QUESTION
Economic Stratification in the United States
Explain and describe economic stratification in the United States currently as discussed in our course by applying one sociological theory (functionalism, conflict theory, or symbolic interactionism). How does the theory make sense of economic stratification? What are the main points of the theory you are applying? What are the conditions of income and wealth inequality, social mobility, and poverty? Be sure to describe the function of education in either reproducing economic inequality or structuring paths for mobility (support this in the PDF readings, and sociological studies embedded in the lecture slides).
Be sure to include and define in your own words the relevant theoretical concepts and terms from lectures and readings in modules 7, 8, and 9. Combine these topics and synthesize the material to support your thesis statement.
Support your theoretical reflection of economic stratification with 2+ of the following: the reading “A Matter of Degree,” the readings “African -Americans, Women, and the GI Bill,” the podcast “Why No One Feels Rich: The Psychology of Inequality,” and the reading “Savage Inequalities.”
Include 1+ statistical table or chart from a lecture or the textbook
Describe 2+ sociological research studies from the videos embedded in lecture slide such as Emanuel Saez, “The Take Off in Income Inequality,” Raj Chetty “Current Trends in Social Mobility,” Matt Desmond “Unstable housing,” Patrick Sharkey “Neighborhoods and Multigenerational Effects,” and Ann Stevens “Labor Markets and Recession” to support your reflection (Can be found on youtube).
Should be organized in an essay format: introduction, conclusion, and topic sentences for each paragraph
Be specific and use sociological terms and define them accurately from the textbook, glossary, or lecture (10+ key terms)
Use specific supportive materials from class readings, podcasts, embedded videos, etc...
No bullet points – complete sentence
No single sentence answers for sub-questions
You may use first-person statements like "I" and "me"
Clearly label your essay with a heading
Use only the materials from our course and cite them correctly
Include in-text citations and a reference list.
1
The GI Bill
Learn about the origins and effects of the GI Bill, which provided American veterans with housing and tuition
benefits.
Overview
• Enacted by Congress in 1944, the GI Bill sent more than eight million World War II veterans to school
between 1945 and 1956.
• It also backed home loans, gave veterans a year of unemployment benefits, and provided for veterans'
medical care.
• The bill was a huge success, propelling Americans to new heights of education and helping to fuel the
economic prosperity that characterized the postwar era.
The GI Bill
After the end of World War II, American soldiers anxiously awaited their return to civilian life. Those stationed
in Europe, Asia, and the Pacific hoped they would soon be reunited with their families and quickly employed in
the bustling industrial economy of the United States.
The US government was anxious, too, but for a different reason. World War II had revived American prosperity
after more than a decade of depression, and the government was desperate to fend off the economic turmoil that
15 million veterans reentering the workforce might wreak. Hoping to provide servicemen and women with a
measure of financial security upon their return (and, hopefully, siphon a substantial proportion of veterans away
from the labor market and into educational programs), President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Servicemen's
Readjustment Act on June 22, 1944. Commonly known as the GI Bill, the Servicemen's Readjustment Act
offered veterans a year of unemployment pay after their homecoming; guaranties for loans to purchase homes,
businesses, or farms; and tuition and living stipends for college or vocational programs.
2
Photograph of President Franklin D. Roosevelt signing the Servicemen's Readjustment Act while seated at his
desk, with many supporters standing behind him. Franklin D. Roosevelt signing the Servicemen's
Readjustment Act (GI Bill) into law, June 1944. Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
Not everyone greeted this plan with enthusiasm. Accustomed to a pre-war society where college education was
reserved for the elite, the president of the University of Chicago griped that "Education is not a device for
coping with mass unemployment . . . colleges and universities will find themselves converted into educational
hobo jungles."1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript But this judgment proved premature. The GI Bill was an
unprecedented success, sending eight million veterans to school in the decade after World War II and
completely reinventing American higher education. Despite the hefty price tag of the program - about $14.5
billion dollars - veterans who took advantage of the educational subsidy earned, on average, $10,000-15,000
more per year than those who did not, generating ten times the cost of the program in tax revenue.
Consequently, some analysts have called it "the best investment the US government has ever made.
Origins of the GI Bill
In 1944, FDR was running for reelection, seeking an unprecedented fourth term as president of the United
States. During the Great Depression, he had won broad popular support through the New Deal, which sought to
use government programs to ensure baseline economic security for the American people. During his State of the
Union address in 1944, Roosevelt proposed a radical "economic bill of rights" that would guarantee American
citizens employment, health care, education, and housing.3^33start superscript, 3, end superscript In the midst
of the wartime economic boom, however, this promise of security failed to animate voters as it had a decade
earlier.
What did get their attention was Roosevelt's promise that returning GIs (a nickname for soldiers derived from
their "general issue" uniforms) would be entitled to certain perks for their faithful service. With the assistance of
the American Legion, the economic bill of rights was revamped as the GI Bill of Rights.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Statement on Signing the G.I. Bill, June 22, 1944
This bill, which I have signed today, substantially carries out most of the recommendations made by me in a
speech on July 28, 1943, and more specifically in messages to the Congress dated October 27, 1943, and
November 23, 1943: It gives servicemen and women the opportunity of resuming their education or technical
training after discharge, or of taking a refresher or retrainer course, not only without tuition charge up to $500
per school year, but with the right to receive a monthly living allowance while pursuing their studies.
• It makes provision for the guarantee by the Federal Government of not to exceed 50 percent of certain
loans made to veterans for the purchase or construction of homes, farms, and business properties.
• It provides for reasonable unemployment allowances payable each week up to a maximum period of one
year, to those veterans who are unable to find a job.
• It establishes improved machinery for effective job counseling for veterans and for finding jobs for
returning soldiers and sailors.
• It authorizes the construction of all necessary additional hospital facilities.
• It strengthens the authority of the Veterans Administration to enable it to discharge its existing and
added responsibilities with promptness and efficiency.
With the signing of this bill a well-rounded program of special veterans’ benefits is nearly completed. It gives
emphatic notice to the men and women in our armed forces that the American people do not intend to let them
down. By prior legislation, the Federal Government has already provided for the armed forces of this war:
adequate dependency allowances; mustering-out pay; generous hospitalization, medical care, and vocational
rehabilitation and training; liberal pensions in case of death or disability in military service; substantial war risk
3
life insurance, and guaranty of premiums on commercial policies during service; protection of civil rights and
suspension of enforcement of certain civil liabilities during service; emergency maternal care for wives of
enlisted men; and reemployment rights for returning veterans.
This bill therefore and the former legislation provide the special benefits which are due to the members of our
armed forces -- for they "have been compelled to make greater economic sacrifice and every other kind of
sacrifice than the rest of us, and are entitled to definite action to help take care of their special problems." While
further study and experience may suggest some changes and improvements, the Congress is to be congratulated
on the prompt action it has taken.
The GI Bill, as it was abbreviated, had three key components:
1) Educational support. Veterans were entitled to $500 per year toward tuition and as well as a living stipend
of $65-90 per month depending on whether the veteran had a family to support during his or her schooling.
2) Unemployment benefits. The GI Bill stipulated that veterans could receive $20 per week for a year while
looking for work. More than eight million veterans took advantage of this benefit.
3) Loan guaranties. Although the government did not give veterans money to purchase homes, businesses, or
farms, it pledged to back veterans' borrowing, making it much easier for them to get credit.
Though it is quite similar to guarantee in meaning, the noun guaranty is a specific legal term used in contracts
to denote a formal pledge to pay another person's debt.
The GI Bill also provided for veterans' medical care, even building new hospitals to meet the increased demand.
Cartoon depicting a white male soldier sitting at the base of a tree, surrounded by "thought bubbles" suggesting
different paths in life to him: Job, Back to School, G.I. Bill of Rights, Job training, Business for yourself,
Government employment, Job prospects, Self Analysis, Changes. Cartoon depicting the many choices
available to GIs upon their return. Image courtesy National World War II Museum.
Scope of the GI Bill
From 1945 to 1956, about 50% of the American veterans who served in World War II availed themselves of one
or more aspects of the GI Bill. 2.2 million veterans went to college, 3.5 million went to technical or vocational
school, and 700,000 took instruction in agriculture. The number of Americans who earned college degrees more
than doubled before and after the war, from just over 200,000 in 1940 to nearly half a million in 1950.
The GI Bill expanded American university instruction from a curriculum focused solely on the liberal arts to
one encompassing a range of career paths, including science, business, and engineering. Historian James T.
Patterson has called it "the most significant development in the modern history of American education.
4
The government guaranty for home and business loans also prompted an economic boom, financing the
construction of thousands of new homes, like those that sprang up in suburbs such as Levittown, New York.
Overall, the GI Bill was a major factor driving the prosperity of the postwar era. Not only did it save the
American economy from a potential unemployment epidemic, it was also the gift that kept on giving: as more
Americans took advantage of higher education, they earned higher wages, and could therefore pump more
money into the economy by buying homes and consumer goods.
Source:
Khan Academy. “The GI Bill.” Retrieved from https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ushistory/
postwarera/postwar-era/a/african-americans-women-and-the-gi-bill
[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version="4.9.3" _module_preset="default" width_tablet="" width_phone="100%" width_last_edited="on|phone" max_width="100%"]l
| Subject | Economics | Pages | 12 | Style | APA |
|---|
Answer
-
Economic Stratification in the US
Individuals and groups with varied levels of wealth, income, cultural and social capital occupy different positions within the society. Social stratification refers to the hierarchical standing of social groups according to unequal levels of power, wealth, and social status (Connelly & Gayle, 2016). It is a consequence of structural inequalities among individuals and social groups. Principally, structural inequality takes place due to unequal access to symbolic and material rewards including education, money, rights and prestige. These rewards are accessed based on social hierarchy or class standing. Other determinant of social stratification encompass age, gender, ethnicity, race, and religious affiliation. Based on this background information, this paper describes the economic stratification in the United States currently. To achieve this, it applies functionalism theory and explains how the theory achieves this.
The Current Economic Stratification in the United States
In the US, individuals are broadly categorized into four classes that include lower class, working class, middle class and upper class. Essentially, the class system enables for social mobility. This implies that a person has the potential to move down or up in the class structure. Lazzarato (2009) maintained that the classes in the US are closely related to social and economic status, a combined measure of occupation, education and income. Given that social and economic status are closely interlinked but independent factors of educational achievement, income level and occupation, it is slightly fluid category. A member of a society may have higher marks in a single measure with low marks in others. For instance, while dons and lecturers have highest education attainments, they majorly belong to the middle class due to the income linked to their occupational prestige and the income associated with their jobs (Beaver, 2009). Similarly, individuals who often work in finance departments have only a bachelor’s degree but are linked to upper class due to the income attached to their jobs. Nonetheless, in most situations, the educational achievement is closely associated with income levels. Precisely, average earnings are relatively higher for US citizens holding higher degrees and lowest for those without or with high school diploma (Beaver, 2009).
In the US, the class that individuals belong to is usually the class associated to them during birth (Bennett, 1996). For instance, those belonging to upper class usually hold this position due to family wealth or riches inherited through generations. Nonetheless, it is prudent to note that there are various pathways to the upper class including putting massive investment in the real estate or stock market and joining highly paid professions. Precisely, becoming a lawyer, doctor or engineer is usually regarded as a pathway to the upper class (Beaver, 2009). However, certain outliers including artists, celebrities and athletes also get much income, making them to move to the upper class.
Similarly, lower class and working class Americans often have low education attainment as compared to those in upper and middle classes, although there are certain exemptions to this pattern. Candidly, those belonging to these classes usually work in low income occupations such as restaurants, factories, administrative and clerical jobs. These professionals have little income and carry less occupational prestige.
Frydl (2009) contended that in the US, individuals can move down or up the class ladder based majorly on their income. Interestingly, upward income mobility is prevalent as compared to downward income mobility. Nonetheless, for the past three decades, the income distribution in this society has become unequal. This inequality is linked to other factors including race and gender. For instance, a report produced by Lindert and Williamson (2016) revealed that median earnings of black American employees are about 75% of the median earnings of white Americans. The report further reveals that median black families own about $1700 in wealth while white families own about $116000 in wealth. Moreover, structural inequalities particularly in the labour force for years rooted on discrimination and racism has contributed to the economic stratification currently witnessed in the US (Vedantam, Shah, & Boyle, 2019). Precisely, economic stratification linked to race has increased significantly in the US despite improvements in the civil rights. Globalization and deindustrialization have resulted in fewer job opportunities in sectors such as manufacturing, occupations that in years back was regarded as pathway towards upward mobility for many people including people of color. Moreover, transformation in the structure of the American economy has negatively influenced the people of color. Essentially, the racial wealth gap started with slavery and proceeded to unequal access to education. As explained in the coursework, this happened through racial segregation of public learning institutions. Moreover, post World II policies that offered funding to veteran to attend colleges were only extended to white Americans as opposed to everyone.
The economic stratification in the US is also linked to discriminatory legislations around real estate loans and real estate ownership. Redlining the issue of barring people of color from renting or purchasing homes in some regions is still common across the US. This practice as contended by Wade (2014) created ghettos or neighborhoods with scarce resources that separated blacks from educational, economic, as well as, other opportunities. While various acts including the Fair Housing Act helped eradicate this practice, blacks have continued to be denied various opportunities while whites benefiting from government backed home loans. With time, the values of these homes increased considerably, enabling these families to acquire wealth and pass them to their generations. This played a critical role to the upward mobility that is common across the generation of white families.
In the modern American societies, poverty rates are unequal for individuals of certain genders, races and ages. Precisely, stratification and equality associated to gender, age, and age intersect to aggravate the impacts of poverty for individuals belonging to low class or marginalized groups. For instance, on average, Hispanic Americans and African Americans are poorer and belong to lower or middle classes as compared to Asian and white Americans (). Similarly, women are poorer than their counterpart men and older people are poorer as compared to young individuals. Racial discrimination is a major factor explaining why some races and classes experience more poverty as compared to others. Precisely, women raise children on their own and those with low education attainment are disadvantaged because of the limited job opportunities. Similarly, lack of income among aged individuals who stopped working is a major factor that contribute to low income among older people.
The Functionalism Theory and Economic Stratification in the US
According to functionalism theory, the society is comprised of several elements that work together as a unit to maintain stability. A functionalist approach to social class examines the roles played by social stratification and class structure in the entire society. According to this theory, stratification works to ensure efficiency and productivity and make sure that almost all the necessary works are completed (Wade, 2014). As such, this theory states that social stratification is important and inevitable as well. The theory maintains that certain jobs require more training or skills and that only few individuals have the ability to become highly trained and skilled and to pertake these important jobs. More importantly, individuals have to make key sacrifices in terms of effort, time and money in order to achieve training, education and experiences to perform these jobs. According to the functionalist viewpoint, the society attaches critical rewards in the form of income and prestige to make sure that these critical jobs are taken by qualified persons (Lindert, & Williamson, 2016). For instance, doctors plays a key role in the society. However, to become a doctor, one must dedicate much time, money and effort in training and education. In return, the society rewards these efforts, money and training by bestowing great prestige to doctors, as well as, increased levels of income. Nonetheless, class inequality only works provided it can be sustained. In case the working classes makes a decision that it is not function properly as it should, they are likely to seek social change through strikes or protests.
In conclusion, economic stratification in the modern US takes various forms. People and groups with lower economic standing usually have less access to healthcare, education, housing, attractive and safe neighborhoods among other resources. Principally, with fewer resources, less wealth and less power, individuals with low economic standing are susceptible of detrimental impacts of political, economic and social policies. For instance, the low class individuals and groups are more likely to stay in neighborhoods where they are exposed to health hazards. As argued by the functionalists, class individuals are poor because of low educational attainments. These individuals lack the necessary skills and knowledge needed to perform prestigious and highly paid jobs and therefore resort to menial jobs.
References
Beaver, W. (2009). A matter of degrees. Contexts, 8(2), 22-26.
Bennett, M. J. (1996). When Dreams Came True: The GI Bill and the Making of Modern America. Brassey's, Inc., 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd., Suite 401, McLean, VA 22101.
Connelly, R., & Gayle, V. (2016). Social Stratification: Trends and Processes. Routledge.
Frydl, K. (2009). The GI bill (p. 48). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lazzarato, M. (2009). Neoliberalism in action: Inequality, insecurity and the reconstitution of the social. Theory, culture & society, 26(6), 109-133.
Lindert, P. H., & Williamson, J. G. (2016). Unequal gains: American growth and inequality since 1700. Juncture, 22(4), 276-283.
Vedantam, S., Shah, P., & Boyle, T. (2019, April 22). Why no one feels rich. NPR.org. Retrieved April 24, 2021, from https://www.npr.org/2019/04/19/715145723/why-no-one-feels-rich-the-psychology-of-inequality.
Wade, R. H. (2014). The Piketty phenomenon and the future of inequality. Real-world economics review, 69(4), 2-17.