HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

AJS. 2016 March ; 121(5): 1375–1415.

Social Class and Income Inequality in the United States:

Ownership, Authority, and Personal Income Distribution from
1980 to 2010
Geoffrey T. Wodtke
University of Toronto
Author Manuscript

Abstract
This study outlines a theory of social class based on workplace ownership and authority relations,
and it investigates the link between social class and growth in personal income inequality since the
1980s. Inequality trends are governed by changes in between-class income differences, changes in
the relative size of different classes, and changes in within-class income dispersion. Data from the
General Social Survey are used to investigate each of these changes in turn and to evaluate their
impact on growth in inequality at the population level. Results indicate that between-class income
differences grew by about 60 percent since the 1980s and that the relative size of different classes
remained fairly stable. A formal decomposition analysis indicates that changes in the relative size
of different social classes had a small dampening effect and that growth in between-class income
differences had a large inflationary effect on trends in personal income inequality.
Author Manuscript

Keywords
social class; income inequality; ownership; authority; time-series analysis

The distribution of personal income in the U.S. has become substantially more unequal since
the early 1980s, reversing a general trend of declining inequality that dated back to the
1930s. During the 1980s and early 1990s, incomes in the lower half of the distribution
stagnated and then declined, while incomes at the top of the distribution increased. During
the late 1990s and 2000s, incomes in the lower part of the distribution ceased declining but
did not rebound from the losses of previous decades, while top incomes continued their
ascent (McCall and Percheski 2010; Morris and Western 1999; Piketty and Saez 2003).
Author Manuscript

An individual's position within the ownership and authority structure of an economic

organization is a central determinant of personal income (Dahrendorf 1959; Marx 1978;
Proudhon 2011; Wright 1979, 1985). At a simple level, there are four distinct groups defined
by their position within workplace ownership and authority relations: proprietors, who own
the means of production and control the activities of others; managers, who do not own the
means of production but do control the activities of others; workers, who control neither the
means of production nor the activities of others; and independent producers, who own and

Author Contact Information Geoffrey T. Wodtke, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, 725 Spadina Avenue, Toronto,
ON M5S 2J4, Canada. geoffrey.wodtke@utoronto.ca.
 Wodtke Page 2

operate small firms by themselves. These groups are referred to as social classes, and they
Author Manuscript

are thought to possess antagonistic interests and to frequently engage in conflict with one
another (Wright 1979; Wright and Perrone 1977). Social classes are linked to the
distribution of personal income through supply and demand for different factors of
production, economic rents that emerge from market distortions and incentive problems, and
the balance of intergroup bargaining power (Marx 1976; Proudhon 2011; Wright 1979,
1985, 1997).

Despite the centrality of social classes in theories of personal income distribution, they have
not played an important role in empirical attempts to explain the recent growth in income
inequality. Prior studies have instead focused on the effects of disaggregate occupations
(Mouw and Kalleberg 2010; Weeden et al. 2007), skill-biased technical change and
increasing returns to education (Autor, Levy, and Murnane 2003), institutional change and
its impact on low-wage workers (Card, Lemieux, and Riddell 2004; DiNardo, Fortin, and
Author Manuscript

Lemieux 1996), and demographic shifts (Borjas 1994; Easterlin 1980). No definitive
explanation for changes in the distribution of personal income has emerged from this
extensive volume of research, and prior models of distributional trends leave considerable
room for improvement (McCall and Percheski 2010; Morris and Western 1999).

Among the few recent studies related to social class and income inequality are several that
investigate changes in the functional, rather than personal, distribution of income and find
that the labor share declined relative to the capital share since the early 1980s (Kristal 2010,
2013; Lin and Tomaskovic-Devey 2013; Piketty 2014).1 In addition, several other recent
studies provide evidence of an association between social class and rising personal income
inequality. For example, research on executive compensation reveals a pattern of strong
earnings growth for upper management (Frydman and Jenter 2010; Goldstein 2012); recent
Author Manuscript

work on inequality of capital ownership suggests that it is rising (Piketty 2014); and research
on economic elites indicates that earnings from financial investments have become an
increasingly important source of income for this group over the past several decades (Nau
2013; Volscho and Kelly 2012).

While these studies suggest an important relationship between social class and changes in
the distribution of personal income, they do not link a well-defined social class typology to
growth in personal income inequality nor do they provide a precise accounting of how
changes in factor shares, capital concentration, or executive compensation contributed to
growth in personal income inequality at the population level. These various trends may
correspond, but a significant impact for changes in social class inequality on patterns of
personal income distribution cannot simply be assumed. Rather, the link between social
Author Manuscript

1The personal distribution of income shows how income, regardless of its source, is divided between individuals, while the functional
distribution of income shows how income is divided between various sources—in particular, between the productive factors of labor
and capital. That is, the functional distribution describes the share of total income that comes from payments to labor versus capital.
As a measure of total income inequality, the functional distribution is limited because it contains no information about the distribution
of factor income across individuals. As a measure of social class inequality, the functional distribution is also limited because it
includes all salaries, benefits, and bonuses paid to firm executives in the labor share. This is problematic not only because managers
are thought to occupy a social class position distinct from that of non-managerial workers but also because many of these executives
are owners or majority shareholders in their companies and isolating the components of their income that accrue to labor versus capital
is fundamentally ambiguous. Detailed analyses of labor's share show that it has been “buoyed up” over time by large compensation
payments to managers, many of whom likely own at least part of the business they operate (Elsby, Hobijn, Sahin 2013; Piketty 2014).

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 3

classes and growing personal income inequality must be subjected to rigorous empirical
Author Manuscript

investigation.

Several other studies have directly linked growth in personal income inequality to class
typologies defined in terms of large occupational groups with similar skill requirements, job
tasks, and career trajectories (Morgan and Cha 2007; Morgan and Tang 2007; Weeden et al.
2007). But social class divisions based on exclusionary relations of production and
occupational class divisions based on the technical division of labor are distinct forms of
stratification, and the occupational class typologies used in prior research have only a
tangential link to workplace ownership and authority (Kalleberg and Griffin 1980). The few
empirical studies of personal income distribution that explicitly model the returns to
ownership and authority rely exclusively on cross-sectional data that predate the recent
increase in inequality (Halaby and Weakliem 1993; Kalleberg and Griffin 1980; Robinson
and Kelley 1979; Wright 1979; Wright and Perrone 1977). As a result, previous research
Author Manuscript

provides little information about the link between social classes and growth in personal
income inequality since the early 1980s.

Beyond being largely ignored in empirical research on trends in personal income inequality,
the concept of social class has also recently come under attack as a number of social
scientists increasingly question its relevance to contemporary patterns of social stratification
(Clark and Lipset 1991; Kingston 2000; Pakulski and Waters 1996). According to post-class
theory, the link between social class and patterns of inequality has weakened over time—that
is, while historically important, social class divisions are no longer significant determinants
of material inequalities in post-industrial society. Although the strong claims of post-class
theorists have provoked spirited rebuttals (Hout, Brooks, and Manza 1993; Wright 1996),
neither side of this debate provides an empirical assessment of the relationship between
Author Manuscript

social class and the distribution of personal income over time.

This study contends that a class-analytic theory based on workplace ownership and authority
relations offers an improved basis for explaining growth in personal income inequality since
the 1980s. Growth in personal income inequality is governed by (1) changes in between-
class income differences, (2) compositional changes in the relative size of social classes, and
(3) changes in residual, or within-class, income dispersion. This study investigates each of
these trends in turn and provides a formal decomposition that evaluates their relative impact
on growth in personal income inequality at the population level. In addition, it evaluates
whether accounting for social class divisions based on ownership and authority improves the
fit of models based on human capital characteristics, aggregate occupational classes, and
dissaggregate occupational classes. It also uses multivariate decomposition methods to
Author Manuscript

evaluate the relative impact of human capital, occupational, and social class differences on
growth in personal income inequality. Results from the General Social Survey (GSS)
indicate that social class differences are essential for understanding contemporary trends in
the distribution of personal income. More specifically, social class models capture important
distributional changes with large effects on population-level trends in income inequality that
are obscured in alternative models based on human capital characteristics and occupations.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 4

This study makes several contributions to theory and research on social class and income
Author Manuscript

inequality. First, it outlines a simple class-analytic framework for the analysis of long-term
changes in personal income distribution. Second, it tests several key implications of this
framework using nationally representative time-series data and provides population-based
estimates of changes in social class structure and social class inequality since the 1980s.
Third, it extends previous research on the functional distribution of income by examining
social class differences in the personal distribution of income and by directly linking these
differences to growth in personal income inequality. Finally, this study extends prior
research on skill-biased technical change and shifts in the occupational structure by
comparing the proposed class-analytic framework with these alternative explanations for
growth in personal income inequality.

OWNERSHIP, AUTHORITY, AND SOCIAL CLASS

Author Manuscript

The term “class” is perhaps the most disputed and confused concept in the social sciences
(Wright 1979). Descriptive conceptions of class use categories like “the rich,” “the poor,” or
“the one percent” to describe an individual's location within a distribution of some valued
resource (e.g., Piketty 2014). Occupational conceptions of class focus on an individual's
position within the technical division labor and its effects on their attitudes, behavior, and
access to valued resources (e.g., Featherman and Hauser 1978; Weeden and Grusky 2005).
Social, or relational, conceptions of class focus on how relationships between individuals at
the site of production shape the distribution of valued resources, influence economic
interests, and promote intergroup conflict (e.g., Dahrendorf 1959; Wright 1985). To
distinguish between these different conceptions of class, I use the term “occupational class”
to refer to positions within the technical division of labor and the term “social class” to refer
to positions defined in terms of workplace social relations.
Author Manuscript

This study adopts a conception of social class based on workplace ownership and authority
relations. Ownership refers to control over the physical means of production, and authority
refers to control over other individuals involved in the production process. Social classes are
defined as conflict groups with objectively antagonistic interests that emerge from their
position within workplace ownership and authority relations. At a high level of abstraction,
social classes are composed of proprietors, managers, workers, and independent producers.
Proprietors own the means of production and control the activities of workers. Managers do
not own the means of production, but they do control the activities of workers. Workers lack
control over the means of production and over the activities of others within the production
process, and they labor under the direction of proprietors and managers. Independent
producers control the means of production within a self-operated enterprise but do not
Author Manuscript

control the activities of others.

This social class typology is informed by several approaches to class analysis within the
conflict theoretical framework (e.g., Dahrendorf 1959; Marx 1976, 1978; Wright 1979,
1985, 1997).2 Marx (1976), for example, held that social class divisions are based on

2Furthermore, slight variations on this typology have been used in several prior studies of ownership, authority, and individual-level
outcomes (Halaby and Weakliem 1993; Kalleberg and Griffin 1980; Robinson and Kelley 1979; Wright and Perrone 1977).

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 5

differences in property ownership and that exploitation, defined as the appropriation of

Author Manuscript

workers’ surplus labor by property owners, polarizes class interests and provokes conflict
between them. Dahrendorf (1959), by contrast, viewed differences in authority as the
defining feature of class structure and argued that domination, or the control over others’
behavior by those in positions of authority, is the mechanism driving social class conflict.
Similarly, Wright (1979, 1985, 1997) developed several social class models based on
differences in ownership and authority, among other factors, such as skills, and argued that
class conflict is rooted in exploitation, now redefined as a process in which some classes, by
virtue of their exclusionary control over different resources, appropriate part of the social
surplus produced through the efforts of others.

The theoretical framework guiding this analysis builds on these prior approaches, as well as
others (e.g., Roemer 1982; Screpanti 2003; Tomaskovic-Devey 2014), by defining
exploitation and domination—the conditions that give rise to antagonistic interests and thus
Author Manuscript

promote conflict between social classes—in counterfactual terms. Specifically, exploitation

and domination are defined in terms of counterfactual comparisons between feasible
alternative enterprises. An alternative enterprise is feasible when it can be realized without
changing technologies or resource endowments but merely by changing the way a firm is
socially organized. Exploitation, then, is said to exist in a firm with unequal property and
authority relations if democratizing these social relations would increase the material
welfare of workers and decrease the material welfare of proprietors and managers.
Domination is similarly defined in counterfactual terms, except the outcome of interest is not
material welfare but rather the scope for self-determination. Specifically, domination is said
to exist in a firm with unequal property and authority relations if democratizing these
relations would increase the self-determination of workers and decrease the self-
determination of proprietors and managers. Under these conditions, the interests of different
Author Manuscript

social classes are polarized. Proprietors and managers have an objective interest in
maintaining the unequal social relations from which they benefit, while workers have an
objective interest in challenging the social relations from which they suffer. Independent
producers, who operate small enterprises by themselves, do not have interests that
objectively conflict with workers, proprietors, or managers.

Although many theorists in the class-analytic tradition (e.g., Marx 1978; Wright 1979, 1985)
assume that the mere existence of unequal ownership and authority relations leads to
exploitation and domination, the counterfactual approach highlights the contingent nature of
these phenomena: a democratic transformation of workplace ownership and authority
relations need not give rise to the pattern of effects on material welfare and self-
determination described previously. For example, worker participation in management may
Author Manuscript

introduce inexperienced personnel to the decision-making process, which could harm

productivity and thereby decrease, rather than increase, the material welfare of workers. In
addition, self-determination may not be appreciably enhanced among workers if supplanting
hierarchical with horizontal management requires high levels of peer monitoring,
supervision, and control to sustain comparable levels of productivity. Finally, because
incentives to innovate, save, and invest are sensitive to the strength of property rights, an
economy with widespread proliferation of democratic firms may grow at a slower rate than
an economy based exclusively on private ownership of firms, possibly leading to lower,

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 6

rather than higher, levels of material welfare for workers over the long term. In other words,
Author Manuscript

the level and growth rate of economic output is endogenous to the social relations of
production.

The presence or absence of exploitation and domination is therefore an empirical question,

the answer to which depends on extant social class inequalities and the sensitivity of these
inequalities to changes in workplace social relations. Research comparing individuals in
conventional versus democratically organized firms is rather limited and plagued by
selection problems, but there is at least some empirical evidence suggesting that exploitation
and domination are fairly common conditions. Economic models of utility maximizing
agents in a competitive market economy imply that the earnings of members in a worker-
owned and managed cooperative firm would exceed the earnings of workers in a capitalist
firm where those who supply the firm's capital and manage production operations enjoy the
residual returns (Craig and Pencavel 1992, 1995). Consistent with these models, empirical
Author Manuscript

research suggests that cooperative members tend to be slightly more productive and to have
higher levels of compensation, job security, and job satisfaction than their counterparts in
capitalist firms (Bartlett et al. 1992; Blasi, Conte, and Kruse 1996; Burdin and Dean 2009;
Craig and Pencavel 1992, 1995; Levine and Tyson 1990; Kruse and Blasi 1995; Kruse,
Freeman, and Blasi 2010). Another implication of these models is that, other factors being
equal, owners and managers in capitalist firms would have lower levels of material welfare if
their enterprises were reorganized and operated as cooperatives.

Nevertheless, the counterfactual approach suggests that exploitation and domination are
likely contingent conditions that vary across time, space, and firms. Moreover, even when
exploitation and domination are definitively present in a firm, the process by which the
objectively antagonistic interests linked to the presence of these conditions are translated
Author Manuscript

into overt intergroup conflict is itself contingent and variable. This process likely depends on
the severity of exploitation and domination in a given actor's firm; the severity of
exploitation and domination in other firms across the economy; the accuracy with which
social actors perceive the severity of exploitation and domination both in their own firm and
across other firms; and the value that individuals place on enhancing their material welfare
and self-determination. These contingencies imply, for example, that overt social class
conflict is more likely when exploitation and domination are both severe and widespread
across firms; when these conditions are accurately perceived by the individuals involved;
and when these individuals highly value material welfare and self-determination. In contrast,
social class conflict is less likely when exploitation and domination are not severe or are
relatively infrequent conditions across firms, making horizontal moves to non-exploitative
and non-oppressive firms a conflict mitigating possibility; when individuals fail to perceive
Author Manuscript

the presence of severe and widespread exploitation and domination; or when individuals
place less value on material welfare and self-determination.

The counterfactual approach also clarifies the importance of gradational differences among
social classes. Specifically, gradational differences in ownership and authority are thought to
moderate the effects of workplace democratization on material welfare and self-
determination. For example, the negative effects of democratizing workplace ownership and
authority relations for proprietors and managers would not be evenly distributed among

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 7

members of these groups. They would likely be much more pronounced for large proprietors
Author Manuscript

and high-level managers than for small proprietors and low-level managers simply because
those at the top of the ownership and authority structure have more to lose. Thus, the level of
antagonism between workers, managers, and proprietors should be an increasing function of
gradational differences in ownership and authority. These gradational differences among
social classes are termed class strata.

Finally, the counterfactual approach underscores the conceptual distinction between social
classes (i.e., conflict groups with objectively antagonistic interests based on their position
within workplace social relations) and other production-based groups defined in terms of
occupational or skill differences. According to this approach, occupational and skill
inequalities do not lead to exploitation, domination, and the consequent antagonistic
interests that define social class divisions for several reasons. First, because skills are
inalienable, an alternative enterprise without skill inequality does not satisfy the feasibility
Author Manuscript

condition given that it could only be realized by changing resource endowments (i.e., the
supply of skills) and not merely by changing social relations within the firm.3 Second,
because occupational differences reflect, at least in part, technological conditions and
specialized skill requirements within the production process, an alternative enterprise
without occupational differences also does not satisfy the feasibility condition because
reorganizing the technical division of labor would require changing both resource
endowments and technologies. Thus, skill and occupational differences are not directly
linked to exploitation or domination, and they are treated as conceptually distinct from social
class divisions.

Although this theoretical framework is closely informed by several alternative approaches to

class analysis, it remains distinctive in several regards. It differs from neo-Durkheimian
Author Manuscript

(Weeden and Grusky 2005) and neo-Weberian theories of class (Erikson and Goldthorpe
1992; Featherman and Hauser 1978) in that it views occupational groups based on the
technical division of labor and conflict groups based on the social relations of production as
distinct phenomena with independent effects on material welfare, attitudes, and behavior. It
differs from traditional Marxist theories of class primarily in its conflicting view on
authority, which for Marx was not a unique basis for class divisions. On this point, the
approach outlined here has much in common with neo-Marxist theory (e.g., Wright 1985),
whose emphasis on rights and powers over both the means of production and “organizational
assets” resonates with the proposed framework's focus on ownership and authority. However,
the approach outlined in this study differs from other elements of neo-Marxist theory—in
particular, the latter's equation of skill inequalities with social class divisions along with its
conception of exploitation as an unconditional, rather than contingent, feature of capitalist
Author Manuscript

firms.

The theoretical tradition most consistent with the proposed class-analytic framework is
arguably the anarchist tradition, and specifically, the work of Proudhon (1994, 2011). Few

3In this context, “inalienable” means that skills (i.e., different types of abilities or talents) are embodied in individuals and cannot be
readily dispossessed. It does not imply that the subjective valuation of skills is independent of the interactions between individuals in a
firm or market.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 8

social theories have been as misunderstood as anarchism. In popular discourse, the term is
Author Manuscript

often equated with chaos or disorder, but in fact, anarchist theory contains an elaborate and
incisive analysis of the causes of economic inequality, the most important of which are
thought to be ownership, authority, and the conflict generated by these social relations
(McKay 2011). Proudhon (1994, 2011) argued, among other things, that unequal ownership
and authority, but not skill differences, engender exploitation, domination, and intergroup
conflict; that certain forms of ownership, such as that characteristic of independent
producers or small proprietors, do not lead to exploitation and domination; that social class
conflict is erratic rather than progressive in its course; and finally, that a collection of
independent producers and worker-directed cooperative firms operating within a competitive
market, as opposed to state ownership and management of production, would approximate
an economic system free of exploitation, domination, and social class conflict. In different
ways, these ideas are all reflected in the counterfactual approach outlined here.
Author Manuscript

This approach has several specific advantages over alternative conceptions of exploitation,
domination, and social class. First, it avoids the labor theory of value. In other words, there
is no assumption that the value of a commodity is intrinsically determined by the labor
required to produce it. This flawed assumption complicates approaches to exploitation that
define it terms of labor transfers (e.g., Marx 1976; Roemer 1982). Second, the counterfactual
approach accommodates the possibility that the level and growth rate of economic output
may be endogenous to the social relations of production. This type of endogeneity
complicates approaches to exploitation that define it in terms of “surplus appropriation,”
which implicitly assume a highly invariant level of economic output across different modes
of production (e.g., Wright 1984, 1985, 1997). Finally, the counterfactual approach avoids
normative assumptions about the overall desirability of different institutional arrangements,
organizational forms, or resource distributions. It simply provides an analytic device for
Author Manuscript

explaining why individuals that occupy different positions within the social relations of
production might be expected to think and behave in conflicting ways.

SOCIAL CLASS STRUCTURE AND INCOME INEQUALITY

A variety of different mechanisms link property ownership and authority to personal income,
including the supply and demand for different factors of production, economic rents that
emerge from market distortions and incentive problems, the balance of bargaining power
between social classes, and state institutions. Several perspectives within the conflict
theoretical framework suggest that these distributional mechanisms are shaped primarily by
three interrelated forces, with important consequences for social class structure and social
class inequality: the intensity of market competition, technological development, and class-
Author Manuscript

based political conflict (Marx 1976, 1978; Proudhon 1994, 2011; Wright 1985, 1997).

First, market competition is thought to have a paradoxical tendency to reduce the number of
competitors and to promote concentration of the means of production among an increasingly
selective group of proprietors and managers. A natural consequence of market competition is
that larger and better endowed enterprises use their advantages to eliminate or absorb
inferior firms. As a result, the means of production may become more and more
concentrated among a shrinking group of large proprietors and high-level managers over

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 9

time. A paradoxical shift toward greater economic concentration, then, is thought to follow
Author Manuscript

periods of heightened market competition, and this is expected to reduce the relative number
of proprietors and managers, generate rent income for large proprietors and high-level
managers, and weaken the bargaining position of workers. The sudden emergence and rapid
escalation of foreign competition with American business during the 1970s is well
documented (Bluestone and Harrison 1982), and consistent with arguments about the
paradoxical effects of competition, most indicators show that the pace of industrial
monopolization and capital concentration accelerated in subsequent decades (Foster,
McChesney, and Jonna 2011; Piketty 2014).

Second, although technological development should lead to greater output, lower costs, and
a general increase in material welfare, it may also have contradictory effects that render
these positive impacts more elusive for certain social classes (Marx 1976; Proudhon 1994,
2011). Specifically, technological change may promote economic concentration because it
Author Manuscript

conveys a competitive advantage to larger and better endowed firms who are capable of
financing and implementing the new technology. Technology may also be used to subvert
organization and collective action on the part of workers, and it often enhances the scope for
capital mobility, both of which increase competition among workers and shift the fulcrum of
bargaining power in favor of large proprietors and high-level managers (Bluestone and
Harrison 1982; Proudhon 2011). In addition, because technological development often
displaces workers, periods of rapid innovation may yield a chronic oversupply of labor,
which suppresses wages and further enhances the bargaining power of proprietors and
managers (Proudhon 2011).

The recent period of growing income inequality is marked by two types of technological
development thought to exert these types of contradictory effects: (1) improvements in
Author Manuscript

transportation and communication, such as high-speed air travel, high-volume shipping, and
rapid telecommunications, and (2) advances in automation and computers. Improvements in
transportation and communication technology have increasingly allowed production
operations to be conglomerated, geographically dispersed, and swiftly relocated (Bluestone
and Harrison 1982; Levinson 2008). Growing capital mobility since the 1970s is evidenced
by increased employment losses due to plant relocations, shutdowns, and cutbacks; the
disproportionate increase in foreign versus domestic investment; and the transfer of
manufacturing employment from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and abroad
(Bluestone and Harrison 1982). Advances in automation and computers are also linked to
worker displacement and declines in worker bargaining power. For example, evidence
suggests that these technologies lowered aggregate demand for workers performing routine
manual or cognitive tasks (Autor, Levy, and Murnane 2003) and were implemented by
Author Manuscript

industrial managers in ways designed to undermine worker organization (Noble 1984).

Finally, in addition to changes in the competitive environment and technology, the escalation
or abatement of organized political activities on the part of different social classes may affect
income distribution through their influence on the institutional landscape. Research on class-
based forms of collective action indicates that the 1970s and 1980s were a period of
unprecedented political mobilization by large proprietors and high-level managers (Mizruchi
2013; Useem 1984). Business political activity, including the practice of anti-union tactics,

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 10

subvention of political candidates, establishment of nonprofit policy organizations, and use

Author Manuscript

of issue advertising, greatly intensified during this period. For example, worker firings
during union election campaigns increased roughly threefold between 1976 and 1986
(Schmitt and Zipperer 2009), and between the late 1960s and early 1980s, the number of
corporate political action committees increased from about 100 to more than 1,000 (Useem
1984). Although it is difficult to draw direct causal connections between shifts in class-based
political activity and institutional change, the weight of the evidence suggests a strong
correspondence. The political mobilization of large proprietors and high-level managers
during the 1970s and 1980s was closely followed by a set of institutional changes, such as
de-unionization, regressive reforms to the tax code, and freezes in the nominal minimum
wage, thought to depress worker compensation and shift income toward those in positions of
ownership and authority (Morris and Western 1999).

Several hypotheses emerge from the foregoing discussion. Growing economic concentration,
Author Manuscript

the technological displacement of workers, and shifts in relative bargaining power suggest a
substantial increase in between-class income differences driven by growing incomes for
managers and proprietors together with stagnating or declining incomes for workers and
independent producers. These divergent income trajectories are anticipated to be even more
pronounced for the highest-earning upper strata of proprietors and managers because
economic concentration, technological change, and shifts in bargaining power are thought to
be most consequential for large enterprises and those near the top of workplace authority
hierarchies. By extension, changes in income differences between social classes, and
especially between social class strata, are anticipated to have a large inflationary effect on
trends in personal income inequality since the 1980s.

Changes to the competitive environment and technology also suggest several different trends
Author Manuscript

in the relative size of social classes since the 1980s. Specifically, growing economic
concentration implies a decline in the proportion of proprietors and independent producers,
and a corresponding increase in the proportion of workers. The effect of economic
concentration and technological development on the relative number of managers, however,
is somewhat less clear. For example, growing economic concentration may give rise to
increasingly complex administrative bureaucracies, which would increase aggregate demand
for managers and exert upward pressure on their relative number over time. By contrast,
economic concentration and technological development may also improve the efficiency
with which managerial labor is utilized. When production is automated and organized within
a smaller number of larger enterprises, fewer individuals may be needed to supervise and
direct the activities of workers. In addition, as large firms become more insulated from
competition and begin to saturate the markets for their products, it may become increasingly
Author Manuscript

difficult for them to generate new revenue. In this situation, firms might seek to boost profits
by aggressively cutting costs, and managers at the middle or bottom of authority hierarchies,
who are responsible for a disproportionately large share of a firm's wage bill, may be
targeted for removal. These forces would exert downward pressure on the proportion of
managers over time.

In sum, the evolution of market competition and technological development suggest a

decline in the proportion of independent producers; a decline in the proportion of

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 11

proprietors; stagnation or perhaps a slight decline in the proportion of managers; and an

Author Manuscript

increase in the proportion of workers since the 1980s. These changes are anticipated to have
a small dampening effect on trends in personal income inequality because they involve shifts
in the composition of the population away from social classes that typically earn highly
variable incomes well above the population average toward a social class whose members
typically earn less variable incomes closer to the population average.

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES
The Post-class Perspective
In sharp contrast to class-analytic theory, the post-class perspective contends that
technological, competitive, and political changes have attenuated, rather than amplified,
between-class income differences, and expanded, rather than contracted, the relative number
of proprietors, managers, and independent producers (Bell 1973; Pakulski and Waters 1996;
Author Manuscript

Pakulski 2005). First, according to this perspective, technological development has

transformed production from a system based on large capital-intensive enterprises into a
system in which scale economies are less important and small dynamic firms flourish (Bell
1973; Pakulski and Waters 1996). These changes, in turn, are held to promote a progressive
redistribution of productive wealth and a “reduction in the saliency of property in
structuring...patterns of economic allocation” (Pakulski and Waters 1996:75). Technological
development is also thought to enhance demand for skilled managerial decision-making as a
result of the growing complexity of production operations. Thus, according to this
perspective, ownership of the means of production has become more decentralized, a large
number of small firms have entered increasingly competitive markets, and demand for
managerial tasks has increased, leading to a decline in income for proprietors, an increase in
income for managers, and comparatively faster growth in the number of proprietors,
Author Manuscript

managers, and independent producers relative to workers.

The post-class perspective also argues that “the significance of class as a basis for political
identification and behavior and as a force for change has been declining” (Pakulski and
Waters 1996:132). According to this view, the effects of class-based politics on state and
labor market institutions intensified during the early twentieth century, but “a reversal of this
trend took shape between 1960 and 1990” (133). Owing to a purported disconnect between
social class and partisanship together with a decline in class-based political organizations,
“politics...is ceasing to be a distributive game monopolized by corporate actors” (142). If the
ability of proprietors and managers to influence income distribution through political
activism has waned rather than intensified over recent decades, their income shares would be
expected to stagnate or decline.
Author Manuscript

Thus, post-class theory is essentially a negation of the class-analytic perspective. It predicts

stagnating or declining income differences based on workplace ownership and authority,
which implies a null or dampening effect of changes in between-class income differences on
trends in personal income inequality. It also predicts an increase in the relative number of
proprietors, managers, and independent producers, and a decline in the relative number
workers, which implies a small inflationary effect of changes in relative class size on growth
in personal income inequality.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 12

Skill-biased Technological Change

Author Manuscript

Unlike post-class theory, the skill-biased technological change perspective does not provide
competing, or mutually exclusive, hypotheses with respect to class-analytic theory. Rather, it
points toward a set of alternative and potentially confounding human capital factors, such as
education and other cognitive abilities, which must be addressed alongside social class in
research on personal income distribution. This perspective contends that the introduction of
new technologies, such as personal computers, has increased demand for analytic skills and
displaced large numbers of workers who perform routine tasks (Autor, Katz, and Kearney
2008; Autor, Levy, and Murnane 2003). Because highly educated workers are thought to
have realized relatively larger gains in productivity through the introduction of computers,
the well-documented increase in the income returns to education provides considerable
evidence of skill-biased technical change (Autor, Katz, and Kearney 2008). Additional
support for this perspective comes from studies finding that workers who use computers on
Author Manuscript

the job earn higher wages than comparable workers who do not use computers (Krueger
1993), that highly educated workers are more likely to use computers (Card and DiNardo
2002), and that occupation-based measures of skill reveal increasing demand for abstract
reasoning abilities and declining demand for routine skills (Autor, Katz, and Kearney 2008;
Autor, Levy, and Murnane 2003). The class-analytic perspective hypothesizes that
additionally accounting for workplace ownership and authority in models based on
education and other human capital characteristics will provide an improved explanation of
changes in personal income distribution since the 1980s.

Occupational Class Models

Occupational classes refer to aggregate or disaggregate groups of functionally, technically,
or contractually similar jobs (Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992; Featherman and Hauser 1978;
Author Manuscript

Weeden and Grusky 2005). Occupational class divisions based on the technical division of
labor are conceptually and empirically distinct from social class divisions based on
workplace ownership and authority (Kalleberg and Griffin 1980; Wright 1979). Although
ownership and authority relations at the site of production are partly expressed through
occupational differences, prior research shows that social class divisions are common within
occupational classes, that occupational divisions have become deeply embedded within
social classes, and that social versus occupational class differences in job rewards are unique
and separable (Kalleberg and Griffin 1980; Wright 1979).

Aggregate occupational classes are, at least in part, proxies for human capital, and thus may
be linked to growing income inequality through skill-biased technical change (Weeden at al.
2007). Aggregate occupational classes may also be connected to different forms of rent
Author Manuscript

extraction insofar as they are institutionalized in societal-level patterns of unionization,

collective bargaining, and other forms of social closure (Morgan and Cha 2007; Morgan and
Tang 2007; Weeden et al. 2007). Because of de-unionization and the proliferation of
occupational closure movements since the 1980s, income differences between aggregate
occupational classes are anticipated to have increased over time. Consistent with these
arguments, prior research documents a modest degree of income divergence between classes
in several different aggregate occupational typologies (Morgan and Cha 2007; Morgan and
Tang 2007; Weeden et al. 2007).

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 13

A number of researchers contend that disaggregate, rather than aggregate, occupational

Author Manuscript

classes are more closely associated with material inequalities (Grusky and Sorensen 1998;
Weeden and Grusky 2005). The starting point for the disaggregate approach is the “unit
occupation,” which is defined as a small group of “technically similar jobs that is
institutionalized in the labor market” (Grusky 2005:66). According to this perspective, unit
occupations are more strongly linked to income inequality than are aggregate occupational
classes because the forces of supply and demand, social closure, and institutionalization
operate primarily at the disaggregate level. Thus, because of shifting demand for
occupations requiring different types of human capital and the growing use of licensure,
registration, and certification to erect steep barriers to occupational entry, income differences
between disaggregate occupational classes are anticipated to have grown substantially over
time. Consistent with this perspective, prior studies document steady growth in income
differences between classes in disaggregate occupational typologies (Mouw and Kalleberg
Author Manuscript

2010; Weeden at al. 2007). The class-analytic perspective outlined in this study hypothesizes
that additionally accounting for social class divisions in models based on both aggregate and
disaggregate occupational class divisions will provide an improved explanation of changes
in personal income distribution.

METHODS
Data and Measures
I use data from the 1980 to 2010 waves of the GSS, which contain demographic,
employment, and income data from nationally representative samples of non-
institutionalized adults in the U.S. (Smith et al. 2011). The GSS is well-suited for this study
because, unlike other omnibus national surveys, it contains reasonably accurate measures of
both social class and personal income from repeated cross-sections of the population
Author Manuscript

throughout the recent period of growing inequality. The GSS waves of interest were
collected annually from 1980 to 1994—except in 1981 and 1992—and biennially thereafter.
I focus on the period from 1980 to 2010 because it brackets recent growth in income
inequality and because it is the period for which data on ownership, authority, and personal
income are available from sufficiently large samples in the GSS.4 The 1980 to 2010
cumulative analytic sample consists of 22,071 respondents who were 18 to 65 years old and
worked full-time at the date of their interviews. Parallel analyses of data that also included
part-time respondents or that excluded respondents in agricultural industries produced
similar results.

Social Class—The GSS asks respondents whether they are self-employed or work for
someone else. This question is used to distinguish between employees who do not own the
Author Manuscript

means of production and individuals with sufficient assets to at least gainfully employ
themselves. The GSS also asks respondents whether their job involves supervising others.5
Together, these two items are used to sort respondents into the four social class positions:

4Questions about personal income and workplace authority were jointly included in just three waves of the GSS during the 1970s, and
in these waves, they were asked of only a random subset of respondents. As a result, the GSS lacks the data needed to support an
analysis of social class and personal income inequality during the 1970s.
5The GSS uses a split-ballot survey design, and questions about supervisory authority are typically asked of a random 50 to 75 percent
subset of respondents.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 14

proprietors (self-employed and supervise others), independent producers (self-employed and

Author Manuscript

do not supervise others), managers (work for someone else and supervise others), and
workers (work for someone else and do not supervise others).

This study further classifies proprietors and managers into different class strata using a GSS
item that asks respondents who report supervising others whether any of their subordinates
are themselves supervisors. This question indicates whether managers occupy positions
closer to the top of the workplace authority hierarchy, and it provides an approximate
measure of the size of proprietors’ firms (since larger firms are more likely than smaller
firms to have multilevel authority structures). Large versus small proprietors and high-
versus low-level managers are differentiated according to whether their subordinates also
supervise others at work.

Income—Personal market income is the dependent variable of interest. This includes

Author Manuscript

income earned during the previous year from an individual's job, business, or investments.6
The GSS measures personal market income using interval response categories, and dollar
values are imputed based on interval midpoints. For the last open-ended interval capturing
the highest incomes, dollar values are estimated using a Pareto approximation (Hout 2004).7
Nominal incomes are adjusted for price inflation over time using the Consumer Price Index,
with the adjusted values expressed in 2011 dollars. Following convention with self-reported
income data (e.g., Card and DiNardo 2002), full-time respondents who report implausibly
low annual incomes are truncated (<5000 real dollars). All analyses are based on the natural
log transformation of income.

Covariates—The covariates included in multivariate analyses are age, race, gender,

education, verbal ability, parental education, geographic region, and urbanicity. Age is
Author Manuscript

measured in years and expressed as a series of dummy variables for “18 to 25,” “26 to 35,”
“36 to 45,” “46 to 55,” and “56 to 65” years to account to potential nonlinearities; race is
expressed as a series of dummy variables for “black,” “white,” and “other” race respondents;
and gender is coded 1 for female and 0 for male. Geographic region is expressed as a series
of dummy variables for “Northeast,” “Midwest,” “South,” and “West.” Urbanicity is also
expressed as a series of dummy variables for residence in an urban, suburban, or rural area.
Both respondent and parental education are measured in years and recoded as a series of
dummy variables for “less than high school,” “high school graduate,” “some college,” and
“college graduate” also to account for potential nonlinearities. Verbal ability is measured
with scores on the Gallup-Thorndike verbal intelligence test—a widely used ten-item
vocabulary assessment with desirable psychometric properties (Alwin 1991; Thorndike
1942; Yang and Land 2006). All of these covariates are potentially powerful joint predictors
Author Manuscript

of both social class attainment and personal income.8

6Research on income measurement suggests that business income may be underreported by as much as 30 percent in surveys (Hurst,
Li, and Pugsley 2010). This type of measurement error would result in substantial underestimation of between-class income
differences at any single point in time, but it would only impact an analysis of trends if the magnitude of measurement error changed
over time.
7I also preformed parallel analyses using a constant multiple adjustment in which topcoded incomes are replaced with 1.4 times the
topcode threshold. Results (not shown) were very similar to those based on the Pareto approximation.
8I also conducted analyses that included controls for several different measures of social and cultural capital, such as the frequency of
social interactions with others, the number of organizational memberships, and an index of “high” cultural consumption. Most of these

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 15

This study also analyses both aggregate and disaggregate occupational classes. Aggregate
Author Manuscript

occupational classes are measured using a 9-category version of the Featherman-Hauser

typology (Featherman and Hauser 1978), which is preferred over similar others (e.g.,
Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992) because it can be precisely measured in the GSS and because
prior research suggests that it provides a better fit to U.S. data on material inequalities
(Weeden and Grusky 2005). This typology classifies census occupational codes into the
following broad categories: professional occupations, managerial and administrative
occupations, sales occupations, clerical occupations, craft occupations, service occupations,
operatives, general laborers, and agricultural occupations.9

Disaggregate occupational classes are measured following methods developed by Weeden

and Grusky (2005). These classes are constructed to reflect “institutionalized boundaries as
revealed by the distribution of occupational associations, unions, and licensing
arrangements, as well as the technical features of the work itself” (156). Measurement of
Author Manuscript

this typology involves collapsing Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes into
127 occupational micro-classes.10 Specifically, this typology is based on the 1970 SOC
codes. Because GSS waves collected after 1991 only contain 1980 SOC codes, I reconcile
these different classifications by back-coding more recent data into the 1970 SOC scheme.
This involves multiplying each observation by the number of 1970 SOC codes that
contribute to the 1980 SOC code and then assigning weights to each record in the expanded
dataset equal to the proportion of the 1980 SOC code drawn from the constituent 1970 SOC
code.

Analyses
The analysis proceeds in three steps. First, I analyze changes in the relative size of social
classes, changes in between-class income differences, and changes in within-class income
Author Manuscript

dispersion. Second, I evaluate the effects of these changes on trends in personal income
inequality using a formal decomposition analysis. Finally, I compare the fit of income
models based on human capital inputs, occupational class divisions, and social class
divisions, and then provide a multivariate decomposition that evaluates the net effects of
these different factors on trends in personal income inequality.

To investigate changes in the relative size of social classes, I estimate and plot class
proportions, denoted by πjt = P(Ct = j), over time. In this notation, Ct is a polytomous
variable with j = 1,...,,4 categories representing the social class positions defined previously,
and t denotes the time period. To investigate changes in between-class income differences, I
estimate denotes the time period. To investigate changes in between-class income
differences, I estimate and plot trends in mean log income for each social class position,
Author Manuscript

measures are only available in a handful of GSS waves, which precludes their inclusion in the full analysis described here.
Nevertheless, results from the selected waves in which these measures are available provide no evidence that social class effects on
trends in personal income inequality are simply due to the potentially confounding influence of social and cultural capital.
9In addition to this 9-category version, I also conducted analyses using a 12-category version of the Featherman-Hauser typology that
incorporates distinctions between employed versus self-employed professionals, managers, and administrators, and between farmers
and farm laborers. Results from this analysis are nearly identical to those presented in the main text. I focus on the 9-category version
because it maintains a cleaner distinction between social relations and technical divisions.
10The original Weeden-Grusky typology has 126 occupational classes. My implementation of this typology includes an additional
class for military occupations plus a residual category for a small number of respondents with missing occupational codes.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 16

denoted by μjt = E(Yt|Ct = j). Because divergent income trends between social classes may
Author Manuscript

be due to confounding factors, such as increasing returns to education or other skills that are
correlated with class attainment, I also estimate multivariate regressions that model mean log
income as a function of social class, individual covariates, and fixed-effects for disaggregate
occupations. Covariate-adjusted estimates of mean log income for each social class position
are estimated and plotted across time with individual covariates and occupational dummy
variables set to their sample means. To investigate changes in within-class income
dispersion, I estimate and plot the variance of log income within each social class j at time t,
denoted by .

Next, I evaluate the effects of compositional, between-class, and within-class changes on

trends in personal income inequality with a formal decomposition analysis of the total
variance of log income, denoted by Vt = Var(Yt). The variance of log income is a scale-
Author Manuscript

invariant measure of inequality that is subgroup decomposable and has a convenient

functional relationship with other common inequality metrics, such as the Gini index
(Allison 1978). At a given time period, this measure can be decomposed as follows:

(1)

where the between-class (Bt) and within-class (Wt) components are expressed as weighted
sums of class-specific means and variances, and is the squared deviation of
mean log income for social class j at time t (μjt) from the population mean at time t (νt)
(Western and Bloome 2009; Western, Bloome, and Percheski 2008).

With time-series data, the change in income inequality from time t = 0 (the baseline time
Author Manuscript

period) to t = t′ (a post-baseline time period) can be decomposed into the sum of a

compositional effect, δP; a between-class effect, δB; and a within-class effect, δW.
Specifically, the change in income inequality is given by

(2)

where the compositional effect of changes in the relative sizes of social classes is

; the between-class effect of changes in mean income for

different social classes is ; and the effect of changing income

dispersion within social classes is . I estimate each of these

quantities and scale them by the change in total variance, which gives the proportionate
Author Manuscript

impact of compositional, between-class, and within-class effects on trends in personal

income inequality.

To investigate whether social class divisions based on workplace ownership and authority
provide an improved explanation of trends in personal income distribution beyond more
conventional models based on human capital characteristics, aggregate occupational classes,
or disaggregate occupational classes, I compare the fit of a variety of income models with
different sets of predictors. Specifically, I evaluate whether adding predictors for social class

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 17

to models of personal income based on human capital characteristics and occupational class
Author Manuscript

divisions significantly improves goodness of fit. Goodness of fit is measured with the
Akaike information criterion (AIC), the Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and the
adjusted-R2 statistic (Akaike 1974; Schwarz 1978; Theil 1961). These fit statistics penalize
models with larger numbers of parameters and thus work to identify a parsimonious model
with maximum explanatory power. The BIC has the most severe penalty for additional
parameters, followed by the AIC and then adjusted-R2, which has the least severe penalty.
Lower values of the AIC and BIC, and higher values of adjusted-R2, indicate superior model
fit.

Finally, I evaluate the net effects of social class, occupational class, and human capital on
growth in personal income inequality by combining multivariate decomposition methods
with variance function regression (Western and Bloome 2009). In analyses of income
inequality that involve d covariates with levels l1,l2...ld, the data are organized in a
Author Manuscript

decomposition table, where each observation is assigned to one of the L = l1 × l2 × ... × ld

cells in the cross-classification of all covariates. Similar to the decomposition analysis
described previously, temporal trends in personal income inequality can be decomposed into
the effects of changes in cell proportions, means, and variances.

Variance function regression is used to simultaneously model the cell means and variances at
each time period, and the net effects of social class, occupational class, and education on
trends in income inequality are quantified with counterfactual variances that fix model
coefficients at their baseline values. Specifically, the variance function regression model is
expressed as

(3)
Author Manuscript

(4)

where Ct is a vector of dummy variables for social classes, Rt is a vector of dummy variables
for education, and Qt is a vector of dummy variables for aggregate occupational classes. I
focus on aggregate occupational classes in this analysis because the GSS lacks the data
needed for a multivariate decomposition based on disaggregate occupations.11 Equation 3 is
estimated from a least squares regression of log income on social class, aggregate
occupational class, and education, stratified by time. Then, squared residuals are computed
from this regression, and Equation 4 is estimated from a gamma regression of the squared
residuals on social class, aggregate occupational class, and education, also stratified by time.
Author Manuscript

The net effects of social class, occupational class, and education on trends in personal
income inequality are quantified by plotting counterfactual variances that fix specific
regression coefficients at their baseline values. For example, to measure the net effect of
changes in mean income between social class positions, I estimate and plot the following

11With a 127 disaggregate occupational classes, 4 education levels, 4 social classes, and T time periods, the multivariate
decomposition table would have 127 × 4 × 4 × T cells. Even with a small number of time periods, the GSS does not have enough
observations to sufficiently populate such a high-dimensional table.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 18

counterfactual variance: , where the adjusted between-cell mean

Author Manuscript

differences, , are calculated from . In this notation,

Xlt, Clt, and Qlt denote the values of these variables associated with cell l at time t in the
multivariate decomposition table. The counterfactual variance is interpreted as the level of
income inequality that would have been observed had net differences in mean income
between social classes remained constant since the baseline time period. I evaluate the
statistical significance of these effects on trends in income inequality by using bootstrap
methods to test the null hypotheses that .12

To avoid problems associated with data sparseness, observations are pooled within decades
and estimates are computed separately for the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s in all analyses. This
ensures a sufficient number of observations in each social class at each time period,
improves the precision of estimates, and still allows for an informative, albeit less fine-
Author Manuscript

grained, tracking of change over time. More complex analyses, including models based on
fully nonparametric functions of time, provide similar point estimates for the trends of
interest and do not significantly improve goodness of fit. Multiple imputation with ten
replications is used to fill in missing values for all variables, and combined estimates are
reported throughout (Rubin 1987).

RESULTS
Trends in the Relative Size of Social Classes
Figure 1 displays trend estimates of social class proportions. The upper panel of the figure
displays trends for all social classes on the same scale, and the lower panel displays trends
for the two smallest classes—proprietors and independent producers—using a magnified
Author Manuscript

scale on the right vertical axis. Results indicate that the social class structure was fairly
stable over the past three decades in question. Between the 1980s and 2000s, slight increases
were found for the proportions of workers (53 to 57 percent) and independent producers (4
to 6 percent), while slight decreases were found for the proportions of managers (35 to 31
percent) and proprietors (8 to 6 percent).

Figure 2 displays trend estimates for the relative size of different social class strata. The
upper panel displays estimates for all class strata, and the lower panel displays trends for the
smallest strata on a magnified scale. These estimates reveal trends similar to those in Figure
1. Between the 1980s and 2000s, slight decreases were found for the proportions of both
large proprietors (3 to 2 percent) and small proprietors (5 to 3 percent), and for the
proportions of both high-level managers (11 to 9 percent) and low-level managers (23 to 22
Author Manuscript

percent).

These trends are difficult to reconcile with the post-class perspective and are consistent, at
least in part, with class-analytic theory. The steady growth observed for the proportion of
independent producers conflicts with class-analytic hypotheses, but this trend may simply

12Specifically, I compute a 95 percent confidence interval for based on 2.5 and 98.5 percentiles of a sampling distribution
estimated from 500 bootstrap replications. If this confidence interval falls entirely below zero, then the null hypothesis is rejected.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 19

reflect well-documented growth in the number of nominally self-employed contingent

Author Manuscript

workers, such as freelancers, homeworkers, and temporary contractors, rather than growth in
the number of independent small business owners (Dale 1986; Kalleberg 2011). Nominally
self-employed contingent workers differ from conventionally employed workers only in that
they sell their labor power to an employer under a different type of contractual arrangement,
and thus observed trends in the proportion of independent producers may be entirely
consistent with class-analytic theory. This trend may also be associated with the widespread
proliferation of high-speed communication technologies and personal computers, which
allow employers to contract a variety of labor services from contingent workers located
outside of the firm. Without more detailed data, however, this explanation remains somewhat
speculative.

Trends in Income Differences between Social Classes

Author Manuscript

Figure 3 displays unadjusted trends in mean log income. The upper panel of the figure
displays estimates separately for each social class position, and the lower panel displays
estimates separately for each class stratum. These estimates reveal a pronounced divergence
of personal income between positions in the workplace ownership and authority structure.

Specifically, the upper panel of Figure 3 shows that incomes for proprietors increased
substantially between the 1980s and 2000s. Point estimates suggest that proprietor incomes
increased by about 30 percent, on average, during this period (i.e., 11.27 – 10.97 = 0.30). In
contrast, incomes for managers and workers increased by about 8 percent percent,
respectively, while incomes for independent producers declined by about 5 percent. The
lower panel of Figure 3 suggests that income growth was considerably greater for the upper
rather than lower strata of proprietors and managers between the 1980s and 2000s. Incomes
increased, on average, by about 20 percent for high-level managers and by only about 4
Author Manuscript

percent for low-level managers. Similarly, incomes increased by about 60 percent for large
proprietors and by only 7 percent for small proprietors.

Figure 4 displays covariate-adjusted trends in mean log income. These estimates come from
multivariate regressions that include predictors for social class, individual covariates, and
disaggregate occupations. They capture divergent income trends between social classes that
are not simply due to confounding factors like increasing returns to education or
occupational differences in skill, prestige, and the extent of social closure. The upper panel
of the figure indicates that income differences between social class positions increased over
time, net of these other factors. Specifically, covariate-adjusted point estimates indicate that
personal incomes for proprietors and managers increased by 27 percent and 11 percent,
respectively, while incomes for workers increased by 8 percent and incomes for independent
Author Manuscript

producers were stagnant. The lower panel of Figure 4 displays covariate-adjusted trends in
mean log income separately by social class strata. It indicates that growth in between-class
income inequality—net of individual and occupational differences—was driven primarily by
pronounced income gains for large proprietors and high-level managers, consistent with the
proposed class-analytic theory.

Figure 5 displays trends in total income inequality between social classes as indicated by the
mean squared deviation of the estimated class means from the estimated population mean.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 20

This metric provides a single number summary of changes in between-class income

Author Manuscript

differences over time. It is scaled to equal one in the 1980s, and all values thereafter
represent proportionate changes since this time period. Point estimates indicate that income
differences between social class positions increased by 66 percent and that income
differences between social class strata nearly doubled since the 1980s. Total income
inequality between social classes, however, did not increase monotonically during this
period: it declined modestly from the 1980s to the 1990s and then increased substantially
thereafter.

As a comparative reference, Figure 5 also displays estimates quantifying growth in income

differences between education levels and between aggregate occupational classes. Point
estimates indicate that income differences between education levels and between aggregate
occupational classes increased by 82 percent and 13 percent, respectively, since the 1980s.
These results suggest that the overall magnitude of growth in social class inequality was
Author Manuscript

much greater than growth in aggregate occupational inequality and was comparable to
growth in educational inequality, although growth in income differences between education
levels was monotonic and far exceeded growth in social class inequality prior to the 1990s.

Trends in Income Dispersion within Social Classes

Figure 6 displays trends in within-class income dispersion. The upper panel of the figure
displays residual variances for each social class position, and the lower panel displays
residual variances for each social class stratum. These estimates indicate that income
differences increased not only between social classes but also within them. The most
pronounced increase in within-class income dispersion occurred among proprietors, with the
variance of log income rising by about 50 percent for this group. In contrast, income
dispersion among independent producers, workers, managers increased by about 10, 20, and
Author Manuscript

30 percent, respectively. The pronounced increase in income dispersion among proprietors

was driven primarily by disproportionate income growth at the top of the distribution.

Decomposition of Trends in Personal Income Inequality

Figure 7 displays trends in personal income inequality as indicated by the total variance of
log income. These estimates indicate that the total variance increased by about 10 percent,
from 0.45 to 0.49, between the 1980s and 1990s, and then increased by another 15 percent,
from 0.49 to 0.57, between the 1990s and 2000s. Over the entire period, the total variance of
log income increased by about 27 percent. Total variance estimates from the GSS suggest a
higher level of income inequality overall than estimates based on other data sources, such as
the Current Population Survey (CPS). This disparity is due to a greater frequency of low
incomes in the GSS. For example, the first, fifth, and tenth percentiles of the personal
Author Manuscript

income distribution in the GSS are about $7,500, $12,000, and $16,000, respectively, while
the same percentiles in the CPS are $9,500, $15,000, and $19,000. Above the tenth
percentile, the two distributions are similar. This suggests that midpoint imputation of
incomes from the GSS interval measurement procedure may be less accurate in the lower
tail of the distribution. Nevertheless, these differences are fairly modest, and the time trend
in total income inequality estimated from the GSS is similar to trends estimated from other
data sources, including the CPS.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 21

Table 1 presents results from a formal decomposition of trends in personal income

Author Manuscript

inequality. The upper panel of the table reports results from a decomposition by social class
position. Results from this analysis indicate that compositional changes in the relative sizes
of social classes had a small dampening effect and that changes in between-class income
differences had a large inflationary effect on trends in income inequality, particularly from
the 1990s onward. For example, point estimates indicate that growth in between-class
income differences explains 18 percent of the overall increase in personal income inequality
between the 1980s and 2000s, and 33 percent of the increase between the 1990s and 2000s.
Between the 1980s and 1990s, however, changes in between-class income differences had a
nontrivial dampening effect, and despite the strong inflationary effect of subsequent changes
in between-class income differences, growth in within-class income dispersion consistently
had the largest effect on trends in personal income inequality.

The lower panel of Table 1 reports results from a decomposition by social class strata.
Author Manuscript

Results from this analysis indicate that changes in between-strata income differences had a
substantial inflationary effect on trends in personal income inequality. Similar to the effects
of social class position, the inflationary effect of growth in between-strata income
differences occurs specifically from the 1990s onward. Point estimates indicate that growth
in between-strata income differences explains 29 percent of the overall increase in personal
income inequality between the 1980s and 2000s, and 55 percent of the increase between the
1990s and 2000s. But between the 1980s and 1990s, changes in between-strata income
differences had a modest dampening effect on the trend in total inequality. Results also
indicate that changes in within-strata income dispersion had a large inflationary effect and
that compositional changes in the relative size of different social class strata had a small
dampening effect. In sum, these results indicate that growing income differences between
positions in the workplace ownership and authority structure had a substantial impact on
Author Manuscript

trends in personal income inequality, especially between the 1990s and 2000s.

Human Capital, Occupational, and Social Class Models of Personal Income

Table 2 presents goodness of fit statistics for models of personal income based on human
capital characteristics, occupational class divisions, and social class divisions. These models
are stratified by decade and thus focus on changes in income distribution over time. The first
panel of the table compares a standard human capital model that includes predictors for
education and demographic characteristics to models that additionally include predictors for
social class. Results indicate that accounting for the social relations of production improves
goodness of fit: models with dummy variables for a respondent's position in the workplace
ownership and authority structure have significantly lower AIC and BIC values, and higher
adjusted R2 values. The second and third panels of Table 2 compare aggregate and
Author Manuscript

disaggregate occupational class models to models that additionally include predictors for
social class divisions. As before, results indicate that models accounting for workplace
ownership and authority improve goodness of fit. Finally, the fourth and fifth panels of the
table show that models including predictors for social class divisions in addition to
covariates representing both human capital characteristics and occupational class divisions
also provide an improved fit to the data. Although the gains in explanatory power associated
with accounting for workplace ownership and authority may appear modest in practical

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 22

terms (e.g., 2 to 5 percentage point increases in adjusted R2), they are comparable to the
Author Manuscript

gains achieved by disaggregating occupational classes (e.g., 4 to 8 percentage point

increases in adjusted R2), which are widely held to represent a notable improvement in the
explanatory power of occupational class models (Grusky and Sorensen 1998; Weeden and
Grusky 2005).13

Table 2 highlights the best fitting model according to each goodness-of-fit criterion in bold
font. According to the AIC and adjusted R2 measures, the model providing an optimal
balance between explanatory power and parsimony is in fact the most complex model
considered in this analysis. It includes predictors for human capital characteristics,
disaggregate occupational classes, and social class strata. The BIC, which includes a more
severe penalty for the number of parameters and thus tends to favor more parsimonious
models, indicates that the model with predictors for human capital characteristics, aggregate
occupational classes, and social class strata provides the best fit. These results indicate that
Author Manuscript

models of personal income based only on human capital characteristics and occupational
classes, including highly disaggregate unit occupations, are suboptimal in that they fail to
capture notable income differences between positions in the workplace ownership and
authority structure.

Figure 8 displays counterfactual variance estimates that quantify the net effects of changes in
income differences between social classes, aggregate occupational classes, and education
levels on trends in total income inequality. These estimates are based on a multivariate
decomposition combined with variance function regression. They extend the results
presented in Table 2 by directly linking them to growth in income inequality at the
population level.
Author Manuscript

Recall that the total variance of log income increased by 27 percent, from 0.45 to 0.57,
between the 1980s and 2000s. In contrast, the counterfactual estimates quantifying the
between-class effect indicate that the variance of log income would have increased by only
23 percent, from 0.45 to 0.55, if net income differences between social class positions had
remained unchanged at their 1980s level. Similarly, the counterfactual estimates quantifying
the between-strata effect indicate that the variance of log income would have increased by
only 20 percent, from 0.45 to 0.54, if net income differences between social class strata had
remained unchanged over time. In other words, these estimates indicate that changes in the
returns to ownership and authority account for approximately 15 to 25 percent of the growth
in personal income inequality since the 1980s, net of educational and aggregate occupational
effects.14

The counterfactual estimates quantifying the between-education effect indicate that the
Author Manuscript

variance of log income would have increased by about 24 percent, from 0.45 to 0.56, if net
income differences between education levels had remained unchanged at their 1980s level.

13The gains in explanatory power associated with disaggregating occupational classes can be obtained by comparing model (D) with
model (G) and model (J) with model (M) in Table 2.
14For example, when scaled by the change in observed variance, the difference between the change in observed variance and the
change in the counterfactual variance for the between-class and between-strata effects are, respectively, ((0.57 – 0.45) − (0.55 – 0.45))/
(0.57 – 0.45) = 0.14 and ((0.57 – 0.45) − (0.54 − 0.45))/(0.57 – 0.45) = 0.25.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 23

This suggests that increasing returns to ownership and authority had an effect on trends in
Author Manuscript

personal income inequality comparable to that of increasing returns to education. The

counterfactual variance estimates quantifying the effects of education and social class also
indicate that increasing returns to education were particularly impactful between the 1980s
and 1990s, while increasing returns to ownership and authority had a more pronounced
influence between the 1990s and 2000s. Estimates quantifying the between-occupation
effect indicate that changes in income differences between aggregate occupational classes
had a negligible impact on trends in total income inequality, net of education and social class
effects. This suggests that growing income differences between social classes had a larger
impact on trends in personal income inequality than did changes in income differences
between aggregate occupational classes.

DISCUSSION
Author Manuscript

Since the 1980s, personal income inequality has increased substantially in the U.S.

Although several theoretical traditions suggest that social classes—defined in terms of

ownership and authority relations within production—are closely linked to the distribution
of personal income, they have not played a major role in empirical attempts to explain this
trend. The present study investigates social class effects on growth in personal income
inequality, and it evaluates whether social class models improve upon existing explanations
for this trend that emphasize the importance of human capital and occupational classes.

Results indicate that income differences between social classes increased by about 60
percent since the 1980s. This increase was driven primarily by growing incomes for high-
level managers and large proprietors together with stagnating incomes for workers and
independent producers. Results also indicate that the proportions of workers and
Author Manuscript

independent producers increased, while the proportions of proprietors and managers

declined during this period. A formal decomposition analysis that directly evaluates the
effects of these trends on personal income inequality suggests that changes in the relative
size of social classes had a small dampening effect and that growth in between-class income
differences had a significant inflationary effect, particularly from the 1990s onward. Finally,
results indicate that accounting for social class divisions based on workplace ownership and
authority improves the explanatory power of models based on human capital characteristics
and occupational class divisions, which have thus far dominated research on trends in
inequality.

This study makes a number of contributions to theory and empirical research on class
structure and income inequality. First, it outlines a simple theoretical framework for the
Author Manuscript

analysis of social class that has several advantages over alternative approaches. In particular,
this framework implies a parsimonious social class typology that can be easily measured in
empirical research; it maintains the conceptual and empirical distinctions between social
classes (i.e., conflict groups based on exclusionary relations of production) and occupational
classes (i.e., groups of individuals in functionally or technically similar jobs); it contains an
explicit, flexible, and testable theory of the conditions—exploitation and domination—that
are thought to engender observed patterns of social class conflict; and finally, it provides an

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 24

account of the social forces, including shifts in the competitive environment, technological
Author Manuscript

development, and class political activism, that govern trends in the material welfare of
different social classes over time.

Second, this study tests several key implications of this theoretical framework using time-
series data from a large national survey, and it directly links changes in social class structure
and social class inequality to trends in the distribution of personal income at the population
level. This analysis responds to calls for historical investigations of social class inequality
(Wright 1997), addresses arguments that social classes have dissolved in modern society
(Pakulski and Waters 1996), and extends industry-level research on the functional
distribution of income (Kristal 2010, 2013; Lin and Tomaskovic-Devey 2013) by using an
individual-level model to precisely document social class effects on changes in the personal
distribution of income. This type of individual-level, population-based evidence directly
linking social classes to trends in personal income inequality is largely absent from the
Author Manuscript

literature on social stratification in the U.S.

The weight of the evidence from this analysis casts considerable doubt on post-class theory,
is generally consistent with the proposed class-analytic framework, and resonates with
recent research on the capital share of national income, wealth concentration, and executive
compensation (e.g., Piketty 2014). It indicates that income divergence between social classes
can explain a practically and statistically significant proportion of growth in personal income
inequality at the population level, particularly during the period from the 1990s to the 2000s
when inequality was driven upward primarily by increasing incomes at the top of the
distribution.

The explanatory power of the social class model, however, is not overwhelming. Between
Author Manuscript

the 1980s and 1990s, when real declines at the bottom of the distribution were also an
important driver of growth in inequality, results suggest a negligible impact for social class
differences and instead point toward the importance of increasing returns to education.
Moreover, across all three decades, results consistently suggest an important role for
unobserved factors in explaining this trend. Indeed, within-class (i.e., residual) income
dispersion was the main driver of growing inequality throughout the period under
consideration. Together, these findings suggest that social class differences are but one part
of a multifaceted and historically contingent explanation for growth in income inequality,
where, for example, technological changes may have been skill-biased during certain periods
and capital-biased during others.

Third, this study compares the proposed class-analytic theory with alternative models for
growth in income inequality based on human capital and occupational differences. Results
Author Manuscript

indicate that growing income differences between social classes are largely obscured in
alternative models, including those based on highly disaggregate occupations. These
findings suggest that critiques of “big class” models (Grusky and Sorensen 1998; Weeden
and Grusky 2005), which argue that class analysis can be salvaged by focusing on
“structuration” at the level of disaggregate occupations, are somewhat misguided. In
particular, these critiques conflate social classes based on workplace ownership and
authority relations with occupational classes based on the technical division of labor.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 25

Although the technical division of labor partially reflects these social relations, the present
Author Manuscript

study indicates that they are in fact conceptually and empirically distinct forms of
stratification. Social classes cannot be conveniently disaggregated into small occupational
groups, and social class differences in personal income cut across the technical division of
labor. This suggests that future research on material inequalities, political attitudes, and
consumption practices can be improved by jointly modeling the effects of both social and
occupational class divisions. In other words, disaggregate occupational class models should
complement, rather than replace, “big” social class models.

Although this study provides a number of important contributions to theory and research on
social class and income inequality, it is not without limitations. In particular, it does not
evaluate the more specific claims of class-analytic theory about the underlying changes
responsible for long-term trends in social class structure and social class inequality, such as
technological development, class political mobilization, and growing economic
Author Manuscript

concentration. The results presented here suggest a correspondence between these changes
and social class differences in personal income, but more detailed data are needed to
rigorously evaluate the causal links between them.

In addition, this study relies on a measure of social class that may imperfectly capture
differences in ownership and authority. For example, it remains unclear whether self-
employment and supervisory data accurately classify wealthy rentiers who live almost
entirely off of investment income and are not directly engaged in economic activity. Pure
rentiers represent only a small fraction of large proprietors, but if the measurement approach
used here omits this group, it may understate growth in between-class income differences
over time because rentiers often earn enormously large incomes.
Author Manuscript

Finally, this analysis is based on an inexact measure of personal market income. The GSS
uses a single survey item based on a series of graduated intervals to measure total money
income from a respondent's main job. This is a less sophisticated instrument than those used
by other national surveys, such as the CPS. It omits the value of in-kind benefits and
earnings from secondary employment, and results suggest that it may understate incomes in
the lower tail of the distribution. To attenuate concerns about income measurement in the
GSS, I attempted to corroborate key substantive findings with data from the CPS. The CPS
uses a more sophisticated measurement procedure for personal income, but it lacks the data
needed to precisely measure social class. Although this precludes an exact replication with
the CPS, analyses of these data using an occupation-based proxy measure of social class are
generally consistent with findings from the GSS.15

These limitations highlight important directions for future research. In particular, future
Author Manuscript

research should focus on whether the trends documented in this study are directly related to
patterns of technological development, economic concentration, and class-based political
activism. This might be accomplished by linking individual data from the GSS to
information on industrial concentration from the Economic Census or to information on

15These results are reported in the Online Supplement, which also documents the precise coding of both aggregate and disaggregate
occupational classes.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 26

corporate investment in the political process from the Federal Election Commission. These
Author Manuscript

data could be used to test whether regional or inter-industry differences in social class
inequality are associated with levels of market concentration or with corporate political
investment. Future research should also investigate social class inequality from a
longitudinal rather than an independent time-series perspective—for example, by using data
from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to examine social class differences in lifetime
income across birth cohorts. In addition, future research should consider the relationship
between race, gender, and social class over time, perhaps with a focus on whether status
group disparities in social class attainment are linked to persistent racial and gender
differences in personal income.

These limitations notwithstanding, the present study documents a significant relationship

between social class and trends in personal income inequality over the past three decades,
indicating that class-analytic theory remains important for understanding contemporary
Author Manuscript

patterns of social stratification. As social scientists work to better understand the causes and
consequences of growing income inequality, rigorous integration of class-analytic theory
with quantitative empirical research will be essential.

Supplementary Material
Refer to Web version on PubMed Central for supplementary material.

Acknowledgments
*The author would like to thank David Harding, Yu Xie, Sarah Burgard, Jeffrey Smith, Sheldon Danziger, Mark
Mizruchi, Robert Andersen, John Myles, and participants in the Michigan Inequality Workshop for their comments
on previous drafts on this study. The author also thanks Kim Weeden for technical assistance with occupational
coding. This research was supported by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship (grant number DGE 0718128) and
Author Manuscript

by the NICHD under grants to the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan (grant numbers T32
HD007339 and R24 HD041028).

REFERENCES
Allison, Paul D. Measures of Inequality. American Sociological Review. 1978; 43:865–880.
Alwin, Duane F. Family of Origin and Cohort Differences in Verbal Ability. American Sociological
Review. 1991; 56:625–638.
Akaike, Hirotugu. A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control. 1974; 19:716–723.
Autor, David H.; Levy, Frank; Murnane, Richard J. The Skill Content of Recent Technological
Change: An Empirical Exploration. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2003; 118:1279–1333.
Autor, David H.; Katz, Lawrence F.; Kearney, Melissa S. Trends in US Wage Inequality: Revising the
Revisionists. Review of Economics and Statistics. 2008; 90:300–323.
Author Manuscript

Bartlett, Will; John Cable, Saul Estrin; Jones, Derek C.; Smith, Stephen C. Labor-Managed
Cooperatives and Private Firms in North Central Italy: An Empirical Comparison. Industrial and
LaborRelations Review. 1992; 46:103–118.
Bell, Daniel. The Coming of Post-industrial Society. Basic Books; New York: 1973.
Blasi, Joseph; Conte, Michael; Kruse, Douglas. Employee Stock Ownership and Corporate
Performance Among Public Corporations. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 1996; 50:60–79.
Bluestone, Barry; Harrison, Bennett. The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings, Community
Abandonment, and the Dismantling of Basic Industry. Basic Books; New York: 1982.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 27

Borjas, George J. The Economics of Immigration. Journal of Economic Literature. 1994; 32:1667–
1717.
Author Manuscript

Burdin, Gabriel; Dean, Andres. New Evidence on Wages and Employment in Worker Cooperatives
Compared with Capitalist Firms. Journal of Comparative Economics. 2009; 37:517–533.
Card, David; DiNardo, John E. Skill-Biased Technological Change and Rising Wage Inequality: Some
Problems and Puzzles. Journal of Labor Economics. 2002; 20:733–783.
Card, David; Lemieux, Thomas; Craig Riddell, W. Unions and Wage Inequality. Journal of Labor
Research. 2004; 25:519–562.
Clark, Terry N.; Lipset, Seymour M. Are Social Classes Dying? International Sociology. 1991; 6:397–
410.
Craig, Ben; Pencavel, John. The Behavior of Worker Cooperatives: The Plywood Companies of the
Pacific Northwest. The American Economic Review. 1992; 82:1083–1105.
Craig, Ben; Pencavel, John. Participation and Productivity: A Comparison of Worker Cooperatives and
Conventional Firms on the Plywood Industry. Brookings Papers: Microeconomics. 1995:121–174.
Dahrendorf, Ralf. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford University Press; Stanford,
CA: 1959.
Author Manuscript

Dale, Angela. Social Class and the Self-employed. Sociology. 1986; 20:430–434.
DiNardo, John E.; Pischke, Jorn-Steffen. The Returns to Computer Use Revisited: Have Pencils
Changed the Wage Structure Too? Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1997; 112:291–303.
DiNardo, John; Fortin, Nicole M.; Lemieux, Thomas. Labor Market Institutions and the Distribution of
Wages, 1973-1992: A Semiparametric Approach. Econometrica. 1996; 64:1001–1044.
Easterlin, Richard. Birth and Fortune. Basic Books; New York: 1980.
Elsby, Michael W. L.; Hobijn, Bart; Sahin, Aysegul. The Decline of the U.S. Labor Share. Brookings
Papers on Economic Activity. 2013:1–44.
Erikson, Robert; Goldthorpe, John H. The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial
Societies. Oxford University Press; Oxford: 1992.
Featherman, David L.; Hauser, Robert M. Opportunity and Change. Academic Press; New York: 1978.
Foster, John B.; McChesney, Robert W.; Jamil Jonna, R. Monopoly and Competition in 21st Century
Capitalism. Monthly Review. 2011; 62:1–30.
Frydman, Carola; Jenter, Dirk. CEO Compensation. Annual Review of Financial Economics. 2010;
Author Manuscript

2:75–102.
Goldstein, Adam. Revenge of the Managers: Labor Cost-Cutting and the Paradoxical Resurgence of
Managerialism in the Shareholder Value Era, 1984 to 2001. American Sociological Review. 2012;
77:268–294.
Grusky, David B. Foundations of a Neo-Durkheimian Class Analysis.. In: Wright, Erik O., editor.
Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2005. p. 51-81.
Grusky, David B.; Sorensen, Jesper B. Can Class Analysis Be Salvaged? American Journal of
Sociology. 1998; 103:1187–1234.
Halaby, Charles N.; Weakliem, David L. Ownership and Authority in the Earnings Function:
Nonnested Tests of Alternative Specifications. American Sociological Review. 1993; 58:16–30.
Hout, Mike; Brooks, Clem; Manza, Jeff. The Persistence of Classes in Postindustrial Societies.
International Sociology. 1993; 8:259–277.
Hout, Mike. GSS Methodological Report 101: Getting the Most Out of the GSS Income Measures.
National Opinion Research Center; Chicago: 2004.
Author Manuscript

Hurst, Erik; Geng, Li; Pugsley, Benjamin. Are Household Surveys Like Tax Forms: Evidence from
Income Underreporting of the Self-employed. 2010 NBER Working Paper Series No. 16527.
Kalleberg, Arne L. Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems
in the United States, 1970s-2000s. Russell Sage; New York: 2011.
Kalleberg, Arne L.; Griffin, Larry J. Class, Occupation, and Inequality in Job Rewards. American
Journal of Sociology. 1980; 85:731–768.
King, Miriam; Ruggles, Steven; Trent Alexander, J.; Flood, Sarah; Genadek, Katie; Schroeder,
Matthew B.; Trampe, Brandon; Vick, Rebecca. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 28

Population Survey: Version 3.0 [machine-readable database]. Minnesota Population Center;

Minneapolis, MN: 2010.
Author Manuscript

Kingston, Paul. The Classless Society. Stanford University Press; Palo Alto, CA: 2000.
Kristal, Tali. Good Times, Bad Times: Postwar Labor's Share of National Income in Capitalist
Democracies. American Sociological Review. 2010; 75:729–763.
Kristal, Tali. The Capitalist Machine: Computerization, Workers' Power, and the Decline in Labor's
Share within U.S. Industries. American Sociological Review. 2013; 78:361–389.
Krueger, Alan B. How Computers Have Changed the Wage Structure: Evidence from Microdata,
1984-1989. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1993; 108:33–60.
Kruse, Douglas; Blasi, Joseph. Employee Ownership, Employee Attitudes, and Firm Performance,
Working Paper 5277. National Bureau of Economic Research; Cambridge, MA: 1995.
Kruse, Douglas; Freeman, Richard; Blasi, Joseph. Shared Capitalism at Work: Employee
Ownership,Profit and Gain Sharing, and Broad-based Stock Options. University of Chicago Press;
Chicago: 2010.
Larrimore, Jeff; Burkhauser, Richard V.; Feng, Shuaizhang; Zayatz, Laura. Consistent Cell Means for
Topcoded Incomes in the Public Use March CPS (1976-2007), Working Paper 13941. National
Author Manuscript

Bureau of Economic Research; Cambridge, MA: 2008.

Levine, David I.; Tyson, Laura D. Participation, Productivity, and the Firm's Environment. In: Blinder,
Alan. S., editor. Paying for Productivity: A Look at the Evidence. The Brookings Institution;
Washington, DC: 1990. p. 183-237.
Levinson, Marc. The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and World Economy
Bigger. Princeton University Press; Princeton, NJ: 2008.
Lin, Ken-Hou; Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald. Financialization and U.S. Income Inequality, 1970-2008.
American Journal of Sociology. 2013; 118:1284–1329.
Noble, David F. Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation. Oxford University
Press; New York: 1984.
Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I. Penguin Books; New York: 1976.
Marx, Karl. Manifesto of the Communist Party.. In: Tucker, Robert C., editor. The Marx-Engels
Reader. W. W. Norton and Company; New York: 1978. p. 469-500.
McCall, Leslie; Percheski, Christine. Income Inequality: New Trends and Research Directions. Annual
Author Manuscript

Review of Sociology. 2010; 36:329–347.

McKay, Iain. Introduction.. In: McKay, I., editor. Property is Theft: A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Anthology. AK Press; Oakland, CA: 2011. p. 1-51.
Mizruchi, Mark S. The Fracturing of the American Corporate Elite. Harvard University Press;
Cambridge: 2013.
Morgan, Stephen L.; Cha, Youngjoo. Rent and the Evolution of Inequality in Late Industrial United
States. American Behavioral Scientist. 2007; 50:677–701.
Morgan, Stephen L.; Tang, Zun. Social Class and Workers' Rent, 1983-2001. Research in Social
Stratification and Mobility. 2007; 25:273–293.
Morris, Martina; Western, Bruce. Inequality in Earnings at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Annual
Review of Sociology. 1999; 25:623–657.
Mouw, Ted; Kalleberg, Arne L. Occupations and the Structure of Wage Inequality in the United States,
1980s to 2000s. American Sociological Review. 2010; 75:402–431.
Nau, Michael. Economic Elites, Investments, and Income Inequality. Social Forces. 2013; 92:437–461.
Author Manuscript

Pakulski, Jan; Waters, Malcolm. The Death of Class. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1996.
Pakulski, Jan. Foundations of Post-Class Analysis.. In: Wright, Erik O., editor. Approaches to Class
Analysis. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2005. p. 152-179.
Piketty, Thomas. Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, MA: 2014.
Piketty, Thomas; Saez, Emmanuel. Income Inequality in the United States, 1913- 1998. Quarterly
Journal of Economics. 2003; 118:1–39.
Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. What is Property?. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1994.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 29

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. Property Is Theft: A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Reader. AK Press; Oakland,

CA: 2011.
Author Manuscript

Robinson, Robert V.; Kelley, Jonathan. Class as Conceived by Marx and Dahrendorf: Effects on
Income Inequality and Politics in the United States and Great Britain. American Sociological
Review. 1979; 44:38–58.
Roemer, John. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. Harvard University Press; Cambridge,
MA: 1982.
Rubin, Donald B. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. J. Wiley & Sons; New York: 1987.
Schmitt, John; Zipperer, Ben. Dropping the Axe: Trends in Illegal Firings During Union Election
Campaigns, 1951-2007. Center for Economic and Policy Research; Washington, DC.: 2009.
Schwarz, Gideon E. Estimating the Dimension of a Model. Annals of Statistics. 1978; 6:461–4.
Screpanti, Ernesto. Value and Exploitation: A Counterfactual Approach. Review of Political Economy.
2003; 15:155–171.
Smith, Tom W.; Marsden, Peter V.; Hout, Mike; Kim, Jibum. General Social Surveys, 1972-2010
[machine-readable data file]. National Opinion Research Center; Chicago: 2011.
Theil, Henri. Economic Forecasts and Policy. North; Holland, Amsterdam: 1961.
Author Manuscript

Thorndike, Robert L. Two Screening Tests of Verbal Intelligence. Journal of Applied Psychology.
1942; 26:128–135.
Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald. The Relational Generation of Workplace Inequalities. Social Currents.
2014; 1:51–73.
Useem, Michael. The Inner Circle: Large Corporations and the Rise of Business Political Activity in
the U.S. and U.K. Oxford University Press; New York: 1984.
Volscho, Thomas W.; Kelley, Nathan J. The Rise of the Super-rich: Power Resources, Taxes, Financial
Markets, and the Dynamics of the Top 1 percent, 1949 to 2008. American Sociological Review.
2012; 77:679–698.
Weeden, Kim A.; Grusky, David B. The Case for a New Class Map. American Journal of Sociology.
2005; 111:141–212.
Weeden, Kim A.; Young-Mi Kim, Matthew Di Carlo; Grusky, David B. Social Class and Earnings
Inequality. American Behavioral Scientist. 2007; 50:702–736.
Western, Bruce; Bloome, Deirdre. Variance Function Regressions for Studying Inequality. Sociological
Author Manuscript

Methodology. 2009; 39:293–326.

Western, Bruce; Bloome, Deirdre; Percheski, Christine. Inequality among American Families with
Children, 1975 to 2005. American Sociological Review. 2008; 73:903–920.
Wright, Erik O. Class Structure and Income Determination. Academic; New York: 1979.
Wright, Erik O. A General Framework for the Analysis of Class Structure. Politics & Society. 1984;
13:383–423.
Wright, Erik O. Classes. Verso; London: 1985.
Wright, Erik O. The Continuing Relevance of Class Analysis. Theory and Society. 1996; 25:693–716.
Wright, Erik O. Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis. Cambridge University Press;
Cambridge: 1997.
Wright, Erik O.; Perrone, Luca. Marxist Class Categories and Income Inequality. American
Sociological Review. 1977; 42:32–55.
Yang, Yang; Land, Kenneth C. A Mixed Models Approach to the Age-Period-Cohort Analysis of
Repeated Cross-section Surveys, with an Application to Data on Trends in Verbal Test Scores.
Author Manuscript

Sociological Methodology. 2006; 36:75–97.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 30
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Author Manuscript

Trends in the Relative Size of Social Class Positions

Author Manuscript

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 31
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
Trends in the Relative Size of Social Class Strata
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 32
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 3.
Unadjusted Income Trends by Social Class Position and Strata
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 33
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 4.
Covariate-adjusted Income Trends by Social Class Position and Strata
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 34
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 5.
Author Manuscript

Trends in Between-group Income Differences

Author Manuscript

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 35
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 6.
Trends in Within-class Income Dispersion
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 36
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 7.
Trends in Total Income Inequality
Author Manuscript

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Wodtke Page 37
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 8.
Counterfactual Estimates of Total Income Inequality
Author Manuscript

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 1

Decomposition of Trends in Personal Income Inequality

Wodtke

Compositional effect Between-group effect Within-group effect

Period
Est. 95% CI Est. 95% CI Est. 95% CI
Social Class Position
1980s to 1990s –0.04 (–0.06, –0.01) –0.15 (–0.24, –0.08) 1.19 (1.11, 1.28)
1980s to 2000s –0.11 (–0.13, –0.09) 0.18 (0.15, 0.20) 0.94 (0.91, 0.96)
1990s to 2000s –0.10 (–0.13, –0.07) 0.33 (0.29, 0.37) 0.77 (0.73, 0.81)
Social Class Strata
1980s to 1990s 0.02 (–0.01, 0.06) –0.19 (–0.28, –0.11) 1.16 (1.08, 1.25)
1980s to 2000s –0.10 (–0.13, –0.08) 0.29 (0.26, 0.32) 0.81 (0.78, 0.84)
1990s to 2000s –0.16 (–0.20, –0.12) 0.55 (0.50, 0.61) 0.61 (0.56, 0.65)

Notes: Sample includes respondents who are 18 to 65 years old and work full-time in the 1980 to 2010 GSS waves. Results are based on 10 multiple imputation datasets. Confidence intervals are based on
quantiles of 500 bootstrap sample estimates.

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

Page 38
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 2

Goodness of Fit Statistics for Models of Personal Income Distribution

Wodtke

Model Description F-statistic Adj. Rsq AIC BIC

Human capital models
(A) Human capital + demographics N/A 0.32 39187 39571
(B) (A) + social class positions 105.91 *** 0.35 38270 38726

(C) (A) + social class strata 83.24 *** 0.36 37999 38503

Aggregate occupational class models

(D) Aggregate occupational classes N/A 0.15 44229 44445
(E) (D) + social class positions 120.37 *** 0.18 43188 43476

(F) (D) + social class strata 99.28 *** 0.20 42815 43151

Disaggregate occupational class models

(G) Disaggregate occupational classes N/A 0.23 42380 45429
(H) (G) + social class positions 93.65 *** 0.25 41557 44677

(I) (G) + social class strata 80.64 *** 0.27 41212 44381

Human capital + aggregate occupational class models

(J) (A) + (D) N/A 0.35 38111 38688
(K) (J) + social class positions 81.71 *** 0.37 37403 38052

(L) (K) + social class strata 66.77 *** 0.38 37158 37854

AJS. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.

Human capital + disaggregate occupational class models
(M) (A) + (G) N/A 0.39 37300 40709
(N) (M) + social class positions 70.63 *** 0.40 36679 40160

(O) (N) + social class strata 59.66 *** 0.41 36435 39964

Notes: Sample includes respondents who are 18 to 65 years old and work full-time in the 1980 to 2010 GSS waves. The F-statistic tests the hypothesis that all parameters associated with social class are
equal to zero. Results are based on 10 multiple imputation datasets. All models are stratified by decade. Bold font indicates the best fitting model according to each goodness of fit statistic.
*p < 0.05
**p < 0.01, and
***
p < 0.001 for F-test that all social class parameters are equal to zero.
Page 39