in industrialized countries, 20th century period of standardization, rationalization, and bueracratization

increasing importance of education but inequality in education by class pretty stable over time

education stratication may be caused by theories of cultural capital, bourdieu children from low families lack capital

parsons functionalist perspective education changes as societal functions deem necessary

Collins 1971 cultural reproduction theorist, education serves to marginalize

yield convergent conclusions move to social homogamy in education in Sweden and Netherlands, relative stability everywhere else

two arguments about diverging destinies of American destinies

1. increased competition via deindustrialization and globalization

2. turbulence in industries

problem with emphasing technological change is that it ignores in nation change and is unobservable

technical thesis assumes common trend operating across contexts so it requires comparative perspective

differences in job mobility can lead to important differences in earnings mobility

finds overall class dierences are smaller in Germany relative to US

changes in hours worked relatively less important in Germany

bell predicted post-industrial society with professionals and technicians

pessimists see declining middle class and creation of new underclass proletariat with new class correlates of disadvantage

decline in industrial economy, rise in service industries which are the cause of almost all new jobs

if as optimists want, all jobs are professionalized, then signicant portion of the population is marginalized

professional growth in jobs inversely related to growth in service jobs

suggests professionalization can only come at the cost of service jobs

in Sweden women have worst jobs, in US minority groups do

Argues inequality is not
1. product of nature
2. product of invisible hand/market economics

Argues inequality is a social construction which Americans created and maintained

Suggests inequality is question of
1. who/wins and loses (gets ahead and falls behind)--this is usually answered by social environment-- advantages and disadvantages that are inhereted from parents, resources shared by their friends, quality and quantity of schooling, era in which they are born.
2. what determines how much people get for beng ahead or behind --this is political - societies choose ex. loosening or regulating markets, subsidizing some groups over others, historical result of political choices

1. which rung on the ladder,

2. why some ladders are wider or narrower

the authors reject evolutionary arguments
(survival of the ttest, bell curve etc. - cities of similar genetics are very different stratification systems) and the free market as responsible for inequality.

Suggest that income inequality is a product of societies and that both knowingly and unknowingly, Americans decide levels of inequality.  - More unequal than any affluent Western Coutry

Authors argue that more inequality does not promote growth, and may retard it. At least there is no case for encouraging inequality

Wage inequality has increased dramatically in the United States since the 1980s. (Rich get richer, poor get poort).

This article investigates the relationship between this trend and occupational structure measured at the three-digit level. Using the Current Population Survey from 1983 to 2002, we find that the direct association between occupations and wage inequality declined over this period as within-occupational inequality grew faster than between-occupational inequality. We estimate multilevel growth models using detailed occupational categories as the unit of analysis to assess how the characteristics of occupations affect changes in mean wages and levels of wage inequality across this time period. The results indicate that changes in mean wages across occupations vary depending on the characteristics of individuals in those occupations and that intraoccupational inequality is difficult to predict using conventional labor force data.

These findings seem largely inconsistent with the common sociological view of occupation as the most fundamental feature of the labor market.

Correspondingly, a more comprehensive approach—one that incorporates the effects of organizational variables and market processes on rising wage inequality in the New Economy—is warranted.

rising inequality within societies this can be thought of as rising inequality within occupations

hypothesis most inequality between occupation when measured at a very detailed level and occupation dierences due to changes in mean differences for high occupations

hypothesizes within occupation inequality caused by demographics cross occupation

inequality not caused primarily by these factors
find contrary to expectations majority of inequality increases occurred within occupations around 70% of change from 1980s to 2000s

within occupations unionization increases inequalitychanging thoughts of unions as exclusionary not equalizing

inscreasing female employment decreases between occupation inequality.

Under Kuznet theory, inequality is expected to rise in the process of industrialization as a product of sector dualism. Inequality is thought to rise through dierences in wages nd the distributional dierences between agricultural and industrial sectors and the concentration of capital in the industrial sphere.

However, inequality is expected to decline as the industrial transition is completed and the distribution
of workers shifts to almost a completely industrialized work force (I've also heard a related argument about industrialization decreasing inequality through
regulation and the development of social institutions accompanying industrialization)

Inverted U

union membership dramatically declined in same period 1973-2009 that hourly wages fell, argues these are related process

argues unions can raise wages for non-unions by threat of organizing

unions create moral economy for fair pay

unions raise pay for blue collars and standardize wages across firms in industries

argues 2008 collapse consequence of US financialization since 1970s

real estate collapse was a proximate cause
advances rent theory by emphasizing role of institutions in income

finacialization
1. increases in financial institutions in social, economic and political terms
2. increasing involvement of non-financial institutions in financial institutions

financial employees now at top of income earner
market equilibria is constructed
rent theory questions assumptions that market reward based on productivity

rent creation or destruction occurs based on actor's relative power

deregulation helped along financialization
shift in 1980s from pro population to pro business

societies address inequalities by race and gender but not restructured labor

market as structure stagnates, reversal of kuznet curve
income rises in kuznet curve as capital concentrated then
in us since 1970s basically everyone lost ground
supply side reason

1. baby boom
2. women labor force entry
3. migration

skill biased technological change college grads did relatively better off due to collapse of hs grad wages

decline in good (manufacturing) jobs in favor of bad (service) jobs

this theory has been replaced with theories of internal labor markets

Luxemburg Income Study allows comparison across 30 countries

compare US anti-poverty policies to others around the world

attempts to answer:
do other questions (countries) have an official poverty line?

how do other countries compare to US poverty?

what are drivers of poverty?

dierences in societal emphasis in self reliance?
only us and uk have official poverty indicators

poverty in industrialized countries relative concept

smeeding uses 50% of median income as poverty line

us second highest poverty rate of all nations, highest of wealthy nations reasons for this

1. support for poor
2. distribution of wages

incidence of low pay accounts for variance in poverty among non-elderly

high social spending reduces poverty

uk policy intervention caused its child poverty rate to diverge from that of the US