October 19, 2003
Dimed: The Second Half of the Book
I finished Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed On (Not) Getting By in America today. And, to shake things up a bit, I'm going to post my analysis first and the supporting information in the extended entry.
The second half of the book is the story of Barbara's move to the Minneapolis area. This section is immediately followed by Barbara's general analysis of her experience.
In Minneapolis, Barbara has trouble finding housing. She meets almost immediate success in finding jobs - two, actually, and ultimately she decides to work for Wal-Mart. This is not without a bit of drama, for, you see, Barbara is concerned that she cannot pass the drug test, which, very quickly, you can tell she ideologically disagrees with. Nonetheless, drug tests are very prevalent in gaining employment, and I find Ms. Ehrenreich very irresponsible for "transgressing" with drugs during her science experiment, as she calls it. Yes, I realize this is dripping with distaste, but I actually threw the book after reading a few pages of Barbara's experience with this, so forgive me. (It didn't dent until I threw it a second time, at which time it made a loud SPLAT against the wall and frightened three cats).
At any rate - Barbara works at Wal-Mart. She makes about what one would expect to make at Wal-Mart. She brings to light the overwhelming prevalence of Theory X in management (my words), and I've seen this, too. It's disturbing, and I have to agree with her when she says it drags the workers down. Basically, Theory X states that people don't want to work, they'll not want to help or do anything you don't specifically MAKE them do, and that they're unwilling or unable to effect positive outcomes without intense supervision. Theory X means you have to ask management to use the restroom.
The Wal-Mart job goes about like I expect it would. It's got a bunch of corporate hoo-hah that Barbara correctly identifies, and throughout much of this section I agree with her assessment of the job as a whole.
The problem here is housing. Barbara can't find something to suit her needs at a decent price. This happens for her everywhere, though, and I'm not sure if it's just that I've only lived in Missouri as an adult, but I can ALWAYS find affordable housing. The only place I've paid anywhere NEAR $500 was when I moved to St. Louis and had a job that paid me well enough to accommodate that. On Page 170, she mentions something close to what I stated in the review of the first part of this book. Housing costs should not make up more than 30% of your income. Period.
Barbara wasn't ever able to live by that. I can't be a good judge of why without talking with her, and I may shoot her an e-mail. It's possible she picked cities without knowing enough about where to find good, cheap housing in a decent neighborhood. It's possible she was too rushed. Who really knows? This does seem to be the biggest thorn in her side in each experience, though.
The last section of the book is Barbara's analysis. Overall, I'm impressed with this. It's much less personal than the rest of the book and contains well-written analysis with cites from others regarding the points she wishes to make. One thing I must pick at. Again Barbara rails on the drug test, but she uses it as a singling-out of "indignities imposed on low-wage workers." Barbara, I hate to tell you this, but the drug tests are pretty ubiquitous across pay scales and companies. Sorry, that point fails.
All in all, a good read. It could have been done better, though, but, of course, this would have made for a more scholarly, less interesting book. Ideally, Barbara would not have moved. Ever. She would have found steady, accommodating housing, and then tried this experiment in that manner. I believe the book would have been more plausable and would more have mirrored the life of someone who is working in jobs such as these. Basically, I think I could've taken a decent stab at something like this. Of course, my focus would've been completely different - how to make the most of an experience like this (my low-wage jobs were accommodating of daytime graduate school and still full time).
Thanks for reading - individual points below.
Disagreement
Page 121: "Not to mention my worry that the Latinos might be hogging all the crap jobs and substandard housing for themselves, as they often do." Grr.
Page 127: Barbara basically asserts that a breathing, non-moving, non-functional slab of human cheese should make $11.77 an hour - a "living wage."
Page 129: I'm irritated that Barbara "needs" a furnished apartment. Really, one piece of furniture will suffice for a bit - bed/couch.
Page 140: Barbara rails that one of the furnished places at which she is looking does not come equipped with a microwave.
Page 147: "My watch battery ran out, and I had to spend $11 to get it replaced." (Emphasis mine). As Brian pointed out, she could have BOUGHT a new watch from Wal-Mart for far cheaper if she NEEDED the timepiece-on-wrist functionality.
Page 156: "I feel oppressed, too, by the mandatory gentility of the Wal-Mark culture." Feel isn't is, baby.
Page 163: "Melissa probably wouldn't think of herself as poor." Well, okay. Barbara then comments that Melissa knows about discounts and informs Barbara. Hey, does Barbara Ehrenreich use coupons? Scoff. I'm going to guess not. Perhaps I'll ask her that, too.
Also Page 163: Barbara seems surprised when her schedule changes from week to week. Welcome to shift work, Barbara.
Page 178: Barbara notes that the people with whom she works don't seem unhappy. That's probably because they are NOT unhappy, Barbara.
Page 187: "What you don't necessarily realize when you start selling your time by the hour is that what you're actually selling is your life." This may have been the second book-throwing point.
Page 196: In her analysis, Barbara believes she was thrifty enough. I agree with everything but the housing.
Page 209: Barbara explains "at-will" employment...at least the half that says your employer can let you go for any reason. There's no mention of "you can leave, too."
Page 211: "If you're made to feel unworthy enough.." (my emphasis).
Page 213: Barbara points out that most Americans earn less than $14 an hour. Well, yes. That's quite a bit of money.
Page 221: At the very end, Barbara wants us to feel shame. But I don't see hers. Isn't she an oppressor, too?
Good/Human Touches
Page 122: Barbara lives briefly at a friend's place and cares for the friend's bird. She's afraid of birds.
Page 153: Barbara coins the phrase "Wal-Martian." I laugh - that's great.
Page 158: Sewage backs up in Barbara's motel. I feel genuinely bad for her.
Page 160: She makes fun of Survivor, and she gets some points for that until she compares her situation to it.
Page 166: Barbara "takes ownership" of the clothing. It's emotional, and it's well written. I identified with her here.
Page 168: Barbara has a small run-in with another employee. Again, her mental response to it is well written, and I find it similar to what mine would be.
Page 177: Barbara thinks to the reader, "I never see anything sold." It's very insightful. I have a similar experience in working for Barnes & Noble. Straightening up books - exasperating. It never ended.
Page 204: "Employers will offer almost anything - free meals, subsidized transportation, store discounts - rather than raise wages." I agree.
Posted by hln at October 19, 2003 10:00 PM | Books | TrackBack
As you're probably aware, Theory X has been viewed with disdain by the I/O psych community for decades. Far be it from the management of a socially responsible entity such as Wal-Mart to be swayed by pesky empirical evidence and reasoned analysis.
Posted by: hans at October 20, 2003 08:37 AMRegarding this point "Page 204: 'Employers will offer almost anything - free meals, subsidized transportation, store discounts - rather than raise wages.' I agree."
This is very true. The practice of "fringe benefits" is well-documented. The reason businesses do this is because they can get the benefit for cheaper than you can and giving you the benefit brings greater value to the firm than paying you the monetary equivalent. Basically, as you might expect, it's cheaper.
But fringe benefits should not be derided. Notice that it's cheaper for you as well to receive these items, such as store discounts, than it would be for you to acquire them on your own. These represent payment allbeit non-monetary. Further, surveys of employees indicate that fringe benefits are an essential part of job satisfaction. If employers did away with fringe benefits and just gave you the money they pay to get it, you'd probably be shocked 1) at how little they pay for such benefits and 2) how much more important it is to you to just have the benefit and not the money.
Posted by: Trey Givens at October 20, 2003 10:15 AMRegarding this point "Page 204: 'Employers will offer almost anything - free meals, subsidized transportation, store discounts - rather than raise wages.' I agree."
This is very true. The practice of "fringe benefits" is well-documented. The reason businesses do this is because they can get the benefit for cheaper than you can and giving you the benefit brings greater value to the firm than paying you the monetary equivalent. Basically, as you might expect, it's cheaper.
But fringe benefits should not be derided. Notice that it's cheaper for you as well to receive these items, such as store discounts, than it would be for you to acquire them on your own. These represent payment allbeit non-monetary. Further, surveys of employees indicate that fringe benefits are an essential part of job satisfaction. If employers did away with fringe benefits and just gave you the money they pay to get it, you'd probably be shocked 1) at how little they pay for such benefits and 2) how much more important it is to you to just have the benefit and not the money.
Posted by: Trey Givens at October 20, 2003 10:15 AMRegarding this point "Page 204: 'Employers will offer almost anything - free meals, subsidized transportation, store discounts - rather than raise wages.' I agree."
This is very true. The practice of "fringe benefits" is well-documented. The reason businesses do this is because they can get the benefit for cheaper than you can and giving you the benefit brings greater value to the firm than paying you the monetary equivalent. Basically, as you might expect, it's cheaper.
But fringe benefits should not be derided. Notice that it's cheaper for you as well to receive these items, such as store discounts, than it would be for you to acquire them on your own. These represent payment allbeit non-monetary. Further, surveys of employees indicate that fringe benefits are an essential part of job satisfaction. If employers did away with fringe benefits and just gave you the money they pay to get it, you'd probably be shocked 1) at how little they pay for such benefits and 2) how much more important it is to you to just have the benefit and not the money.
Posted by: Trey Givens at October 20, 2003 10:15 AMuh. Ok. My computer freaked out. I totally did not intend to post the same thing three times.
That, and people aren't motivated by money or you would get a hell of a lot more telemarketing calls.
Or strip clubs and prostitutes.
Ooh - that's a good point.
Posted by: TheYeti at October 20, 2003 01:45 PMFor the record, I coined Wal-martian independently about 2 weeks ago here:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0126975/categories/filthyLies/2003/10/08.html#a554
And I've really enjoyed your review posts. Excellent work.