1. Sociology: Your Compass for a New World Robert J. Brym and John Lie Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning © 2003

2. Social Stratification: Global and American Perspectives Chapter 7

3. Income Inequality WFor the Past Quarter of a Century, Income Inequality Has Been Increasing in the U.S. WOf All the Highly Industrialized Countries, Income Inequality Is Highest in the U.S.

4. 1974 1998 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1998a). The Distribution of Total National Income Among Households, U.S.A., 1974 & 1998 Change, 1974-98 Bottom 1/5 -0.8 Middle 3/5 -5.3 Top 1/5 +6.1

5. Household Income Inequality and Low Income, Selected Countries,1992-97 Gini Index Source: Luxembourg Income Study (1999a; 1999b). Country Sweden China Canada France Germany Italy U.K. U.S.A. Russia 7.2 ? 14.4 n.a. 13.7 18.7 19.5 26.2 31.3 Percent of population with low income

6. Inequality and Development WInequality Increases As Societies Develop From the Foraging to the Early Industrial Stage. WWith Increased Industrialization, Inequality Declines. WInequality Then Increases in the Early Stages of Postindustrialism.

7. Inequality and Development Type of Society Level of Inequality Foraging Horticultural/Pastoral Agrarian Industrial Postindustrial High Low ?

8. Marx Marx’s Theory of Stratification WDistinguishes Classes on the Basis of Their Role in the Productive Process WPredicts Inevitable Conflict Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat WPredicts the Birth of a Communist System

9. Weber Weber’s Theory of Stratification WDistinguishes Four Main Classes on the Basis of Their “Market Relations” WArgues That Class Consciousness May Develop Under Some Circumstances but Is by No Means Inevitable WEmphasizes Prestige and Power As Important Non-economic Sources of Inequality

10. Weber’s Stratification Scheme High Low Large Small Large Number of People Rewards class 4status group 4party 4 class 3 status group 3 party 3 class 2 status group 2 party 2 class 1 status group 1 party 1 Income,education, etc.Prestige Power

11. Davis and Moore Davis and Moore’s Functional Theory of Stratification Argues That WSome Jobs Are More Important Than Others WPeople Have to Make Sacrifices to Train for Important Jobs WInequality Is Required to Motivate People to Undergo These Sacrifices and Is in This Sense Functional

12. Blau and Duncan WBlau and Duncan View the Stratification System As a Ladder With Hundreds of Occupational Ranks. WRank Is Determined by the Income and Prestige Associated With Each Occupation. WThey Argue That the U.S. Enjoys an Achievement-based Stratification System.

13. Blau and Duncan’s Model of Occupational Achievement Father’s years Respondent’s years of education of education SEI of father’s SEI of respondent’s occupation first occupation SEI of respondent’s current occupation

14. Wright WWright Distinguishes Three Classes of Property Owners WBased on Capitalization and Number of Employees. WNine Classes of Non-owners of Property WBased on Skill Levels and Organizational Assets

15. Goldthorpe WGoldthorpe distinguishes classes on the basis of their “employment relations” and then makes finer distinctions W Economic sector, W Skill, W Etc

16. Prestige and Power WPeople Often Engage in Conspicuous Consumption, Waste, and Leisure to Signal Their Position in the Social Hierarchy. WPolitics Often Influences the Shape of Stratification Systems by Changing the Distribution of Income, Welfare Entitlements, and Property Rights.

17. Class Consciousness WMost Americans Are Aware of the Existence of the Class System and Their Place in It WBelieve That Large Inequalities Are Unnecessary to Achieve National Prosperity WBelieve Inequality Persists Because It Benefits the Advantaged While the Disadvantaged Don’t Join Together to Change Things WDisapprove of Governments Lowering Inequality.

18. Poverty Rate, Individuals, U.S.A., 1959-98 (in percent) Year Poverty Rate Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1999g). President Johnson declares “War on Poverty” Ronald Reagan elected President

19. Poverty in the U.S.A., 1998 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1999d). central city suburbs non-metropolitan single female head married couple black hispanic non-hispanic white under 18 18-64 65+ asian, pacific islander Percent poor