Chapter 8: Social Stratification - Introductory Sociology - Digital Textbook

Notes:

the beliefs and practices between the poor, the wealthy, and those in between. Some people believe that poor individuals should work harder and take advantage of all the opportunities afforded them due to living in the “land of opportunity.” Others think the deck is stacked against the poor and that try as they may, there is no way to get ahead. A good starting point for considering these different views is to discuss the various groups within society and how they interact.

The Sociological Perspective on Social Class

, consider how groups like the poor and wealthy interact or how one group ignores or exploits the other. Whitworth grew up in a household with a modest income. At the time, he didn’t recognize that his parents’ income significantly influenced his social norms, values, and beliefs. He knew that some of his classmates’ parents drove new cars and took expensive vacations, but he couldn’t process the significance of these differences in social class, a category of people with similar status, culture, and wealth (C-19).

Why wasn’t Whitworth invited to the birthday parties at the country club when he was a child? The answer has to do with class consciousness, an awareness of one’s social category within a social hierarchy. Whitworth’s friends’ parents were keenly aware of social status, an individual’s position, or rank within a social system. When people first meet, one of the most common questions they ask each other is, “Where do you work?” or “What do your parents do?” This question positions people within a social hierarchy commonly referred to as social stratification, a system in which categories of people are ranked in a hierarchy. If a parent asked a child’s new friend this question, the answer may result in a pause and then, “Hmm, I see.” This could signal disapproval, as it could indicate that the family is in a higher social class and the two families were unlikely to socially interact. This module will help you analyze the differences between social classes and how these differences influence social interactions.

Determining Social Class

Consider the last time you walked on a sidewalk. Did you consciously stop and think about which side to walk on? You most likely moved to the right side and proceeded walking, as it is a social norm and a taken-for-granted social process. Similarly, when we meet someone for the first time, we don’t consciously pull out a checklist and mentally go through it to determine that person’s social class. It is a much more subtle, taken-for-granted social process. During many social interactions, we look for clues that indicate socioeconomic status (SES), an individual’s social position based on education, occupation, income, and place of residence.

Education

The Sociological Perspective on Social Class

Determining Social Class

Education

We’ve already established that the answer to “What kind of work do you do?” provides a big clue about SES. A question about your college major may even be designed to determine your future social class. How often are you asked about your major when you meet someone? Do you ask about their major? Career aspirations? Are the questions asked out of curiosity or to exchange pleasantries? Or are the questions providing clues about future socioeconomic status? The response, “I am a biology major and premed,” indicates which social class you will eventually join. Once you graduate and enter the workforce, you may even find yourself asking others where they went to college. If a person responds that they did not attend college, you have more information about their educational background.

Income

Evidence from numerous studies indicates that educational attainment is related to income, money earned on a regular basis through work (C-19), so you just gathered another clue (Jacobson and Mokher 2009; Fogel 1966). It is socially unacceptable to ask people how much money they make, so we make inferences based on occupation and educational attainment

Occupation

Another quick assessment is to determine if the person is a blue-collar worker, an individual who engages in manual labor, a pink-collar worker, an individual who works in female-dominated jobs with low pay, or a white-collar worker, an individual employed in a salaried professional, managerial, or administrative position such as lawyers, accountants, consultants, and analysts. Examples of pink-collar workers include maids, servers, retail workers, hairdressers, receptionists, and florists. In general, blue and pink-collar workers earn less than white-collar workers.

Residence

The fourth component of SES is where you live. Your zip code, neighborhood, and house/condo/apartment are indicators of your social class. Fort Worth, Texas, has a population of approximately 960,000, and if someone states they are from the north side or east side of the city, this is a clue as to their social class.

Information about an individual’s education, occupation, income, and residence accurately appraises even a stranger’s social class. With just two or three questions posed throughout a casual conversation, you can assess SES. It is noteworthy that men are more interested than women in “sizing someone up” regarding social class. Historically, American men have derived their social status and value based on their occupation and financial success, while women were more relational and focused on the home. Today, even with nearly 60 percent of women in the workforce, most working women still value relationships and fulfilling their roles within their families (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2021). You can test this social norm by listening to conversations between two men who introduce themselves to each other. Then do the same for two women making acquaintances. Deborah Tannen, a linguist at Georgetown University, states that men talk to determine and achieve status while women talk to determine and achieve connection (Tannen 1990). This gender difference is relevant to the importance of determining social class between men and women.

In summary, we most often use education, income, occupation, and residence to assess a person’s socioeconomic status. In addition to SES, other concepts are used to determine social class.

Wealth, Power, and Prestige

The German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) developed a social class theory that combined wealth, power, and prestige (Weber 2009). Wealth, the total of all personal assets, including property, investments, and income, was one criterion to determine social class. Weber argued that one does not have to be ultra-rich to be a member of the upper social class and obtain social status, as the other two criteria contribute significantly to the process. Power, the ability to exert control over others and achieve goals with or without the support of society, can garner social status as well. Politicians and clergy members may not be wealthy, but they can wield a tremendous amount of power in the community, which, in turn, confers social status. The third interrelated component is prestige, the level of esteem and respect afforded to an individual often associated with one’s occupation or membership in a group or organization. Periodically, national polls are administered in the U.S. to determine which occupation has the highest occupational prestige. Table 8.1.1 provides the top 10 occupations with the highest occupational prestige, a consensus of the value of a job or profession (C-19). A survey asked, “Below is a list of occupations. For each, how, if at all, prestigious do you find the occupation?” The results of the survey are listed below. Many occupations in the 2016 Harris Poll have an associated level of high status but not necessarily a high salary. Are there occupations that you would have put in the Top 10 instead? Is your future occupation listed?

The poll indicates that doctors have the highest occupational prestige (90 percent). Among the top 10 occupations, the salaries of firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians are, on average, lower than those of doctors, architects, and engineers. Social status and class are not solely dependent on income or wealth; the interplay of power and prestige are important factors to consider. A lot can be learned about how individuals and groups interact by observing different people’s honor and status in various occupations. According to the Harris Poll, a doctor is what the highest percentage of adults would encourage their child to pursue as a profession or occupation (Harris Poll 2016). A global survey of 1,000 individuals in 35 countries found that a doctor was the most respected occupation, followed by a lawyer, engineer, headteacher, police officer, nurse, and accountant (Wood 2019). Do you notice the difference between how people interact with a pilot, female CEO, fireman, doctor, and construction worker? What are some specific differences in social behavior during a conversation with each of these individuals? Does the interaction depend on your occupational prestige ranking?

Social Interaction Based on Class

Information about an individual’s social class is important in determining the appropriate way to interact with someone. For most people, interacting with individuals of a higher social status requires a different response than with a lower social class. There are specific social protocols during conversations that we abide by based on the determination of social class. The next time you meet a new person, attempt to be conscientious of how you look for hints about their current or anticipated occupation and income and how the conversational tone is related to social class similarities and differences. The common belief is that the more wealth a person accumulates, the happier the individual. Have you ever heard someone say, “If I had a million dollars, I would be the happiest person on the planet!” Let’s analyze this statement.

Mythbuster

Choose whether the following statement is a myth or reality:

Money can buy happiness.

This is a reality.

The Inequality of Social Stratification

Why does social inequality, a system that unequally rewards individuals based on characteristics such as sex, income, age, race, and ethnicity (HP), exist in the U.S. and around the world? It is a fair question when you consider that the U.S. CEO-to-median worker compensation was 20:1 in 1965, increased to 287:1 in 2018, and 351:1 in 2020 (Mishel and Kandra 2021; AFL-CIO 2019; Chamberlain 2015; Mishel and Davis 2014). In 2019, women made an average of 82 percent of the median earnings of male full-time workers (Semega et al. 2020). In the U.S., the average African American and Hispanic households own only nine cents, respectively, for every dollar in wealth held by the typical white family (American Sociological Association 2019). More than 13 million of 74 million kids in the U.S. live in poverty, one of the highest poverty rates in economically developed countries (Annie E. Casey Foundation 2019; U.S. Census Bureau 2018b; OECD Family Database: Child Poverty 2014).

In 2021, The State of Food Insecurity in the World estimated that between 702 and 828 million people of the 7.8 billion global population suffered from chronic hunger and insufficient food to live actively (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations 2022). What structural issues prevent this boy (photo) from eating enough food to conduct a normal and active life?

Is it possible to reduce social inequality? Why does it exist in the first place? Sociologists answer this question by pointing out that social structures perpetuate inequalities and maintain social stratification in societies. Social structures, those distinctive and stable arrangements of social patterns that form the society, are slow to evolve and challenging to alter. Regarding the earlier examples of inequalities, is it the U.S. government and corporations’ responsibility to alter existing social structures? Should the government enforce equal pay for women? How can governments and international organizations work together to address global poverty and food insecurities? Are these structural problems too big to resolve? History demonstrates that social structures have changed in areas such as women’s right to vote, the Civil Rights movements, anti-apartheid in South Africa, and same-sex marriages in the U.S. Social, political, economic, and technological changes all contribute to alterations in social structures.

Systems of Stratification

Even though social structures are stable arrangements of patterns, they can and do change over time. For example, there are open systems, social systems that encourage and allow for social mobility, and closed systems, social systems that do not allow for social mobility, concerning social stratification. Many closed systems existed for thousands of years and did not significantly change until the last century.

Type	Definition	Example
Slavery	A closed stratified system in which slaves and owners exist	Mauritania — although illegal since 1981, there are currently over 40,000 slaves.
Caste	A closed stratified system in which some people are designated at birth to the lowest of classes based on their parents’ status	India — the caste system was ruled illegal in 1950, but the Dalits still are discriminated against systemically.
Estate	A closed stratified system in which wealthy landowners and peasants exist	Primarily existed in the Middle Ages (500-1500 CE) and comprised wealthy landowners, clergy, and peasants.
Social Class	An open stratified system that allows social mobility	U.S. — Americans can move up and down social classes based on merit and structural economic changes.

Slavery

The first social system of stratification is a slavery system, a closed stratified system in which slaves and owners exist. Slavery, a practice in which people are bought, sold, and traded as property, has existed throughout history in many societies worldwide. It is still present today. In 1981, Mauritania was the last country to abolish slavery. It was not until 2007, due to international pressure, that the Mauritanian government passed a law to punish slaveholders. In 2015, the penalty for trafficking slaves was increased from 10 to 20 years. It is estimated that there are 149,000 citizens illegally enslaved, primarily women and children, in Mauritania. North Korea is estimated to have 1.7 million people enslaved (Global Slavery Index 2023).

Fifty million people lived in modern slavery in 2021 — 28 million were in forced labor, and 22 million were trapped in forced marriage (International Labour Organization [ILO], Walk Free, and International Organization for Migration [IOM] 2022). Individuals subjected to modern-day slavery are often abducted from poor rural areas and trafficked for slave labor and prostitution to organized crime rings in Europe and the Middle East (The CNN Freedom Project 2019). An estimated 20,000 girls are growing up in and exploited in commercial sex brothels. Annually, 10,000-15,000 French teenagers are victims of child sex trafficking. The U.S. State Department estimates 24.9 million victims of trafficking worldwide (U.S. State Department: Trafficking in Persons Report 2022).

There are approximately 400,000 modern-day slaves in the U.S., most of whom are illegal immigrants forced to work for free under the threat of violence and teenage girls who work as sex slaves (Global Slavery Index 2018). Entrance into slavery is forced, and exiting is not a personal choice, so it is a closed system. Children are often born into slavery, so it is somewhat inherited.

The Caste System

The second social system of inequality is the caste system, a closed stratification system in which people are designated to a particular social position based on their parents’ social status. The caste system is primarily associated with India, but the system’s remnants can be found in Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Historically, the Hindu caste system had five castes or hierarchies. The caste with the lowest social status is the Dalit or “untouchables.” It is estimated that 20 percent of India’s population comprises Dalits, and even though the caste system is outlawed in India, people still protest about social inequalities. “Dalit” has replaced the term “untouchables” for political reasons. Dalits are commonly leather workers, street sweepers, cobblers, agricultural workers, and scavengers who remove human waste from homes.

Individuals born into this social category are believed to be punished for bad behavior in a previous life. Its members have traditionally held occupations related to preparing bodies for funerals and killing animals and pests. Rules forbid the Dalit from interacting with other castes, creating the term “untouchables.” It is a closed system because an individual born into a caste remains in it for life. The caste system was outlawed in 1950, yet it remains embedded in the Indian social structures. Marriage is primarily still arranged only in castes, and in politics, votes are cast based on caste (Sankaran 2013).

More colleges and universities in the U.S. explicitly prohibit discrimination based on caste. For example, in 2022, Brown University added caste as a protected characteristic to its nondiscrimination policy, alongside categories such as race, religion, sex, and gender identity (Kaur 2022). You may not have considered the possibility that some of your peers have faced slurs, microaggressions, and social exclusion on campus because of their caste identities.

The Estate System

The third social system of inequality existed in the Middle Ages and is known as the estate system, a closed stratified system in which wealthy landowners and peasants exist (500–1500 C.E.). The landowners were able to exploit the peasants who were dependent on them for necessities. The peasants worked the land for food and protection from marauding armies. This closed system was associated with feudalism, and membership was determined by inheritance. In the last several centuries of the Middle Ages, a fourth class comprised of artisans and merchants emerged. This class grew in prominence and power and was the catalyst for the fourth system of stratification.

The Class System

The class system, an open stratified system that allows social mobility, evolved from the social conditions that existed as the estate system ended. A class system is based on economic positions. It is an open system allowing for movement between classes.

The artisans and merchants developed into a social class and competed for power and economic resources with the landowners. When the landowners’ power base eroded, the peasants gained access to valuable resources such as property ownership, employment with wages, and a nominal amount of power as a group of workers in the new free enterprise system. Until this time, the slavery, caste, and estate systems of stratification were mainly based on birth, which provided no option to escape from the lowest social position in society. The current middle class emerged as the peasants gained the ability to move up social rankings, but due to the deeply embedded and pre-existing social structures before the class system, there are still remnants of the closed system in the U.S.

Ascribed and Achieved Status

One way the class system is similar to the three closed systems is that even today, ascribed status, a position in a social system that is assigned based on characteristics such as race, sex, or class, has a significant bearing on individuals’ abilities to climb the social ladder. Being a woman and a minority are ascribed statuses. As mentioned, women are paid 18 percent less than men in the U.S. and much less in many other countries. Today, many minorities in the U.S. are disadvantaged at birth due to unjust treatment and the lack of opportunities experienced by their families for the past 240 years. Triple oppression, combined characteristics of being a woman, minority, and poor, is a term that describes the social limitations of women of color who are impoverished.

Due to discrimination and the lack of equal opportunities, these women’s ascribed status becomes a limiting factor similar to the characteristics of a closed system. Fortunately, it is not as limited due to the second type of status.

In contrast to the other systems, the class system is characterized by achieved status, a position in a social system that is gained through merit. Individuals could move from one class to another, a privilege that slaves, untouchables, and peasants were not afforded. The underpinnings of the U.S. class system are based on the idea that anyone can achieve success regardless of sex, race, and economics, an idea that is referred to as the American dream, a commonly held belief in the U.S. suggesting that anyone can overcome obstacles and get ahead in life through hard work and determination (HP). As early immigrants arrived in the U.S., this national ethos empowered them with hope and aspirations for a better life for themselves and their families. Today, there is a debate on how to define the American Dream in the 21st century and whether it is still achievable. A 2013 Bloomberg poll found that 63 percent of Americans indicated the U.S. no longer offers everyone an equal chance to get ahead (Lynch 2013), while a 2016 poll found that 71 percent of Americans believe the economy is rigged to benefit some groups over others (Long 2016). The results of a 2018 nationally representative sample of 2,411 Americans released in 2019 found that only 18 percent believed the American dream was out of reach for them. Considering race and ethnicity, 80-85 percent of minorities said they achieved or were on their way to achieving the American dream (American Enterprise Institute 2019; Engle 2019). Overall, the survey concluded that Americans are optimistic about life in their communities and their ability to achieve the American dream. All three of these polls found varying interpretations of the American dream’s viability, with the most recent poll indicating that it is still achievable for most Americans. Research indicates the neighborhood and environment children grow up in and public policies that invest in children — especially low-income children — are two of the most important factors influencing upward economic mobility (Chetty and Hendren 2022). What is your interpretation of the American dream? What factors do you think influence achieving the “dream?” We will discuss in the next section how your social class may influence your answer.

Social Classes

When you meet someone for the first time, do you try to assess their social class based on their social, economic, and educational characteristics? We often broadly categorize classes as lower, middle, and upper. Would you have difficulties assigning yourself to a social class? Do you still associate yourself with your family’s social class? Sociologists, economists, and politicians disagree on the income cutoff limits for each social class. A related issue is that a family of four with an income of $55,000 in Lexington, Kentucky, may be considered middle class. Still, a family of three in NYC with the same income might not meet the definition of the middle class because of the differences in the cost of living. Therefore, the income ranges are debatable and will vary based on factors such as the family’s size and location. In 2021, the U.S. median household income was $79,900 (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2021). This means half of American household incomes fell below $79,900, and half were above. At the end of the first quarter of 2020, the individual median wage was $49,764, which was 5.7 percent higher than a year earlier (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2020). Another way to view income ranges is to consider the quintile system of household incomes, as depicted in Figure 8.2.2. Household incomes are distributed into five categories — the bottom, 4th, middle, 2nd, and top quintiles — each representing 20 percent.

In the U.S., social classes are often called upper, middle, and lower-income classes. Which of these three classifications does your family reside in? Based on your income alone, which social class best describes you? Was it easy to categorize your family and yourself in a social class? What criteria did you use for classification? Which social class do you expect to be in within 10 years? 25 years? Let’s dive deeper into each social class to learn more about the specific criteria.

The Upper Class

upper class, a category of people who maintain the highest status and resources in a society (HP), is the only segment of society experiencing significant household income growth. In 2018, 19 percent of U.S. households comprised the upper class (C-19) (Fry and Kochhar 2018). The top 1 percent of household incomes in 2019 was an average of $421,347, although the amount varies by state. In New Mexico, it only requires $256,168 (lowest of all 50 states) to be in the top 1 percent, but a salary of $663,009 is needed to be in the top 1 percent in Connecticut (highest) (Suneson 2019). San Francisco is ranked #1 worldwide for the highest salaries and disposable income after rent, followed by Zurich, Switzerland, New York, Boston, and Chicago (Curran 2019).

The upper class falls into two categories: inherited wealth and new money. Wealth was traditionally passed from generation to generation, conferring distinct advantages on the inheritors, allowing them to pursue luxurious lifestyles, cultural and educational pursuits, and recreational activities. These intergenerational wealth transfers are factors in the increasing racial wealth gap, as the average White family inheritance is $150,000, compared to less than $40,000 for Black family inheritances (Taylor and Meschede 2018). Many founders of technology-related, entertainment,

and sports businesses are first-generation millionaires and billionaires and differ culturally and socially from those listed in the Social Register, a directory of American families who form the “old money” social elite.

The six wealthiest Americans are worth more than the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 13 states combined, and the 50 richest Americans now hold almost as much wealth as half of the U.S. (Dean 2021; Steverman and Tanzi 2020). The share of wealth among the wealthiest 1 percent increased from 23 percent in 1989 to 32 percent in 2018 (Federal Reserve Board 2019). To put this into perspective, the entire middle class now holds less wealth than the top 1 percent of Americans.

The Middle Class

The middle class, the category of people at the center of a social hierarchy, comprises most American households (52 percent). The range is sometimes calculated as 67 percent to 200 percent of the median income, which would be $43,168–$128,860 in 2019. This wide range reflects tremendous diversity in the middle class regarding educational attainment, culture, and hobbies, disallowing generalizations about this social class. A plumber, college professor, and professional bass fisherman will likely fall in the middle class and have varied interests.

The most important aspect of the middle class is that it has been shrinking, stagnating, and becoming less secure. In 1971, 61 percent of Americans were middle class compared to 52 percent today. Rising costs of education, healthcare, housing, technology changes, and global competition are reasons for the middle class’s demise. One in six middle-class workers will likely lose their job due to automation, and 20 percent of middle-class households borrow money to make ends meet (OECD 2019). Although hourly wages have increased since 1964, the purchasing power has not increased significantly. Figure 8.2.4 displays that the purchasing power in 1964 dollars was $20.27 and has only increased to $22.65 by 2018. This demonstrates that middle-class workers’ purchasing power is stagnant, putting them at risk for downward mobility.

The traditional middle-class jobs have been made up largely of construction, production, and clerical jobs (predominantly occupations aligned with sensory-physical skills such as equipment maintenance). New categories include more occupations associated with social-cognitive skills, such as complex problem-solving. The high-wage jobs are clustered in the tech and service industry. It is often difficult for middle-class workers to transition from working in sensory-physical skills occupations to higher-paying social-cognitive skills occupations. More often, middle-class workers move to the gig economy — workers who get paid per task, sale, or project. Uber drivers are an example of workers in the gig economy. Many of these workers are experiencing financial hardship despite the U.S. economy expanding. In 2019, New York City passed legislation requiring ride-sharing drivers to be paid a minimum of $27.86 per hour, or $17.22 after expenses, translating to a yearly increase of $9,600. In 2023, the drivers received an 8 percent increase, roughly $22 per day. On average, drivers net $45,000 annually after expenses. Even with the minimum wage hikes, many NYC drivers complain they are still struggling financially and fear they cannot maintain a middle-class lifestyle (Bensoussan 2023; Whalen 2023).

The Lower Class

The lower class, the lowest category of people in a social hierarchy (HP), struggles to meet their daily needs and often is in debt. This class is over-represented by minorities, women, and children and comprises 29 percent of households. The Federal Poverty Line (FPL), a governmental standard of measurement indicating the income level of when an individual or family is designated as poor, for a family of four in 2021, is $26,500. An individual making less than $12,490 is considered to fall into this category (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2021). It’s a myth that most individuals who make up the lower class are lazy and don’t want to work. The working poor, individuals who spend more than 27 weeks per year in the paid labor force and live below the poverty line, often work full-time but are paid low wages and do not receive benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, and vacations. People who serve food, care for the young and elderly, and clean offices and hotel rooms are likely to qualify as the working poor and experience poverty. The next module will provide more insight into the social problems associated with poverty.

Problems of Stratification

The poverty rate, the percentage of people who are considered poor (HP), was 13.7 percent in 2021, with Whites at 9.6 percent, Blacks at 18.1 percent, and Hispanics at 21.9 percent (Urban Institute 2021). Poverty was first measured in 1959 when 22.4 percent of individuals lived in poverty. Of the 328 million Americans in 2021, this adds up to about one in seven living below the poverty line (Fontenot, Semega, and Kollar 2018). It is difficult for these households to escape poverty due to structural factors. This inescapable nature reinforces French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s (1930–2002) concept of social reproduction, the process of children remaining in the same social class through intergenerational transmission of various types of capital. How has your family contributed to the social reproduction of your social class through the transmission of cultural capital and social values and norms? Can you trace your family history to determine if your family’s social class has changed over the past three generations?

Bourdieu stated that parents endow their children with cultural, social, human, and physical capital, impacting their educational and occupational attainment. Bourdieu and others argue that schools and teachers reinforce this family-based reproduction process by favoring and rewarding middle and upper-class students (Tzanakis 2011; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977). Structural impediments for the poorest of the poor essentially lock these families into a cycle of poverty that can persist for generations.

The Nature of Poverty

Individuals at the lower end of the lower-income class are categorized as experiencing absolute poverty, a threshold in which an individual does not have enough resources to meet their basic survival needs (HP). Another measure of poverty is relative poverty, a subjective level at which an individual or family experiences a deprived lifestyle. Many factors may contribute to an experience of hardship, and the conditions will vary by time, place, and individual and family circumstances.

The Cycle of Poverty

Unemployment, an expensive medical bill, a car repair expense, or weather-related disasters can severely disrupt the living conditions of a family living paycheck to paycheck. When a culture of poverty is established, structural patterns make it difficult to change the beliefs, values, and norms associated with the social conditions and accepted by the individuals. The result is the perpetuation of poverty from one generation to the next, although structural conditions can occur to better the conditions of families living in poverty. The historic low for the poverty rate was 11 percent in 1973, and the decrease was partially related to the 1971 Food Stamp Act that made food stamps more accessible. Public policy can play a role in reducing the rate of poverty as well as increasing it. In 1983, as a result of President Nixon cutting $20 billion from the food stamp and welfare programs, poverty rose in the United States (Timeline of Federal Actions Affecting Poverty 2012).

Notice that fewer Americans are living in poverty in 2021 compared to 1959. This indicates progress since the population in 1959 was 117 million compared to 332 million in 2021. The poverty rate dropped from approximately 24 percent to 12 percent — a significant reduction in the U.S. In the next learning objective, we will focus on the global poverty rate.

Global Poverty

Why are some countries poor and others wealthy? How do we explain how many countries have remained impoverished while others have flourished? The answers to both questions are complex but are mainly due to structural issues within and between the countries.

The Modernization Theory

The modernization theory, a macro theory indicating the process by which nations progress through stages of development, provides an explanation for why some countries are poor and others are wealthy. This theory posits that nations undergo social evolutions consisting of specific social variables contributing to social progress and development. The changes in Western European and North American countries since the 1700s provide insight into the social, political, and cultural consequences of economic growth during this period. The adoption of industrial technologies is essential for countries to modernize. Other variables include urbanization, health care, mass media, and transportation. When there are structural obstacles that hinder the introduction of these variables, modernization is slowed. A prime example is North Korea and South Korea.

In the 1970s, North Korea was more urbanized than South Korea. Beginning in the 1980s, South Korea surpassed North Korea (Yonhap News Agency 2011). South Korea has focused on industrialization and export-led growth, while North Korea has become isolated and closed to the global market. The North Korean dictatorship has severely hindered the economic growth of the country.

The media is tightly controlled, health care is limited, and incentives are being offered for urban dwellers to move to rural areas to work in the agricultural sector. The communist country has remained underdeveloped and experienced extreme poverty. Meanwhile, South Korea is one of the most modern countries, with corporations such as Samsung and Hyundai successfully competing in the global marketplace. The modernization theory and the next theory illustrate how social structure and hierarchies are explanations for remaining a developing country or progressing toward a developed and thriving country such as South Korea.

The Dependency Theory

The second explanation is the dependency theory, a macro theory indicating the stratified world economic system keeps peripheral nations dependent on core nations. It emphasizes three categories of countries: core, semi-periphery, and periphery.

Immanuel Wallerstein’s (1930–2019) theory reflects the conflict theory approach, as he introduces the concept of a world-system, any historical social system of interdependent parts that form a bonded structure and operate according to distinct rules (Wallerstein 1974). He defines core nations as the wealthy and powerful industrialized nations such as the U.S., Japan, and Germany. The periphery nations have weak governments and are the least industrialized and economically diverse. The core nations are able to exploit the periphery nations for their resources and take economic advantage of developing countries such as Nicaragua, the Philippines, and Jamaica.

In many ways, sustainability is closely aligned with addressing the inequalities between countries. For centuries, core countries colonized and exploited the periphery countries for their natural and human resources. Sustainability focuses on the environmental, social, and economic injustices that have severely hindered the periphery countries from developing and progressing toward becoming semi-periphery or core nations. Historically, many European countries and the U.S. have exploited these countries for their cheap labor and extracted their natural resources with the primary goal of financial benefit over the well-being of the citizens and their country. Today, multinational corporations champion corporate responsibility and sustainable practices considering the triple bottom line — people, profit, and the planet. Coca-Cola is empowering five million women by 2020 through offering entrepreneurial programs, developing water stewardship programs and pledging to replenish water extracted by their manufacturing process in drought-stricken areas, and delivering supplies and education to aid in Ebola prevention in African countries. Coca-Cola is working to ensure all workers are treated with dignity and respect in every country where they do business. They are also researching and developing new technologies to grow their business without increasing greenhouse gas emissions. These initiatives work toward improving the environment and the social and economic lives of the people living in the 200+ countries where Coca-Cola operates daily

Inequality in Society

Social stratification often fosters the unequal distribution of benefits, opportunities, and rewards based on one’s class position within society. Social stratification is at the core of inequality:

Class inequality
Race inequality
Gender inequality
Educational inequality

An individual’s definition of what constitutes rich is relative to where that person falls in the economic spectrum. Stratification in a society is often associated with the differences resulting from the classes’ power and wealth. These classes can encompass a wide range of incomes. The variation has to do with how much people actually earn and how they feel about their economic position in society. A person who makes under $25,000 per year has a different number for “rich” than one who makes more than $120,000 per year.

The problem is that there is a huge difference between trying to live off of $25,000 compared to $120,000. For people on the lower end of the spectrum struggling to afford the basic necessities of food, shelter, and clothing, those in the middle would appear to be rich. Yet, those in the upper range of the middle class do not see themselves as well off compared to the rich in society.

Regardless of where people fall on the economic spectrum, the reality is that there is a significant difference between what people think they need to feel wealthy and the amount of money the truly wealthy have. Known as the wealth gap, it refers to the uneven distribution of financial assets and resources in a society that results from the concentration of money in the hands of a small segment of the population. While people on the low end of the wealth gap, i.e., the middle class, have an idea of what it means to be rich, as the image carousel points out, the super-rich have wealth well beyond what the middle class can even imagine. Hover your mouse over the images to learn more.

tihad Airlines offers its customers a private VIP three-room cabin that accommodates two travelers for a one-way transatlantic flight for $29,000. With a living room, separate bedroom, and ensuite shower room, it is the only three-room suite on a commercial airline (Etihad 2019).

A Bugatti Chiron sports car has an estimated top speed of 288 miles per hour and a base sticker price of $3 million. A set of tires for the Chiron cost $42,000. If you order it today, you get it in three years (Car and Driver 2019).

The Chartwell Estate in Los Angeles was initially listed for $245 million and was sold to Rupert Murdoch’s son, Lachlan, for $150 million in 2019. It has 11 bedrooms, 18 bathrooms, and a ballroom. At the selling price, it seems like it was a real steal, even if the annual property taxes are $1.3 million (Warren and Brandt 2019)!

Those who can afford expensive yachts or million-dollar cars are often called the “.01 percent in society.” Does it shock you that the world’s 26 richest billionaires own as many assets as the 3.8 billion people who comprise the poorest half of the planet’s population (Oxfam 2019)?

This uneven distribution of wealth is by no means a sudden development; it indicates that economic growth has been concentrated in the hands of a few instead of distributed among the many. Since the 2008 financial crisis, 60 percent of economic gains in the past decade have gone to the top 1 percent (Pressman 2019). Meanwhile, wages for all but the wealthy have remained stagnant for the past four decades. The result is that the middle class has accumulated bills and debt to stay afloat and is left with little or no savings. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, many in the middle class did not have a full safety net, even with stimulus checks, child tax credit payments, eviction bans, and foreclosure moratoriums. While inequality and hardship increased for middle-class members during the pandemic, the wealthiest Americans became wealthier, further highlighting the uneven distribution of wealth in America.

Class inequality is not unique to the United States. The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few can be found worldwide. Figure 8.3.3 illustrates the share of global wealth. The richest 1 percent own 45 percent of the world’s wealth, and adults with less than $10,000 in wealth comprise 64 percent of the world’s population but hold less than 2 percent of global wealth.

Economic inequality has not gone unnoticed by members of societies around the world. For a brief period starting in 2011, issues of economic inequality were front and center due to thousands of people taking to the streets in what was called the Occupy Wall Street protest. Hover your mouse over the images below to see a chronicle of the events.

Racial Inequality

The problem of racial inequality is not new. American society has historically been divided along racial and ethnic lines, with those on the top being White and those on the bottom being everybody else.

Gender Inequality

Inequality also extends along gender lines, and with gender, there is inequality between the races. Overall, women earned 81 cents for every dollar a man made in 2018. When broken down by race, White American women earned 81.5 percent of what White men earned. By comparison, Asian women earned 75.5 percent of what Asian men earned, Black women earned 89 percent, and Hispanics earned 85.7 percent of what men in their racial category earned (Institute for Women’s Policy Research 2019). The stark reality is that the men in these racial groups earn less than White men doing similar work. Figure 8.3.5 gives us a much more accurate picture of how men’s and women’s salaries fare compared by race and ethnicity from 2000 to 2022.

The implication of wage inequality is not only that women have less money to spend on groceries or a cell phone bill, but since 41 percent of American women are the primary source of support for their families, it extends to the ability to support their loved ones (Glynn 2019). Pay inequality also impacts women’s long-term living needs. A woman making 79 percent of her male counterpart has less money to put towards her retirement than a man does; that makes her more vulnerable to turning to extended family, social services, or the government for assistance. Given that, on average, women live longer than men, the big picture is that they work just as hard as men, makes less money than man, have less money to save than men, and will have less to live off in their senior years.

Since 1997, there has been an attempt to correct gender inequality in the workplace with the Paycheck Fairness Act, a piece of legislation that would:

prohibit employees from using salary history.
protect against retaliation for discussing pay with colleagues.
ensure equal pay for equal work.
equalize discrimination claims based on gender, race, and ethnicity.
support employers and employees to achieve fair pay practices (AAUW 2019).

The Paycheck Fairness Act has been introduced many times since 1997, but it has failed to pass both chambers of Congress. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Act again in 2021, but it must go through the U.S. Senate before it becomes law (Smith 2021; Congress.gov 2019). Opponents of pay fairness for women argue that such legislation will make it harder for businesses to create jobs and that previous legislation should be enforced. For these reasons, the Democratic-backed bill is unlikely to see movement in the Republican-controlled Senate. Supporters of pay fairness contend that the fundamental issue is fairness for those currently employed and that those other pieces of legislation do not adequately address economic inequality. If they did, women would not be making less than men (Bond 2014).

The statistics on pay inequality are the same for all women across the country.

This is a myth.

Educational Inequality

The third area of stratification that greatly impacts society is educational inequality. While access to education in America is a child’s right, the quality of that education can vary greatly depending on the student’s race and socioeconomic status. The difference that exists in student experiences manifests in the areas of teacher quality, academic output, and school discipline. Addressing those areas of concern, the Department of Education found:

Black students are three times as likely as their White counterparts to attend schools where less than 60 percent of teachers meet state certification standards. Hispanic students are twice as likely to be in such schools.
One-fourth of schools with high Black and Hispanic populations do not offer their students Algebra II, and one-third do not offer chemistry. Less than one-half of Native American students have access to any math and science courses typically offered in high school.
Five percent of White students are expelled yearly from schools, compared to 16 percent of Black students. Native Americans represent less than 1 percent of the student population but experience 3 percent of the expulsions (Hsieh 2014).

The implications of educational inequality go beyond students’ immediate classroom experience and extend to long-term academic preparedness. Illustrating differences in college readiness, Table 8.3.3 shows the results of the Scholastic Aptitude Test or SAT review of student scores based on race and ethnicity.

When considered in the context of the big picture, the problem is that many minorities aren’t even in the earnings game and don’t have the opportunity to reach their full potential due to the educational deficits they experience in elementary, middle, and high school that keep them from moving on to college, let alone graduate or professional school. These educational deficits translate into real-world dollars and cents, and with less money, there is less to spend on housing, healthcare, retirement savings, or the education of the next generation of student learners.

The difference in earnings adds up significantly throughout a lifetime. A person with a professional degree can expect to earn upwards of $4.7 million over a lifetime. Doctoral and master’s degree earners make $4 million and $3.2 million, respectively. By comparison, Bachelor’s degree students earn, on average, $2.8 million throughout their lives, while people with a high school diploma earn approximately $1.6 million. An individual with a college degree will earn 75 percent more than a high school graduate over a lifetime (Carnevale, Cheah, and Wenzinger 2021).

With the issues of economic, racial, gender, and educational stratification in mind, take a moment to consider how sociological theory would address stratification in society.

Functionalist Theory: Sociologists using the functionalist perspective consider how the system of stratification contributes to society’s stability. From this perspective, stratification and inequality are functional in that they reflect society’s needs and values as they relate to its members’ varying abilities.

What function does the disparity in college preparedness testing scores have in maintaining the system of stratification? Is the test score disparity detrimental to society overall? How does the educational system maintain social stratification?

Conflict Theory: Considering stratification from a conflict perspective involves looking at the struggle over scarce resources between different groups in society and how the powerful use inequality to their advantage. Conflict theorists would argue that the wealthy benefit from the system of stratification at the expense of the poor.

How does the wage gap increase long term inequality for women? Who benefits from maintaining wage inequality between the sexes? Is gender inequality a necessary and inevitable part of social stratification?

Symbolic Interactionism: Symbolic interaction theorists examine an individual’s position in the system of stratification and how that position impacts their behavior and interaction with others. From the symbolic interactionist perspective, stratification can be analyzed not only in terms of an individual’s financial wealth but also in terms of their race, education, musical preferences, and even style of dress.

How do different variables impact a person’s position in society? What role does the cycle of poverty play in maintaining social stratification? Can policies and procedures be implemented in society to help break the cycle of poverty?

The problems associated with stratification by income, race, gender, or education do not exist in a vacuum of independent variables but are interconnected with one impacting another and vice versa.

The American Dream

What would it look like if you could paint a picture of your ideal life? Would you be married or single? Would you have any children? Would you live in a mansion with a white picket fence, own a dog or cat, and have a sports car parked in the garage? Historically, the American dream has included all these items and has been idealized as the height of achievement and success. But is it possible for everyone to achieve this level of success in a stratified society? Can everyone achieve the traditional American dream of owning a home with a white picket fence? Is this part of your dream? Or are there unseen barriers that make it difficult for people to fulfill their dreams? Let’s consider the personal troubles and public issues that can impact a person’s position in the system of stratification.

Private Troubles and Public Issues of Stratification

Success stories about the American dream are legendary. Most involve a person born into poverty working hard and eventually achieving untold wealth. Sociologists refer to the change from poverty to wealth as social mobility, an individual’s or group’s movement up or down the system of stratification in society. Since few people win the lottery and are suddenly catapulted into great wealth, a change in social position for most people results from having good life chances, the opportunities and resources a person has at their disposal to improve their quality of life (HP). A term first coined by Max Weber, life chances can include a range of factors that influence a person’s quality of life. From basics like food, shelter, and clothing to less tangible things like healthcare, education, and employment, life chances can vary dramatically between societies.

Life Chances	Countries
Best places to be born	Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Singapore, New Zealand, Netherlands, Canada, and Hong Kong
Worst places to be born	Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Russia, Syria, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Ukraine, Kenya, and Nigeria
Countries with the best quality food	Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg, and Australia
Countries with the worst quality food	Yemen, Madagascar, Ethiopia, Angola, and Chad
The best healthcare in the world	United Kingdom, Switzerland, Sweden, Australia, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand & Norway, France, and Canada
The worst healthcare in the world	Zambia, Lesotho, Mozambique, Malawi, Liberia, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Myanmar, and Sierra Leone
Places with the best educational systems	South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Finland, United Kingdom, Canada, Netherlands, Ireland, and Poland
Places with the worst educational systems	Angola, Gambia, Pakistan, Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Central African Republic, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger
Countries with the highest standard of living	Australia, Sweden, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United States, Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, and the United Kingdom
Countries with the lowest standard of living	Guinea, Niger, Mali, Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau, and Burkina Faso

Life chances also vary in a society. As we have already seen, in the United States, a person with a college education has higher life chances due to their potential to earn a higher income, which acts as a gateway to better healthcare, a better home, and greater opportunities overall. An individual’s cultural and social capital greatly enhance their life chances. The concept of cultural capital, the information, knowledge, and ideas people use to support their social mobility, was first introduced by Pierre Bourdieu. The range of items that fall under the rubric of cultural capital varies across time, place, and culture, but in a work setting, it can include everything from how to shake hands properly, dress for an interview, or what tone of voice to use in an office setting. Social capital, the social networks that people can use to enhance their societal position, may include things like business associations, clubs, sororities, fraternities, etc., all of which may be used to enhance their members’ social and or economic position.

The concepts of cultural and social capital bring into stark focus the personal troubles vs. public issues aspect of stratification. While the larger society is often focused on macro stratification issues such as education or jobs, the role of personal or micro-level concepts such as cultural and social capital cannot be underestimated when considering a person’s success. Even if society has addressed the public issue of job availability, if people do not know how to dress for an interview or don’t have social connections to put in a good word to potential employers, the question of their employment becomes a personal trouble, not necessarily a public issue for the larger society to address.

Another aspect of life chances that is particularly important to those living in Western society is the digital divide, the access to and ability to use technology like computers and the Internet. In the 21st century, being computer illiterate or not having internet access puts a person at a great disadvantage personally and professionally. From engaging in general correspondence to looking for jobs online or participating in electronic voting, computers permeate our world. Those without computer knowledge or access are severely hampered. Figure 8.4.1 indicates that lower-income U.S. adults have lower technology adoption levels than adults making more than $100,000. Only 18 percent of the individuals surveyed making less than $30,000 had all the forms of technology compared to 39 percent and 64 percent for the other two income ranges.

The economic problems associated with the digital divide are far-reaching. The lack of access to technology speaks to an individual’s or family’s ability to afford a computer or Internet access in the home. Similarly, a nation’s ability to implement technology is greatly influenced by society’s degree of wealth. Without access to technology, the individual is at a disadvantage educationally, professionally, and socially. A nation that offers its citizens little to no access to technology is severely limited in its ability to compete in the global marketplace. In the area of stratification, the digital divide is both a personal trouble and a public issue.

The Ups and Downs of Stratification

in an open system of stratification, a change in one’s social position can occur in various ways. An individual, family, or group can move up, down, or across the system of stratification in what sociologists identify as either vertical or horizontal mobility. Vertical mobility, movement up or down the system of stratification (HP), typically occurs due to a change in status that results in increased income from a job or improved social position due to marriage. A few individuals in Western society may even experience vertical mobility because they won a large sum of money through the lottery. By comparison, downward movement may occur due to a job loss, divorce, or even losing money in the stock market. Horizontal mobility, movement within a layer of the system of stratification, can be seen when an individual changes employment in a way that does not increase income or social position, such as a history teacher leaving one school district to teach the same subject in another district.

the social mobility individuals experience can be further categorized depending on whether mobility is intragenerational or intergenerational. An example of intragenerational mobility, an individual’s change in status during a lifetime, is when an individual starts as a history teacher, decides to move into administration, and eventually becomes the school district superintendent. Using our history teacher analogy, intergenerational mobility, an individual’s change in social status that results from mobility on a generational level, is when that individual was the first person in his family to graduate from college, his status as a history teacher was significantly different from family members in a previous generation. Being the first in a family to graduate from college increases the possibility of intergenerational mobility. How have members of your family experienced vertical, intragenerational, and intergenerational mobility?

The examples above of social mobility are often associated with the efforts of the individual. The history teacher had to attend classes, study, and work hard to change his social position. If he experienced difficulty studying or chose not to work hard, we would say that his lack of success was a personal trouble. Sometimes though, social mobility is outside the individual’s effort and in the realm of public issues. The recession of 2008 and the subsequent economic losses that impacted large swaths of the middle and working class were outside individuals’ control; they were a failure of the global financial sector. This is referred to as structural mobility, changes in the social position of a group that result from shifts in the larger society (HP). Structural mobility is a form of vertical mobility in which segments of the society move up or down the system of stratification. Another example would be a change in the immigration pattern in a society that results in new groups entering at the bottom of the social hierarchy, thus causing previously established communities to shift up the system of stratification.

These various forms of mobility speak to the larger issue of opportunity and inequality in stratification systems. Social inequality is inherent to stratification. The most effective way for individuals or groups to improve their access to better education, employment, healthcare, and housing is by using forms of mobility to move up the social structure. Yet, as we shall see, the ability to use social mobility to improve an individual’s position in society can be greatly influenced by biological sex.

The Feminization of Poverty

The tenuousness of women’s position in the system of stratification can be summarized by an incident involving the head of one of the most powerful companies in the world. In response to a question about women in technological fields feeling uncomfortable asking for raises, the male CEO of technology giant Microsoft, Satya Nadella, responded by saying that women shouldn’t ask for more money in the workplace but instead should trust and have faith in the system (Caprino 2014). Nadella’s answer ignited a firestorm of criticism, which forced him to issue a statement of apology. While these comments were criticized as sexist, the subtext behind the dialogue is that if women in one of the highest-paying fields at one of the most powerful companies on the planet aren’t supported in their efforts for economic equality, then what success can women with fewer life chances expect to achieve?

Single mothers with children make up approximately one-third of all households with children under the age of 18. Consider the difficult choices a single female minimum wage worker with three children under 18 and no paid sick leave or health insurance must make to survive and make ends meet. In the African American community, the number of single mothers working at minimum wage is as high as 58 percent (Livingston 2018). American women are 35 percent more likely than men to live in poverty. On average, the poverty rate for White and Asian women is 8 percent compared to 18 percent for African American and Native American women and 15 percent for Latinx women (Fins 2020).

The feminization of poverty is by no means a new phenomenon, nor is it isolated to women in the U.S. When analyzed under the sociological imagination, the global and ongoing nature of this problem leads us to conclude that this is a public issue with personal consequences. The public aspect of this issue has to do with social policies that allow for pay inequality and poverty in society. Women’s personal troubles can be traced directly back to the stratification that results from this inequality.

Stratification and Social Change

Social stratification is not stagnant nor exists in a vacuum; as change transpires in individuals’ and groups’ lives, society’s stratification systems also experience change. Systemic or society-wide change occurs as a result of policies implemented by governments and leaders in society. The following section examines policy changes associated with stratification in the United States and efforts to eradicate global inequality.

Leveling the Playing Field

Government-initiated efforts to reduce social inequality often focus on policies designed to improve the life of its citizens. In the United States, the Head Start program was launched in the 1960s to lay a solid foundation of nutrition, education, and healthcare for low-income children. These types of policies are designed to promote social welfare. Their goal is to offer assistance or protection to society’s most vulnerable individuals and groups.

These children at a daycare center in Virginia are part of the Head Start social welfare program designed to prepare 3- and 4-year-old children for school. Some of the Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination were recommending universal health insurance, universal basic income (guaranteed payments of $1,000 per month, or $12,000 per year, to all U.S. citizens over the age of 18), and free college tuition. Would these policies provide upward mobility for the children in the photo? Why or why not?

One of the most recent examples of the federal government’s social welfare policy has aimed to improve healthcare access for poor and middle-class Americans. The policy is officially known as the Affordable Care Act (HP), but unofficially it is called Obamacare. While this policy has had its share of critics, the social change that resulted from its implementation was that in less than one year, at least 9.3 million more Americans obtained health insurance (Hiltzik 2014). Looking at it another way, we find that after this policy took effect, the number of uninsured Americans dropped from 48 million in 2010 to 28 million in 2016. It rose to 30 million in the first half of 2021 (Finegold et al. 2021).

While the Affordable Care Act was a policy designed to promote social change in the U.S., various programs have also been implemented to reduce global inequality, the stratification that exists between people living in different nations. As we saw in the sociological imagination module, the worldwide differences in access to food, healthcare, housing, and education are broad and manifest as different life chances. The previously discussed world system theory helps explain global inequality by dividing the world’s nations into core, peripheral, and semi-peripheral categories. The U.S. is an example of a core nation. On the opposite end of the spectrum, peripheral nations are the poorest nations in the world. Governments in these nations are often unstable, and their economies are limited. While peripheral nations may have many natural resources, such as lumber, minerals, or oil, core nations often exploit what they offer and take advantage of their workers. Haiti, the poorest nation in the western hemisphere, is a peripheral nation. Semi-peripheral nations are a combination of the other two. Governments in these nations are often stable but experience high levels of corruption. While parts of semi-peripheral nations may be technologically advanced, others are not. In these instances, the level of technology varies depending on where you are in the country. Mexico is an example of a semi-peripheral nation.

Just as the United States has developed policies to deal with inequality, the United Nations (UN) plays a key role in improving the lives of global citizens. The UN does so by offering such programs as:

United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) — Among other things, UNICEF helps women and children with vaccination initiatives, clean water and good hygiene programs, and child soldiers’ rehabilitation.
World Food Program (WFP) — The largest food assistance program globally, the WFP works to eliminate hunger and malnutrition worldwide. On average, this program feeds over 100 million people each year.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) — UNHCR coordinates the care and protection of over 20 million refugees in 116 countries globally.

An interesting distinction can be drawn between the United States programs to promote equality and those promoted by the UN. With few exceptions, American policies typically deal with social inequality issues, whereas international programs operate on a more fundamental level by establishing a standard of living for their funds’ recipients. Arguably this difference has to do with the distinction between relative and absolute poverty. In a wealthy nation, the basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing are typically met. While some in the U.S. can meet these needs better than others, for many, the individual, government, or social aid programs’ efforts provide enough of a safety net for American citizens. But as illustrated in Module 8.3, many other nations cannot provide even the basics of physical security to their citizens, let alone address social stratification. In these instances, the goal of social change takes on an added urgency not often found in the U.S.