The Economic Walden | Blog This!

READING:

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America
Barbara Ehrenreich

Ehrenreich’s Thoreau-like adventure, with the world of manual, minimum-wage jobs as her Walden.

The basic conclusion of the book is simple: A job and hard work does not translate to a ticket out of poverty.

In 1998, Ehrenreich, like Thoreau before her, set off to see if she could survive on her own; she reported her findings in Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, which I started and finished today.

While Thoreau set off for this cabin in the woods surrounding Walden Pond, Ehrenreich set off for a more contemporary, yet just as isolated area: Leaving (to a degree) her safety net of family, Internet access, home and current occupation (writer), she sought full-time work for poverty-level wages.

Working as a waitress in family-style restaurants (think Denny’s), as a maid as part of a home-cleaning crew and as a menial associate at the world’s largest retailer – Wal-Mart – Ehrenreich came to the conclusion that having a full-time job was not the ticket out of poverty:

Something is wrong, very wrong, when a single person in good health, a person who in addition possesses a working car, can barely support herself by the sweat of her brow

– Evaluation chapter

She worked in three different cities – sometimes working two jobs at once – and yet she still comes to the conclusion that she could not have endured much longer than the month she allotted for each city/job if she had had any sort of non-basic (food/clothing/shelter) costs: These non-basic costs would include any medical care, fixing her car and so on.

It’s a disquieting message that Ehrenreich went into this project expecting, yet her proof-by-experience is damning.

While I don’t necessarily agree with all her conclusions/accusations – she paints all management as Dilbetian pointy-haired bosses, and still wonders why the menial workers (of which she became one) don’t demand more for their labors – her book draws some interesting conclusions, many of which she never specifically states:

She is an educated, healthy, unencumbered woman. What of others with families or ailments. If she can barely get by, what does this mean for others who shoulder extra burdens? From what Ehrenreich writes, she was a rarity among those she worked with in many ways: Car, ability to put a deposit on an apartment, no children and associated costs/constraints. Again, if she can barely – just barely – make it, what of others?

She worked with a lot of co-workers – full-time workers – who were either homeless or depended on a second income (spouse, friend, roommate) to cut housing costs.

Affordable housing just is not keeping pace with the demand. If one considers geographically accessible housing (low income workers frequently have no car), and the number of affordable units dwindle to near-zero.

Food costs are higher for the less wealthy simply due to conditions – for example, Ehrenreich once received a box of food from a food pantry, and one item in the collection was a canned ham. Without a refrigerator – and in her case, living alone – the extra meals this large hunk of meat could provide were only marginally useful to her: Without a refrigerator, she’d have to eat it all in one sitting. (She ended up donating this box of food to another pantry). While I’ve read similar reports – the poor have to eat fast food/buy from convenience stores due to time constraints, but the costs are higher – it hits home with an example such as this.

I hadn’t realized that a lot of companies hold workers’ first weeks check as a security deposit of sorts, giving the money back at some future (termination, after X months) date. For someone living check to check, this is another incentive to not leave a job – one can’t afford to miss a check in this manner.

This book was written in 1998, when the economy was booming. Especially in Minnesota, where Ehrenreich’s last job was located, the boom fueled a demand for workers, yet conditions were still appalling and wages seemingly artificially low. Today, whatever leverage workers had due to a demand for manual/service-sector labor is obviously missing. It’ll be interesting to see if she revisited this issue recently to see – in a statistical manner, at least – how things have been changed by the job market forces.

Ehrenreich (almost) closes with the following message:

When someone works for less than than she can live on – when, for example, she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently – then she has made a great sacrifice for you, she has made you a gift of some part of her abilities, her health, and her life. The “working poor,” as they are approvingly termed, are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone else.

– Evaluation chapter.

Ehrenreich then finishes up the book with a short paragraph saying she expects the workers like she worked with to someday tire of taking all the crap and demand a living wage.

Unfortunately, this is not a reality I see happening. For example, one of the points Ehrenreich makes in her book is that job listings don’t necessarily reflect need: Some companies keep a listing going forever, as turnover is fairly constant and the applications are frequently needed. It’s cost-effective to keep the ads running regardless of current needs.

In other words, the lowly workers don’t have any leverage. Yes, they may deserve more money/respect and so on, but – if you’re unhappy with your job – there is always someone else to fill it. It hurts the worker more than the company, or the company would not tolerate this consistent turnover.