I'm Glad My Father Went to College

My father’s story is the exact opposite of the stories in “No Degree, and No Way Back to the Middle”, by Timothy Egan.

My grandfather worked in the steel mills in Granite City, Illinois his entire life. My father followed him there. After high school, my father said he couldn’t work in the mills his whole life, so he went to college and he stayed in college. He was still in school when I was born, shortly after his 36th birthday.

I think it is safe to say that my father is much better off now than he would have been had he stayed in the steel mills. Now he’s pushed me to go to college and now graduate school, even with the economy as awful as it is. But I am a little apprehensive about the whole process though. My father made the jump in class, from the lower-middle to the upper-middle class, and the New York Times article, “Shadowy Lines That Still Divide”, states that social mobility still happens, just not as rapidly as it once did.

Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to wait and see.

...and I am a material girl.

"People like having stuff, and stuff is good for people" (Steinhauer 3).

I completely agree with this statement, 100%. There’s just something about buying a new DVD, a nice dinner, or even a round of drinks for friends that just makes me feel better about myself. Splurging is therapeutic for me. It raises my spirits, it brings me out of depressed moods.

Maybe it’s that “safety net” protecting me, the idea that I do have money to fall back on during rougher stretches. Maybe it’s the feeling I get when I spend entirely too much money on a Lacoste Polo, the feeling that people know how expensive these shirts are. The feeling that people notice me for the money I have in my bank account. Whatever it is, it feels good to splurge on things. Things that aren’t necessary but I still have the opportunity to buy them. It feels good having a flat-screen television and shelves lined with DVDs. Call me shallow, but I like having nice things. Its my therapy.

Flat Broke with Children

I was surprised by some of the findings in the work by Sharon Hays, Flat Broke with Children. “…financially privileged young women who find themselves pregnant before they are ready are more likely to get an abortion” (Grusky 184). I was truly shocked when I read this. Despite the fact that these financially privileged women are more likely to have the resources necessary to raise a child, they are not the ones keeping them. Poor women are MORE likely to have the child even though this choice will undoubtedly add extra strain and hardship on an already struggling family.

I’m still not quite sure if I am for or against abortion. It is one of those topics with too much “grey” area for me to make a judgment just yet. But logically, I would have thought the rich among society would be more willing to keep an unexpected child, not the poor. Maybe it has something to do with collecting government subsidies (that just seems a little too cynical for my taste), or maybe it has something to do with the love these financially poor, younger women have for their unborn child.

Remaining Somewhat Objective In Scholarly Works

I found G. William Domhoff’s article, Who Rules America, to be informational and somewhat stimulating. I enjoy reading about how the “hyper-rich” came upon their fortunes and how they maintain them. I enjoy reading about the lives they live, the places they spend their free time, and the way they throw around their vast amounts of money. However, the author lost my endorsement of this article in the second to last paragraph:

“Deep down, most members of the upper class think they are better than other people, and therefore fully deserving of their station in life” (page 104).

I would love to be enlightened as to where on Earth Mr. Domhoff found the research and evidence to back up this incredibly general claim about the attitudes of the upper-class. No where in this article is there mentioned anything that could even remotely back up this claim. As far as I can see, this article would read better and would have more validity if he had simply left out this statement. Talk about sticking your foot in your mouth.

As ridiculous as those little things are, I think the “Shmoos” from the cartoon in the article ‘Class Counts’ by Erik Olin Wright are an interesting concept. They exist for no other reason than to make humans happy, or at least live more comfortably. They transform into the things we need as humans to survive. I briefly tried to imagine what my world would be like if I didn’t have to work for the things I needed just to survive. Work and education wouldn’t be nearly as important. I’d probably live longer because I would never stress out over the small things. I literally think my entire life would be different.

I also briefly tried to think of the real-life equivalent of the “Shmoo”, something that exists solely for the purpose of making the lives of men and women more comfortable, more livable. About the only thing I could think of is welfare and I think that analogy is really pushing it. Welfare is available, but not for everyone. It can be used to buy life’s essentials, but it doesn’t have to be used in that way.

Like I said, I briefly tried to find the “Shmoo’s” equivalent, but I don’t think it exists.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

"Why do some individuals get ahead and some fall behind? Certainly, genetic endowment helps. Being tall, slender, good-looking, healthy, male, and white helps in the race for success, and these traits are totally or partly determined genetically" (Grusky 20).

I think the use of the word "certainly" may be a bit strong. If being male and white helps, why do white-males have to put their gender and skin-color on college and job applications? The landmark Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) found that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissable. Women make up nearly half (over 47 percent) of all law students in this country while minorities make up over 20 percent. As for medical school applicants, the 2007-2008 class is 49 percent female. As for being white and male making all the difference in whether or not one will be a "success", I think that idea is becoming less and less of a certainty.

Workers as "free agents"

I thought it was interesting, the way the author compared low wage workers to free agents. If low-wage workers were compared to free agent athletes, they would be the backups, bench-warmers, and bullpen catchers of the work force, taking the first deal at the first employer who offered. They are told the amount of money they can make; there is no haggling. Scott Boras won't be negotiating better contracts for these men and women. There aren't scouts and experts watching every single move of every single one of their shifts to determine how much they are worth. No one will be phoning them or their agents about a new, better deal that awaits them if they would only accept it. Many times, low-wage workers don't have the option of rejecting one job offer in hopes that a better one will come along. The hourly wage offered to them is the one they are going to get.

I never considered low-wage workers as free agents. But low-wage workers really aren't treated anything like free agents... no wonder the thought never crossed my mind.