Consumption 9.4 Consumption In foraging bands there is little difference in the wealth and lifestyle of individuals from one local group to another...

Consumption
9.4 Consumption In foraging bands there is little difference in the wealth and lifestyle of individuals from one local group to another because they all engage in the same basic productive activities. There are few specialized economic activities that supply goods to only some individuals, and reciprocity tends to level out even temporary wealth differences that may arise from time to time due to fluctuations in productivity of a local environment. But with the development of food domestication and the occupational specializations that generally arise with it, opportunities increase for some individuals, families, and local groups to consistently control more wealth than others in the same society. It is axiomatic that the more complex and productive a society’s economy is, the more opportunities arise for differences to develop in consumption, the final use of goods and services.
Subsistence Economies People regularly consume most of what they produce in a subsistence economy. This is the usual economic form in foraging societies and in simple food-domesticating tribes because not enough surpluses are produced for a permanent exchange of goods to obtain what is needed. Rather, each family produces goods for its own consumption. Any surplus, which will be relatively small, is exchanged or sold in order to acquire the few things that it does not produce itself. That which is exchanged for needed commodities is called subsistence income. Thus, in subsistence economies, there is little need for trade and permanent differences of wealth are unlikely to be found.
Status Income When surplus goods are consistently available, the Big Men or chiefs who control the distribution process are able to use that control to acquire a high social rank. The use of income to acquire goods over and above subsistence needs is called status income. In the case of Big Men, most of such wealth is given as gifts to other groups in return for the prestige such gift giving brings. Both the redistribution of wealth to the needy within a local community and the channeling of some of the surplus to host neighboring groups as a way of enhancing the chief’s prestige is also a practice in many chiefdoms. However, chiefs sometimes use part of this surplus wealth to raise their own standard of living and that of their relatives above that of their subordinates. In such cases, the actual consumption of surplus goods by the elite becomes a symbol of their high standing. The use of status income as a display of social rank, a practice called conspicuous consumption, is found in many chiefdoms and is a characteristic of the elite in all societies in which market economies predominate. The high standard of living
iStockphoto/Thinkstock Although conspicuous consumption is the overutilization of resources, it does have the advantage of creating an endless demand for goods in capitalist systems dependent on supply and demand.
cra80793_09_c09_253-290.indd 270 5/23/13 2:32 PM
CHAPTER 9Section 9.4 Consumption
enjoyed by the British Royal Family, the European “Upper Ten Thousand,” or the U.S. “jet set”—and, more recently, “the one percent”—typifies the use of income as conspicuous consumption. However, like so much else, conspicuous consumption must be viewed in its specific sociocultural context. For example, despite the very wide gap between the 1% and the 99% (The Economist, 2012) in the United States, Americans are all the 1% compared to much of the rest of the world (Blair, 2012).
Race and Poverty in the United States The U.S. economy is stratified racially, and wealth is unequally distributed within each race. For instance, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median U.S household income in 2011 was $76,063 for (non-Hispanic) White families; $52,352 for Hispanic families; and just $47,255 for Black families (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2012). The differences are particularly pronounced below the poverty line. In 2011, only 9.8% of Whites had incomes below the poverty level, while the figure was 25.3% for Hispanics and 27.6% for Black families (Macarntney, Bishaw, and Fontenot, 2013). Economic differences are not limited to income. For instance, Whites own much more fixed property than do other racial groups, as illustrated by a comparison of home ownership. As of 1997, 70.3% of Whites owned their own place of residence, while for Blacks the figure was only 46.2%, and only 42.8% of Hispanic Americans owned their own homes (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1999). Since the banking crisis sent the American economy into a tailspin, that gap has only increased. As of 2009, White families enjoyed 20 times more wealth than Black families, and Black families were twice as likely to lose their homes to foreclosure, with some advocacy groups estimating that as many as 25% of all African Americans who owned their own homes prior to the recession may lose them (Kellogg, 2011). Native American families have the added problem that many are geographically isolated on reservations where employment opportunities are extremely limited. Typically, half or more tribal members on Indian reservations are unemployed. For instance, the unemployment rate of the Navajo Nation was about 48.5% in 2012 (Navajo Nation Tourism Department, 2013). In 2005, the largest Sioux tribe in South Dakota had an unemployment rate of 89%, a figure that includes those tribal members living both on and off the reservation (BIA, 2005).
The Feminization of Poverty However poverty is measured, women comprise a major and growing proportion of the world’s poor today. This trend is known as the feminization of poverty. Poverty is especially a problem among older women and younger women with children. Worldwide, a third of all households are headed by women. Because women receive less income than men in all countries, and because they are so much more likely than men to have to bear the expenses of childrearing alone when a family is headed by one parent, it is not surprising that women are generally poorer than men.
In the United States, the trend toward the poor being primarily women and children began after World War II. According to information from the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2009, over 55% of all people living in poverty in the United States were female. This is largely due to the fact that single-parent households are overrepresented among the poor and are much more likely to be headed by women than by men. The problem of poverty in single-parent families is particularly acute, as childcare responsibilities often mean choosing between
cra80793_09_c09_253-290.indd 271 5/23/13 2:32 PM
CHAPTER 9Section 9.5 Social Agents of Economic Control
daycare expenses that make employment unprofitable and low-paid, part-time work that is more compatible with less expensive ways of organizing childcare, such as pooling work and babysitting with friends or relatives. For many women, neither of these options proves successful, and the circumstances of single-parent life force them into dependence on the welfare system. Currently, about half of all women in poverty are more or less permanently reliant on public welfare or on the support of friends or relatives. As governments cut back on welfare benefits and other social services in their efforts to address the problem of soaring public debt, poor women are being hit much harder than other segments of society.