The Inequality Project has six separate webpages, each a research project by a different student.  This class had two Polish students, two French students, and two Spanish students.  Research topics include: social mobility, education, gender, homosexuality, media and  equality of opportunities.

The website is free for the world to enjoy.

PARIS—At a press conference Tuesday, the World Heritage Committee officially recognized the Gap Between Rich and Poor as the “Eighth Wonder of the World,” describing the global wealth divide as the “most colossal and enduring of mankind’s creations.”

“Of all the epic structures the human race has devised, none is more staggering or imposing than the Gap Between Rich and Poor,” committee chairman Henri Jean-Baptiste said. “It is a tremendous, millennia-old expanse that fills us with both wonder and humility.”

“And thanks to careful maintenance through the ages, this massive relic survives intact, instilling in each new generation a sense of awe,” Jean- Baptiste added.

The vast chasm of wealth, which stretches across most of the inhabited world, attracts millions of stunned observers each year, many of whom have found its immensity too overwhelming even to contemplate. By far the largest man-made structure on Earth, it is readily visible from locations as far-flung as Eastern Europe, China, Africa, and Brazil, as well as all 50 U.S. states.

“The original Seven Wonders of the World pale in comparison to this,” said World Heritage Committee member Edwin MacAlister, standing in front of a striking photograph of the Gap Between Rich and Poor taken from above Mexico City. “It is an astounding feat of human engineering that eclipses the Great Wall of China, the Pyramids of Giza, and perhaps even the Great Racial Divide.”

According to anthropologists, untold millions of slaves and serfs toiled their whole lives to complete the gap. Records indicate the work likely began around 10,000 years ago, when the world’s first landed elites convinced their subjects that construction of such a monument was the will of a divine authority, a belief still widely held today.

Though historians have repeatedly disproved such claims, theories still persist among many that the Gap Between Rich and Poor was built by the Jews.

“When I stare out across its astounding breadth, I’m often moved to tears,” said Johannesburg resident Grace Ngubane, 31, whose home is situated on one of the widest sections of the gap. “The scale is staggering—it makes you feel really, really small.”

“Insignificant, even,” she continued.

While numerous individuals have tried to cross the Gap Between Rich and Poor, evidence suggests that only a small fraction have ever succeeded and many have died in the attempt.

Its official recognition as the Eighth Wonder of the World marks the culmination of a dramatic turnaround from just 50 years ago, when popular movements called for the gap’s closure. However, due to a small group of dedicated politicians and industry leaders, vigorous preservation efforts were begun around 1980 to restore—and greatly expand—the age-old structure.

“It’s breathtaking,” said Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, a longtime champion and benefactor of the rift’s conservation. “After all we’ve been through in recent years, there’s no greater privilege than watching it grow bigger and bigger each day. There may be a few naysayers who worry that if it gets any wider, the whole thing will collapse upon itself and take millions of people down with it, but I for one am willing to take that chance.”

Added Blankfein, “Besides, something tells me I’d probably make it out okay

The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its widest amount on record as young adults and children in particular struggled to stay afloat in the recession.The top-earning 20 percent of Americans — those making more than $100,000 each year — received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent earned by those below the poverty line, according to newly released census figures. That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968.

A different measure, the international Gini index, found U.S. income inequality at its highest level since the Census Bureau began tracking household income in 1967. The U.S. also has the greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations.

At the top, the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, census data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.

“Income inequality is rising, and if we took into account tax data, it would be even more,” said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who specializes in poverty. “More than other countries, we have a very unequal income distribution where compensation goes to the top in a winner-takes-all economy.”

Lower-skilled adults ages 18 to 34 had the largest jumps in poverty last year as employers kept or hired older workers for the dwindling jobs available, Smeeding said. The declining economic fortunes have caused many unemployed young Americans to double-up in housing with parents, friends and loved ones, with potential problems for the labor market if they don’t get needed training for future jobs, he said.

Assessing Your Middle-Class Status

Despite the so-called recovery, many families continue to struggle, with income and other living standards slipping below thresholds that typically represent middle-class quality of life. We’ve assembled a variety of metrics to help determine whether you’re getting ahead, holding steady, or slipping further than most.

Read more below:

Income

For the 50 percent of families in the middle of the scale, household income ranges from $51,000 to $123,000 for a typical four-person, two-parent family. The median is about $81,000. Those numbers are from 2008, and have probably fallen 5 to 7 percent since then, on account of the recession. Median income for a single-parent, two-child family is about $25,000.

Housing Costs

For two-parent families, the typical home is worth about $231,000, accounting for $17,600 in mortgage payments and other costs per year. Housing costs have risen by more than twice as much as income since 1990, a trend that may finally be reversing thanks to the housing bust.

Home Size

The housing bubble was one factor that boosted housing costs, but the typical family also lives in a much bigger home. The median size of a new, single-family home jumped by 40 percent between 1979 and 2007, to about 2,300 square feet. That may now be declining, as families downsize and some get booted from homes they can’t afford.

Medical Expenses

You’ve probably heard — healthcare costs are going through the roof. A study by the middle-class task force headed by Vice President Joe Biden says the median two-parent family spends $5,100 per year on health insurance and non-covered expenses—assuming an employer provides health insurance. Healthcare costs have risen far more than any other aspect of the family budget since 1990, with no end in sight.

Cars

They provide mobility and represent freedom, one reason the typical family spends about $12,400 per year on two medium-sized sedans or the equivalent, with a new-car value of $45,000. The recession may have dampened our love of the road, however: Americans are driving less and car sales are off about 40 percent.

College Savings

The typical family puts aside $4,100 for college expenses for two kids, estimated to cover about 75 percent of expenses at a state university. Financial aid helps with the rest. But if possible, toss more into the college fund: As states face budget crunches, tuition and fees are going up.

Vacations

One week at the beach or another destination is standard, at a cost of $3,000 or so for four. More affluent families can afford two weeks, at a typical cost of $6,100.

Retirement Savings

A median-income family that saved 3.2 percent of its income—roughly equivalent to the national saving rate—would sock away nearly $2,600 per year for retirement. Of course many families don’t hit even that modest goal, and stock-market losses over the last several years have further shrunk the national nest egg.

Everyday Spending

Clothes, food, utilities, entertainment and other living expenses amount to $14,200 a year for a median-income family. Not surprisingly, this is one set expenses many families are trying to reduce, by buying more discount brands, using less or doing without.

Number of Earners

In 76 percent of two-parent families, both parents work. The higher the household income, the more likely it is that both parents are contributing.

Hours Worked

Few parents will be surprised to hear that Moms and Dads are working more than they used to. The total number of hours worked in a two-parent family is 3,747 per year, up 5 percent since 1990. The increased hours add up to more than four 40-hour weeks of additional work per family.

Education

The typical household head has a high school degree plus about two years of college education, up by more than a full year of college since 1990. Good thing—education is a key factor in lifetime earnings, and high school dropouts face a dim future by nearly every measure.

Free Time

What’s your top priority? In a 2008 poll by the Pew Research Center, it wasn’t healthy kids, a strong marriage or a great career; 68 percent of respondents said it was free time. (And just 12 percent said it was being wealthy.)

Household Net Worth

The typical household has a net worth of about $84,000, according to the Federal Reserve. That’s down 30 percent since 2007, thanks to losses in stock portfolios and home values.

Debt

About 18 percent of disposable income, on average, goes toward mortgage payments, auto loans, credit cards and other forms of household debt. That’s a bit higher than it was in the ’70s and ’80s. But since debt payments peaked at the beginning of 2008, at 18.9 percent of income, they’ve been steadily falling.

The poverty rate among older Americans could be nearly twice as high as the traditional 10 percent level, according to a revision of a half-century-old formula for calculating medical costs and geographic variations in the cost of living.   The National Academy of Science‘s formula, which is gaining credibility with public officials including some in the Obama administration, would put the poverty rate for Americans 65 and over at 18.6 percent, or 6.8 million people, compared with 9.7 percent, or 3.6 million people, under the existing measure. The original government formula, created in 1955, doesn’t take account of rising costs of medical care and other factors.”It’s a hidden problem,” said Robin Talbert, president of the AARP Foundation, which provides job training and support to low-income seniors and is backing legislation that would adopt the NAS formula. “There are still many millions of older people on the edge, who don’t have what they need to get by.”

If the academy’s formula is adopted, a more refined picture of American poverty could emerge that would capture everyday costs of necessities besides just food. The result could upend long-standing notions of those in greatest need and lead eventually to shifts in how billions of federal dollars for the poor are distributed for health, housing, nutrition and child-care benefits.

The overall official poverty rate would increase, from 12.5 percent to 15.3 percent, for a total of 45.7 million people, according to rough calculations by the Census Bureau. Data on all segments, not only the elderly, would be affected:

• The rate for children under 18 in poverty would decline slightly, to 17.9 percent.

• Single mothers and their children, who disproportionately receive food stamps, would see declines in the rates of poverty because noncash aid would be taken into account. Low-income people who are working could see increases in poverty rates, a reflection of transportation and child-care costs.

• Cities with higher costs of living, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco, would see higher poverty rates, while more rural areas in the Midwest and South might see declines.

• The rate for extreme poverty, defined as income falling below 50 percent of the poverty line, would decrease due to housing and other noncash benefits.

• Immigrant poverty rates would go up, due to transportation costs and lower participation in government aid programs.

The changes have been discussed quietly for years in academic circles, and both Democrats and Republicans agree that the decades-old White House formula, which is based on a 1955 cost of an emergency food diet, is outdated.

The current calculation sets the poverty level at three times the annual cost of groceries. For a family of four that is $21,203. That calculation does not factor in rising medical, transportation, child care and housing expenses or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does the current formula consider noncash aid when calculating income, despite the recent expansion of food stamps and tax credits in the federal economic stimulus and other government programs. The result: The poverty rate has varied little from its current 12.5 percent.

Next week, the Census Bureau will publish official poverty figures for 2008 with a cautionary note about the shortcomings. The agency says it will expedite release of alternative numbers in the following weeks, because of the interest expressed by lawmakers and the Obama administration in seeing a fuller range of numbers.

“The current poverty measure does a very bad job of measuring the impact of quite a few of our anti-poverty policies,” Rebecca Blank, the Commerce Department’s undersecretary of economic affairs, said in an interview. “It isn’t meaningless, but it isn’t complete.”

Although the White House Office of Management and Budget dictates how federal poverty is measured, legislation pending in Congress would require use of the National Academy approach. Advocates are hoping the White House may act on its own.

Cities are already showing interest.

In New York City, roughly one in three senior citizens fell below the poverty line after Mayor Michael Bloomberg adopted the new formula last year; state officials in Albany, N.Y., plan to publish their revised numbers next month. Los Angeles, Miami, Washington, San Francisco and Chicago also have been considering a switch.

Nationally, official poverty rates for older Americans have improved significantly over the past 30 years due to expansions of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income. But many older people with modest cash incomes would fall below the poverty line under the NAS formula due to out-of-pocket expenses from rising Medicare premiums, deductibles and a coverage gap in the prescription drug benefit that is known as the “doughnut hole.”

The NAS figures could take on added significance at a time when the government is touting an overhaul of Medicare and Social Security as its best hope for reducing the ballooning federal debt.

See also Obama’s recent speech to NAACP on race in America.

Abstract:

How well do theories of elites’ sources of social power match the reality as perceived by the elites themselves? Using data from interviews with 312 elites from a large midwestern American city, and employing an inductive coding method situated in grounded theory we use the constructivist approach in listening to elites’ definitions of their sources of social power. Integrating Weber’s notion of charisma and the interactionist literature on power, we hypothesize that interpersonal attributes can be crucial in micro-level power negotiations. Our analyses reveal that along with mentioning economic and political resources, institutional and organizational position, and connectedness in influence networks—themes common in elite theory—elites also identify the interpersonal attributes of personality and respect as sources of social power in their own right. Projection of positive personal attributes assists in the exercise of power; exposing traits with negative connotations can be a detriment. Elites display personal attributes while employing impression management, thus developing a social identity used to manipulate interpersonal relations. We conclude by offering a series of sensitizing principles to guide an understanding of how interpersonal sources of social power are used in elite power negotiations.

Yamokoski, Alexis and Joshua Kjerulf Dubrow.  2008.  “How Do Elites Define Influence?  Personality and Respect as Sources of Social Power.” Sociological Focus 41(4): 319-336.

Most sociological definitions of social class say that class is social grouping that has something to do with/is related to economic resources/assets (see esp. Marx and Weber).  With regard to class and social stratification, the question is whether the divisions and boundaries in a scale of economic assets comprises a distinct class.  We must seperate social class from social stratification.  Economic divisions does not constitute class divisions.  Let’s se how this works by discussing what is meant by “economic.”  If it is simply income or occupation, or market capacity, then no, class is not economic division, though class certainly has a relationship to these assets.  Class is therefore more than strata.  It is relationships between/with other classes that makes class a real entity.

Classes in the Weberian sense are relational in that “resources shape strategies for acquiring income.”  In class societies, these strategies are inherently conflictual.  Classes share material interests – how people realize their interests depends on their wealth and market capacities.  However, each class has a conflict of interest with other classes because each class seeks to keep what they have and add more to what they have.  Because resources/assets are finite and are distributed unequally within capitalist society each class is in a struggle with other classes to realize their material interests.  This is referred to as “distributional conflict.”  It is the relational aspect of class that puts the “social” in “social class.”

Where does this conflict take place?  In the workplace between managers and office workers; between professional associations; between political organizations/political parties; in the neighborhood, keeping lower class housing away from upper class (high rents and credit checks, though sub prime lending offered the illusion of mobility, these houses are still not within upper class neighborhoods). 

What form does this conflict take?  Social closure (Parkin, Weber), exclusion, pay differentials legitimized within bureaucracies, access to professional organizations, educational institutions, government policy of economic redistribution policy. 

What is the consequence of this conflict? Rigidifying the stratification structure, differential life chances.  Class conflict is struggle over wages, working conditions, social welfare, and living conditions, and freedom from authority.

If class is primarily one’s relationship to the economic sphere and spheres of production, what to do with the non-economically active?  A paper from Marshall et al (1996) empirically demonstrates that these non-economically active groups do not constitute a social class:

Social Class and Underclass in Britain and the USA
Author(s): Gordon Marshall, Stephen Roberts and Carole Burgoyne
Source: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Mar., 1996), pp. 22-44

Abstract

It is commonly argued that the research programme of class analysis is undermined by its apparent neglect of large numbers of economically-inactive adults who do not form part of the analysis, but are affected by class processes, and form distinctive elements within any class structure. This paper disputes the claim that welfare dependents, the retired, and domestic housekeepers show distinctive patterns of socio-political class formation. Nor are the class-related attributes of the supposed underclass so distinct that they require separate treatment in a class analysis. Evidence which supports the orthodox strategy of sampling economically-active men and women is taken from national sample surveys of adults in Britain and the USA.

For class measurement, see here.