Throughout the 1970s, the ability of any one person to work hard enough to transcend social stratification in the United States became difficult due to various domestic challenges. The reality Americans begun to see during the ‘70s was bleak, this being contributed in great part to ecopolitical events. In the year 1974, a recession begun that has continued to affect the United States economy to this very day. Harold Meyerson, a writer and journalist for the Washington Post and The American Prospect in the article “The 40-Year Slump” notes “The middle-income jobs of the nation’s postwar boom years have disproportionately vanished. Low-wage jobs have disproportionately burgeoned. Employment has become less secure. Benefits have been cut. The dictionary definition of “layoff” has changed, from denoting a temporary severance from one’s job to denoting a permanent severance” (1). It is important to consider this point because it really lays the foundation of the 1970’s; one of little hope, and one shaken by what became known as the 1973-1975 Recession. This recession affected practically every person living in the U.S, and changed the perception of the workplace. Through low-economic growth and high inflation, the economic term “stagflation” came about, and negatively influenced the success of countless Americans. Alejandro Reuss, co-editor for the magazine Dollars & Sense in the article “That ‘70s Crises” asserts "The economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare of “stagflation,” so called because it combined low economic growth and high unemployment (“stagnation”) with high rates of inflation” (1). This is a valuable point to consider, as this term is still used to this day, and has affected all aspects of life for many Americans. Mic...
... middle of paper ...
...f doubt about the effect of education on a persons prosperity. The National Center for Education Statistics in the book 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait highlights that “...incomes for males of all education levels suffered during the rest of the decade, especially during 1974 and 1975. Between 1971 and 1981, incomes for males who had not finished high school fell by 16 percent. Incomes for males who had completed 4 years of college fell by 20 percent during the same period” (19). Looking at this statistics, it can be determined that through education level did have some positive effect on an individual's success, no one was spared from economic harm during this decade. In conclusion, the ability of any one person to work hard enough to transcend social stratification in the United States in the 1970s became a strenuous task for most Americans.
Some people may have decent jobs, but the bills and other expenses people may have make it harder on people than those who are in the same class but don’t necessarily have to go through the same thing as others. The chapters that I read in this book broaden what I said to a better, more clear understanding. In chapter 6, "The College Dropout Boom" talked about the idea of how higher education, meaning college, and how it should be the ticket to success in America.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Leading up to the year 1981, America had fallen into a period of “stagflation”, a portmanteau for ‘stagnant economy’ and ‘high inflation’. Characterized by high taxes, high unemployment, high interest rates, and low national spirit, America needed to look to something other than Keynesian economics to pull itself out of this low. During the election of 1980, Ronald Reagan’s campaign focused on a new stream of economic policy. His objective was to turn the economy into “a healthy, vigorous, growing economy [which would provide] equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination.” Reagan’s policy, later known as ‘Reaganomics’, entailed a four-point plan which cut taxes, reduced government spending, created anti-inflationary policy, and deregulated certain products. Though ‘Reaganomics’ was successful both at controlling “stagflation” and promoting economic growth, it has and always will be an extremely controversial topic regarding the redistribution of wealth.
people agree with the state that Liz borrows from Thomas Jefferson, "Everybody should have an education proportional to their life,"(Addison 256). Unfortunately, the average income between rich and poor in America is not accurate, everyone supposed to become somebody in life; college gives opportunity to everyone who wants to do so, to become whatever they want, and at any age with a low cost. as much as the income level between rich and poor in America stays unbalanced; college will always be there to gives opportunity to people who want to learn, but cannot afford to attend university. Liz Addison points out an example in the article.
List three facts the author uses to support the main idea: Jencks included a lot of studies and charts into his article that helped his argument. One of the studies that he included is on the percent of household income going to the richest one percent. In this study it showed that in 1979 7.5% of household income went to the top one percent, and in 1997 it jumped to 13.6 %. Another fact from the article is a study conducted by Lars Osberg from Dalhousie University. It found that the poor in America worked more hours than their poor counterpart in Canada, Britain, Sweden, France, and Germany. The third fact that I think is relatively important is that since 1979 the tuition at America's public colleges has risen faster than most parent's income. Thus giving the poor even less of a chance to receive a higher education.
A high school education is no longer sufficient to succeed in America’s increasingly complex economy. However, because of the high price point of a college education, far too many Americans are unable to afford education beyond high school. As shown in the graph below, the higher level of education received greatly increases the chances for employment and also dramatically increases the average salary potential of an individual.
While college may be initially uneconomical, evidence from a 1959 census shows a “three-fourths of earning difference” between those who graduated from college and those who merely received a high school diploma (Weisbrod et al 495). Weisbrod and Karpoff acknowledge the high cost of college in America, but assert the benefits of a college degree will more than reimburse a person in the long run, therefore the initial cost of attending a college is worthwhile. (Weisbrod et. al). Furthermore, this indicates only “one-fourth of the earnings differences are attributed...to non-schooling factors”, which proves the significant role college plays in determining the future earnings of an individual (Weisbrod et. al 497). College appears to be the most influential factor in regards to a person's earnings, therefore according to Weisbrod and Karpoff, college is necessary for a person who wishes to obtain a higher expected income. Even students who attend mediocre to below-average colleges will receive “a lifetime income that is [around] 10 percent lower ...than that which someone at one of the best schools can expect” (Weisbrod et. al 497). Weisbrod and Karpoff contend even low-tier colleges result in higher earnings, therefore a student should strive to attend any college regardless of the
It’s considered a rarity now days to walk down a major city street and not come across a single person who is fighting to survive poverty. The constant question is why don’t they go get help, or what did they do to become like this? The question that should be asked is how will America fix this? Over the past year, Americans who completed high school earned fifteen point five percent more per hour than that of dropouts (Bernstein, Is Education the Cure to Poverty). According to Jared Bernstein, in his article “Is Education the Cure to Poverty”, he argues that not only do the poor need to receive a higher education, but to also maximize their skill levels to fill in where work is needed (Is Education the Cure to Poverty). Counter to Bernstein’s argument Robert Reich expresses that instead of attempting to achieve a higher education, high school seniors need to find another way into the American middle class. Reich goes on to say “the emerging economy will need platoons of technicians able to install, service, and repair all the high-tech machinery filling up hospitals, offices, and factories” (Reich, Why College Isn’t (and Shouldn’t Have to be) for Everyone). Danielle Paquette, though, offers an alternative view on higher education. Paquette gives view that it doesn’t matter on the person, rather it’s the type of school and amount of time in school that will determine a person’s
One would expect that social equality would just be the norm in society today. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Three similar stories of how inequality and the hard reality of how America’s society and workforce is ran shows a bigger picture of the problems American’s have trying to make an honest living in today’s world. When someone thinks about the American dream, is this the way they pictured it? Is this what was envisioned for American’s when thinking about what the future held? The three authors in these articles don’t believe so, and they are pretty sure American’s didn’t either. Bob Herbert in his article “Hiding from Reality” probably makes the most honest and correct statement, “We’re in denial about the extent of the rot in the system, and the effort that would be required to turn things around” (564).
In order to break through the status quo of poverty for generations, there needs to be more efficiency on education. In our current society, establishments would rather hire someone who well qualified with college degree rather than just a high school education. For our modern day survival we need education because it will give up opportunities and help we need to become successful. The higher a person educational degree the more invested opportunity to move up in the ranks in our
Moreover, the inflationary recession period deemed a “stagflation” was coupled with rising economic inequality as the top one percent of earners saw their income rise by 45.4 percent from 1977 to 1990. In Stud Terkel’s Working, this disparity is clear between boss and employee, as bosses such as Dave Bender feel uncomfortable in his status as a boss. Similarly, Larry Ross, ex-president of a conglomerate and consultant, describes the “lonely life of an executive”, who must now adhere to the computer and other technological phenomena that have made managing the workplace rather mechanic and demanding. The stress of cutting labor due to a new corporate model also fueled the restructuring of business to fit a profit-motivated, globalized economy. While many bosses were gaining employment, unions began to see their disunion due to the forces of automation and leaner corporate mechanisms. As Levinson writes, “traditional skills” became obsolete in the face of automation while many longshoreman, who were fathers, could not train and bring their sons up in the business because “the jobs were
Rodney K. Smith’s mere opinion of his publication is that children with a higher level are more like to secure a job rather than those with no or little education. His view is upheld by the statistics of bureau that gives a clear statistics of the percentage of the salary earned by students with higher education and that of lower education. This makes his claim more reliable and credible because the bureau of labor and statistics is a reputable institution in the United States that deals with the percentage of people who work in United State. Smith’s own personal anecdote appeals to the feelings of the audience in which it ignites them with feelings of possibility.
The gap in wealth between the rich and the poor continues to grow larger, as productivity increases but wages remain the same. There were changes in the tax structure that gave the wealthy tax breaks, such as only taxing for social security within the first $113,700 of income in a year. For CEOs this tax was paid off almost immediately. Free trade treaties broke barriers to trade and resulted in outsourcing and lower wages for workers. In “Job on the Line” by William Adler, a worker named Mollie James lost her job when the factory moved to Mexico. “The job in which Mollie James once took great pride, the job that both fostered and repaid her loyalty by enabling her to rise above humble beginnings and provide for her family – that job does not now pay Balbina Duque a wage sufficient to live on” (489). When Balbina started working she was only making 65 cents an hour. Another huge issue lies in the minimum wage. In 2007, the minimum wage was only 51% of the living wage in America. How can a person live 51% of a life? Especially when cuts were being made in anti-poverty and welfare programs that were intended to get people on their feet. Now, it seems that the system keeps people down, as they try to earn more but their benefits are taken away faster than they can earn. Even when workers tried to get together to help themselves they were thrown
Social class has a large effect on the lifestyles of all Americans. But what does it really mean to be a part of the lower, middle or upper class? These divisions of social class are defined by aspects such as family income and lifestyle; however, education plays a large role in determining ones social class. That does not mean that it will determine success in ones life but to interpret, many people with a further education usually have a higher income as well. Those of the upper class have higher standards for education and career aspirations in contrast to those of the lower and middle class. Besides the differentiation of aspirations of the individuals of each social class, it is also used to determine who will go to college, depending on who can afford it or have no other priorities that can get in the way.
The structural-functional analysis of jobs in the U.S. is governed by the workforce stratification and technology. The more educated and diverse a society is the better society’s job market is served. This social economic separation of class has been both good and bad for society. Many workers at the lower levels of employment are both pleased and displeased with many aspects of work. Though this fact also holds true with most any job at any level, pay scale often compensates for endurance of a particular job type. The security of a person’s job also is an issue that in today’s economic times forces one to be prepared for change. This is to say that even if one’s field of expertise is needed today it may not be tomorrow. This type of ever-changing job market leads many to believe that another socio-economic change may occur at any time. This change was apparent with the transition into the industrial age and again in the information age. These concerns caused stress, various health issues, a...
Unfortunately, there are many Americans out of work in today’s current declining economy. Unemployment can be defined as a person who is out of work involuntary, not by choice. These people are looking jobs and available to start work. Being unemployed can be disheartening and deciding what the next step is can be challenging. Underemployed can be described as being inadequately employed, such as a low-paying job that requires fewer skills than one possess. (Daly, Hobijn, and Kwok 2015) Making ends meet can be difficult for one who has been affected by this economy over the past few years. America still has a high unemployment rate since the decline of the current job market. And many Americans are struggling to establish the skills needed for employment, or the underemployed are force to lower they skill to make a profit. America’s economic status has force the underemployed and unemployed to make ends meet with the current jobs available. And last but not least some have also utilized these difficult times to venture into new discoveries to make life hassle free. So, we wonder is Americans giving up in today’s economy or do they settle for lower end job to establish a steady income to make ends.