We haven't discussed
it a great deal in this class, but there is a group of social theories
that basically says that things work out the way they do for a reason.
Society functions the way it does because it's adaptive. The idea
of Social Darwinism fits this--survival of the fittest. The economy
does best when people are left to their own devices, and the cream
will rise to the top, so to speak. Such theories are called functionalist,
and place a high value on order. Social change can be a problem, because
it can upset the order of things. Think of evolutionary arguments.
The giraffe is supposed to have a long neck, because at some point
it was adaptive for giraffes to have a long neck--there was probably
less competition for food supplies higher up in the canopy of trees,
right? Over time, more of those better able to feed in a less competitive
setting--the longer-necked giraffes--survived to adulthood, had offspring,
and the offspring was more likely to have longer necks, and the longer-necked
ones more likely to survive, and so on, until over time long necks,
because they were adaptive became the norm. Some people take this
to extremes, and try to argue that almost every trait of every species
is adaptive (that is, it must be there for a reason, it is functional).
Adam's apples must do something. Ear lobes the same.
Other theories
might say that Social Darwinism is an apology for unscrupulous, unchecked
capitalism, and that those with the advantages of schooling, contacts,
privilege, are able to use them to accumulate wealth and, if they
are so inclined, exploit various populations in the process.The exploitation
may be direct, for instance in the form of low-wage workplaces where
employers offer no benefits, and enjoy high profit margins, or the
case of the urban slumlord, or it may be indirect, as has been the
case with Enron and others recently, especially with respect to lost
pensions. In other words, society may be the way it is for a reason,
it may be adaptive. But . . . it's not functional for the whole society.
There are likely some groups that benefit, and others that pay.
top
of page
Arianna Huffington's
article, Upstairs/Downstairs,
documents some of the gross inequalities that occurred in the 1990s,
looking at who benefited from the economic growth. Some illustrations:
-
Former
Kmart CEO Charles Conaway received nearly $23 million in compensation
during his two-year tenure.
-
When
Kmart filed for bankruptcy in 2002, 283 stores were closed and 22,000
employees lost their jobs. Total amount of severance pay for them:
$0.00.
- In the year before
Enron collapsed, about 100 executives and energy traders collected
more than $300 million in cash payments from the company. More than
$100 million went to former CEO Kenneth Lay.
- After filing
for bankruptcy, Enron lost $68 billion in market share, 5,000 employees
lost their jobs and Enron workers lost $800 million from their pension
funds.
- Former Tyco CEO
Dennis Kozlowski made nearly $467 million in salary, bonuses and stock
during his four years running the company into the ground.
- Shareholders
lost a massive $92 billion when Tyco's market value plunged.
- Wal-Mart CEO
H. Lee Scott, Jr. received more than $17 million in total compensation
in 2001.
- Wal-Mart employees
in 30 states are suing the company alleging that managers forced employees
to punch out after an eight-hour work day, and then continue working
for no pay. Nevermind the Fair Labor Standards Act, which says employees
who work more than 40 hours a week must be paid time-and-a-half for
their overtime.
- Not just the
private sector: More than 1 million US corporations and individuals
have registered as citizens of Bermuda to avoid taxes, a practice
OK'd by the IRS. Although the exact number is unknown, the IRS estimates
that "tax-motivated expatriation" drains at least $70 billion
a year from the US Treasury.
- If you were a
worker poor enough to apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit in 2001,
your chance of being audited was one in 47. If you made more than
$100,000 a year, your chance of being audited was one in 208.
- In 2000, the
average CEO earned more in one day than the average worker earned
all year.
- In 2000, 25 percent
of workers earned less than poverty-level wages.
- Between 1990
and 2000, average CEO pay rose 571 percent.
- Between 1990
and 2000, average worker pay rose 37 percent.
top
of page
The point? The economic
growth of the 1990s was not distributed equally. Though the U.S. economy
has tripled in size since the early 1960s, the number of people in poverty
has remained fairly constant. Sociologist Herbert Gans (1971), sort
of tongue-in-cheek but not entirely, and as a response to the functionalist
theorists of his day, tried to use the functionalists' own premise to
explain why the number of poor has remained so persistent over time.
As he says, 'poverty survives in part because it is useful to society
or some of its parts.' And as long as 'those parts' (we can speculate
as to what they are) continue to enjoy political power, we shouldn't
expect very much to change, according to Gans. Now, we all know that
there are populations of people who exploit the poor--loan sharks would
be a good example. We also often think of 'slumlords' and the ability
of property owners to work the system to avoid making improvements on
their buildings, all the while collecting rent checks. Faith healers
offer salvation for a small donation (funneled through their ministries).
But Gans suggests that there are legitimate professions as well that
benefit from the existence of a group of poor people.
Gans mentions several
ways in which poverty is functional for the better-off members of society:
- Dirty work
gets done. Poverty means there will be people to do low-wage,
undesirable work. In a society where there are no populations dependent
on low wage, where everyone has equal opportunity for social and economic
advancement, where there wasn't great variation in formal education
levels and job skills, who would do the dirty work?
- Domestic work
gets done. This frees up wealthy for other pursuits (professional,
cultural, fodder for people magazine, tabloids, etc.-we also love
to cut them down in celebrity rags).
- Professional
and business niches get created. Poverty creates the 'need' for
a number of professions, occupations that 'serve' the poor. Pawn shops
are in a sense banks for those who couldn't qualify for loans. Stores
in inner-cities often specialize in cheap liquor, cigarettes by the
carton, lottery tickets, etc. Payday loans. Collection agencies. Lawyers on contingency. Hotels/motels can prey on poor people who can't afford to get into an apartment rental (because of the up front cash needed for security deposit, first and last month's rent, etc. Hey! Maybe with a payday loan!). There are social workers, in the public,
non-profit and private sector, professors who study poverty, etc.
- Recycling
contributions. Poverty helps with the recycling of goods and incompetent
professionals. Poor people often buy goods others have discarded,
including clothes, appliances, automobiles, etc. In addition, the
poor may be forced to go to professionals that can't attract wealthier
clients (this is where the term 'ambulance chasing lawyers' comes
from). If we recognize that most all professions have a normal distribution
of competence, for instance, that a certain percentage, say 10%, are
extremely skilled, and another 10%, are downright incompetent, and
most fall somewhere in the middle, then there will be doctors, lawyers,
contractors, etc., who are incompetent but still working, practicing.
Maybe they charge lesser fees, accept more types of insurance, but
who is in worst position to avoid going to incompetent professionals?
Where are these people likely to operate? In Beverly Hills or Harlem?
- A population
of poor helps uphold conventional norms. The poor more often
get 'caught' in criminal activity, and most
studies deal with crimes committed by the poor.
- Moral distancing.
Poor people are perceived as morally deviant, engaged in debauchery--the
rich can be said to be acting 'decadent,' like the poor, rather than
morally deficient themselves (as Gans wrote, they can do it vicariously,
rather than as a vocation);
- Cultural contributions.
Impoverished cultures have produced culture that has been valued by
the wealthy classes. Blues and jazz, for instance, or country western
music, all have their roots in black and rural heritage. The Beatles
came from working-class Liverpool. Modern variants of this are rap
and hip hop.
- Security of
social location. With respect to status comparisons, the poor
serve as reference points--guaranteeing status of those who aren't
poor. As long as there are poor, others 'know' they're better off
(morally, financially . . . ).
- Helping others
achieve. The poor aid in upward mobility of other groups. For
example, waves of immigrants in the early part of the century provided
services to people in slums, often of their own ethnic/racial group,
and were able to work their way up the socioeconomic ladder as other
immigrant groups, more recently arrived and less well off, followed
in their tracks. Poor people still need goods and services, and there
is usually some economic incentive to provide them.
- Supply of
charity balls. Poor people keep the aristocrats, philanthropists
busy. Ever check out the society pages of the paper? Thousands of
dollars are spent holding charity black tie balls, well-documented
by a newspaper's photographers?
- Bearing the
brunt of disruptive change. Poor people are often asked to absorb
costs of change. Some examples include:
- urban
renewal, the razing of neighborhoods. This was especially
big during the time Gans wrote about, a period of industrial decline,
suburbanization and growth of the interstate highway system. Those
roads had to go somewhere, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist
to figure out which neighborhoods were dislocated.
- volunteer
army. Who will fight a war in Iraq? Who fought in Vietnam?
The wealthy were able to get deferments from the draft (VP Dick
Cheney got two . . . here's
a list of some of those who avoided armed conflict but are
now willing to send others off to war).
- 'risk
society.' Think about risks in our society, and who takes
them. I'm not talking about extreme sports, things people can
choose (which are often limited to those with mountains of gear).
Living next to a superfund site, or close to a nuclear power plant.
Or a busy street, noisy or polluting factory, high-crime neighorhood.
The wealthy can generally afford to pay money to reduce these
risks, live in a gated neighborhood, on the hill, away from noise
and congestion. In general, poor people bear more risks in our
society, and are less able to avoid them.
- Keeping American
politics stable. The poor help stabilize the American political
process. They are less likely to register, less likely to vote, but
if they do vote, will more than likely vote for democrats. Why? Republican
policies are generally pro-business (if not anti-poor), and pro-human
capital arguments (those who want to advance must invest in their
human capital). Their social policies are conservative. Democrats
generally know this, and know that most poor people would not vote
republican, and therefor have a limited obligation to address their
needs. This is the sort of situation that allowed President Clinton
to sign the 1996 welfare reform legislation, drafted by the Republican-controlled
Congress. However, in the last 15 years, efforts to make voting more difficult have tended to affect poor people the most.
- Finally, if the
poor are morally deviant, there is less pressure on other groups to
alleviate poverty (back to human capital, poor are lazy arguments).
Their own deviance is the root of the problem, not their neglect by
better-off groups in society.
- (I'd add a couple):
The poor pay out a lot in regressive tax revenue. Yes, the
Wall Street Journal once contended that the
poor are lucky duckies because they avoid paying income tax. But,
what about more regressive taxes that hit everyone equally? Sales
tax, for instance (which we don't have in Oregon). 'Vice' taxes on
cigarettes, alcohol. Payroll tax. Vehicle regisration. Lottery tickets. Written on one of my favorite bumper stickers is 'a lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.'
- Low-wage work
gets done.
It's not just the 'dirty work.' Welfare reform is increasingly designed
to push welfare recipients into the workforce. They often can't compete
for decent jobs--there are already unemployed people with more skills.
Often they end up in low-wage, low security employment. Who benefits
from this? What are the potential costs to the welfare system of subsidizing
predatory employers' ability to pay workers non-living wages?
top
of page
What does Gans
suggest?
With respect to
dirty work-
- We could increase
wages (how?). What are the general arguments for increasing the minimum
wage, and who is generally opposed? Why don't we increase the minimum
wage more often?
- We could encourage more automatione,
have some of the dirty work jobs performed by machinery (and people
could be employed designing, building and maintaining the machinery
. . . ). But would that drive up costs for consumers? And displace workers?
- Increasing wages
might actually lessen the strain on welfare programs. How?
As for old, decrepit
housing-
It might actually
have to be torn down, rather than provide slumlords with a means of
income. But likely at the public's expense, which wouldn't be too popular.
Incompetent professionals
They could receive
other training--this would be a benefit for us all. We could tighten
requirements for practicing medicine, law, etc. Why don't we currently
do this better? Would we in the end get rid of the normal distribution
of competence that likely characterizes most professions, or could be
truncate (cut off) the lower end?
Status functions
of the poor
- We could use
relative measures of poverty. There may still be a class of poor,
but they wouldn't have to be as poor-suggesting a more equal
distribution of income and wealth in society. But wait--that's socialism,
ain't it? Strike that.
- What would the
human capitalists say about this? It would involve killing incentive,
but for whom? The least competent? Who may have to find other things
to do if they can't cut it in their professions?)
- As for those
who provide goods and services--yes, the poor could, with more resources,
compete with them in providing these. In any case of social change,
some will benefit, some will be worse off (but presumably with a few more resources to deal with it, or more clout to advocate for public spending).
- Philanthropy
would continue, especially with the proper mix of tax incentives, in some form or another, as long as there were groups
considered 'less poor' (could it become more international in scope?)
top
of page
Political functions
of the poor
- More equitable distribution
of risk in society - if the poor are less poor, they have more resources
to fight back against changes that adversely affect them. They are
less likely to be the ones who always absorb the costs of social or
economic change.
- With respect
to voting - if they felt they had a voice, they might be more likely
to register, to participate in the political process. After all, Obama did become the first African American president in 2008, so . . . change happens.
In essence, we could
make poverty less functional, but as with any change, there are winners
and losers. Who would be the losers in this case, and what is the likelihood
of things changing? You might also ask yourself, who can most easily
afford to be worse off? And what are the trade-offs between societal
benefits, and individual benefits or class benefits?
The reasons we don't
do many of these things should give you some insight into why poverty
still persists. What makes Gans' article even more compelling is that
it was written in 1971, and things don't seem to have changed much in
the interim.
Gans, Herbert. 1971. The uses of poverty: The poor pay all. Social Policy 2:21-23.
|