I was moved to reskim this book today to write a review, in order to refer to it in my next post, but partly because I discovered that many reviews are so different from mine. In this project, essayist Barbara Ehrenreich tried to survive in low-wage jobs in three different American cities. Acknowledging that she starts with an unrealistic level of good health and cash, she chronicles her back-breaking days as a restaurant server, housecleaner, and Wal-Mart associate, as well as her ultimate failure to make her budget work.

One critique that comes up a lot is that Ehrenreich is flippant, and in particular flippant as an outsider. I don't think that this is unfair, but it never surprised me. Ehrenreich's mordant humor is how she points out the absurd unfairness of it all and engages the reader on her side.

The other critique is that the book is pointless, or just a patronizing frivolity, because who could possibly not already know these things? That's the one I want to respond to: let me introduce you to me, in 2001, when this book came out and I first read it.* I had recently graduated debt-free from Yale and moved to Manhattan; having grown up in a community that people moved to for its public schools, I had hardly ever met anyone without a four-year college degree. Social media and viral content barely existed, so while I spent a good amount of time on the Internet, content published there often consisted of more voices of the privileged. I worked in book publishing, where we got summer Friday afternoons off to escape to our (ha!) country houses before traffic got bad.

The idea that being poor is itself hard work, that it consists of being constantly judged and told what you should have done, that the setbacks pile on each other to ruin your every plan to improve your lot--I've heard these things in a lot of different ways and from different voices, in 2016, but this book is undoubtedly where I heard them first. I've voted, shopped, tipped, interacted with other people, and looked at the world differently since I read this book. In fact, it's one of two or three books that inspired me to reserve five-star ratings for books that really changed the way I look at things.

I can't dispute the reasons other people didn't like it, but I have to rate it based on the effect it had on my life. Read today, the most striking thing about this account is how impossible it was for Ehrenreich to break even, even in the rollicking late Clintonian economy of 1999-2000. In each of the three cities where she tries to make it, rent is the factor that breaks her budget. More on this in my next review.

*There's a ballet ticket stub for 6/1/2001 in my copy of this book.

Here's a down and dirty assessment of Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich:

First the positive:
- Interesting premise: writer decides to try to live on the wages that unskilled workers (waitresses, home/hotel cleaners, department store [Walmart, for instance] clerks) earn to see if she can do it and see if she learns anything in the process.
- She exposes some very unethical (even illegal) employer practices such as withholding a worker’s first paycheck until the second pay period.
- She notes some of the problems experienced by low-wage workers that aren’t (or may not be) experienced at higher levels of employment (e.g., lack of healthcare benefits, being unable to live in an apartment because of cost-prohibitive security deposits, almost universal drug testing as prerequisite to employment, etc.)
- Funny anecdotes about her experiences on “the other side.”
- She appears to have done some outside research besides her own experiences and observations.

Then the negative:
- The reader recognizes immediately that this writer is a liberal, specifically a bleeding-heart socialist. To those of us on the right, this is a red flag: we know what in the end she’ll advocate. Besides, the dreck that comes from that ideology is just annoying.
- She makes comments about the nurturing aspects of smoking that I find vomit-worthy. Part of the whole getting-out-of-poverty thing is making some good choices – continuing an expensive nicotine habit isn’t one of them. Ms. Ehrenreich breezes past this obvious expense and instead philosophizes about it. Gaack.
- Ditto for children. I never buy the whole thing that poor people can’t (read: don’t have the brain-power or self-control to) limit their reproduction. Children are expensive and in having them (in a marriage or not) without thought to all the costs associated with merely keeping them alive, not to mention THEIR future, people are essentially dooming them to the same life and poverty that they currently experience. I mean, if you as a parent don’t have reliable healthcare it’s one thing, but your kids will definitely need it – so why are you jeopardizing their health? Oh, yeah – Medicaid.
- She has a permissive attitude toward drug use – and even admits to “an indiscretion” of that sort during her experiment. She buys and uses products that mask or flush evidence of the drug use. That whole business is not going to lend credibility to your whole argument – whatever the argument is. And drugs are an expense.
- She always has a car (“rent-a-wreck” in her words) during her experiment. Expense. Now, some of the locations she works do demand personal transportation, but she purposely steers clear of big cities with public transportation. Hmm.
- She never tries to coordinate/share living arrangements and pool resources. After all, she DOES have her limits in this experiment!
- The biggest problem with her experiment is that it is just an experiment – she can return to her comfy upper middle class life, while demanding that the government do something about the minimum wage and poverty.

Yeah, I could go on, but you get the general picture. I would give this read a C+ - readable, but there are some reservations.

Hoooo boy this did not age well.

From my perspective, Barbara Ehrenreich was preaching to the choir.

All that I read made me want to stand up and cheer.
I didn't finish the book but I am SOOOO glad she wrote every word of it.

Around the time this powerful book came out, I was busy writing, indie-publishing, and spreading the word about a book that aimed to debunk some of the magical thinking at the time (and to this day) about the "Law" of Attraction. Namely, "Magnetize Money with Energetic Literacy."

I didn't want to unintentionally take some of Ehrenreich's language and plagiarize her in my work. That's why I didn't finish the book. I read enough to respect, and admire, her work On (Not) Getting By in America.

I've been meaning to read this since it came out, but I think in some ways I arrived at it too late. There's nothing in here that is really surprising to me, except the way that the residential cleaning company is instructed to provide the illusion of cleanliness rather than actual cleanliness. Also, I didn't realize that federal poverty level was still calculated based on food costs, without taking into account rising rents or health care costs or transportation. That makes no sense.

Yes, there are places where Ehrenreich's own middle class privilege shows. I'd have liked her to price a major car repair while she was working, or try a couple of days of public transit. I'd have liked for her to start out without the $1200 nest egg she allowed herself. I'd have liked her to make fewer comments about the type of people who might pay someone to clean their home every once in a while. In other ways it feels like an artifact of its time -- she did her research pre September 11th, pre-economic downturn. She repeatedly made the point that she was looking for jobs during a labor shortage, when the workers should have had some sort of upper hand. Obviously none of that is the case.

Almost everything she brought up is even worse now, exacerbated by the economy. All of the eye-openers about how it may be impossible to live on minimum wage? Those are the people I help every day in my work, except at work every mother that calls is dealing with a disabled child (or her own disability). Many are unable to keep jobs because they get called continually to school to deal with their child's health or behavior crises, or because caring for their child is a full time job. The safety nets are full of holes, and the holes keep getting bigger.

Ehrenreich talks about how people are willing to work, and work hard, but treated at times like a criminal class. Every word of that still rings true, especially in this particular political season, with all of its coded and uncoded talk about the 47% and job creators and getting people off of assistance. This book had its problems, but it's a quick, straightforward read. I'd like all of the Randian politicians and their followers to read this and see if they can still spout the same lines. A job isn't enough if it doesn't cover rent. A job isn't enough if it doesn't cover the cost of real food. A job isn't enough if it doesn't allow the family of an individual with a disability to meet that individual's needs. All of this is to say that while Nickel and Dimed is somewhat dated, the core message is sadly still needed.

Once upon a time, I was a low-wage worker. I worked long hours in retail for too little pay. Even as a store manager, I made about $10,000 per year in the late Eighties. If I hadn't been able to live with my parents, I don't know how I could have been able to afford rent and childcare, much less food on what I made. Because I was working, I didn't qualify for anything like subsidized childcare or food stamps. The waiting list for subsidized housing was endless. Nickel and Dimed On (Not) Getting By in America explores the world of low-wage workers in Florida, Maine and Minnesota. Surprisingly enough, Minnesota was the toughest place to get by. It sounded almost as bad as California.

While I did find this book to be very readable and was compelled to keep turning the pages, I often found the author's attitude smug and condescending. Her introduction and conclusion were fairly inane and didn't offer any real insight or solutions other than the usual provided by those who neither struggle to keep businesses running with a modest profit nor are caught in the struggle of trying to keep a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs. She also didn't look at the feminist aspect of this. Now, I'm no big feminist, but even I can see that the big problem is that the low-paying jobs the author explored were ones traditionally held by women: waitressing, nursing home aide, maid, and retail worker. These jobs are not only low paying, they don't offer much room for advancement or leave them with much time or energy to pursue other options. I don't think she even noticed that she was surrounded with a lot of women and not very many men who weren't making it in America.

What I found most fascinating was the writer's progress through this account. Her first job she couldn't handle, she walked out. Her second job, she decided to organize her co-workers, and they just wouldn't be organized. Her third job, she decided to be the best worker Walmart had ever had, she just knew she could have gotten that raise to $7.75 if she'd stayed.

Be warned: This book nearly started a fight in my book club. Everyone's reactions were really interesting.

If you're looking for socialist propaganda - full of rhetorical tricks and short on evidence, then this is the book for you. If, however, you're hoping for an unbiased treatment of the life of the poor, a reasonable economic/policy analysis of poverty, or any sort of insight into American culture, then this book will be profoundly disappointing.

There are some interesting issues covered, such as wage inequalities and the plight of the urban poor, but that's really all I can say in its favor. The author early on gives up any illusion of maintaining journalistic impartiality. She interprets all behavior of corporations, managers and employers in the least charitable way possible - often straining credibility. Further, she shows hidden disdain for the poor as well - insinuating that the only reason the poor might take pride in their work is because they've been duped by corporate interests, and denying the possibility that the poor might find any value in their jobs beyond their paychecks.

The author ignores economic realities and the subtleties inherent in an interdependent system like the American Economy and puts forth ludicrously simplistic arguments of what American policy towards the poor should be. It ranges from annoying to infuriating, and is almost certainly not worth the bother of reading.

i'm having the same reservations about this as i had with the so-old-why-am-i-even-complaining-about-it ten days in a madhouse by nellie bly (or that book by the white guy who put himself in blackface to expose racism in the american south??? or tyra donning a fat suit to know what it's like to be an obese person?): why do we need people in positions of privilege to put themselves through these little experiments just to find out what every poor (mentally ill, black, fat) person already fucking knows? why can't we give a voice to people who actually experience this shit, people who can't just pluck themselves out of the situations they've purposefully put themselves in, people who can't just return to some life where they have money in their bank account and not much to worry about it. merely acknowledging your place of privilege does nothing to dismantle the system from which you benefit.

i really like the fact that the most popular review for this book is by a woman who advocates the selective "breeding" of poor folk. i mean, the very fact that human pregnancy is being referred to as "breeding" should be a tip off that someone is a big, flaming sack of shit, but i just can't with this kind of bull: "Having children and expecting others to pay for them is irresponsible and parasitic." THIS IS NOT REALLY HOW WELFARE WORKS EVERYBODY. if you're gonna complain about this, i hope you advocate for the abolition of roads, libraries, parks, and everything that has ever existed due to government funds or intervention. i hope you only ever travel via dirt roads and attend private schools, never experience the joy of a library or the ~great outdoors~ at a national public park. 'cause fuck that shit.

i also just want to share this because it's really fucking dumb and shows the other side of dumbass logic:



i have other thoughts about poverty & children, and they're mostly just POOR PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE CHILDREN. POOR PEOPLE ARE ALSO ALLOWED TO NOT HAVE CHILDREN IF THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT. POOR PEOPLE REMAIN HUMANS DESPITE THEIR POVERTY. TREAT THEM AS SUCH, YOU SHITTY DICKS.

---

okay, i'm actually finished the book now (i tend to make preemptive reviews, it seems) and everything still stands, but it's important to note that i did overall appreciate nickel and dimed. i just think the plight of poor ppl would better be exemplified by, idk, actual poor people. stinks to me of co-opting someone else's struggle to make your own point. and it isn't a particularly "liberal" point, unless you're the sad kind of person who thinks rich people are rich 'cause they work hard and poor people are poor because they're lazy. the american dream is hopelessly fucked. barbara ehrenreich was on the right track with this, but really, sitting back and writing books from an upper middle class viewpoint doesn't really do much to help the poor.

I am 5 pages in. This book better become an exercise in humility.

So far, the author seems to think she's connected to low-wage earners because somewhere in her family history, someone might have worked for low wage. She also thinks that you have to be completely uneducated to work for minimum wage. Maybe this speaks to our current economic state but I have known plenty of educated people in restaurants or cashier positions. This arrogance and disconnect between her wealth and opportunity and real people is the problem.

Finally, poor people take public transportation. They don't drive.

UPDATE : I read as much as I could in almost the length of time it took to wait for a metro. I got to page 20 and I am quitting.

This woman is beyond arrogant. I can't believe she deigned to live and work among the poor (note sarcasm)! The entire tone demonstrates how much better she is than the dirty, trailer - livin' people. I don't believe she got anything at all out of her experiment than a fun story to tell at her cocktail parties. "Oh, darling, remember when I called that poor foreigner "sir"?", she says.

This book infuriated me.

Read this because it is on the NYT top 100 books of the 21st century and I wish that i didn’t

I found a used copy of Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, last July, in a book exchange box outside of the front entrance of The Peaks of Otter Lodge in Virginia. I like to think that one of the housekeeping staff or wait staff planted it there. I hope so. In fact our lodge maid (sight unseen) left us little messages and sketches on the hotel note pad where we placed her tip each day for the week we were there. In my imagination she's the one.
The book was written way back in 2001 but sadly the premise still holds and, if anything, there are places where a living wage is even more difficult to obtain now in 2017. In a nutshell here's the experiment: Barbara Ehrenreich leaves her successful upper middle class writing career to go incognito as a : waitress, hotel maid, Walmart sales clerk, nursing home attendant and house cleaner in various locations around the country. She challenges herself to find food, housing and clothing on the wages she makes. I shouldn't need a spoiler alert to say, what she found was that, "you could work hard--- harder even than you ever thought possible---and still find yourself sinking ever deeper into poverty and debt." This book was a Notable book of the year when it was written and is now a classic.