|
last
update of this page: |
Writing
The contest: an ASISU award was given to two freshmen and three other students (over 26 credits, graduate students included) for an essay, not to exceed 800 words, that reflected a reading of Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting By in America. The essay must be on one of the following two topics: Describe the relevance of your chosen academic discipline to the issues raised in Nickel and Dimed; or Write an epilogue to one of the author’s low-wage job experiences. What if Ehrenreich had chosen not to bail out or move on to another city?
Saturday’s Child: A Critique of Nickel and Dimed
"Saturday's
child works hard for a living"
-- Traditional
I was curious to read Dr. Ehrenreich’s book, Nickel and Dimed, because her research pertains to the degrees I am earning in political science and economics. But my interest had a deeper source as well: I have spent several years of my adult life living in what Dr. Ehrenreich terms "extreme poverty," that is, living with an income half the federal poverty line or lower.
As someone who has lived through such lean times, I felt that Dr. Ehrenreich's research was flawed for one simple reason: having never been destitute herself, she was unable to conceive of the sorts of decisions the poor actually make on a daily basis. A prime example was her refusal of Caroline's offer of a place to stay. Dr. Ehrenreich said she felt that such a living arrangement would taint her research but accepting an offer of a discounted place to stay is exactly what a poor person would really do. I have lived in basements, on couches and once rented the landing of an enclosed stairwell. Survival on a low income often means accepting unorthodox accommodations.
Dr Ehrenreich, on the other hand, refused to even consider a roommate. Moreover, she ate nearly all her meals in restaurants, drove nice rental cars, insisted on expensive kitchen tools and spices and generally attempted to maintain her normal standard of living throughout. By refusing to live as the poor actually live, she created a sense of artificial scarcity that robbed her research of authenticity.
Because most Americans tend to have a view of poverty as a static class, I viewed my own escape from the bottom bracket as a miraculous exodus. However, the fruits of my education have taught me otherwise. As it turns out, for the vast majority of America's poor poverty is a temporary setback, not a life sentence. Because roughly 20% of the population earns in the lowest quintile, no matter which year's census we sample, it is easy to imagine that each census is looking at the same pool of poor people. But when we drill down to the individual level, we see a very different picture. According to the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan, "only a little over one-half of the individuals living in poverty in one year are found to be poor in the next"[1] The "persistent poor," those who remain in the bottom quintile for eight or more years out of ten, amount to about 2.6%. Most Americans are only poor for a few years before moving up in economic status, often more than one quintile.
I can tell you from personal experience that poverty is crushing, disheartening, humiliating, and difficult. But, like most people in this country, my suffering urged me to work hard to get out of poverty and make a better life for myself. Ehrenreich is not content to seek ways to help the tiny minority who are persistently poor but feels we must eliminate all poverty for everyone, even to the point of artificially removing temporary poverty by forcing companies to pay higher wages and increasing federal programs designed to make life more comfortable for the poor. I feel this would be a disaster on multiple levels. Raising the minimum wage is not a viable solution as that would increase the cost of labor inputs. In practical terms, as labor costs rise, everyone pays more for everything in society produced by wage-based labor – leaving us and them no better off than before.
As for increasing federal programs beyond their current level, making poverty more pleasant will merely entice more people to give up and stay in poverty, subsidized by tax dollars and federal programs. Sadly, since she was never actually among the ranks of the poor, Ehrenreich lacks the understanding and compassion to speak for them honestly – she wants change based on how she believes people should live rather than based on economic reality and the legitimate needs of the impoverished.
Therein lies the central failure in Ehrenreich's book and promotional campaign: her inability to honestly assess the nature of poverty and experience it as anything other than a tourist with a pre-disposed agenda towards how she believes the poor should live, rather than an understanding of how they actually do. It is remarkably easy to attack America's businesses and social structure from a comfortable chair, and pretend to be poor a day at a time fully expecting a return to your comfortable life. The real poor have no such luxury. Ehrenreich has such hubris to masquerade at being something she is not for her personal gain. The real poor suffer, as she prospers, treating them as nothing more than pawns in her game. That is ultimately the saddest reality of all from both a personal and an economic standpoint.
[1] Years of Poverty, Years of Plenty: The Changing Economic Fortunes of
American Workers and Families by Greg J. Duncan et al. Ann Arbor, Mich.:
Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan,
1984.