NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Conley Paper Social scientists and progressive policy pundits have long recognized that white Americans enjoy an even larger advantage over African-Americans in wealth than they do in income. Conley, however, goes beyond this common understanding to demonstrate that the white wealth advantage is growing, not shrinking; that wealth inequality, more than income inequality, determines African Americans' life chances; and that without radical wealth policy reform there is little reason to expect the black-white wealth gap to diminish. The author's thesis, that accumulated wealth and class position matter more than race, may strike a familiar cord with those who have read sociologists William Julius Wilson, Melvin Oliver, and Thomas Shapiro. Conley's contribution to the class-race debate rests with his use of survey data (The Panel of Income Dynamics) collected on families and their assets and liabilities over time, to estimate the direct effects of parents' class position on their children's well-being. He uses this rich resource to investigate why the gap between black and white accumulated wealth exists and persists, over and above that of income differences, and to ask whether this "wealth gap" explains racial differences in "education, work, earnings, welfare, and family structure." He argues that, although race and class mirror each other, the most salient and tenacious aspects of racial inequality are a direct result of black-white differences in wealth accumulation and that blacks' historical legacy of asset poverty perpetuates these differences. According to Conley, because race does not explain differences in net worth, race-based policies that are designed to eliminate discrimination will do little to alleviate the wealth gap. "Only a radical, progressive, wealth-based policy will redress the issue." Like Oliver and Shapiro who, in their pathbreaking study Black Wealth/White Wealth (1995), empirically demonstrate the vast asset gap between blacks and whites and argue that it is impossible to understand the persistence of racial inequality in the U.
S. without examining black / white differences in wealth ownership, Conley sets out to establish the need to go beyond the standard indicators (education, occupation and income) if we are to understand the causes of black / white inequality. It is his goal to develop "a formal model for the inclusion of assets into statistical models of socioeconomic attainment and family processes, thereby mapping out the role that wealth inequities play in the larger context of a cycle of racial inequality" (Conley, 7). The main hypothesis guiding his study is that racial inequality in its many aspects such as, for example, education, household assets, income, family size, etc. is a direct effect of class and an indirect effect of race: "it is not race per se that matters directly: what matters are the wealth levels and class position associated with race in America" (Conley, 7). To understand class position, reliance on the usual SES measures is not sufficient; social scientists need to take wealth, meaning property, assets, net worth, into account.
In other words, there is a need to "re conceptualize" class (i. e. , socioeconomic status) by including wealth ownership and the effects of the inheritance of wealth, thus examining the extent to which the life chances of one generation are causally affected by the class position of the parent generation. To test empirically the theoretical adequacy of these ideas the author relies on the statistical analysis of data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) which has been gathered since 1968. The important overall finding of this study is the "reduced significance" of race and, by implication, the increased significance of class. The results are unambiguous: "the locus of black-white inequality lies in the realm of class relations rather than reflecting racial difference per se" (Conley, 49).
For example, when black and white students of similar socioeconomic status are compared, back students do better than whites in high school graduation rates and in academic grade advancement (Conley, 80). Black-white differences in educational attainment are not just about race but about SES' "race matters but only indirectly, through the realm of class inequality" (Conley, 80). The author also examines the effects of parental assets on the next generation's employment, family formation, fertility, the probability of out of wedlock childbearing and marital stability, concluding that the introduction of measures of household assets in the analysis reduces the magnitude of black-white differences in these respects. Cultural and racial explanations of the plight of African americans overlook the economic basis of racial inequality. When blacks and whites of similar ndi vidual characteristics, family backgrounds ad class origins are compared, "racial differences change significantly in magnitude and sometimes even in direction" (Conley, 133).
The author is careful, at all times, to assure the reader that he is not discounting the effects of race or culture in accounting for some of the differences between blacks and whites, but urges the examination of the various ways in which culture and behavior are influenced by the socioeconomic conditions in which people live. He is also aware of the enormous problems his analysis poses for policy makers because, if black-white inequality is not just the result of unequal opportunities (a matter that could be redressed with policies like affirmative action) but the result of a vast racial gap in the net worth of whites and blacks who share similar education, income and occupational levels, then the situation is indeed extremely difficult to resolve. This is why the author dedicates most of the last chapter to the consideration of possible ways to develop and implement race-based asset policies, concluding that it would be impossible, given patterns of racial relations and the ways whites protect their economic interests at this time, to implement policies intended to increase black business ownership and home ownership. Government reparations and strict policies to foster residential integration, or a tax on wealth to create funds to be distributed to the asset poor would not only be unlikely to yield the desired results but would be politically very unlikely to be seriously considered.
He concludes with the suggestion that policies that encourage the asset poor to be thrifty and save for their children's education, with the government's intervention to make sure those funds are safe and well invested; policies which allow welfare recipients to work and save and do not force people to lose all assets to qualify for state aid; and policies intended to promote homeownership among the poor and near poor might elicit support from both political parties and might be helpful to start long and arduous process of narrowing the black-white asset gap. Conley makes a brief reference to how, "in the jargon of social theory, the concept of "class" implies fundamental economic cleavages in a society, such as those between laborers and capitalists, managers and workers, manual and non-manual employees, skilled and unskilled workers, or even blue collar and white collar workers" (Conley, 13). This listing of "cleavages" mixes theoretical and descriptive, common sense concepts of class. He then proceeds to argue that standard SES indicators are insufficient and need to be supplemented with information about the assets (property, stocks, bonds, savings, etc. ) individuals and households own. While it is indeed possible to attain important results looking at asset ownership in a purely descriptive way, the analysis of those results is shaped by the limitations inherent in the lack of a theoretical understanding of class and class dynamics as key elements of the capitalist mode production.
This is why the author can conceive of the possibility of "wealth equality, " though he acknowledges that it is impossible to be very optimistic about changes in that direction, not because of systemic, structural limitations inherent in the very functioning of the mode of production but because of the conflict of interest among individuals that policies designed to narrow the asset gap would unavoidably generate. (1) I find this book both timely and disappointing. Timely because as we enter the new Millennium and world capitalism exacerbates class inequalities everywhere, it is important to have research findings like these. They document the pervasive and enduring significance of class. Disappointing, because it is another instance of the ways sociology thrives on the use of Marxist theoretical insights while continuing to add its voice to the chorus that insists that Marx is dead. I believe that as inequality deepens and the ripple effects of the ups and downs of the market bubble affect larger numbers of people, it will become increasingly fashionable to acknowledge the significance of class (these days demoted to something called "classicism") and more books like this one are likely to be written. in the near future.
We should welcome these works as important alternatives to racial, ethnic and gender reductionism's and to the race, gender class trilogy; more importantly, we should welcome all efforts to elucidate the historical basis of racial inequality and the structural limits to the success of policies concerned with enhancing equal opportunities which nevertheless ignore the role of household assets in the process of status attainment and overall life chances of individuals. theoretical criticisms, aside. (1) To illustrate the importance of asset ownership, Conley compares various analytical models introducing greater complexity to the basic race-only model as he adds variables representing individual characteristics (such as age and gender), family background (such as parents' age or whether the respondent grew up in a female-headed household), and class origins (such as parents' education level and net worth). With the addition of each new variable or set of variables, he asks, does skin color still matter? He concludes that it does not. When differences in net worth between African Americans and whites are taken into consideration, Conley finds that blacks are just as likely as similarly positioned whites to complete college, hold a job, or use welfare; and that they are more likely than similarly positioned whites to finish high school or earn high wages. (1) These findings challenge conventional wisdom and make a strong case for the significance of wealth in shaping African Americans' economic well-being and life chances.
However, to fully appreciate the nuances of Conley's argument, it is important to realize that he is only interested in whether skin color exerts a significant direct effect on upward mobility and socioeconomic success, over and above that of wealth and class position. He does not address the "confounding factors" that might "interact with a variety of other measurable and immeasurable factors" to influence a family's economic well-being and life chances" (p. 5). In short, he is not interested in exploring how the subtleties of race might shape economic opportunities and the distribution of rewards. Nevertheless, Conley makes a convincing case that without radical, progressive wealth reform, the wealth gap will continue to grow, and its consequences will become increasing dire. Unfortunately, the policy chapter is vague and poorly developed.
His claim that the locus of inequality no longer resides in the labor market (an issue of opportunity) but instead lies in class and property relations (an issue of distribution) suggests that race-based policies are outdated (p. 152). Yet race may determine whether a job candidate lands an interview, or a potential homebuyer is "steered" to particular neighborhoods, or how a new employee or homeowner is treated by co-workers or neighbors. These subtle aspects of race are purposefully ignored by Conley, in part because they are nearly impossible to measure but also because his arguments "depend on the insignificance of the race variable" (p. 183 n. 35). I have other quibbles with his analysis.
Like the policy chapter, some of his explanations of statistical results lack luster. For instance, being a female has a significant and detrimental effect on employment, hours worked, and wages, but Conley fails to fully address how women's disadvantaged position in the workplace may contribute to a family's ability to accumulate wealth. And when Conley finds that African Americans work fewer hours, yet make higher wages than similarly placed full-time-employed whites, he tries to reconcile these seemingly incongruent findings in the simplest of terms. He insinuates that blacks' wage advantage results from affirmative action policies and that African Americans use this wage advantage to work fewer hours. Conley fails to consider other plausible explanations, such as the possibility that African Americans, more than similarly placed whites, rely on contract work, which by design is temporary and often pays a higher wage to compensate for poor or no health and retirement benefits. Although a quantitative analysis about race may strike some readers as cold, detached, and lacking "heart, " Conley deserves credit for making a significant contribution to the class-race debate.
He clearly demonstrates that class position and accumulated wealth play crucial roles in the long-term, inter- generational accretion of racial inequality. This book is a "must read" for those interested in such issues. His analytical models and results are presented as graphs and lists, statistical findings are summarized in the narrative, and the regression coefficients are tucked away in an appendix, which should make this quantitative analysis appealing to upper-division undergraduates and number-phobic academics alike. Slavery was a terrible crime. Everyone has seen the photos, read the history and heard the stories. Yet we also must consider all the facts, before reaching a reasonable logical conclusion.
Slavery began somewhere, it did not just pop-up. It is not a white or an European- originated phenomena. It began long ago, and as a result of this root action, the fruit has increased to epic proportions. But it is difficult to refuse that African Americans have been and continue to be affected mentally, physically, and emotionally and it is now time for someone to pay.
Reparation is defined as making amends for a wrong or injury just as President Franklin D. Roosevelt compensated the Japanese and Jewish immigrants were given land. From the earliest days of America, the blood, sweat, and tears of African Americans has been used to shape this nation. The great land of Africa saw millions of its inhabitants being captured and forced into slavery.
Although somewhere legally traded, there are various accounts of them being kidnapped and taken against their will. The grueling trip over the Atlantic Ocean was no amusing expedition. Being forced into ships and packed with only minimal space for moving, some Blacks suffocated during these voyages. This is not the only suffering that they endured on the ships. They were forced to sleep in their own defecation and urine, and during a womans cycle, the blood was rarely cleaned.
Some captives committed suicide due to the inhumane treatment that they received. Being treated as property, many slaves were auctioned off to begin their life of hell on Earth. Since they were separated from family members and other associates of their distinctive tribe, devising a plan to escape was nearly impossible to conceive or carry out. Their days were tremendously onerous and stressful but this was the life of a slave; all work and no pay! . Some of the light-skinned slaves, usually the offspring of the slave owner, were given special treatment over darker slaves. (This is still being done today. ). There social life was extremely limited.
Learning to read and write was not an opportunity given to slaves. In fact, if they were caught learning they were either beaten or had a limb severed. Blacks did not benefit from their hard work and even after they were freed, the oppression did not end. The impact of slavery is being felt today. Blacks died sooner than whites because of the legacy of poverty many were forced to live in. Everyone must have an equal opportunity to better himself.
Black SAT and IQ scores are lower because by law slaves were not allowed to read or write. That is why the public educational system needs to be revamped giving the future leaders of America a comfortable place to learn; this is to be permanent. The next ten generations of African Americans should receive a scholarship to the institution of their choice with a $ 2, 000 per month stipend, a car for transportation to and from school and / or work, along with low-cost living. Those opting not to go to college should still be given a car to get to and from work along with the chance to take advantage of reduced rate home loans. All African Americans should have free medical insurance and health care to pay for their medical needs; this too will be never ending. Lastly, discrimination should be put to an end.
There should be harsher penalties for those caught violating the civil liberties of African Americans or any other person for that matter. References: 1. Being Black: Living In Red. Book Review. Martha E. Genes. 2001.
Free research essays on topics related to: african americans, net worth, blacks and whites, racial inequality, racial differences
Research essay sample on Blacks And Whites Racial Inequality
