í Assignments

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.

In the report, “The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth Gap,” by Thomas Shapiro, Tatjana Meschede, and Sam Osoro, they discuss the main factors that fuel the racial wealth gap. Those factors as per their report were:

Homeownership: As per this study homeownership is the largest form of investment for most Americans. The length of homeownership plays a big role on the return of its investment, therefor the significant forecaster of the wealth gap. Unfortunately African American faced a large numbers of foreclosures during the real state crisis of 2008, which contributed to the high wealth disparity between whites and African American (3,4).

Income and Unemployment: As per this study the increase of income plays a major role in wealth accumulation. It is historically known that African Americans have suffered discrimination in the job markets. That has resulted is getting jobs where they don’t have the same benefits and face work instabilities that most whites don’t have to worry about (4-5).

College education: Education was known as the “great equalizer,” but that is no longer the case. Now that colleges are getting too expensive, African Americans are more likely to drop out to avoid dept. Versus the wealthier whites that are more likely to afford the higher education who are the one’s taking advantages of the benefits of attending college.

Inheritance: Even though most Americans inherit very little to no money, Whites are 5 times as likely to inherit than African Americans. The major difference in what happens to the inherence its whites are more like invest their inheritance. As for African Americans, they are more likely to save it just in case they have to use it for an emergency (5).

Social and Cultural Factors: As per this study, marriage seems to benefit already higher earning white families. When they combine their incomes together that tends to help then build on their current wealth. As for African Americans, marriage doesn’t help much in the accumulation of wealth. Yes, combining two incomes does help but when they are both significantly low, it doesn’t make much of an impact (6).

I can both agree and disagree with this study. Yes there has been a significant amount of discrimination that African Americans have faced and therefore have struggled in getting a fair chance in accumulating wealth. At first they struggle with trying to get fair loan. Afterwards, they were victims of predatory lending which have left many to lose their homes after the real state crisis. But I’m such a believer that even though the world seems to be going against you, there is no reason to give up. I believe that when there is a will there is a way. Many African Americans have gotten out of poverty and have become major entrepreneurs. So even though the study shows enough evidence to support the argument there are always exemptions to this.

In today’s world, the words racism, discrimination and inequality have a direct impact in our daily lives. We see it every day in the media, in education and even in the workforce. Racism and discrimination take on various shapes and form in the realm of work. While we have studied many arguments that have shown the differences of wage and work in our modern society, this week’s readings take us to another level of inequality which has contributed to the prevention of upward mobility for specific groups of people today. These articles talk about the impact of racism and discrimination in the realm of work and how the inequality creates a disadvantage to people of color living in the U.S. today.

In the article by Pager and Sheppard, they begin to unravel the complexity of racial discrimination in the realm of wealth through employment, housing and finance markets as well as provide a system of measurement to see the disparity in each. Through some case studies, the article also presents the different types of discrimination that are embedded in each area of wealth. The article defines the idea of individual, organizational and structural discrimination that are embedded in the four areas of wealth discussed in the article. The authors provide hard data that give the overall impact of how discrimination can influence people of color today.

The other article, “The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth Gap…” takes a focused look into wealth inequality today between whites and blacks as well as the factors that contribute to it. The authors argue that elements such as home ownership, income levels, education and accessibility to economic gain directly impact wealth between whites and blacks. The article also argues how these inequalities are created by a combination of individual-cultural choices and institutional policies and practices pre-and post-Civil Rights movement. The studies in the article show how the inequality in the areas of gaining wealth create disadvantages and unequal opportunities for people of color today.

Throughout our semester, the element of inequality has lingered in many ways. We have seen how the relationships between workers and employers affect production and entertain different perspectives of how work should be handled. We discussed how the philosophy of earning wages can be seen differently between worker and employer. Even in our discussion on the idea of capitalism and how the “true spirit of capitalism” might be in some but not all. Point is, inequality exists in many of these arguments but when we see that some of these in-differences are embedded in exposing people’s race, religion, sexual orientation and color of their skin, it is hard to form a constructive argument. The marginalization of people because of race and discrimination is founded in the realm of hate. No constructive argument can be formed when hate is a factor. What these articles did do well was exposed the tangible evidence and possible solutions to combat the inequalities in wealth and work. But to begin to address the issues of race and discrimination, hate must be conquered among people today. It must begin with people themselves.

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.

The article, “ Wage Penalty for Motherood,” by Michelle Budig and England, is a great example for what mothers have to deal with in the work force, I completely agree with their artice and research. They give examples on why mothers are being penalized in their workplace, the way their job expereicen are interrupted do to the caretaking of children.Mothers take lower paying jobs that are mother friendly,t they become less productive at work due to the demands child taking demands, they start to be discriminated by their employers.

When women leave their job to take care of their children, because they have to go on maternity leave they are taking time away from work and away from having more experience in the work field. It becomes domino affect because the women have to take time out to care fo their children and while they are home, and away from their work place, they are setting back from learning new techniques or keeping up to date with what the work place needs.Therefore by the time they return to work they have been penalized with wges cut for not been up to date in the job field.

Budig and England also discuss that women chose mother-friendly jobs, which are jobs that come with ower paying jobs but they are flexiable to understading the high demands of motherhood. The penalized for motherhood comes with a low wage and a reward to be able to be flexiable to atten any motherly events or duties. If the job were a high demaning paying job, they would not be mother friendly jobs. A mother friendly job allows mothers to attend work while earning a low wage in exchange for flexiably for motherhood.

Motherhood also get discriminated by their employers,they second guess themselves when giving a promotion to mothers because they will have more flexiability and will be more productive. They would rather give the job to a women who has no kids they believe she will be more productive and flexiable to the high demands of the work field.

Motherhood has the rewrds of having giving birth, yet it is penelazied for it. Motherhood caue with penalization in the work field, a woman has to have settle for lower wages and go to motherfriednly jobs to have flexiablilt to be a mother and have child care. They also look down by their employeers and coworkers because they may seened tired or unproductive with the demands of child caring and raising. It seems to be ironic that motherhhod comes with a high penalization when we should be caring and making the process for child care for women to be able to succeed in their work fields.

Part B

In Michelle Budig and Paula England’s essay, “The Wage Penalty for Motherhood,” they both present the arguments of why our society penalizes mothers by paying them lower wages than their male counterparts. Budig and England present us with the data that supports the link between motherhood and low wages and why we should care. They tell us that it’s not only a large issue that symbolizes gender inequality that has always existed but because it has a lifetime effect on our society.  The following are the causes of why women in their childbearing years have lower hourly pay:

The first cause is believed to be because of the lost of job experience. As the mother needs to be away from work and stay at home to take care of the children, in return creates the break of employment. It is believed that mothers lose job experience with the interruption of work, as it stops the involvement of the on-the-job training. As per Buding and England, there are studies that show that continuation and experience may influence higher pay (205).

The second cause is that motherhood reduces job effort and productivity. Children take up a lot of time, which in return leaves the mother exhausted and distracted from work. Working mothers are considered to be less productive at work because they are always more concern with what is happening with their children rather than concentrating on their jobs. It is believed that non-mothers have more time for leisure and therefore have more energy for paid work.

The third cause is believed to be that mothers trade off higher wage jobs for “mother friendly” jobs that support their parenting. Mothers need to have flexible jobs that allow them to have time to take care of their children. They often settled for less paying jobs so they can have flexible hours, pay sick leave and vacation.

The fourth cause is that they are discriminated by their employers. They often place mothers in less rewarding jobs. If there is chance of a promotion they will likely give that job to woman who doesn’t have kids as they are viewed as more dependable and productive.

The fifth cause is the effects of motherhood on wages. They argue that lower wages leads to having more children. They are less interested in affluence therefore are more likely to have more children. As they find themselves valuing their family more than money.

Budig and England concluded that motherhood leads to employment breaks. That through time the lack the accumulation of work experience and seniority, which in return diminish the pension payments needed for retirement. We should be concentrating on “caring labor” that ultimately increases the level of care for the next generation (205).

In the article,”Doing Gender by Giving Good Service by Elaine Hall she explains how gender roles are a significant contribution to how people treat and rate their service if it’s good or bad. Hall describes two approaches gendered organization approach and gender in organization approach; she goes into detail to explain the relationship between both and how one has more power over the other using her information from her research.

Hall defines the gender in the organization approach to be center more to the differences between the genders and their behavior in the work environment. Hall explains that the gender in an organization is brought into a gender-neutral work environment by the person. She uses the example of the woman police officer who is classified as a gender neutral career, however as the difference between female and male police officers are very easily to rise to question when sexual harassment is involved. Also, society tends to view female police officers as weak and not up to the standards as male police officers would be. This is when the gender roles and their behavior set them apart.

In a gendered organization, Hall describes to be the gender who play a role in what job the person would perform better. It Dates back to when a woman would be only good as caregivers at home due to their gender. Hall explains how in the restaurant business women have to be flirty, to give excellent service, when the waiters do not have to be flirty to provide good service. The gender organization portrays a role different when it comes to gender. If you’re a woman you are mostly to be hired as a housekeeper or a nanny, why?. Because society has set the idea that woman are born with a giving to be caretakers and therefore will be performed better as so. Their gender plays a significant role when getting hired for certain jobs.
Depending on what the job is looking for they will hire you, in the club/restaurant business if they are seeking to attract men as consumers, they will hire young good looking girls and give them uniforms in which benefits their bodies. Not only do they have to wear tiny and rebelling uniforms they also have to flirt and be well put with their hair and makeup done. This is an example of how gender organization plays a role in whether or not you will hire and once hired you still have to keep up with the job requirements of the workplace giving more power when it comes to addressing the way gender constructed within the workplace.

In the reading “Doing Gender by Giving ‘Good Service’” the author Elaine Hall discusses about two identifiable approaches to the relationship between gender and organizations. These two approaches are connected to one another and I feel that are based on the perception of the people and their expectations. Both the customer and the organization play a big role into these gender roles and expectations. One of those approaches is the defining of gender in organization distinguished as incongruity. To further explain what gendered in organization looks like Elaine Hall explains and gives the example of the waitress and waiter example. Elaine Hall explains that it is more stressful for waiters than waitresses because the data showed that waiters get insulted more. Later on the author explained that waiters who were interviewed explained that waitresses get insulted more often because they are viewed as servant and sex appeal. Also another way is having the mindset that female customers are more stressful than males, because there is a perception that female customers are more demanding. Those are the examples of how organizations are gendered. The next approach to the relationship between gender and organizations is gendered work roles. In the waitering service waitresses are usually seen as sex objects and often the waitresses are instructed to approach customers in a friendly, flirty approach. At restaurants that are female servers it is seen as an obligatory job flirt. But it is also seen as a less of a male’s job, so males tend to be more reserved. I saw that both the approaches of icongruity and gendered work roles go hand by hand because since waitresses are seen as sex objects and servants because they are requested to flirt with the costumers then customers have the chance to offend them, harass them and make them feel less than them like their servant. The actions that most restaurants request from these waitresses are the outcome of the violations some customers have against waitresses. These women are seen with less respect than any job, it is unfair after all.
In the reading “The Wage Penalty for Motherhood” by Michelle Budig and Paula England they discuss about the difference wage between mothers and fathers due to motherhood. In this essay they spoke about motherhood penalty that exist in the United States and also in the United Kingdom. I had no idea there was a “motherhood penalty”, which honestly makes no sense. But Budig and England explained the reasons to why these countries have such penalty for mothers. This penalty also depends if the female is a first time mother or has two or more children. Fathers in the other hand, has no penalty against them to affect their wage or at times they have an increase of wage after their child is born. The motherhood penalty ranges from four percent to six percent of wage decrease for mothers of one child. The more children the higher the percentage gets. It ranges from twelve percent to fifteen percent of wage decrease for mothers that have two or more children. Now that is mind blowing, because that is quiet a high percentage and it affects their income a lot. The reasons stated for this motherhood penalty are the following, companies feel that mothers have less experience than non mothers, are less productive and may work less. The companies believe that mothers have less experience than those who do not have children or are not mothers (fathers) because of the maternity leave, to need to stay with the child, doctor’s appointments all that makes it hard for a mother to always be at work to obtain all that constant job experience. Also the believe that mothers are less productive because they might be tired of the duties they do at home or also might be storing energy for when they arrive home, to have energy for the work at home that awaits them. Also, companies believe that mothers will spend their work time worrying about their child instead of concentrating on work related issues. Lastly, that mothers work less, they mentioned on their essay that mothers might work less because they might have to call out sick to deal with their child’s sickness or appointments. These reasons that were stated to why there is a motherhood penalty do occur but fathers do not pay the same price mothers have to pay. But also there is a reason why we receive “paid sick days”, among other benefits. Women already get paid less than men in general and now are getting paid even less just for producing children. This mostly sounds like a discrimination against women. Lastly they also stated that mothers tend to ask for less demanding occupations to have fewer duties since they consider motherhood to be an “extra shift”.

Part A

In Elaine Hall’s essay “Doing Gender by Giving ‘Good Service,” she explains the association between gender and organizations by identifying two different models: the gender-in organization and the gendered organization approach. Hall explains that the gender-in organization tends to be gender-neutral organizations that affect men and women differently. This model tends to be a disadvantage for women, as it tends to steer men towards the better jobs. As for the gendered organizations instead of supposing neutrality it directs the worker to their given role. This model tends to breakdown how organizations and workers differentiate gender at work. (Hall 453).

Hall clarifies that the gender-in organization model identifies men and women as different types of workers that give specific meaning to their jobs. She uses the example of the role of a police officer; society tends to see policewomen as less authoritative than the policemen. Their gender is what brings meaning to a neutral setting. As for the Gendered organization model its when specific occupations are viewed as gender specific. Their gender is viewed as an essential part of doing their job and its something that people do with their behavior (Hall 454).

Elaine Hall believes that the gendered organization model has more explanatory power in the restaurant industry because they generally “do” gender by:

• Creating gender divisions, they view restaurant work as women’s work.
• Creating the image of deferential servant, waitresses have to learn to “accept one’s Place”
• Creating the image of women as being sexual objects, they hire attractive young women to attract the opposite sex.

The gendered model that restaurants use specifically allocates men and women to the different jobs that are needed in restaurants and they define the job performances in gender terms. Hall notes that regardless of the type of restaurant, in order for their employees to provide good service they must follow three scripts: Friendliness, subservience and flirting (Hall 465). In their initial training employees are taught to always welcome patrons with a smile, make them feel welcome. Being that women are viewed as friendlier, this is when the gender division comes in. The second script is subservience; in this the customers do differentiate, as they often treat their waitresses as less than and look down on them more so than a waiter. The third scrip is the flirting, this is suggested as the owners see it as essential to keeping the customers interested in coming back to spend their money.

Due Sunday, November 27th, by midnight. Word count: 400 words. Please make sure everything is in your own words. If you paraphrase, make sure to include the proper citation.

In their report, “The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth Gap,” Thomas Shapiro, Tatjana Meschede, and Sam Osoro (2013) provide information on what factors have fueled the racial wealth gap in the U.S. as well as note policy approaches that will “set our country in a more equitable and prosperous direction.” Briefly summarize the factors and findings mentioned in the report. Do you agree with the authors’s explanations for factors that have exacerbated a black-white economic divide in the US? Why or why not?