The recent federal bailouts have drawn attention to CEO compensation. The screenshots below, taken from the New York Times, show what that compensation looks like for specific CEOs and the change in compensation between 2007 and 2008. Click over to the source for many more examples, company performance data, and methodology.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Via Visual Economics. Though often presented as the domain of economists, sociologists have a lot to say about patterns of consumption and their effects. Though patterns of consumption and their effects are often presented as the domain of economists, sociologists have have a lot of interesting things to say about this topic.
Of course, some have wondered, if sociology sucks, why do economists keep on doing it?
Conor Clarke, at the Atlantic, offered up a graphic to call into question those who accuse Obama of being a socialist (Jonah Goldberg, Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, Phyllis Schlafly, Richard Viguerie, and The Republican National Committee, for example):
According to the graphic, Obama has nationalized 0.21% of the corporate and business assets since taking office.
Clarke says:
Socialism, like farenheit, comes in degrees. Sure, a government that nationalizes GM is “more socialist” than one that does not, even if it doesn’t mean we’re living “under socialism.” But differences of degree shouldn’t obscure differences of kind, and as Tim Fernholz says, “it’s clear that putting the government in charge of private production is not the Obama administration’s guiding philosophy.”
He adds:
If it were, 99.79% of the American corporate assets that existed at the start of the Obama administration would not remain in private hands. The differences of degree are so small that they aren’t worth mentioning. And yet, somehow, they keep getting mentioned.
The fact that whether Obama is a socialist “keep[s] getting mentioned” is an example of agenda setting. Those who control media content have the ability to set the agenda. That is, they can tell us what to think about (though not necessarily what to think). By constantly asking questions or making accusations about Obama’s socialist inclinations, high-profile individuals encourage us to engage with the idea… even if only to refute it (as Clarke does). Obama’s supposed socialism is on the agenda, even though there is little rationale (as Clarke shows) for such a heightened degree of concern.
For more examples of agenda setting, see these posts on Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” and the New Yorker cover scandal.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Genderkid, Andrea J., Laura S., and Jessica C. all sent in links to the Fallen Princesses photographs. About her project, photographer Dina Goldstein writes:
These works place Fairy Tale characters in modern day scenarios. In all of the images the Princess is placed in an environment that articulates her conflict. The ‘…happily ever after’ is replaced with a realistic outcome and addresses current issues… Disney’s perfect Princesses [are] juxtaposed with real issues that were affecting women around me, such as illness, addiction and self-image issues.
You may want to check out a discussion on Racialicious about presenting Jasmine in a war zone and Women’s Glib‘s discussion of the representation of fatness as “fallen” (and the stereotype that fat people gorg on fast food).
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Jeffrey T. found this page on Amazon suggesting gifts for different people in your life. He thought it nicely illustrated not only “…gender roles in our society, but also of age roles and, perhaps, class roles as well.”
Here’s the page (below are close up screenshots and quick, snarky comments):
What is a woman’s lifecycle like?
Girlfriends and wives are apparently obsessed with fashion. They want nothing else:
By the time you’re a mom, your interest in fashion is accompanied by escapism and the need for a freakin’ break (jewelry would be nice though):
Grandmas love flowers and they fill their days doing crafts, scrapbooking, and listening to showtunes:
Is it different for men?
After work, husbands/boyfriends take off their dress shirt so they can rock out and play games:
Dads are still into “action and adventure,” but they need a break too and, also, they suddenly feel a pressing need to know more about waging war:
By the time you’re a Grandpa, you just want to find a nice room away from Grandma’s show tunes to listen to classic music, watch documentaries (about war?), and read Time magazine with a safe, clean shave:
People who “have everything” (I think that means rich people), just need totally random unnecessary stuff (except for cocktail accessories, those are obviously a necessity):
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Matthew Yglesias featured two figures from the Pew Economic Mobility project. They show how long different types of people tend to take to recover from income loss (within 1 year, 2-4 years, or 5-10 years).
This figure shows that people who are older, have more education, or are poor, working, or middle class have a harder time recovering from tough economic times:
This figure shows how marital status is related to recovery. Most dramatically, people who get married before recovering financially (especially men), women who split with a partner, and women who are single have a more difficult time recovering.
Something to consider: As several commenters noted, I’m not sure how they defined “recovery” from income loss. If you never made a lot of money to begin with, does recovery simply mean returning to a state of low income? Then, does the income for an initially high income person need to return to its high state for it be counted as a “recovery”?
(Just FYI: I revised my interpretation of these figures. Thanks to the early commenters who noticed I’d misinterpreted. It was really late at night when I wrote this post!)
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Photographer Martin Parr has decided to photograph the rich in their habitat, exposing an elite world for the rest of us. He writes:
Shot in various locations, from art fairs to horse racing, and in many countries, I have selected situations where people are comfortable showing off their wealth. Designer clothes, champagne and parties are all part of this repertoire.
…
Traditionally the portrayal of poverty has been the domain of the “concerned photographer” [see, for example, here], but I photograph wealth in the same spirit.
What I like about his photographs is the realistic portrayal of the rich. Unlike the way in which wealth is glamorized in popular culture (see, for example, here, here, here, here, and here), these are real people, with all of their imperfections, showing off all of their money.
The pictures are (as far as I’ve been able to determine) from the U.S., Moscow, and Dubai:
(Images from here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
“Pregnant? Scared?” They don’t mean hemorrhoids and contractions; they mean social opprobrium and economic ruin due to stingy social services.
Jill at I Blame the Patriarchy writes:
There is only one reason that pregnancy should “scare” you: your culture hates women and kids. It especially hates teenage women. It especially hates pregnant teenage women. It especially hates teenage pregnant women who get knocked up under unapproved circumstances.
It had never occurred to me before that a generalized fear of getting pregnant is a culturally and historically contingent state of mind. But, of course, it is.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
