Rating: 
Summary: Raised My Awareness
Review: A fascinating sociological experiment in which the author goes into the field to study the plight of the low-wage worker in America. Her observations point to the woeful lack of affordable housing and medical care, and the rampant mental and physical stress perpetrated on the proletariat class. Ehrenreich's strongest statement is not so much the hopelessness of it all, but the fact that as a group, they suffer in silence. Though huge in number, they are considered above the poverty line, and thus largely fall through the cracks of government aid and representation.
While it certainly raised my social consciousness about this "lost" strata of the population, the book falls short in 2 areas. First, as a participant in the low wage sector, I would hope the author could offer more concrete ideas on how to relieve their burden, and secondly, the book often comes off as self-serving, with the author's self-congratulations wearing progressively thin throughout the text.
Rating: 
Summary: The Working Poor Still Believe in the Work Ethic
Review: I read this book while doing research for my book ... My interest was to determine how work adds meaning and self worth to people's lives. Ehrenreich details her experiences, while she joined the ranks of the working poor for several months. During this time she work as a waitress, for a home cleaning service, and in retail at what would be considered the lowest end of the labor market. The primary purpose of this effort was to determine if a person would earn enough money to provide for the basic necessities of life, food and housing, which is the primary objective of work. Ehrenreich worked in several different geographic markets. The general conclusion that Ehreneich reached from her experience was that depending on the cost of housing in the specific marketplace the working poor can earn just a little more or just a little less than is required for basic survival. Basic survival was defined as taking any housing that was available that would provide basic shelter and security, and either preparing simple meals at home of purchasing fast food. Basic survival did not include any form of health care or automobile expense. If they incurred any other unavoidable expense, or became ill and could not work, they quickly fell behind financially. Ehreneich pointed out that most people who work in this sector hold two jobs, if they have the physical strength and stamina to do it, or the team up with another individual to help share expenses. Ehrenreich worked under cover in the sense that she did not let people know, including her employers, that she actually held a Ph.D., and that she was working in these jobs to gather material for a book. Thus, her coworkers shared their feeling, frustrations and attitudes with her as if she was someone who was in the same predicament. Based on her account it appears that many of her coworkers still believe in the work ethic in spite of fact that many employers indicate through their policy and procedures, that they don't really believe in it themselves. Ehrenreich says that as a waitress she was told that her boss could search her purse at any time. Almost all jobs required mandatory drug tests. In other words, a person could not start work until the drug test report was negative. Many jobs required people to take personality tests, which in addition to questions such as "would you turn in some one you saw stealing" also asked questions about their moods and feelings. Although employers treat people in low level jobs with suspicion, Ehrenreich claims that she did not encounter any thieves or drug attacks among the people she worked with. Most importantly, employers did not provide a free and open market with regard to wages and opportunities. Many employers forbid employees. under the penalty of dismissal, to disclose their pay to fellow employees. When applying for jobs applicants are often given misleading information about starting wages and the ability to get raises. Naturally, employers will deny that these practices exist, but they also know, but are not willing to admit, that if they and not their competitors allowed wages to follow the laws of economics, they would eventually go out of business. The bottom line is that it is very difficult for people to improve their position through hard work, and they have very little opportunity to develop any sense of self worth and purpose in life from these jobs. Many years ago, when I was a student, I worked in low end jobs as well. I can still remember that a summer working in one of these jobs was one of my biggest incentives, when I was back at school, to study hard. However, everyone does not have the opportunity to move high enough in the job ranks to avoid the practices by employers that take any potential for personal meaning out of a job. I believe that we should limit our expectations with regard to the meaning that we can get from working. However, as a general rule society will benefit from an effort to put the most meaning possible in every job. According to Ehrenreich the management style of first line supervisors and company policy was to discourage any form of initiative from workers. In spite of their managers and company policy many workers were able to find meaning in their work by taking the initiative at times. In general, she believed that many workers succeeded in spite of rather than because of management direction.
Rating: 
Summary: a must-read
Review: If I were making a list of books every American had to read to understand how the world we live in works, Nickel and Dimed would definitely be on it. Any of us can do the math that shows that it's nearly impossible to live on the kinds of wages that so many jobs in this country pay; few of us seem to _do_ that math, though, and even if you look at the numbers it doesn't necessarily sink in what they mean, if you're living a more comfortable life. So Barbara Ehrenreich's experiment in making a living from the kinds of jobs available to someone without a college education or a lot of work experience is valuable as a graphic and immediate illustration of how hard and unjust life is for so many Americans. Ehrenreich found that, without working two jobs -- and two physically grueling and often messy and disgusting jobs at that -- she simply couldn't make a living. And it wasn't just her -- few of her co-workers were doing any better than she was, and many were sleeping in their cars despite working full time. In one of the most vivid accounts of how inadequate these jobs are, one of Ehrenreich's co-workers at Wal-Mart (the nation's largest employer) couldn't afford a shirt that was on clearance there, despite the fact that Wal-Mart is a discount store to begin with. Anyone who wants to talk about work, poverty, homelessness, or government policy on any of those subjects in the United States should have to read this book. Yes, you could get the same basic facts in other books, but this one puts a lot of facts together with a compelling personal account of just how those facts affect people day to day.
Rating:
Summary: A great idea, not quite executed
Review: The review below entitled, "Not all it should have been" is fairly on point. The idea that this book springs from was perfect. However, the book itself reminded me of comments that I'd sometimes get on my papers from English teachers back in high school: "Your paper doesn't quite match up with your thesis." The thesis of this book is that it is really hard to get by in America on a minimum wage job. However, rather than focusing on that, Ms. Ehrenreich focuses on the horrible working conditions that she encountered. I wanted more details about her budget. Frequent updates on how much money she had and what bills were coming up would have been helpful. I think most of us, even the die-hard Republicans out there, are aware that trying to support a family by working on the floor would be awful. The more interesting question is, how hard is it for someone in that position to improve his or her life? Going into this book, I was hoping to get some good information to whack my conservative friends over the head with about how, even with hard work and dedication, it's almost impossible for people who were born into the bottom 20% to escape from it. Instead, I got a lot of description about the awful conditions that having a low-wage job leads to (e.g., repetitive, boring work, poor diet, small, dirty apartment, little leisure time, etc.). Well I could have guessed that. It doesn't help that Ms. Ehrenreich occassionally slips in a comment that indicates she had an agenda going into this. That isn't terribly surprising, but the lack of neutrality in her writing makes you wonder, if she did encounter something that didn't support this agenda, would she tell us?Still, despite the fact that she didn't do exactly what she said she was going to do, she still does something pretty interesting. At the very least, this book made me want to put a much greater effort into avoiding businesses that exploit their workers. After all, who is really to blame for the wildfire growth of businesses that prioritize low prices over humane treatment of their workers?
Rating:
Summary: She Often Missed the Point
Review: While her little social experiment was interesting and enlightening, she spent much too much time indicting people and situations that were beside the point. For example, she criticized Minnesotans for being fat, the rich for having dirty toilets needing cleaning and Wal-Mart for actually wanting to keep its stores organized. Her footnote quoting experts about how to clean counters and floors juxtaposed against the guidelines dished out by the Maids would be more apropos in a book about the cleaning industry in America!
Rating: 
Summary: Just stop talking about yourself, Barbara!
Review: This book would have been far better and much more informative if the author would have given us in-depth looks at the lives of the working poor including their home life, their hopes and dreams for the future etc. Essentially, letting them tell their story in their own words. Instead Barbara Ehrenreich made this book more about herself as if she needed to prove to the world that she could live the life that they live every day and survive at it. But she pretty much set herself up to fail. She put herself in situations where she was all alone in unfamilliar cities with no support system of family and friends to rely on. She didn't take good advice from a friend of a friend who said that she should find a church to help her settle in and make new friends and they could provide her with some food or financial assistance when times were tough, instead she went out of her way to mock religion. Also, she walked away from her waitress job mid-shift which her co-workers could not afford to do. She also had the need to prove her superiority to those she worked with and for. She kept reminding her readers that she had a PhD. and that unlike the fat people who worked and dined in the restaurant, she was very fit. She didn't have much to say about solutions to the problems that she saw except that these people should form unions and that governments need to mandate living wage laws. These ideas come from people who fail to understand the great benefits of capitalism. A person can start at the entry-level job and work their way up through the organization but, there has to be a desire to do it and it usually will require some sacrifices which some people just aren't willing to make. She was very suprised that the workers were not outraged at their "condition" but actually took pride in their work, which is a feeling that living off of the welfare system sure can't offer. This book was too one-sided, too political in its overtones and too much about Barbara Ehrenriech.
Rating:
Summary: great book!
Review: I am surprised that there are so many problematic reviews of this book. Go figure. My roots are certainly similar to those of the folks that Ms. Ehrenreich worked with, and I found this book to be truthful, authentic and well-written. It is true that many writers have tackled this topic; but I don't know of any others who have actually lived for a number of months working at these jobs and attempting to live on these wages. So that makes it singular. It is also well written and readable and I enjoyed her style very much; I don't usually find myself staying up until 3 a.m. because I'm excited about what is basically a sociological essay! She's funny and insightful about her self, while making a huge effort to not make judgements about the people she is getting to know. She does get frustrated at different points. Really, I'm confused about some of the other reviewers. At no point does she go on about minimum wage earners smoking dope; at one point she worries about having to take a drug test herself because of "a chemical indiscretion." She also refers to the U.S. as "chemically fascist" in it's use of drug tests and documents studies on their costs and effectiveness. Nor does she promote unions; instead she documents how the employers discourage unions and wonders why people who are paid and treated so badly would not seek any alternatives, including unions. I enjoyed her writing, her insightfulness, particularly about herself, her refusal to pass judgement, her capable research of the subject and her willingness to take on the myth that people can get off welfare and make it in the world if they will only get to work. I'm going to look for more of her books.
Rating:
Summary: Not all it should have been
Review: First off, an important caveat: If you've read the two long excerpts from this book that were published in "Harper's," you can consider yourself as having read the book and can save your money. I was disappointed, after having read and enjoyed the excerpts, to discover that they make up about 75% of the book. Second, this book just simply isn't all it could or should have been. Ehrenreich, who is a great writer, seems to have phoned this one in. She gives us neither the wealth of anecdotes we'd imagine she amassed over the course of her research, nor the analysis we'd expect in her summary. I can't really recommend this book, as much as I applaud the ideas behind it; and it's a reasonably entertaining read, too; but low-wage workers in America desperately need a voice, and this simply ain't it.
Rating:
Summary: hard hitting
Review: I felt this was excellent jounalism. I felt that she was describing my life. It's easy to write poverty off as lazyness or lack of a strong character trait. But this book tries to put that belief to rest. It was refreshing to read in print the truth I have known for years and have been fighting for... a decent wage based on CURRENT COST OF LIVING in the area you live. I think this book is a nice starter book on current trends in thinking of poverty, the way it is portrayed, and the way it really is. Bravo, Barbara!
Rating:
Summary: More harm then good
Review: The state of low-wage workers in this country is scandalous. Reactionaries complain about "hand-outs" and extol the benefits of working, and yet have nothing to say about the endemic corruption of capitalism and the systematic abuse of the poor by huge corporations. For sure, simply raising the minimum wage is not good enough, as it will bankrupt many small businesses, and what is truly needed is more "social" assistance from the government. Nonetheless, this is NOT the book to read for anyone with a thought in their head about this crisis. It will enrage right-wingers without a heart or a brain for its attempt to inflame our passions against corporate greed, and it will tire and annoy anyone else. Ms. Ehrereich is a terrible, terrible writer with far too much self-pity and self-regard for having undertaken her little assignment to convince anyone. The only meaningful information in the book comes by way of footnotes, and these are as poorly written as the rest of the book. Add to this an unstoppably arrogant and condescending view of the poor, and you have a total failure of a book. It is simply beyond my understanding how anyone, even those who feel passionately about the injustice of wages and lack of government assistance in this country, have been able to lavish so much praise on such a measly, shoddy, silly little book. The great crime is that we NEED a book that is as widely read as this one, but we need a real book with real reporting and real writing. She helps no one and only hurts the cause for which she claims to have such sympathy. If only she had taken the time to really learn about the subject . . .
|
