Assessing Class: Income

Income is a fundamental resource denominator of social class and stratification. Since the mid-twentieth century, the Census Bureau has tracked the inexorable trend of increasing income inequality that has resulted from changes in the labor market, the economy, and household composition in the United States. Those with the education and in-demand skills have benefited while those without have suffered; single-parent families and non-married households have not fared as well as two-income married households. Most sociologists have abandoned classic social class theories in the post-industrialized West and post-Marxist world. Some say that that they have been slow in analyzing these trends and need to create new models for understanding new economies.

Keywords Family; Gini Index; Household; Income; Poverty Line; Social Mobility; Social Stratification; Transfer Programs; Wealth

Stratification & Class in the U.S. > Assessing Class: Income

Assessing Class: Income

Overview

A 1988 article in The Futurist (which now appears naïve) predicts that there is, as the title states, "One Giant Middle Class" (Cetron, 1988), which will grow thorough the end of the twentieth century. Rising incomes were viewed as stretching farther because people were marrying late and having fewer children than ever before. Lawrence Lindsey, Assistant Professor of Economics at Harvard, was quoted in the article as defining a middle-class individual as "… someone who expects to be self-reliant, unlike the upper class with its unearned wealth or the lower class with its dependency on society. Far from declining, the middle class is bigger than ever, and its ethic is alive and well" (cited in Cetron, 1988, p. 10).

Years later, the promise of a homogeneous middle class may hold some validity, but its continued vitality is less ensured. Income and access to resources are traditional determinants of social class, and given dramatic social and technology shifts, social scientists are beginning to take serious stock of the historical income data from the latter half of the twentieth century and the early twenty-first century that show an inexorable gap in the aggregated incomes of the lowest and top earners.

Growing Income Inequality

This conspicuous inequality in earnings emerged on the research agenda of sociologists at the turn of the twenty-first century. Some sociologists, such as Kenworthy (2007) and Kim and Sakamoto (2008) in their research on income, were surprised that their fellow sociologists had not studied this phenomenon with more intensity. The complexity of these dramatic changes defies classic sociological theory, and sociologists were only beginning to make sense of them and start developing new models at that time. In his article, “Inequality and Sociology,” Kenworthy (2007) expresses a need to understand the rising disparity of earnings and income in the United States. The growth in inequality is an important development in the United States during the past generation and "sociologists have not been able to offer …a class-based explanation for rising inequality …. [and] to the extent they have, the evidence does not appear to fit very well …" (p. 587).

Kim and Sakamoto (2008) studied aggregate occupational data to find the underlying source of the differences in wage equality. They asked how occupational structure relates to wage inequality and offered a series of hypotheses, at the heart of which is that most of the increase in wage inequality is largely within occupations, and the rising level of wage inequality across this period is mostly unrelated to changes in the distribution of workers across occupations or to mean differences in wages across occupations: "Within-occupational inequality has increased more than between occupational inequality, and the reduction in the explanatory power of occupation is especially obvious after controlling for education" (p. 152).

In the early 1990s, sociologists began to embroil themselves in a debate about whether social classes can be identified as old indicators fell away. Clark and Lipset (1991) defined seven societal factors that were shaping dramatic changes in society:

• Politics with less class and more fragmentation;
• Economic growth that is undermining the hierarchy of class;
• Decline of large industries and the spawning of smaller entrepreneurial businesses;
• Advancement of technology and the knowledge base;
• Globalization of the markets;
• Decline of the traditional family; and
• Less of an impact of families on stratification than of women in the workforce along with greater rewards for education.

Gilbert (2008) labels the twenty-five years after WWII as "The Age of Shared Prosperity," but the thirty plus years following that are tagged "The Age of Growing Inequality." He found three significant shifts in job earnings during this time:

• Men's earnings have stagnated, on average;
• Women's earnings have risen steadily; and
• The distribution of earnings of both have become more unequal.

Wages at the top have risen substantially, while real wages of those in the lower half of the labor market have remained unchanged in the time period (p. 57).

Classical sociological models of Marx, Weber and others are simple and do not fit today's complex societies. As Scott and Leonhardt (2005) remark, "As some sociologists and marketing consultants see it, the commonly accepted big three — the upper, middle, and working classes — have broken down into dozens of microclasses, defined by occupations or lifestyles" (p. 1).

Gilbert, however, has not abandoned class models altogether. Although he admits that structuring the classes is an art, not necessarily a science, he stands by the model with six classes that he and his mentor, Joseph Kahl, created many years ago, based on typical income and occupation:

Privileged:

Capitalist — 1%, Income $2 million +

Upper-middle Class — 14%, $150,000

Majority Classes:

Middle Class — 30%, $70,000

Working Class — 13%, $40,000

Lower Classes:

Working Poor — 13%, $25,000

Underclass — 12%, $15,000 (2008, p. 27).

Gilbert qualifies his model by saying that the middle class and working class "… traditionally portrayed by division between office and factory — was long regarded as the critical dividing line in the class structure. But today many office jobs are simplified and routinized like jobs in the factory" (p. 14). Gilbert argues that the line dividing the capitalist and upper-middle classes from the classes below them has become most significant mainly because the economic returns on capitalist property and on the advanced education typical of the upper-middle class have grown rapidly, while rewards for those without educations and skills are diminished.

Kenworthy (2007) conducted comparative analysis with data from other Western countries in order to understand the evolution of the class situation in the United States. He studied earning and income on three levels of inequality:

• Earnings among employed individuals;
• Among households; and
• Among households when government taxes and transfers are included.

Globalization & Technology

Kenworthy contends that the growing gap of inequality of income among the employed may be attributed to technology and globalization, but his analysis shows that other industrialized countries have not realized nearly the same discrepancy in income. He concludes that wage-setting institutions, such as unions, have also helped to account for the change with downward pressure exerted on the wages of the least skilled and upward pressure on the wages of the best. Households vary depending on number of earners, length of employment through the year, and pairing of earners; i.e., high earners tend to pair with high earners, and these factors also have had a tremendous impact on the disparities.

Kenworthy also says that,

… within-industry shifts in labor demand away from less-educated workers are perhaps a more important explanation of eroding wages than the shift out of manufacturing … Also, global competition and immigration … [decline of unions] … decline in the real value of the minimum wage, the increasing need for computer skills, and the increasing use of temporary workers.

Kenworthy argues that the issue of inequality is one of the most important societal phenomena in recent history and must be taken seriously by sociologists. He also implies that tracking it is critical to setting public policy for setting wages and adjusting transfer programs.

Neckerman and Torche (2007) reviewed research on economic Inequality, including earnings, wealth, and opportunity. They state that as economic inequality was recognized as more than a transitory phenomenon, sociologists and other social scientists began to study its implications. They point to research that separates the transitory from permanent shifts in income. Neckerman and Torche refer to an article by M. Gangl (2005) that shows that the United States "still has the highest income inequality among industrialized countries after accounting for short-term variation" (cited in Neckerman & Torche, 2007, p. 338). Consensus concerning this inequality includes evidence that the stagnant minimum wage has impacted the lower strata, as has a decline in union membership. Male incomes have been hardest hit and returns for higher education have had a significant impact.

A survey of the research also indicated to Neckerman and Torche that the most challenged rationale for the inequality is the issue of technology. Some researchers have found that disparities were emerging before digital technology became entrenched in the 1990s. They point to others who have studied the institutional shifts in business and labor, including a "… shift from manufacturing to services, deregulation … transformations in corporate governance, a decline in union representation, and a rise in the use of contingent labor …" (2007, p. 338). Inflated salaries for those at the top have also contributed to what they call "upper-tail" inequality.

Inequality & Mobility

"The American public has always cared more about equal opportunity than about equal results," says Sawhill (1999, p. 4). This is central to the American belief system. "Socialism has never taken root in American soil," but how much inequality is too much? Sawhill considers three hypothetical societies:

• A meritocracy in which society members are regarded for hard work and talent regardless of who they are;
• One in which citizens are rewarded by pure "luck," — a lottery; and
• One based purely on the family of birth with no possibility of mobility.

According to Sawhill, most Americans prefer and believe in the meritocracy model, with even those on the bottom rung believing that their children will do better than they, but "… for the last 25 years, the top one-fifth … has been improving their prospects while the other 80 percent has lagged behind" (Sawhill, 1999, p. 6).

Inequality matters over time if it affects inequality in the next generation. "This raises the issue of equality of opportunity, or social mobility" (Neckerman & Torche, 2007, p. 339). Neckerman and Torche found conflicting research on measuring mobility in the United States. Family genes, income, and good parenting give some children a head start, but according to them, education is an equalizer. Those at the bottom can move up with skills and experience, with the addition of more earners to the family, or better jobs; those at the top can move down as result of a layoff, divorce, or business failure. "Every year, about 25 percent or 30 percent of all adults move between income quintiles" (Sawhill, 1999, p. 9).

In a surprising study on poverty and affluence, Rank and Hirschl (2001) estimated that 51.1 percent of all Americans will experience at least one year of their adult lives below the poverty line, and 51.0 percent will have a year of affluence, with only 20.1 percent of Americans avoiding the extremes. Their definition of affluence is the same as the U.S. Census Bureau; i.e., affluence is 10 times the poverty level. Poverty and affluence are life course events, and race and education have been "the fault lines that divide Americans into one group or the other" (p. 667).

Corcoran (1995) says that "[if] poverty were sufficiently intergenerational, this would violate the U. S. ideal of equal opportunity; i.e., that a young adult's economic destination should not be predetermined by his or her social origins" (p. 237). Corcoran points out that studies show that schooling is a better predictor of occupation status than demographic backgrounds (p. 238). Income has also been seen as an equal educational opportunity ticket to an education and mobility into a different social class, but the greater the inequality the less fluid the mobility. The decline in economic mobility over the past decades raises red flags for social scientists and politicians as "… The increase in social mobility and the decline in economic mobility …. Have affected prospects for the youngest generation" (Sawhill, 1999, p. 11).

Further Insights

Measuring Income

Income is the most frequent attribute used to determine class status, but it is not the only one and is not necessarily the most relevant in our increasingly complex, post-industrial society. The hierarchical classification of society based on social and economic variables is traditionally divided into upper, lower, and middle classes, and may be further subdivided. The subdivisions are frequently determined by occupation.

Household composition also has a considerable impact on measurements of income and resultant class scale. Population trends since the 1980s, with more individuals living alone, smaller families, unmarried couples comprising a household, and so on have challenged old definitions. The federal government does not define class, but the U.S. Census Bureau does measure individual, family, and household incomes and offers relevant reports for use by social scientists and public policy makers. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html).

The Census Bureau defines a family as consisting of two or more people (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption residing in the same housing unit, while a household consists of all people who occupy a housing unit regardless of relationship. In other words, a household may consist of a person living alone or multiple unrelated individuals or even a multigenerational family living together.

Aggregate Income & Gini Index

Although it does not define social classes, the Census Bureau does derive measures that track the distribution of income and income inequality. The two most common of these are the shares of aggregate income received by households and what is called the Gini index.

Aggregate income measurements simply rank households from lowest to highest, which are then divided into equal groups, often by fives (quintiles). Data indicate that the share of aggregate household income "controlled by the lowest income quintile has decreased from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent in 1997, while the share to the highest quintile increased from 43.0 percent to 49.4." (U.S. Census Bureau, "Income Narrative (Middle Class)" 2013). In addition, the Bureau reports that between 1967 and 2010, US household income inequality grew by 18% (Bee, 2012). In 2012, the share of aggregate income received by the top 5% families was 21.3%, the highest fifth quintile received 48.9%, the fourth quintile received 23.0%, the third fifth received 15.1%, the second fifth received 9.2%, and the lowest fifth received 3.8% (U.S. Census Bureau, “Share of Aggregate Income,” 2013).

The Gini index includes more detailed data into a formula to derive a single statistic that summarizes the dispersion of the income shares across the whole income distribution. It is the index of income concentration. Between 1969 and 1997, for example, the Gini index rose 17.4 percent to its 1997 level of .459. "The Gini index ranges from 0.0 when every family (household) has the same income, to 1.0, when one family (household) has all of the income. It is therefore, one way to measure how far a given income distribution is from equality" (U.S. Census Bureau, "Income," 2008). A report released by the Census Bureau calculates that the Gini index was 0.477 in 2012. The index has increased by a rate of 5.2% since 1993. (U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, & Health Insurance,” 2013).

How do researchers at the U.S. Bureau of the Census account for the disparity of income inequality? Their reports affirm that:

… changes in the labor market and, to a certain extent, household composition have affected the long-run increase in income inequality. Wage distribution has become considerably more unequal with workers at the top experiencing real wage gains and those at the bottom real wage losses: These changes reflect relative shifts in demand for labor differentiated on the basis of education and skill. At the same time, long-run changes in society's living arrangements have taken place also tending to exacerbate household income differences … Nonmarried-couple households tend to have lower income and income that are less equally distributed than other types of households (partly because of the likelihood of fewer earners in them), changes in household composition have been associated with growing income inequality (U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Income," 2008).

How is Income Defined?

Income implies wages earned from one's occupation, but it may also include earnings on accumulated assets, as well as what is called transferred income or government benefits, cash and noncash, which encompass Social Security benefits, public assistance allocations, and payments to veterans. Taxes, whether state, federal, or payroll reduce household income, which may be counter-balanced by tax credits. The Census Bureau accounts for tax and transfer income variables in its Current Population Reports.

Viewpoints

Should Class be an Issue?

If sociologists no longer define class, the popular press continues to try. In a widely read series of articles published in 2005, the New York Times asked whether or not class matters (Scott & Leonhardt, 2005). The authors put forth a quintile class model stratified as lower class, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, and upper class. Their formula for determining placement in each of the categories was based on four factors — income, education, occupation, and wealth.

Professor Paul W. Kingston describes society as a ladder with rungs — each of which is equalized. He argues that those higher up the ladder have advantages but that they do not define class (cited in Scott & Leonhardt, 2005). His viewpoint conflicts with that of Michael Hout, professor of sociology at the University of California at Berkeley, who has argued that class awareness is receding as class has reorganized American society. Kingston argues that just because there are a lot of rungs on the ladder does not mean that the issue the situation is any better for those on the lower ones. He finds the "'end of class' discussions naïve and ironic, because we are at a time of booming inequality and massive reorganization of where we live and how we feel, even in the dynamics of our politics. Yet people say, 'Well the era of class is over' " (cited in Scott & Leonhardt, 2005).

Class is a non-issue when it is evident that those on the low end of the income strata are losing ground. What are the consequences of growing disparity in income in the United States, and how should society address them? Neckerman and Torche (2007) highlight research by Evans et al. (2004) that delineates the typology of inequality effects:

Mechanical: if individual economic status is associated with a given outcome, then an increase in economic inequality will lead to an increase in inequality of outcome; i.e., if income predicts happiness then income inequality should lead to a rise in disparities in happiness;

Relational Effect: relationship between economic status and given outcome changes; i.e., if association between income and voting is strengthened, the electorate will tilt toward the affluent;

Functional: nonlinear relation of economic status and outcome; i.e., absolute increase in income creates larger improvement in health for the poor than for the rich;

Externality Effect: contextual; living in high inequality may intensify feelings of relative deprivation among the low-income, leading to higher levels of violent crime (p. 341).

There is perpetual debate in this country about tax levels and what proportion of federal and state funds are to be allocated to address pressing social needs. Americans are generous, but have always been reluctant and cautious about increasing social welfare benefits for many reasons, not the least of which are deeply held beliefs about placing responsibility on the individual who should have an opportunity to achieve the American dream. It is acknowledged that social welfare funding in the United States is low compared to that of most other Western, traditionally industrialized countries.

The struggle to raise the minimum wage is a case in point in how difficult it is to attempt to reduce the inequality gap with public policy. Volscho (2005) studied minimum wages over a forty-year period to test his belief that states with higher minimum wages have improved levels of family inequality. His findings confirmed the hypothesis, and he even derived calculated dollar figures to maximize the redistribution effect of the minimum wage. In 2014, voters in Alaska, Nebraska, Arkansas, and South Dakota approved ballot measures that increased the minimum wage in their state. Legislatures in ten other states—Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia—and the District of Columbia enacted minimum wage increases that year as well. This raised the number of states in which the minimum wage is above that of the federally dictated number to twenty-nine, not including the District of Columbia.

Extended income disparity has implications beyond where one fits in the social strata. Swanstrom and others (2002) studied the spatial segregation of income groups in metropolitan areas and theorized that it "promotes rising economic inequality and amplifies its effects in ways that do not show up in the income statistics" (p. 350). The poor may be always with us, but they still need to be integrated in economic, social, and political forums — and communities.

Terms & Concepts

Family: The U.S. Census Bureau defines family differently depending on the analysis, but is usually understood to be two or more persons living together in the same household related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

Gini Index: The U.S. Census Bureau "Gini index" incorporates detailed data into a formula to produce a single number that summarizes the dispersion of the income shares across the whole income distribution. It ranges from zero, which indicates perfect equality, to one, which indicates perfect inequality.

Household: A household consists of all people who occupy a housing unit regardless of relationship. A household may consist of a person living alone or multiple unrelated individuals or families living together. Households may include family; married couple; female household, no husband; male household, no wife; non-family households; and female householder or male householder. The married-couple families generally fare best economically.

Income: Income is the inflow of money for a given period. Income is usually measured before taxes, and besides earned income, may include government payments such as Social Security benefits, welfare, or veterans payments and worker's compensation. Also included are returns on investments and pensions, excluding capital gains or health insurance supplements paid by employers.

Poverty Line (Threshold): The poverty threshold is generally defined as a dollar amount that determines poverty status. The traditional formula was calculated based on what an average family spends on food multiplied by three to allow for non-food costs.

Social Mobility: Mobility is the opportunity for individuals and families to move from one social stratum to another, particularly from the social class in which they started.

Social Stratification: The hierarchical classification of society based on social and economic variables, most commonly divided into upper, lower, and middle classes, which may be further subdivided. Contemporary sociologists and the U.S. Census Bureau are reluctant to stratify the classes given the complexity and diversity of society and its family and household units.

Transfer Programs: Income not earned from wages may be termed transfer income from government (federal and state) programs and social service agencies, such as Social Security, Veteran Administration benefits, and public assistance.

Wealth: Cumulative value of assets owned by a family or individual. Statisticians measure wealth at a point in time. It includes real estate (home ownership) or business ownership, investments in stocks and bonds, interest earned, etc.

Bibliography

Bee, A. (2012, February). Household income inequality within U.S. counties: 2006–2010. American Community Survey Briefs. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved November 15, 2013 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr10-18.pdf

Clark, T., & Lipset, S. (1991). Are social classes dying? International Sociology, 6 , 397–410.

Cetron, M., Rocha, W., & Lucken, R. (1988, September). One giant middle class. Futurist, 22 , 10–11.

Corcoran, M. (1995). Rags to rags: poverty and mobility in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 237–267. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9509242608&site=ehost-live

Curtis, J. (2013). Middle class identity in the modern world: How politics and economics matter. Canadian Review of Sociology, 50 , 203–226. Retrieved November 15, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87564074&site=ehost-live

Gilbert, D. (2008). The American class structure in an age of growing inequality. 7th ed. Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press.

Keister, L. A. (2014). The One Percent. Annual Review Of Sociology, 40, 347-367. Retrieved December 11, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=97351848

Kenworthy, L. (2007). Inequality and sociology. American Behavioral Scientist, 50 , 584–602.

Kim, C., & Sakamoto, A. (2008). The rise of intra-occupational wage inequality in the United States, 1983 to 2002. American Sociological Review, 73 , 129–157. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=28630408&site=ehost-live

Moody, K. (2012). Contextualising organised labour in expansion and crisis: The case of the US. Historical Materialism, 20 , 3–30. Retrieved November 15, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=76140279&site=ehost-live

Neckerman, K., & Torche, F. (2007). Inequality: causes and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 33 , 335–357. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=26613926&site=ehost-live

Pop, I., Ingen, E., & Oorschot, W. (2013). Inequality, Wealth and Health: Is Decreasing Income Inequality the Key to Create Healthier Societies?. Social Indicators Research, 113, 1025-1043. Retrieved December 11, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89480528

Rank, M., & Hirschl, T. (2001, December). Rags or riches? Estimating the probabilities of poverty and affluence across the adult American life span. Social Science Quarterly, 82 , 651. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=6633775&site=ehost-live

Sawhill, I. (1999, Spring). Still the land of opportunity? Public Interest. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1854341&site=ehost-live

Scott, J. & Leonhardt, D. (2005, May 15). Class in America: Shadowy lines that still divide. New York Times. 1. Retrieved September 3, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/class/OVERVIEW-FINAL.html?%5fr= =1&scp=1&sq=Does%20Class%20Still%20Matter?&st=cse&oref=s slogin

Swanstrom, T., Dreier, P., & Mollenkopf, J. (2002). Economic inequality and public policy: The power of place. City & Community, 1 , 349–372. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10454583&site=ehost-live

Torche, F. (2011). Is a college degree still the great equalizer? Intergenerational mobility across levels of schooling in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117 , 763–807. Retrieved November 15, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=67179378&site=ehost-live

U.S. Census Bureau. The changing shape of the nation's income distribution, 1947–1998. Website viewed September 12, 2008. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204.html

U.S. Census Bureau. The effect of taxes and transfer on income and poverty in the United States: 2005. Current Population Report. Website viewed September 20, 2008. http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-232.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau. Historical income tables — households. Website viewed September 13, 2008. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h02ar.html

U.S. Census Bureau. Historical income tables: Income inequality. F-2 All races: Share of aggregate income received by each fifth and top 5 percent of families (all races). Spreadsheet retrieved November 15, 2013 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/

U.S. Census Bureau. Income. Website viewed September 20, 2008. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html

U. S. Census Bureau. Income inequality (1947–1998). Website viewed September 20, 2008. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204/p60204txt.html

U.S. Census Bureau. Income narrative (middle class). Retrieved November 15, 2013 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/inequality/middleclass.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2013, September 17). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2012. Retrieved November 15, 2013 from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income%5Fwealth/cb13-165.html

Weinberg, D. H. (1996). Current population reports: A brief look at postwar U.S. income inequality. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from U.S. Census Bureau, Household Economic Studies. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/img/p60-191.pdf

Volscho, T. W. (2005). Minimum wages and income inequality in the American States, 1960–2000. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 23, 343–368.

Suggested Reading

Gornick, J. C., & Jäntii, M. (2013). Income inequality: Economic disparities and the middle class in affluent countries. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Grusky, D., & Sørensen, J. (1998). Can class analysis be salvaged? American Journal of Sociology, 103 , 1187. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=418262&site=ehost-live

Hayes, T. J. (2014). Do Citizens Link Attitudes with Preferences? Economic Inequality and Government Spending in the 'New Gilded Age'. Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 95, 468-485. Retrieved December 11, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=95865076

Hess, B. B. (2001). Income distribution in the United States. In Encyclopedia of Sociology. 2nd ed. (Vol. 4). 1278–1290. New York: Macmillan Reference USA.

Hogan, R. (2005). Was Wright wrong? High-class jobs and the professional earnings advantage. Social Science Quarterly, 86 , 645-663. Retrieved September 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=17780488&site=ehost-live

McMurrer, D. P. & Sawhill, I. V. (1998). Getting ahead: economic and social mobility in America. Washington, D. C.: Urban Institute Press.

Pulaski, J. (1993). The dying of class or Marxist class theory? International Sociology, 8 , 279–292.

Schneider, S. (2012). Income inequality and its consequences for life satisfaction: What role do social cognitions play?. Social Indicators Research, 106 , 419–438. Retrieved November 15, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=73928519&site=ehost-live

Terwey, M. (1987). Class position and income inequality. International Journal of Sociology, 17 (1/2), 119. Retrieved September 7, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10200801&site=ehost-live

Wang, Y., & Yamaguchi, K. (2002). Class identification of married employed women and men in America. American Journal of Sociology, 108 , 440–475.

Wright, E. O. (1979). Class structure and income determination. New York: Academic Press.

Wright, E. O. (1996). The continuing relevance of class analysis — comments. Theory & Society, 25 , 693–716. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9708135530&site=ehost-live

Wynn, T. (2003, August 16). Class in the Postindustrial Era: Comparing the attainment and exploitative value of class resources in the Industrial and Postindustrial United States. Conference Papers — American Sociological Association. Retrieved September 3, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15992&site=ehost-live.