Social Problems - A Look Back

                My days at Pitt are waning; my college career is almost at its end. In my last days at this school, there are many things that I could reflect upon. I could consider my friends and how they influenced me on a yearly basis, I could talk about my living situations and how they could have been better or worse, I could talk about the troubles that I’ve avoided and the classes that I’ve hated or enjoyed. I could reflect on everything that I liked or disliked about my school, but, alas, this is a class concerning problems taking place in the social sphere, and as such, the duty of this blog is to make my best attempt to talk about the details concerning the sociological understanding of the world around me.

This post is dedicated to this semester- the things I enjoyed about the class, the books that I either understood or pretended to, and the discussions that we had in class in which I either participated in or listened to intently.

                My expectations going into this class were admittedly low, not because of the topics that were to be covered or the larger size of the class in comparison to what I’ve become accustomed to over the past two years, but because of my standing as a business major. Before this class, my association with anything sociology-related was at a minimum, or so I thought- I knew of the name, and I knew people majored in it, but I did not understand what it meant.

                Now that my learning for the class has reached its apex,  I can say, matter of factly, that this class exceeded my expectation in every way. Though it got off to a rough start- I can’t say that I enjoyed the writing in The New Jim Crow, though the topic was interesting to me- I think I really began to appreciate the class as a whole when we began our discussion of Dorm Room Dealers. This was something that I lived through- things that I had seen as a Freshman and Sophomore but never spoken of. Nobody wants to be a “nark”, so having an open forum through which I could listen and speak about the things that had been marinating within my mind for two years about drugs and college was a fantastic break from the norm.

                When my group presented on the first part of The Working Poor, I realized that there was more behind wage disparity than what the media provides us with. Earned Income Tax Credit? What was that? And the fact that there were loansharks that made certain that the poor stayed poor through awful lending practices, and the H&R Block fees for filling out papers… all of it was new to me, not because I had not heard about it, but because it was something that just spoken of and not discussed in everyday life.

                The two books that I was able to put the most time into were The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and Dude, You’re a Fag. I was interested in both of these books for a multitude of reasons, mostly because the topics that they research underscore almost everything happening in our lives whether we realize it or not.

                Dude, You’re a Fag’s discussion of masculinity hit me harder than any topic we conversed about all semester.  I hear my little brother speak using “fag discourse” on a daily basis- I’ll say something and he’ll call me a “fag” for sounding stupid, and although I correct him, I didn’t realize that the issue was as prevalent as it is. The information contained in this book could change the world if it was required reading for schools, jobs, government, anything really- the analysis woke something up inside of me that wants to fight for gender equality that, although it was festering before, is now something that I truly believe in.

                The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks was interesting to me because of my humanity. I like to think of myself as a compassionate person on an individual level, but where is the line drawn between love for a person and love for an entire population? If I had the option to save someone I love at the risk of the rest of the world, or a chance to save the rest of the world from future diseases, what would I do? Although Henrietta’s life was already speeding toward its conclusion, the doctors took her cells and, eventually, people began making money off of her sickness. Should her family have been compensated? Absolutely. But how can we determine what belongs to who when it comes from someone’s body? What constitutes as permission to use someone’s health or lack of it to do scientific research? Some of the questions that this book made me begin thinking of are not yet resolved in my head, and I don’t know that they will be, but I’m confident that the ideas that were presented to me are going to stick with me for the remainder of my life.

                And that’s just it- this class, having nothing to do with my major or anything that I thought I would do in the future- has changed the way I think. It makes me want to do research on things that I don’t understand, it makes me want to figure out my opinion about things more so than I already have, and it makes me want to explore the possibilities of what is right and wrong. It’s ignited a fire inside, and being able to take that fire into the real world is going to be a great challenge indeed.

Fast Food and the Wage War

As the rate of inflation in the United States rises, the minimum wage rate remains at $7.25 an hour.  This has been stagnant since July of 2009, when wage rates were changed from the $5.15 that had been set in 1997. To put this into perspective, a mother or father working at McDonalds, making minimum wage in 2009 dollars, is now making the equivalent of $6.55 (Calculated using US Inflation Calculator, found here-  http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/) . Is this enough to support a family? Is this even enough to support oneself?

                I’ve seen the news- McDonalds and Burger King and Wendy’s workers are organizing to raise their wages to $15 an hour. I have also listened to our conversations in class- is this what they should be making? Should they work harder? From an economic standpoint, raising minimum wage effects inflation, and eventually, this problem is compounded and needs to be fixed again sooner rather than later.

                Instead of taking the articles that I could find online for their word from the outset, I wanted to do my own calculations based on information that can be found online. MIT has a “Living Wage” calculator on their website where you can search for a location, first by state and then by county, then find that specific locale’s minimum wage followed by the wage that one needs to make in order to live a comfortable life. It contains a vast amount of information about the different costs that one has to pay on a monthly basis, and then it has the average hourly wage based on occupation.

                In Allegheny County, the living wage for 1 adult is $8.29 an hour. The more children there are, the more one needs to make. If there  are two parents, one of those parents can survive while making less because the other has the ability to take care of a child. Currently, the minimum wage in Allegheny County matches the national average of $7.25. Instead of going into dirty details about the wage riots, I want to brainstorm about three things that could happen if the minimum wage was, in fact, increased- first, to $10.10 nationally, as President Obama is currently calling for, and then to $15, as fast food workers would like.

1)

 A single parent of one child would still be below the comfortable living wage, but not quite to the poverty line, regardless of whether the wage is raised to $10.10 or to $15. Many people might say that the individuals who have one child should work harder to support them, but if a parent is single and working more than 40 hours a week, what time is there for actual parenting? Admittedly, it’s not much. This can create uneducated children with low morals, but there are ways around it, especially if the wage was raised to $15, because….

2)

                …Earned income Tax Credit, mentioned in The Working Poor, could push impoverished workers closer to the “Living Wage” line of Allegheny County. If wages were raised to $15 an hour, individuals who filed for Earned Income Tax Credit could earn around $1000 more a year- they would be making around $30,000/year before taxes. Although this doesn’t seem like that much, the more children there are, the more money they can make. This chart explains the numbers better than I ever could in words-

Of course, if minimum wage was increased, the numbers on this chart might increase as well.

3)

                If fast food workers’ wages increase, should it increase in other service jobs too? Would it mean that working a job that does not require education could make you nearly as much as one where you have to train and know what you’re doing? In Allegheny County, construction works make about $19 an hour. Social Service workers make about $17. These are people who went to college or trade school to learn their craft- if fast food wages increase to $15, will individuals in skilled positions start requesting raises too? If everyone’s making more money, businesses can begin to charge more for their products because individuals can afford to pay more, making the increase in wage temporary.

I think there are bigger problems to deal with, like the national inflation rate and what it means for international trade. With a lower inflation rate, the net worth of the dollar would increase, allowing a single dollar to go farther- instead of increasing the amount people are making, we could make our money go farther. This is a very long-term approach, but if America as a whole can do more with less, then everyone is better off, not just any single group of individuals.

The Lacks of Us

                While reading “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”, I couldn’t help but notice a relation in her story to a blockbuster game that was recently released for the Playstation 4 titled “The Last of Us”. In the game, there’s an epidemic infecting the human race, and a group called the “fireflies” is expecting a delivery of a girl who they believe holds the key to the cure.

                While watching my roommate play through the story, I realized it was a struggle of the humanity of a single individual verses the saving of the entire population; when Joel, the main character of the game, drops off Ellie, the girl who is impervious to the disease, we find out that the only way the doctors in the game can extract a cure is to kill her; she’s already asleep and has no way of saying that she would be okay with this, but Joel finds her life more important and cannot stand to see her die.

                Although this is a much more serious example than Henrietta Lacks, I find it to be teaching the same lesson.  In the book, we find Henrietta on her deathbed, her cells used without permission; she has no way of understanding the situation at hand or the things that can be done with her internal possessions. If she had understood, she and her family might have been able to make a profit and come out of poverty because of her condition.

                The game ends with Joel and Ellie together, walking toward a safe haven. She expected to be dead, but when he saved her, he sacrificed the one chance humanity had at getting rid of the epidemic. Ellie questions him, asking if she really had a chance to end the nightmare, to which Joel replies with a mysterious answer- he states that there was no way a cure could have been made and the Firefiles decided to not go through with the procedure.

                Her questions imitate that of the Lacks family when, in the 70’s, they were contacted by geneticists to have blood drawn. They didn’t know why or what was happening, and they were not given the full story. There was no consent needed to have the blood drawn, but they were also being researched and did not know for what. If they would have known, they might have had a hunch to ask for payment.

                When members of the Lacks family, specifically Deborah, saw her mother’s cells for the first time, she was in awe. In “The Last of Us”, there was no time for awe or experimentation- there was only the imminent danger of the strain and what could happen if it spread. In Henrietta’s case, there was no imminent danger, other than things that could come up in the future, like Polio or HIV. Deborah, when she’s at the hospital, realizes the difference that her mother’s cells has made and comes to terms with the fact that her family is never going to be wealthy because of them.

                The Last of Us and the Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks are both similar because of the commentary they both provide about healthcare and the rights that an individual has to their bodies and the things that come from them. In the past few years, laws have passed that say that, once something is discarded from the body, it’s not the property of the individual anymore. Both stories provide insight into situations that help to explain health, privacy, and the way that people look at their lives verses the health of society.

Michael Brown and Deadly Force

In this blog I’d like to focus on the case of Michael Brown case and how I believe that the “Use of Force” model is misunderstood. Before I continue into the bulk of my post, though, I’d like to say that I know this would have been a very touchy subject even without the media outrage and the movements it has inspired. Although I do not want to make this a commentary on media and what they’ll do for views, this will play a part in my writing, and I hope that it does not sound like it’s influencing my decision too much.

                You know the story (or, at least, all that can be known) - Michael Brown had just graduated high school almost a week previous to the incident. He allegedly robbed a convenience store, then was found by police officer Darren Wilson walking down the middle of the street. Wilson soon realized that Brown matched the description of the man who had robbed the convenience store, so he called for backup and confronted him again, but this time, there was a struggle, after which Brown was shot (according to Wilson, in self-defense)

                The question I propose is this- how much is too much force to use? My dad is a former police officer who now runs his own private detective agency. According to him, there are different “levels” of force.  They are as follows (http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/9728-six-levels-of-force)-

1.       Officer’s Presence & Demeanor

a.       This is the first level, which states that the officer simply being there and using his stances and body language communicate a certain level of “force” over a situation

2.       Verbal Control

a.       This has to do with words used and inflection. It begins with persuasion and advanes to using heavy levels of control (giving orders)

3.       Physical Control

a.       When an officer thinks the situation is escalating and the person in question makes a move on them, they can first hold, then use pressure, then use passive counter maneuvers. When that fails, an officer may begin to use active counter maneuvers, which means that they can begin to take control of the situation in a more direct and physical way. As stated in the Brown case, Brown was reaching into the car, which meant that Wilson was authorized to use this level at that time.

4.       Serious Physical Control

a.       Electronic devices, such as tazers, can be used once the officer can no longer overcome a situation using his own physical abilities.

5.       Impact and Weapons

a.       A verbal warning is given by an officer that he is going to use a weapon, after which a hand is placed on a baton, the baton is readied for action, and then, if there is still not compliance from the person in question, the baton can be used.

6.       Deadly Force

a.       If an officer believes that none of the previous methods can be used, a vocal warning is again given, followed by them putting their hand on a gun, then the gun being drawn, the gun being pointed, and finally shots being fired.

In the case of Michael Brown, it was reported that there was no use-of-force report filed by the Ferguson police department. If the stories, witness reports, and the testimonies of the individuals involved are correct, however, then Wilson believed that, when Michael Brown was coming at him with lowered arms, he was going to be attacked, and by considering his situation (Michael was much larger than him, his serious physical control would not necessarily work, and his baton would be useless against such a large guy), he decided that his best chance of survival was with deadly force.

                Whether this is correct or not is up for debate, as are the details of the encounter. I do not want to state my personal opinions on the matter on the internet, mostly because anything I might believe would be based on only possibly true information, and as such I don’t want to become stuck to an opinion when I can still be swayed otherwise. I do know, however, that if the “levels of force” were better understood, there would be more intelligent conversations happening across the media, the internet, and in academic environments.

Commentary on "Born Rich" Documentary

                Before watching Born Rich, the documentary made by Jamie Johnson of the Johnson & Johnson family, I expected most of these rich individuals to be stuck-up and seemingly happy with their situations, not having to work a day in their lives. What I found, however, was far different; everyone in the film seemed grounded in their situations. Although most of them had hundreds of millions of dollars, they all realized that they had a responsibility, both to themselves and to their families, specifically their family name.

                When I say “grounded in their situations,” I mean that these individuals were aware of their money. They knew that their families made enough money or inherited enough that they never had to worry about making a dollar in their life. Some of the individuals in the film went to work at hard labor jobs to try to understand their  situations in a better way- Josiah Hornblower, for example. He struggled in school and decided to take a few years off to work multiple manual labor jobs, including one in an oil field.

                Most of the cast became aware of their situations early on, but many had moments of clarity where either someone else told them that they were rich or they noticed that other people weren’t. Johnson, for instance, found out that he was rich one day because his father was in a magazine as one of the 400 richest people in the world, and his classmates informed him. SI Newhouse IV found out because he got beat up by kids at a Quaker school.

                One of the gigantic things that I noticed throughout the documentary was that these people never seemed to be “talking down” to individuals of a lower net worth. Maybe this was because they were on camera—to me, this is a very likely scenario. What I would like to think, however, is that many of these people are good at seeing the world for what it is. They know what their money is capable of, which is exemplified when Luke Weis comments that he could ‘buy your family’, when referring to someone ragging on him. They do not, however, seem to think that they are “better” people because of this.

                Although they seemed firmly planted in their situations, something that was interesting to me was how the cast reacted when Jamie presented them with the thought of what would happen if they spontaneously lost their wealth. When asked if he would be cut off, Newhouse said that the idea bothered him- it was a stigma that he thought about every day, but he had no idea what he would do if it happened. Stephanie Ercklentz had the most well thought out answer to this question, though it was answered in a more roundabout way earlier in the film- she said that, if she lost most of her money, all she had was what was in her head. I think this is important to note; the wealthy are people too, and I think that the disparity between both rich and poor sometimes frames them as monsters. They got where they are for a reason, though.

                To conclude, I wanted to point out that many of these self-proclaimed “rich-kids” knew about the value of hard work. Ivanka Trump realized from a young age that she wanted to add to the New York City Skyline; although she was taking after her dad, she knew that she could not just sit around on her father’s money. Many of the people interviewed stated that they had to earn their place in their family’s wealth by doing something productive. Throughout the film, Jamie Johnson wanted to discover what it was that made second, third, and fourth generation wealthy individuals click, and I think that the way it was done was a successful peek into the lives and minds of the wealthy, and an interesting window into how wealth is maintained.