Stratification and Mobility in Recent Decades

The American tendency to exaggerate the extent of up­ward social mobility (and also to minimize social move­ment downward) probably has its roots in historical expe­rience. Through most of its history, the United States has been a society of expansion: westward migration last­ing more than two centuries, followed by an industrial revolution during the last century. The resulting eco­nomic growth created a widespread view of American society as a land in which opportunity is bounded only by one's imagination and willingness to work. The Great Depression of the 1930s wounded but did not destroy American optimism, and prosperity returned in the 1940s, continuing through the 1960s. During this period, most Americans experienced a steadily rising standard of living.

The "middle-class slide." For generations, the Ameri­can class system was supported by the belief that the middle class was steadily growing. Indeed, this was the case through most of this century. In addition, the rapid growth of white-collar occupations after World War II – which drew millions of Americans out of blue-collar jobs and farming – strengthened the perception that the United States was becoming more and more a middle-class society (Kerckhoff, Campbell, & Winfield-Laird, 1985).

But this upward structural social mobility began to subside during the 1970s (Pampel, Land, & Kelson, 1977). In fact, the process began to reverse as a growing percentage of new jobs provided lower incomes. Figure 10-4 shows this turnaround. Between 1963 and 1973, almost half of new jobs were in the high-income range (more than $29,600 annually in constant 1986 dollars). Through the middle 1970s, more than 60 percent of new jobs were in the middle-income range (between $7,400 and $29,600). From 1979 to 1985, new high-income jobs fell to their lowest level, and the proportion of middle-income jobs also dropped considerably. Simul­taneously, the proportion of low-income jobs more than doubled to over 40 percent. In simple terms, this means that many people – especially "average" Americans in the middle class and working class – have suffered an economic decline. This is the economic change respon­sible for what is described as the "middle-class slide."

Many Americans are only too aware that this change has affected their lives. Far fewer people today than a generation ago expect to improve their social position. Indeed, a common fear is not being able to maintain the standard of living that people knew as chil­dren living with their parents. This problem is even more significant in light of the fact that families a genera­tion ago were far less likely than families today to have two spouses in the labor force. Consider, as an illustra­tion, that housing is a basic need that is becoming harder to meet. Housing prices and property taxes have risen rapidly since 1970. With little or no increase in buying power, the average American is coming to see home ownership – basic part of the American Dream – as less likely. This is not surprising, since family income has stayed about constant while a 20 percent down pay­ment on a typical new house has increased from roughly $5,000 in 1970 to about $20,000 in 1985 (cited in Brophy, 1986).

Of course, not all Americans have endured economic decline during the 1970s and 1980s. Indeed, the number of rich in America rose during that period, and may continue to rise even after the stock market crash of 1987. But the picture is no longer as positive for the average American. And for some who never had a grasp on middle-class standing, the situation is desperate. Black Americans, for example, have strongly depended upon traditional industries such as steel for jobs. For such workers, the loss of some 3 million factory jobs since 1980 has been devastating (Jacob, 1986). As a conse­quence, the problem of poverty has received growing attention during the 1980s.

When sociologist Mark Robert Hank asked Denise Turner, an African American mother of four living in poverty, to describe her daily life, Denise replied:

... it can be summarized in one word, and that's survival. That's what we're tryin' to do. We're tryin' to survive. And… I talk to a lot of peo­ple, and they say, "Well, hey, if you went to Ethiopia, you know, survival would be one thing. And that's… eating." But, damn it, I'm not in Ethiopia! You know. So I want a little bit more than just… having some food. Having a coupla meals. So, if I can just summarize it, in one word, it would be we're tryin' to survive. We’re tryin’ to stay together. That’s my major concern, keepin’ all my family together, my children together. And to survive. (quoted in Rank, 1994:88)

Sociologists refer to the distinction that Denise makes between poverty in Ethiopia and poverty in the United States as the difference between absolute poverty and relative poverty. Absolute poverty exists when people do not have the means to secure the most basic necessities of life. Relative poverty exists when people may be able to afford basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter but cannot maintain an average standard of living in comparison to that of other members of their society or group (Ropers, 1991). Denise does not suffer from absolute poverty, but she does experience relative poverty on the basis of what is available to other people in the United Stares.

The United States has the highest poverty rate of any advanced industrial nation (Rothchild, 1995). The poverty rate is the proportion of the population whose income falls below the government’s official poverty line – the level of income below which a family of a given size is considered to be poor. As is shown in Figure 2.4, the US poverty rate has remained relatively constant over the past two decades, although the total number of people living in poverty has increased because of growth in the total population. The official poverty rate is based on money income and cash government assistance programs such as Social Security payments; however, it does not reflect the value of in-kind benefits such as public housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicare, or Medicaid.

The Poverty Line

How is the US poverty line determined? The official poverty line is based on a minimum family market basket – a low-cost food budget that contains а minimum level of nutrition for a family – multiplied by 3 to allow for nonfood costs. Established in 1965 by the Social Security Administration, the poverty line is based on an assumption that the average family must spend about one-third of its total income on food. By multiplying this amount by 3, nonfood costs such as rent and utilities are factored in. Although the poverty line is adjusted for the number of people in the household and is corrected at least annually for changes in the cost of living, essentially the same poverty test has been used since the 1960s.

Today, many social analysts argue that the official poverty line is too low. According to economist Patricia Ruggles (1990, 1992), the poverty line is based on outdated (pre-1960) standards, and poverty thresholds should be increased by at least 50 percent. When the poverty formula was originally developed, fewer households were composed of two working parents or of single parents who faced employment-related expenses such as work clothes, transportation, child care, and quick and convenient foods.

Who are the Poor?

If poverty were equally distributed among all social groups in the United States, all people regardless of their age, race or ethnicity, sex, household composition or other attributes statistically would have an equal chance of being among poor in any given year. However, poverty is not distributed equally: People in some categories are at greater risk for poverty than are people in other categories.