Tags: class, economic sociology, inequality, marriage/family,
income inequality, single parents, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2012
Length: 5:16
Access: New York Times

Summary: In this video, The New York Times notes that "as a single mother of three, Jessica Schairer falls in the middle of a sharp debate about how economic inequality is increasingly linked to changes in family structure" (see accompanying article and infographic). Through Jessica's story as a working class mother, it illustrates how family structure can exacerbate already existing class inequalities. Jessica explains her stress trying to raise her children as a single parent, including the difficulties of getting home and needing to meet the needs of children and her inability to pay for all the activities her children would like to do. This is contrasted with her married supervisor at work, who is able to rely on a partner when going home from work. The narrator notes that like Jessica's supervisor, college-educated people are more likely to marry and that their combined resources help provide an additional advantage in raising their income, which provides additional advantages conferred to their children. The narrator also notes that "many children of single parents flourish, but studies have shown that on average, children raised by single parents are more likely to fall into poverty, do poorly in school, or become teenage parents." The accompanying article provides many additional statistics. For example, it notes that "estimates vary widely, but scholars have said that changes in marriage patterns — as opposed to changes in individual earnings — may account for as much as 40 percent of the growth in certain measures of inequality." Viewers can be encouraged to consider how class and family structure intersect to shape intergenerational economic inequality, and how the jobs of low income workers face more job-related difficulties in meeting family needs as compared to salaried professional workers.

Image by Stephen Crowley/New York Times

Submitted By: Paul Dean

Tags:  capitalism, economic sociology, globalization, marx/marxism, organizations/occupations/work, science/technology, theory, assembly line, deskilling, jobs, labor, reskilling, robotics, 00 to 05 mins
Length: 3:58
Year: 2012
Access: New York Times

Summary: This NYT video examines innovations in robot technology used for factory production (see associated article). These robots are far more sophisticated than typical factory robots, and they have important implications for work, labor, and the geography of the global economy. As Marx predicted, global competition drives producers to mechanize their operations to drive down costs. For example, as the article notes, "In one example, a robotic manufacturing system initially cost $250,000 and replaced two machine operators, each earning $50,000 a year. Over the 15-year life of the system, the machines yielded $3.5 million in labor and productivity savings." The robots are replacing huge numbers of low and mid-skilled workers, making assembly lines more efficient and creating some higher skilled jobs. At 2:50, a representative from a robotics company states "We don't view robots as a way to eliminate the labor, it's just an opportunity to raise that skill set and help everybody realize a better life as a result of that, get them out of that repetition and into a place where they can earn a higher wage and be more successful." Viewers may reflect on this highly optimistic view. In some cases, these advanced technologies are bringing manufacturing jobs now held in countries like China back into the US. With the automation of much manual labor, the new jobs are often safer - but they also have new forms of stress and higher insecurity. However, many people who lose their jobs do not have access to the education and training needed to reskill themselves for the new jobs. Furthermore, such technologies might lead to the increasing polarization of jobs in terms of both skills and wages. Who wins and who loses when robots replace human labor?

Image by Paul Sakuma/Associated Press

Submitted By: Paul Dean

Tags: capitalism, class, economic sociology, inequality, mobility, opportunity, 06 to 10 mins
Year: 2012
Length: 6:35
Access: The Daily Show

Summary: In this clip, nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz discusses his book, The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future. The clip offers a great explanation of why inequality is so much worse in the U.S., why it doesn't have to be, and how it hurts the economy. Siglitz notes that the US has become the most unequal of all advanced industrial countries and that we also have the least equality of opportunity. He argues "The life chances of somebody...born in the United States is more dependent on the income and education of his parents than in any of the advanced countries for which we have data."  There is no such thing as a free market and that institutions shape the market and promote or lessen inequality. Bankruptcy laws and student loan policies are just two examples of how institutions shape the market. Contrary to arguments that inequality is good for society because it drives people to strive for more, Stiglitz argues that past American innovators and the most important innovations were not motivated by money and would not have been deterred by higher taxes. See also part 2, part 3, or listen to an NPR story on Stiglitz's book.

Submitted By: Nickie Michaud Wild

Tags: capitalism, class, durkheim, economic sociology, marx/marxism, organizations/occupations/work, theory, weber, alienation, disenchantment, mechanical and organic solidarity, species-being, 11 to 20 mins
Year: 2012
Length: 20:00
Access: YouTube (start 13:40; end 33:40)

Summary: The London 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony focused in part on the Industrial Revolution which is seen to be pioneered by both the British and Europeans in the 19th Century. The ceremony opens with England depicted as a meadow, showing its agricultural past, then continues by depicting the industrial society that followed. This clip can be useful for illustrating many sociological concepts, such as Durkheim’s concepts of mechanical and organic solidarity; Weber’s concept of disenchantment; Marx’s concepts of a two class system, species-being, and alienation; and with the presence of the Suffragettes in the latter part, the clip can be used to introduce Feminist Perspectives. For example, Marx’s concept of species-being (the naturalness of human’s creativity and interaction with nature) is evident in the previous feudal/agricultural society, where the actors are seen enjoying nature and creative activities symbolic to the UK (such as cricket and Maypole dancing), interacting with family and friends, and partaking in ‘productive activity’ which they can relate to, e.g. farming and creative work. However, the people become alienated from their species-being through the era of industrialization. As capitalism developed, workers experienced alienation from their ‘productive activity’; alienation from the ‘product’; alienation from other workers; and alienation from their own creative ‘human potential’. This is shown in the video through the factory work occurring with greater numbers of workers, but with no contact among these workers with each other, working in unison like machines on products that they have no relation to and unable to express any form of human creativity. Viewers might also consider what is missing from the clip, such as colonialism, as well as the race and ethnicity of the actors (as compared to colonized subjects).

Submitted By: Michelle MacDonagh         

Tags:  capitalism, class, economic sociology, marx/marxism, organizations/occupations/work, theory, class consciousness, gang hierarchy, gangs, labor theory of value, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2002
Length: 3:09; 1:34
Access: YouTube (clip 1; clip 2)

Summary: [Trigger Warning: these clips use extensive profanity and racial slurs.] In the first of these 2 scenes from HBO's The Wire (season 1, episodes 1 and 3), D'Angelo teaches Bodie and Wallace how to play chess. He likens each chess piece to a member of the gang hierarchy, illustrating the stratification structure and his consciousness of it. For example, the king is at the top of the hierarchy and allowed to do what he wants, the queen moves where ever she wants and gets work done, while the pawns protect the king. Like the upper class within a rigid capitalist structure, there is also little mobility within the structure: "the king stay the king" even though he "doesn't do shit"; "everything stay who he is" ... unless "they are some smart ass pawns" and can climb the hierarchy. In the second scene, the characters discuss value and production within capitalism. While enjoying a fast food lunch, Wallace suggests that whoever invented Chicken McNugges must be extremely rich because of their popularity, but D'Angelo explains that the worker who invented chicken McNuggets "is just some sad ass sittin' in the basment of McDonalds thinkin' up some shit to make some money for the real players." This reflects Marx's labor theory of value, which explains how capitalism is structured to extract value from the workers (the true source of value) and funnel it into the hands of the owners (i.e. "Ronald McDonald" or more accurately, the stockholders). When Bodie responds "that ain't right", D'Angelo says "Fuck right. It ain't about right; it's about money" and explains that whoever invented the McNuggets is still "working in the basement for regular wage thinking of some shit to make the fries taste better." Both clips illustrate D'Angelo's consciousness of the class system, and its inherent injustice. Viewers may also be interested in the restaurant scene from The Wire that examines cultural capital.

Submitted By: Paul Dean

Tags: economic sociology, gender, inequality, methodology/statistics, organizations/occupations/work, prejudice/discrimination, empiricism, feminism, gender wage gap, income inequality, 11 to 20 mins
Year: 2012
Length: 14:42
Access: YouTube

Summary: A few months ago, sociologist Phillip Cohen blogged about a feminist viral statistic meme, which claims that women own less than 1% of all the world's wealth. It turns out, a credible source for this figure can't be traced and is unlikely to exist. As Cohen's post reminds us, the very statistics that shape how we understand the world are sometimes little more than elaborately disguised rumors. So what about other influential statistics? What about that viral statistic which states that women earn about 77 cents for every dollar men earn? When people have denied gender inequality exists and when they have implied it is unnecessary to enact policies aimed at eradicating it, the 77-cent statistic has often come to the rescue and thwarted derailment, so whether the statistic is accurate is an important question. In the above clip, Republican Party strategist Alex Castellanos asserts the 77-cent statistic is untrue. Could it be just another viral statistic meme without a source? The short answer is no. The longer answer is that 77 cents is an average, and the number varies based on profession, age, and race. The 77-cent statistic can easily be traced to a respectable source--the Census Bureau (the U.S. Bureau of Labor calculates the number differently and arrives at about 81 cents on the male dollar). The point is society needs an accurate description of the world, lest our dominant understanding of the world become solely derived from eloquently stated assertions by elites with narrow interests. In part, this clip makes a good case for the potential importance of sociology, and in particular, a sociology that checks its sources. It is also important to have a sociology that is capable of setting the record straight, if only to rebuke those talking heads who seek to confuse the public with baseless assertions. In this clip, Alex Castellanos' baseless assertion begins at about the 7:35 mark.

Submitted By: Lester Andrist

Tags: capitalism, commodification, consumption/consumerism, corporations, economic sociology, marketing/brands, marx/marxism, political economy, theory, culture industry, false needs, max horkheimer, theodor adorno, wal-mart, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2004
Length: 3:48
Access: South Park Studios

Summary: In this South Park clip, Kyle and Stan enter the local Wall-Mart in an attempt to ruin the business because the people of South Park have been negatively affected by its recent opening in their town. Having been led to believe that destroying the “heart” will destroy the business, the boys search the store for the “heart” of Wal-Mart . While Randy (Stan's father) is walking through the store with the boys, he is distracted by the fact that Wal-Mart continues to lower their prices. Everywhere he looks there are items that he does not need, but he continues to buy them because of the low prices.  In this way, Wal-Mart is creating “false-needs,” which are created and fulfilled by capitalism, and exert power over Randy. When the boys meet the man that calls himself “Wal-Mart,” he claims that he can take any “form” that he chooses. He then switches clothes, thereby acquiring different forms through consumer goods, and asks the boys which “form” they prefer. When the boys find the “heart,” they are surprised to see that it is a mirror; i.e. the “heart” of Wal-Mart is the consumer. The man adds that his “forms” can be Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and Target, but that he represents one single entity, “desire.” This desire is the power that is exerted over people by major corporations. While the clip seems to suggest that Wal-Mart is simply fulfilling the desires of the consumer, viewers may consider how such desire and the low prices of Wal-Mart are produced more broadly. Through advertising and Wal-Mart's artificially low prices (e.g. by exploiting cheap labor), these desires are produced like a commodity in a factory and are a fundamental mechanism for capitalist control over people. By suggesting that the "heart of Wal-Mart" is the consumer, does it offer hope in us being able to change the corporate giant or does it unfairly place blame on individuals for a bigger structural issue?

Submitted By: Sean Kelley and Ian Hammer

Tags: capitalism, class, economic sociology, education, inequality, intergenerational mobility, intragenerational mobility, occupy wall street, ows, social mobility, subtitles/CC, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2011
Length: 3:09
Access: YouTube

Summary:  In this short news clip, journalist Fareed Zakaria discusses what he believes to be Occupy Wall Street's core criticism. Noting that the United States has long had greater levels of inequality than many other nations, he argues that inequality can't be the sole catalyst for the protests. Instead, he thinks the movement was born from the sinking realization that it is increasingly difficult to move up the social mobility ladder and that Americans generally put up with inequality because they believe they can change their own class status. Zakaria points to a Time magazine article written by Rana Foroohar, which explores empirical evidence about social mobility in the United States. In terms of intragenerational mobility, Foroohar notes that if you were born in 1970 in the bottom 20% of our socioeconomic spectrum, you have a 17% chance of making it into the upper 40% of the spectrum. Turning to intergenerational mobility, nearly half of men whose fathers were in the bottom 20% of the socioeconomic spectrum, remained in the bottom 20%. In comparison to Denmark and Sweden, only a quarter of men remained in the bottom 20% of the spectrum, leading to the uncomfortable conclusion that the American dream is really only alive and well in Europe. The antidote to this crisis, as Zakaria argues, is improved education, and he tackles the argument in greater detail in a special he hosts called Fixing Education. The clip works nicely as an introduction to the topic of social mobility, but also as a vivid example of how empirical observation can powerfully expose the myths, which buttress American exceptionalism and ultimately perpetuate American inequality. It also dovetails nicely with Nobel prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz's new book, The Price of Inequality: How Today's Society Endangers Our Future, where he argues that the Horatio Alger rags-to riches story is no longer a reality for Americans.

Submitted By: Lester Andrist

Tags: corporations, crime/law/deviance, economic sociology, government/the state, historical sociology, inequality, political economy, copyright law, subtitles/CC, 06 to 10 mins
Year: 2011
Length: 6:30
Access: YouTube

Summary: States, it is often said, must regulate corporations in order to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number of its citizens. Even the most ardent fiscal conservative would concede that antitrust laws are necessary in order to sustain a competitive market and protect consumers from price fixing. To take another example, when states enforce copyright laws, they "promote the progress of science and useful arts." While corporations may want to own a copyright forever, states are obliged to limit the duration of copyright protection in the interest of allowing other authors the ability to remake or build from classic stories. This is what benevolent, well-meaning states should do, but in practice, corporations often wield power over state regulators, and as C. G. P. Grey remarks in the above clip, on four separate occasions Congress has aligned with the narrow interest of corporate copyright holders that the length of copyright is too short to turn a profit and so extended it. But as Grey also points out, it's hard to imagine that J. K. Rowling "wouldn't have written Harry Potter if the copyright protection was just for her whole life and not an additional seven decades thereafter." The clip works well as a rather vivid antidote to the myth that markets are best left unregulated, and the clip is also a useful entrée into a discussion about how power—in this case, corporate power—shapes the formation of law, and perhaps even the ideological premises, which become the foundation of discussions about whether those laws should be changed in the first place.

Submitted By: Sparhawk

Tags:  consumption/consumerism, corporations, economic sociology, gender, lgbtq, prejudice/discrimination, sex/sexuality, social mvmts/social change/resistance, consumer boycott, homosexuality, protest, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2012
Length: 4:05
Access: YouTube

Summary: There is a long history of consumers boycotting businesses that practice socially irresponsible, unsustainable, or discriminatory practices. For example, Equality Matters (which promotes LGBTQ equality) has documented that Chick-fil-A has donated millions of dollars to promote anti-gay groups in 2009 and beyond. While the company claims they are "not anti-anybody," their donations have sparked a variety of protests and boycotts against the company. Recently, Los Angeles-based drag queens Willam Belli, Detox Icunt, and Vicki Vox have entered the debate with this parody of Wilson Phillips' "Hold On" (and with a small rap homage to TLC's "Waterfalls"). Singing "Someday somebody's gonna make you wanna gobble up a waffle fry", they praise the chain's food, but note the issue with the company's discriminatory practices. They assert "We just want a little meat without your Bible" and "With the fact they hate gays but the food is so dope", but they ultimately encourage viewers to "chow down at Chick-fil-A, even if you're gay." Viewers interested in this debate may consider how businesses like Chick-fil-A promote an anti-gay agenda and the role of public protest and parody in resisting or promoting the social activities of business. More generally, viewers can consider how our consumption practices may support or resist certain types of business practices, and reflect upon how consumption (e.g. consumer boycotts) may or may not be used as an effective tool to promote social change by attacking corporate brands.

Submitted By: Christine Moore