Could You Afford to be Poor?

There are people, concentrated in the Hamptons and Beverly Hills, who still confuse poverty with the simple life. No cable TV, no altercations with the maid, no summer home maintenance issues – just the basics, like family, sunsets, and walks in the park. What they don’t know is that it’s expensive to be poor. In fact, you, the reader of middling income, could probably not afford it.

A new study from the Brookings Institute documents the “ghetto tax,” or higher cost of living in low-income urban neighborhoods. It comes at you from every direction, from food prices to auto insurance. A few examples from this study, by Matt Fellowes, that covered 12 American cities:

• Poor people are less likely to have bank accounts, which can be expensive for those with low balances, and so they tend to cash their pay checks at check-cashing businesses, which in the cities surveyed, charged $5 to $50 for a $500 check.
• Nationwide, low-income car buyers, defined as people earning less than $30,000 a year, pay two percentage points more for a car loan than more affluent buyers.
• Low-income drivers pay more for car insurance. In New York, Baltimore and Hartford, they pay an average $400 more a year to insure the exact same car and driver risk than wealthier drivers.
• Poorer people pay an average of one percentage point more in mortgage interest.
• They are more likely to buy their furniture and appliances through pricey rent-to-own businesses. In Wisconsin, the study reports, a $200 rent-to-own TV set can cost $700 with the interest included.
• They are less likely to have access to large supermarkets and hence to rely on the far more expensive, and lower quality offerings, of small grocery and convenience stores.

I didn’t live in any ghettoes when I worked on Nickle and Dimed—a trailer park, yes, but no ghetto-- and on my average wage of $7 an hour, or about $14,400 a year, I wasn’t in the market for furniture, a house or a car. But the high cost of poverty was brought home to me within a few days of my entry into the low-wage life, when, slipping into social-worker mode, I chastised a co-worker for living in a motel room when it would be so much cheaper to rent an apartment. Her response: Where would she get the first month’s rent and security deposit it takes to pin down an apartment? The lack of that amount of capital – probably well over $1000 – condemned her to paying $40 a night at the Day’s Inn.

Then there was the problem of sustenance. I had gone into the project imagining myself preparing vast quantities of cheap, nutritious, soups and stews, which I would freeze and heat for dinner each day. But surprise: I didn’t have the proverbial pot to pee in, not to mention spices or Tupperware. A scouting trip to K-Mart established that it would take about a $40 capital investment to get my kitchenette up to speed for the low-wage way of life.

The food situation got only more challenging when I, too, found myself living in a motel. Lacking a fridge and microwave, all my food had to come from the nearest convenience store (hardboiled eggs and banana for breakfast) or, for the big meal of the day, Wendy’s or KFC. I have no nutritional complaints; after all, there is a veggie, or flecks of one, in Wendy’s broccoli and cheese baked potato. The problem was financial. A double cheese burger and fries is lot more expensive than that hypothetical home-made lentil stew.

There are other tolls along the road well-traveled by the working poor. If your credit is lousy, which it is likely to be, you’ll pay a higher deposit for a phone. If you don’t have health insurance, you may end taking that feverish child to an emergency room, and please don’t think of ER’s as socialized medicine for the poor. The average cost of a visit is over $1000, which is over ten times more than what a clinic pediatrician would charge. Or you neglect that hypertension, diabetes or mystery lump until you end up with a $100,000 problem on your hands.

So let’s have a little less talk about how the poor should learn to manage their money, and a little more attention to all the ways that money is being systematically siphoned off. Yes, certain kinds of advice would be helpful: skip the pay-day loans and rent-to-pay furniture, for example. But we need laws in more states to stop predatory practices like $50 charges for check-cashing. Also, think what some micro-credit could do to move families from motels and shelters to apartments. And did I mention a living wage?

If you’re rich, you might want to stay that way. It’s a whole lot cheaper than being poor.

Comments

[Al Lehmann]

I read your columns with great interest from Canada. A couple of other inequities I've noticed:
1) Saving for retirement--wealthy are allowed to write off from their taxable income contributions to retirement plans. The poor pay these taxes, and have no ability to save for retirement.
2) Banks offer higher rates of interest on savings accounts that hold high balances (e.g $10 000 +). The poor have no savings, and even if they do, after tax on the interest often wind up with less than they started with.
Keep up the good work, EH?
Al

[Tom]

Some of the poor i've mingled with refuse to pay taxes (for a variety of reasons, but mainly fairness and the inability to pay) and dare the government to come after them for the "chump change" they owe. Since they own nothing of any real worth, they feel pretty safe. If the IRS did come after someone like this, they'd be put on some sort of payment plan anyway - and then it would become clear that there isn't any available cash to pay these unfair taxes.

[Rhea]

Bravo! The points that the Brookings Institute study makes along with the points you made in "Nickel and Dimed" are spot-on! This reminds me of a column written by Ellen Goodman on the 'gender tax' that women pay in this country to stay safe from sexual assault. Women often pay more to live in 'safer' neighborhoods, they take more cabs and so on. Now, if you are poor and a woman -- and let's throw in nonwhite -- the burdens are that much greater.

[Duane Gran]

You may find an essay (http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/5/31/11221/9907) from John Edwards to be of interest. He was writing about a similar report from the Brookings Institute last year which drew similar conclusions.

[Heather]

I am one of those poor people. I make $9.75 an hour, but I also have to support my disabled husband and young children on that $20,000 a year. I pay more in taxes than I'd ever imagined, and with my health insurance running at $160 a month premium (in addition to what my job pays out), I can barely make rent every month. I have no way to better myself, as I can't afford to go to school, I am in debt from medical bills I recieved from before I had insurance, and since my husband has a criminal record, I'm stuck in the only apt complex I could find that would accept us. And it's not like my husband can get a part-time job to help out- most places won't hire someone who has TB (which he caught,ironically, while interning at a hospital to get his EMT certification!) as well as a mental illness and a criminal record. I live in Utah, and I am surrounded by affluence, and people who say, "make your husband work," and "go to school to get a degree," but I'm stuck in this call-center, working customer service. I wish there was more services available for people who are low income who wish to better themselves. The sad thing is that many people who are poor, stay poor, because there literally is NO WAY OUT.

Great post, BTW. *bookmarking it*

[Thrift-shopping working food stamp mom]

Barbara, your heart was in the right place, but part of what made "Nickled and Dimed" so annoying to me was your evident cluelessness about how actual poor people live. For instance, no real poor woman would have bought $40 name brand khakis for a job. She would have gone to Target, Wal-Mart or, more likely, Goodwill, where you can get khakis for $3, sometimes even the same brand you bought. No real poor person would have turned down a $10/hr. job to work for $6.50 instead. If you have no kitchen supplies and little cash, you go to a yard sale or that same Goodwill, or the dollar store.

Car loans? Mortgages? Poor people do not own homes, and if they have a car it's a beater they bought for a few hundred bucks from a private seller, often a relative.

Negelcting health problems--our government forces me to. Medicaid *will not pay* for annual physicals or dental cleanings. I have to wait until I have a cavity or illness to see a doc. I needed a physical to get a job to try to get off welfare and could not get it because I could not pay for it.

Oh, and btw, thank you so much for guilting women who have housekeepers. I clean houses for a living and charge $20/hr. This allows me to set my own schedule, be home when my kids get off the bus, avoid asshole bosses, drug testing, dress codes and all the other indignities of low-wage work. It's a freeing job and I love it. The fact that you couldn't handle getting a little toilet water on your socks just emphasized how divorced from reality America's upper middle class elite are.

[Barbara E]

Hey Thrift Shop Mom --The slacks were $30 (expensive but they needed to survive a daily washing); I never turned down a $10 job for $6.50; and the toilet juice on my shoes didn't slow me down one bit.

[Thrift Shop Mom]

I could swear I remembered a bit in the book about turning down a home improvement store job for Wal-Mart.

[deang]

Thanks for making people aware of this. A couple of years ago, I left a job that provided health insurance for a job that did not. When I started looking into insurance programs, potential providers would tell me that they would either not cover or charge prohibitively more for those health issues for which I most needed health services. So, being low income, I opted to go without insurance for a period of time. On the two times that I did go for minor checkups during that time, I found out that base charges for medical services are substantially more for those without insurance than for those with. I had only heard rumors of this, but it is a real penalty. Also, my job at that time was in a low-income, largely Black neighborhood, and I noticed that the produce in the supermarkets there was of lower quality and substantially higher priced than in my own, more pricey and white neighborhood, even though it was the exact same supermarket chain.

[Sandra]

Hi Barbara! Hooray for you having a blog. I've read your books and look forward to reading your blog from now one.

I'm familiar with microcredit programs in Africa, SE Asia, South America, but somehow never thought it working here. So interesting... It's true that that there's such a disguise around how much it "costs" to be poor, especially in urban areas. On a personal level, I've noticed my expenses going down (or getting subsidized by my employer) as I've "moved up" in my career. It's ironic.

Looking forward to more...

[Blair Hawkins]

Thanks for the article. Here's a few more things to consider.

I support pay-day cash advance banking alternatives. The choice is not between cashing a check free at a bank or paying a fee at a check cashing business. Many banks (in Cleveland for example) charge a fee to cash a check unless you have an account, even if the check is drawn on the bank where you attempt to cash it. The choice is between paying a fee to cash the check or not cashing the check.

Pay-day places don't don't give you the attitude that banks do.

The choice is not between a high interest pay-day loan or a low-interest loan at a bank. The choice is between a high interest loan or no loan at all. That's why I didn't like VP candidate John Edwards speech 2 years ago calling for shutting down check check cashing centers while not calling for any banking reform.

Banks are not a safe place to keep your money. If you have any debt or unpaid medical bills or back taxes, your bank funds will be seized. So if you have a $10,000 medical bill and $500 in the bank to pay this month's rent, guess what? You just became homeless.

And don't get me started on impoverishment programs that masquerade as poverty assistance programs. I have been documenting the programs here in Charlottesville, Va. for 6 years now, and identifying the directors and officials making a tidy living perpetuating poverty while boasting about helping people.

Remember: poverty does not cause crime. Crime causes poverty. Rich people steal way more than poor people.

Just visit my blog for a systematic undressing of the poverty pimps and their propaganda. My latest report is an update on a former urban renewal official who, last year, outlined his bold new "community land trust" idea for maintaining permanent disadvantage for low-income people.

Oh and did I mention: I'm still poor.

[Hattie]

I live in one of the few places in the country where people of all incomes live in close proximity. We shop at the same groceries and at the Wal-Mart and often live in the same neighborhoods.
Therefore, I know quite a number of poor people. I see how they get ground down. They may earn some money, but it is never enough to alter their basic situation. Boyfriends may be in prison. Car payments eat up income. Adult children are forced to move into their parents' homes, because they get evicted from their rent-subsidized apartments, or the owners decide to sell. Jobs vanish as circumstances change, and there is no money and time for retraining. Physical and mental problems may preclude employment. Another baby may be on the way, and isn't abortion a sin?
The woe never ends.
Middle class people like me have other resources, and these could be on Mars for all they are accessible to the poor. Free credit on my credit card is an example. I was able to pay off my mortgage after inheriting a large sum of money. Everything I want is mine, and bargains to boot.I travel and get lots of upgrades and frequent flyer perks.
I am aware of what is out there. My poor friends are limited to what is around them and what they see on television. I could attribute my fortunate circumstances to my superior intelligence and know-how, but seeing how others cope in circumstances that would bring me to despair I can't get away with such notions.
The constant fear of the poor is that they will not be able to provide for themselves and their loved ones. This is not a fear I have hanging over my head. I don't think I could cope with poverty at all, especially now that I am no longer young.

[Janet]

My car got towed and I can't afford to get it back so I take shopping carts out of grocery store parking lots.

[Buffy]

You capture many of the core issues. May I add two more?

Many times electicity is shut off for nonpayment, which means that refrigeration isn't available. Ergo, no fresh vegetables, fruit, dairy and meat. What's left? Prepackaged, heavily processed foodstuffs with little, if any nutritional value. For children, it means a critical lack of calcium, water soluble vitamins, quality protein, and an overabundance of processed sugars, starches and saturated fats.

When brains and bones and muscles are developing, poor children are literally starving for the essential nutrients that their bodies need.

Secondly, many of the poor who are treated in hospital settings do not get the essential care that they need to keep themselves healthy after discharge. No one works with them to develop a plan for meeting their nutritional needs, their activity needs, and their safety needs. Prescriptions are written without any assistance in helping them access required medication, learn how to take it safely, and to help them monitor their own health. For example, an accurate daily weight is critical as a key part in monitoring heart failure.
Almost never are patients worked with to make sure that they even have access to a reliable scale, let alone the ability to read it accurately.

Diabetics who are able to control their nutritional intake - the kinds of foods, preparation methods, and timing - can have wonderful success as diminishing and staving off the effects of the disease. Patients who are poor have little, if any, ability to comply with rigorous dietary requirements. Among patients who develop gangrene and subsequent amputations, the majority are poor.

[realpc]

I think a poor person with some common sense will have a much easier time than you did.

I was poor for over 12 years, while changing careers and getting through graduate school. My income was never over $12k during those years and I lived alone. I did not experience any of the hardships you listed, even though I live in an extremely high cost area.

After gettiing a degree, it still took several years to get up to a middle class income for this area. But I still saved at least $20k every year, because I had learned how to live simply.

Why was my experience so completely different from yours? Well for one thing I was not out to prove that poor people are victims. I was out to prove I could improve my life, without any help. I didn't have any luxuries -- no AC, no TV, old cars, old clothes, tiny apartment -- but it was never terrible. I focused on my goals rather than feeling sorry for myself.

No, I did not have children to support, but you didn't either, during your experiment. A single woman supporting children needs help, I agree. But a healthy adult with no kids just needs some common sense and a lot of self-discipline.

Barbara, all you're doing is trying to make people think they can't do things for themselves, they need government help. You start from your socialist perspective and then twist all the evidence to fit.

[Janet]

Yeah, right on realpc. Barbarah is rich. She charges $14,000 just to speak to kids at schools. The government is good though, I seriously need help because of all the bad choices I made, like having kids when I can't afford them. I think the government has to support me even if I have another 10 kids. Mothers of the world unite!

[n'chee]

I raised a child and paid for his and my university undergrad education on between $14,000 and $18,000 a year, before taxes. I ran a small old car during the summer, walked everywhere in winter (average 20 to 30 below zero). I didn't buy text books for an undergrad degree; wore hand me downs and thrift shop clothing and never had more than three changes of clothing at any time. Two pair of shoes a year. One pair of winter boots. 8 and 10 years between lens changes for glasses. I've never had investments, but always had savings up to 2 to 3 months living in a savings account.

You could have picked up a yard sale slow cooker, as I did 20 years ago (which I still use) for nutritious meals made anywhere. And you could have learned to eat more basically with good nutrition if you bought only in season, long cooking meats, powdered milk. Like that.

Nothing but basic rabbit ears tv, no holidays but with a tent, cutting your own hair.

I really don't get much of your poverty ideas.

[n'chee]

By the way, I still live as above (now alone) but for the single most expensive thing I've ever bought: an internet connection! I need it for work, but it also keeps me connected to the world. I can write it off of my earnings, which are just under $10,000 a year. I don't now and never have taken any money from goverment or had any debts.

[realpc]

I never had any debts or hand-outs either. Being poor taught me how to be practical -- it really is not that hard! I never ate fast food. Food just is not a major expense -- the challenges are housing and transportation. I was able to afford my own apartment (tiny!) and I had a car (old!). But if that had not been possible I could have shared an apartment and moved closer to work and school.

I also biked or walked whenever possible, and still do -- it saves money on gas and you don't have to join a gym.

I also still cut my own hair -- that's easy if its long. And I still shop in discount stores. Basic kitchen utensils do not have to be expensive.

I have a middle class income now, but more than half of it goes into the bank.

Another problem I have with Barbara's research -- she pretended to be a middle-aged women returning to work with no business experience or skills. Why would she expect employers to pay her well? Why does she expect the government to make everything easy for us? I don't think it could if it wanted to.

Regarding single women with children -- I do not think the government should pay them to stay home and have more kids. But there should be some kind of programs to help with daycare.

[Thena in Maine]

It all depends on where you are starting from. Sometimes it only takes $25 to make that electric bill or credit card payment, but the consequences of not doing so can be severe - utilities cut off, high "poverty fees" and increased interest rates, etc. Or maybe you're too poor to have that credit card in the first place, which means that when your fifteen-year-old car needs repairs, you have to scrape up the cash to have it fixed or you won't be able to get to work because there's no public transit in your town. A newer car would get better gas mileage and have fewer repair costs, but to get that newer car you need money up front.

Same with the hotel-vs-apartment lease scenario, or, scaled up an economic class, the rent-vs-own scenario. In many markets it's cheaper to own than to rent, but the worse your credit, the more you'll pay for that mortgage, and you have to have (at very least) down payment and closing costs up front. To get a lease, you need good credit and first/last/deposit. For that matter to get a motel room these days you often need to have a credit card, which someone in very poor economic circumstances might not have.

It's not just strictly about income, either. It has to do with your social support network - whether you have family and friends you can tap for a short-term loan to get that $25 for the light bill that's due three days before payday, or if you have to use a check-cashing place that will charge you a fee for it. Whether there's a basement couch you can sleep on for a few weeks while you find a new apartment, or if you're sleeping under a bridge or in your car.

Starting capital isn't just money. It's things like your grandmother's beat up old cooking pots, which will do until you can afford new ones. It's clothes that fit well enough and have enough wear in them that you can wear to work - tricky, if you are in a job that requires you to buy a uniform up front. If you are starting from scratch - as Barbara was for her Nickel-and-Dimed experiment - you don't have that stuff. And poor people start over from scratch more often than folks in more stable lifestyles may realize.

Got evicted? If you have a support network, you might have friends show up to help you move your stuff. Or your former landlord might just toss it or sell it in lieu of uncollected rent. Or maybe you left voluntarily but couldn't take it with you because you had no way to move it or no place to move it to.

Thrift shops and yard sales are great sources for secondhand household goods, so long as you don't need a specific thing at a specific time and have the time to keep looking until you find something useful at the right price. They're also good sources for clothing if you fit into average sizes, though there's a lot less available for non-average-shaped people. But if you have to have a pair of black PANTS NOT JEANS to wear to work on Sunday night, and you don't own one already, then you either buy them from whoever has them at whatever price they're asking, or you jeopardize that job by showing up out of uniform.

Multiply this kind of BS by a thousand times and you start getting the picture. The details vary depending on what shade of poor you are - not able to work, unemployed, underemployed, formerly middle class, formerly working class, working one job, working multiple jobs, have kids, don't have kids, paying off old debts, whatever - and some people manage to work their way through the maze.

But why should it be a maze to begin with?

[n'chee]

I just don't know where it got to be a maze. My parents generation ALL lived as I described. I live in luxury compared to how they did, and how I grew up.

I don't go with this idea of putting blame here: "paying welfare moms to stay home and have children". We're all indebted to the man; either the one we work for, the one we sleep with, or the government.

The generation before us learned the meaning of these words well.

no

need

want

Don't confuse the last two. And stop making excuses for yourself. Just stop, and begin to do it the honourable way, that is the way that will make you feel honourable, with as little of somebody else telling you what it will be or not. You can't change the system overnight, but while you're working to change it, walk away from it.

I'm Canadian. I put my money where my mouth is and I vote for social assistance programs. But I have yet to NEED to use them. Really, I have yet to WANT to use them so I don't. Just_like_that.

Learn to do without until you can pay for it in cash without taking it out of rent or groceries or children's education or robbing peter to pay paul. Stop using credit.

It can be done. But it takes

will

The last word to learn.

[MB]

You're a good person Barbara Ehrenreich. Good points about needing a system of micro credit for Americans with low-income and bad credit; I usually hear about micro credit in discussions about poverty in developing nations, like the Grameen Bank (www.grameen-info.org), but never about poverty in America. Either our nation is ashamed that the American Dream does not reach downward or there are vested industry interests in maintaining a two-tiered system for rich and poor. I say it's vested interests. But we should also be ashamed and I hope that can motivate us to push forward as a nation of humanity rather than a nation of greed.

[n'chee]

What I, as a member of the nation where American thinks it's going to get the oil, gas, water, softwood lumber and hydro it WANTS, is the good citizens of the United States learning to live a little lower on the food chain. A LOT LOWER.

It seems to me that Americans as a nation have this attitude of just get more. The American Dream. Maybe the American Dream needs to be rethought.

[Thena in Maine]

N'chee -

Some things are different in Canada. Like health care coverage. If I have a major medical emergency, I will be bankrupt, because I don't have private medical insurance, because my employer doesn't offer it to part-time employees and I haven't found a full time job with health benefits yet in this slow economy. (Maine is the "end of the line" for the US, being surrounded on three sides by -- CANADA! Can we secede?)

Our climate down here isn't much different from that in Quebec or New Brunswick. Explain to me how I should avoid buying heating oil when I don't have the cash up front to install a wood stove or a place to get free wood. Explain to me how I'm supposed to get from my home to workplaces 10, 15, 25 miles away (that's miles, not kilometers) without my car, when public transit's not available and I don't work at the same site from day to day or week to week.

And I'm not poor by global standards or even US ones; I'd put my income and standard of living at about the 20th or 25th percentile (US). There are lots of people here poorer than I am and I am well aware of this. I get by. Others are not so lucky.

[n'chee]

I'm not calling anyone out but saying how it may be possible. I have never owned my home and did pay a horrid amount to heat a rental main floor. Income of just over $1100 a month then, rent $560, and heat over $200 a month. One of my kids now says she froze to death all the time. I used to say "put a sweater on". People in the U.K. do it don't they? In other accommodation which I also rented we wore mukluks all day.

We never ate anything that didn't require cooking in the pressure cooker or slow cooker.

Anyway the point I'm trying to make is I wish people would spend more energy trying to find ways to make it work instead of complaing about how it doesn't. Once you decide hey I'm living in poverty anyway, I'm going to do it without the 'system' you walk lighter.

Is is more difficult getting kids to come along. But you do it to the extent you can, and let them know this is it, and when they have their own home/job/life they can do it their way. For now, pick up the shovel (sorry no we don't have a snow blower too bad yes I know your friends do) and you'll come in all warm and toasty I guarantee.

Now, in an apartment, the ways I surive on so little are different. I can choose to wash as much of my laundry by hand, work from home, use my car only when I have to go 10 miles (have to...not choose to), unplug everything that is not in use and other compromises to keep the power bill to the billing minimum, never buy what I can get free (dumpsters, people throwing things out, library) etc.

I would like some options, but I don't have any except I could get exemption from healthcare premium because of my age and circumstances (it is a misunderstanding healthcare here is free) but I refuse to let the government into my life. I also don't use any medications. I have had prescriptions handed to me, including for chronic conditions, but then a bit of time spent on the computer with google and I learn the only profit there is for the pharmaceutical company, not for me. I'll modify diet and exercise and reduce stress. (I nor my children when at home, have NEVER eaten fast food--not McDonalds, or any other).

I stay healthy as possible by making choices for health that come BEFORE a disease is caused (or created by advertising). I just say no thanks when the doctor said for example, here's a prescription for the pain you're going to have after this operation. I can't afford it and turned out, didn't need it. Aspirin and tolerating some pain worked just fine.

I'm somewhat disabled, although I don't like to use that word when I see those who are not just "somewhat".

I get dental care at the university, where they want people for the students to practise on. Same with my kids when they needed it, right to braces for one. The dental professors congratulate me on my superb oral hygiene. There's nothing for them to do.

I would like many things. I can't have them without compromising my principles. So I do without.

That's all I'm saying. You stop playing the consumerist, capitalist game, things are way easier.

[Hattie]

Why do women accept poverty so graciously? Guys don't. They get construction jobs and make good money while women are starving themselves working for poor wages, going to grad school, bringing up kids without enough to care from them properly. What's wrong with getting new glasses when you need them? Enough heat? A nice house or apartment to live in? Why bother to be part of civilized society if you have to struggle and make do all the time? You might as well go live in the woods.
Why take pride in being an underdog? Why not insist, instead, if you are able-bodied, on getting your share of the wealth? That would be something to be proud of.

[n'chee]

Guys would do what? Get drunk and beat someone up (likely a woman). Society needs to be more like what women do, not less.

There's a lot wrong with getting things that aren't yours, not only glasses bought for on credit with no intention of or ability to pay. Same with oil.

[n'chee]

We did live in the woods by the way, and so does a much (if not majority) of the world's population: live in the woods, in the desert, in the jungle, on the barren lands, in the veldt, on the steppes, in the outback.

[realpc]

"I have had prescriptions handed to me, including for chronic conditions, but then a bit of time spent on the computer with google and I learn the only profit there is for the pharmaceutical company, not for me. "

n'chee,

Yes to everything you said, especially this!

People think they need all that over-priced "health care," and they think they must have all the modern luxuries, with never a moment of pain or discomfort.

I've had plenty of pain, never asked an MD for painkillers. i get hot in summer and cold in winter and guess what, you can get used to it. I go out for a walk everyday whether it's 100 or 0 degrees F. People think I'm nuts but it does not bother me, and I do not see any reason to be a wimp.

Feeling sorry for poor people and making them feel like victims who need government hand-outs probably harms them more than it helps. We can be so resourceful if we think for ourselves and do not believe anyone who tells us we are being victimized.

I do realize that things worked out for me only by the grace of God. I realize that my faith prevented me from giving up when it seemed too hard. I do not want to judge poor people who are not making it, through no fault of their own.

However, there are many who go into debt buying things they do not need, who do not even try to improve their lives because they don't believe in themselves. Barbara's book is not doing them any favor. Ok, some of what she says is probably valid, but it's totally unbalanced, does not tell the other side at all.

[n'chee]

Not everyone is going to share my political perspective and private solution.There are many who do however.

For those who do want into the American Dream, as flawed and racist as it is in my opinion, Barbara's points are valid. There's more though, and that more should include how to live on less, not just where to get more, and recognition that the majority of the world's citizens live so badly, so that Americans can live so well.

The poorest north American is far wealthier than the citizens of some third world country owned by an American backed dictator who gives the land that should grow their food out to American companies that grow luxury crops the citizens of that country can never afford. They are for us.

[realpc]

Don't assume that all the corrupt third world dictators are backed by America, or that we create the misery of the third world. That is much too simple, what the far left prefers to believe because it supports their ideology.

[Carol]

I admire people who make do on very little (realpc and n'chee) but these often have advantages that others do not : social savvy and street smarts. N'chee, for instance, manages to get her dental care at the University: smart! BUT...how many people have access to this sort of low-cost or free dental care? In rural parts of the country, none. Both n'chee and realpc managed to do without private healthcare: wonderful! but how many people have a disastrous illness here in the US and cannot cope with the bills? A surprising number of the chronically poor are also chronically ill. They stagger to work each day and pray that they can make it to payday.

The real point here isn't that poor people shouldn't try. The point is that there should be a modicum of wellbeing that we, as supposed Christians, Jews or Muslims or whatevers, wish all our sisters and brothers to share, so that poverty doesn't mean constant anxiety and worry over the health of your children. One of my biggest worries as a poor parent was making sure my children got really healthful food to eat, which precludes eating a lot of slow-cooked meals except for beans. I was a divorce-poor person, the children's father was quite comfortable,thank you.

[n'chee]

Yes healthcare is a huge burden, and has been for me too because as I said, it's a misunderstanding to think it's free in Canada. I have bought what I had to. For example I have a serious chronic health condition, but instead of going to a physiotherapist several times a week year in and year out for comfort treatments, I go a maximum of five or six times and learn and practise (the key word) on my own the exercises, postures and movements I need to keep my condition at a dull roar.

Some of what Americans struggle with can be changed by who they vote for. But usually people don't really want the system changed just a change for them. And also don't really want to take control. They want someone else to do it for them. And there's the rub.

Education is free for everyone but you do have to seek it out. It's at the library. For the most part it's not found on television. Although I have an undergraduate general degree it was only a piece of paper required by the system. I am self educated, a life-long reader and learner. If I can anyone can.

[realpc]

Carol,

Anyone who is too sick to work needs help from the collective society, via the government. Almost everyone agrees about that. We no longer have the kind of family structures that can provide for sick members. And families can't do it now anyway, because health care is too expensive.

I already said that single mothers need help -- not hand-outs to stay home and have more kids, but practical help with daycare, job training, etc. Our individualistic and fragmented society makes it extremely hard for mothers who become divorced or widowed.

Maybe single mother groups could be formed to organized cooperative daycare, etc., rather than depending entirely on the government. But I think everyone agrees that, unfortunately, the government does have to take on some caretaking roles.

Regarding health insurance -- I did without it for 15 years and was lucky, but I should have bought low-cost catastrophic insurance. That's all most people need anyway. I don't know what it costs, but it must be much cheaper than complete coverage.

The idea that chronic lifestyle diseases must be treated with expensive drugs is one reason for our health care crisis. Most health care is routine -- checkups and vaccines for children, for example -- and could be handled by para-professionals at low-cost clinics.

It's just a myth that we all depend on modern medicine to survive past 40. This is nothing but propaganda from the drug companies to make us dependent.

Yes medical technology does save lives and perform miracles, in certain catastrophic cases. But other than that, we should avoid it and stop taking all those pills.

[Coral Russell]

All I can say is Thank you! for someone finally bringing this out in the open because now I don't feel alone. There have been times when I've been poor, even every sense of the word. If we hadn't made some significant sacrifices and thank God nothing went too terribly wrong in our choices we have managed to overcome the bad teeth syndrome and other issues that mark you as being poor and can keep you there. BUT, we're supposed to be doing better with more money and it hasn't changed all that much because with the rise in income also comes the rise in everything else we're supposed to be able to AFFORD now with this new income. People cannot and DO NOT survive in this country living this way. In every major index the U.S. is behind other industrialized nations. I had someone today complaining about the immigrant protests and I felt like - Why? We should be thanking them because NO ONE ELSE is out there fighting for anything. No one's protesting the corporations hiring them. There's no big boycott there. Also the National Anthem being translated in Spanish as if this is not a celebration of our Democratic principles and must they only be enjoyed in English?! I know it hurts people's ears to hear other languages in this country, but for those of us who are used to it...it is no big deal! Sorry this just happened today and this seemed like a good place to rant.

[n'chee]

What's with this stay home and have more kids remark, which you've made more than once?

Are you implying that women have children so they can live in poverty, and be shat upon by the upstanding citizens who ...what go out to work and are barren.

Just how many kids to you have, and wouldn't it be preferable if peope who make these kinds of statements weren't allowed to breed or had their kids taken from them? You know for the kids sake. Negligence takes many forms, one of them teaching children ignorance by example.

[JimH]

Poor folk don't have bank accounts? What are credit unions for? They only ask a really low minimum deposit, and their fees are reasonable.

Banks? Don't get me started. They are bigger leeches on society than any poor people.

[realpc]

"What's with this stay home and have more kids remark"

I'm sure you know that I was saying that although healthy adults should not require any govenment welfare, single mothers might. I do not believe each individual should have to sink or swim on their own. I said the family has broken down and no longer provides the level of security needed by children.

As you know, we had welfare reform for a reason. It was extremely common for poor single women to continue having children when they were already on welfare. This was harmful to them, and to society in general. It did not motivate them or help them to join society. The program had good intentions, but it had some bad effects.

But I do not think poor single mothers should be abandonned by society. Most of them are genuine victims of either bad luck or irresponsible boyfriends/ex-husbands. They need and deserve help, and my suggestion was to help them with daycare, which is probably one of their major expenses, and an obstacle to their getting ahead. We could have some kind of government-organized daycare system. It could provide many jobs for poor women, and would also be a great help to poor single mothers.

I meant what I said -- paying women to stay home and raise their kids, as well-meaning as it was, did not help them in the long run. They remained unskilled.

Welfare reform, by a Democratic president, was an acknowledgement that the policies were not ending poverty. I think we all know this.

[Confused]

I do feel for people who are just scraping by, but I always have to ask what kind of choices they've made in their lives. Who forced them to drop out of high school? Who forced them to marry a guy of so low quality that they go on to be a criminal? Who forced them to have sex, bear, and raise children they couldn't afford? Who forces them to take a job for minimum wage when there are a ton of uneducated people among my acquaintance who find a way to make their services more valuable (like the lady above who is a housekeeper)? I'm sure your life was tough. I'm also sure that expecting the world to take care of you is irresponsible and NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

[n'chee]

No we don't all know that, evne those of us who are American. This is the world wide web by the way, not some American bulletin board.

I don't think any of what you have dropped in here is fact it's your opinion which is fine, you are entitled to it, but it does not have anything to do with fact. And it's a very privileged opinion at that. Here for your edification is a guideline to humanity. Fake it until you make it:

How to be a real nice person:
http://tinyurl.com/gnwr6
blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146

[Kate]

I feel that people are perhaps misunderstanding Ehrenreich's meaning. She is absolutely not claiming to be an expert on living in poverty, I'm sure that she would be the first to admit that a few months in low-wage jobs does not an expert make.

I think what she's trying to point out is that people with money often have a "more money, more problems" attitude and glamorize poverty. What these people don't understand is that the problems you give up by having less money (HBO payments, car problems, etc.) you gain problems that you may not have seen previously.

I would be surprised if anyone disagreed with the statement that our society is geared towards those with money. People are expected to have money, we don't live in a bartering system. People without a lot of money have to find ways to live outside of this system, because, as Barbara points out, checking accounts and security deposits and whatnot do not cater to the poor. Because the standard capitalist system penalizes those without money, the poor are given few opportunities to accumulate any sort of capital.

I think that the comments posted by the self-proclaimed poor show the ways that people can find alternatives to the standard capitalist system by walking, biking, shopping at thrift stores, eating out less, etc. And I think that these are fantastic things that everyone, regardless of income, can do to save money and subvert an unfair system.

At the end of the day, a living wage and universal healthcare are things I support not because I think someone needs "hand-outs," but because I think we live in a jacked up system that tells certain types of people (poor, female, non-white) that they can succeed if they work harder and yet is based on social and economic devices that keep them from ever being able to get ahead.

I completely agree that everyone in this country needs a lesson on "want" and "need," but in the meantime I don't think any group of people should be punished by a system that excludes them.

[realpc]

"people with money often have a "more money, more problems" attitude and glamorize poverty"

I doubt that is true in general. Having money simplifies your life, if you want that. It only complicates your life if you choose complication. Money increases freedom to do what you want. I think almost everyone, rich or poor, sees it that way.

I choose to live simply (by today's standards) because I like to, but I don't have to anymore. When I was poor, I had no choice and I depended on luck. I only had the financial resources to handle one emergency at a time, and I knew that my education plans could be destroyed by sickness or misfortune of some kind.

Living simply because you like it, because it contributes less to the general insanity and pollution, is another thing entirely.

Kate, like many people you complain about the need for money, and how the system revolves around it, excluding those who don't have it. You are missing the larger picture entirely -- all social systems have had some kind of economic reality. This goes for natural biological systems also, not just human.

The reality of life on earth is that we need certain things, and they do not fall down from heaven. Well during childhood they do -- because our education period is so prolonged, children do not usually contribute much to the family's economic system. In past ages they did.

I think it's our unusual attitude about childhood that allows people to become adults without much grasp of the economic realities of life and nature.

If you want to eat you must hunt or gather or farm, etc. This was true for all humans everywhere for millions of years. All but the youngest and the oldest contributed.

Some advanced civilizations developed aristocratic leisure classes. And of course we have an upper class in our society that does not have to work (causing much resentment from those who do).

But in general the need for money -- which is nothing but a symbol of value and could be anything from chickens to clam shells -- is universal.

The abstract concept of money is very similar to the abstract concept of love. Both stand for goodness in some form, and both are the root of all kinds of evil. But you cannot blame money, or love, for evil. They are just symbols for what people want or need.

We will never be free of needs, and some will always have more than others. We should try to be both compassionate and realistic.

I'm not really sure what Barbara's point is. It seems to be that captialism is a cruel system, and should be discontinued. But that's like saying life is cruel, so we should discontinue life.

Capitalism evolved naturally as individuals became increasingly free to create and trade products, and as technology developed. It caused misery along the way, because the changes have been rapid and hard to adjust to. But the alternative to capitalism is authoritarianism.

[Hattie]

I'm always hearing how fortunate we Americans are because we could be living covered in dirt and starving or bombed out of our homes in one of those countries where people are not lucky enough to be Americans.

This all reminds me of an old Robert Louis Stevenson poem written at the height of the British Imperium:

Foreign Children

Little Indian Sioux or Crow
Little frosty Eskimo
Little Turk or Japanee
Oh don't you wish that you were me!

You have curious things to eat,
I am fed on proper meat;
You must dwell beyond the foam,
But I am safe and live at home.

This was as masses of English, including children, were choking on the London fog, dying of tuberculosis by the thousands, etc. Stevenson himself died of TB, and he was a citizen of the richest and most powerful country of that time.
I do think this mythology of how great it is to live in America compared to anywhere else keeps us from demanding better lives.

[realpc]

Each type of civilization had its advantages and disadvantages. If you like individual freedom and technology, America is ideal. If not, you would prefer a different style.

But we have what has evolved. You can demand all you like, but civilization evolves pretty much at its own pace in its own way. We can adjust things here and there, but attempts to create utopia always fail.

The American revolution was not really a dramatic break, and the design of this country was based on European ideas that had developed over centuries. They did not make something out of nothing.

This competitive prosperous society is not for everyone. In traditional societies everyone had their fixed role and dissent was not permitted. That made life simpler and easier to accept, because you had no choice. There was very little competition because you could not improve your status anyway.

Primitive tribes were less authoritarian and more egalitarian, but they also had no room for individuality. So it depends what you like. You can't demand that America change, because so many people love their freedom. But you can choose to live on a commune.

[Amananta]

Oh my god, these people make me SICK. What a group of vile, hateful, willfully ignorant bullies. Screw you all, and your ideas of how stupid and lazy poor people are. The poor work ten times as hard of the middle and upper classes and get the shaft every time, and you want to whine about how they deserve nothing? If all the working poor suddenly did become lazy and quit their jobs, none of the upper classes would know what to do, because every nice thing you have depends on their underpaid labor.

[Chaz Davis]

I am one of these poor people who alos happen to pay Child Support and I make 2.80 an hour, after taxes. Because of my frustration I am working hard to build a business that help other people like me...earn extra income while at the same time, helping raise funds for Charites who actually help people. Stop by my site and keep in mind that I am building this with the free resources that I have found online. I am looking for people to join me in this , nationwide!

[lc2]

Real pc and n'chee have forgotten about two major causes of poverty, judging from the demographics at the soup kitchens in my area: mental illness and mental handicaps (downs syndrome, etc.), in addition to, shall we say, intellectual limitations. These conditions are on the increase, unfortunately, particularly autism spectrum disorders which will probably make it impossible for many youngsters today to live independently, let alone practice the admirable resourcefulness of pc and n'chee. Many of these disorders will probably prove to be caused by the proximity of environmental toxins to low-income residential areas, which are desperate for the cash that waste dumps, too-close power plants, and incinerators bring in.

You're confusing voluntary simplicity with poverty. Simple as that. It's a systemic problem, and I could give thousands of examples of what I mean by that from my work with teens in the low-income high school where I work, but why bother? All pc and n'chee would do is offer hardhearted analyses of their all-too human shortcomings. If they stopped to listen, they'd probably be humbled, if that's possible, by the obstacles they've had to overcome just to make it to school. Helping those less fortunate -- and trust me, pc and n'chee, there are plenty of people out there less fortunate than you -- demands a level of compassion and selflessness, not pity and condescension, which tends to elevate the promise of humanity overall.

Despite pc and n'chee's smug confidence, it takes more than crockpots and bikes to deal with things like diabetes (which I have, thank you very much, despite what my md calls the most admirable lifestyle efforts she's ever seen. I'm not overweight, by the way). If I were poor, would you rather have me amputate toes with a knife I sterilize on the kitchen stove, which would impede my ability to reach my bootstraps, or just die, rather than use relatively cheap medication the well-meaning taxpayers of this society would provide? Not a very good use of human potential, if you're looking for people like me who consider it a moral imperative to plan for resource reduction on a societal, not just personal level. I do this every day in my role as a schoolteacher. And by the way, plenty of capitalist societies do this better than we do, pc. My brother emigrated to one four years ago, and it's not Canada. It's far more civilized, clean, and probably a little less "free" than ours.

N'chee, your scorn of U.S. consumption is misplaced. Go after the Hummers and 4,000 sq.ft. McMansions first. And please open your heart a little.

[realpc]

lc2,

I doubt you read my posts. I said HEALTHY ADULTS don't need handouts, if they use common sense. In Barbara's experiment, she did not try to use common sense, because she was out to prove her theory.

So if I was only talking about HEALTHY ADULTS, then I must NOT have been talking about mentally ill adults, autistic children, or any other disabled individuals. And I made an exception for single mothers also.

There is nothing smug about what I said. I admitted that I needed good luck to get through years of poverty, and sickness or other emergencies would have ruined my plans. But I tried hard and it worked, and anyone can do the same. It's very easy to fall deeper into poverty if you don't believe in yourself. Yes, you need mental and physical health (but it does not have to be perfect, since like most people I have health problems).

I have known people who never learn that they can control their own lives and make things better. Barbara's message to poor people is to feel helpless and ask the government for help. Don't try to figure out your own solutions.

Once again, I am not talking about individuals who are too old, too young, or too disabled, to work. But I am saying that convincing people to feel like victims of the capitialist system can cause them great harm.

[Helen]

I'm sure that you have made good points in this article, but a couple of points bother me.
1. My bank account at Wamu has a 0 dollar minimum balance and I get to cash my checks for free.
2. Cars are not strickly necessary. I ride a bike & public transport 80% of the time and only whip out my car when going somewhere far away.
3. I buy all my furniture from Goodwill or craigslist. (20 bucks for a couch)
4. I avoid large supermarkets and shop at small Mexican or Persian markets in my area because they are cheaper and have higher quality produce.
5. I buy all my kitchen ware and clothing from Goodwill - 5 bucks for a pot, 5 bucks for a nice button up shirt.
6. Who has enough money for a deposit for an apartments? Not me. I sublet a room for 500 bucks a month from someone who rents a 2 bedroom apt in a cheap area.

So all together, I find that my living expenses are fairly low. I spurge quite often and buy a nice dinner or bottle of wine, but if I didn't do that and got rid of my car, I could survive quit comfortably for 15k a year.

About me: part time engineer, full time graduate student living in Los Angeles on 24k a year. (To be fair, the health insurance thing is an issue that I don't have to worry about - my work pays for that).

[n'chee]

I have not forgotten who the poor are since I am one of them. Nor am I unaware who the majority of the disabled are. Although I have a physical disability (born with, not onset in adulthood) much of my work involves writing advocacy materials for the mentally ill. Because this is a never ending and underfunded segment of society I also do volunteer work for the mentally, notably, I was the launch editor for the first edition of a magazine sold on the streets by the mentally ill to support themselves. You are lumping me with someone else's point of view here that I do not share. That person is not speaking as one who lives in poverty, as I do. There is nothing "voluntary" about the poverty in which I live.

[Hattie]

But why are all these strategies to get by necessary in what calls itself the richest and most fortunate country on earth? Why are we letting the very rich skim all the cream off the economy to support their useless "lifestyles?" And why to do we tolerate our tax money going to make weapons instead of going into social services?
I offer myself up as an example of a person who could use help from public services but does not get it.
Much of my time is spent finding and providing care for my aged mother in law.
I'm affluent, yes, but in many countries support services are available for all regardless of income. She is reasonably well off, luckily, so I can usually find less fortunate women than I to work for her and I can pay them well. Which means they can be reasonably dependable. But I am always responsible. Without these women the care of this 96 year old woman who has lived next door to us for seven years would all be on my shoulders and I would have no life. Or I might abandon her to whatever nursing home I could find that was reasonably OK.
Now some posters here may think this is a dandy arrangement; if keeping women like me in their place is a social goal, they are right. They might feel that this gives me a chance to show the world what a good person I am. I don't feel that way about it. I don't care what people think of me. I want relief. I'm 67 years old and tired of the burden of caring for people.
My isolation with this problem means that I don't feel much solidarity with Americans in general, since they do not help me.
So if anyone wonders why Americans are so isolated, that the "social fabric" has worn thin, it's because too many of us are in this day to day scramble to get by, even those of us who have some money with which to solve our problems.
But most of us don't demand better lives because we believe a lot of nonsense about how good we have it in America.

[realpc]

I am someone who DID live on a below poverty income for a long time. I did not have a wealthy family or contacts to help me. I admit I am "smart" and good at school and learning, and I don't take any credit for that. But you don't need advanced math skills for the common sense economics I practiced, similar to Helen. My financial rules were (and still are) so simple I don't even need a pencil to calculate them, let alone a computer.

The poor woman Barbara described who lived in a hotel was lacking in common sense. Instead of telling her she's a victim in need of government housing, someone should tell her what Helen figured out -- there are so many house or apartment to share adds, not just on craigslist but in the advertising papers you can get for free.

Right after my divorce and unexpected entry into poverty, I rented a room in a noisy, dirty house. Of course I hated it and couldn't wait to leave, but it didn't kill me and I soon found a much better place.

I don't understand why no one gets this simple point -- you don't have to be a genius to keep your expenses low enough to survive poverty. Barbara did everything wrong, every step of the way. Now what kind of scientific research is that?

[Clancy]

Right on re: the check cashing places. There was an article in Slate years ago (http://www.slate.com/id/2059386/) making the argument that even loan sharks are better than those places.

[Clancy]

Here, sorry, try it now:

http://www.slate.com/id/2059386/

[realpc]

Hattie,

The problem is that your mother-in-law has money. My mother has very little money, so she is covered by all kinds of government programs. Since I have to work, I cannot help my mother very much, I just would not have the energy after working all day and doing all my own chores, etc.

Once your mother-in-law's money has been spent, she will qualify for all kinds of help.

Yes, it would be better if we did not have to worry about aging parents. Most families are scattered and one sibling gets stuck, and it can be very isolating and difficult. I have tried to get my siblings to understand but they don't want to hear it.

I think this is more a result of our individualistic non-traditional society than of inadequacies of the government.

[mythago]

When I was poor, I had no choice and I depended on luck.

Yet you overestimate how much your resourcefulness, willingness to 'live simply', etc. etc. had on your life and how much luck and circumstances did. A drunk driver, a kidney stone, or a bank error could have put a rather large dent in your wondrous ability to get by.

I'm thinking of part of Barbara's book where she feels pleased that she can do the same work as women twenty years younger than herself. Then she realizes that, unlike those women, she grew up in a middle-class household where she wasn't subjected to the stress of poverty.

[n'chee]

N'chee, your scorn of U.S. consumption is misplaced. Go after the Hummers and 4,000 sq.ft. McMansions first. And please open your heart a little.

#######

My distaste for the wealthy lifestyles we in the west take for granted is not only for America, but I can't relate to much of what Barbara mentions regarding the poor, because our system has more built in help with social services. But and this is important...you mention items which are so far at the end of the scale of wealth. I am talking about the ordinary everyday wealth Americans especially (but Canadians also to a lesser extent) have because it comes from the third world deprivation. And we just take it for granted. We are so spoiled, so rich. Hummers are not even on the scale of what I'm thinking of. Huge homes that are not insulated so that energy flies to keep them warm or cold, two or three vehicles per family (even if they are so-called modest) full cable, closets filled with clothing, even people who think they are poor with cell phones and computers. Please. Stoes filled with extravagant food choicec, and our garbages as well. This is not poverty under any circumstances. It is wealth beyong belief to the majority in the world.

[n'chee]

realpc Helen is a professional woman with references. Her very demeanor and way of speech (I imagine) demands respect, says "I'm somebody and from somebody, and someday going to be somebody". That would not be the case for the women in the hotel, who would be scorned and turned away by landlords and employers.

It's not poverty alone, but poverty and class.

Here's one way I was lucky: in spite of all the *ifs* everyone here has mentioned, and yes Hattie that includes until 18 months ago being sole carer for a an adult relative, I was a reader and learner from and early age, and my mother taught me early: we may be poor but we are never too poor to be clean, and to learn things from a book. Luck there for sure. No everyone has that. Another thing that happens if one is perceived to be of lower class and without money, is that woman are automatically thought to be loose, will be targeted by landlords to pay for rent and a roof with sex. Thrown into the streets if they refuse. Down and down they go. I would like to see an across the board income, for everyone regardless of whether they are disabled or can work. School lunch programs are for everyone at certain schools, and we don't demean and humiliate those who are poor and hungry by making them sign up, or stand in line for the handout while the wealthy watch. Everyone gets fed. So should it be with a guaranteed annual income.

[mom]

I'm a bit baffled by the poor w/ children paying taxes. I've been one and am only barely out of that category currently... and well, I think people need some education on taxes. I've always got everything back, and wouldn't have had to pay if I took the proper exemptions...

[mom]

addendum... if you are poor, and have children, and are paying too much in taxes, either check out the services your state's human services department should have or spend the money to get your taxes done next year. most places will take the cost out of the refund. There are also free online services for the poor. and for those with no internet access, (they aren't reading this, so tell them), many libraries have internet access. just ask if the computers aren't obvious.

[mythago]

This is not poverty under any circumstances.

The nice thing about this 'race to the bottom' argument is that we can reduce the definition of poverty so that nobody is poor. There is always someone worse off--to an AIDS orphan running from terror groups in Darfur, a blind beggar living in the slums of Sao Paulo is unimaginably well-off.

[Coral Russell]

I agree with Kate, we need a living wage and universal health care, that's not asking too much for the taxes we pay. And Capitalism may be a necessary evil but it should be one that is REGULATED so it does not cause all of this pain that people can just say, "Oh, that's too bad." Capitalism has become like Communism - in that it needs to consume every country, niche of society in order to succeed. Why all of this deregulation and definitely Un-Capitalistic business practices between companies if Capitalism is so fair and great? Well, don't worry, the last of the regulations on businesses from the "New Deal" era has been discarded by Congress, so we shall see.

[gaby]

The issue of poverty is very complex and comparing poverty in America to poverty in the Third World is nonsense and counterproductive. In my opinion the most unfair practice is nepotism and the close-knit network of the well-off that is off limits to the rest of us. Not only is it cheaper to be wealthy, but it is also a great advantage in a job search situation.

[Firefly]

"I am someone who DID live on a below poverty income for a long time. I did not have a wealthy family or contacts to help me. I admit I am "smart" and good at school and learning, and I don't take any credit for that." ... realpc

No, realpc, you are not smart. How, in fact, did you pay for grad school, which is quite expensive, if you had no family help? Government loans, perhaps? Because if they came from a bank, or were charged on a credit card, there's no way you paid off a loan with 10 to 20 percent interest on a 12-year stint of "poverty income."

I doubt you have any sort of degree; whatever you learned in school, you certainly don't have any critical thinking skills. You're simply repeating Republican talking points over, and over, and over again, couched in terms of your personal experience, and you don't add one iota of useful information. "If you're poor, it's your responsibility to get out of it, regardless of how you got in it." "The government pays mothers to stay home and have children." "Teaching people that the system makes them poor teaches them how to be 'victims'." These are the kinds of MYTHS that have been debunked by real research with real evidence to back it up. Did they teach you how to support your claims with evidence in grad school? Because simply saying that you did it so everyone else can do it is just plain ridiculous.

How about if the government suddenly decides that since your mother is poor and old, and a bad risk because she's probably not going to live much longer or contribute any kind of "wealth" to society, she should take care of herself? Again, sounds like you are benefiting from the very programs you condemn. If the government wasn't there to take care of good old Mom, you certainly wouldn't be socking away that golden $20K every year, would you? And you probably wouldn't have gotten out of that "dirty hole" you were in after your divorce, either.

Extrapolating your own personal story to the wider political situation is not a valid rebuttal, it's just a cry for attention. If you were born poor and never learned to read but turned your life around to go through grad school, then you might have a point. But what goes without saying between the lines of all your posts is that you had a computer, you had access to education, you lived in a "high cost area" and not a slum where you might be desperate for tomorrow.

What you really need is not applause but a course of therapy, because instead of having gone through the experience and gotten over it, you want to subject everybody to it so they can see what a supposed saint you were.

(Assuming, that is, that your experience is even real, and you're not some kind of Roveian Netvocate posted here because Barbara Ehrenreich is a recognized progressive voice. You seem to have a vested interest in rebutting every article, and every supportive comment, posted on this site. Don't you have a busy career to attend to now that you've attained a high degree of education?)

[n'chee]

Gaby I wasn't so much comparing, as saying poverty in the third world exists to the extent it does because of western greed capitalism and imperialism. Even when the west doesn't send an army in to secure what they want, say in Iraq, they buy some dictator who hands over land of that country to grow luxury crops for us.

[realpc]

meridian,

Your reading comprehension is very poor, or you have been driven insane by chronic rage. I said over and over and over that some people need and deserve government help.

Barbara made a silly and half-hearted attempt to live in poverty. Of course it didn't go well, and I and others here pointed out things she could have done better.

People can and should take responsibility for their lives and it makes a world of difference. There is no guarantee things will work out, and we do have government programs for children, and people who are old or disabled.

You are so blinded by rage you did not process anything I said.

[realpc]

"poverty in the third world exists to the extent it does because of western greed capitalism and imperialism."

That is a very simple-minded and biased explanation, and there are many counter-examples. Do you blame North Korea's poverty on capitalism?

Third world countries that industrialize and sell their products to America often improve economically. According to your statement, trading with the US should always increase poverty.

A major cause of poverty is corrupt tyrannical rulers. Can you blame the existence of every corrupt dictator on the US?

Another major cause is failure to industrialize and compete in the modern world. Is the US motivated to prevent poor countries from industrializing? If that were true, we would not be promoting globalization now.

There are too many contradictions in your theory. America is not pure or faultless, and has often contributed to the world's problems. On the other hand it has often tried to be helpful.

Using America as the great scapegoat is silly.

[Ryan]

This is directed to those of you who so boldly claim to have climbed the socioeconomic ladder without anyone's help:

You are either blatant liars or just extremely clueless. No one gets anywhere without the help of others. Not poor people; not rich people. No one!

Maybe you did work your asses off and live without any luxuries for years. So what! Those are not the only factors that determine whether someone lives above or below the poverty line. Most poor people work their asses off and live without any luxuries, just like you did, because they have no choice.

One of you said you made it through graduate school with an income of less than $12,000 a year. And, of course, you did it all by yourself. No one helped you.

BULLSHIT!!!

Maybe you did manage to live on $12,000 a year, but how did you pay your tuition? I know it didn't come from the $12 K. So where did it come from? Loans? Grants? Scholarships?

Well, if it was a loan or a grant or a scholarship, I'm going to let you in on something: SOMEONE HELPED YOU BIG-TIME, regardless of whether you care to recognize that fact. Yeah, I know, you earned it! And when you earn something, no one really helped you. WRONG!

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe your mom HELPED YOU by not smoking crack when you were in the womb? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe she also HELPED YOU by not being a heroin-addict prostitute when you were growing up? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe your dad HELPED YOU by not treating you like a worthless piece of shit when you were growing up? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe your high school HELPED YOU by not kicking you out for being a brilliant artist who didn't like History class?

Yeah, well some people's moms and dads didn't do that for them. And many brilliant artists did get kicked out of high school simply for being brilliant artists who don't really care about inaccurate accounts of history. And some of those same people earned the same aid you received, but they didn't get it.

So get a clue and stop trying to act like you're better, more deserving than everyone else, because you're not! You are part of the problem, not the solution.

[Hattie]

Unfortunate people should stop being so grateful for every little thing they get.
People will pat the unlucky on the back and tell them how great they are to go on living in spite of their lousy situations. Why do they put up with that?

[realpc]

Ryan,

We can all find plenty of excuses for our failures, and we all fail in many ways. But what you are teaching is the opposite of self-help, it's self-sabotage.

Of course none of us can achieve anything in isolation, in a complex advanced society. Of course graduate students receive grants. I have never paid any tuition, and I think higher education has become a giant rip-off, unless you can get scholarships and grants.

I have actually taught myself most of my job skills. Having degrees is helpful because it shows motivation, or whatever. I just did it to learn and have an interesting experience. But it did result in learning to live on a low income, which is much easier than Barbara thinks.

I did not get the loving encouragement from my parents you seem to imply. I grew up having no confidence, but I made some conscious decisions to be motivated and to work hard.

My parents divorced and my mother never pulled her life together after that. She just didn't have the drive to learn a career, and she was not willing to lower her expenses. I guess she taught me by negative example.

One thing that made a difference was spiritual self-help, which discourages self-pity. I strongly recommend something like that for anyone who feels they can't succeed in this system because they're too "brilliant" an artist, or had bad parents, or whatever.

[Anarcissie]

I think the business about the high cost of being poor is somewhat old news. I recall an article in the 1960s detailing how expensive it was to shop for ordinary food in Harlem (then pre-gentrified). The question is what to do about it.

Many people advocate various sorts of government subsidies and regulations. However, government has always been operated by and for the rich. We can expect the government to make a few payoffs here and there and then go back to what it usually does, helping the rich get richer by whatever means may be necessary.

Given the vigor of the discussion in the comments here, maybe it is time to refloat the ideas of cooperative organizations for low- and middle-income persons. There are techniques to living on a low income which can be far more effective when practiced in groups. And to the extent that we withdraw from the systems of the rich we lessen their power over us.

[gaby]

Sorry, n'chee, I misunderstood.

There will always be poor people, even in the Western World. Mental illness has been mentioned, self-inflicted destructive behaviour such as drugs, and also poor choices are all contributors. I think what Barbara is trying to say with her books is that there are a large number of people who are poor who shouldn't be. And the poorer you become the costlier life becomes.

[lc2]

With very few exceptions, no one's lot in life is based on ONLY luck, motivation, circumstances, etc. -- no one's. In other words, this debate is a distraction from the real discussion about how poverty happens in the context of a society, not in an exchange of anecdotes. In my previous post, I fell into this trap myself, and I won't be dragged back into it. It's intellectually lazy and a disservice to this all-important question of what kind of society we want to be.

Of course some people make lemonade when they're given lemons. Of course some people wallow in self-pity and never really get anywhere on their own devices. Everywhere, at every point in human history, this has been the case, even among animals. That's why anthropologists estimate that we only have about 20 genetic ancestors who survived the migration to the Americas. I watched a documentary recently in which a healthy young male chimpanzee was so coddled and indulged by his mother that when she died, he died shortly thereafter because he couldn't, wouldn't, or didn't want to forage for himself.

So? This is a modern society, and the point is that *our* version of capitalism -- not capitalism in general, mind you -- *increasingly* does the bidding of the wealthy and connected at every conceivable level of the process that really matters -- corporate vs. small business tax structure, wages being the most harshly taxed form of income, education funded by property taxes, and on and on. Even the most die-hard conservatives grudgingly acknowledge that we can do better (with the possible exception of pc).

I refuse to be caricatured as a freedom-hating, terrorist-loving socialist because I would like for the U.S. to fulfill its promise for all its people, not just the fortunate and well-connected (and yes, pc and n'chee, your admirable level of drive and resourcefulness will never be universal and it is your good fortune, coupled with lots of effort, to have found a way to cultivate it.

I don't believe in coddling or pitying people, just in not putting up systematic obstacles to their success. Is that such a namby-pamby goal that doesn't acknowledge the reality that there will always be haves and have-nots?

Of course it will be a disaster if we don't aggressively address the gross level of personal overconsumption in this society. But the proliferation of cell phones and snowblowers in the middle class is not a valid excuse for denying the underclass a fair chance to a healthy, not wealthy, life.

But again, this an aside from the question of whether or not we can in fact deliver on the promise that if people of average intelligence and drive play by the rules and happen to be born into or end up in poverty, they have a realistic chance of living in a safe, clean neighborhood with access to and information about healthy food, with the physical wherewithal to perform a job that allows them to sustain that lifestyle. And clearly the majority of people in the U.S. cannot do that at the current minimum wage, with the current free market housing rates -- even sharing cramped housing, at the current level of public transportation, at the current level of medical care and nutritious food available in poor neighborhoods.

Now, the question is, are we going to do something about it, or are we going to shake our fingers at the vast majority of people who don't beat those odds? We could look to similarly-developed countries for clues about how this can be done, or we can continue to smugly use Burma or Nicaragua as our reference points for how well other societies maximize the human potential of their citizens.

[realpc]

lc2,

Do I have to agree with every socialist idea in order to not be labelled a conservative?

I think you are over-estimating what can be done in a large individualistic society such as the US. You are also greatly over-estimating the number who are poor -- it is not the vast majority.

I can sympathize with your distrust of the free market, but that's similar to distrusting life. If housing prices are driven up by high demand, I suppose you want the government to come along and build affordable housing. Then someone has to decide who gets this housing. If an over-supply is created, construction companies start laying off workers, unemployment increases, etc.

We just are not smart enough to manage the economy. Smart people in the USSR tried their best. We have smart economists and they all disagree with each other on many points.

I don't mean nothing can be improved. But it is not in the least obvious what should be done, and there is no over-arching philosophy that can provide answers. Socialism does not provide answers.

I have no ideological position, I just like things to make sense, and many leftist ideas do not make sense.

And by the way I have repeatedly repeated my opinion that some people deserve government help that I am very tired of saying it. If I think Barbara is somewhat irrational, does that automatically mean I'm a libertarian?

[Hattie]

If housing prices are driven up by high demand, I suppose you want the government to come along and build affordable housing.
Damn straight!!!
What's happened to us is that we can't have any rational solutions to poverty because the capitalists wouldn't like it.

[lc2]

realpc: Re-read my post. What I said is that the vast majority of minimum or near-minimum wage earners cannot achieve the components of what is commonly considered an acceptable level of housing and health in the U.S.

I take issue with your insistence that the gulf between the current U.S. version of laissez-faire capitalism and the communist regime of the former USSR cannot be breached. It is every day in most civilized nations in the world. I have several expatriate family members who give a balanced, not "grass is greener" version of the way their chosen govts. regulate the economy, and I have to tell you that I like what I hear. Maybe you would too if you weren't so sure all the sharpest financial minds in the world reside in the U.S.

As for your implication that I think the labor and consumer markets aren't perfect mechanisms that should be left to flourish without govt. interference, you're right, and human history has borne this out. I personally want people smarter than me studying and making sensible leadership decisions on the economy that also have some semblance of fairness involved. After all, if this weren't the case, you would never have gotten a start in the education system that has helped you immeasurably thus far ... unless you're of the aristocracy in this country, which I doubt.

[realpc]

"if you weren't so sure all the sharpest financial minds in the world reside in the U.S."

I don't know what you're talking about or why you think I said that. And US economists do not all think the same way anyhow -- which is what I said.

People here are so frazzled by non-leftists remarks, they can't even read.

I never said I was against governemt interventions and social programs. In fact I said I am for them so many times I am sick of saying it.

There are no successful socialists systems, and the European or Canadian economies you are probably talking about are mixed, not socialist. The American system is mixed also, but less socialist than Europe, in general. It's a matter of degree.

Socialism is not generally considered viable, and most advanced nations compromise. The US is traditionally individualistic and dynamic, and Americans tend to distrust government (for good reason, I think).

It's all a matter of degree. I can understand someone wanting more government protection and more redistribution, higher estate taxes, etc. But what usually happens is people don't stop there, they rail against the whole philosophical basis of the system. I doubt Barbara would be satisfied with moderate reforms.

[Anarcissie]

The original definition of socialism was "the means of production owned or controlled by the workers or the people in general". By that definition there are many successful socialist systems: any partnership, cooperative or commune, or self-employed person. These show that human beings do not need a capitalist class to govern their economic lives.

It is true we do not observe very many successful socialist states, if any. That is because the ideas of socialism, like autonomy and equality, are opposed to those of the state, which are domination, hierarchy and dependence. An attempt to force freedom and equality on people from the top down is either self-defeating or a deception in the first place.

[Silja From Finland]

Hi Barbara,
I´m into a similar report from Finland with my blog, Silja From Finland. My income is 483.132 USD per month and those living a nice and normal life thinks it´s a problem like a lack of budget, one´s lazy not trying to do any efforts about ones lifesituation, one think it´s self-inflicted and so on...

With my blog, among other topics, I´ll shed light on the extremely rude poverty process in Finland, how it starts and how all my tries to change its direction failed and still failes.

Interesting is that you can´t go to those "having money". They act like being in some kind of coma, no reactions about a helping hand as you´re trying to solve your problems. I believe the poverty process can start up for whoever, whenever, but most people aren´t aware about it.

Me and my son have get used to being treated without respect and integrety and I have to combat it everyday to teach my son not to take anything in person and to keep his self-esteem intact and that changes will come one day. When I get back the control over my life one day, I hope I´ll watch up not critizising the penniless but in a creative way. There´s a cruisal point when a poor life begins, some react immediately and can see what´s going on, some can´t see it as it begins on the sly. And yes, it´s very expensive to be poor, you´re trapped, stuck and this is one of the biggest obstacles to overcome.

Greetings, $ilja $jödin

[shirazi]

No. I cant aford to be poor. Given choice, no one can.

[realpc]

Anarcissie,

In other words, if one person hires another person that is capitalism, but if all work is done by the owners of the business it's socialism?

Well there are myriad logical problems with that definition. Marx thought it was unfair that a rich person could buy a factory and take most of the profit, while treating his workers badly and paying low wages. Even that simple model has problems. The workers could never have raised the money required to build the factory, and even if they did somehow, there is still the risk of failure.

But our system is much more complex than that. Even if I am self-employed, I would still be hired by other businesses who would profit from my labor. And we no longer have clear divisions between labor and management. Some socialists now combine professionals, managers and business owners together as the oppressing class. But professionals and managers are often wage-earners, rather than owners.

There are many other problems with the concept. If someone gets an idea, creates it, markets it, spends years developing a profitable business you cannot reasonably expect them to give all their workers equal shares of the profit and equal say in all decisions. The owner has taken a great risk (failure rates of new businesses are very high) and has sacrificed years of time and effort. The owner should be allowed to own his/her business.

Even if, in trying to make things fair, you are able to force the owner to give ownership and control over to the workers (all the workers, regardless of skill or seniority), the business would probably fail. Not all the workers would have the knowledge and expertise to make all kinds of decisions.

Businesses can be very complex, and very expensive to operate. Many businesses are now owned publically, and that cannot happen under socialism.

parecon is a newer alternative to socialism which supposedly solves the problems. However parecon has many problems of its own and could only be a solution in very small and simple businesses.

Business and government can each get out of control and become oppressive. You don't like powerful government, but the only way to redistribute and provide financial security is to increase the government's power. That is the case in the European systems American progressives admire. When government's power increases corruption is harder to control.

In America we try to balance the power of business and the power of government. The problem is when business and government become friends iinstead of adversaries, they no longer balance each other's power. Of course that is what progressives are unhappy about. I don't know the answer -- maybe term limits for congress would help.

[Anarcissie]

I was not thinking of Marx. Marx wrote an interesting analysis of capitalism, but his predictions failed to materialize and his name became famous mostly because his work was adapted and distorted by someone else who was more successful (Lenin).

I just wanted to point out that the word "socialism" once had a different meaning from "government control". We are given "capitalism" and "socialism" and they both now mean "control of the economy by elites". In _1984_ style, the idea that people can handle and manage their own affairs has been erased from public consciousness. I'd like to reverse that erasure and recover the original idea if only for contemplation and discussion.

After all, if people can't handle their economic lives, they probably can't handle anything else important, and we might as well do away with personal freedom and democracy.

But if, as George W. Bush and his friends are fond of saying, freedom and democracy are wonderful, then it would be logical to apply them to our economic and social lives as well as to remote political abstractions.

This discussion started about the readily observable fact that it is expensive to be poor. What most of you don't seem to understand is that if you are sitting around being told what to do by bosses and leaders and "the market", if you don't take some control over your life and circumstances and the form of the social order around you, you _are_ the poor. It behooves you to figure out, not what to do about the poor, but what to do about yourselves.

I am probably spitting in the wind here. These days, people don't even want to join unions, much less do radically revolutionary stuff like form cooperatives.

[Coral Russell]

We have a very nice Socialist system here in the U.S. and it's called the military. You get paid, trained, provided money for college, housing with medical/dental/vision care and if you're a vet you (should be) are cared for medically and with pension for life. AND in return you have to go and do whatever you're ordered to do. This is one possible reason we don't have universal health care and a living wage in this country because otherwise what would make the military so attractive?

[Anarcissie]

The military is not socialist, it is feudal.

We do not have universal health care and a living wage because we let the rich and powerful rule our lives, and they are not interested in providing such things.

[lc2]

Who said anything about socialism,pc? Are you so frazzled by the concept that other capitalist countries handle resource allocation (not just $$) better than the U.S., that you didn't read my post closely enough? I said "I refuse to be caricatured as a freedom-hating, terrorist loving socialist", did I not?

I think you should take a closer look at the European economies you claim to understand (not Scandanavian, by the way). They display an admirable commitment to curtailing gross personal overconsumption -- a cause you claim to champion. Coupled with an aggressive policy to both eliminate fossil fuel consumption and promote technological innovation, isn't this a lot closer to what America purports to be? Isn't this a far more sustainable society, in the long and short run?

Don't bother telling me about the myriad ways these countries deny their citizens the freedoms we enjoy here -- I understand them as full, imperfect entities, not the "socialist" caricatures our propaganda machine leads us to believe. Did you know that China and the USSR told its citizens during the 70s and 80s that children in the US were starving, too?

The grass isn't greener in every respect, just the ones that would actually address the issue we're *supposed* to be discussing -- poverty. I agree there isn't one overarching philosophy or policy that will eliminate all the suffering in the world, but the one we're moving toward -- a version of laissez-faire economics unprecedented in the modern world -- is a recipe for disaster.

The U.S. is a country whose economy is founded on land seizure, slave labor, and mercantile practices borrowed from the old country. Now that we have the land and have done away with the slave labor, doesn't it make sense to take a gander at how the old country is handling its business in the modern era, and see if there isn't anything it would make sense for us to experiment with? I'm not sure why you're so resistant to the idea that we could do better if we mine the world for the most creative approaches to the problem of poverty. Is it a primitive fear that the patriotic messages we absorbed as children might only be partly true? If so, grow up.

Finally, you say that you're tired of saying that the disabled need gov't support. But as I said in my initial post, the disabled make up a huge proportion of the chronically poor in our society. Aren't they a part of the problem that capitalism has thus far not figured out how to handle? Do I need to point out that this problem plagues regimes on the left as much as those on the right? You must realize on some level that laissez-faire proponents conveniently forget about this population, as the free market model is based on the presumption of able-minded and able-bodied participants.

[realpc]

"You must realize on some level that laissez-faire proponents conveniently forget about this population, as the free market model is based on the presumption of able-minded and able-bodied participants."

We still provide government aid to the disabled and the poor. Maybe you don't think it's enough, but you seem to be denying that we provide any. Entitlements are a huge part of the federal budget. There may be free market extremists who want to end all government aid, but the great majority of all political groups want it to continue.

[Coral Russell]

Congressman who want to raise the minimum wage after a decade have been told by other Congressman (mostly, if not all, Republican) that they in turn would have to include the elimination of the inheritance tax that benefits the really, really rich (that's fuedualism). This is coming from a Congress that has voted themselves a raise every year for the past decade. That's the state of our country right now!

[Lynne B]

Last year, while on a business trip, I stayed at an "Extended Stay" hotel in Sacramento California. I woke up in the morning and walked outside to see at least two dozen men motel rooms, several wearing hard hats, and most carrying lunch pails. There were alot of young women and small kids outside the rooms waving and saying goodbye to these men. I initially thought they were construction workers on temporary assignment, but I began talking to one of the women and she told me that most of the men there do ‘day labor’ and live with their families in the motel. She and her husband have 2 kids and her that her husband gets $9.00 an hour with no benefits. She said every time they get close to having the money to get an apartment, a kid gets sick or their car breaks down, they had been in the motel for 6 months and pay $375 a week for the room. It just seems to me the whole system is out of whack, it goes beyond raising minimum wage; it requires an examination of the state in this country of the working poor – underpaid, uninsured and pretty much stuck that way forever.

[Devans00]

I recently finished Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dime so I'd like to comment on the book as a whole. As some others mentioned, Ms. Ehrenreich's lack of street smarts (not using thrift stores, garage sales, dumpster diving, outlets, etc.) made her experience a little harder than it would have been for someone who grew up in poverty. Unlike others, I don't consider that lack of insight as a huge sin on Barbara's behalf. How can she reasonably be expected to know things outside of her life experience?

3 things that caused unnecessary hardship stuck out to me:
1) Refusing offers of help. Like the offer to stay at her friend's aunt's house in Minneapolis. Why did she do that? Just to show how tough she was to run through her cash as quickly as possible? I thought she learned the lesson from her co-workers about how sharing housing may not be the optimal solution, but you have to do what you have to do. Even financially well off accept the offer of someone's hospitality from time to time.

2) Refusing a shared housing didn't make a lot of sense to me since she was a single, adult woman. Even though I'm a hardcore loner, getting my own place was always a future goal until I made enough money.

3) Borrowing stuff. Why did she seem to have the rule that everything she had or used had to be purchased by her or provided by her lodging? She could have set up a system with one of her co-workers or neighbors to use their big pot and cook some meals, for example. Plus making friends with her neighbors would have helped her not feel so exposed, like when she stayed in the room without proper security.

[Lynne B]

I had this same conversation with some friends recently, they were arguing that if the poor would just share housing, dumpster dive or do whatever to get by, everything would be hunky dory. Their position was that the working poor are not clever enough, thrifty enough, or smart enough to get by. Hence, their plight is their own fault.
We have a large number of people in this country who teeter on the edge of homelessness every day of their lives. What possible justification can there be for not paying them a living wage? I grew up poor, but it was at a time where housing did not take 2/3 of your salary, where there were county hospitals for the indigent, and where people could buy gas for their cars without taking out a loan. I don't think you can draw a parallel between being poor 20, 30, or 40 years ago and being poor now.

[Maria Secor]

You'd be surprised how many people who can't afford to buy clothes come to us to buy a home or want us to try and help them keep the home they have. It breaks your heart to be the one to tell them I'm sorry, I can't help.

I don't think the Government does nearly what it should. I don't understand any of what we have been doing overseas. For instance, can you tell me why we have the money to blow a place up and literally all along plan to pay for it to rebuild itself, yet we can't have health insurance? Why is it they are so concerned with home security but has the press tell you where all of our weak spots are? They never tell the enemies when the President won't have the secret service around him so why are they telling our enemies where to aim when they want to blow us up. I've never been a fan of Governments double talk and never will and I don't think we will ever get the answers we should have as to why our money is every where else but here and why things are so bad for so many when the money is here, it's just sent somewhere else.
Just my thoughts, http://www.affordablehomefunding.us

[paul merrill]

Good stuff!

We discovered that we actually pay less to live in our new house (when we're in the States, that is) than in our old.

The old was next door to drug dealers. Our kids would have learned to swear by age 7 at the local school.

Our new neighborhood is boringly white and middle-class. Fun is a backyard BBQ and watching the original home owners die or move to retirement homes.

How is it cheaper? Location location location. I walk to work, we now have one car & a basement tenant.

[SoFarSoGood]

There's a big difference between being poor and voluntary simplicity even if two people may be earning the roughly the same amount. Someone who is voluntarily simple may be earning 20k a year doing part-time work. Because they work part-time they can grow foods in a veggie garden, cook all of their meals, exercise, live a generally healthy lifestyle, and plan, plan, plan. Also people who choose voluntary simplicity have built up nest eggs of stuff, and to a lesser extent gotten the ball rolling on savings on the future.

Someone else may be making 20k a year working two jobs. Cooking becomes difficult (with what time?), so they eat poorlyexercise becomes rare, and the stress level is high - all wonderful ways of making yourself really sick. A really great malcolm gladwell post highlights the influence stress can have on health http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2006/05/us_versus_uk.html

I've been hit by a car, pulled two muscles in my hip, and have had my tonsils so swollen that their constant friction against each other caused me to develop cysts on my tonsils and I've never taken anything stronger for the pain than over the counter ibuprofin. With that said, I recently spent seven months in France, the land of socialized medicine. I think I'm highly allergic to cigarette smoke or something because in seven months I took more antibiotics than in the seven years prior.

I could not for the life of me stay healthy. If I'd been in the US (without health insurance) I'd have been screwed - no way could I have afforded the medicine (I had French health insurance but it hadn't kicked in yet). My tonsils stayed golfball sized for two weeks until I got a course of antibiotics - well after my temperature of 103 broke- and if I'd waited much longer I would have required surgery for the cysts (this was my first illness and I was terrified of going to the doctor without insurance; I finally bit the bullet because I couldn't talk). I don't know what I would have done if I'd had to worry about money when a few months later my temperature peaked at 104.5. Did I have to worry? No. Why? Because even without health insurance a doctors visit is twenty bucks. My antibiotics set me back 6, my oral antiseptic set me back 7. It was more affordable for me to be sick and uninsured in France than it was to be sick and insured in the US. A coworker owes over 100K in medical expenses because his wife had the misfortune to have a virulent form of cancer. I guess he should have let her die. Mind you, he owes the 100k after insurance already covered 90%. Nobody plans to have cancer and she least of all. She's vegetarian, correct body weight etc etc.

[rampx]

I wonder how many people are missing the underlying causes of this and many other fine topics.
I see many sides arguing about the other side's "deluded" (my word) take on the issue and it's possible solution(s).
But can you dig deeper? Without being mesmerized by all the propaganda, hype, 'misinformation', and partial facts??????
I've done it once or twice maybe...
I don't know alot of stuff, but I can sift things pretty well sometimes...
and so many things can be boiled down to our perceptions of others and how that makes us treat them, whether we are acting as individuals, members of whatever group, as a business or gov't 'person'..the list goes on.

The problem with misguided perceptions can be a lack of clear facts to work with, or disjointed and illogical thinking, or even being unduly influenced/programmed/brainwashed.

I could provide many examples, or whathaveyou, but in the end, a person will do things because of what goes on inside their heads....but maybe that sounds too simplistic for some.

I believe Psychology, when honestly and ethically used to, of course, help people (all people - ALL) as it should, would do more to save the human race and solve a great many of these problems. Sociology should be mixed in, along with a great heaping measure of logical thinking and clear reasoning (and a good dollop of common sense!)

So there! :P

[Arwen]

I just did a review on my blog of Nickel and Dimed; and, coming from poor, I think the criticisms that our hostess is not the Queen of the Successfully Underpaid fall off target. Firstly, Ms. Ehrenreich *did* bring in money. Call the $1000 set up fees she gave herself an invisible roommate. Secondly, not all poor people HAVE the resources of others. I grew up surrounded by folks who didn't have a couch they could crash on. Ms. Ehrenreich also didn't have kids with her: if she did, the friend with whom she could stay becomes less of an option. Thirdly, some of Ms. E's coworkers were in the *exact same straits*, - living in cars, living in hotels - and so she very well documented that not everybody has all these bloomin' networks in place.

And lastly, the real gem in the book was the middle class experiencing poor. As a class climber myself - from poor to middle class - I know very, very well that these classes are in different worlds. So the shock is *good to see*.

And finally: none of whether or not Ms. E was "good" at being poor is as troubling as the fact that you can work your tail off AND NOT MAKE A LIVING WAGE. Yes, there are charities. Mmmm hmmm. And there are also the underemployed and the unemployed and the unemployable. We have a thought that if you work hard enough you can make a better life: that thought, for many people, is incorrect. Sometimes, you just tread water.

Now, I come from deep poor. I know that creative solutions exist. I know that it's not all misery. I know that those I grew up with are proud of the lives they've made and the work they've done. (Or some, at least). There is deep and abiding work ethic; there is family; there is joy. But the fact that Ms. E didn't find those places is because she didn't stay too long: she came and witnessed, and what she witnessed, economically, is REAL.

[Jessica Davenport]

In this passage, she uses a lot of examples of ethos. The first is how she talks about her experiences of living in a trailer park. It shows her knowledge about the situation, because she has lived through it. She uses Pathos when she describes each situation in detail. When she is talking about something, she gives examples to back it up. When she talks about how people live from check to check, with no bank account, she talks about why this is costing them more money. She tells us that the check cashing places charge so much just to cash the check. Ehrenreich also uses Logos. She gives a lot of facts when she describing each situation. She clearly states what the passage is about, and she supports her thesis with just straight up facts.

Her "angle of vision" in this passage is that it cost more to be poor. Thats what she spends the whole paper trying to prove. She beleives that rich people have it easier not because they have the money, but they don't have to spend as much. At the end she finanly states that she wants the government to do something about it. She wants them to do something like make check cashing places stop charging ridiculous prices. She feels like something could be done about this situation. To me she feels that being poor costs more and that shouldn't be the case.

[Stefan Lynton]

In Barbara's piece she illustrates the three differemt appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos. For example, she states about a study being done from the Brookings Institute about a "ghetto tax," meaning a higher cost of living in the lower-income neighborhoods. She is showing that she went and studied about this issue and explaining through knowledge. In addition, with the pathos appeal, she shows us what she went through on being poor. For example, what she did about her meals each day; having a banana and hard-boiled eggs for breakfast and then to choose between KFC or stew for dinner. She shows how she feels and her beliefs on this situation. Furthermore, she is able to describe the logos appeal. She states facts about being poor, like being charged a service fee for cashing a check or low-income drivers having to pay more on car insurance than the wealthier people. Ehrenreich is able to provide the readers with facts about this issue.

Ehrenreich's angle of vision is based on how it is cheaper to be wealthy than it is to be poor. The poor have to budget a lot more because they so many things to take care of in little amounts of money. They cannot afford to pay the $50 service fee on cashing a check as she states. She also illustrates that if you can't afford health insurance, than that time may come where there is an emergency and you end up spending $1,000 at the ER. Wealthy people have it a lot easier than the poor because they know they have the money to spend when the poor know they don't. That is what Ehrenreich is proving throughout her whole passage. If you have money, save it, because you never know when it may come down to the wire and even each of us may be living paycheck to paycheck.

[anonymous]

Barbara Ehrenreich uses all three of the rhetorical appeals, ethos, pathos, and logos, in this blog to convince people to look at the poor side of life a little more differently. She appeals to the logos rhetorical appeal first by pointing out in six distinct facts, depicted by bullet points in the beginning of her article, including the fact that poor people living in a ghetto pay more for mortgage and car insurance. She also brings out the pathos and ethos of the article when she goes into detailed descriptions of her own life in the near ghetto. She describes how she had to buy food from convenience stores or from fast food restaurants like Wendy's nearby everyday which cost her much more than going to a grocery store instead. She also explains how she was yelling at her coworker for not getting an apartment instead of her motel room she was in now. It turns out, her friend couldn't put up the capital to make an initial deposit on an apartment.
-Michael Schepcoff

Now, I'm not saying I'm from a poor family, and I'm not saying I'm from a rich family. In fact I'm comfortably well off, but Barabara seems to think that everyone is against the poor people in this world. No one is willing to help them, everyone is overpricing things, and business owners won’t even trust these people. I think that she is biased more towards helping poor people get out of this rut they call living and against small neighboring businesses. I think, as well as Barbara does, that instead of robbing them of their hard earned money, businesses should actually be lowering their prices to give them a better chance of making it in this world.
-Michael Schepcoff

[Antonio Viva]

Ms. Ehrenreich, I selected your book, "Nickel and Dimed" as one of my faculty chosen summer reading books. I was pleased to have a group of 12 students who chose to read your book as part of their summer reading. I offered students the opportunity to write a review of the book for Amazon or to respond directly to your blog. Below are two responses they wanted me to share with you.

Regards,
Antonio Viva

Hello Ms. Ehrenreich,

I have read your book twice, once for my government course and once for summer reading class. Each time I had the same reaction that it fails the younger generation. I am a liberal at heart, as you seem to be from your book, however I do not understand why it is impossible to show the other side of the arguement of minimum wage in your book. The book just proved to be another sensationalist piece from a liberal writer. Although I respect you for venturing out where most white-collar workers will not go, I have a question for you. How do you believe students of Y generation should learn about the other half of minimum wage? Students now understand that corporations fail their employees , and it is hard for people to live off minimum wage. However, teenagers still do not understand how minimum wage works in our economy. I would have more respect for you as an author if you were able to recommend another piece of literature or film for the teenagers, so that they could better understand both sides of the issue. In our time of partisan politics, it does not help anybody, especially teenagers to give them only one side.

Thank you,
Jeffrey R. - Senior

Ms. Eherenreich,

I admired your intentions for the book overall, but there were some things you could have improved upon to make the experience more realistic. I thought that you took the easy route out. You gave yourself $1000 in the beginning and you said that you wanted to work on a minimum paying job. People below the poverty line usually do not have the backup money to support their income. You had to prove the point more by actually doing everything that low payed workers do. There is one point that you might have proven which was that you barely survived with $1000 buffer. That sort of proves that if you didn't have the money, you wouldn't have survived. Overall, I would give your book 2.5 stars because you had a good story and idea but you did not do the best job proving your point about how you cannot live on the minimum wage money alone.

Sincerely,
Surya V - 9th Grader

[Jake]

I admit to not having read the whole thread, but I just have to say this:

realpc, if you were saving $20k/year then you were NOT poor. No way, no how. Hell, I have never in my life earned more than $19k/year, and I'm not even that poor. Where the hell are you getting off saving more money than many of us earn each year, and calling yourself poor? There are legitimate criticisms of Nickel & Dimed, but this is not one of them. There is simply no way that Ms. Ehrenriech, or people she describes in her book, could have saved like that. In order to save, you need start-up capital. I say I'm not that poor, despite my current, extremely tight budget, because I'm in a position where I already have all the expensive items that you need to set up an efficient household. Items like kitchen supplies, sheets, vacuum cleaner, furniture, etc. I can do the once-a-week stew cooking thing because I have the pot, the spices, the tupperware, and a working stove and fridge. I have a decent, low-cost apartment with a working stove and fridge because my high-earning parents co-signed the lease and loaned us a down-payment. My parents aren't paying any of the rent, but since neither my partner nor I had a job when we moved here, we needed their signature to secure an apartment.

If I hadn't had those things, my life would be a very different story right now. Own up to your privilege, realpc.