fMaggie has 15 post(s)

In a report on a longitudinal study of approximately 1,700 families, Tatjana Meschede, Sam Osoro, and Thomas Shapiro reported four primary spheres of life that account for the majority of the wealth gap between white and black U.S. citizens, as well as offered policy changes that may help to close this gap. I found their report to be interesting and I agree with their findings and solutions.

First, the authors reported that homeownership was the largest predictor of the wealth gap since owning a home is the largest investment families make and the biggest piece of a wealth portfolio (Meschede, Osoro, & Shapiro, p.3). White people have a much higher rate of homeownership than do black people, as black people must deal with a history of systemic racism that caused them to have less access to credit, lower incomes, residential segregation, foreclosures, high risk loans and mortgages, and being demanded to pay extremely high prices for homes (Meschede et al., pps.3-4).  To remedy this, Meschede et al. insist upon enforcing fair policies in lending, mortgage, and housing to ensure black people have equal opportunities to own homes (Meschede et al., p.6).

Next, Meschede et al. link together the effects of unequal income opportunities for black people with higher rates of unemployment. Again, due to a history of systemic racism, black people deal with being discriminated against in the hiring process, being trained and promoted at work, as well as being offered benefits through their employers (Mescheded et al., p.4).  Due to these same factors, being unemployed affects members of black communities even more (Meschede et al., p.5).  Finding a good-paying job is challenging enough and when one loses it and must rely on emergency savings, those savings are no longer able to go towards a wealth portfolio, increasing the gap between black and white people.  Meschede et al. suggest policies enforced at local, state, and federal levels that increase minimum wage, equal pay, and benefits offered by employers (Meschede et al., p.6).

Meschede et al. then point to the wealth gap in terms of inheritance. White folks are much more likely to receive inheritances from their families so most start out with a larger wealth portfolio than their black counterparts (Meschede et al., p.5).  To offset this, Meschede suggest taxing the very wealthy more and those that have lower incomes, less (Meschede et al., p.6).

Finally, Meschede et al. highlight systemic racism once again as the catalyst for unequal college education opportunities. Many black people are segregated into lower-income areas that are given less tax money for schools, resulting in lower-quality education and preparation for college (Meschede et al., p.5).  This factor, along with increasing tuition, are causing many black students to drop out of school or graduate with extremely high debt, if they go to college at all (Meschede et al., p.5).  Meschede et al. posit that investing in higher-quality education for all and enforcing policies that assist low-income students attend school as well as not leave them debt ridden upon graduation (Meschede et al., p.6).

I agree with the authors that a long history of systemic racism is to blame for the income disparities and wealth gap for black citizens, not personal choices or character flaws. It will take a lot more time to convince policy makers to adjust the current agenda but it can be done, if not by one topic at a time.  The attitudes and ideologies of racism instilled within many American citizens have recently been shown throughout the recent presidential campaign.  But I would like to think that there are more citizens who recognize systemic racism for what it is and does, and who are willing to fight even harder to eliminate it.

PART A

In her essay, “Doing Gender by Giving ‘Good Service’”, Elaine Hall discusses two identifiable approaches to the relationship between gender and organizations: the gender-in-organization approach and the gendered organization approach. Hall goes on to assert that the gendered organization approach has more explanatory power in addressing the way gender is constructed within and between restaurants.

Hall begins by describing the gender-in-organization approach. This approach states that in organizations in which both males and females work, the organizations themselves are where people behave differently, according to their genders (Hall, p.453).  She continues that the stereotypical characteristics of genders that people have learned from society carry out in the workplace, perhaps to be able to cope with the jobs they must perform (Hall, p.453).  This approach asserts that males and females work differently and therefore bring this to work with them (Hall, p454).

Contrastingly, the gendered organization approach posits that because jobs themselves are gendered, people act according to their genders at work (Hall, p.454). This approach sees gender differently than the gender-in-organization approach and states that instead of one’s gender being brought to work with them, the job determines how males and females behave differently at work (Hall, p.454).  Specifically, some jobs require females to “do” their gender and behave effeminately at work (Hall, pps.454-455).

Because of the gendered organization’s belief that people do not bring their gender to work with them, but the work brings out people’s genders, this approach can better explain the way gender is constructed at work. Hall first points out three ways in which restaurants “do” gender.  First, restaurants see serving customers as women’s work, since it creates a feeling of caring for people the way a mother would care for her own family (Hall, p.455).  Restaurants perpetuate the stereotype of the female servant, as although both males and females make up wait staff, it is the females who are treated more poorly (Hall, p.456).  Finally, restaurants set up and allow interactions with females to be viewed as sexual objects, by both other staff and patrons (Hall, p.456).

While restaurants themselves set the stage for how males and females are treated according to their genders and therefore behave differently, the employees are also treated differently by their patrons. In the research that Hall did, she studied five different restaurants of three different prestige ranks, all of which employed both males and females.  Hall also looked at three different types of scripts that servers use with their patrons-friendliness, deference, and flirting.  It was found that females were told to smile more and were seen as friendlier than their male counterparts.  Although both males and females were treated as servants at times, females were often given the silent treatment and treated more like servants than the males.  Flirting was also done by males and females, but females were also sexually harassed and felt more ashamed of their flirtatious behavior than did the males.

The gendered organization approach is much more in line with Hall’s findings of males and females being treated differently at work, by their employers as well as the people they serve. This, in turn, causes them to react differently, usually in ways that are more congruent with their assigned genders.

PART B

In “The Wage Penalty for Motherhood”, authors Budig and England highlight the notion that mothers earn lower wages than women who do not have children.  They refer to this decrease in wages as a “penalty”, as it seems that being a mother punishes a woman when it comes to earning money at work.  Budig and England discuss five different possible explanations for the correlation between being a mother and earning lower wages.

The first explanation is that motherhood causes women to lose work experience, thus allowing employers to pay them less.  The longer one is at a job, the more time they will have had to gain seniority as well as attend trainings, which presumably makes them more productive workers (Budig and England, p.205).  Additionally, workers with more seniority are paid higher wages so that companies can keep staff employed that they have already invested time and money into (Budig and England, p.206).  Budig and England also note that when comparing women who have an equal amount of experience in the workforce, it is those women who do not have gaps in their experience that are paid higher (Budig and England, p.206).

The second explanation is presumptuous of employers’ ideas of motherhood.  Budig and England state that many employers assume that mothers are less productive at work because they are drained from working ‘second shifts’ at home after they leave work, or they are saving up their energy to be more present at home with their families (Budig and England, p.206).  If mothers are not drained at work, then they are preoccupied with thoughts of their children, are doing things at work for them, or are even calling in sick to tend to them (Budig and England, p.207).

The third explanation is that mothers seek jobs that fit better into their schedules of also having a family to care for.  Unfortunately, jobs that are part-time, do not require travel, do not require weekend hours, or that allow employees to make personal calls at work may not pay as highly as more demanding jobs.  Employers know that if they offer these extra ‘perks’, they are able to get away with paying lower wages, taking advantage of mothers (Budig and England, p.207).  As long as mothers are willing to settle for this, employers will continue to do it (Budig and England, p.207).

The fourth explanation is blatant discrimination such as paying women with children lower wages and promoting them less (Budig and England, p.208).  While this is not illegal, sex discrimination is, so it must be proved that an employer is not treating all of their parents differently, but their parents who are women specifically (Budig and England, p.209).  Again, this may be difficult to prove, but as long as employees are silenced, changes will not be made.

The final explanation of the correlation between motherhood and earning low wages states that there may not be causation.  Budig and England posit that perhaps situations that lead to lower-paying jobs for mothers may also just happen to correlate with higher rates of having children (Budig and England, p.210).  Examples given are: lower academic skills and caring less about being rich (Budig and England, p.210).  If these characteristics are present in someone who then has children, it cannot be said that they are paid less because they are mothers.

All of Budig and England’s possible explanations as to why mothers earn lower wages in the workforce seem valid.  Again, if people are not standing up to this injustice to create change, the reasons why do not really matter.

When Barbara Ehrenreich set out to write a book on how people are living on the pay that they get from low-wage jobs, she agreed to do her journalism as an ethnographer and to actually work doing the low-wage jobs and live the lifestyles that accompany them. Her family suggested that she just do the theoretical calculations and live off of a low-wage salary but she decided not to do this and viewed her task as a scientist, who sooner or later must surround themselves with their subjects in their natural habitats (Ehrenreich, p.9).  Originally, I thought that maybe Ehrenreich could just travel the country and interview numerous different people who worked in low-wage jobs and report on their experiences, but as I began reading her account of working in Maine, I realized the richness that her book would have lacked.

First, she does not immediately delve in by describing her experience at work. She notes that having to suddenly be in a new place is common for many living in poverty, so she begins by reporting on her search for housing.  The search proves a tough one, as she must pay $59 per day in the motel in which she is staying while she looks for something more permanent (Ehrenreich, p.36).  The places she views are small and dingy, although they do not seem unsafe.  The one she chooses does require a security deposit, which someone who works low-wage jobs and is looking for a new one, may not have (Ehrenreich, p.36).

On to her job search, she reports that clerical jobs were not an option, as she does not have the proper wardrobe, and the same may go for someone who only works low-wage jobs (Ehrenreich, p. 36). She also must take pre-employment tests, requiring that she can read and speak English (Ehrenreich, p.37).  This information may not have gotten passed along had she chosen to only interview people.  Finally, she is offered one job that will actually charge her $.65 per hour for two weeks if she fails to come to work one day (Ehrenreich, p.38).  For Ehrenreich working only one month there, this may not pose a problem, but for someone with children, poor health, or unreliable transportation, not being able to make it to work for every single shift is a stark reality.

Once she begins working, Ehrenreich describes her first day as a dietary aid in a residential home for people with Alzheimer’s. The day is full of hard work, manual labor, and what did not seem to be a humiliating experience of having milk thrown at her (Ehrenreich, p.41).  Ehrenreich takes this to be a hazing for her first day, but someone who has only worked in low-wage jobs where being looked down upon by those they are serving, may have felt differently.  At her job as a Merry Maid, she describes her not-so-merry skin condition that requires a trip to the doctor (Ehrenreich, p.51).  Paying for a doctor’s visit for someone without health insurance can mean a huge financial set back, especially if they are required to miss a day of work, losing $.65 on the hour for the next two weeks.

Ehrenreich could not have written her book with the accounts of surviving on low-wage jobs the way that she did, had she not experienced it herself. I also appreciate that she recognizes the fact that she has many advantages over other low-wage workers-her race, education, health, and of course the fact that this is only a temporary experiment for her (Ehrenreich, p.12).  For her co-workers as well as millions of other Americans, living off of low incomes is a daily reality.

In his essay, George Ritzer posits that there has become a “McDonaldization” of society, meaning that society mirrors the way in which McDonalds’ are run-efficiency and uniformity are superior to quality and personalization (Ritzer, p.1). This rational way of life also carries over to businesses and is similar to the economic rationalism that Max Weber describes in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

When Ritzer discusses the McDonaldization of society, he describes a rational society, in which motives are purposeful and set in place in order to reach different end goals.  He breaks down the way in which it is rational into five dimensions.  First, he mentions how we do things more efficiently, the best way to get to an end.  He uses the metaphor of how we choose to get our meals to describe the transformation of efficiency that has taken place.  We have gone from cooking meals from scratch, to using recipes, to heating up frozen dinners, to finally eating at fast food restaurants, most of which have drive-thru’s to order from (Ritzer, p.3).

Next, Ritzer states the importance that predictability plays in our lives, especially when we are attempting to choose what to purchase.  Knowing that a meal will be just as tasty as it was when we had it a month ago, allows us to feel a certain security and confidence in returning to a place we had previously dined (Ritzer, p.3).  Then, Ritzer argues that we have a need to be able to measure the quality of things, which can be challenging, and therefore we try to measure them by quantity (Ritzer, p.5).  It makes us feel good to know that we are performing our best and that we purchased the best car.  The problem here is that not all things, such as grades, food, and employees, can be measured by a score (Ritzer, p.6).

The fourth dimension Ritzer brings to light is the replacement of humans by non-human technology.  The people working in fast food restaurants are soon to be replaced by machines (Ritzer, p.6).  Those workers who are not able to be replaced are still told exactly how to perform their jobs, leaving very little room for creativity and craftsmanship (Ritzer, p.7).  Finally, Ritzer explains our need to have control over various aspects of life, including other lives themselves.  We are so concerned with having control over other people, especially employers over their workers and businesses over their clientele (Ritzer, p.7).  He warns that rationality has negative effects as well, such as making things more impersonal and taking the excitement out of the unknown (Ritzer, p.8).

All of these dimensions of a rational society can be related to the economy; most of them lead to a higher production of goods and sales.  They can also, especially efficiency, be related to Weber’s description of economic rationalism, in which Protestants worked harder in a more purposeful and calculated manner in order to earn more money (Weber, p.7).  It seems as though this idea is still continuing to evolve today.

Studs Terkel suggests we stop thinking about “work ethic” in the obvious sense of one’s relationship to work or how one views the work that they do (Terkel, p.xxviii). He further argues that members of the working class are put down by members of the middle class, who are in turn oppressed by larger corporations. (Terkel, p. xxix).  All of this occurs because of the skewed standards of a work ethic placed upon everyone by society (Terkel, p. xxix).  He continues that with an increase in technology, we have machines doing the work that humans did-make things, so now humans can transform their views on work ethics and go on to other matters (Terkel, p.xxviii).

Now that humans are free to go on to other matters, they can focus on doing other, more meaningful types of work, as well as focus on finding this type of work.  This must be done carefully, to ensure that we do find work that is meaningful and fulfilling yet we are also still looking for work that causes us to have to think and use our minds creatively (Terkel, p.xxviii).  Terkel interviewed both blue and white-collar workers, and both expressed an unhappiness in their jobs and likened themselves to feeling like machines, robots, mules, and monkeys (Terkel, p. xiv).  Feeling as though an object or animal is just as capable of doing ones job is a reminder that one is indispensable and not truly leaving their mark in the world.  This feeling is very discouraging.

Terkel interviewed people who mentioned wanting to feel pride in their work, as if what they did had meaning. One taxi driver was proud of his driving abilities and boasted about how his customers even asked him how he does it so well (Terkel, p. xv).  Another person he interviewed was a waitress who takes pride in her ability to float around the dining room gracefully and quietly while telling her customers that they deserve her service (Terkel, p. xv).  Although these interviewees may be considered to have menial, blue-collar jobs that are not prestigious, the feelings of pride that they get from knowing they are good at what they do are insurmountable.

Terkel also writes of someone who gave up a stable job to pursue one that he enjoyed. This was an older man who did not blindly accept what he was told a work ethic should be and once he realized his human need to do work that mattered to him, there was no going back (Terkel, p.xxviii).  Terkel suggests that once we all come to this realization, finding work will be simple.  We will not be looking for jobs to do, but for something that occupies our time, our minds, and also lends us an income.

This week’s readings all showcase a correlation between education and work. The Employment Projections for 2015 show that unemployment rates are highest among those with less education and the rates drop as the level of education rises (www.bls.gov). Articles in Slate and USA Today share a somewhat anti-for-profit colleges rhetoric, as this education does not guarantee work for graduates.  Finally, The New York Times reports cultural and educational institutions that are being built by those with little to no education via exploitation.

In “Raising the Floor, Not Just the Ceiling”, Tressie Cottom disagrees with the president that for-profit colleges help expand educational access to populations who come from minority backgrounds (Cottom, 2014).  She finds that giving more people the opportunity to get higher educations is not the best solution for ensuring all Americans are earning a living wage.  As an alternative, Cottom suggests that a federal job guarantee is necessary (Cottom, 2014).  By raising the minimum wage, indiviuals as well as whole societies, gain economic security (Cottom, 2014).  Additionally, not everyone actually wants to attend college, or do the work required at the jobs one gets with a degree, and should not have to go to and pay for college just to ensure financial security (Cottom, 2014).

In his summary of a report on a two-year investigation of for-profit colleges, “Congressional Report Slams For-Profit Colleges”, Paul Fain explains that for-profit colleges are meant to be alternatives to community or state colleges that may not be suitable options for some non-traditional students, such as working adults (Fain, p.3).  But he points out how a large percentage of students do not graduate from these schools, yet a large amount of their resources are being spent on things besides education (Fain, p.1).  According to this report, for-profit schools are more concerned with enrollment rates and collecting tuition than in actually ensuring their students graduate and go on to have successful careers.

To further highlight the correlation between education and work, Andrew Ross reports on the phenomenon of kafala sponsorship programs, in which wealthy regions in Abu Dhabi and Dubai are hiring and exploiting migrant labors from nearby countries to construct of their latest luxury buildings (Ross, p.1).  One such example is Saadiyat Island, where there are villages for the workers to reside and policies in place that are supposed to ensure the workers are treated as well as paid fairly (Ross, p.2).  But Ross uncovers the exploitation of workers on Saadiyat Island as well, who are not being paid as promised, having their wages garnished, and their passports taken away (Ross, p.2).  This horrific exploitation of uneducated citizens living in poverty does not only take place in these far-away regions.  It also happens on a daily basis in the U.S. In order to promise a future that does not involve hard labor at low pay and dangerous conditions, for-profit colleges are on the rise.  They recruit individuals with lower levels of education from low-income backgrounds who are just the people that could be susceptible to being exploited for manual labor.  Unfortunately, according to the congressional report, many of these students will not graduate, possibly leaving them vulnerable to exploitation anyway.