Archive

News Analysis

It’s been just over one month since we launched oowsection.org and we’re tremendously happy with the response to the blog so far. We hope that you, our readers, have enjoyed reading the posts as much as we have. We’d like to take a moment to share with you some of the ways that you can participate with us in on our blog.

1. Follow Us
When we launched last month, we simultaneously opened a Twitter account (@Orgs_Occs_Work) to help get the word out about our posts. Since then, we have added a Facebook page as well as the ability to subscribe to oowsection.org via email. If you subscribe, you’ll receive an email every time a new post goes up. We’re also announcing new posts on Twitter and Facebook, as well as sharing links to new stories and other articles. Finally, you can follow us via RSS feed through Google Reader or the RSS reader of your choice. You can find links to all four of these options on the righthand sidebar of our blog. Please follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook!

2. Comment
At the bottom of each post, you will find a place to leave a comment on the post. You may leave comments for us or respond to other commenters. Commenting gives you the chance to respond to our authors and others, and continue the discussion that we’re contributing to. The more you participate, the better the conversation!

3. Share
At the bottom of each post, you will find links that allow you to re-blog us easily on WordPress and to email copies of our posts to others who you think may find us interesting.

We’ve also made it easy for you to share our posts across a variety of social media platforms. Included are the standard social media services (Facebook, Twitter, and Google+) as well as a number of services designed for sharing blog posts and news articles (Stumbleupon, Reddit, and Digg). Share us widely and often!

4. Write
We welcome all members of our community to submit story ideas to our editorial team. Get in touch with any of us to share your thoughts and propose a story!

Last week I discussed the connection between the Occupy Wall Street protests and the long-term transfer of national income into the finance sector. Well the problem is worse than Wall Street’s power over the national economy and polity.

There really are two faces to financialization. The most familiar face is the dominance of the finance sector over the rest of us: the giant profits and bonuses at the big banks and investment houses and the instability generated by too big to fail but rapaciously imprudent financial services firms. The other face is the financialization of the rest of the economy. Greta Krippner figured this out first. Greta discovered that since the 1980s firms in the non-finance sector have increasingly invested, not in the production of goods and services, but in financial instruments. The productive economy, Main Street in some formulations, has increasingly abandoned production in favor of financial shenanigans. Finance related income, including interest, foreign exchange profits, and stock market investments have risen from about 1/8th of corporate profits to around 30%. In the manufacturing sector the move from production to financial strategies has been even more dramatic, rising to a ratio of finance revenue/profit as high as .60 after 2000.

Read More

The Huffington Post recently reported a story about the declining numbers of blacks working in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields.  Overall, the numbers of workers in STEM fields is declining, but black Americans’ numbers are shrinking to very low percentages. The article cites a number of factors that may explain this, including but not limited to a lack of role confidence (a factor that sociologist Erin Cech and her colleagues also note affects women in STEM fields as well), economic and financial considerations, and a lack of role models and social support in the field.

Read More

The deification of Steve Jobs is a truly remarkable sociological phenomenon. There has been good sociological commentary on this already, including a post by Kieran Healy applying a Weberian analysis of charismatic authority to Jobs and a post by Teppo Felin on the social construction of Steve Jobs (also see a post by Shamus Khan on the Foxconn sweatshops that make Apple products).

What I want to add here is an argument that not only is the exaltation of Jobs explicable as a reaffirmation of the American mythology of individualism and free markets, but, more provocatively, the Jobs-as-Great-Man narrative is wrong in assigning so much responsibly for Apple’s ostensibly-trailblazing products to a single individual. Against both the American mythology and mainstream economics, technological innovation is better conceived as a collective endeavor.

Read More

The Congressional Budget Office recently released a report on “Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007.”

Among the highlights:

The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income, with most of that growth going to the top 1 percent of the population.

The bottom 80% saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.

Thanks to Kay Christensen for sending me this.

Many of us are watching with rapt attention as events in Oakland, Atlanta, and many other cities unfold. The police actions in NYC at the outset of the movement, and now the use of tear gas by police (and the serious injury inflicted on a Marine veteran) all play into the movement dynamics in very interesting ways. Readers will want to visit our sister blog, Sociological Images, for a very interesting story by Gwen Sharp, who presents a provocative graph charting what seems to be a dialectical relation between police repression and media coverage, in keeping with social movement theory. And yesterday, many national newspapers were reporting that many cities (New York, Oakland) were beginning to back off, perhaps sensing the tactical disadvantages that repression involves.

Read More

by Edward Walker, University of California-Los Angeles

The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) demonstrations have caused, to say the least, quite a stir in the weeks since the first events in the New York financial district on September 17.  Organized with explicit reference to the Arab Spring uprisings, activists responded to a February call by the Canadian magazine Adbusters for a “Tahrir square moment” targeted against Wall Street financial firms, which they called “the greatest corruptor of our democracy.”  Although the first events included only a small number of activists and looked like to many like a bust, fortuitous events facilitated broader mobilization: mass arrests of over 700 demonstrators who thought they were following the officially sanctioned march route over the Brooklyn Bridge, a YouTube video of an officer pepper-spraying a seemingly defenseless group of activists, and the early support of the Airline Pilots Association (followed by significant additional union support in the following weeks). The campaign’s reach has become astoundingly broad; as of October 15, the movement claims to have a presence in over 100 U.S. cities and over 1,500 global cities.  Even if these figures can be discounted to some extent as self-serving overestimates, the ability of the campaign to capture public attention has been remarkable.  For instance, Nate Silver notes that the movement received a cumulative 3,000 print stories over the first three weeks of its existence, and my own October 16 search of NewsLibrary shows that an additional 4,500 stories have been published in the week since Silver’s October 7 accounting.  Media coverage of the movement seems to be following an accelerating production function, to use Oliver and colleagues’ (1985) terms. By this metric, OWS is on pace to receive more cumulative early coverage than the first Tax Day Tea Party events in April 2009, despite OWS’s minimal initial coverage and associated questions about the its legitimacy early on.  Further, the movement is gaining major traction in public opinion, as 54% now hold a favorable view of these demonstrations (this compares to the 27% favorable view held about the Tea Party movement).  Read More

A recent article in The Guardian by Lucy Siegle presents some uncomfortable facts about the conditions of production or of many middle-class home comforts. She reports on the human or environmental impacts involved in the production of nine items, from toy packaging to jeans to laptops.

The article presents an informative look into the complex global supply chains that are generally hidden from view when we purchase our products at the Big Box store or on the internet. When reading the article, I was struck by how the reality of global supply chains is often so far from the beneficent free markets found in economics textbooks. The article largely speaks for itself, but let me highlight two disconnections I found particularly egregious with regard to the so-called free market supply chains for mobile phones and coffee.

Read More

We are delighted to welcome three new regular contributors to the blog: Dana Britton (Professor of Sociology at Kansas State University), Carolina Bank Munoz (Associate Professor of Sociology at Brooklyn College), and Julie A. Kmec (Associate Professor of Sociology at Washington State University). We’ve got a piece from Julie on doing and undoing gender at work, coming soon; Carolina and Dana will begin contributing in the near future.

Both occupations and organizations are the subject of the latest version of the American Sociological Review (ASR), the flagship journal of our parent organization the American Sociological Association (ASA). The issue includes “Professional Role Confidence and Gendered Persistence in Engineering” (Erin Cech, Brian Rubineau, Susan Sibley, and Caroll Seron), which introduces the concept of professional role confidence to help explain the persistence of gender barriers in STEM professions. They argue that women have on average lower levels of confidence in their ability to fulfill professional roles. They find that women’s relative lack of professional role confidence explains some of the attrition of women from STEM occupations.

Read More