Nickel and Dimed on (NOT) Getting by in America, by Barbara Ehrenreich, is a journey into the low working class in the United States. Ehrenreich leaves her “normal” life in the upper-middle class, to investigate poverty by entering the low-wage class. Throughout the book, she moves city to city, with just enough money to get her started, and a desire to work. She discovers that many of these low paying jobs are “physically demanding, some of them even damaging if performed month after month,” mentally exhausting, and just downright awful; yet, those in poverty take these jobs anyways. They accept the challenge because it’s their only option. She claims that not only is poverty a social problem, but so is the so called “living wage.” And she
…show more content…
This idea supports Ehrenreich’s many trials, because from location to location, she couldn’t seem to find or afford a decent place to live. The unfair treatment Ehrenreich experienced, because she had a poor job with a low income, isn’t uncommon for those in poverty. The upward mobility myth is another cause for constraint on those in poverty. Gladstone says that, “more than half of your outcome in life is already determined when you’re born,” which makes it very hard for those born into poverty to be upwardly mobile. Being upwardly mobile simply means that one can move into a higher social/economic class, which isn’t necessarily true for those in poverty. “Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how expensive it is,” (Gladstone 2016) renting instead of buying, purchasing cheap products that don’t last as long, and more, have those in poverty constantly spending money to survive. Finally, another point Gladstone poses that supports Ehrenreich’s argument is that there is a “basic mistrust of those in poverty.” Ehrenreich has a drug test and personality test nearly every time she applies for a job, and they’re almost always critical for employment. Employers have a stereotype that those in poverty are “bad people,” and the mistrust that comes with that misconception is damaging to professional relationships and hurts employment opportunities for those in
This idea supports Ehrenreich’s many trials, because from location to location, she couldn’t seem to find or afford a decent place to live. The unfair treatment Ehrenreich experienced, because she had a poor job with a low income, isn’t uncommon for those in poverty. The upward mobility myth is another cause for constraint on those in poverty. Gladstone says that, “more than half of your outcome in life is already determined when you’re born,” which makes it very hard for those born into poverty to be upwardly mobile. Being upwardly mobile simply means that one can move into a higher social/economic class, which isn’t necessarily true for those in poverty. “Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how expensive it is,” (Gladstone 2016) renting instead of buying, purchasing cheap products that don’t last as long, and more, have those in poverty constantly spending money to survive. Finally, another point Gladstone poses that supports Ehrenreich’s argument is that there is a “basic mistrust of those in poverty.” Ehrenreich has a drug test and personality test nearly every time she applies for a job, and they’re almost always critical for employment. Employers have a stereotype that those in poverty are “bad people,” and the mistrust that comes with that misconception is damaging to professional relationships and hurts employment opportunities for those in