posted
I just read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. I know it's about 5 years old, but I just got around to checking it out and reading it.
It was an amazing book. Has anyone else read it? It made me so angry by the end of it. It fell right into line with what we were talking about in another thread about minimum wage workers not being able to afford places to rent--anywhere in the country. That was her biggest problem. Whether the solution is in raising wages or lowering rents, I don't know.
But the point is that it made me angry and gave me a deep desire to do my part to change things. I had fantasies about owning a fabulous hotel, where I provided awesome accomodations for the staff in the first floors of the hotel, with benefits and good pay. Basically, the rich foot the bill for the privilege of staying in an amazing hotel, and the workers get paid a living wage with good housing. Also, the workers and I would stress helping others--really try to make a difference throughout the city. I, of course, don't have the money to build anything like that, so I had to keep thinking.
I also thought that it would be great to educate the workers about their rights, the law, and wages. I'd do detective work to let people know that down the street at Target, you can make $2 more than you are at Wal-Mart. (That's something Ehrenreich pointed out--people don't know that they're receiving a too-low wage. Even though it is illegal for them to keep employees from discussing their wages, they find other ways to keep them silent.) Many times, workers don't know their rights about taking breaks, and lunches, and the fact that it is okay to pee on company time. There's more to be educated about, and Ehrenreich's book points a lot of it out.
Many poor people pay more to live in skanky motels than they would in an apartment, but can't afford the deposit and the first and last months rent. Maybe there's a way to organize help there.
Much of this, I hope, is already being done. But not enough. I want to help.
And finally, I realized that going back to teaching IS helping. Because education isn't an answer that always works to conquer poverty, but it sure does help. Maybe my teaching will help. Maybe how active I am in school and community programs will help.
Maybe I'll inherit money and be able to build my hotel.
She points out that people don't realize that the poverty problem is so bad because employment is so high. Well, many of those people are underemployed and some are even homeless.
What is to be done?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many poor people pay more to live in skanky motels than they would in an apartment, but can't afford the deposit and the first and last months rent. Maybe there's a way to organize help there.
The best bet here is a pooling arrangement. Over a large number of tenants, the security deposits exceed total damages. It would be possible for tenants to "buy" insurance (not a refundable deposit) that would cover their security deposit. The pooling entity would guarantee certain amounts of damages to landlords and would be responsible for pursuing tenants who cause damages.
If the organization was reliable enough, it might be a way to leverage pooled resources to eliminate the hurdle of deposits and first/last month rents.
It would also provide a pool of expertise to stop landlord's from chiseling security deposits.
Getting landlords to accept it would be difficult. Change always causes suspicion, and many landlords have no trouble finding tenants with deposits.
Perhaps if the agency took care of advertising and tenant screening. In exchange, the landlord would agree to accept security from the pooling organization.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:many landlords have no trouble finding tenants with deposits.
That's another good point brought up in the book. The poor people are competing for housing with the rich/middle-income people. The people in the service positions need to work among the upper classes, but have to live farther away, which makes transportation a real problem.
That's an interesting and good idea for an agency. Has it been done before, or did you think it up?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read a large exceprt of that book for my Sociology class last year (about a third of the book), and I remember getting pretty angry by the end of that. I've been meaning to go find a copy of it since, but never really got around to it... and I like that pooling idea Dagonee, but I don't really see what the landlords are getting out of it. I mean isn't it better for them to have more wealthy people living in their buildings (as they could presumably charge more)?
Posts: 187 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
She had a one-woman play based on the book. . . I wanted to see it while it was here, but didn't make it. (My city was one of the ones she worked in.) She has a new one out now where she tried to get a mid-level management type job. I've read excerpts of both, but not all of either.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I checked the new one out, too, but I haven't read it yet.
Do you live in the real town she went to, or the one she said she went to in her book? I thought that she changed the locations to protect privacy or something. Or maybe she just said she did.. Or maybe she didn't after all...
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Nickel & Dimed was a very poorly thought out experiment, and a poorly thought out story.
From an Amazon.com spotlight review:
quote:You see, one of the most distinctive things about the book is that Ehrenreich creates a fictional version of herself. She has to minimize her experience when she goes for interviews, has to disguise her true mission from co-workers and supervisors, has to (mostly) reign in her radical political views, etc. But even more, she is a completely atomized being with no family and no friends. This both makes her character in the book completely unrealistic and leaves her to spend all her time fixating on herself. Both are unfortunate. The lack of friends and family merely serves to point out what an utter impossibility it is for society to help people who have absolutely no support system of their own. One of her main problems is the cost of rent--which must be recognized as a significant problem for a society that expects people to be able to afford living quarters near the hot economies that are producing jobs. But it seems abundantly obvious that rent would be less of a problem if she was splitting it with a roommate, friend, or family member. In fact, this is so obvious that her endless complaining abut her rent loses its effectiveness because we realize how easy a problem this would be to alleviate.
I worked at a Radioshack for about 7 months - which is a minimum wage job, plus commision that averages to about $0.70/hour - and I had zero problems affording rent, utilities, food (healthy, fresh foods, not fast food value menu items three meals a day), a girlfriend (which, since she was living with me, meant I was paying for her food, not to mention occasionally paying her credit card bills, plus all the standard girlfriend expenses), and still had enough left over to buy a 36" tv, two sound systems, computer upgrades, a monthly bus pass, go out every weekend, keep the fridge stocked with beer, etc. etc. etc.
How? Easy: I wasn't living by myself. I was living with four other people in a five bedroom house (a huge five bedroom house, with more than enough room for everyone - this house could easily have supported twice that many people). I wasn't living far away, either: my commute to work was a two minute walk.
If you're going to try to work minimum wage jobs, you don't get to afford having a place all to yourself. Apparently Barbara Ehrenreich (and perhaps most of America) is under the very mistaken impression that that's the "standard," even though any unskilled worker or college student can tell you that's not the case.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in Minneapolis. As I understand it, she went to three different towns, and this was one of them for real.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, maybe it should be the standard. And living with others is not always an option.
And really, the most telling part of the book is what she revealed about the people she worked with. She pointed out time and time again that the only reason they had a place to stay is because they were living with someone else, and had someone to share expenses with. She makes the point that the type of person who has it the hardest is the single mother who has to support more than just herself on one income.
What's annoying is that Ehrenreich points out all of those problems with her experiment in the first part of the book. Everyone thinks they're soooo clever for pointing it out.
No. The points she's making still stand, and good for you for being able to make it--but living with someone is NOT always an option. And having your own home/place to live sure as hell should be the standard.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Minneapolis was the last place she went, unless she changed the city name for some reason. It's also the place that she never found a place to live other than hotels.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's annoying is that Ehrenreich points out all of those problems with her experiment in the first part of the book. Everyone thinks they're soooo clever for pointing it out.
No one had pointed it out here yet, and just because Ehrenreich acknowledges the problems with her experiment doesn't make the experiment any less bad.
quote:No. The points she's making still stand, and good for you for being able to make it--but living with someone is NOT always an option. And it sure as hell should be the standard.
And while I agree that it (being able to live alone) SHOULD be the standard, it isn't. All I said in my original post is:
1) Ehrenreich's experiment was poorly thought out. You pointed out that she agrees with the evidence that this is the case.
2) Ehrenreich and possibly most of America are under the mistaken impression that having your own place is the standard for unskilled workers, when it is not.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was living with four other people in a five bedroom house (a huge five bedroom house, with more than enough room for everyone - this house could easily have supported twice that many people).
This would have been illegal in Lawrence Kansas, where more than two unrelated adults are not allowed to share a roof.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Well, I don't agree that it was poorly thought out. Just because living alone isn't the standard doesn't mean that there aren't people who out of necessity have to do it that way. Also, there were lots of people living TOGETHER, and they still couldn't afford an apartment and lived in motels. It's not supposed to be scientific--she can't live as a real poor person could. Often, she lived better because she started out with an allotment of money. And at one point, she did stay at a friend's apartment, babysitting their bird. It was temporary, though, and she still looked for a place of her own. Not everybody has people they can live with. She also points out that since she knows she's going back to her comfortable lifestyle that the experiment can't have the same weight. But it doesn't matter. She lived among the people who had to live like that every day. She laid out the expenses vs. income problem and what life is like for those who work the minimum wage and $7/hour jobs. She lets those of us who are making it know what life is like for those people who flip our burgers and make up our beds (whether in our own home or in our hotel room). You can talk all day about how it wasn't a perfect experiment, but that doesn't make the experience any less real--especially of what she shares about her coworkers.
2. No. It's probably more accurate to say that Ehrenreich and those who read her book USED TO BE under the mistaken impression that having your own place is the standard. By the end of her book, it's clear that she sees that in order for the very poor to be able to have shelter, they have to team up. If they don't, they end up living in motel rooms and from their cars. And her readers will see that, too. So she didn't know before she did her experiment... so what?? She knew after, and that was the whole point.
Her book reveals a lot about the way the very poor live. It clears up a lot of those mistaken impressions. And it, hopefully, brings the problems to the attention of those able to help.
So what's the point of criticizing her?? What's so bad about her experiment? Do you deny that there's a serious problem when someone can work hard full-time and still not be able to have basic shelter, clothing, and food??
Have you even read the book?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But even more, she is a completely atomized being with no family and no friends. This both makes her character in the book completely unrealistic . . .
Actually, it doesn't. One of the things characterizes "poor" people in America is that they tend to not have a lot of relationships that aren't service provider/client. People who have a support system of family and friends are more likely to be able to share expenses and help each other out in crisis situations. They also have built in networks for finding new jobs and finding less expensive goods and services. And therefore are less likely to get caught in a cycle of poverty and less likely to end up homeless.
Which is why some of the most effective programs for helping people get off and stay off welfare involve developing networks of friends and community relationships rather than just job training.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention the fact that this thread was supposed to be about ways to help, not to be a critique of her book. Her book is what got me fired up on the topic. Looks like it served its purpose in MY life.
I believe there are serious problems... you seem to be suggesting that it's not a problem, just as long as you live with 4 other people. Since, you know, married couples just LOOOVE that communal living, especially if they have children.
I'm sitting here and am baffled more and more that your solution is just that you need to live with other people. What sort of world do you live in where that is always an option? How is having a one-family home some sort of privilege just for the middle-class and up??
So you just think we should accept that they have to live together, 4 people to a 1 bed motel room (yes, she talked about people living like that, too)? That because it's necessary and STANDARD, that it's somehow okay?? And since her book starts from the standpoint that it's not standard and not okay, and ends with the view that it, unfortunately, is standard, that we should suddenly decide that it's okay, too?
What are all these people whining about anyway, right? If you can make it, surely anybody can. And get all sorts of toys, just like you. All they need to do is split expenses 5 ways. That will solve everything.
Ersomniac, while I think you make a good point, it's not always possible to find four dependable roommates who won't destroy things, can be depended on to do their share of house chores, pay their rent on time, etc. If you have children, it gets even harder.
Am I saying it's impossible? No. However, let me ask you this--if people could do it, and thereby be able to live comfortably and afford many things they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford, why wouldn't they?
While there is some truth that some poor people are poor because of bad choices, and that they 'choose', or have chosen, to be poor, it's not always true, and it doesn't mean that there aren't some things in the 'system' that help perpetuate poverty needlessly.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And while I agree that it (being able to live alone) SHOULD be the standard
Please stop inferring that I am in any way okay with the standard for quality of living for unskilled workers. Just stop. Stop.
quote:So what's the point of criticizing her?? What's so bad about her experiment? Do you deny that there's a serious problem when someone can work hard full-time and still not be able to have basic shelter, clothing, and food??
Both her experiment and her book are what I call "least common denominator fodder" - that is, they use unsupported emotional arguments to try to sway others to their viewpoint. Michael Moore does the same thing, and I hate his work, even when I agree with it. Given your reactions to my posts, I'd say you're exactly the kind of person people like Ehrenreich and Moore are targetting. My point in criticizing the book is to express my viewpoint: that people shouldn't read the book, because it isn't worth reading.
And yes, I have read the book. Hence my determination to ensure no one else does.
quote:Not to mention the fact that this thread was supposed to be about ways to help, not to be a critique of her book. Her book is what got me fired up on the topic. Looks like it served its purpose in MY life.
Yep.
quote:I believe there are serious problems... you seem to be suggesting that it's not a problem, just as long as you live with 4 other people. Since, you know, married couples just LOOOVE that communal living, especially if they have children.
Again, you're missing the point. My example was to show how unrealistic HER experimental living decisions were, not the decisions of the general unskilled laboring public.
quote:Not to mention the fact that this thread was supposed to be about ways to help, not to be a critique of her book.
I'm sorry, this IS Hatrack, right? I didn't accidentally post in a forum where thread derailments never happen, right? I'm sorry that you decided to turn this into the primary topic of conversation in your own thread, but I didn't expect quite so vehement a reaction.
quote:I'm sitting here and am baffled more and more that your solution is just that you need to live with other people. What sort of world do you live in where that is always an option? How is having a one-family home some sort of privilege just for the middle-class and up??
No. The way it stands now, it's a privilege for those who can afford it, which typically excludes unskilled laborers. There are a lot of privileges for those who can afford them: the ability to choose where and how you live is one of them.
quote:What are all these people whining about anyway, right? If you can make it, surely anybody can. And get all sorts of toys, just like you. All they need to do is split expenses 5 ways. That will solve everything.
I'm going to say it one more time, just to make sure you catch it: stop. If you'd actually take the time to read what I posted instead of just getting angry that someone doesn't agree with you, you'd realize that we're on the same side, the methodology is just different.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Ersomniac, while I think you make a good point, it's not always possible to find four dependable roommates who won't destroy things, can be depended on to do their share of house chores, pay their rent on time, etc. If you have children, it gets even harder.
Am I saying it's impossible? No. However, let me ask you this--if people could do it, and thereby be able to live comfortably and afford many things they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford, why wouldn't they?
See my above response: my post was a critique of Ehrenreich. I am in NO WAY suggesting that it is feasible (or even possible) for every unskilled worker, especially those with families, to take advantage of communal housing.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I guess I'm gonna need to think about it, since I often say that people who are arguing are often on the same side, but are using different words. I'm sorry I got nasty.
I still don't understand why you wouldn't want people to read the book. I also don't see how her living conditions were so unrealistic. Maybe not common, but surely she's not the only one without a support system and people to live with.
Michael Moore twists the facts to fit his own version of the truth. I just don't see that with Ehrenreich.
The most valuable thing I saw in the book was what she wrote about the people she met. They were the real thing.
If that book is too emotional, what do you suggest instead?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm wondering what would have made her experiment a better and more realistic one? How should she have done it?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don’t think the book is meant to be an “experiment” in the scientific sense. It’s meant to put a face on working poverty for people who have been unaware or never really thought about the problem. And it sounds like in at least one case it was successful.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I guess I'm gonna need to think about it, since I often say that people who are arguing are often on the same side, but are using different words. I'm sorry I got nasty.
Thanks. I'm sorry I did, too.
<insert Kodak moment>
quote:I still don't understand why you wouldn't want people to read the book. I also don't see how her living conditions were so unrealistic. Maybe not common, but surely she's not the only one without a support system and people to live with.
quote:If that book is too emotional, what do you suggest instead?
I'd rather have people open their eyes to the people around them and draw their own conclusions. Maybe it's just where I live (Seattle), but I see and interact with people in situations like ones in Nickel & Dimed on a daily basis: people who are working two or three low-paying jobs to provide for a family or raise their standard of living, homeless people everywhere who exhibit every possible reason for being homeless in the first place, mentally handicapped people who work at Safeway bagging groceries & pushing carts for minimum wage because that's the only job they're skilled enough for. It doesn't take much effort to get to know them, and when you do know them, books like Ehrenreich's become unnecessary.
I object to books like Ehrenreich's because they try to do all your thinking for you - and it usually goes unnoticed if you agree with the basic opinion. Ehrenreich's book is especially dangerous to me in this regard, because so many people DO agree with her basic opinion: that there's a problem with the disparity between the standard of living and the minimum wage in this country.
It poises people at an emotional precipice, ready to dive off head first into whatever comes next without thinking about it, because their thinking has been done for them in the first place.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm wondering what would have made her experiment a better and more realistic one? How should she have done it?
I actually don't think there's an experiment that would have been better: I think no experiment at all would have been best. Ehrenreich could have accomplished the same thing by interviewing enough of the right people, but chose to do it this way for shock value and pseudo-credibility.
quote:I don’t think the book is meant to be an “experiment” in the scientific sense. It’s meant to put a face on working poverty for people who have been unaware or never really thought about the problem. And it sounds like in at least one case it was successful.
This is the same reasoning people have for defending Michael Moore's movies, and while I agree that it's certainly true, I still don't like the methodology.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to clarify something about myself, though... While this book made me see things I hadn't before, especially because I never lived in big cities, I'm no stranger to being poor and hard times. I've always wanted to help, but now I want to help even more. I don't have a lot of money now--I make well-below the median income for my state, and my income (sole-income for 2 people) doesn't exactly meet our expenses. Have to use loan money for food and supplies.
But I was under the impression that someone who worked full-time would at least have enough for a place to live. I thought the problem was unemployment. Even though I saw a big problem in my own situation in paying for rent (more than 40% of my take-home pay) and how hard it was to keep up, I thought that if we had to, we could find a cheaper place. That's simply not the case. Our place is already lower than the average for our state and county. I'm lucky to be in a nice place, paying about $100 less than the average.
What that book did was open my eyes about how lucky I really am, and that someone can work HARD all day long, sometimes more than one job, and still not have enough.
posted
When Ehrenreich came to speak at the school I attended, she insisted that her overnight accommodations be changed at the last minute because she refused to stay somewhere that didn't offer full room service. I was already having difficulty taking her book seriously before that; that pretty much killed it.
I agree that America does far less than it ought to in taking care of its poor and that the poor's problems are all too frequently dismissed as a result of their own choices without the critic taking time to evaluate the way their choices are driven by society and need. I think upper and middle class America need more exposure to the thoughts, feelings, and situations of the poor.
Unfortunately, I didn't get that from Nickled and Dimed; what I got was a remarkably self-centered portrait of Ehrenreich in which those she was supposedly writing in support of were never allowed to be more than supporting characters, whisked on and off the stage to illustrate Ehrenreich's pre-chosen points and paint her in a positive light.
(Please don't ask me to cite chapter and verse for the source of these impressions. It's been years since I read the book, and I discarded it in disgust soon afterwards.)
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it was rather telling to hear the two Bush first ladies (past and current) acting so clueless about the poverty that was displayed when New Orleans was hit by hurricane and flood.
Maybe this particular book is not the best treatment of the subject, but the sentiment in the original post is certainly a valid one. And it sounds to me like the premise of the book is also a valid one, even if the execution strays from the ideal.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
She certainly isn't perfect. I noticed in her epilogue where she talked about going back to her life as usual. No hint of doing anything to change things besides publishing her book. That did bother me, honestly.
It is the secondary characters that I was mostly interested in.
But to return to my original question... what can be done? What can we do that isn't being done already? I would guess that few people here are rich, and many of us struggle to make it. But I guess we can't wait for the very rich to solve everything, can we?
It's fun to think of ideas, but most of mine turn out to be fantastic pipe dreams.. Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to move out of the realm of fantastic pipe dreams, a better question than "what can be done that isn't being done already" might be "what is being done that's working, and how can I get involved?" Or, "what's being done in other communities that's working, and how can I get something similar started in my area?"
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good way to look at it, dkw. Guess I need to get away from the thought that I need to do something unique.
I had some friends who were going through the beginning stages of getting a youth center built for the community. They got sidetracked by some other things, but I think I should call them up and see about getting it started again. There was a group of about 8 of us working on it, with some great ideas.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
(My city was one of the ones she worked in.) She has a new one out now where she tried to get a mid-level management type job. I've read excerpts of both, but not all of either.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Or maybe she didn't after all...
