nickel and dimed

I read a great book in my Intro to Sociology class during my undergrad titled "Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting By In America" written by Barbara Ehrenreich. I happened to pick it up today as I have been doing research on the federal minimum wage policy and Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

I appreciated a few of her words:

the Economic Policy Institute recently reviewed dozens of studies of what constituted a “living wage” and came up with an average figure of $30,000 a year for a family of one adult and two children, which amounts to a wage of $14 an hour. This is not the very minimum such a family could live on; the budget includes health insurance, a telephone, and child care at a licensed center, for example, which are well beyond the reach of millions. But it does not include restaurant meals, video rentals, Internet access, wine and liquor, cigarettes and lottery tickets, or even very much meat. The shocking thing is that the majority of American workers, about 60 percent, earn less than $14 an hour. Many of them get by by teaming up with another wage earner, a spouse or grown child. Some draw on government help in the form of food stamps, housing vouchers, the earned income tax credit, or – for those coming off welfare in relatively generous states – subsidized child care. But others – single mothers for example – have nothing but their own wages to live on, no matter how many mouths there are to feed. Employers will look at that $30,000 figure , which is over twice what they currently pay entry-level workers, and see nothing but bankruptcy ahead. Indeed, it is probably impossible for the private sector to provide everyone with an adequate standard of living through wages, or even wages plus benefits alone: too much of what we need, such as reliable child care, is just too expensive, even for middle-class families. Most civilized nations compensate for the inadequacy of wages by providing relatively generous public services such as health insurance, free or subsidized child care, subsidized housing, and effective public transportation. But the United States, for all its wealth, leaves its citizens to fend for themselves – facing market-based rents, for example, on their wages alone. For millions of Americans, that $10 – or even $8 or $6 – hourly wage is all there is.

In her quest to experience working poverty-level wages, and trying to make ends meet, Ehrenreich argued that social inequality is a problem that limits the ability of the lower class to achieve the status of hard-working middle class. Inidividauls are desensitized into believing that America's capitalistic system measures the individual worth of a person in monetary terms.

Ehrenreich explains that people are often moved by the mechanics of society because it appears to be their only option for survival. Lower class individuals are often left to thinking that they lack the social mobility to help them achieve a "new rank." It is harder for them to be seen as such because of the nature of a society that supports the capitalistic value system which always produces winners and losers. Ehrenreich further implies that the social norm too often rears its ugly head at humanity, causing people to forget that they have the potential of changing for the better. Lives continue to be lived with no hope for change because the social inequality does not allow them room to see beyond their current socioeconomic situation.

Poverty, due to social inequality in America has a disabling effect on individuals who are susceptiable to its consequences. I recently heard a professor explain that eleven million preschool age children in the "affluent" United States are malnourished. Similar data can be seen regarding health care, education, and homelessness. Because the distribution of income and wealth in America continues to grow more unequal (often times, consequences of society's self-gratifying materialism) inequality is followed by neglect and suffering of those people of lower socioeconomic status. Because the idea of getting rich is so ingrained in the heads of American citizens, it is almost like we are being turned into a mechanical body of society that so characterized the lower class members whom Ehrenreich worked among. Something that might ease this burden would be to acknowledge the problem and work to change the underlying values of the social system to which we belong through more governmental programs designed to help the lower classes.

On page 214, Ehrenreich states:

It is common, among the nonpoor, to think of poverty as a sustainable condition – austere, perhaps, but they get by somehow, don’t they? They are “always with us.” What is harder for the nonpoor to see is poverty as acute distress: The lunch that consists of Doritos or hot dog rolls, leading to faintness before the end of the shift. The “home” that is also a care or a van. The illness or injury that must be “worked through,” with gritted teeth, because there’s no sick pay or health insurance and ht loss of one day’s pay will mean no groceries for the next. These experiences are not part of a sustainable lifestyle, even a lifestyle of chronic deprivation and relentless low-level punishment. They are, by almost any standard of subsistence, emergency situations. And that is how we should see the poverty of so many millions of low-wage Americans – as a state of emergency.

Jesse L. Jackson Jr. stated: "Our nation has a peculiar work ethic. It insists that people work for a living, which is a valid expectation, but it does not insist that the private and public sectors provide enough jobs at livable wages for everyone who wants to work." Sad, but true.

The poverty of so many millions of our fellow citizens IS in a state of emergency. I believe it is up to us -- those blessed with knowledge, skills, passion, drive, and whatever your talents might be -- to help lift the under-dog and do what is right to help ease the suffering of those who are truly downtrodden.