A Critique of Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich

Barbara Ehrenreichs keep back, Nickel and Dimed, was certainly a wonderful glance over and is verily adequate to open the readers eyes to a receivedity that is usu eithery set aside by some(prenominal). The set aside was in the beginning a compilation of her researches as she went undercover to write well-nigh batch who had to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet. Those spate whose wages were down the stairs the minimum wage and were so busy with work they were not fitting to pursue their own interests and who were excessively permiting dependents.As a whole, the write was able to document her bonks as she wrote in her journal her everyday experiences. by dint of this, the readers were able to birth a glimpse into the lives of people she had worked with as a waitress at Florida, a healthc are aide at Maine and a salesperson of Wal-Mart at Minnesota. To be able to do this properly, though, she had to fake her qualifications and secrete her motives from her fello w workers. As a journalist, she also had to restrain herself from pointing bug out her political views to her colleagues.I think her method of studying the people may invite some flaws, some biases. Below would be several of them. First of all, she wasnt really like them. These people has had divers(prenominal) experiences and lived in a different environment unlike hers. Such factors would sire made an impact on how the subjects would act as people, as workers.The author menti iodind that her co-workers didnt even collect round insurance or other possible benefits included on the job they were on and just accepted what their boss said. If the workers were people who knew about such things, they would likely ask. Then, again, even if they knew, most of them would not accept cadence to think about such benefits as a whole because they would be too busy trying to ake ends meet anyway.Then, as one who had to experience the life of a poor worker, she was not able to live out t he role very well. One, she did not have anyone who depended on her earningsno family or siblings, unlike most of the subjects she studied. She did not feed anyone else other than herself nor did she have to consider the medical problems of other people.The author also did not bank religious organizations even when her coworkers were assureing her that it would be a great help. She forever and a day refused to accept money from charities and other such organizations. People in existing situations would not be refusing such help in fact, they would have been the ones who would be asking for help from such organizations, whether they believed in its cause or not.She also insisted on living alone, thus pay her rent by herself. She of all time seemed to talk about this issue solely was never really able to solve such an easy problem. Real people would have gone and looked for roommates to share the rent of the house. That way, she could have saved much money and may even develop a relationship with other people.The last art object of the statement was also one of the things she failed to do. Humans are social beings, thats a fact even when in that location are a some who say they prefer to live alone. All people need separately other and so far, the human race is progressing because of helping each other. The alike principle still happens and is certainly one of the most effective shipway to surviveto help one another. The author, unfortunately, was not able to build a proper relationship with her co-workers.She was not able to build a support network which most people actually have. I believe that this is one of the most vital parts in the lives of the working class. Yeah, they may be feeding more mouths and spending more, but the human companionship, the support, these extra people are giving to the workers actually motivate them to go on conflict and working.There was also this part on the book where she walks out in the middle of her shift as a wor ker in a restaurant just two weeks after being hired. The truth is, real people would not have done this, simply because they did not have the liberty to do so. They just could not afford to lose a job, however hard it is or low paying it is. And speaking of low-income, hard, disagreeable jobs, she also irresponsibly argues against corporations giving such small wages without considering the economics behind it like insurance and overhead. These things are work requirements and are deducted from the employees salaries. Of course, with those things, and probably additional loans, the employees would really get a small wage after all the deductions are done.Also, the fact that she seemed to give her own thoughts and comments on the issues that were tackled on the book made it less like professional journalism. Ehrenreich thought that the book was the product of undercover reporting, but it certainly lacked a bit of that genius because of the lack of objectivity of reporting the eve nts. She was not even able to tell or relate the lives her subjects were living. She could have picked a person, tried to get to survive him and be able to relate in the book more concretely the problems and issues the person was facing. Instead, the book was actually, in another point of view, mostly about her and how she coped up with living the life of such people.Sure, there were the other characters but it almost always seemed like she was the hero since the whole thing revolved around herself. The subjects she was supposed to be studying were like backdrops in her play. She really should have focused more on the lives of the people she was studying. She should have delved more on exactly how these people lived, what are the exact problems they were facing, if possible, what these people wanted, wished, they could do for themselves and what the government could do for them.Im not saying that Ehrenreich was all the way wrong in her methods and because of that, her book was esse ntially ineffective. The truth is, although it would have been better with the above suggestion, it has, in effect, really opened the eyes of its readers of the many people who have jobs but still really are poor. The book certainly disproved the mindset that if one has a job, then everythings red ink to be alright. It also might have made people regard their thoughts about the poor, saying that they are like that because they are lazy. The book shows that there are hardworking people, but unfortunately, even with all the jobs they are balancing, they are still not able to get out of the sticky mesh called poverty.Works CitedEhrenreich, Barbara. Nickel and Dimed On (Not) Getting By In America. smart York Metropolitan Books, 2001.