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.

DISCLAIMER: This is my rant on the “classic Marxist rant” by Barbara Ehrenreich in the form of Nickel and Dimed. REALLY. I am not saying that we should not help poor people. I am mostly just annoyed by the author. If my political ranting will bother you, please don't read this. AND if you do, you are not allowed to think less of me. You may disagree, but know that I actually am a nice, caring, empathetic person. :)

Unfortunately, Ehrenreich did not present much shocking or new information in her book. Even if she had, her Marxist cynicism and naive hypocrisy overshadowed her message. Of course, if anyone had been placed in such a situation, she would have been appalled by the tremendous difficulty of the way the poor are forced to live. But Ehrenreich’s obnoxious inclination to think anyone in a managerial position is malicious and purposefully cruel was overbearing. The managers were not in a much better position than those under them, and they have to do a “meaningless” job as well. She even began realizing that she was becoming uncontrollably irate at any moment’s notice. How can she criticize others for acting the exact way she felt because of the degrading circumstances they share? Not to mention, she pretty much had been acting this prejudiced way before this epiphany, but earlier she directed it at those in higher positions instead of her equals.

Also, let’s go into her Communist ideals (even though she sort of denied being a Marxist, she quoted him a few times and paraphrased Mao’s words). She is advocating (by implication) a system way worse than the Goliath that is Wal-Mart. She finds it utterly appalling that people have some of their basic rights taken away by agreeing to work for certain companies. (By the way, have you ever worked for a corporation? That's what they do.) However, you have absolutely no rights in a Communist society. Remember Animal Farm? After a while, the pigs look exactly like the human men they had replaced in their rebellion. Plus, she’s complaining about the rich 20% at the top and wanting to help the poor 20% on the bottom, completely ignoring the 60% in between. She just wants to replace the top with the bottom, and then where would we be? Bingo! The same place. Ehrenreich means basically an “inherited kingdom.” Ironic that she feels that the poor should just naturally inherit the country. She wants her kingdom to be like the socialist/communist world because she feels that the United States will not take care of the proletariat. But I don’t know if 80% should give up their rights so that the 20% can rule (oh, and kill everyone else in the process--that's what Communists do).

As far as her complaints about “rights” are concerned, let’s look at her previous life. She is UPPER middle class, which is not nearly the same as the average American. Her job is as a journalist, free-lance, I believe. So, she does not have the average structured job, and her job is to speak her mind and say whatever she wants however she wants. Of course she’s going to be upset that she can’t curse in front of customers. Some customers may be offended by such language, but she can’t see that; she only knows that she wants to say the f-word on the job and she can’t. Heaven forbid.

She seemed to be shocked by the fact that her employers didn’t want her standing around talking on the job either. I understand that we should allow people to be human and enjoy working with each other. I like to see employees joke with each other and get along, but I don’t like to need help and can’t get any because some “associates” are standing around talking and ignoring their customers. I don't agree with the Wal-Mart "time theft" idea, but she does need to realize she's at work.

I feel that the story would have been much more compelling and upsetting if she had just followed a few of the women with whom she worked. Her story just wasn’t interesting. I certainly don’t mean to make light of or ignore such a serious subject, but it could have been done so much better.(Have you seen Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days where he and his girlfriend REALLY live below the poverty line? Now, that's worth seeing.)

Also, I would have been interested (and I think it would really have been fair) to give statistics on those living below the poverty line who are on welfare, are illegal immigrants (if they were included), have mental illnesses, etc. Or, I would like to know if that 20% of working poor is all exactly similar to the people has associated with. I just want a complete and honest picture either way so that I’m not wondering what it is. We need to take care of all the people, but we need to know the circumstances. Also, I know that most of the working poor are good, honest, hard-working people, but we know that there are still many who abuse the system, and the way Ehrenreich talks, you’d think that the only ones abusing the system were the managers (“classic Marxist” attitude). Instead of reading her book, maybe some of the people (managers) should read The Female Advantage and learn some managing skills. :)

I also would like to know how raising the minimum wage affects the economy. If it helps fix this problem, great. But it would seem that if we raise the minimum wage, then prices will start going up. I’m no economist, so I wouldn’t know, but I would have liked more information about how to help the problem instead of her ideas about getting thrown in prison for protesting.

I will admit that I probably have some prejudice attitudes that she addresses in her book, but I don’t feel that she really proved her point. Eating in a healthier manner and not smoking or drinking are not going to solve the poor’s problems, but when people are counting pennies, every one counts. Ehrenreich said that she never got to the point of eating lentil soup, but if she had, she would have saved money (and it would have been healthier). It seems that, just like everyone else, convenience takes precedence over everything else.

In the end, the condition of the working poor is an important issue that we all need to work on and try to find more solutions for. I just don’t agree with the way she thinks and her attitudes about some of the things that she found. This book does have some redeeming qualities, but as I said, she got in the way.

I am glad that somebody attempted this "experiment" of leaving their upper/middle class life to try to see what it was like to live like the working poor. I do think it could have been done better, and maybe different conclusions drawn from the experience, but definitely a good start. I the 15+ years since this book was written, I believe it is only harder to try to squeak out an existence - economically or otherwise - working for such low wages. My eyes have been open and my points of view have changed dramatically the last couple years when it comes to my view point about this. I sincerely believe America is in a crisis that needs to be addressed in the near future if we expect to still be considered the "greatest" or "wealthiest" or anything else "est" in the developing world - to say the least. Our societal compassion and humanity is at an all time low! We should be ashamed at how we treat so many in our society.

I really enjoyed reading this book. She worked low-end jobs and proved that even though you work hard doesn't mean that you're making the cut. My favorite piece of information that she gave was that most people working at minimum wage with a spouse and a child, can't afford a 2 bedroom apartment and food. This book was eye-opening. Even though it was a great book there was an afterword and an evaluation. These were exceptionally hard to read. Not because of the language but the content is awful. Its everything you just read in a few pages. Overall I did like the book and I love that it has a lexile of 1370!

3.5, really.

Well-written, funny at times, anger-inducing most times. Although it came out in 2001, and would be dated for certain events (a few months too early for 9/11 and decades of war, the Great Recession, precarity, Obamacare, and so on) and certain facts (wages, housing prices and rents, food costs,), this does what it set out to do and remains relevant in its general theme. No country is good to be poor in. Nothing special about the u.s.a. there. But to see so many low-wage worker unable to live is saddening. Where did all the people Ehrenreich worked alongside go, socially and politically, the 20-year-olds and up?

Steal this book! The author deserves no royalties. She is condescending, patronizing and proselytizing to the converted. Of course it is hard to make a living on minimum wage. This surprises her? She found it difficult for few months? Try a few years. I’d like to knock that PhD tone out of her voice. This book is so painfully elitist, I had to quit half way through or put my fist through a wall. I decided to keep the bones in my hand intact. Thank God I didn’t buy this book. It was thrown my way by another pissed reader. Well look at it this way—now I have something to line the cat litter box with. I certainly won’t ask anyone else to read it.

Nickel and Dimed is a lousy book. Ignoring the fact that the author is a marijuana using egomaniac, the book itself is rather simplistic and overall pointless. Ehrenreich can be commended for making an attempt at showing the world that being poor is a condition terrible beyond imagining, but ultimately her plight is useless. Yes, being poor is bad. More than bad. Unimaginably bad. This is a truth that many, including many Granvillians, can't seem to wrap their heads around. But nonetheless, Ehrenreich's comments on social systems are childish at best. Yes, everyone should be treated to having a middle-class existence. And also, there should be no wars. Ehrenreich offers a timeless paradox (the rich exercising unlimited power over the poor) with no visible solution other than "more cigarette dates". Nickel and Dimed is a book that, although perhaps written with good intent, comes across more as Ehrenreich gloating over her own suffering, and her own, higher vision of the social order in America.

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.

One of the best works of immersion journalism in the last century. It was shocking and urgent when Ehrenreich published the first part in Harper's in the late '90s and it is even more relevant now, as the gap between the haves and have-nots shows no sign of ever narrowing. I know people have their issues with the book, but I don't think you can really argue with the energy and resolve it took to report it and write it.

I first heard about this book when I was a "wet behind the ears" college student. A sociology professor recommended the book for its discussion on the realities of low-wage America. The recommendation was quickly stowed away into my ever-growing TBR and quickly forgotten.

This marks my first (and now last) attempt at reading this title.

What. A. Let down.

While the book accomplishes what it sets out to do -- prompting a discussion surrounding a working class that has gone largely unaddressed -- she remains a horribly privileged white woman who regularly used her privilege whenever any inconvenience negatively impacted her. Although she attempted to present herself as this educated "savior" looking to expose the hardships of poverty, she took on patronizing and dehumanizing tones. It became apparent that she viewed the poor as lazy and needy. Didn't these workers know that office jobs and careers were a college degree away?! "The fact that anyone is working this job at all can be taken as prima facie evidence of some kind of desperation or at least a history of mistakes and disappointments," (pg. 78). This may be true to a certain capacity; however, having a middle-classed, white woman refer to a working individuals decisions as "mistakes" just reeks of arrogance.

Perhaps the final nail in the coffin was the repeated racial remarks she made about minorities. At one point in the novel, she attempted to argue that the negative perception people had of her as a maid gave her insight into the experiences of black Americans (pg. 100). BFFR, lady. Later in the novel, she voices an ignorant comment about Latinos that finally made me DNF:

"[W]arnings about the heat and allergies put me off, not to mention my worry that the Latinos might be hogging all the crap jobs and substandard housing for themselves, as they so often do," (pg. 121).

I honestly can't stomach this book anymore. Perhaps this book is aimed at a particular audience and I am not one of them. But as other reviewers have already stated, the concept could have been great but was hindered by the author's patronizing and dehumanizing portrayal of the working class. No thanks.

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

Barbara Ehrenreich tells her story of working 'undercover' in three jobs for poverty-level wages in an experiment to understand exactly how millions of Americans get by in their daily lives.

Though this book and its experiment is twenty years old, it's depressing that no matter how much has changed, a lot has stayed the same. I've worked minimum wage jobs before, but always as a student. Whatever its flaws, this book is a stark reminder to pay more attention to the people around me and not take them for granted.