A Critique of Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich

Barbara Ehrenreichs hold, Nickel and Dimed, was certainly a wonderful read and is verily subject to open the readers eyeball to a reality that is usually set aside by many. The appropriate was originally a compilation of her researches as she went undercover to write round tribe who had to exploit multiple jobs beneficial to make ends meet. Those mass whose wages were below the minimum wage and were so in use(p) with work they were non suitable to pursue their own interests and who were also supporting dependents.As a whole, the germ was able to document her experiences as she wrote in her journal her everyday experiences. Through this, the readers were able to cast a glimpse into the lives of people she had worked with as a waitress at Florida, a healthcargon 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 disguise her motives from her fellow workers. As a journalist, she also had t o restrain herself from pointing out her political views to her colleagues.I think her method of studying the people may nurture some flaws, some biases. Below would be several of them. First of all, she wasnt truly like them. These people has had different experiences and lived in a different environment unlike hers. Such factors would have make an impact on how the subjects would act as people, as workers.The reason mentioned that her co-workers didnt yet take aim about 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 probably ask. Then, again, even if they knew, most of them would not have time to think about such benefits as a whole because they would be too sprightly 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 the role very well. One, she did not have anyone who depende d 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 trust religious organizations even when her coworkers were telling her that it would be a great help. She ever so refused to accept money from charities and other such organizations. People in actual 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 always seemed to talk about this issue but 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 more money and may even develop a family relationship with other people.The last part of the statement was also one o f the things she failed to do. military personnel are social beings, thats a fact even when at that place are a knockoutly a(prenominal) who say they prefer to live alone. All people need each other and so far, the kind race is progressing because of helping each other. The same principle still happens and is certainly one of the most strong ways 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 nedeucerk 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 alimentation more mouths and spending more, but the human companionship, the support, these extra people are giving to the workers actually locomote them to go on fighting and working.There was also this part on the book where she walks out in the middle of her shift as a worker in a restaurant just two weeks after being hired. The tr uth 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, stressful jobs, she also irresponsibly argues against corporations giving such low-pitched 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 surplus loans, the employees would really bemuse a small wage after all the deductions are done.Also, the fact that she seemed to institute 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 coverage, but it certainly lacked a bit of that sense because of the lack of objectivity of reporting the events. She was not even able to tell or relate the liv es her subjects were living. She could have picked a person, tried to pay to know 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 almost 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 essentially ineffective. The truth is, although it would h ave 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 brainpower that if one has a job, then everythings going to be alright. It also might have made people reconsider 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 web called poverty.Works CitedEhrenreich, Barbara. Nickel and Dimed On (Not) Getting By In America. stark naked York Metropolitan Books, 2001.