The United States is one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations in the world, yet many of its citizens are immersed in poverty. This would be expected in a caste system, but in a society that boasts the ideals of social mobility and achieved status, this suggests a contradiction. There are many social classes within the United States, but according to the culture, each citizen has ample opportunity and ability to increase or decrease his or her social standing. This is not entirely true. Society’s structure perpetuates the cycle of poverty. Consequently, those located on the lower rungs of the social class ladder find it exceedingly difficult to climb up into the higher classes.
Social class is ascribed at birth. Each person is born into his or her parent’s status. Although no one in the United States has a choice as to which class he or she is born into, in theory each person does have the ability to move up or down the class ladder based on his or her achievements. There are many theories as to what determines social class. Three prominent sociologists, Weber, Marx and Wright, have emerged with the most widely accepted views. According to Henslin, Max Weber defined social class as “a large group of people who rank closely to one another in wealth, power, and prestige. These three elements separate people into different lifestyles, give them different chances in life, and provide them with distinct ways of looking at the self and the world” (184). Karl Marx, on the other hand, believed that there was only one factor-the means of production--in determining social class (Henslin 163). He believed that the “people (the bourgeoisie) either own the means of production or they (the proletariat) work for those who do.” He viewed the bourgeoisie as domineering and unjust. He also believed that “when the workers realize that capitalists are their common source of oppression, they will unite and throw off the chains of their oppressors…they will usher in a classless society” (Henslin 163-64). Eric Olin Wright added to Marx’s model. In addition to the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, Wright added the petty bourgeoisie (Graham). He set up his model in the form of a triangle. He said that in between the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie fall small employers. In between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat fall managers. Lastly, he said that the semi-autonomous fall between the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie (Graham).
More recently, two sociologists, Dennis Gilbert and Joseph Kahl, developed a class model specifically for capitalist countries such as the U.S. (Henslin 192). They divided the population into six categories. The first and most wealthy is the capitalist class. This class is composed of people who graduate from the most prestigious universities such as Yale and Harvard (Henslin 193). Capitalists are usually investors and heirs, but a few executives do fit into this category. These people make $500,000 plus a year and comprise only one percent of the population (Henslin 193). In 1979, the capitalist class held twenty-two percent of the nation’s wealth; in 1992, it possessed forty-two percent ("Up, Down and Standing Still"). The second richest class is the upper-middle class. The people in this class usually have college degrees with postgraduate study and are typically professionals and upper managers (Henslin 193). They earn on average $90,000 plus a year and consist of fourteen percent of the population. The next class is known as the lower-middle class. This class has at least a high school diploma and may have some college education or an apprenticeship. The lower-middle class encompasses thirty percent of the population and consists of semi-professionals, lower managers, craftspeople and foremen, who typically earn $40,000 a year. The fourth class is labeled the working class. The people in this class usually have a high school degree and are likely to be factory workers, clerical workers, retail sales people, and low paid craftspeople. They earn approximately $30,000 a year and compose thirty percent of the population (Henslin 193).
The next two classes are those who fall below the poverty line. “The U.S. government assumes that poor families spend one-third of their income on food and then multiplies a low-cost food budget by 3;” those lower than this are considered to be below the poverty line (Henslin 201). Poverty guidelines are different from the rest of the United States for Alaska and Hawaii (2000 HHS Poverty Guidelines). The average percent of families in the U.S. who live in poverty is thirteen and two-tenths (Poverty). The highest percentage being twenty-two and four-tenths in New Mexico, the lowest, eight and four-tenths in New Hampshire (Poverty). The fifth class is the working poor. The average person in this class has some high school education. This class consists of laborers, service workers and low-paid sales people, who earn approximately $18,000 a year and encompass twenty-two percent of the population (Henslin 193). A family is classified as working poor if at least one member of the household works outside the home for at least twenty-seven weeks in twelve months (Federman). The working poor spend approximately thirty percent of their income on shelter and utilities, twenty percent on food, and eighteen percent on transportation (Federman). In society’s eyes, the working poor are in poverty through no fault of their own (Henslin 205). The last class in Gilbert and Kahl’s model is labeled the underclass or the non-working poor. The people in this class are typically high school dropouts and are unemployed or part-time workers on welfare. They make on average $10,000 a year and compose three percent of the population (Henslin 193). The underclass spends approximately forty percent of their income on shelter and utilities, thirty percent on food, and six percent on transportation (Federman). In society’s eyes, the underclass are those who deserve to be poor (Henslin 205). They “are viewed as having brought on their own poverty” through laziness, unwed motherhood, and alcohol and drug abuse (Henslin 205). In reality, sixty-five percent of the underclass do not work because they are caring for a family member and eighteen percent because of illness (Federman). An additional class, which is typically considered to be below the social class ladder, is the homeless (Henslin 195). They do not have a consistent means of income, and they lack almost all material items that the rest of society considers vital.
Social mobility is the capability of an individual to move up or down the class ladder based on achieved characteristics. Because education is linked to social class, social mobility is a major force that drives people to go far in school and to work hard (Henslin 162). Unfortunately, income inequality is increasing but social mobility is not ("Up, Down and Standing Still"). Forty percent of people do not move up or down the social ladder. Even though “65% of white American men who turned 21 before 1980 had reached middle-class earnings (defined as twice the poverty level) by the age of 30, only 47% of those who turned 21 after 1980 had managed to do so. For blacks the respective percentages were 29% and 19%” ("Up, Down and Standing Still"). Another interesting fact set forth by New York University economist Edward Wolff, is that the “top 20 percent of Americans account for more than 100 percent of the total growth in wealth [in America] from 1983 to 1997 while the bottom 80 percent lost 7 percent” (Zuckerman 108).
Social class affects all aspects of a person’s life. In some cases, involving the capitalist and upper-middle classes, the effects are positive. A person is able to learn, grow, and get ahead in life. In other cases, involving the working poor, underclass and homeless, the effects are often negative. This is unfortunate considering that the working poor, underclass, and homeless comprise much more of the population than the capitalist and upper-middle classes.
The first and primary area in which social class is a significant factor is in education. The reason for this is “because schools are financed largely by local property taxes, wealthier communities are able to offer higher salaries and attract more qualified teachers, offer more specialized and advanced courses, purchase newer texts and equipment, and thereby provide their children better education” (Kozol 343). Jonathan Kozol performed an interesting case study on the issue of education. He traveled around the nation to observe the conditions of schools in poor, middle-class, and wealthy communities. What he found is astounding. In East St. Louis, one third of the community’s inhabitants live on less than $7,500 a year; seventy-five percent survive on welfare. The city is clouded by fumes from vents and smokestacks of chemical plants, thus causing the city to have one of the highest rates of child asthma in America. There are only 230 employed residents of East St. Louis due to downsizing (Kozol 343-44).
Kozol visited Martin Luther King, Jr. High School in East St. Louis (343). Sewage repeatedly backs up in the high school, usually in the food preparation areas. The laboratory for the science classes is thirty to fifty years out of date and does not have running water. The only history book that contains even a slight allusion to black concerns was written in 1967, and is entitled The American Negro. The typewriters (not computers) used for typing class do not work. The football field does not even have goal posts, the team has not had new jerseys in nine years, and the football coach must buy the footballs with his own money (Kozol 346-49).
In contrast, a lovely campus greeted Kozol when he visited a school in Rye, New York (349). This school provides its students with a spacious lounge, ninety-six computers, advanced placement courses, and various foreign languages. The funding per-pupil is $12,000. Kozol engaged a classroom of eleventh and twelfth grade students in a discussion about equality and race. The idea of education inequality was mentioned, and many of the students seemed to find this unfair, but when approached with a few alternatives, including busing students in from poorer areas or having even distribution of tax dollars to all schools, the students quickly rallied against this. Their most voiced argument was, “I don’t see how that benefits me” (Kozol 350-51).
Federman sums up the negative effects of social class fairly well in saying that “poor children have higher rates of various health problems, inferior housing, inferior schools, less access to computers and educational materials at home, inferior childcare, higher rates of child abuse, higher rates of parental substance abuse, more frequent moves, more exposure to toxic chemicals and pollution, [and] higher rates of lead poisoning.”
In the midst of America’s dim, obscure and vague claim to being the land of opportunity stand the lucid and ever-present poverty-stricken citizens. They have been repeatedly struck down by the system while their combatants have been elevated, thus creating a great chasm of income inequality between the two. Perhaps in years to come, Marx’s vision of the proletariat’s rebellion will occur after all.
Federman, Maya, et al. “What does it mean to be poor in America?” Monthly Labor Review (May 1996): 3-15. Online. INFOTRAC: Expanded Academic ASAP. 27 Mar. 2000.
Graham, Robert J. “Social Class in the U.S.” Class lecture. Sociology 200B. Lee U, Cleveland. 18 Feb. 2000.
Henslin, James M. Essentials of Sociology. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn, 1998.
Kozol, Jonathan. “Savage Inequalities.” Down to Earth Sociology. Ed. James M. Henslin. New York: Free, 1999. 343-51.
Poverty 1998. U.S. Census Bureau. 30 Sept. 1999 http://www.census.gov/ftp/pub/hhes/ poverty98/pv98state.html.
The 2000 HHS Poverty Guidelines. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/00poverty.htm.
“Up, Down and Standing Still; Mobility in America.” The Economist (US) 24 (Feb. 1996): 30-2. Online. INFOTRAC: Expanded Academic ASAP. 27 Mar. 2000.
Zuckerman, Mortimer B. “A Nation Divided.” U.S. News and World Report 18 Oct. 1999: 108.
