BootsnAll Travel Community

Thats a great book about living a low wage existance in the US. Of course, it was a trial, and the author fell back on being a rich and famous author posing as a low wage employee, but I want to toss out a concept from the book...Do people just get defeated and lazy based on not being appreciated or valued in their jobs? Think store clerks, cleaning people, the guy in the next cube?

At what point do we stop being grateful to the high and mighty "Employers" whom we owe our vacations and our rent, and our nice things to, and start getting pretty mad about ridiculous working conditions. In my case, no reviews, no HR department, no real lunch hour...

This is especially true here in small business US, where flex-pay, job share, dental and bonus's don't apply. To get those things it seems we have to move Corporate...

gross choice. Anyone ever make a real change in their workplace, or have a positive outcome from a sincere discussion with upper management?

I've written a very unfavorable review about that book at Amazon.com.

It was required reading for the Fairfield U Class of 2006, mostly to learn about how difficult it is for so many people in America to just get by.

I didn't like Barbara Ehrenreich's attitude. She worked at Wal-Mart for two days because bending over and picking stuff up made her back hurt. She viewed it from an almost "glamorous" perspective -- ooh, I'm poor, this is so cool! And then she didn't stick it out.

She did conclude that living expenses are too high and wages are too low. I do agree with that. But I think I would have respected the author a lot more if she had actually spent a good amount of time actually researching and not just quitting after a week or two, or two days.

If you want commitment to undercover journalism, read Self-Made Man by Norah Vincent -- she lived as a man for OVER a YEAR.

Kate, I do agree with what bothered you about her recollection of her experience, but at the same time, I must give her a little credit. She was writing the book from her perspective, I do believe that her intentions were to tell individuals who were in her social economic status about the working poor that can often be invisible to people in her position. THerefore, it was something that the wealthy could relate to a little more. For people who expereince this daily, her book wouldnt be more than some data and a first hand look of the troubles of living off of minimum wage. The book was aimed at people who could relate to her priviledged status. I wouldn't say its a great example of journalism, but it does reach out to people who can otherwise ignore such issues.

PS, i went to school not too far from you in Hartford and we had to read this too.

PS Unions can be wonderful things!

I loved the book and I love Barbara's writing. She did a great job, in my opinion, and I hope that many people read it, especially college students.

quote:

Originally posted by AdventurousKate:
I didn't like Barbara Ehrenreich's attitude. She worked at Wal-Mart for two days because bending over and picking stuff up made her back hurt. She viewed it from an almost "glamorous" perspective -- ooh, I'm poor, this is so cool! And then she didn't stick it out.

Agreed. Having grown up amongst the working poor, I found it extremely patronizing.

I remembered that at one point, she talked about the humiliation about having to pee in a cup for drug testing.

Have any of you had to do that? I don't think it's only low-end entry-level employers that do that....my job apparently does random drug testing, but I've never heard of it actually taking place. (Which is interesting, because I heard a rumor that some people actually did lines of coke in the bathroom during training.)

My company does drug testing. It's not random, nor universal. Just that certain clients (the ones in Fort McMurray, where the rich and bored labour pool makes drugs a real problem) require everyone going on their site to have a drug test. Since I'm an office worker, it's not something I've personally gone through, though my department makes the arrangements (again, not me personally...due to the sensitive nature of drug tests, there's only two people in the company that are involved).

Most people don't really seem to mind, because for those who are sober, drug tests help to ensure their safety.

Most people in Nazi Germany didn't mind the extermination of the Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals either, being good home-owning heterosexual Christians.

Those drug tests are about as accurate as horoscopes from my experience. I was tested quite regularly in Arizona and alway passed though I was quite a regular marijuana smoker at the time. A colleague of mine failed -- tested positive for opiates (heroin, etc). Unless you think she deserved to lose her job for overindulging in poppy seed ruggaleh (she was overweight), it seemed to me to be a pretty unfair firing.

Another ironic thing about those tests is that the more dangerous drugs -- cocaine, alcohol, methamphetamine, etc -- are out of your body in 24-48 hours. Marijuana on the other hand stays in for up to a month. I do feel that looking into my pee constitutes a violation of my fourth amendments rights of freedom from unreasonable search.

although I think the holocaust reference was a wee-bit harsh, i completely agree with you, Richard. I do believe they are utilized as a scare tactic and your friend (the poppy seed indulger) was used as a pawn.

If they drug tested the NYC board of ed teachers, the teacher shortage would be severely deeper!

quote:

Agreed. Having grown up amongst the working poor, I found it extremely patronizing.

the point is that Ehrenreich was not working poor, she was attempting to experience the lifestyle which is in itself pretty patronizing. Whether it was glamorized or put down, it is still just her experience and her reaction to a major issue that she attempted to personalize. It is an outsider's perspective, not a geniune experience. I didnt like it too much, but it served a purpose.

I'm interested to read this book, considering the strong feelings both ways. Years ago, I saw a documentary about a "rich college kid" living homeless for a week. Some liked it, many didn't, for similiar reasons as Nickel and Dimed.

My own opinion is that, while the author experienced a taste of the physical hardships of the working poor...she didn't (and couldn't) grasp the mental anguish one feels living paycheck-to-paycheck. She had the warm blanket of hope, knowing she actually had money...she's just choosing not to use it for research purposes.

quote:

Originally posted by gettingouttahere:

quote:

Agreed. Having grown up amongst the working poor, I found it extremely patronizing.

the point is that Ehrenreich was not working poor, she was attempting to experience the lifestyle which is in itself pretty patronizing. Whether it was glamorized or put down, it is still just her experience and her reaction to a major issue that she attempted to personalize. It is an outsider's perspective, not a geniune experience.

Yeah, that's my point, and that's why I found her work patronizing.

quote:

Originally posted by girlgoesglobal:
My own opinion is that, while the author experienced a taste of the physical hardships of the working poor...she didn't (and couldn't) grasp the mental anguish one feels living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Again, it is the very notion that the working poor in America live a life of "mental anguish" that I find patronizing. Physical and economic hardship are just that: hardship. I'd argue that many folks raking in six figure paychecks in their cubicles lived lives of greater "mental anguish" than my family (who never had a bank account to speak of.)

Perhaps we should send one of my neighborhood Cubans undercover into white collar America to write of the relentless struggles of the working rich. "They are all so very sad in their pant suits." It would, perhaps, be more informative. Certainly more comical. Depends on the Cuban.

Some cultures do not equate material wealth with emotional wealth. Some thrive on struggle rather than comfort.

quote:

Perhaps we should send one of my neighborhood Cubans undercover into white collar America to write of the relentless struggles of the working rich. "They are all so very sad in their pant suits." It would, perhaps, be more informative. Certainly more comical. Depends on the Cuban.

I'd read that

Unfortunately, in this case it is better to be patronizing than to be ignorant. The liberal intelligentsia needs more books like this. (The conservative intelligentsia is already beyond hope). The only way a book like this could be not patronizing is if it were written by someone who actually was one of the working poor. But the whole point of the book is that it is exceedingly difficult for the working poor to change their situation, much less write a book about it that will get any sort of press.

quote:

Originally posted by gettingouttahere:

I'd read that

Lol. It would have a lot of cursing and pithy observations about Starbucks, I assure you.

quote:

Originally posted by Jonny4001:
But the whole point of the book is that it is exceedingly difficult for the working poor to change their situation, much less write a book about it that will get any sort of press.

Again, not to be a contrarian, but I'm not sure this statement has much creedence in the U.S. either. When I was growing up, we knew where the money was, and we knew how to get there if we wanted to. Education was free, and most took advantage of it. I don't know many second generation immigrants from my neighborhood (much less third and onwards) who failed to achieve more financially than their parents. And these are folks whose family came here without a dime and only a few phrases of English.

Life is hard in America. There is no doubt about that, and anyone who tries to tell you that the playing field is equal is an idiot. *But* a man's life is not set in stone, and opportunities are not spartan. Even in the most battered communities.

quote:

Originally posted by Continental Op:
Again, it is the very notion that the working poor in America live a life of "mental anguish" that I find patronizing. Physical and economic hardship are just that: hardship.

I grew up in a working poor household, single parent, surviving with only donated clothes and food. Trust me, it was daily mental anguish. No hamburger in our Hamburger Helper.

Not all people with low finances experience this, but the true poor in America do, indeed, suffer mentally and emotionally. Especially those who have families to support. I don't believe it's patronizing to attempt to communicate this reality to others who have never gone through it.

quote:

Originally posted by girlgoesglobal:

I grew up in a working poor household...

Well, I don't want to sit here and trade horror stories with you, and I certainly don't want to undermine your experience. (Of course, look at you now, having a ball in Hawaii. You seemed to have made it through just fine. )

Suffice to say, I grew up under similar conditions, in a community of immigrants, and I don't recall much mental anguish. We were taught that we were richer for the people in our lives rather than for things. Most had jobs that the author would consider "horrid," but we simply saw them as work. Plain and simple. All work was honest, and labor wasn't as repugnant to us as it was to the author. Nor were our lives.

It is patronizing and counterproductive to present the lives of others as set in stone, as part of this or that endless cycle, or as fundamentally miserable.