After reading Chapter 15 answer these questions....
How do capitalism, socialism, and communism differ as ideal types?
How are systems of power and authority organized?
Is the United States run by a small ruling elite?
How does a profession differ from an occupation
Have affirmative action programs gone too far - or not far enough - in an effort to combat discrimination against women and minorities?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Reading Assignment: Chapter 15
Read Chapter 15
Focus on economic systems and politics and government.
Focus on economic systems and politics and government.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Reading Assignment for Thursday April 23
Has Welfare Reform Helped the Poor? WiseTo Social Issues Digest. The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. 2007.
Topic Overview
In the United States, large-scale public assistance programs for the poor---commonly referred to as welfare---began with the Social Security Act of 1935. Responding to Americans' needs during the Great Depression, this act provided federal cash relief to the disabled, widowed, and single-parent families in a program that was later named Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
Throughout most of the remainder of the twentieth century, the federal government provided cash aid to the poor---mostly unemployed single mothers and their children---without setting limits on how long families could receive this assistance. Some critics argued that this approach was counterproductive because it allowed the poor to be idle, resulting in a permanent underclass of people living off of welfare checks and feeling no incentive to find work. Others maintained that AFDC provided such meager support to single mothers that it was impossible for them to acquire the education and skills necessary to find work and pull themselves out of poverty. Most policy makers agreed that welfare needed to be reformed in order to reduce---rather than sustain---poverty.
In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a reform measure intended to "end welfare as we know it." The act replaced AFDC with a program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a system that grants states a set amount of funds to distribute to the poor as well as more authority in determining welfare eligibility. In addition, most adult welfare recipients are now required to find jobs within two years after the beginning of their case, and they are limited to a maximum of five years of assistance in their lifetimes.
Now that several years have passed since the enactment of the 1996 reform, analysts have mixed reviews about its effect on poverty in the United States.
On the one hand, the mandatory work requirements spurred people to leave welfare and take jobs, cutting welfare caseloads in half. Moreover, the rates of child poverty---particularly among minority children and children of single mothers---decreased. Most significantly, reform supporters point out, former welfare recipients who work full-time at low-wage jobs can apply for noncash benefits such as child care, food stamps, and Medicaid. While they may have minimum-wage jobs, the noncash benefits subsidize their incomes and increase their standard of living.
Critics, however, point out that the 1996 welfare reform law requires no detailed reporting from states. This, they argue, results in skewed poverty statistics and inconsistently distributed benefits. Administrative and bureaucratic hassles often discourage low-income families from obtaining noncash assistance like food stamps or transportation subsidies. These families become part of the working poor---with very limited access to food, health care, and adequate housing. Many critics also predict an increase in homelessness as a growing number of poor families reach their maximum five-year welfare limit.
While supporters of welfare reform celebrate the dramatic decrease in welfare rolls, critics continue to question whether the "new welfare" has truly reduced poverty.
Welfare Should Be Eliminated Tanner, Michael. At Issue: Welfare Reform. Charles P. Cozic. Greenhaven Press 1997.
Viewpoint
From across the political and ideological spectrum, there is almost universal acknowledgment that the American social welfare system has been a failure. Since the start of the War on Poverty in 1965, the U.S. has spent more than $3.5 trillion trying to ease the plight of the poor. The result of that massive investment is, primarily, more poverty.
The welfare system is unfair to everyone: to taxpayers, who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church, and family increasingly are pushed aside; and, most of all, to the poor themselves, who are trapped…
Topic Overview
In the United States, large-scale public assistance programs for the poor---commonly referred to as welfare---began with the Social Security Act of 1935. Responding to Americans' needs during the Great Depression, this act provided federal cash relief to the disabled, widowed, and single-parent families in a program that was later named Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
Throughout most of the remainder of the twentieth century, the federal government provided cash aid to the poor---mostly unemployed single mothers and their children---without setting limits on how long families could receive this assistance. Some critics argued that this approach was counterproductive because it allowed the poor to be idle, resulting in a permanent underclass of people living off of welfare checks and feeling no incentive to find work. Others maintained that AFDC provided such meager support to single mothers that it was impossible for them to acquire the education and skills necessary to find work and pull themselves out of poverty. Most policy makers agreed that welfare needed to be reformed in order to reduce---rather than sustain---poverty.
In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a reform measure intended to "end welfare as we know it." The act replaced AFDC with a program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a system that grants states a set amount of funds to distribute to the poor as well as more authority in determining welfare eligibility. In addition, most adult welfare recipients are now required to find jobs within two years after the beginning of their case, and they are limited to a maximum of five years of assistance in their lifetimes.
Now that several years have passed since the enactment of the 1996 reform, analysts have mixed reviews about its effect on poverty in the United States.
On the one hand, the mandatory work requirements spurred people to leave welfare and take jobs, cutting welfare caseloads in half. Moreover, the rates of child poverty---particularly among minority children and children of single mothers---decreased. Most significantly, reform supporters point out, former welfare recipients who work full-time at low-wage jobs can apply for noncash benefits such as child care, food stamps, and Medicaid. While they may have minimum-wage jobs, the noncash benefits subsidize their incomes and increase their standard of living.
Critics, however, point out that the 1996 welfare reform law requires no detailed reporting from states. This, they argue, results in skewed poverty statistics and inconsistently distributed benefits. Administrative and bureaucratic hassles often discourage low-income families from obtaining noncash assistance like food stamps or transportation subsidies. These families become part of the working poor---with very limited access to food, health care, and adequate housing. Many critics also predict an increase in homelessness as a growing number of poor families reach their maximum five-year welfare limit.
While supporters of welfare reform celebrate the dramatic decrease in welfare rolls, critics continue to question whether the "new welfare" has truly reduced poverty.
Welfare Should Be Eliminated Tanner, Michael. At Issue: Welfare Reform. Charles P. Cozic. Greenhaven Press 1997.
Viewpoint
From across the political and ideological spectrum, there is almost universal acknowledgment that the American social welfare system has been a failure. Since the start of the War on Poverty in 1965, the U.S. has spent more than $3.5 trillion trying to ease the plight of the poor. The result of that massive investment is, primarily, more poverty.
The welfare system is unfair to everyone: to taxpayers, who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church, and family increasingly are pushed aside; and, most of all, to the poor themselves, who are trapped…
Reading Assignment "Wealth, Income, and Power"
Wealth, Income, and Power
by G. William Domhoff
September 2005 (updated December 2006)
This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.
Some of the information might be a surprise to many people. The most amazing numbers come last, showing the change in the ratio of the average CEO's paycheck to that of the average factory worker over the past 40 years.
First, though, two definitions. Generally speaking, "wealth" is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth, which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments."
We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from wages, dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income.
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).
Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2001
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.4%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.3%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.5%
Financial Wealth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.8%
The Class-Domination Theory of Power
As argued in Who Rules America?, the owners and top executives of the largest corporations, banks, investment firms, and agri-businesses come together as a corporate community. Their enormous economic resources give them the "structural economic power" that is the basis for dominating the federal government through lobbying, campaign finance, appointments to key government positions, and a policy-planning network made up of foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion groups. The CEOs and biggest owners in the corporate community, along with the top executives at the foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion groups, work together as a leadership group that I call the power elite. However, they do fight among themselves sometimes, leading to moderate-conservative and ultra-conservative factions in the power elite.
As the very phrase "power structure" suggests, it is not easy to change power arrangements, even in a country where people have won freedom of speech and the right to vote. To start with, it is necessary to understand the intricacies of a power structure and how it was constructed in order to change it -- that's where the power structure research discussed in other parts of this site comes in. The following articles include analysis of the successes and failures of social change movements in the U.S. as well as advice for progressive activists on how to move forward.
What Social Science Can Tell Us About Social Change
It's necessary to know what works and doesn't work, and what role activists can play. So the centerpiece of this section describes what can be learned from the social sciences about creating greater equality.
Questions and Answers
Q: So, who does rule America?
A: The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., corporations, banks, and agri-businesses. But they have plenty of help from the managers and experts they hire. You can read the essential details of the argument in this summary of Who Rules America?, or look for the book itself at Amazon.com.
Q: Do the same people rule at the local level that rule at the federal level?
A: No, not quite. The local level is dominated by the land owners and businesses related to real estate that come together as growth coalitions, making cities into growth machines.
Q: Do they rule secretly from behind the scenes, as a conspiracy?
A: No, conspiracy theories are wrong, though it's true that some corporate leaders lie and steal, and that some government officials try to keep things secret (but usually fail).
Q: Then how do they rule?
A: That's a complicated story, but the short answer is through open and direct involvement in policy planning, through participation in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government.
Q: Are you saying that elections don't matter?
A: No, but they usually matter a lot less than they could, and a lot less in America than they do in other industrialized democracies. That's because of the nature of the electoral rules and the unique history of the South.
Q: Does social science research have anything useful to say about making progressive social change more effective?
A: Yes, it does, but few if any people pay much attention to that research.
by G. William Domhoff
September 2005 (updated December 2006)
This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.
Some of the information might be a surprise to many people. The most amazing numbers come last, showing the change in the ratio of the average CEO's paycheck to that of the average factory worker over the past 40 years.
First, though, two definitions. Generally speaking, "wealth" is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth, which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments."
We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from wages, dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income.
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).
Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2001
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.4%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.3%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.5%
Financial Wealth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.8%
The Class-Domination Theory of Power
As argued in Who Rules America?, the owners and top executives of the largest corporations, banks, investment firms, and agri-businesses come together as a corporate community. Their enormous economic resources give them the "structural economic power" that is the basis for dominating the federal government through lobbying, campaign finance, appointments to key government positions, and a policy-planning network made up of foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion groups. The CEOs and biggest owners in the corporate community, along with the top executives at the foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion groups, work together as a leadership group that I call the power elite. However, they do fight among themselves sometimes, leading to moderate-conservative and ultra-conservative factions in the power elite.
As the very phrase "power structure" suggests, it is not easy to change power arrangements, even in a country where people have won freedom of speech and the right to vote. To start with, it is necessary to understand the intricacies of a power structure and how it was constructed in order to change it -- that's where the power structure research discussed in other parts of this site comes in. The following articles include analysis of the successes and failures of social change movements in the U.S. as well as advice for progressive activists on how to move forward.
What Social Science Can Tell Us About Social Change
It's necessary to know what works and doesn't work, and what role activists can play. So the centerpiece of this section describes what can be learned from the social sciences about creating greater equality.
Questions and Answers
Q: So, who does rule America?
A: The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., corporations, banks, and agri-businesses. But they have plenty of help from the managers and experts they hire. You can read the essential details of the argument in this summary of Who Rules America?, or look for the book itself at Amazon.com.
Q: Do the same people rule at the local level that rule at the federal level?
A: No, not quite. The local level is dominated by the land owners and businesses related to real estate that come together as growth coalitions, making cities into growth machines.
Q: Do they rule secretly from behind the scenes, as a conspiracy?
A: No, conspiracy theories are wrong, though it's true that some corporate leaders lie and steal, and that some government officials try to keep things secret (but usually fail).
Q: Then how do they rule?
A: That's a complicated story, but the short answer is through open and direct involvement in policy planning, through participation in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government.
Q: Are you saying that elections don't matter?
A: No, but they usually matter a lot less than they could, and a lot less in America than they do in other industrialized democracies. That's because of the nature of the electoral rules and the unique history of the South.
Q: Does social science research have anything useful to say about making progressive social change more effective?
A: Yes, it does, but few if any people pay much attention to that research.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Week of April 21 - 23
Continue to work on your papers, I will give you a reading assignment in class on Tuesday.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Mid Term Results!!!
Great Job on your Mid Terms.
Grades are as follows.... 10 A's, 16 B's, 2 C's, 0 D's, and 2 F's.
You will receive your exams on Tuesday.
Assignment for Tuesday and Thursday will be posted soon.
...
Grades are as follows.... 10 A's, 16 B's, 2 C's, 0 D's, and 2 F's.
You will receive your exams on Tuesday.
Assignment for Tuesday and Thursday will be posted soon.
...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)