWED 
 
  The fundamental point of an analysis of wealth inequality is that wealth is more unequally distributed than income  
  In the 00s, the top 20 % of all families hold 79% of wealth & earn 43 % of the income w/ a GDP of about $ 10 trillion in 2001  
  A survey conducted by the Institute for Social Research found that the top 0.5 % of the population owned 27 % of the wealth  
  Wealth is saved income, thus families, individuals & accumulate wealth over yrs, generations, even centuries  
  Example:  A typical middle class family owns outright a home, two cars, the beginnings of a pension fund, & maybe up to 3 months income in savings  
  From this total, subtract what the middle class family still owes mortgage payments, car payments, school loans, credit card debt, etc.  
  Wealth brings income, power, status, & independence  
  - Wealth can be used to purchase the means of production, which produces income  
  - Wealth used to purchase the means of production allows those w/ wealth to create more wealth  
  - Today the purchase of the the means of production is usually done by buying stock  
  - In the past, the purchase of the means of production was through direct ownership & control of businesses, e.g. Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.  
  Owning or managing the means of production gives one authority & power in society because of the control of property, jobs, development, etc.  
Link
 Wealth can be transferred from generation to generation  
Link
 Wealth can be increased, lost, decreased, eroded  
  The rationalization of finance has created an equation for the creation of wealth that takes into account many factors such as rate of return, risk, inflation, liquidity, etc.  
  Rate of return (ROR) = risk X inflation x liquidity  
  ROR is the % of earnings from an investment & depending on the type of investment, ROR may be profit, interest, dividends, or capital gains  
  In finance, risk is the safety or security of the investment as well as how likely is it to profit or loss   
  Inflation is the % rise in the general price level which has the effect of devaluing many kinds of wealth  
  THE TOP FIFTH OF THE POPULATION OWNS ABOUT 85 % OF ALL WEALTH  
  THE MIDDLE THREE FIFTHS OF THE POPULATION OWNS ABOUT 15 % OF ALL WEALTH  
  THE BOTTOM FIFTH OF THE POPULATION HAS NEGATIVE WEALTH; THEY OWN LITTLE & ARE IN DEBT  
Link
 Table on the Distribution of Wealth & Income by Family Fifths:  1989, 1995  
  An analysis of wealth & income shows that 
- Wealth is much more unequally distributed than income
- The top fifth earns 49 % of the income & owns 85 % of the wealth
- The bottom fifth earns 3.7 % of the income & owns -1.5 % of the wealth, i.e. they are in debt
 
  The top 40 % of the population owns 97 % of everything  
Link
 Table on the Distribution of Household  Net Worth by Race  
  An analysis of the distribution  of household  net worth by race / ethnicity shows that the wealth gap btwn races is greater than btwn classes  
  The wealth gap, being greater among races than among classes, is largely a function of the enormous wealth of the top 20 % of the population which is mostly White males  
Link
 Chart of the Number of Billionaires:  1986, 1988, 1992, 1996  
  An analysis of the number of billionaires shows the numbers of super-rich have grown five-fold in ten years  
  In 1993, of the 101 most wealthy the U.S. had 26, Japan  had 13, & Germany had 9   
  In 1999 Bill Gates was the richest person in the world w/ $ 90 bb
Two other Microsoft exec rank 2nd & 3rd
The wealth of the Microsoft billionaires has fallen because of the decline of the stock market & the deflation of the "tech bubble"		  
Link
 Table on the % of  Wealth held by top 1 % & .5 %  from 1958 to 1995  
  An analysis of the % of wealth held by the Top 1 & .5 % from 1958 to 1995 shows that their share decreases from the 60s to the seventies   ( because of social reforms ) & then increased in the 80s & 90s (because of tax reform, welfare limits, etc.)  
  Conclusions on Wealth Inequality:
- Wealth is much more unequally distributed than income
- The top fifth earns 49 % of the income & owns 85 % of the wealth
- The bottom fifth earns 3.7 % of the income & owns -1.5 % of the wealth, i.e. they are in debt
- The wealthiest 10 % own 90 % of all stocks, bonds & trusts
- The next richest 40 % of the population owns 12 % of all stock
- 50 % of the population owns no stock
- The wealthiest of top 1 % now controls 39 % of the wealth		  

 
Top
  
Wealth can be transferred from generation to generation

In 1982 one of Reagan's tax bills reduced inheritance taxes
In 2001, Bush Jrs. proposed tax bill established a time line that will totally phase out inheritance tax

Some wealth has come down through families over centuries
     Hapsburgs of Austria
     Rothchilds of France
     Royal family of England
Catholic Church wealth has transferred over millennium


 
Top
  
Wealth can be increased, lost, decreased, eroded

But "big money" rarely is totally lost
"New Money" is lost because the families have not learned how to transfer it
They often have not diversified


 
Top
  

Table on the Distribution of Wealth & Income by Family Fifths:  1989, 1995
 
% of Wealth
% of Income
    Family Share
1989
1995
1989
1995
        Top 1 %
38 %
39  %
15 %
14 %
        Top 10 %
71
72
39
39
        Top 20 %
79
85
43
49
        Fourth 20%
15
12
24
23
        Middle 20 %
6.2
4.5
17.1
15.2
        Second 20 %
1.1
0.9
11.1
9.1
        Bottom 20 %
-0.4
-1.5
4.7
3.7
An analysis of wealth & income shows that 
- Wealth is much more unequally distributed than income
- The top fifth earns 49 % of the income & owns 85 % of the wealth
- The bottom fifth earns 3.7 % of the income & owns -1.5 % of the wealth, i.e. they are in debt

 
Top
Table on the Distribution of Household Net Worth by Race
 
1991  Median net worth
White households
$ 44,408
Black households
   4,604
Hispanic households
   5,345
An analysis of the distribution  of Household Net Worth by Race/Ethnicity shows that the income gap btwn races is greater than btwn classes.  This is largely a function of the enormous wealth of the Top 20 % of the population

 
Top
  
Chart of the Numbers of Billionaires, World Wide:  1986 - 2005
 Year
World-Wide
1986
26 billionaires
1988
53
1992
71
1996
137
1997
259
1999
299
2000
322
2001
528
2004
587
2005
691
2006
793
An analysis of the Number of Billionaires shows the numbers of super-rich have grown five-fold from 1986 to 1997, & tripled from 1997 to 2006

 
Top

Table on the % of  Wealth Held by Top 1 % & .5 % from 1958 to 1995
blank
% of wealth held by
Year
Top 1 %
Top .5 %
1995
39
NA
1989
38
NA
1972
24
19
1969
24
19
1962
26
21
1958
26
20
1956
26
 
1953
28
 
1949
21
 
1945
23
 
1939
31
 
1933
28
 
1929
36
 
1922
32
 
1900
26 - 31
 
1860
24
 
1810
21
 
An analysis of the % of wealth held by the Top 1 & .5 % from 1958 to 1995 shows that their share decreases from the 60s to the seventies   ( because of social reforms ) & then increased in the 80s & 90s ( because of tax reform, welfare limits, etc. )
Data 1995 - 1958 from  Kerbo 0402
Data 1956 - 1810 from Curran 0403

 
 External
Links

Top
Outline on  Wealth Inequality
 External
Links
  -  Project:  Wealth Inequality in the US
Link
  Wealth is the value of everything that a person or family owns, minus any debts owed  
Link
 Table 2 - 11   Top Wealth Holders by Type of Wealth  
  Today, the wealthy hold mostly financial assets such as stocks & bonds  
  In the past, the wealthy held mostly physical assets such as, land, factories, gold, etc.  
  An analysis of the Wealth Holders Ownership of the Types of Wealth shows that the wealthiest 10 % own 90 % of all stocks, bonds & trusts
Thus the second richest 40 % of the population owns 12 % of all stock & 50 % of the population owns no stock		  
  The US stock mkt hit record heights in the 90s, from 5,000 to 10,000 was back at 9,900 during the downturn of 2001 & bottomed out in the 7000s in 2002, & has returned to 11,000 in 2005
The NASDAQ went from 1,500 to 5,000 but was back at 1800 in during the downturn of 2001, & in at 1700 in 2005		  
  Stock ownership yields both economic & political power  
  Stock ownership brings economic power in the form of income & the safe storage of wealth but also brings political power in the form of control of the major corps  
  Note that control of corps is not directly proportional to the amount of stock owned
Later, we will discuss how ownership does & does not translate into control		  
Link
 Table 2 - 12    % of Total Wealth held by top 1 % of population  
  Historic trends in wealth inequality show that the wealthiest of top 1 % now controls 39 % of the wealth which is more concentration of wealth than preceded the Great Depression of 1929  
  An analysis of the % of Total Wealth of Top 1% from 1922 - 1995 shows that the wealthy's share 
- did not change much between 1810 & 1945
- declined from 1945 to 1972
- share increased after 1980		  
Link
 Table 3 - 6    Share of Personal Wealth Controlled by Top 1 % & by the Other 99 % in 1992  
  An analysis of Personal Wealth Controlled by the Top 1% shows that they control two thirds of securities and over one third of all personal wealth  
  Figure 2-5  Lorenz Curves on Wealth & Income Inequality  
 
 The Lorenz curve shows the % of income or wealth held by various percentages of the population
A straight line Lorenz curve would show total equality
 
  Conclusions on Wealth Inequality include that:
- wealth is much more unequally distributed than income
- the top fifth earns 49 % of the income & owns 85 % of the wealth
- the bottom fifth earns 3.7 % of the income & owns -1.5 % of the wealth, i.e. they are in debt
- the wealthiest 10 % own 90 % of all stocks, bonds & trusts
- the next richest 40 % of the population owns 12 % of all stock
- 50 % of the population owns no stock
- the wealthiest of top 1 % now controls 39 % of the wealth		  

 
 
Top
  
Table 2 - 11   Top Wealth Holders by Type of Wealth
 
% of all stock
% of all bonds
% of all trusts
% of Population
1983
1989
1995
1989
1995
1989
1995
        Top 1 %
NA
47
51
73
66
53
50
        Top 10 %
72
84
88
94
90
90
89
        Next 40 %    
12
        
        Bottom 50 %    
0.0
        
Top
  
      An analysis of the Wealth Holders ownership of the Types of Wealth shows that
               the wealthiest 10 % own 90 % of all stocks, bonds & trusts
      Thus the next richest 40 % of the population owns 12 % of all stock
               & 50 % of the population owns no stock

 
 
 
Top
  
Table 2 - 12    % of Total Wealth Held by Top 1 % of Population
Year
% wealth held by top 1 %
1922
32
1929
36
1933
28
1939
31
1945
23
1949
21
1953
24
1954
24
1956
26
1958
24
1962
22
1965
23
1969
20
1972
21
1989
38
1995
39
Top
  
An analysis of the % of Total Wealth of Top 1% from 1922 - 1995 shows that the
- Wealthy's share did not change much between 1810 & 1945
- Wealthy's share declined from 1945 to 1972
- Wealthy's share increased after 1980

 
 
 
Top
  
Table 3 - 6     Share of Personal Wealth Controlled by Top 1 % & by the Other 99 % in 1992
Type of Asset
Top 1 %
Other  99 %
        Securities
63
37
        Businesses
61
39
        Miscellaneous assets
43
47
        Real estate 
        ( other than principal residence )
43
57
        Bank accounts
18
82
        Life insurance
12
88
Total assets ( net worth )
37
63
Top
  
An analysis of Personal Wealth Controlled by the Top 1% shows that they control two thirds of securities and over one third of all personal wealth

 
Top

Internal
Links
Outline on  Inequality in Basic Necessities in the US
External
Links
  -  Project:  Inequality in Basic Necessities in the US
Link
  Medical care & its output, health is unequally distributed because
a.  health care costs money, which is unequally distributed &
b.  conditions conducive to health cost money, which is unequally distributed		  
  Health Care is unequally distributed   
  Conditions for good health are unequally distributed   
  The U.S health care system is a three tier system which included
1.  Govt health insurance for the poor & the elderly
2.  Private insurance for those w/ the ability to pay 
3.  The pay as you go system for the uninsured		  
  The quality of the private insurance varies widely from high quality to low quality, from comprehensive to catastrophic  
  For medical care, the poor often use emergency room care  
  Many analysts believe it would be cheaper to offer the poor health insurance rather than have them go to emergency rooms or go on medicaid  
  The rich can afford more advanced & hi tech care than any nation in the world  
  A Brief History of Health care in the US encompasses SIX eras  
  a.  In the 1870s, Civil War veterans earned pensions, health care, & survivor benefits   
  Civil War benefits served the public until the 1920s, & thus the demand for public health care was kept low  
  b.  In 1935 the Social Security Act was passed  
  The provisions of the 1935 Social Security Act included a limited old age pension, unemployment benefits, child welfare, & very limited public health care for the very poor & the elderly  
  c.  The 1965 Medicare and Medicaid Act expanded health care for the very poor & over 65, paying only 80% of standard fees   
  This Social Security system, because of growing ratio of old to young, is at risk of insolvency   
  d.  During the 1980s, Reagan cut Medicaid benefits to the working poor  
  The Reagan cuts to the working poor stopped the practice of subtracting medical cost from income to determine eligibility for other welfare programs, including Medicaid  
  e.  In 1993 Bill & Hillary Clinton fail to pass a national health care system   
  f.  In 2000 Clinton passes a prescription drug benefits for the elderly
    In 2001, Bush Jr needs to review the cost of the program
    In 2005, Bush Jr passes prescription drug benefits for the elderly in the form of managed plans		  
  In 2001, 20 % of Americans lack health care coverage  
  Only the very poor get some Medicaid  
  Because only the very poor get some Medicaid, many working people are w/o health care coverage  
  In 2001, private hospitals “dump” patients on public & “charity” hospitals 
The process of dumping patients is efficient for those paying for private insurance, but it is inefficient as a whole 		  
  Living conditions cost money & are therefore unequally distributed 
Inadequate living contribute to poor health, crime, & poor environments 		  
  Low income = poor nutrition, less sanitation, less knowledge, unhealthy workplace, living in unsafe areas (sanitation, pollution, crime)   
Link
 Table  2 - 11   World Health Organization Ranking of National Health Care Systems, 2000   
  An analysis of the World Health Organization Ranking of National Health Care Systems shows that the U.S. ranks 37th of 191 countries, behind nations such as Morocco, Chile, & Costa Rica   
Link
 Figure 2 - 7   Percentage of People in Income Brackets Who Say Their Health is Poor or Fair   
  An analysis of the Percentage of People in Income Brackets Who Say Their Health is Poor or Fair shows that assessments of health are strongly related to people's income and that women's health is generally worse than men's health   
Link
 Table  2 - 12.3   Comparative Infant Mortality Rates, 1987   
  The richest country in the world ranks 19th in terms of Infant Mortality 
In inner cities & on some Reservations, infant mortality is as high as anywhere on Earth		  
Link
 Table 12 - 13   Class, Gender, Race & Death  
  An analysis of Class, Gender & Race demonstrates that the biggest inequalities are based on Class, then Gender, then Race  
  The Death Rate for those making less than $9000 / yr. is 3 times that of those making more than $25,000 / yr.  
  Class differences show that poor males die at nearly 8 times the rate of the middle & upper class males  
  Gender differences in death rates exist at every level but the range of inequality is not as great as for class but is greater than for race  
  Race differences show that whites have a lower death rate than blacks at nearly every income level but the range of inequity is not as great for race as it is for class  

 
Top
  
Table  2 - 11   World Health Organization Ranking of National Health Care Systems, 2000
Kerbo 0502
Country
Rank
France
1
Italy
2
Singapore
6
Spain
7
Austria
9
Japan
10
Norway
11
Portugal
12
Greece
14
Netherlands
17
Great Britain
18
Switzerland
20
Belgium
21
Sweden
23
Germany
25
Morocco
29
Chile
33
Costa Rica
36
United States
37
Cuba
39
Thailand
47
Afghanistan
173
Central Africa Republic
189
Burma (Myanmar)
190
Sierra Leone
191
World Health Organization (2000:  Annex Table 1) 
Top
  
An analysis of the World Health Organization Ranking of National Health Care Systems shows that the U.S. ranks 37th of 191 countries, behind nations such as Morocco, Chile, & Costa Rica

 
Top
  
Figure: Percentage of People in Income Brackets Who Say Their Health is Poor or Fair
Kerbo 0502
 
MEN
WOMEN
 
White
Black
Hispanic
White
Black
Hispanic
Poor
31
38
27
31
39
31
Near
Poor
22
23
19
18
27
25
Middle
Income
8
13
12
8
16
13
High
Income
4
5
5
7
9
8
Top
  
An analysis of the Percentage of People in Income Brackets Who Say Their Health is Poor or Fair shows that assessments of health are strongly related to people's income and that women's health is generally worse than men's health
Source:  National Center for Health Statistics, (1998, p. 103)

 
Top
  
Table  2 - 12.3  Comparative Infant Mortality Rates, 1987
Kerbo 0302
Country
Infant mortality rate
( rate per 1000 live births )
1. Japan
5.0
2. Sweden
5.7
3. Finland
5.8
4. Switzerland
6.8
5.  Canada
7.3
6.  Ireland
7.4
7.  Netherlands
7.6
8.  France
7.6
9.  Denmark
8.3
10. West Germany
8.3
11. Norway
8.4
12. East Germany
8.5
13. Australia
8.8
14. UK
9.1
15. Belgium
9.7
16. Italy
9.8
17. Austria
9.9
18. New Zealand
10.0
19. US
10.1
20. Israel
11.4
21. Greece
12.6
Top
  
The richest country in the world ranks 19th in terms of Infant Mortality
In inner cities & on some Reservations, infant mortality is as high as anywhere on Earth
Kerbo 0402

 
Top
  
Table 12 - 13  Class, Gender, Race & Death, 1993
Kerbo 0302
Death rates per 1000 people 25 to 64 yrs. old
Income
Gender
Whites
Blacks
Less than $9,000
males
16.0
19.5
 
females
6.5
7.6
9,000 - 15,000
males
10.2
10.8
 
females
3.4
4.5
15,000 - 19,000
males
5.7
9.8
 
females
3.3
3.7
19,000 - 25,000
males
4.6
4.7
 
females
3.0
2.8
25,000 & above
males
2.4
3.6
 
females
1.6
2.3
Top
  
An analysis of Class, Gender & Race demonstrates that the biggest inequalities are based on Class, then Gender, then Race

 
Top

Internal
Links
Outline on   Inequalities in Governmental Services
External
Links
  GOVT SERVICES ARE STRAT, IE DISTRIBUTED UNEQUALLY BASED ON POLI / ECON POWER:  UC RECEIVES MOST GOVT SERVICES; LC THE LEAST   
  The analysis of the inequalities in govt services focuses on the differences in the outcomes of differing amounts of political power, which result in the stratification of "necessary" govt services (infrastructure, police protection, education, staffing regulatory agencies, etc.) as well as the stratification of govt benefits designed to further the public good (tax breaks, investment capital, govt contracts, govt bonds, etc.)  
  The govt redistributes money & "corporate welfare" is a larger amount than "social welfare"  
  Mine reclamation, forestry road building (FS loses $ on most sales), telecommunications regulations are typical govt expenditures.  What are others?  
  While everyday logic holds that welfare is a handout for the poor, this analysis demonstrates that those at the top of the stratification system receive the most benefits from govt  
  Those at the bottom receive minimal health care, unemployment, food stamps, housing subsidies, etc. while those at the top receive benefits at the same level as the elderly but also related to subsidizing home purchases & business investments  
  One role of government is to redistribute income & wealth  
  The redistribution of income & wealth by the govt is framed in the struggle of class conflict as manifest through the interplay of political & organizational power  
  The rich resist the redistribution of income & wealth; the middle class lobbies for the redistribution of income & wealth  
  THE INCIDENCE OF TAXES DENOTES WHO PAYS THEM, IE WHERE THE TAX BURDEN ACTUALLY FALLS  
  The Incidence of taxes has THREE categories
       Incidence indicates who pays the tax
       1. Progressive designed so that proportion of income paid in taxes increases as income increases
       2. Flat designed so that the proportion of income paid in taxes is same regardless of income
       3. Regressive designed so that proportion of income paid in taxes decreases as income increases
 
Link
 Chart on the Types of Taxes & their Incidence  
  An analysis of the Types of Taxes & Their Incidence demonstrates that there are NINE major types of taxes available to Federal, State, & Local jurisdictions and that their incidence varies widely  
  PRESIDENTS ARE JUDGED BY THEIR FISCAL & GOVT POLICIES: TAXES, GOVT SIZE, DEFICIT, ECON PERFORMANCE, ETC   
  REAGAN:  LO TAXES, LARGE DEFICIT, CUT GOVT   
  In 1986 Reagan simplified & reduced the Am Fed income tax  
  The 1986 tax reform lowered fed taxes for the lowest & highest brackets & raised or left the same for middle 3 brackets  
  The 1986 tax reform also increased Social Security taxes  
  All these reforms are based on "Reaganomics," aka trickle down economics  
  BUSH SR:  RAISED TAXES, SMALL GROWTH IN DEFICIT, HAD RECESSION INHERITED FROM REAGAN, STABLE GOVT  
  Reaganomics was derisively called "voodoo economics" by Bush Sr when he ran against Reagan in the Republican primary  
  When Bush Sr ran for President against Dukacus in 1988,  his campaign motto was:  "Read my lips, no new taxes!" but in 1990, he raised all tax rates  
  CLINTON:  CUT TAXES, REDUCED DEFICIT, BEST ECON PERFORMANCE IN HISTORY, STABLE GOVT  
  The 1996 tax reform passed by Clinton lowered all taxes, indexed them to inflation & reduced cap gains from 28 to 20%  
  Clinton fought off Republican attempts to eliminate the capital gains tax  
  BUSH JR:  CUT TAXES DRASTICALLY, LARGE DEFICIT, WORST ECON PERFORMANCE SINCE GREAT DEPRESSION, GREW GOVT   
  In 2001 Bush Jr. reduced taxes at all levels, but mostly for the rich  
  Bush Jr. also wanted to eliminate the capital gains tax  
  Bush Jr. also wanted to eliminate inheritance tax  
  The capital gains & inheritance taxes which Bush Jr wished to eliminate impact only the upper reaches of the upper class  
  In 2003, Bush Jr. gets a 350 billion dollar tax reduction w/ all brackets receiving a reduction, resulting in the rich gaining the most in absolute dollars  
  The capital gains tax is reduced again in 2003, but there is a failure to eliminate it  
  The inheritance tax was not eliminated  
  Before the Congressional elections in 2006, Republicans propose to raise the minimum wage & eliminate the capital gains & inheritance taxes hoping that Democrats will trade a small increase in the minimum wage for the lower class, for a large tax reduction for the rich  
  Bush Jr ended his admin w/ having cut taxes, which increased the deficit, larger govt programs, & the 'Bush Depression,' which was the worst since the Great Dep of the 20s  
  OBAMA:  MAINTAIN BUSH TAX RATES, LARGE DEFICIT FROM WARS & BUSH DEPRESISON, SMALL ECON GROWTH, SMALLER GOVT   
  Obama has maintained the Bush tax cut, but has wanted to raise taxes on the top of the UC, ie those earning more than 250 K per yr   
  Under Obama the deficit has grown due to large bailouts needed for the econ, & two unfinished wars   
  Under Obama, the econ continued to shrink for his first yr in office, but after that has had steady, but at times very slow growth   
  Govt at the local, state, & fed levels has shrunk due to the econ (in response to less revenue, govts have cut programs & wkrs), but the Affordable Care Act (ACA), will require some, but not large growth in govt   
Link
 Chart on Reagan & Bush Tax Brackets  
  Tax brackets are ideally progressive, but in practice, deductions often make them regressive  
Link
 Table:   IRS Collections by Selected Sources 1960 - 1997  
 
 An analysis of IRS Collections demonstrates that, historically, about half of all taxes collected are income taxes, about one third are payroll taxes, about one tenth are corporate income taxes, and the remaining one tenth is made up of several taxes  
 
 Deductions are legal subtractions from total income, to determine taxable income, aka exemptions
 
  Deductions are the mechanism that transforms an ideally progressive tax into a regressive tax in practice
 
  The rich are able to deduct so many expenses that they pay a lower tax rate
 
  Tax reforms have attempted to reduce exemptions
 
  Examples of deductions include Children, mortgage interest charge on two homes, medical costs above a certain amount, business costs, business losses...
 
Link
 Table:  The Effects of Taxes & Welfare on the Distribution of Income, 1992  
  An analysis of the effects of taxes & welfare on the distribution of income after the Reagan & Bush Tax Reforms of 1986 & 1990 demonstrates that the bottom 4/5's benefit from tax & welfare policies while the top 1/5's pay for these benefits, thus incurring a cost  
Link
 Table:  The Effects of Taxes & Welfare on the Distribution of Income, 1997  
  An analysis of the effects of taxes & welfare on the distribution of income shows that after the Clinton Tax Reforms of 1996 demonstrates that
-  the bottom 3/5's benefit from tax & welfare policies
-  the top 2/5's pay for these benefits, thus incurring a cost
-  the bottom 1/5 benefits the most		  
Link
 Table:  The Effects of Taxes & Welfare on the Distribution of Income, 2000  
  An analysis of the effects of taxes & welfare on the distribution of income shows that after the Clinton Tax Reforms of 1996 demonstrates that
-  the bottom 3/5's benefit from tax & welfare policies
-  the top 2/5's pay for these benefits, thus incurring a cost
-  the bottom 1/5 benefits the most		  
  Govt Services are distributed on the basis of political power, which is determined by $$ & social/organizing power therefore govt services are distributed unequally  
  Examples of Wealthfare or Corporate Welfare include agriculture, research, tariff protection, regulatory agencies (FAA)  
  About one half of federal expenditures go to individuals, and less than half of this goes to the poor  
  1994
SSI      $320 b or 28% of fed budget 
46 b to fed workers retirement & ins 
55 b on direct transfers to the poor 
279 b for military 
38 b for transportation 
17 b for agriculture 
17 b for research 
5 b for energy 
Most federal money does not go to the poor 		  
  1998
SSI       $365 bb which is 22% of the Fed budget
Less than half of this goes to individuals
It is financed through a regressive tax
Fed govt transferred 16 bb to states for welfare
259 bb for the military
39 bb for transportation
8 bb for agriculture
2 bb for energy programs		  
 
 2001
$1,968 billion Fed budget
  Biggest expenditure is for debt interest
  433 billion for Social Security
  299 billion for the military
  39 billion for transportation programs
  26 billion to agriculture		  
  2007
Govt Receipts 
$2,400.0 billion total 
 1,100.0 billion - Individual income tax (43.9%) 
      869.6 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes (34.7%) 
      370.2 billion - Corporate income tax (14.8%) 
        65.1 billion - Excise taxes (2.6%) 
        26.0 billion - Customs duties (1%) 
        26.0 billion - Estate and gift taxes (1%) 
        47.2 billion - Other (1.9%) 
Govt Spending
$2,800.0 billion total
     586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security 
     548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2] 
     394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare 
     294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare 
     276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related 
     243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt 
      89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training 
      76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation 
      72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits 
      43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice 
      33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment 
      32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs 
      27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture 
      26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development 
      25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology 
      20.5 billion (+0.8%) - Energy 
      20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government 		  
  But the wealthy also get price supports, favorable (& unfavorable) business regs, protection from competition, etc.  
  Trickle down corporate welfare holds that govt transfers to the wealthy help them w/ econ development & other investments & thus help the general public & the poor
The final question is, who is really helped the most, & by how much?		  
  Conclusion: 
Material & non material goods are stratified: status hierarchy 
Is status a product or a cause of material stratification? 
Status, at the least, is important in maintaining stratification, but the universal stratification of material goods in the developed world is also a major factor		  

 
Top
  
Chart on the Types of Taxes & their Incidence
PW
Type of tax Type of Govt Description Incidence
Income tax Federal, many states, no local % of income
Allows for deduction
5 brackets		 Ideal:       Progressive
Practice:  Flat to Regressive
Social Security Federal only 7.5 % of 1st %  55,000
Matched by employer		 Ideal:       Regressive
Practice:  Regressive
Unemployment Federal, many states, few local % of income
Match by employer		 Ideal:       Flat
Practice:  Regressive
Property (real estate) All counties & few cities % of value of real estate Ideal:       Flat
Practice:  Progressive
Property (personal) some local % of value of personal property
e.g. VA car tax		 Ideal:       Flat
Practice:  Progressive
Sales Many states, few local % of purchases
May exclude some products		 Ideal:       Flat
Practice:  Regressive
Inheritance Federal, many states % of value over $1 mm Ideal:       Progressive
Practice:  Progressive
Corporate Federal % of corp income Ideal:       Flat
Practice:  Progressive
Capital Gains Federal % of appreciation of stock
& real estate		 Ideal:       Flat
Practice:  Progressive
Top
  
An analysis of the Types of Taxes & Their Incidence demonstrates that there are NINE major types of taxes available to Federal, State, & Local jurisdictions & that their incidence varies widely

 
 
Top
  
Chart on Tax Brackets by President
PW
 
Reagan
  
Bush Sr.
  
Clinton
  
Bush Jr.
Income Level
1986
Income Level
1990
Income Level
1996
Income Level
2003
 
    33 %
  
 
        
 
32
  
 
        
 
27
  
 
        
 
23
  
 
        
 
17
  
 
        
  & under
no taxes
 & under
no taxes
        
Top
  


 
Top
  
Table 2 - 14:  IRS Collections by Selected Sources 1960 - 1999
PW
 
% of total tax load
Source of Revenue
 1960 
 1970 
 1980 
 1993 
 1997 
1999
Income taxes
49 
53
47
45
44
53
Payroll taxes:  unemployment, disability, SSI
12
19
31
37
38
31
Corp income taxes
24
18
13
9
12
11
Estate & gift taxes
1.8
1.9
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.5
Excise taxes
12.9
8.1
4.7
4.2
4.5
2.6
All other taxes (property, sales, etc.)
Less than 1.0
Top
  
An analysis of IRS Collections demonstrates that, historically, about half of all taxes collected are income taxes, about one third are payroll taxes, about one tenth are corporate income taxes, and the remaining one tenth is made up of several taxes

 
Top
  
Table:The Effects of Taxes & Welfare on the Distribution of Income, 1992
Kerbo 0302
Definition of income
Bottom 20 %
Second 20 %
Middle 20 %
Fourth 20 %
Top 20 %
Income before taxes
3.8
9.4
15.9
24.1
46.8
Income minus transfers
0.9
7.6
15.4
24.8
51.3
Income after taxes
1.1
8.1
16.0
25.6
49.1
After taxes plus welfare income
1.1
8.4
16.3
25.5
48.6
Top
  
An analysis of the effects of taxes & welfare on the distribution of income shows that after the Reagan & Bush Tax Reforms of 1986 & 1990 demonstrates that the bottom 4/5's benefit from tax & welfare policies while the top 1/5's pay for these benefits, thus incurring a cost
PW

 
Top
  
Table:The Effects of Taxes & Welfare on the Distribution of Income, 1997
Definition of income
Bottom 20 %
Second 20 %
Middle 20 %
Fourth 20 %
Top 20 %
Share of income
0.9
7.1
14.4
23.6
54.0
Share of income w/ welfare
3.6
8.9
15.1
23.0
49.3
Share of income after taxes
1.2
8.3
15.5
24.4
50.6
Share of income w/ welfare after taxes
4.8
10.6
16.0
23.0
45.6
Top
  
An analysis of the effects of taxes & welfare on the distribution of income shows that after the Clinton Tax Reforms of 1996:
-  the bottom 3/5's benefit from tax & welfare policies
-  the top 2/5's pay for these benefits, thus incurring a cost
-  the bottom 1/5 benefits the most
PW

 
Top
  
Table: The Effects of Taxes & Welfare on the Distribution of Income, 2000
Kerbo 0502
Definition of income
Bottom 20 %
Second 20 %
Middle 20 %
Fourth 20 %
Top 20 %
Income before taxes
3.6
9.0
14.8
23.0
49.7
Income minus transfers
1.1
7.1
13.9
22.8
55.1
Income after taxes
1.4
8.3
15.1
24.0
51.2
After taxes plus welfare income
4.6
10.3
15.7
22.7
46.2
Top
  
An analysis of the effects of taxes & welfare on the distribution of income shows that after the Clinton Tax Reforms of 1996 demonstrates that
-  the bottom 3/5's benefit from tax & welfare policies
-  the top 2/5's pay for these benefits, thus incurring a cost
-  the bottom 1/5 benefits the most
PW

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  Summary of Gender, Race, & Class Strat
External
Links
 
 THE DREAM OF EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE, THROUGHOUT SOCIETY, IS MOVING TOWARD REALITY
 
  Before the 1940s, the WW II era, college & hi level jobs were only available to white, upper class males   
  During the 1940s, after WW II, college opened up to middle & lower class white males, resulting in the econ boom of the 40s, 50s, & early 60s   
  Some white women attended college during the 1940s, after WW II, to become teachers, secretaries, nurses, & wives   
  Black universities grew significantly during the 1940s, after WW II   
  As a result of the Civil Rights Mvmt & other cultural changes, educational opportunities & occupational opportunities began to open up in the 60s, & have continued this 'opening' through today, resulting in the dream of equality moving toward reality, thus creating a middle class & reducing levels of strat   
  The growth of the middle class & the decrease in hi levels of strat occurred as the the first world nations of today shifted from an agricultural, 3rd tier nations, to indl, leading nations where bias & the resulting strat declined   
 
 THERE ARE NOW MORE WOMEN IN THE WKFORCE THAN MEN, BUT THEY STILL HAVE LOWER PAYING JOBS BECAUSE SEX ROLE SOCIALIZATION CREATES 'MEN'S JOBS' & 'WOMEN'S JOBS' 
 
 
 The three most popular occupations for women are still nurse, teacher, & secretary; all which are relatively low paid 
 
 
 Today women earn about 60 - 75 % of what men earn, & there has been little change in the last decade 
 
  Women's wages have, compared to men, equalized the greatest at the lower levels, thus they appear more equal in more transparent, lower level jobs   
  Wages, salaries, benefits, etc. are 'more private' the higher one's career, & thus it is easier to disguise pay inequity at the higher levels of occupations   
 
 THE GLASS CEILING DENOTES THAT DISCRIMINATION INCREASES DRAMATICALLY AT OR ABOVE THE MID MGT LEVEL 
 
 
 The concept of the glass ceiling denotes that the "old boy network" is the most powerful at the top 
 
 
 Women will break the glass ceiling as they get more education, training, & experience 
 
 
 THE EFFECTS OF RACE & GENDER DISCRIMINATION IS MAGNIFIED BY CLASS STRAT IN THAT THE HI AMT OF DISCRIM IN THE UPPER CLASS BRINGS UP THE OVERALL AVERAGE OF DISCRIM 
 
  Wealth is more unequally stratified than income w/ the upper fifth of the pop earning about half the income & owning about  80% of the wealth   
 
 In the 1990s, whites on average had 10 times the wealth of blacks or hispanics 
 
  The 10 times disparity of wealth among whites, blacks, or hispanics is distorted by the fact that the upper fifth of the pop is mostly white & the upper 5 % of the pop is nearly all white   
  Middle & lower class income & wealth strat is much less than the overall average   
  Thus, class distinctions distort racial distinctions, ie they magnify them   
 
 The wages of Black college grads have risen faster than those of White college grads, but are still behind 
 
 
 The wages of Black high school grads have fallen even further behind White high school grads 
 
 
 Affirmative Action has helped created a Black middle class, but has done little to help the large Black underclass, & has barely broken "the glass ceiling" of upper level jobs 
 
 
 Inequality in wages by race has been exasperated by the concentration of Blacks & Hispanics in regions & urban areas w/ high unemployment 
 
 
 OVERT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION HAS TRANSFORMED INTO INSTITUTIONAL, & OTHER SUBTLE FORMS, WHICH LIMIT EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 
 
 
 While some violent, oppressive discrim does still exist, today most of it occurs subtly in orgs, w/o acknowledgment, & it attempts to remain hidden
 
  The legislatures & judicial systems are attempting to eliminate these forms of subtle discrim, but like conflicts of the past, powerful interests align on both sides each arguing that 'progress' can only be achieved by embracing their policies   
 
 DUAL LABOR MKTS, CAREER LADDERS, ETC. ARE MORE ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AS ADVANCEMENT MAZES IN WHICH INSTITL BIASES OF THE PAST MAY LIMIT EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 
 
 
 Dual labor mkts, career ladders, & other normal process of rationalization of occupations, i.e. ensuring that the most qualified candidate succeeds & is rewarded, make it difficult to tell when discrimination occurs 
 
 
 Normal processes of rationalization of occupations allocate rewards according to skill, but histl practices may distort this allocation
 
 
 THE CULTURAL DIVISION OF LABOR DENOTES THAT PEOPLE CHOOSE OCCUPATIONAL ROLES BASED ON CULTURAL IDENTITY, WHICH IN SOCIETY TODAY IS A FUNCTION OF GENDER, RACE, CLASS, & OTHER FACTORS
 
 
 In the 'post racial world' of today, many people still live & work in cultural enclaves, & thus occupation, & thus strat, are all still conditioned by the opportunities & rewards of these cultural enclaves 
 
 
 Society today is trying to eliminate some differences of culture, gender, race, class, etc. esp as related to histl discrim practices of the past, which simultaneously embracing those unique, positive aspects of each one of our differences 
 
 
 The ultimate challenge for society is to sort difference from discrimination wherein the former is a justification for the stratification of society's rewards & the latter is not 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Gender Bias in the Workplace
External
Links
  WOMEN ARE STILL OFTEN STEERED INTO TRADL FEMALE OCCUPATIONS WHICH HAVE LOW PAY
  Women face the hurdle that they are steered into occupationally segregated, gender typed jobs (Game & Pringle, 1983)
 
  Occupations involving helping & serving others, such as nursing & waitressing, have been identified w/ the female role because women have historically been responsible for these activities w/in the family (Cockburn, 1983)
 
 Link
 The Table on the Percentage of Women in Various Occupations demonstrates that some occupations are characterized by an almost exclusively female labor force
 
  Unfortunately "women's jobs" are often relatively poorly paid & their incumbents are treated as subordinate, a position in keeping w/ the traditionally subordinate role of wives to husbands
 
  In many female typed occupations, qualifications of attractiveness & pleasantness may be more important than acquired skills & competencies
 
  Not only are physical traits fleeting, but they do not form a package of skills necessary for promotion to higher positions
 
  Women compose only a small percentage of the skilled trades
 
  Female professionals face special problems of gender typing
 
  Channeling women into a relatively narrow range of female typed professions:  nursing, teaching, library work, social work, & other helping professions
 
  Because of women being channeled into female typed jobs there is overcrowding in these profession, which leads to lowered wages
 
  FAMILY DECISIONS ALSO OFTEN STEER WOMEN INTO LOWER LEVEL JOBS, FOLLOWING THE MALE'S JOB & RELEGATING THE WOMAN'S CAREER TO THE SECOND TIER IN THE FAMILY   
  The fact that many female professionals marry male professionals & managers also creates the possibility that geographic moves will be made that facilitate the husband's career rather than that of the wife
 
  Such decisions often appear rational to the extent that the husband's job pay more
 
  The result of decisions to professionals to marry & follow the male's career is a cumulative detriment to the wife's career trajectory, which makes future decisions even more likely to be weighted toward the husband's career
 
  AS WOMEN ARE GAINING MORE ED, TRAINING, & EXPERIENCE, THEY GAIN ON MALES & MANY ARE THE SOLE OR PRIMARY BREAD WINNERS & THEIR CAREERS ARE SEEN AS OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE   
  Gender differences in job placement are not explained by differing education
 
  Male & female workers both have an average of 12.7 yrs. of education
 
  Men & women have approximately the same rate of college completion, although fewer women have advanced degrees  
  Fewer women than men have advanced degrees  
  Btwn 1970 & 1990, the proportion of masters degrees awarded to women increased from 40.1% to 47.4% & the proportion of professional degrees awarded to women increased from 19.7% to 24.6%  
 
 Women now exceed men in two & four year degrees  
Link
 Table  on Women's Educational Attainment by % of College Degrees demonstrates that the greater number of advanced degrees going to men, is decreasing as more women gain advanced degrees  
  For full time workers, in 1993, women earned about 70% of what men earned & by 2000 women earned 75% of what men earned  

 
Top  

Table on the Percentage of Women in Various Occupations, 1991
HS 0205
Occupation
% Women in Workforce
Pay
Secretaries
99 %
  
Receptionists
97
  
Dental Hygienists
99
  
Childcare Workers
97
  
Carpenters
  1
  
Brick Masons
0.3
  
Electricians
1.5
  
Machinists
3.7
  
Crane Operators
0.4
  
Low Level Assembly Positions
25
  
Federal Employment of Women by Rank:    
Grades 16 - 18
9.1
$ 69 - 78 K
Grades 13 - 15
17
43 - 77
Grades 11 - 12
33
30 - 47
Grades   7 - 10
54
20 - 35
Grades   1 -  6
75
11 - 24
In 2000, the % of women in female gender typed jobs stayed the same except for the changes in Federal Employment as listed below, demonstrating that women are advancing in this sector
Grades 16 - 18
11.1
Salaries now individually set
Grades 13 - 15
19.0
52 - 94
Grades   9 - 12
34.7
30 - 57
Grades   5 -   8
51.4
20 - 36
Grades   1 -   4
72.6
13 - 23
The Table on the Percentage of Women in Various Occupations demonstrates that some occupations are characterized by an almost exclusively female labor force

 
Top
  

Table  on Women's Educational Attainment by % of College Degrees
HS 0305
Type of Degree
Percentage of Female Degree Holders
Associate
61
Bachelors
55
Masters
56
MBA
38
Law
44
Medicine
41
Doctoral
40
Table  on Women's Educational Attainment by % of College Degrees demonstrates that the greater number of advanced degrees going to men, is decreasing as more women gain advanced degrees
Diana Furchtgott-Roth & Christine Stolba, 1999, Women's Figures:  An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America.  Washington, DC:  American Enterprise Institute

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Race & the Workplace
External
Links
  SEGREGATION IN THE WORKPLACE WAS ONCE COMMONPLACE, BUT IS NOW MORE SUBTLE IN THE FORM OF 'INSTITUTIONAL RACISM'   
  During the 1960s, big businesses were inefficient & unfair in their hiring practices   
  By the end of the twentieth century, white men in the US still held 58 % of mgt jobs   
  Decisions about promotions are often made informally, behind closed doors by an executive group composed mostly by white men 
 
  SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA MAKE SUBTLE RACISM / DISCRIMINATION & PRESERVATION OF THE 'OLD BOY SYSTEM' POSSIBLE   
  Subjective decisions & evaluations are the method through which all types of discrimination enter into the workplace today, especially institutional discrimination, which is the most common type today 
 
  See Also:  Evaluation Criteria in the Workplace   
  See Also:  Discrimination   
  Overt expressions of racism have declined in the US & developed world in the 1980s & 90s but more subtle everyday expressions of racism are still common 
 
  Many people & groups make efforts to marginalize minorities & women, to identify them as the carriers of social problems, & to reject complaints about prejudice & discrimination as invalid (Essed, 1991) 
 
  Equal treatment for minorities & women often comes only when those w/in an org work actively to demand such changes (Baron, Mittman, & Newman, 1991) 
 
  TOKENISM OCCURS WHEN ORGS MEET MINIMUM INTEGRATION GOALS, BUT HAVE NO INTENTION OF FULL INTEGRATION   
  Kanter, 1977, notes that women & minority workers are highly visible representatives of their group when then enter new occupations 
 
  Tokenism is the policy of making only a superficial effort or symbolic gesture toward the accomplishment of a goal such as racial or gender integration   
  Tokenism occurs when there are only a few workers who are different because of race, gender, religion or any other identifiable cultural trait 
 
  Tokenism puts a worker under a spotlight & the pressure to overachieve 
 
  Tokenism need not be a bad experience as everyone has encountered a situation where they, for some reason, felt out of place or outnumbered, & yet were welcomed & accepted  
  W/ tokenism, there is often open hostility from majority workers who feel their position threatened by the incursion of "lower status" workers (South, et al, 1983) 
 
  EVOLVING CHANGE MEANS THAT AS EACH WKPLACE FACES INJUSTICES, SOME STRUGGLES ARE WON & SOME ARE LOST, FOR NOW   
  While women & minorities have continued to make progress, in that more sectors of society have become integrated & have less open & hostile discrimination, these changes & income changes have been slow 
 
Link
 The Table on Median Family Income by Race, 1964 to 1997, indicates that during the last 40 yrs. blacks have earned btwn 50 & 60 % of what whites earned
 
  Farley, 1984, found that from 1959 to 1982 white income grew 1.1% & black income grew by 1.3% but because whites had more income initially, white income grew by $4,200 & black income grew by $2,600 thus increasing the absolute income gap 
 
  Hispanic families earn about 60% as much as white families 
 

 
Top
  

Table on  Median Family Income by Race, 1964 to 1997
HS 0205
Year
Blacks
Whites
Black Income
as a % of 
White Income
1964
$ 4,646 
$ 8,557 
    50 %
1965
4,849
9,047
50
1966
5,624
9,722
58
1967
6,083
10,274
59
1968
6,688
11,151
60
1969
7,485
12,220
61
1970
7,834
12,772
61
1971
8,035
13,316
60
1972
8,564
14,410
59
1973
9,070
15,715
58
1974
9,989
16,730
60
1975
10,954
17,803
62
1976
11,531
19,386
59
1977
11,932
20,887
57
1978
13,574
22,918
58
1979
14,529
25,581
57
1980
15,814
27,330
58
1981
16,552
29,343
56
1982
16,900
29,720
57
1983
16,610
29. 474
56
1984
16,884
30,294
56
1985
17,734
30,799
58
1986
18,247
31,935
57
1987
18,098
32,274
56
1988
19,329
33,915
57
1989
20,209
35,975
56
1990
21,423
36,915
58
1991
21,548
37,783
57
1992
21,103
38,670
55
1993
21,542
39,300
55
1994
24,698
40,844
60
1995
25,970
42,646
61
1996
26,552
44,756
59
1997
28,602
46,754
61
Table on Income by Race, 1964 to 1997, indicates that during the last 40 yrs. Blacks have earned btwn 50 & 61 % of what Whites earned
Blue indicates the lowest % of Black/White Income
Red indicates the highest % of Black/White Income
US Dept. of Commerce, Census, 2000; Statistical Abstract of the US, 1999, Washington, DC; US Govt Printing Office

The End
 
Top