Sociological Theories of Low-Wage Work : Theories of Low-Wage Work from Multiple Social Science Perspectives

This review addresses the use of sociological theories in the examination of low-wage work. Due to the vast volume of literature on this topic, only theories that help to explain the dynamics of low-wage work are described, along with the differences and controversies surrounding these theories. These theories are divided into four topic areas related to theories of work, racial and gender theories, immigration theories, and intersectionality theory. The theories of work include different models of wage determination, namely, functional, conflict, and structural models. The review concludes with a conceptual map that illustrates how these theories can inform and guide practice.

Keywords: race; gender; immigration; intersectionality; Low-wage work

The social science discipline of sociology has traditionally focused on the relationships between individuals, communities, and societies to "detect patterns or structures which underlie social life" ([39], p. 7). Given that most adults spend the vast bulk of their time in the workforce, it is not surprising that the theories of work generally, and low-wage work specifically, are abundant in sociological literature. Some of the most universally recognized sociologists, such as Karl Marx, have focused on class inequities in the workplace that arise from differences in pay. Other sociologists have approached low-wage work through the lens of race or gender. Sociological theories emerge from field studies, analysis of historical records, experiments, surveys, and occasionally the lived experiences of the sociologists who are constructing these theories.

This literature review and analysis focuses on sociological theories that expand our understanding of the phenomenon of low-wage work, specifically the causes of low-wage work, rather than the effect of low-wage work on an individual, a family, or a society.[1] These theories can be divided into four categories: theories of work, race and gender, immigration, and intersectionality. The theories of work discuss wage determination in a capitalist society, with particular reference to the functional model, conflict model, and the structural model. The theories on race and gender address the elements of social hierarchy and how they affect the hierarchy of the working world. The immigration theories highlight assimilation and enclave theory, which explain how immigrants integrate themselves into a particular community and how that affects their working lives. Intersectionality theories analyze the combined impact of all of these elements.

Each of the four sections is organized in the following manner: (1) an overview of the theory, (2) the applications of the theory to low-wage work, and (3) a brief description of the critiques of the theories. This review concludes with a discussion of the implications of sociological theory for practice.

This literature review is based on an electronic database search, using the University of California, Berkeley's library system (Melyvl), as well as journal databases, such as Sociological Abstracts and JSTOR. The keywords included "theor*," "low-wage," "minimum wage," and "work" as well as a search of the Sociology of Work section of the Doe Library at the University of California, Berkeley.

As this review demonstrates, no one comprehensive sociological theory of low-wage work exists; in fact, many of the theories conflict with one another and have their own supporters and detractors. However, it is also important to note that this review is not a comprehensive analysis of all possible sociological theories that can be applied to low-wage work. Therefore, it is necessary to restate the scope of this analysis, namely, to select the most relevant sociological theories used to increase our understanding of the causes of low-wage work in the United States today.

In the field of sociology, there is an entire subfield devoted to understanding the organization of work in society and how individuals interact with, impact, and are impacted by the structures of work. This analysis focuses on three different models used to explain how wages (including low wages) are determined in modern society, namely, the functional model, the conflict model, and the structural model.

The functional model refers to the idea that social structures persist because they serve a function, defined as "those observed consequences which make for the adaptation or adjustment of a given system" ([26], p. 50). In addition, the function they serve outweighs whatever dysfunction they cause or exacerbate; dysfunctions are defined as "observed consequences which lessen the adaptation or adjustment of the system" ([26], p. 50). This functional model is used to explain a wide range of structures in society. For example, Merton applied this theory to urban political machines in 1949. He acknowledged that individuals may struggle to perceive the function promoted by a seemingly negative structure. However, he was able to identify some critical functions of the urban political machine (e.g., concretely helping the poor, humanizing an impersonal bureaucracy, and providing a central authority in order to accomplish other necessary tasks). Since no other system was serving these needs (at that point in time), urban political machines could be viewed as functional. He also argued that for a functional structure to be displaced, another structure that serves more functions and fewer dysfunctions will need to be created.

There are two ways that sociologists apply functional theories to low-wage work. First, some argue that pay is set at higher rates for jobs that require more effort and talent or are less desirable as a way to explain the wage differentials ([9]; [28]). Differential rewards are seen as necessary in order to attract enough skilled individuals to fill jobs critical to the functioning of society at large, and low wages are functional as a way to motivate individuals to seek the higher-paying jobs. However, according to this application, the only individuals who should be in those low-wage jobs are those who lack the necessary skills; they will stay in these low-wage jobs until they obtain the skills that could propel them to higher paying jobs. Under this model, the pursuit of higher levels of human capital is necessary to ensure an exit from low-wage work.

To support the functional model, there have been empirical studies conducted where the task complexity and education are shown to be correlated with pay. Despite this evidence, there are a significant number of critics of the functional model who argue that there are a number of non-rational elements to most pay structures currently in effect, such as race, poverty, and differential opportunities for obtaining the necessary skills for higher paying employment. These arguments are often made by Marxist and critical race theorists ([20]).

The second application of functional theory to the world of low-wage work is the proposition that poverty itself is functional to society. [13] identified 15 functions that poverty serves in the American system, including political, economic, and philanthropic functions. Poverty contributes to prices staying relatively low for many services and goods, incentivizes individuals to accept low wages for jobs that are also undesirable, and provides affluent individuals with an outlet for their charitable impulses. Many of these functions could not be easily served by another social structure if poverty was eliminated. In this analysis, low wages are not the result of jobs being more desirable or requiring less skill.

This second application of functional theory complements and contradicts the previous formulation of the functional model by arguing that poverty incentivizes individuals to accept low-wage jobs as a way of preventing themselves from sinking deeper into poverty. [13] argues that although this is dysfunctional for the low-wage workers themselves, it is functional for more affluent individuals. As a result, the more affluent individuals seek to maintain the current wage system. In this formulation (as opposed to the first), there is an additional element: namely, the power of the more affluent individuals in society. As the Marxist sociologists note, if the affluent did not have this power, then those in or near poverty would be able to replace this social structure with one that is more functional for them. The element of power is given more attention in the conflict model.

In contrast to the functional theory, the conflict model focuses largely on perceived dysfunctions in modern society. It emerged from the work of Karl Marx, who perceived two classes of individuals in the capitalist market: the capitalists and the workers, or the bourgeois and the proletariat. The key dimension of Marxist theory is the control over the means of production where the capitalists hold the power as well as the means of production. The contemporary conflict model updates these ideas by focusing on the exercise of power at work, rather than a focus strictly on ownership. The power held by the capitalists does include ownership of the means of production but also includes control over investments and the accumulation of profits as well as control of human capital (the employers' ability to control the training of their employees; [46]).

The conflict model argues that those with power in the workplace (top managers, owners, executives, etc.) exploit the workers by reaping a larger proportion of rewards from the end product than their contributions to the making of that product warrants. This model gets its name from the conflict between the exploiters and the exploited, wherein those at the top of the social hierarchy are able to exploit others for greater financial gain due to their power and are able to retain their power by accumulating more financial capital than the oppressed ([20]). The cyclic structure of the maintenance of power is precisely what makes it difficult to change.

[45] is recognized as the sociologist most responsible for updating Marxist theory for modern times. He identified three different class locations: the bourgeoisie (owners and capitalists), the proletariat (wage earners), and the petty bourgeoisie (the independent business owners, farmers, tradespeople, etc). Contrary to Marx's prediction, the conflict theorists note that while the population of the proletariat did not increase significantly over time, the petty bourgeoisie did increase substantially over time ([36]). Wright also noted the distribution of power in the workplace, where managers, small employers, and semiautonomous employees (who are in conflict with both the bourgeois above them and the proletariat beneath them) have a vested interest in maintaining the oppression of the proletariat, since they are the only source of their power in the workplace.

In conflict theory, power is maintained partially through the de-skilling of labor. Automation and the de-skilling of labor enable the managers and bourgeois to maintain control over the production process because the proletariat workers are unable to complete the production cycle independently. Also, it is relatively inexpensive to train employees in de-skilled jobs. Workers are aware of the ease with which the owners could replace them, making it more difficult for workers to protest poor working conditions or wages because they know that if they do protest or attempt to bargain for higher wages, it would not be difficult for the owners to replace them ([4]).

Marx and neo-Marxists, such as Wright, predicted that class consciousness (an awareness of the differences in power and control) would gradually increase in the proletariat. Marx went so far as to say that the increased class consciousness would lead the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeois. However, the only class that has consistently been shown to have a strong class consciousness is the upper-bourgeois class ([7]). Low-wage earners have less of a class consciousness, which thereby undermines the revolutionary predictions of conflict theory. The conflict model is helpful in highlighting the very real power differential between low-wage workers and those for whom they work. It also illuminates some of the mechanisms by which that power differential is maintained.

It is important to note that not all of traditional proletariat are necessarily low-wage workers; many of the low-wage workers have organized to pursue a living wage. Living wage proponents have built their arguments on the conflict model in order to end low-wage work in America by establishing a "living" minimum wage indexed to housing costs in an area, so that no individuals working 40 hours a week would pay more than 30% of their income toward housing costs. The conflict model supports this idea for two reasons: (1) Since it may increase the costs of production, there would be less excess profit for the bourgeois and would weaken their power over the proletariat; and (2) such a radical change in pay rates is possible only if low-wage laborers realize their potential power and utilize it ([25]). Obviously, nationwide implementation of a living wage would drastically alter the conversation around low-wage work.

There are three main critiques of the conflict model: (1) Many of its predictions have not come true (e.g., the rise in the class consciousness of the proletariat and the subsequent rejection of the bourgeois has not occurred; [7]; [20]); (2) its single focus on power does not adequately address individual performance or ability as a relevant factor in determining wages ([20]); and (3) focus on social class alone does not adequately address the issues of gender and race ([11]).

While both the functional and the conflict models have relatively long histories in sociological thought, neither of these models takes into account the multiple elements of wage determinants. As a result, the structural approach has been developing over the past few decades to address the weaknesses of both theories ([20]).

While the structural model acknowledges the role of conflict and functional theories in determining wage levels (e.g., higher levels of capital as found in the conflict model contribute to work force expansion, but worker performance as found in the functional model does impact one's wages), it is clear that the structure of an organization can truly impact wages. Some organizations allow for greater fluidity between positions whereas others are more rigidly hierarchical. Furthermore, some organizations are more invested in developing the skills of their workers than others. This rarely alters the immediate impact of a low-wage job, but it may lead to higher-paying jobs in the future. Higher wages resulting from such staff development illustrate functional theory. Furthermore, theorists use the idea of "job ladders" to explain the opportunities available to an individual with any given job, arguing that there are a limited number of opportunities available for promotion based on that entrance level. For example, individuals who begin as clerical workers are unlikely to progress to an administrative job; instead, any promotions that they receive will likely be higher rankings on the clerical ladder ([10]). Although Stewman (1986) illustrates that some organizations present workers with more flexibility in changing job ladders, most organizations operate with set structures. Limiting the options of workers who enter at one level—only low-wage jobs—can be seen as reinforcing the power model in the workplace as explained by the conflict model. In contrast, organizations that promote staff development and also use job ladders for advancement may allow for some movement up the job ladders when workers obtain more skills through the opportunities presented to them.

The structural model can be applied to low-wage work in a number of ways. First, it is helpful to conceive of the functional and conflict models working at the same time, rather than in opposition to each other, as they have traditionally been placed. Understanding that each organizational structure has to be analyzed separately for its helpful, harmful, or even mixed actions toward low-wage workers is necessary for understanding the workplace environments of low-wage workers. Second, it is the only model that incorporates the structure of organizations as an important factor for supporting the movement of low-wage workers out of low-wage jobs. For example, a low-wage worker working in a fast-food chain with limited opportunity for promotion has an entirely different opportunity structure than another low-wage worker in an organization that is known for its internal advancement opportunities and staff development. The structural model provides a more comprehensive approach to understanding the behaviors of low-wage workers and their social environment.

Sociologists have long been interested in the varying experiences of racial and gender groups. Clearly, there are differential outcomes for minority individuals compared to Whites in terms of income, as well as for females compared to males. Both of these theories argue that differences in the labor market arise from structural and ideological oppression of a socially constructed group in society. In addition, the two theories illustrate different mechanisms by which this oppression operates in the low-wage marketplace.

Sociologist Edna Bonacich (1972) proposed a slightly modified version of the conflict theory, one where race and ethnicity play a critical role, called the split labor markets theory. This theory states that there are two labor groups: one that is willing to accept significantly lower rates of pay for the same job and the other that is a well-established labor force unwilling to work for low wages. The group willing to accept lower rates of pay is often an ethnic or racial group that has been and/or is currently being oppressed by mainstream society. Bonacich's initial formulation focused on Blacks as the oppressed group; however, other sociologists have focused on the oppression of Latinos (e.g., [21]) and Asians (e.g., [38]). The higher-paid group of workers is consistently White. The split between workers creates a three-class system: business or employers, higher-paid workers, and cheaper labor. Each group has a different motive that causes them conflict with the other groups; namely, businesses want "cheap and docile" labor ([3], p. 553), higher-paid workers want to keep both their jobs and their wages, and cheaper labor lacks the resources to resist the underpayment offered by the businesses.[2] It is important to note that both businesses and higher-paid workers intentionally act against the other groups in an antagonistic manner to weaken them while cheaper labor generally does not wish to act against the higher-paid workers and lacks the power to act against the businesses. Nonetheless, cheaper labor does weaken the position of the higher-paid workers by simply existing as a potential labor pool. Under this theory, the power differential causes high rates of racial antagonism as measured by various types of intergroup conflict.

Bonacich argued that the higher-paid workers, if they had enough power, had two methods of preventing their wages from being lowered: exclusion and caste. Exclusion exists when the higher-paid workers are able to, through legislation or otherwise, prevent a group of low-wage workers from entering their work territory. For example, Arizona and other states are enacting stronger immigration laws that can facilitate this exclusion.

Caste method assumes that the cheaper labor pool is already present and available to employers. Caste systems result when higher-paid workers are able to create two separate employment classes, one that is only open to the higher-paid workers and one that is available to the cheaper labor population. Bonacich cites the post-bellum South as an example: African Americans' were excluded from opportunities to apply for higher-paying jobs and were therefore forced to take lower-paying jobs. Also, women were long subjected to a caste system in the United States by being barred from certain levels of education and occupations[3] (1972).

The split labor market theory can be applied to low-wage work in two ways, depending on which group is currently holding power. If the businesses and employers are in possession of most of the power, they will be able to hire cheaper labor at very low wages. However, if the higher-paid labor pool has enough power to implement either caste or exclusion tactics, then the cheaper labor is left with three options: (1) accepting the low-caste jobs, (2) not moving to the United States, or (3) being forced into the secondary labor market as illegal immigrants. Regardless of which group has power in the situation, cheaper labor is still unable to obtain higher wages and is stuck in a work world structured to prevent them from progressing economically.

The most well-known critique of split labor market theory comes from [43], who states that it is an outdated theory that uses information from a different era and that it completely ignores antidiscrimination laws. He argues that Black labor is no longer seen as a cheaper pool of labor by employers and that higher-paid workers are unable to implement caste systems, due to the civil rights laws passed in the 1960s. Other individual factors (e.g., deindustrialization and a mismatch of skills needed by the labor market and the current skills possessed by Blacks) and structural factors (historical oppression in housing and education) are more important explanations for the overrepresentation of Blacks in poverty ([44]).

Feminist sociology began as an offshoot of conflict theory where gender alone is viewed as a source of power used by males. Feminist theory argues that gender is used as a social construct to create differences in social hierarchy. Feminists reject the notion that biology is the determining factor for the differences in social standing between males and females in terms of rights, employment, education, and societal norms. Instead, they argue that the patriarchy has perpetuated the idea of biology as destiny in order to maintain power. Among the many topics of interest to feminist sociologists, inequities in work and pay structures led to the theory of sex segregation.

In 1968, Gross introduced the idea that occupations were largely segregated by gender. Sex segregation theory argues that although there may not be laws forbidding females from performing certain jobs, cultural factors make certain jobs harder for females to obtain. These cultural factors range from societal disapproval of women in "male" occupations to either conscious or unconscious discrimination in hiring practices. Sociologists have identified the fact that the jobs with the highest concentration of females are also the jobs that are most closely associated with traditionally female characteristics (e.g., a caring nature, docility, less physical strength, and an unwillingness to supervise employees; [2]). Sex segregation theorists argue that occupational segregation is harmful both to the economy (in that it wastes valuable resources and contributes to greater market rigidity) as well as to individual females, who are prevented from accessing occupations that may fit their needs and talents ([31]). Females are further harmed by the reinforcement of stereotypes produced by occupational segregation ([2]). Sex segregation has decreased substantially since Gross introduced this idea; however, this decrease has slowed in the 1990s, and the disparity between jobs and genders is still large; over 50% of females need to change occupations in order to achieve complete gender parity ([41]).

In terms of low-wage work, sex segregation theory argues that the higher the concentration of females in an occupation or, the more "feminine" the nature of a job, the more it will contribute to its lower pay. Therefore, the connection between care work and women is a major contributing factor to the low wages earned by most care workers, whether they are male or female. [19] argue that the lower wages are at least partially the result of the undervaluing of the emotive work required of female jobs; since emotive work is difficult to measure on performance evaluations or economic outcomes, this critical factor is ignored by those setting wages. Therefore, individuals employed in female jobs are under-compensated relative to the value of their work. [18] also identified the undervaluing of female professions as one of the major contributors to the wage gap between males and females.

In addition to compensation, female occupations generally offer less training and fewer opportunities for promotions ([14]). This creates barriers for moving out of the world of low-wage work. Therefore, individuals entering the work world with similarly low pay rates may have different long-term outcomes, depending on whether or not it is a female or male occupation.

Critics of sex segregation, particularly neoclassical economists, argue that the difference in pay for jobs reflecting a higher concentration of females or males occurs for the following three reasons: (1) Variances in educational rates between males and females result in divergent levels of human capital, resulting in different job opportunities; (2) women's responsibility for housework and child care causes them to seek out occupations with greater flexibility, even at the cost of lower pay; and (3) women are a higher-cost labor group for employers, due to their higher rates of absenteeism and turnover ([2]). These economists do not argue that women should be responsible for housework and child care but simply that they still are.

In summary, the theories related to labor markets and sex segregation illustrate how oppressed groups (minorities or females) are subjected to reduced opportunities and lower wages. However, the mechanism by which that oppression is experienced is different. Using split labor market theory, the oppressed group is unable to obtain higher-paying jobs and, therefore, needs to accept low wages. In sex segregation theory, women are often only able to obtain jobs for which they have been socialized and are more likely to be offered lower wages because of discrimination or because emotive work is easily discounted.

In addition to the theories presented above, immigration status is a major factor for many low-wage workers. Regardless of whether one migrates legally or illegally, immigrants frequently enter the United States with low levels of human capital (e.g., language proficiency) thereby limiting their job opportunities. For those who do enter illegally, their job opportunities are even more restricted. Many sociologists concerned with immigration and low-wage work have utilized the assimilation model and the enclave model to debate the different perspectives on understanding the dynamics of immigration.

The two elements of assimilation theory are cultural and structural, and they are often tied together. Cultural assimilation occurs when immigrants adapt to their new society by slowly giving up elements of their old culture (language, traditions, etc.) and adopt the characteristics of their host culture. Cultural assimilation can be measured in terms of language acquisition, rates of intermarriage, and birthrate (especially for immigrants moving to countries with substantially different birth rates than the country of origin; [16]).

In contrast with cultural assimilation, structural assimilation is the degree to which immigrants and their descendants are integrated into the economic and political structures of the host country. In the past, sociologists have linked cultural and structural assimilation by arguing that increased cultural assimilation into a society can lead to achieving increased economic parity in that society. However, in the case of Latino immigrants, cultural assimilation has not necessarily led to economic parity. Many of the assimilation theorists are now arguing that immigrants may not be able to achieve full structural assimilation ([12]).

Assimilation theory informs our understanding of immigrant low-wage work where most immigrants arriving in the United States are employed in low-wage occupations due to discrimination on the part of the native citizens, limited skills, and lack of language proficiency. Until recently, assimilation theorists have viewed low-wage work as a temporary phenomenon that will be overcome by future generations as in the case with White ethnic immigrants ([24]; [42]). However, the tie between cultural and structural assimilation has been broken as Latino immigrants are taking much longer to culturally assimilate than was needed by previous ([42]) immigrants, and the delayed cultural assimilation, when achieved, has not led to structural assimilation. However, theorists still argue that there is a certain level of structural assimilation that can be reached through cultural assimilation ([12]).

The major critique of assimilation theory is that cultural assimilation does not lead to structural assimilation and, therefore, has limited predictive capacity regarding the future outcomes of immigrant families. In response to this critique, some sociologists have presented a different point of view in the form of enclave theory.

According to enclave theory, most of the United States is divided into enclaves in the form of cities, towns, and neighborhoods where individuals of a certain ethnicity or lifestyle choose to cluster together. While older enclave theory suggested that these communities needed to be self-sufficient to qualify as enclaves, the theory has been expanded recently to include communities that are predominantly populated by individuals with a unifying characteristic that influences the services and goods available as well as the cultural traditions ([1]). In these enclaves, immigrants are able to receive adequate compensation for their work that may be denied to them in the broader labor market and are more likely to find opportunities for advancements and even co-ownership of small businesses ([1]; [30]).

Enclave theory provides a more comprehensive view of low-wage work among immigrants compared to assimilation theory. For example, if an immigrant enclave is prosperous enough, the enclave may serve as a viable alternative to the world of low-wage work where local businesses are more likely to hire immigrants from that community, regardless of documentation, and may be willing to pay substantially more than employers outside of the enclave. They also may provide different working conditions than other employers; for example, in a Chinese American enclave in New York City, an employer brought her employees tea every afternoon and drove them home at the end of the day, while paying them below minimum wage ([1], p. 70). Although the low wages were still a problem, the workers expressed much greater job satisfaction as a result of being cared for by their employer. Another benefit of working in enclaves is that community members may be willing to supplement the income of the low-wage worker families at times of extreme need. Finally, the increased opportunities for promotion in enclaves may increase the chances for exit from the world of low-wage work.

However, there are also ways in which an enclave may be less beneficial for low-wage immigrant workers. There is no guarantee that business owners in the enclave will provide higher wages or better working conditions; in fact, in many of the enclaves, the owners can be more exploitive than non-enclave employers. Employees are even less able to speak out against these exploitive conditions because they may risk losing community ties that are necessary for survival ([29]). Also, many of the employers pay workers in cash to avoid tax issues. This can have a negative impact on a worker's ability to apply for loans and build a credit history, thereby impeding their ability to access higher wage work ([1]). Therefore, enclaves serve both as support systems for low-wage workers as well a form of "house arrest" that may be even more difficult to escape than the larger world of low-wage work.

The major critique of enclave theory is that it is limited in its explanatory power, especially since enclaves have not necessarily become self-sufficient. Now, as neighborhoods are becoming slightly more integrated, enclave theory is again evolving away from ethnic identity toward lifestyle choices. The constantly evolving nature of enclave theory is cited as both a strength and a limitation due to the constant need for revision.

One of the major critiques of the race, conflict, and feminist theory is that they all ignore elements that are critical to determining power hierarchies by focusing exclusively on one element of socially constructed identity. Intersectionality theory, on the other hand, argues that it is impossible to conceive of an individual's position within the hierarchy without considering the dynamic interaction of class, gender, race, and immigration status ([27]). Intersectionality initially emerged from Black and multiracial feminist sociologists who argued that traditional feminist-sociology-critiquing stereotypes of women as being weak and passive ignored the experience of African American women who were also being stereotyped but in substantially different ways (e.g., the welfare queen, the asexual servant, or the hypersexual being; [8]). These initial intersectionalist theories focused on the interaction between race and gender and eventually evolved to include social class and immigration status ([6]).

This theory has been applied to low-wage work in terms of how individuals who occupy a lower position in the social hierarchy experience differential outcomes in the world of work. For example, intersectionalist theory operates when upper-class, White females who can access relatively high-paying jobs (due, in part, to higher amounts of human capital and the perception that White females are more professional) are able to work in these jobs by paying minority (often Latina) women relatively low wages to perform care work in their homes and, therefore, are able to enjoy the higher income generated by the difference in pay between the White and Latina females ([6]).

While most intersectionalist theorists agree that understanding the various elements of an individual's identity is necessary to see how they contribute to one's position in society, there are many disagreements about how the intersection impacts an individual. First, there is the debate between the "multiple risk/multiple jeopardy" sociologists about the impact of risk factors that individuals possess (i.e., being Black and female as opposed to Black and male) and the negative outcomes associated with their status. Furthermore, this increase in risk factor is not only the sum of the combined disadvantages ([34]) but also the product of them (creating far higher risk than would be expected if one simply combined the two factors) ([23]). For example, Black and Latina females consistently earn less than Whites of either gender or than Black or Latino males (Browne, 1999). However, others argue that Black males are at higher risk than Black females because they pose a greater threat to the employment of White males and, therefore, are the subject of more onerous forms of oppression ([35]). These hypotheses have not been as empirically supported as has the research of multiple risk-multiple jeopardy sociologists ([6]).

Another question in the field is whether or not intersection always occurs, and if it does, does it always occur equally. Some theorists argue that there are times when either one element of an individual's social identity (such as social class) is more salient than others and thereby more strongly predictive of outcomes ([15]). In contrast, others argue that intersectionality occurs all the time ([8]). Kilbourne, England, and Beron (1994) present a nuanced view of intersectionality by arguing that gender and race are separate but related in the labor market.

Another debate in the field relates to the role of the individuals at the top of the social hierarchy, who appear to consciously create and support this social hierarchy by using the power granted to them by their position at the top ([40]). Others argue that many of the assumptions about an individual's identity are so pervasive in society today that they are unconscious for the most part ([32]). This is perhaps the most difficult of the debates to resolve due to challenges emerging from empirically testing these hypotheses.

[33] offers an outsider's critique by arguing that intersectionalist theory focuses on similarity of outcomes (oppression) but ignores the differences in history that produced those outcomes. She notes that intersectionality is not sufficient for understanding the causes of oppression. The analysis of the racial and gender theories suggests that there are significant differences in promoting an understanding of low-wage work.

Based on the array of sociological theories available to increase our understanding of low-wage work, it is clear that low-wage work involves individual, community, and societal factors. In essence, an understanding of low-wage work can be built by taking into account all of these theories in order to avoid what [33] calls "theory slaying" that can lead to a one-dimensional view of the low-wage work.

As the conceptual map in Figure 1 illustrates, these theories can inform practice as a way to address the impact of low-wage work on an individual, community, or society. This categorization of theories can help guide future actions by highlighting what are potential avenues for change and what societal structures pose barriers to this change. Below is a discussion of some concrete examples of this division.

With respect to working with individual low-wage workers, the functional, assimilation, and structural theories suggest avenues for change. For example, solutions for helping low-wage workers include (1) aiding the individual in gaining more human capital through education or training opportunities (functional model), (2) assisting the individual with gaining the necessary language skills to further assimilate into the world of work (assimilation theory), and (3) providing career guidance by analyzing the structures of organizations to see which provide the most opportunities for advancement (structural theory).

Graph: FIGURE 1 Theories informing practice.

At the community level, enclave theory can also suggest the avenues for change. For example, increasing community economic development with respect to local businesses can lead to better outcomes for low-wage workers in the community since those business owners may offer the workers higher-paying jobs than they could find elsewhere in the community.

Addressing persistent inequalities in class, race, or gender is a potential avenue for change at the policy level. Social policies that address long-standing forms of oppression can help a large number of low-wage workers. To do so, understanding the source of the oppression and who has a vested interested in maintaining the current social hierarchy is vital to produce change. For example, the living wage campaign illustrates how conflict theory can inform public policy. Likewise, understanding the current structures in place to maintain a split labor market (exclusion and caste) can lead to the formulation of policies for addressing this inequality (e.g., immigrant amnesty and affirmative action programs).

Although these theories suggest avenues for change, the same theories also illustrate potential barriers. At the individual level, theories related to conflict, racial, gender, and intersectionality can illuminate the structures of oppression that can impede the individuals in their attempts to obtain a higher-paying job. For example, sex segregation theory suggests that most of the emotive work performed by individuals in care giving jobs goes unrecognized. Providing low-wage workers with the language to express the value of the emotive work so that they can better advocate for themselves for higher wages is one way to navigate around this barrier.

The potential barriers at the community level involve systems of oppression that can cause entire communities to suffer, especially given that most neighborhoods or towns are still largely segregated by both class and race. Understanding the shared experiences of such a community is necessary when exploring methods to help the community improve itself. Since many current social structures operate to maintain impoverished communities by maintaining the current power structure, it is important to understand the origins of barriers to change and the impact on the local communities.

The theories of intersectionality and functionality are those that best illuminate the barriers at the societal level. Intersectionality theory can inform policy making by noting that any changes in public policy that benefit one group may result in harming another due to the interaction of the various elements of the social hierarchy. Gans's (1972) analysis of functional theory also must be noted in order to anticipate opposition to policy changes. A structure that is more functional for the society at large may be opposed by individuals who are benefiting disproportionately from the current structure; the opposing individuals are also more likely to be in positions of power to ensure that change does not occur.

Sociological theory helps to make explicit the various factors that support the existence of low-wage work in a way that can guide future action. By identifying the factors that impact, impede, or help the low-wage work and low-wage workers, we can increase our understanding of the issues and changes needed to address the needs and opportunities of the low-wage workers in our community, state, and nation.