The Gap between Rich and Poor

Recently, in Western Civilization II, I lectured on some of the deleterious effects of the early Industrial Revolution, one of which was to create miserable conditions for the working poor. The lecture quickly turned into a fruitful discussion on the seemingly ever-expanging gap between rich and poor in today’s America; the middle class finds it increasingly difficult to make ends meet, one student contended. The questions I have for my students are these: Do you believe that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getitng poorer? If so, what anecdotal and statistical evidence might you cite to support your claims?

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)


This entry was posted on Friday, October 19th, 2007 at 6:22 pm and is filed under U.S. History II, Western Civilization II. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “The Gap between Rich and Poor”

  1. Linda L. Says:
    November 7, 2007 at 9:54 pm | Reply

    In terms of salary distribution, I would say the income gap between the extreme rich and the extreme poor is much larger than ever before. CEOs raking into multi-millions per year in salary, percs and stock options was hardly the norm back when I was growing up in the 1960’s and ’70’s–a time many consider the heyday of middle class culture.

    Back then, most families could get by nicely on a single income. Typically, dad worked, while mom stayed home to tend to the children and home. Single parent families were the exception, not the rule. And life was simpler then. A family might have one car, one television set, a modest home with less than 1,500 square feet, no cell phone, cable TV or the need to replace a computer every three years. Eating out at a restaurant might have been an occasional treat, but a rare one. Kids’ time was less hurried, structured and involved far fewer expensive lessons, tutors and activities. A parent-financed college education was not considered a birthright. Now, I think such a life wouldn’t classify as ‘middle class’ in many people’s minds. Especially the absence of high-tech gadgets.

    Now, I would say that the trappings of the middle class requires most families to have two incomes. There is less stability in the workplace, with less employee loyalty and corporate benevolence. The idea of working for one company for your whole life (a company job), while common a couple generations ago, now seems ludicrous to most people.

    So, yes, I agree the gap between rich and poor is expanding, and more is expected to be considered a middle class citizen, both in terms of possessions, education and skills.

  2. Jeremy Says:
    December 9, 2007 at 7:52 pm | Reply

    Mobility: The possibility to move up or down within the class rankings within a society. There is a lot about separation of class and what makes a particular class more affluent than the other such as a people’s education, income, occupation, and wealth. Although much of what effects are happening within society is caused by stratification the more specific term we are looking at and dealing with is class mobility within our society. Wessel and Madrick point out a correlation between the movement of the U.S. to a more college based labor market and the income inequality that is becoming more prevalent within the nation. How is that college, is showing relevance to income inequality? The cost of college is becoming more expensive as the pay wages of the poor are stagnant and the upper classes of society are growing richer due. We are also shown the relevance of intergenerational mobility/ income and the connection that follows through to the gap between the poor/ lower class and those of the rich/ upper class. There are many reasons why the U.S. has a problem with inequality and class rigidity. Deindustrialization, many people lost jobs due to this. The industries in America employed a vast amount or people whom had high school diplomas and no college level education. However, these jobs paid well, had good benefits, and sometimes were life jobs. Why did deindustrialization happen? Globalization made deindustrialization impact the U.S. Due to the loss of many industries in the U.S we became a college based labor market. Jobs that require more knowledge are becoming more beneficial for people. Wessel and Madrick said “It is argued that America has become an office economy of white collar workers whose growth industries include finance, marketing, consulting, public relations, healthcare, and media.” Since colleges have become more important and it was placed as a staple that you can achieve a status of great stature or more so than a high school diploma, America responded. But due to the increased prices of colleges we find that more upper class and middle class people are able to attend college and graduate, than those of the lower class. It’s becoming more determined that we inherit the class of our parents (intergenerational mobility/income) and our futures rely upon this. The upper and middle class’s can afford batter schools for there children, live in affluent areas and usually have better pre-k through 12 schools. Those in poverty lack the education and luxuries that the upper and middle class children experience. The amount of upper class compared to lower class having college level jobs is substantial. This leaves more upper class with college level jobs and making the most money in society and will eventually show the poorer class scraping by on what ever means necessary while the middle class diminishes. The mobility of America is coming to a stand still and is leaving no room for the poorer class to further themselves. Due to intergenerational mobility/income the upper class don’t fall very far from the class of their parents and are more well off than the poorer/ lower class. This makes it hard for the middle class remain at a steady growth rate within society.
    In an article of “The Future of Children” Isabel Sawhill and Sara McLanahan show us that there is a large scale of status brought upon the child from the parent’s class. They show that a parent’s income will determine a lot about where a child will end up in society. They also point out that the more affluent parents work harder to provide knowledge for their children, such as the status of income, previous education, and social networks. This shows that the children of the upper class are more likely to succeed than those of the lower class. They question how we can improve the intergenerational mobility and help those of less fortunate income strive to be in the better of society. Also in “The Future of Children” Timothy Smeeding and Robert Haveman suggest that higher income parents insure their children’s academic success, while the poorer class or minorities have less resources to obtain a better education. They also point out that the rising college prices and inequality of income isn’t making it any easier for the poorer/lower class to succeed in society. The Wall Street journal article said “The odds that a child born in poverty will climb to wealth — or a rich child will fall into the middle class — remain stuck”. Bhashkar Mazumder research in intergenerational inequality also shows the outcome of an upper class child compared to that of a lower class child has more of a chance in society than that of a lower class which creates a rigid society. If this trend is to persist we will see the middle class dwindle and the separation of classes would then make the mobility of the US stagnate.
    If society keeps in the direction that it is going we are going to endure many consequences and hardships, at least that of the lower class will. Due to the decrease in mobility and the cost of getting a diploma to enter the college based labor market in America, the poor will become poorer, the rich will become richer, and the middle class will fade away, almost forming a type of aristocracy that the American constitution was trying to avoid. The poor will become more deprived of a better education and healthcare, two of many other consequences of the inequality and class rigidity of today’s society. Jobs will be more likely to have better benefits for those of the upper class and they will make more money to attend to the needs of their family in times of health deterioration. In contrast the poor will be lucky to have good benefits and wont be able to afford the cost a medical expenses without the benefits from jobs that once employed the lower and middle class. The education system will be better in affluent societies from the fact parents will have gone to college already, will be able to afford better schools and, better prepare their children for the college path in life. The poorer/lower class will have public schools that wont be as credible as the upper class. The number of graduations will drop for people trying maintain a livelihood. The more the classes grow apart the closer our society will become closer to being that of a closed society. The American constitution was straying away from this ever happening yet we find from research that the rich are becoming richer and the poor are becoming poorer. What consequences could come of this? The rich would be that of a more aristocratic nature. This would leave the poor to fend for themselves and stuck in a type of caste. Mobility will be stagnate and they will be no more room for improving there way of life. This could lead to higher crime rates for the poor trying to provide for the lack of income but ultimately, like just about every nation throughout history that has had a problem with the equal rights of man, this would lead to a revolution, and a reformed government. In the constitution it states that if the government is not doing its job and following the constitution and the rights of equality, freedom and the rights of man, than the people can overthrow the government and reinstall a new government to maintain order in a constitutional manner.
    Throughout my life I have experienced many different classes of people. I have been on my own since I was fifteen so I raised my self to what I have become and what I still am achieving. So do I think it is impossible for someone of low income and poverty to rise in America, no I do not, but I do agree that its becoming harder for people to enter into school that are in the lower class.
    I have had many friends, while I was attending college in Tennessee, that came from very wealthy backgrounds. These people didn’t have to work while going to college as I did, therefore giving them more time for their studies. They also had educated parents who helped aid in their studies and through social networking, helped their children achieve good internships. These children didn’t have many worries besides their studies. Their college was paid for. Room and board was all set, and they didn’t have to worry about a heap of money to owe back after graduating from school. Their life was easy going and they didn’t incur many hardships in their life as of yet. They did in deed inherit their parent’s social class and intergenerational mobility/income was very prevalent.
    On the other hand I also had friends from the lower to lower middle class of society. Some went to community colleges fist to obtain their pre req.’s for a smaller price and then finish their degree while others took out large loans to pay for there college. All of my friends in this situation didn’t have their parent’s aid in their education and worked full or part time jobs while attending college. Just as most of these people I had to take a few semesters off in order to save money for school. So unlike most of the affluent kids, I am not finishing college in a timely manner.
    I do believe that society is becoming more rigid and that there is a substantial effect of the inequality of income. However I do still see many of my friends rising out of the situation and making the staple of American society suggested by Mr. Benjamin Franklin, that America is the land of opportunity and you can rise from rags to riches. Now, my friends may not be rich but they are that of the upper middle class and they did not come from an upper class family and showed no signs of intergenerational mobility or income. This situation is hard to observe because I see people succeeding all the time as long as they have the will power to do so. It was always be that the upper class will be able to provide more for their children and that the children of the lower class will have to have more will power than those of the upper class.
    Smeeding, Timothy “The Future of children: The role of Higher Education in
    Social Mobility.” Princeton University and the Brookings Institution, Oct.
    22, 2007
    http://www.FutureofChildren.org/information2826/information_id=392678

    Haveman, Robert “The Future of children: The role of Higher Education in
    Social Mobility.” Princeton University and the Brookings Institution, Oct.
    22, 2007
    http://www.FutureofChildren.org/information2826/information_id=392678

    Sawhill, Isabel. “The Future of children: Introducing the Issue” Princeton .
    University and the Brookings Institution, Oct 22, 2007
    http://www.FutureofChildren.org/information2826/information_id=388494

    McLanahan, Sara. “The Future of children: Introducing the Issue” Princeton .
    University and the Brookings Institution, Oct 22, 2007
    http://www.FutureofChildren.org/information2826/information_id=388494

    Mandel, Michael J. “The End of Upward Mobility? Not On Your Life.” The
    McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., 2005, Nov. 5, 2007
    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_25/b3938103_mz057.htm

    Mazumder, Bhashkar “Earning Motilities in the US: A New Look at
    Intergenerational Inequality.” Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Dec. 2001,
    Nov. 5, 2007
    http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/workingpapers/papers/Wp2001-
    18.pdf

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8004316/

Leave a Reply