Social Mobility:
Social mobility is one of the essential components in society. It is all about the certain class and where one lies in it. More importantly, it's the process of individuals ascending and descending from different classes through mobility.
This article particularly looks at some the statistics of men in England and Wales of their current and probability of of changing classes. The classes consist of working (blue collar), intermediate, and service (white collar). There is the idea of the inter-generational mobility of leaving behind or staying in the social class that one's family has occupied for generations. Overall, it kind of spoke for itself in the fact that they are not really any drastic movements in mobility and everyone will stay in their class their entire lives or by chance completely fall from grace or go on to glory.
It is also interesting to see that there is no information on women as well as minorities in this sense. I guess they obviously weren't of any importance in 1972 as well as not enough data to translate into some type of statistic, which I feel would make better research for this overall piece. The economy was slightly a little different as in '72 and in England and Wales in comparison to other parts of the World.
I was reminded of this article in looking at the American Dream, if you work hard you can achieve anything. On the contrary of the article, I feel statistics could show even less in the working class and higher amounts in the intermediate and white collar categories. Nowadays, individuals can make drastic leaps and falls in between classes. Currently with the economy, there probably and have been some drops in social mobility, but in the brighter side, in America there lies opportunities to make that leap or missed opportunities to fail.
Finding Work: Some Basic Results
This article looks at the ways in which people find and are hired for jobs. People can find jobs in some of the strangest ways as well as their motives in getting jobs that they want or need. The ways in which were discussed were formal means, personal contacts, and direct application. The purpose was to look at how people found jobs based off of level of job satisfaction, income, origin of job, age, religious or cultural background, and occupational category.
In the different tables, I could see why each came to their conclusion. In the first and third table, people were very satisfied with their method of obtaining their job as well as origin of their job and being directly replaced which can be the traditional approach. I would be as well and to be very fortunate that their method worked out for them.
I had never really thought about different ways to go about finding a job. There is always the typical job of looking for the qualifications that apply to you and pursuing the job. Formal means show the significance and respectability that an employer has when they are looking for employees. I believe that this is the most common way. Personal contact is not as prevalent as it used to be. I remember the saying, "it's not what you know, but who you know" to get you in the doorway of getting a job. It causes conflict that the qualified candidate gets sidestepped because someone who has a good relationship with the employer can get someone they know a job. Yet surprisingly in two of the tables, job finding by age and religious or cultural background, that was the highest percentage of methods used. I can completely understand the religious standpoint, due to the fact that may the employer and those that work there have certain feelings pertaining to this religion and if this friend of friend does not mention it, they couldn't be any reason to have in hiring. I have never know direct application to ever work.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Social Mobility & Finding Work: Some Basic Results
The American Jobs Machine
The American Jobs Machine compared expansions in the job market that occurred in two different decades. One of which occurred between 1963-70 and the other 1992-1999. The study mentioned in the article decided to categorize jobs into ten deciles based on similar salaries. The top five deciles would be known as “good jobs” and the bottom five would be the “bad jobs.” Furthermore, Wright and Dwyer decided to account for race and gender differences. For the 1960s, Wright and Dwyer had run into data limitations, so they distinguished four separate groups: white men, white women, black men and black women. For the 1990s, they separated the groups further: white men, white women, black men, black women with the addition of Hispanic men and Hispanic women.
Wright and Dwyer's analysis found that in the 1990s, the job expansion was very polarized. That is to say, there was a great deal of expansion among the top three deciles, but there was an unprecedented expansion in the bottom one as well. In contrast to the 1960s, there was an expansion that was more along the lines of “upgrading the employment structure.” Essentially, there was expansion that would allow somebody employed at the bottom decile to eventually move up to the third; the fourth up to the sixth; the seventh up to the tenth.
One thing that this study illustrated that I see almost daily is that the job expansion in the 1990s is highly racially polarized. For instance, the top three deciles had a predominantly white expansion, whereas the bottom docile had more black and Hispanic expansion than any of the white expansion at the top. I personally see this (at least the bottom decile) every time I go into a McDonald's restaurant because, depending on the location, the workers are predominantly African American.
Two public policies are suggested that would theoretically close down the “low road” and “help to pave the high road,” and those include raising the minimum wage and strengthening the labor movement. Personally, I do not see how raising minimum wage would do anything other than cause employers to let people go simply because they cannot afford them. However, Wright and Dwyer do mention that increasing the middle range of jobs could be done by making it easier to acquire job skills. The problem is not so much increasing the skilled labor population but also increasing the incentive for employing these newly skilled laborers.
The American Jobs Machine: Is the new economy creating good jobs?
The title asks the question pertaining to the state of the nations attempt at creating good jobs. The article also discusses the base fundamentals on which the so called “American” way of creating more work. Which is completely purposeless, it’s capitalism at its best. In a sense it’s what Wal-Mart does, just on a much larger scale. The American way of employment growth is by “flexible labor markets, which allows employers to hire and fire relatively easily, reorganize employment structure in response to market conditions, and adjust wages as needed, especially in a downward direction.
If the goals of America are to improve the economy and at the same time create better jobs then we as Americans must go about it by different means. The goal is to ride the capitalism train till things turn around. This will eventually probably work, but as far as now is concerned it will continue to send this nations economy in a downward spiral. It’s already hard enough for individuals to get a steady job, and once they finally get one then they can be fired on a moments notice for almost anything The goal of capitalism is to make profit off of other individuals , and the name of the game is to do that at the cheapest price available. Therefore, take Wal-mart for example, they are known for having the cheapest prices from electronics to milk.. There whole philosophy is to get there lower level workers to do more for less. For example, there have been stories about workers getting shorted up to five to six hours pay and if they complain there fired. There able to do this by instilling fear within the work force. A person has a decent job and is afraid to lose it, therefore, they accept the mistreatment in order to continue to support themselves and or their families..
Now let’s factor in race and gender with regards to the economy situation. Minorities in general already have this stigma that the so called “man” is out to get them at any cost. For the fact that minorities represent a large number of the nations poverty. The problem of poverty in America continues to concern the working poor for the fact that they are working, but there working full-time in those types of jobs that pay below the poverty-line. The fact that they aren’t creating many lower- level types of jobs limits there opportunities to improve there job status as well as social status. So it’s already hard enough for Caucasian men to get a descent mid to upper level jobs. Then on top of that, when you factor in that minorities aren’t even in competition with the Caucasians. In fact it’s the white women who have begun to make strides in the economy. They have closed the gap in pay sensationally within the past decade.
So it is my belief that we are moving in the opposite direction of creating new jobs. In order to sucessfuly create new jobs we have to be willing to come half way. By coming half –way, one has to be willing to compromise. A comprise involves two or more parties each giving up something in order to come to an agreement. By that the people with the means of production would have to be willing to give up there get money by any means necessary mentality.So it is my belief that we are moving in the opposite direction of creating new jobs. In order to successfully create new jobs we have to be willing to come half way. By coming half –way, one has to be willing to compromise. A comprise involves two or more parties each giving up something in order to come to an agreement. By that the people with the means of production would have to be willing to give up there get money by any means necessary mentality. The whole capitalism theory is somewhat of a winner takes all system in which always shits on the “poor” guy. It’s pointless to create jobs in which hasn’t any job stability or anything of that nature. If a person with the means of production can hire and fire at will in order to get the most amount of work done at the lowest possible price without consequences then they are going to continue to exploit the system.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The Changing Face of Poverty & What Does it Mean to be Poor in America?
If you take a look at the statements that Blank mentions at the beginning, it would seem as if the answer to all the questions is true. However, they’re all false. I think we all perceive poverty and “poor” people as the statements that Blank had stated. These were things that were true in the 1960’s and I think it’s something that our society is still stuck on. We have this idea of what poverty is and who is poor but real poverty in America is a very heterogeneous and mixed group. The way the economy is going now, anyone can be at the poverty level at any time.
Like I said above, we have this idea about poverty and what it means to be poor. This group is extremely diverse not only in terms of race but also with age. Surprisingly, whites have the highest amount of people in poverty but this is only because whites are a bigger proportion of the population. The poor are black and white and Latino and Native American and every other race you can think of. Although one race may have a higher amount of people in poverty than the other, we can’t just focus on one group. We have to think that every ethnicity has “poor” people. Age is also varies in terms of poverty. We fail to remember that families with children with married couples can also be poor (40%). Poverty still remains high for children. This is because of the rise of single-mothers. A single mother with children has the highest probability of being poor. I completely agree with Blank on this because these days you can’t really afford anyting without two incomes coming in the house. How is a mother that has children going to be able to afford everything on their own? It will be very hard to have a good job to pay for bills, the house, most of the time childcare, food, etc.
We not only care who is poor and why they are poor but how long it takes them to escape poverty if they are ever able to. Those families that experience short-term poverty, we are less worried about. The families that experience long-term poverty are who we are worried about. These families experience its most constant effects and feel trapped as if they won’t ever escape poverty. Taxpayers are also worried about these long-term poverty experiences because their tax dollars are going to help these “poor” people. We all know that everyone who is on welfare doesn’t really need it. People take advantage of the government and become greedy. Some of these people are just lazy and don’t want to work. I mean, if I could get free money and not work that would be great! However, I couldn’t bring myself to stoop that low that I have to cheat the system to take away from those who actually need it.
Approximately half those that are ever experiencing poverty, will only have to deal with it for one to three years. About 5% are poor for ten or more years. According to Blank, changes in economics create more poverty than changes in family composition. No one wants to be poor, we’d all like to have money for the things we need and want. Personally, when I happen to see a homeless person on the street I always wonder how they ended up in that situation. You never know if it’s because of a decision they made or if it was a major negative change in their life. Especially with the way the economy is these days, anyone can end up on the streets.
Blank does a good job to uncover the stereotypes and explain the real idea of poverty in America. This article was a good way to show us not to judge the poor because it can happen to anyone. No one plans it and no one wants it.
Maya Federman: What Does It Mean to Be Poor in America?
The answer to this question is simply having cash income below the official poverty line for a given family size. There are seven categories that describe living in poverty: income sources, spending patterns, housing, consumer durables and utilities, crime and neighborhood, health and nutrition, and education. In the first four categories the results are presented by family characteristics. In the last two categories, the results are presented by the individual. Crime and neighborhood has measures of both family and individual characteristics.
The average poor person lives in a family whose income is about a sixth as much as the family income of the average nonpoor person. The nonpoor person usually receives most of their family income from wages, salaries, and self-employment earnings while most of the income from a poor family is from public assistance and welfare.
The nonpoor people will obviously have more money for owning a house than the poor. Seventy-eight percent of the nonpoor people live in homes that they own while only 41% of the poor own their houses. The poor are at a greater risk of being evicted from their home or apartment. These days, this isn’t just true about the “poor” people but also the “nonpoor” families. The way the economy is going, families are losing their homes left and right.
When it comes to utilities both the poor and nonpoor families have access to utilities. Any home or apartment will come with a stove and refrigerator. The only difference is the paying of the utility bills. The poor will have a harder time to pay for cable, water, and electricity.
The neighborhood you live in also has an affect on your safety. Those that live in a poor neighborhood are twice as likely to be victims of a violent crime. Poor mothers have a higher chance than the nonpoor mothers to experience problems in birth and pregnancy. When it comes to education, poor kids are more likely to have repeated a grade and to be expelled from school. However, the poor and nonpoor students both have high expectations that they will attend and graduate from college. Poor students and nonpoor students that actually attend either a 2- or 4- year college is 48% and 70% respectively.
The Changing Face of Poverty & What Does it Mean to be Poor in America?
When reading the true/false statements in the beginning of the article I thought true for almost all of them. I perceive poverty like the 1960’s. The book also contradicted itself and later stated some of those false statements as truths. For example it stated that a majority of those who receive welfare (AFDC) are single mothers with children. This is true, that proportionally to those that are poor it is a small number, but Mrs. Blank worded her statement to her point of view.
People who retired in 1980 received back what they paid into the program in less then 4 years. The government increases in SSI successfully decreased the number of elderly that are poor but will run out in the early 2000’s. Many people including myself have a misconception that poverty is synonymous with welfare. Welfare goes primarily to single mothers with children which is approximately 65% but that is only 25% of the poor. There are more white people in poverty but this is only because whites are a bigger proportion of the population. African Americans are more likely to be chronic poor. Two-thirds of all black people are poor for at least one year. Africans are more likely to be and stay poor. Tax payers don’t like the chronic poor. They believed that there money is being used on lazy people or people that are taking advantage of the system. Most poor only remain poor for one to three years. A majority of poor don’t live in ghettos. Poverty is almost invisible unless you’re talking about panhandlers and homeless. Since these people are most visible we assume most poor live here. The article gave the example of guessing teenagers income levels inside shopping malls. 90% of poor people and 75% of African American poor live outside of ghettos. Most people are never poor. For those who do become poor there are many reasons how/why people get in and out of poverty. The largest for in and out is the earning of the head of the household. There isn’t another large factor for why family fall into poverty. Minorities still face discrimination that limits wages and employment opportunities.
What Does it Mean to be Poor in America? – Maya Federman
There are seven categories that define poverty including: income sources, spending patterns, housing, consumer durables and utilities, crime and neighborhood, education. Poor children have a limited number of books. Children five to seven years old with less then 10 books are considered poor. The poor are more likely to repeat a grade and three times more likely to be expelled from a school. 96% of nonpoor students continue education and 90% are expected to graduate compared to poor student rates of 90% attending college and 83% graduating. The percentage of students of poor families attending college is a lot higher then I expected. It’s common sense that families and individuals with more money spend more money. Families make a substantial amount more then singles do ($8,501 vs. $55, 394). Most people regardless of income have the same access to utilities. For example 98% to 99.5% poor people have access to refrigerators and stoves. Only 3% of students in poor families have computers at home. Nonpoor families are three times more likely to own the house they live in. Only 51% of families that live in houses with two-parents own them. Poor families have a five times higher chance of eviction on their housing. Individuals that live in poor neighborhoods are twice as likely to be victims of violent crime. Poor mothers have 5.5 per 1,000 more infant deaths within the first year. This is related to poor prenatal care. Children under 18 years old have no noticeable difference in how often they go to a doctor per year.78% of nonpoor have insurance compared to 24% of poor.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Gender Gap and I'd rather be rich
This will be divided up into to 2 sections, the first section will touch base on “The gender pay gap” and the second section will touch base on “I’d rather be rich.
The author bases its figures off of “average hourly earnings of full-time workers” from data collected from the current population survey. The questions that are raised are, what role does gender discrimination play in determining today’s wage gap? And what other factors contribute to gender differences in wages? I feel as if the author did a mediocre job producing and analyzing the statistics. Especially when the raw data was taken and variables were controlled for, such as human capital, race, industry and occupation. To get a better understanding of the wage gap I believe instead of analyzing “full-time workers” the author needs to narrow it down more.
Please note this is for hypothetical purposes and these figures are not even remotely close to be correct. Say if in the U.S there were only 4 job categories nationwide: Doctor, Lawyer, Nurse, Teacher. Let’s also say that each job position had only 4 people holding a position. The doctor category had a 2 males working and 2 females working. The mean salary for males was 200,000 and the mean salary for females was 205,000. For the lawyer category there were 3 males and 1 female working, the males mean average was 150,000 and the female mean average was 145,000. The nurse category there was 3 females working and 1 male working. The females mean average was 40,000 and the males were 40,000. For the teacher category there were 2 males and 2 females working, the male average was 45,000 and the female average was 46,000.
By breaking it down like this, I believe a person can get a better understanding of the wage gap, technically in some areas the females make more than the men. But then the author could then control for those variables. Now for the above variables given, lets combine all job categories together for males and females separately. I will do this by multiplying the average by how many workers of that sex are working, then add them up and find the mean.
Males- Doctor-200,000 X2= 400,000, Lawyer- 150,000X3=450,000, Nurse-40,000, Teacher-90,000. Females- Doctor-400,000, Lawyer-150,000, Nurse-40,000=120,000, Teacher-92,000. The average for the males is 122,500 and for females it is 95,250. See now a larger disparity can be seen. So I could conclude the gender wage gap is 27250.
I believe that if the author really wanted to get a hold of the gender wage gap, he would break down the job categories; I understand that he limited the income in his stats, 2 dollars to 200 dollars, but I don’t think that was enough. Or spend time investigating the disparities on why maybe females are not working jobs that pay a lot of money, or even the glass ceiling, then maybe that will explain his “unexplained” wage gap.
Now for this next section “I’d rather be rich” I understand what he’s trying to get at. He does a great job showing the stats, with the net worth, who owns the top part of the wealth. But his kind of stuff really does not interest me one bit. I really don’t care if someone is super wealthy and owns a shit load of things. I just want a normal everyday life. Also in this article I really don’t know what the author is trying to get at, sure he states that “the distribution is extremely unequal,” but I feel like he is talking but not really doing the walking so to speak. I was hoping for an explanation or a punch line somewhere, but I felt deprived of that. He also went into racial inequality of wealth, but failed to tell why that happened too. Or maybe this article was strictly for statistics and not to come up with a theory, but either way I found this one plain and dry.
Conley: Forty Acres and a Mule - Biskner
This article addresses the issue of African Americans problems with accumulating property through institutional racism in the housing market and stereotypes. Renting or owning your house plays a significant role in how much net worth a person can accumulate. This article presents all the problems that African Americans have in accumulating net worth because of institutional racism in the housing markets and stereotyping that has had a historical trend.
He begins to discuss how African Americans after they were freed were promised a mule and forty acres as part of reparations for slavery this did not happen. After the Civil War, white farmers in the south would refuse to sell their farms to blacks even if the whites were not able to plant crops themselves. This idea led to “sharecropping” for African Americans or working and running the farm but not owing any capital….the whites did. What were African Americans supposed to do walk out? They lived off the land and needed its resources to survive while the owners of the land took a percentage of their earnings. Sharecropping lead to black farmers unable to save any portion of their income or even buy some necessities.
Segregation caused by institutions still exists today. Most Americans attempt to own homes in order to accumulate equity. Renting a home or apartment does not allow a person to save as much money as if they owned a home and yet many African Americans live in the inner city where renting is a popular theme. Home ownership in the U.S. is determined by race and place. A large portion of minorities live in the inner city which is filled with abandon buildings, violence, and other factors that decrease property value. Property values often dictate how much money schools receive through property taxes. The place where a family lives determines their “life chances” which could have a long lasting affect on how successful a person can become. An example of this would be how crummy the Detroit Public School System is compared to Grosse Point.
Residential segregation leads to an uneven proportion of minorities living in the suburbs and a chance to own their own home which decreases their chance to accumulate equity. Housing in African American neighborhoods have low value increase compared to white neighborhoods. And if an African American family does manage to buy a home their home is worth less than that of a white family. The reason this occurs is because the dominant group in society (whites) determine the actually value of the house. This also leads to redlining in neighborhoods, stereotyping that leads to” white flight” and problems with acquiring loans in order to get houses in better areas.
I feel that Conley’s article speaks the truth on how housing segregation has a significant impact on the ability of African Americans and other oppressed minorities to accumulate net worth. He gives some interesting statistics about the tremendous gap difference between the incomes and assets of blacks and whites. Overall, I think that this article main point needs to be better known and not just dusted under the carpet.