Making Ends Meet

Dorothy Gallagher writes for the New York Times in 2001 about the book Nickel and Dimed, which was published in the same year. Within the article, she makes note of the prosperity that was felt in 1998, when Ehrenreich's social experiment took place, however, she also points out the fact that there was a welfare reform meaning that a large portion of the American working class would no longer be able to survive and make a living wage on $6 or $7 an hour.

Ehrenreich therefore decided to work undercover as an unskilled labourer looking to make a living after a recent divorce which had forced her back into employment. It could be argued, therefore, that Ehrenreich could not possibly understand the full extent of the struggles faced by these low-wage earners and would never receive an unbiased view. However, Gallagher points out in her critique of Nickel and Dimed that Ehrenreich is aware of this.

''So,'' she writes, ''this is not a story of some death-defying 'undercover' adventure. Almost anyone could do what I did -- look for jobs, work those jobs, try to make ends meet. In fact, millions of Americans do it every day, and with a lot less fanfare and dithering.''

Gallagher continues to discuss the content of Ehrenreich's book and draws the conclusions that the wages are too low and the rents too high in America. By discussing Ehrenreich's interactions with fellow co-workers and learning about their living situations, it is clear to see that there is a vast gap between the low-wage earners and the middle class. As Gallagher notes:

Ehrenreich's picture of the working poor was taken during the best of times. Yet the comforting economic clichés offered by our pundits failed even under those boom conditions: a rising tide does not lift all boats; trickledown economics stops just south of the middle class.

Here, she agrees with Ehrenreich's conclusions of a corrupt nature within American society and how the system is governed. Without the benefits of welfare, people working unskilled jobs will be unable to afford rent and thus will either become homeless, end up paying through the nose for a motel room, or have to take on a second job. For those who have children to take care of, this is simply not an option for them. Gallagher concludes that Nickel and Dimed has highlighted the plight of the working class and makes it undeniably clear that the many suffer for the benefit of the few.

We have Barbara Ehrenreich to thank for bringing us the news of America's working poor so clearly and directly, and conveying with it a deep moral outrage and a finely textured sense of lives as lived. As Michael Harrington was, she is now our premier reporter of the underside of capitalism.

However, as Ehrenreich's book was written over ten years ago, it is possible to argue that there hasn't been much change in the class system and that member of the working class in America still struggle every day, having to choose between necessities such as food or rent, health care or child care. In conclusion, Nickel and Dimed becomes a call to arms, a wake up call for policy makers, should they read the book, as well as the working class themselves. The main message that is received from the book is that this is not okay and this is not normal, but it is, in a way, in the hands of those directly affected by the wages who can help themselves out of the situation.