fCrystal has 11 post(s)

In the report, “The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth Gap,” Thomas Shapiro, Tatjana Meschede, and Sam Osoro (2013) provide information on the following five factors that fueled the racial wealth gap in the U.S. as well as the policy approaches that will “set our country in a more equitable and prosperous direction”.

The first factor is home ownership. The study on home ownership is Americas largest form of investment. Home ownership is determined on the length of the investment return, offering the best pay out of wealth. Prior to the real estate crisis loans were pretty much handed out to African American families. However, once the crisis hit, tons of African Americans were forced to foreclose. Which furthered the rascal margin between African Americans and whites, and of the difference in wealth.

The next factor is between income and unemployment. During this study the income increase reflects a major role the accumulation of wealth. African Americans suffer from a history of filled with discrimination in their employment sectors. The implications revolving around their history dampers in the work place for African Americans today. They are faced with inequality in work benefits and stability unlike the Whites, who are not affected by these elements within the work place.

The following factor is of college education. Originally education acted as a neutralizer among the difference, but this is no longer the same notion it once was. With the increase of college tuition, African Americans have a greater chance to re-frame from attending and will eventually drop out in hope of steering free from debt. Whereas the Whites will experience the option to afford the completion of their education and benefits.

The forth factor is of inheritance. Statistically whites are five times more likely to inherit money and invest, more so than African Americans.  Whereas African Americans are more likely to save it for a rainy day, just in case of emergencies.

Lastly, there is Social and Cultural factors. Marriage benefits the higher earning white families. The contribution of income acts as a platform of their current wealth. Whereas African Americans who are married does not reflect the same wealth as a white family does. Both African American spouses have low incomes that could never equate to a white household’s wealth.

This entire study is of a systematic cycle of unattainable wealth for the African Americans. The discriminatory history affiliated with this race creates huge setbacks. In many forms of wealth distribution.

Part A

Doing Gender by Giving Good Service

In Elaine Hall’s essay, she declares two particular identifiable approaches towards the relationship between gender and organizations. Hall mentions the disadvantages of women and how they are affected in a different way when surrounded by gender neutral organizations. She illustrates preexisting systems already in play. These systematic movements have created harsh disadvantages for women since the introductory of recruitment.

Elaine Hall notes the significance of gender and work; our gender dictates the kinds of roles we play and the sort of work we do. There are two approaches, the gender in the organization approach and the gendered organization approach.  The gender in the organization approach focuses mostly on the differences between genders. With the consideration of collective and individual perspective roles in organizations, particularly women, we are able to visualize the generalized norm for certain occupations. Collective genders are organized with specific roles designated for women; such as clerical work.  Men are often identified as servers and women as the sexualized waitress, in reference to this pre-historical agenda systematically referring to women as the caregivers. Women waitresses are expected to flirt with customers as part of her job description. Elaine Hall’s research showed that women were told to mingle, smile, and engage in a friendly manner, more so than the male servers.

Elaine Hall’s notes the role of the women in the police force and the subjective notion of their gender. Immediately, they are perceived and judged based on their ability to ovulate over their professional title. The people’s behavior reflects the gendered approach. This approach reflects the social settings of their relationship among women and men when it comes to gender. Women are often sexualized and idealized for their beauty in their workplace. In a sense, Elaine Hall refers to the weaning out a process of candidates during interviews. Her example of hiring the young and sexy women, and then issuing them uniforms to bring focus to their assets to draw attention to men. This notion only feeds into this ideology of the preferred women instilled by society, conditioning every man to want, and every woman to want to become. In many ways, if you don’t fit this model of this ideal “societal norm” chances are you will become extremely limited in your choices of work. No employer would want to hire women who are not visually appealing. If hired the women is conditioned to up sell the company’s products while the men are obligated to continuously supply and pull longer hours when surrounded by beautiful women.

 Part B

The Wage Penalty for Motherhood

In Michelle Budig and Paul England essay “The Wage Penalty for Motherhood”, focused on women and their childbearing years. Women are more likely than men to be paid a lower wage for doing the same kind of work. They offer five reasoning’s for this theory:

One, Michelle Budig and Paul England speak of the women who spend the majority of their time home raising their children as a caregiver. This gave the women no time to work a full-time job with a salary; they were already doing so at home with their kids. This applies to all women who refuse to miss their child’s first anything, especially if it is their first child. With that being said, a woman with more than one would not possess any sort of free time dedicate to a paying job, making it impossible for single mothers.

Secondly, they explain the rationale of accepting a lower waged position in exchange for childcare. Women who are able to take their kids to work with them offers them the freedom and flexibility to work knowing their children are being taken care of. Women with children require many accommodations in their workplace. These women may have schedule limitations that restrict them from working certain days and needs a shorter work commute than others in order to uphold hold their main priority; their children.

Their third reasoning focuses on the children as a liability. Their children can be seen a distraction leaving the women exhausted and unfocused to their paid jobs. Excuses for further accommodations are to be expected. Like if their child was sick and now they are exhausted from lack of sleep. This cycle of behavior affects their efficiency over women without a child. Their priorities are designated at home rather in the workplace.

Fourthly, mothers in the workplace are discriminated against nonmothers. Different treatment is given to women with children. They are offered less satisfying jobs and should not expect significant wage increases or promotions. Discrimination among perceived liked gender mirrors the gap in wages. Once you become a mother, be prepared to make less than someone without a child.

Finally, the last reason dictates the aftermath of having a child on wages. They home in on the lack of education and the high reflection in numbers who have children. This is due to a limited outlook on available satisfaction. Uneducated women feel having a child will be fulfilling, whereas an education woman seeks a career to be satisfied.

Barbara Ehrenreich sought to write about the living conditions of individuals receiving low job wages. As a journalist, she used the discipline of an Anthropological approach towards her research as an ethnographer. Contrary to the popular opinion of her family, she believed she had to witness firsthand the effects of low wages. Through her study, she obtained insight on actual low waged work and lived a lifestyle within her current means.

She homes in on the hardship of finding a permanent residence, and the notion of a vicious cycle—you can’t work without an address, but you can’t have an address without a job. This forces her to live in a motel paying fifty-nine dollars a day. She notes constant moving is common among many of those living in poverty. While searching for a permanent residence she instantly notices the conditions of her available options as depressive. She ends up finding a place that requires a security deposit and in many instances, someone seeking a permanent residence while working a low waged job might not have that at their disposal.

While job hunting she filled out several job applications for service work like hotels and supermarkets; no one called. Ehrenreich obtained insight of the never ending revolving door of turnovers associated with low waged jobs. The abundance of jobs advertised does not reflect the measurement of availability. She found herself very limited to the job market. Many jobs seem to be out of her reach because of the attire it requires. She notes someone with a low waged job would not be able to afford office clothes for any clerical position. She is asked to take a prerequisite exam prior to employment to measure her reading and English speaking skills, information an interview would have missed.  She is given a job as a dietary aid for people who suffer from Alzheimer’s. Her first day on the job was filled with labor-intensive manual backbreaking work of cleaning. She mentions the humiliating conditions of this job may not be seen as such to someone who saw this as their norm.

Barbara Ehrenreich experiences as ethnographer gave her insight on the millions of women in the labor market and their survival on the bare minimum, as a means for her writing. Through her migration over the past few months, she notes the lack of affordable housing was a common denominator. Luckily the struggle for her was only temporary.

In this reading, George Ritzer hypothesizes a conversion into a more McDonaldization society. These societies reflect the way McDonald’s are efficiently run and how its uniformity is superior to excellence and personalization. This form of rationalized thinking for life coincides with Max Weber describes in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, in the sense of how economical businesses are run.

George Ritzer speaks of a very rational society while speaking of McDonaldization. This outlook motives a purposefully obtainable systematic order to achieve one’s end goals. Ritzer offers a coherent step by step breaks down of five dimensions. The rationalized dimensions for society all coincide with our economy as workers and consumers. This results as a mean for supply and demand.

Firstly, Ritzer notes the best way to achieve an end goal is through efficiency. With the use of a metaphor, he illustrates our efficiency. The transformation of how we obtain our meals has changed for with the notion of efficiency. We’ve gone from cooking all day in the kitchen prepping our meals from scratch and the pass down recipes, to frozen TV dinners. The extremes of our eating patterns have resulted in the measure of taking out and fast food restaurants.

Then, Ritzer emphasizes the importance of predictability.  Formation of patterns affects what we purchase in our daily lives. In continuous with the food method, he emphasizes the relationship we share with food and our senses of the familiar. If this meal tasted good a few months ago, it should taste equally as good tomorrow, a taste for predictability coincides with what we perceived as efficient. The notion of a predictable notion equates to a mindset of comfort and security.

Next, Ritzer disputes the need for measuring the quality of things VS. quantity. This battle offers its own challenges as it is based on personal experiences and opinion. Purchasing the best quality gives the consumer the same security as predictability. The downfall of measuring life is that all things cannot be scaled a numerate measurement, such as things like food, and employment.

Fourthly, Ritzer gives insight on the replacement of man by technology. Fast food employees will eventually be replaced by machines. The workers that remained will be given a very specific job with zero room for creativity, and no form of hands-on craftsmanship will be given.

Lastly, Ritzer simply brings clarity to the notion of the importance of having some control over various elements of their lives.

In Working, Studs Terkel argues that our concept of “work ethic” needs to be extracted from our daily banal nationalistic approach in order to sustain life. Those with the means feed on the working class. The separation of class is clearly noted by education, income, and authority. Those who lack the level of education needed are a greater disadvantage when it comes to networking, opportunities, respect and a status of prestige.

The insight given on Mike Lefevre dictates what Terkel is trying to say about work and “human matters”.  Mike works as a laborer, a small part of a grander scaled conveyor belt-like system. He notes that his work serves as a means to ends. It does not satisfy him in the sense of wanting to wake up and do it again. He expresses the need of creditability for his hard labored work. Constructing things with his hands could potentially bring him joy. In a perfect world, everyone could be accountable for themselves and productive. With proper notability even if their work is part of a larger picture. Future work is foreseen by a wave of technology. If you can’t improve yourself, improve your children. He feels the notion of his work is to preserve the future of his kid. He wants his son to be a person who gets the credit, not the small guy that builds the credit for the boss.

Terkel gives the perspective of another worker who gave up his net of stability to pursue his own happiness. In this case, he’s an older man who chooses not to blindly accept the work given, and realized he should do work that he would enjoy. With this new reality in focus, he knew there was no going back. The author suggests this as the ultimate realization and outlook one should acquire, in return, the work will find you. No longer will we have to look for jobs, but just something that consumes our minds and sprouts financial stability.

Personally, this is how I feel towards my education and professional life. I strategically map things out based on my end goal. In my opinion, these paths need to be determined with the wave technology. I never took any joy as being part of a conveyer built; all that mattered was the compensation. It is very much so a means to an ends in my case as well. Which explains why I’m at CWE continuing my education to obtain “happiness”.

The more education one has the higher pay rate they’ll receive, and the result of lower education equates to a higher rate of unemployment. The more accessible education would dictate the lessening of unemployment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics article surrounds itself around the same notion of the relation between education and work. It offers the unemployment rate ratios of annual earnings and their level of education. Those with a lower income had an education level of a High School diploma or less, made less than five hundred dollars a week. Oppose to those with a Ph.D. made over sixteen hundred weekly. A higher education level offers more than two times the additional money on weekly basis. The range of acquired education offers its own pros and cons; unfortunately having a higher education does not guarantee a higher paying job. All a higher education offers is a possibility or repaying incredibly high loans. None the less education does dictate a large gap in income.

The article Raising the floor, Not just the Ceiling offers insight on a trend of which higher education does not automatically secure employment correlated with the degree earned. Cottom argues his views on our administration, and the lack of effort implicated to assist consistency in rightful employment to those of higher education. The administration should advocate for job programs in hopes of stimulating higher education. There should be a guaranteed federal job security for those with higher education to obtain a predictably reasonable wage.

The article High Culture and Hard Labor, through example, offers perspective on the uneven playing field of the educated and none educated. In this case, the employer held their employee captivate and restricted their rights. The workers are viewed as mere specs of labor willing to do anything to fend for their families. Employees were housed in camps, their passports were taken, and they were given such minute wages.

The article Congressional report slams for-profit colleges, the insight of the underlying problematic results of obtaining a higher education; debt. This article argues the profits for private equity. The majority of profits obtained by Colleges are through high tuition.  Companies spend more of their revenue on marketing and profit sharing than proper educational methods. The increases in tuition implemented, satisfy company profit goals.

The lack of education has resulted in a form of exploitation of the minority. The form of education offers a sense of power and with this power many fall victim to vulnerability. Employers feed off their employee’s vulnerability and take advantage of their rights. Employment codes are constantly violated by the hands of employers. It’s easier for an employer to take advantage if their employer is uneducated because they are simply unaware of their rights and protective labor laws. These uneducated people are often sought out for mere intent of exploitation.

In The Principles of Scientific Management Taylor investigates the process of creating an industry of workers that are essentially used to build efficiency in the workforce. He argues that it is the fault of the nation’s inability to efficiently unitize and manage the growth of the worker. This will result in waste, the waste of materials, production and labor power all of which are needed to create a solid industry. Taylor believes in the possibilities of the “Systemic Management” and how it will get rid of the lack of efficiency within industries while building a solid structure for a better off work place. This style of management will maximize profits and productivity among workers.

Taylor is faced with this realization of differences. He for sees this conflict among employee and their employer while trying to wrap their mind around this new method “Systemic Management”. The point of views of these individuals’ offers troubles— that no one believes they can mutually achieve their perspective goals. This addresses the conflict Taylor argues that both sides are the same. In theory, this defeats the sole purpose of the scientist management, which is represented by teamwork to increase a mutual efficiency in work labor and production. Through this method both the employer and employee can prosper if they work together.

A portion of Taylor’s reasoning for this underlining conflict stems from refocusing on training the employee oppose to this idealized “right man” and the relevance of developing first class men. Three goals were originally directed towards engineers and managers.

1. The whole country in suffering loss through daily acts of inefficiency.
2. The cure of inefficiency is systematic management oppose to this long lasting search for the “right man”.
3. Most effective management is one that is able to balance properly defined laws and principles as a base of workmanship.

He argues that the fundamental principles of the scientific management rules are universal and can be applied throughout all kinds of work. If done properly, both employee and employer can achieve mutual rewards in their work.

Ideally, I feel the possibilities of this method present a win-win scenario for everyone. On paper, it sounds great! However, I find difficult to apply this method in our present society. Capital threatens business and forces the business owner into strong competitive mind set, in order to survive and prosper. The competitive aspect alone would interfere with Taylor’s “Systemic Management”; Realistically this is unobtainable.

Essentially anything that holds a trade-value is considered a commodity. Commodities are traded through exchanges. These exchanges are traded through future contracts. Contracts obligate Capital to buy or sell their commodities at a predetermined price on a future date.  These commodities are then priced based on the market value; which is the futures market price of that commodity. Simply the equity of these commodities revolves around the supply and demand.

Marx uses the example of the weaver to illustrate this relation between labor activity and the purchased commodities. Capital supplies the raw materials and facility and hires the weaver as an employee. The weaver applies himself to his work and then turns the raw materials given into cloth. The employer then takes the produced product and sells it for the given predetermined market value, in this case, twenty shillings. The market value of the produced goods does not determine the wage for the employee; the weaver. The weaver agreed and received their earnings prior to the full production, and prior to the sale of the goods. The employee has already received their wages from the money on hand, and not by the market value of their production.

In many cases, a skilled worker is directed to be employed by capital. Whether he does not possess the money on hand to purchase the materials to create his cloth or he has the money and produces the materials but has no clientele or he was unable to produce any profit from the selling of his product. Thus capital purchases the weavers labored power, just like they have purchased their raw materials of yarn and the equipment of loom. After these purchases have been made comes the entitled ownership. The belonging of the labored powered weaver as well as the necessary materials of production of the cloth; is of Capital. The newly employed weaver is now part of the instruments of labor sharing the same playing field as the raw materials of yarn and the equipment of loom. In this respect, he has no share in the cloth produced or the price.

The hours spent weaving does not justify his life. The weavers’ life only then starts after receiving his labor earned wages. In theory, the Capitals commodity (the weaver) sells his ability to work in return for wages. These wages are then used to purchase even more commodities like food and electricity. This is done for mere survival.

Harry Braverman explains the being of a worker as the way social relations qualify different kinds of work rather than a condition that we can attribute to the type of activity that a worker performs. His writing showcases the structural evolution of the working class. He shines light on unemployment, underemployment, and the rights of labor. No matter the type of work, it is the accomplishment of capital. These classes are merely the processes of acquiring capitals liquidation.

Throughout history, people spent most of their time owning and mastering an acquired skill by transforming raw materials.  Every skilled craftsman worked independently. They single handily used their own tools and judgment to fulfill their jobs. Thus these expert craftsmen did both the execution and conception of the production; until capitalist management came along.

Capital manipulated all the knowledge, standards and principles of work. They eliminated theses skilled craftsman and produced a systematical conveyor belt. The beauty of the craft was torn into pieces for labor production. The purpose of expanding their capital is dependent on these workers. No longer did one individual do both the execution and conception of the production. But rather they delegated each task among many—assigning each person a small piece of the operation.  This form of labor could be learned within a matter of days, oppose to the lifetime it took for one craftsman to master a skill. More than two-thirds of the working-class reduced to a state of unimportance. Now only capital understands the full process. Selfishly this goal achieved the largest possible surplus; which benefits no one else.

The evolution of work has shifted new occupations. Through a single point of view, Braverman explains the distinction between productive and unproductive work. He defines productive work as producing useful objects, use-value, or a useful service not necessarily objects (Page27).  This does not separate the meaning of productive work by labor or non-labored work. Those in the field of clerical work and transportation work are part of productive labor. Even though these occupations aren’t necessarily hands on. They both are needed for production. Mass production has shown to increase revenues. It has resulted in the destruction of mom and pop shops by large department stores. Most industries that have increased their output had difficulties of maintaining their employees. This form of efficiency in labor resulted in huge unemployment gaps. Unproductive industries are responsible for the unemployment of the productive work sector.

Weber views this increasing philosophy of materialism as an end in itself. Modern capitalism exudes this sense of duty to prosper. In order for Weber to best illustrate his method, he utilizes Benjamin Franklin theories and famous quote “time is money…” Franklin exemplifies the spirit of capitalism. His quote expresses different forms of money—Time is money, Credit is money, and money has the ability to produce more money. Consistently paying your bills on time will encourage a form of confidence and trust. Franklin’s ethical principles relate to the usefulness in the hopes of promoting profits.

The rational ethics of capitalism does not grasp this self-indulgent lifestyle; Franklin embodies. During the middle Ages, Franklin’s methods would have been seen as, nothing more than greed. This attitude towards money is the primary reason for capitalism. It expresses a similar feeling associated with religion.  The desirable quality of earning money mirrors the competence of a higher calling.  In my opinion, capitalism acts as another form of Darwinism.

Weber was significantly influenced by Franklin’s concept of capitalism and its effects on society. The money earned should be reinvested into capital.  His views of money were more rational. Benjamin Franklin followed the path of science, which all knowledge inspires from experiences.