economy

  • In response to excerpts from Britney Spears’ upcoming memoir that revealed she had an abortion, USA Today ran a story on how access to abortion care benefits male partners. The article quotes Bethany Everett (Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Utah): “Abortion is a highly stigmatized form of healthcare, and women almost always bear the brunt of the stigma and shame around abortion. Yet, there are likely many people, including male partners, who don’t want to become parents or have another child, who also benefit from abortion access — benefits that are rarely recognized by the broader public or policymakers.” 
  • Daniel Jaffee (Associate Professor of Sociology at Portland State University) wrote an article for The Conversation discussing the role of bottled water as a stopgap solution to natural or human-made drinking-water crises. Jaffee notes that “communities can end up relying on bottled water – often at great expense – for years after a crisis” and that existing inequalities are worsened by placing the costs on individuals. Jaffee recently published Unbottled: The Fight against Plastic Water and for Water Justice.
  • LeanIn.org and McKinsey released the annual Women in the Workplace report, which claimed that the “broken rung” – rather than the “glass ceiling” – is the biggest barrier to women’s advancement. Within the metaphor of careers as ladder, the “broken rung” occurs at the beginning of corporate careers, between entry level positions and managerial positions. “The thing that’s important to understand about the broken rung is that those people at that stage of career are earlier in their career, so they don’t have a really big track record,” explained sociologist Marianne Cooper (co-author of the report and Senior Research Scholar at Stanford University’s VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab). “Men are getting it on potential, whereas women are held to a higher standard of performance[.]” This story was covered by Human Resources Director.
  • A recent study by Katie Spoon (PhD student in Computer Science at the University of Colorado, Boulder) and colleagues revealed that “workplace climate/atmosphere” was the most common reason that women leave academic positions (over both professional reasons and work-life balance). Compared to men, women were 44% more likely to feel pushed out of academia. Kimberlee Shauman (Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Davis) commented that the study provides a rare picture of trends in the overall academic field, rather than focusing on individual institutions. This story was covered by Nature.
  • ABC’s new season of The Bachelor centers around a 72-year-old “Golden Bachelor.” Deborah Carr (Professor of Sociology at Boston University) wrote an opinion piece for CNN on what dynamics we may see unfold over the season based on her expertise on aging. Carr anticipates that: 1) discussions of health will be important bonding moments, as managing health is salient in older adults’ lives; 2) family approval of the relationship will be crucial, as older adults are often merging two families in romantic relationships; and 3) marriage may be less of a focus, as increasing numbers of older adults are cohabitating or “living apart together.” To learn more on this subject, read a recent TSP Discovery on Older Adults on the Dating Market.
  • The New York Times featured new research from Nick Graetz (Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Princeton University Eviction Lab), Carl Gershenson (Project Director at the Princeton University Eviction Lab), Peter Hepburn (Assistant Professor at Rutgers University), Matthew Desmond (Professor of Sociology at Princeton University), and additional colleagues from the Census Bureau. The study found that children – particularly children under 5 – are disproportionately affected by eviction filings. The article suggests that both the financial effect of having young children and discrimination from landlords (who often see children as an unwanted risk) contribute to this trend.  “When I started writing about these issues, I kind of thought kids would shield families from eviction,” Desmond commented. “But they expose families to eviction.”
  • David Roediger (Historian and Professor of American Studies at the University of Kansas) wrote a piece for Mother Jones on the “mirage of the middle class.” Referencing C. Wright Mills’ work on the new middle classes of the 1950s, Roediger discusses how the imprecision of the term “middle class” is mobilized by politicians in election seasons.
  • For Hispanic Heritage Month, Mark Hugo Lopez (Director of Race and Ethnicity at the Pew Research Center) and Christina Mora (Associate Professor of Sociology at Berkeley) appeared on PBS News to discuss the terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” and how identity language has shifted over time. Mora discussed the push from Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban populations in the 1960s/70s to get the United States to establish a panethnic census category. Lopez discussed how Latino adults use country of origin terms in discussing their identities.
  • Aarushi Bhandari (Assistant Professor of Sociology at Davidson College) wrote an article for The Conversation, reflecting on how news of the strike-ending deal between the Writers Guild of America and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers was eclipsed by celebrity headlines. Six conglomerates own 90% of media outlets, giving them significant power over media narratives. Bhandari argues that the limited coverage of the WGA deal “fits into a longer historical pattern of tension between labor movements and corporate media” in which “corporate media has framed disproportionately negative narratives about strikes and union activities.”
  • Janet Vertesi (Associate Professor of Sociology at Princeton University) wrote an article for The Conversation discussing how NASA’s robotics can provide an example of an ethical future for AI. Vertesi notes three aspects of “strong human-robot teams”: technology that augments or extends human capabilities instead of replacing human work, respectful data harvesting and use, and a sense of care for the technology.
  • Matthew Desmond (Professor of Sociology at Princeton University) appeared on the ACLU’s At Liberty podcast. In conversation with Sandra Park (Senior Staff Attorney of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project), Desmond discussed the complexities of American poverty. “There’s a lot of propaganda out there about poverty, and […] it organizes us. It shapes our conversation, right, or kills the conversation. […] And so I think that means for me, shifting the aperture away from-from poor families and poor communities to us, to a lot of us who are living our lives, often unwittingly, in a way that contributes to poverty in our midst.”
  • Juliet Schor (Professor of Sociology at Boston College and lead researcher on the 4 Day Week Global trial studies) appeared on NPR’s TED Radio Hour to discuss the four-day workweek. Schor described how a four-day workweek can have positive well-being and climate outcomes without lowering worker productivity. 
  • Neil Gross (Professor of Sociology at Colby College) wrote an article for Time, arguing that three “myths” about police reform are limiting productive conversation and policymaking: 1) the police can’t prevent crime; 2) police reform compromises public safety; and 3) because of policing’s racist origins, there is nothing we can do to improve it. Gross discusses how policing in combination with poverty reduction efforts can reduce crime, the complex connections between police defunding and crime, and his belief that “institutions can evolve beyond their origins.”
  • In Philadelphia, a former police officer is facing trial for over 200 sex crimes. While on the force, the officer was the subject of 12 citizen complaints. Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve (Associate Professor of Sociology at Brown University), commented on the difficulty of creating accountability for police officers: “This officer, while he looks like ‘one bad apple’, a whole lot of players had to participate in emboldening such an egregious criminal activity that went on for years. That shows the flagrant nature. He knew there were no levers of accountability.” This story was covered by WHYY.

Photo by Michael_swan via flickr.com CC
Photo by Michael_swan via flickr.com CC

The “traditional family,” many would have us believe, is imperiled by everything from women in the workplace and same-sex couples in the bedroom. What these “traditionalists” fail to name among the various threats is income inequality. As described in research published in the American Sociological Review and discussed on Fortune.com, observed increases in the rate of couples having children before marriage can be explained by changing social landscapes.

It’s no surprise to anyone that the middle-class is shrinking or that finding a job can be a tough gig. Andrew Cherlin, David C. Ribar, and Suzumi Yasutake’s research shows people are more likely to postpone marriage, but not parenting, if they can’t get a job. So, with a distinct shortage of available living-wage jobs and growing income inequality, more and more American families are comprised of unmarried couples with children. As the class system becomes even more polarized, it seems marriage boosters might want to consider a different means to their favored end: reducing inequality.

Taller men get the taller stacks. TaxCredits.net.
Taller men get the taller stacks. TaxCredits.net.

According to British researchers, tall men and thin women are most likely to make the big bucks. Meanwhile, they found evidence to suggest overweight workers, especially women, are likely to get paid less. Still, sociologist Amy Blackstone says companies probably aren’t intentionally penalizing employees based on height and weight.  

In an interview with Broadly, Blackstone points to gender biases that extend beyond the workplace. Culturally, Americans associate thinness with beauty and self-discipline in women and tallness with authority for men. “For women, being thin means taking up less space, something that is expected of women both literally and symbolically,” Blackstone says. Thus, it’s no surprise that pay reflects societal views about gender, power, and the body. Nor is it a surprise that other gender inequalities make their way into work spaces, like limitations on contraception coverage in employer provided health care and a lack of paid maternity leave. As contributing editor Diana Tourjee points out, “paying certain men and women less in relation to the way they look is obviously disturbing, but worse is the realization that this data is part of a broader system of oppression that structures the lived experiences of us all.”

Photo by The Great 8, Flickr CC.
Photo by The Great 8, Flickr CC.

Income inequality is a hot topic this election, and the Panama Papers have added fuel to the fire. Indeed, it seems that there’s no end to the data that shows the discrepancy between the 1% and the rest of us. What will it to start seeking solutions to extreme income disparities?

New research by TSP contributor Kevin Leicht of Urbana Champaign (available in an article in The Sociological Quarterly) points us in the right direction. As he explains in an interview with The Atlantic’s Gillian B. White, the way social scientists and others conceptualize inequality is too tied to trying to increase diversity at the top rather than studying the economy as a whole. Furthermore, while we’ve been very interested in inequality by race, we don’t do enough to consider gender inequalities, particularly as they exist within racial groups. The popular narrative is that hard work can jettison anyone to the top, but research like Leicht’s shows how outdated this notion is.

To read more of Leicht’s work, see his TSP papers, “Has Borrowing Replaced Earning?”, “Economic Decline and the American Dream,” and “Old Narratives and New Realities,” or check out our volume on the new sociology of debt, Owned.

"Proto-Professor," by Liz Lawley, Flickr CC.
“Proto-Professor,” by Liz Lawley, Flickr CC.

Parenting is hard, whether you’re an academic or not. But when you’re a professor, there is one surefire way to help stay in the field, get tenure, and even score a pay bump. Be a man.

The message is clear: women with children in academia are at a disadvantage compared to both men with children and women without them. A recent article in Jezebel compiled findings from several studies to demonstrate this. According to sociologist Michelle Budig, high-income men get the biggest pay bump from having children in any job category, and low-income women lose the most.

A US News article, likewise reports that male professors with young children are more than three times as likely as women with young children to get tenure-track positions. Notably, women without children come in a close second: they are just under three times as likely as women with children to get tenure.

Along the same lines, women who have a baby as a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow are more than twice as likely as men who have children during this time to leave academic research. When it comes to having children in academia, women pay a harsh “baby penalty.”

For many, the "American Dream" seems beyond possibility. Zhang Yu, Flickr CC.
For many, the “American Dream” seems beyond possibility. Zhang Yu, Flickr CC.

Immigration is a hot topic, especially with elections coming up. Donald Trump has called immigrants “rapists” and “criminals”, perpetuating anti-immigration rhetoric. Common immigration myths include that immigrants are taking Americans’ jobs, burden the economy, and refuse to speak English. The Washington Post covers a report written by a group of Harvard professors, led by sociologist Mary Waters.

  1. “Immigrants are picking up English just as quickly as their predecessors”
In fact, today’s immigrants are learning English faster than their predecessors. This is partially due to how global English is, which means that immigrants are more likely to have been exposed to it or to have taken English classes already. Additionally, American schools are becoming better at teaching English to immigrant students.
  1. “Immigrants tend to have more education than before”
Historically, immigrants were low skilled workers from southern and eastern Europe in the early 1900s. Recently, however, immigrants are more likely to have four years of education on average. Approximately, 28% of recent immigrants hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, which is a 19% increase since 1980.
  1. “Immigrants are much less likely to commit crimes—but they soon learn”
In fact, immigrant neighborhoods are considered to be some of the safest neighborhoods as immigrants are least likely to commit crimes. Native-born men aged 18-39 are 5 times more likely to end up in jail than immigrants. While immigrants are initially fearful of picking up criminal influences, by the second and third generation, they are more likely to engage in criminal behavior.
  1. “Immigrants are more likely to have jobs than the native-born”
Immigrants are determined to find employment, and they are more likely to be employed than their native-born counterparts. Between 2003-2013, 86% immigrants were employed compared to 82-83% native-born Americans. This also holds true for men who have not earned a high-school diploma, where 84% immigrants are employed compared to 58% native-born Americans.

While the report combats common myths about immigration, it does not give a concrete answer as to whether today’s immigrants have the same opportunities as earlier generations of new Americans, despite being educated, staying away from crime, holding jobs, and paying taxes.

Photo via Joe Loong via Flickr.
Photo via Joe Loong via Flickr.

In a recent excerpt from her book The Tumbleweed Society: Work and Caring in an Age of Insecurity featured in Salon, sociologist Allison Pugh discusses how the insecure economy has made employees feel wary of their employers but also like they must rush to their defense. Employees often bend over backward to identify with their bosses and meet their needs, but employers are much less likely to reciprocate. What do employers and employees owe each other?

The move away from the old social contract, in which employees traded loyalty and effort for job security, has resulted in real and perceived job insecurity among may adults for whom full-time work is a central piece of identity. Pugh says the result of the opposing trends of increased job insecurity and increased cultural importance of full-time employment is lots of anxiety for employees and a “one-way honor system.” Employees still feel obligated to uphold their end of the social contract by demonstrating loyalty and hard work, they don’t expect the same commitment from their employers. Even those with the lowest-skill and lowest-paying jobs empathize with the employers’ needs for good workers and expect little beyond dignity, respect, and a paycheck.

Part of the reason for the one-way honor system is the perception that intense work commitment is an integral part of being an honorable, moral person:

Survey researchers report, for example, that about the same percentage of women as men—70 percent of full-time working women (both white-collar and blue-collar workers)—say they would continue to work if they suddenly had enough money to live comfortably for the rest of their lives, known as the “lottery question” (and used by researchers as a rough proxy for a work ethic). A strong work ethic was part of good character, part of being fully human, no matter your gender, people maintained.

In other words, it’s not the job itself that’s the source of dignity, it’s the work ethic. So as jobs get more precarious, many people work longer and harder instead of slacking off, partially because they fear those who don’t work hard enough or produce enough will be the first ones to lose those coveted jobs.

Photo by Mark Morgan, Flickr CC.
Photo by Mark Morgan, Flickr CC.

In the literary world, New York Times Bestseller is a coveted and sought-after label. When that gold sticker is slapped on the cover of a book, authors and publishers alike are likely to be happy campers, and there are few surefire ways to create buzz about a particular work than Bestseller status.

Brandeis sociology professor Laura Miller weighs in on a piece in Hopes&Fears where the stickiness of the New York Times Bestseller label is discussed. Miller states “People assume that if everyone else is reading a book then it ought to be good.”

Indeed, this peer-pressure style marketing is what makes the Bestseller label so desired. It’s basically an endorsement from a huge number of everyday people—but the formula isn’t that simple. As explained in the article, the New York Times Bestseller label was created in 1931, when editors would take random samples of book sales from undisclosed vendors to gauge the popularity of particular manuscripts. In the modern era, the process has become murkier. Discussing the process in determining Bestseller status today, Miller explains:

Once you got online bookselling, anyone and everyone was selling a book… you can’t have millions of retail establishments giving data to the Times. That means they have to ask for a sample of the different kinds of places that are selling books… While the actual reporting of sales from those particular places might be more accurate than in the past, the ability to get an accurate sample is actually more difficult.

In the past, while the accuracy of the data from book vendors was imperfect, gathering a representative sample of book market transactions was easier—there were fewer potential vendors. Today, though, selection process of specific vendors for Bestseller sampling purposes is tightly controlled, so that publishers and authors can’t artificially inflate their book sales at particular stores or retailers in order to boost their likelihood of Bestseller status. Whatever the process, however, it will have to further contend with new forms of book purchases, such as e-book and Kindle sales. Either way, authors and publishers will still wait with bated breath: Is it a Bestseller?