You are here: UK Essays » Essays » Sociology » Ehrenreichs Study

Free Essays - Sociology Essays

Ehrenreich’s Study

Ehrenreich’s study of the lifestyle and experiences of lower-paid workers has come in for both praise and condemnation from critics, for a number of reasons which are explored in more detail below. The book is an interesting exercise in participant observation, a sociological methodology in which the researcher actively participates in the environment which they are studying. In this case, however, the author is approaching the issue from a journalistic rather than a sociological perspective; it is perhaps this less disciplined and more accessible approach which has led to some of the criticisms of the work.

Because of the recent reforms in the welfare system, there is an increasing number of women being redirected into the labor market, many of whom are unskilled and have little hope of significantly improving their skill-set because of the need to balance work and child-care: further education is not an option, in terms of either time or money. We find, therefore, that there are many women trying to survive on wages of around six or seven dollars an hour, in a society which sets the living wage at around fifteen dollars. Theoretically, it should be impossible for them to survive, and yet somehow, they do.

In order to analyze the situation from the inside, Ehrenreich takes a series of typical unskilled low-wage jobs and tries to make ends meet. She discovers that not only is this almost impossible, especially in areas where rents are ridiculously high in comparison to wages, but also that such workers are treated by their employers as dispensable, and in some case, virtually subhuman. Waitressing, she becomes accustomed to being addressed as girl rather than by name; at Wal-Mart she suffers from repressive surveillance by supervisors, and is forced to undergo humiliating drug tests. Accustomed to a reasonable degree of respect and politeness in her normal life, she finds it disturbing to be treated as disposable, unimportant and in some cases almost subhuman by employers and prospective employers.

Ehrenreich is, unsurprisingly, cynical about the government assertion that getting off welfare and back to work is psychologically bracing. She notes that in order to survive at all, she has to take two jobs, work seven days a week and even then finds it impossible to make ends meet. It is, she comments, quite impossible for unskilled workers to confine themselves to a single job, since wages are so low, and as wages remain at a standstill, rents soar. Ehrenreich herself almost ends up in a shelter for the homeless, and most of those she encounters at Wal-Mart are constantly trying to avoid the same fate; the borderline homeless.

Ehrenreich also demonstrates cynicism about the work ethic which dictates that anyone can rise in the world and improve their living standards through hard work alone. It is impossible for the average, unskilled woman to do this: working two and perhaps three jobs just to afford rent, and possibly trying to pay for child care into the bargain, leaves no opportunity or finance to gain more skills and qualifications and escape from the vicious circle in which the poor find themselves trapped. There is little support from employers, since the presence of a large labor pool means that they can afford to treat their workers as disposable; they have no incentive to improve pay and conditions, and if a worker fails to meet the required standards the hire and fire climate ensures that a replacement will be instantly forthcoming. Desperate to keep their jobs, the workers themselves put up with humiliation, constant surveillance, and the kind of treatment by both employers and customers that constantly reiterates their low status on the social ladder. Ehrenreich also demonstrates, however, that in many cases there is a surprising degree of camaraderie amongst the low paid: other workers teach her various tricks of the trade and she is frequently surprised by small acts of kindnesses from her fellow-workers. Since the poor tend to regard themselves as a single class, there is evidence of the kind of group solidarity which one would expect from such a community. It is notable, of course, that Ehrenreich herself approaches the issue from the perspective of an individual who is relatively well-educated and affluent, but once she is forced to conform to the same economic constraints as the other women, this does not benefit her: she, too, is

Trapped in the same spiral. When we consider that the only occasion on which she manages to break even is in a week when she is working two jobs and able to qualify for free meals at one of them, it becomes evident that other women who are not so fortunate have absolutely no chance of escape, and that their own experiences are likely to be passed on to the next generation.

Rapp port (2003) comments that Ehreinreich conclusion about the working poor is that because of their role in society, they have become its major philanthropists; they neglect their own homes and children so that the homes and children of others can be cared for, and their endurance of poverty maintains low inflation in the economy as a whole: in other words, they are benefactors to all those above them in

The socio-economic hierarchy.

As mentioned above, even though Ehrenreich work has been hailed in some circles as an excellent expose of the plight of the working classes, such praise is by no means universal. Orndorf (2003), for example, accuses her of hypocrisy, stating that even the idea for the book was born out of an expensive lunch with her editor, and asserting that in order to demonstrate her sincerity, she should donate her own material possessions to the poor. Although Orndorf seems to have missed the salient economic point that what is needed is a major overhaul of the employment / welfare system rather than isolated charitable donations, he makes a reasonable point in saying the Ehrenreich always had the ability to abandon the poverty lifestyle and return to her own social class. On the other hand, it is evident that Ehrenreich herself makes no secret of this option, remarking that on being offered a job by a somewhat arrogant and dismissive employer, she was tempted to point out that! This was an experiment, rather than her real life.

Quinn (2002) also makes the point that Ehrenreich is concerned with solutions as well as problems: she is very much in favor of reforms which will grant a living wage to poorer people, for example, rather than simply increasing welfare payments. Orndorf suggests that her assessment of income levels is inaccurate, stating that those on low wages are entitled to various top-up benefits which Ehrenreich conveniently ignores: however, one has to bear in mind that those most in need of such Benefits are frequently those who are not aware of their eligibility, or how to claim.

Sander (2001) whilst not actively critical of Ehrenreich, poses the interesting question as to why waitresses; and, indeed, any other low-paid workers; never tell their own stories but rely on journalists and other authors who are temporarily slumming in order to have their lives publicized. She acknowledges that this is a long-standing tradition, citing Orwell Down and Out. . As its originator, but also makes the reasonable point that for the authors to make a profit out of the tales they tell about the poor is behavior as exploitative as that of the employers they castigate.

However Moglen, cited in Rappaport, sees Ehrenreich work as essential in bringing to the privileged classes some understanding about what their privilege rests upon (Moglen, in Rappaport, 2003) and sees any exploitative element in her writing as being far outweighed by the benefits of her social activism. Clearly, opinion is divided as to the motivations behind, and the value of, Ehrenreich’s work. However, it cannot be denied that Nickel and Dimed radically increased public awareness of the plight of the low-waged, and perhaps destroyed some of the comfortable illusions which the more affluent classes retained about the lives of their employees.

All of the essays in this section were written by students and then submitted to us to publish and help others. Thanks to all of the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism! If you need custom essays on your exact essay questions, then have a look at our essay writing service.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: