1. SOC 312: American Society
Stratification

2. Stratification Major area in sociology in the U.S.
How do we explain the nature and types of social inequality
interpersonal: deference or discrimination
group: in-group/out-group behavior
organizational: distribution of persons/rewards over positions
institutional: enduring race, class, and gender inequality

3. History
Earliest theory: Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore, "Some Principles of Stratification," ASR 10 (April 1945), pp
But problem of inequality dates back to Emile Durkheim, Division of Labor in Society (1893)
modern (late 19th C) industrial society: achieved inequality
replacing traditional society of inherited (ascribed) status

4. Durkheim (cont.) Inequality was inevitable but nature was variable
achieved corresponded to talents and inclinations: functional in modern industrial society
functional not because of efficiency (Herbert Spencer and Adam Smith)
served moral function: organic solidarity

5. Modern Division of Labor
could maintain society
reinforce individual commitment to collective enterprise
reaffirm sense of belonging to larger community of society
regulate behavior: occupational/industrial groups establish and enforce standards/ethics

6. Durkheim Div of Labor (cont.)
Thus occupational groups and modern division of labor might replace functions of family and religion in traditional society
Durkheim later realized that both religion and family (and mechanical solidarity) continued to serve important/critical function
But saw predominance of differentiation and organic solidarity

7. Durkheim’s Functional Model of the Division of Labor and Mechanical or Organic Solidarity-
Division
Of Labor +
Solidarity -
Increasing
Social Density

8. Durkheim (cont.)
Potential conflict between achieved and ascribed status
ascribed: inherited; sustained simple, undifferentiated society
achieved: sustained modern differentiated society
Impossible to eliminate inheritance
But need to minimize its effect—even affirmative action, for moral/economic viability

9. Davis and Moore (1945) Rooted in functional theory/Durkheim assumed
some occupations more important
some occupations more difficult to fill
talent required
unpleasant nature of work
years of preparation required
These occupations need to confer higher status (honor and money) to attract best and brightest

10. Davis and Moore’s Functional Model of Stratification- +
Recruitment
Of Best and
Brightest
Hierarchy
of Rewards -
External
Threat

11. Cold War (1956-1989) Competition between U.S. and U.S.S.R.
military
industrial
technological
ideological
U.S.S.R. launched Sputnik
- inspired space race
- tons of money for eduction
- "rocket science"

12. Status Attainment and Occupational Prestige
Weber: status was honor bestowed by community of likeminded persons
celebrated particular lifestyle (e.g. Green or Hip Hop)
honored the exemplary taste, virtue, dignity or style of those who followed this lifestyle (gourmet, Catholic, recovering alcoholic)
gave awards, prizes or simply "esteem"

13. Weber on Class and Status
Weber viewed status (lifestyle) and class (life chances) as distinct but related social interests
metro-sexuals honor a particular status
which requires a minimal standard of living (class-based requirement)
but not all middle class people are or can be metro-sexuals

14. Weber on Party (power)
Weber viewed party as a third independent or at least distinct social base for interest group formation
parties are actively in pursuit of power (ability to achieve goals despite resistance)
sometimes based on class interests
sometimes based on status interests
sometimes mixture of both
sometimes neither: purely political

15. Status Attainment
status attainment literature in the U.S. in 1950s and 1960s
not well rooted in classical theory (or any theory)
used "status" to refer to prestige that was accorded a particular position or occupation
developed empirically rather than theoretically
inductive statistics
rather than deductive theory

16. Occupational Mobility Tables
Beginning with the Warner, Yankee City Studies
sociologists in U.S. have viewed statification by ill-defined social classes
middle class versus working class (Lynds in Middletown)
upper, middle, lower (and intermediate categories) used by Warner et al

17. Featherman and Hauser
Used manual/nonmanual occupations as major categories
created categories of upper and lower manual and nonmanual, as opposed to farm
used these categories to study occupational mobility, father to son

18. Son's Current Occupation
Outflow Mobility, Father to Son Occupation, 1962 and 1973 (Kerbo, Sixth Edition (2006), p. 373)
Father's
Occup
Son's Current Occupation
Up NonM
Lo NonM
UpManual
LoManual
Farm
Total
1962 (N=10,550)
Up NM
56.8%
16.7%
11.5%
13.8%
1.2%
100%
Low NM
43.1%
23.7%
14.6%
17.0%
1.7%
Up Man
24.7%
28.6%
28.8%
Low Man
17.9%
14.8%
21.9%
43.4%
1.9%
10.3%
12.3%
19.3%
35.9%
22.2%
24.5%
15.9%
20.2%
31.7%
7.7%
1973 (N=20,850)
59.4%
11.4%
12.8%
15.5%
.9%
45.1%
16.6%
16.4%
20.7%
30.9%
12.2%
27.7%
28.1%
22.9%
12.1%
23.9%
40.1%
1.0%
9.0%
37.1%
14.5%
31.2%
11.8%
31.0%
4.1% 1%

19. Featherman and Hauser (cont.)
the diagonal indicates the inheritance of occupation: 57% of sons of upper non-manual fathers find themselves in upper non-manual
these tend to be the largest numbers (only 10% of farmers' sons in upper non-manual)
above the diagonal is downward mobility
below the diagonal is upward mobility
lots of upward mobility, increasing

20. Blau and Duncan's Occupational Prestige Scores
Peter Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan (1967)
developed ratio (or, at least, interval) scale for occupational prestige
asked people to rate 45 occupations: excellent, good, fair, poor; calculated % rated excellent or good (Y)
matched occupations with 1950 census and computed percent of people in that occupation with high school or more education (X1) and percent in that occupation earning $3500 plus (X2)

21. Predicting Occupational Prestige
Predicted
Prestige
Score: Yp
High
Yo observed values
... .
Prestige of
Occupation Y
low
High
Average income and education of occupation (X1+X2)

22. Blau and Duncan using ordinary least squares regression
predict prestige for occupations that were not among the 45
using the percent in each occupation with high school plus (x1) and percent earning $3500 plus (x2)
Yp=a+B1X1+B2X2+e
the line is drawn to minimize the error:
∑(Yo-Yp)2/N (N is the number of observations)

23. Blau and Duncan (cont.)
the OLS model fit the data extra-ordinarily well (for social science)
Multiple R=.91
that means that 83% of the variance in occupational prestige was explained by education and income (as measured in this model)
this was an amazing feat, which made Blau and Duncan famous

24. Blau and Duncan (cont.)
they used this model to predict prestige scores for every occupation in the U.S. census
coding education and income
predicting occupational prestige
they then used this wonderful ratio scale variable to predict mobility from father to son
this became the standard model of status attainment (and is still popular)

25. Blau and Duncan's Path Model (Kerbo, p. 394)X X
.859
Son's
Education
Father's
Education
.310
.753
.394
Son's
Occupation
.279
.440
.516
.115
.281
Father's
Occupation
Son's
First Job
.224
.818 X

26. The Wisconsin School social psychologists at U. Wisconsin
attempted to specify the effects of individual and group differences
included IQ and academic performance
included evaluation by significant others (teachers, etc.)
including attitudes (educational and occupational aspirations)

27. Figure 12-7. Wisconsin School Path Model (Kerbo, p. 396)X X
.859
.778
Occupational
Aspirations
Parental
SES
.246
.441
Significant
Others
.152
Occupational
Status
.227
.179
.522
.320
Educational
Attainment
.288
.261
.508
.457
.218
Mental
Ability
Academic
performance
.589
Educational
Aspirations
.218
.654
.808
.792
.768 X X X X
.627

28. Operationalization
occupational status (Blau & Duncan) (parents average occ and ed)
IQ measured by standard WI test
aspiration (occ/ed hope in 1957: 7 years earlier)
peer influence: perceived parental and teacher encouragement for college and friends college plans
academic performance is ranking in hs class

29. Critiques of Status Attainment
Hauser and his students: occupational mobility largely determined by changes in occupational structure
1950s and 1960s: creation of well-paid jobs in manufacturing increased mobility to upper white collar (nonmanual) and blue collar (manual)
1970s and 1980s: relative decline of manufactures and rise of sales and service decreased mobility: more lower white and blue collar jobs

30. Son's Current Occupation
Outflow Mobility, Father to Son Occupation, 1962 and 1973 (Kerbo, p. 373)
Father's
Occup
Son's Current Occupation
Up NonM
Lo NonM
UpManual
LoManual
Farm
Total
1962 (N=10,550)
Up NM
56.8%
16.7%
11.5%
13.8%
1.2%
100%
Low NM
43.1%
23.7%
14.6%
17.0%
1.7%
Up Man
24.7%
28.6%
28.8%
Low Man
17.9%
14.8%
21.9%
43.4%
1.9%
10.3%
12.3%
19.3%
35.9%
22.2%
24.5%
15.9%
20.2%
31.7%
7.7%
1973 (N=20,850)
59.4%
11.4%
12.8%
15.5%
.9%
45.1%
16.6%
16.4%
20.7%
30.9%
12.2%
27.7%
28.1%
22.9%
12.1%
23.9%
40.1%
1.0%
9.0%
37.1%
14.5%
31.2%
11.8%
31.0%
4.1% 1%

31. Ross Stoltzenberg and Students
Argued that both industry and occupation constrain workers and their ability to increase their earnings
Return on education
Managers and professionals
Research and development
Versus line workers in manufacturing
Return on experience
White collar/managerial-professional versus manual

32. Career Earnings earnings earnings Years of education
white
collar
white
collar
earnings
earnings
blue
collar
blue
collar
Years of education
Years of experience

34. Randy Hodson and students
Labor markets are segmented: dual economy
Core sector: large firms, large market shares, large and stable/predictable profits, offer high pay and benefits, high returns on education and experience
Peripheral sector: small firms, small market shares, small and unstable profits, low pay and no benefits or job security, low returns on education and experience

35. Erik Olin Wright and students
Status attainment and labor market theories ignore exploitation
Value of worker’s labor is appropriated
Directly, as profit (or reinvested in capital) by employer
Indirectly, as surplus wages/bonuses, by managers and supervisors
Employers and managers earn more and receive greater return for education

36. Wright and Perrone (1977) earnings Years of education employers
high
earnings
managers
workers
low
high
Years of education

37. Erik Olin Wright and students
Need to look at Marxist class categories
Need to look at movement of capital and labor
In and out of industries
In pursuit of windfall/stable profits
In pursuit of high wages/stable employment
As Hogan (1990) argued, industrial frontiers offer high risk/high profits
Entrepreneurial labor and capital absorbs risks
Establishes reliable rates of return (or not)

38. Hogan (1990) continued
Reliable rates of return (not large but reliable profits) attract big capital
Economies of scale yield higher rates of return (bigger potential profits)
Only if rate of return is reliable
Otherwise excessive overhead and sunk costs make it hard to respond to market fluctuations
Which is why entrepreneurs tend to be small scale and are able to exploit industrial frontiers

39. Marxist Perspective
Big (corporate/monopoly) capital and big (unionized) labor yield reliable profits and wages in what Hodson calls the “core” sector
But proletarianization reduces skill and return on skill as big capital replaces skilled labor with machines and unskilled machine minders

40. Marxist Perspective (continued)
The extent to which there are opportunities for higher wages or better jobs depends on the rate of
emerging industrial frontiers (rocket science in the 1950s, computers in the 1970s, micro computers in the 1980s, the internet.com world of the 21st century)
and proletarianization within industrial sectors

41. Wright and his students
Wright and Perrone (1977) also looked at race and gender differences
In earnings
Within class
Return to education within class
Findings
Black and white male managers: intercept but not slope differences
White women managers: intercept and slope differences

42. Wright and Perrone (1977) earnings Years of education
white male mangers
high
black male managers
earnings
white female managers
low
high
Years of education

44. Featherman and Hauser : Black Mobility, 1962 and 1973
Virtually no inheritance of occupation for blacks in 1962
Contrast to whites (see above)
Virtually all black men in lower manual occs
Some improvement in 1973

45. Son's Current Occupation
Table Black Outflow Mobility, Father to Son Occupation, 1962 and 1973 (Kerbo , p. 381)
Father's
Occup
Son's Current Occupation
Up NonM
Lo NonM
UpManual
LoManual
Farm
Total
1962
Up NM
13.3%
10.0%
13.7%
63.0%
0.0%
100%
Low NM
8.3%
14.0%
63.7%
Up Man
8.2%
10.9%
67.0%
3.0%
Low Man
6.7%
9.1%
11.1%
71.0%
2.1%
1.2%
5.4%
7.1%
66.3
19.9%
4.5%
7.7%
9.4%
67.9%
10.5%
1973
43.9%
11.8%
36.0%
19.5%
20.8%
13.4%
45.5%
.8%
16.3
13.9%
15.8%
53.7%
0.2%
12.1
12.2%
61.0%
1.0%
5.1
6.8%
16.5%
63.2%
8.4%
11.6
10.8%
14.7%
59.4%
3.5% 1%

46. Race and Gender Gaps Many studies, 1977-2009
racial differences (black/white male earnings) interpreted/specified by education and occupation/class
gender differences remain after controlling for education and occupation/class
women exceeding men on education and gaining access to managerial/professional jobs
gender gap in earnings is shrinking

47. Progress in Reducing Race and Gender Earnings Gaps, 1974-2004
Gender/racial gap and measurement biases
include all workers, or fulltime, year-round
Mean versus median earnings
Generally, gender gap declines and racial gap remains the same
white women earning more than black men? (depends on measurement)

48. Mean and Median Annual Income in 2004 for Fulltime, Year-round Workers: White and Black Men and Women (with gaps: percent of white male earnings)
White
Men
White Women
Black
Women
Median
$46,986
$34,878
(74%)
$31,732
(68%)
$29,145
(62%)
Mean
$62,755
$42,504
$40,078
(64%)
$33,831
(54%) N
41,977
29,121
5,681
5,960
Source: Richard Hogan and Carolyn C. Perrucci, “Gender, Race, and Income Gaps,” in Robert Perrucci and Carolyn Perrucci (eds.), Transformation of Work in the New Economy (Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company, 2007)

49. Mean Income (in 2003 dollars) for All White and Black Male and Female Workers (With Income Gap: percent of White Males)
Year
White
Males
White Females
Black
Females
2004
(gap)
$46,868
$25,979 (55%)
$29,880
(64%)
$22,581
(48%)
1994
$40,334
$20,981
(52%)
$24,817
(62%)
$18,353
(46%)
1984
$34,925
$16,519
(47%)
$20,419
(58%)
$14,527
(42%)
1974
$33,842
$13,813
(41%)
$20,616
(61%)
$12,266
(36%)
Source: Hogan and Perrucci 2006 (census.gov, 2005)

50. Racial and Gender Gaps (Compared to White Men) in Mean Income, 1974-2004
Source: Hogan and Perrucci 2006 (census.gov, 2005)

51. Race and Gender Gaps (conclude)
women's irregular labor force participation
caregivers for family
miss on-the-job training and mentoring
glass ceiling or discrimination
women steered to clerical, service, domestic
denied jobs in mfg, construction, transportation, and skilled trades and crafts
women occupy lower tier in all industries: el. ed, admin. prof., Liberal Arts,

52. Erik Olin Wright (1997)
women have access to managerial and professional positions
but don't earn as much as comparable men
compared to black men, more self-employed, expert workers, and unskilled workers; less skilled workers and expert managers
most women are unskilled workers

53. Wright (Class Counts 1997, p. 68) Class by Race and Sex
White Males
White Females
Black Males
Black Females
Capitalist
3.0%
0.7% 0%
Small employer
8.2%
4.9%
1.3%
Petit Bourgeois
6.4%
8.8%
3.6%
[Tot Self Empl
17.6%
14.4%
1.3%]
Expert Mgrs
8.5%
2.8%
5.1%
Skilled Mgrs
5.7%
2.4%
2.0%
Unskilled Mgrs
2.3%
3.9%
1.0%
6.3%
Expert Super
4.2%
1.7%
Skilled Super
7.9%
4.3%
7.5%
Unskilled Supr
5.0%
9.3%
4.6%
7.7%
Experts
3.2%
3.5%
2.9%
1.8%
Skilled Worker
17.4%
23.3%
10.9%
Unskilled Wkr
28.2%
50.0%
47.7%
68.4%

54. Hogan and Perrucci looking at older persons and retirees
substantial gender and racial differences in employment earnings from longest held job
effect of self-employment (for whites)
especially for professionals (for whites)
effect of marriage
employment (white men)
retirement (white women)
gender gap greater in employment earnings
racial gap greater in retirement earnings

55. Tilly, Durable Inequality (1998)
Categorical Inequality: unequal relations between mutually exclusive categories of individuals: "black/white, male/female, married/unmarried, and citizen/noncitizen" (p. 8).
relationships rather than positions or distribution of resources
Exploitation: derriving profit or benefit from relations through which "powerful, connected people command resources from which they draw significantly increased returns by coordinating the efforts of outsiders whom they exclude from the full value added by that effort" (p. 10).

56. Tilly (cont)
Opportunity Hoarding: limiting access to the potentially profitable: means through which "members of a categorically bounded network acquire access to a resource that is valuable, renewable, subject to monopoly, supportive of network activities, and enhanced by the network's modus operandi" (p.10).
Tilly argues that familiar and enduring relations of social inequality, including “class, gender, race, ethnicity” (p. 4), although qualitatively different, are established through "exploitation" and "opportunity hoarding" and then generalized through "emulation" and institutionalized through "adaptation."

57. Applying Tilly to the Analysis of Class, Race, and Gender Inequality (Hogan 2001)
Class, Race, Gender, and Patronage Relations Distinguished by Mechanism of Surplus Appropriation and Locus of Relations
Locus of
Relations
Mechanism of Surplus Appropriation
Exploitation
Opportunity
Hoarding
Production
Class
Patronage
Reproduction
Gender
Race

58. How Do We Explain Inequality?
Functional
necessary but variable
ascribed/inherited
achieved
status attainment
Weberian/Labor market
inevitable but multi-faceted: class, status, party
unequal distribution of resources
competition and hoarding

59. How Do We Explain Inequality? (cont.)
Marxist
imposed and unnecessary/unnatural
exploitation of labor
accumulation of capital
investment/accumulation
frontiers
proletarianization
Tilly offers synthesis or combination of Weberian and Marxist
Oliver and Shapiro offer a Weberian model of inequality
but argue that white hoard wealth
focus on racial gap in wealth rather than income

60. Oliver and Shapiro
There is little racial difference in income, once we control for occupation, education, and marital status
racial earnings gap for dual-income couples is only 85%
typo in table 5.2 (p. 99)
black white collar income should be $24,320
so ratio is 70%
but racial gap is wealth is huge

61. Oliver and Shapiro (cont.)
racial gap in wealth is huge even for
upper middle class professionals
married
dual income
children of middle class blacks
blacks lack assets, especially financial assets (capital)

62. Oliver and Shapiro (cont.)
racial gap cannot be explained by status attainment models
high status blacks lack assets
no evidence this is due to differences (p. 138)
in savings
In consumption
much of difference is due to housing values
FHA. real estate, banking practices
white flight and discrimination

63. Oliver and Shapiro (cont.)
indirect evidence of inherited inequality (pp )
Hogan and Perrucci (1998) cite Smith (1993), "for every dollar of inherited wealth, total net worth increases by 36¢
estimate that black inheritance is only 18% of white inheritance (on average)

64. Oliver and Shapiro (cont.)
Also argue against Weberian labor market, life-chances, competition model
use occupational mobility tables (p. 160)
whites more likely to experience upward mobility in upper nonmanual class (.364 from LBC exceeds occupational inheritance of UWC blacks)
blacks more likely to experience downward mobility (.234 LBC black children of UWC parents)
claim discrimination at work; lack of access to quality education and social networks (p. 162)

65. Oliver and Shapiro (cont.)
challenge Marxist or class approach
use Weberian/Hauser mobility model
wealth/income for mobile (p. 166)
income is "earned" while wealth is "transmitted" (p )
but this finding does not hold up for blacks (p. 169)

66. Median Income and Net Worth for White Families and Other Families in 2001(From Dollars & Sense, The Wealth Inequality Reader, 2004, p. 14)