PDA

View Full Version : Class inequalities in the Americas: Nickel and Dimed



Skaman
02-21-2005, 05:43 PM
This is a rough draft.
The context of this paper is relevant to both the USA and Canada.
Therefore, bearing this is mind; please provide insight, thoughts, and questions regarding:

-Class Inequality
-Ehrenreich's work




Contemporary Western America: the beating heart of the vice of Capitalism and the birth giver to the corporate world, furthermore, it is the architect of immense innumerable wealth, capital, and the profit that follows in its wake. Competition, big business, and the unequal distribution of wealth dominate western ideology, reinforced by self made wealth and individualism. The iron law of oligarchy rules supreme as those in power, the few financially dominant, secure their wealth and assert their dominance over the many. America’s late twentieth century saw a transmutation of its commercial and economic forefront as the small business sector and independent work force was overpowered by massive conglomerates securing their dominance in their respective markets.

Society has become enveloped in the larger realm of competitive America, operating as a new interdependent and functioning whole. However, this unequal distribution of wealth and dominance of big business has put a large percentage of entry level working Americans into a precarious position as they struggle to make bare subsistence, surviving on the meager wages of hourly working class occupations. The American eye has gone unflinching, unaffected by the status of poverty, wage, and employment that have collectively become a norm of the greater lower strata of the American class system; few look to the inequalities and desperation working class America is faced with, and the changing dynamics of housing availability and living wages which are increasingly rising, while wages suffer and grow only so slightly. This apparent inability of wages to coincide with living costs has come as an immense societal detriment, furthering the gap between those in possession of wealth, and those without.

Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Nickel and Dimed has jumped headfirst into the realm of working class America through an in-depth participatory case study where she immerses herself in working class culture, gaining further insight into the nature of entry level employment, pertaining mostly to wages, skilled or unskilled labor, work ethic, management, living expenditures, and the ability to simply survive the grind of low paying occupational employment. Interestingly enough, working class employment dominates the greatest sector of the job market in America. Ehrenreich intends to reveal the status of entry level work, and the inability or immense difficulty in surviving on low wage employment. By partaking in various jobs in different areas of the country Barbara Ehrenreich can examine various low-wage occupational positions, rather than limit her findings to a single state, or method of work, which evidently would show her studies to be flawed. Therefore, by experimenting with a variety of housing situations, and dealing with a range of different coworkers, she can gather a more comprehensive set of data, both statistical, and experience related. Ultimately, Ehrenreich can expose her findings to the greater realm of the American populous, revealing the nature of her work, and acting as a testament to the necessity for increased wages, and more affordable housing which has clearly neglected a great proportion of the American people.

As mentioned prior, Ehrenreich partakes in various occupational positions of the undesirable American work place, where she here applies various quantitative and qualitative methods of study, which together provide the backbone for her argument regarding the insufficiencies of an entry level work place to accommodate working class, often uneducated individuals. Ehrenreich begins her study by securing a job in Key West Florida; mostly do the close proximity of her home, and her familiarity with the area. Here she takes up serving occupations at local family diners, the Hearthside and Jerry’s, offering barely just wages of over two dollar an hour, compensated and legitimized by the money made in tipping, shared amongst the staff. Issues regarding the nature of this pay are obvious as the pay can be inconsistent and is dependant on customer tipping behavior, and the frequency of traffic into the restaurant which can fluctuate between seasons. There appears to be both benefits and disadvantages to this method of pay, as it is not taxed, however, it cannot relied upon as a currency accumulated in annual tax returns, which evidently is a staple and necessity of working class survival.

Work at Hearthside is continuous and monotonous, affording no breaks to their employees except to relive oneself, as if not to hamper their ability to be an efficient worker, ignoring the exhaustion and hectic nature of work that is continuously reinforced by management and the desire of employers to find work for their staff despite times when the atmosphere may have slowed down to an easier pace due to fewer customers. The quality of work and the conditions are hardly ideal, subjecting their employees to an environment masked in smoke, sure to facilitate emphysema over an extended period of time. The employees are not afforded any opportunity to eat or to maintain some kind of energy throughout the day, and are strictly reminded of policy by Gail, their authoritarian manager. The restaurants employ an eclectic mix of various ethnic individuals, including recently landed emigrants from the former Yugoslavia, Eastern Europe, and Haiti who demonstrate little grasp of the English language and are thus put into positions of little human interaction such as dish washing, or sanitary positions which consequently receive even less pay. The lack of linguistic skills comes as a detriment to these individuals, as evidence of one incident can be demonstrated when an Eastern European man working in the bowels of the restaurant was perceived to have been stealing food, despite the fact this was not proven, and was purely speculative. Additionally, the man knew little of the circumstances or perhaps formal operations due to a poor language grasp. Nonetheless, the collective whole of the employees thus suffer as a result and are subject to search of personal property, including purses and other such personal possessions. This breach of privacy and interest of ones personal being is reinforced with drug testing and rigorous questioning, exemplified through the hiring process at a Wal-Mart in Minnesota.

Ehrenreich lives in Key West on a barely sufficient wage of 1, 039 dollars a month using 517 dollars for essentials and 500 for her rent at a local trailer park. To survive on more than bare essentials it is evident that one must sacrifice sleep and any other “nonessential” activities by taking up a second job. Ehrenreich compensates for her lack of financial survivability by combining employment as Jerry’s with their partnership at a local hotel, where she takes a position as a maid. It is apparent that for jobs that one often pre-supposes to require little skill are in actuality immensely difficult and clearly foreign to the uninitiated. Low wage working class occupations are implicit in the enforcement for one to adapt to a new inward looking job mentality or culture, and the expectation for one to exhibit the qualities of punctuality, cleanliness, cheerfulness and obedience, irrespective of exhaustion or work related hardships including physical strain and stress. These factors can be attributed to the high rate of turnover as Ehrenreich stresses. The work place will emphasize “spirit” and “hard-work” yet provides little or no incentive, rather than the fear of losing ones jobs which can be easily replaced in a job market with mass hiring and mass firings. The resentment of ones employment often leads to cynicism and the development of idiosyncrasy, which show an indication of abhorrence and disregard for the work place. From the vulgar customers at he hearthside demanding a hot plate to the geriatrics at nursing homes in Maine spilling plates of hot food on you, and the physically and emotionally demanding housekeeping, this work is clearly not easy, and the wage rates to not balance out to the respective demands of these jobs. One could allude to this, as Ehrenreich examined the living conditions and position of employment for various coworkers. During her stint as a server in Maine it was revealed that the abject living conditions were quite serious, as her coworkers living arrangements ranged from a dry docked boat, trailer park residences, and day to day hotel living, or braving nights outside a shopping mall in a van where living expense ranged from four-hundred dollars a month to sixty dollars a night.


Similar trends are seen among the working class community; few have sufficient money to facilitate health, clothing and dental costs, which can be seen from the somewhat outward appearance of individuals quite predominant at places like Wal-Mart. Employees suffer from poor dental and tattered shoes, and can barely justify purchasing a stained seven dollar shirt in clearance due to an increasingly tightened financial belt. Ehrenreich herself struggles to accommodate her eating costs, resorting to scrounging for loose condiments from fast food diners and tea packers, which clearly would come at an expense of her health. She can rarely afford a nutritious meal, often turning to the readily available and exploitative fast food market. Interesting enough, from Ehrenreich’s work, it seems there is an internal support network among the working class community to look after one another. Melissa, a coworker of the Wal-Mart offers her a sandwich, aware of her dire eating situation, augmented by her lack of a fridge and ability to sustain raw or cold food. Additionally, Caroline offers her home when Barb is faced with a lack of housing options in Minneapolis, while many other across Maine, Florida, and Minnesota offer emotional support in the wake of managerial criticisms and customer discourtesy. Therefore, they turn to one another, offering positive reinforcement, biding their time with social interaction, gossip and stories, despite the reiteration of work policy concerning “time-theft”, “laziness” or lack of an apparent work ethic.


Ehrenreich’s post analysis of her work broke down the financial situation in each state, measured by living costs, necessities, toiletries and transport, subsequently coming to the conclusion that one must take up an additional job despite wage inabilities to match that of living costs. As the wealthy and the poor compete for housing, it is the poor who are abandonded, unable to offer competitive housing bids with their limited income. Statistics offered by Ehrenreich in her evaluation show that from 1960 there has been a shift of the family’s income expenditures to housing costs from twenty-nine percent to now thirty seven percent in 1999, while cutting back on the cost of food to balance a budget. Despite the general wage increase of $5.49 to $7.35, this proves to be rather inconsistent, bearing in mind wages at the Hearthside and Jerry’s namely. Additionally, according to the economic policy institute, thirty thousands dollars a years is needed to support one parent and a two child family, or fourteen dollars an hour, clearly less than the working wages offered to Ehrenreich for entry level work. An attempt to probe employers about higher rates of pay is often circumvented by the claim of offering advantageous hours, and free breakfasts as suggested by Ehrenreich’s employer in Maine as a maid. Support groups offer nothing but short term remedies including housing subsidies, food stamps, baskets, and housing shelters. It is clear that the inadequacy of wages needs to be compensated by effective public services, healthcare, available public transport, which are lacking in the continental United States as Ehrenreich argues.

Ehrenreich’s argument appears to be clearly rooted in aspects of macro sociological theory, demonstrating an acknowledgement of conflict theory where tension, conflict and change are bred by an inequality and the disagreement of power. This model can be applied to numerous work places and can be attributed to Barb’s influence of quitting, with a dichotomy revolving around worker and managerial perceptions of operation. While Ehrenreich hopes to remedy employee concerns with talk of a union in Wal-Mart this is clearly a topic of aggravation for employers who as a result fire their workers, of course legitimized under the mask of other work infractions. Additionally Ehrenreich seems to subconsciously acknowledge foundational sociological theory, including that of George Simmel who emphasized the multi relational aspects of society in constant interaction. An indication of this can be made with the clear relational network of skill, employment, wage, housing and white collar norms and behavior. Additionally, the author acknowledges Weber’s model of bureaucracy which concentrates on labor specialization and the formal rules and operational structure of hierarchical employment which is reinforced throughout Ehrenreich employment, including various criticisms, and work obligations. Wal-Mart for example follows a system where one must “punch-out” their time card when taking a pre determined fifteen minute break. Aspects of time theft, eating restrictions, and the necessity to work overtime without compensation all constitute the formal regulatory structure of hierarchical business that is reinforced and stressed through introductory seminars.


Ehrenreich does an effective analysis of working class environments and culture by approaching a variety of occupational positions throughout various states and cross referencing findings, engaging in a thorough series of personal interactive experiences which supplement her data and arguments. By complementing her work through investigative study of employee/employer relations she offers first hand insight into this wage and authority dynamic. Additionally, the author effectively is able to present herself as a member of the working class despite her pre-existing higher education. Her disposition to challenge authority, and ask questions may have perhaps created speculation to the nature of her employment and position, compromising the goal of her work leading to possible exposure. Nonetheless, Ehrenreich manages to effectively present herself as a working class member of society, presenting a resume that does not compromise her position or indicate her actual status. Ultimately, Ehrenreich manages to immerse herself in an interesting occupational environment, gathering evidence pertinent to her argument. One must be aware that Ehrenreich’s work cannot be taken as definitive or exact, and pending further study for comparative analysis by other who undertake a similar investigation we cannot be certain of the authors findings or arguments which have shown indication of bias, and a lack of commitment to replicating working class culture. For an individual who had hoped to partake in working class culture, she affords herself some unnecessary luxuries which under normal circumstances would be inadvisable, such as treating herself to a meal at Applebee’s. Additionally, in reference to bias, we can see working class mentality developing: a homeowner directs her too a marble bathroom fixture which is “bleeding”, which Barb sharply replies: “that’s not your marble bleeding; it’s the world wide working class.

Ultimately however, I see Ehrenreich’s work as an important read that takes into serious consideration the state of working class culture, and the inability of this stratum of America to makes ends meet. It would be ideal that pending further reading on this subject, individuals pay more significant attention to this issue, searching out an effective solution, rather than acknowledge it as a social norm, and inevitability. As one would expect, not all examinations of Ehrenreich’s work are viewed in the same light.

Scarping by, a Salon.com review of Ehrenreich’s work seems rather dismissive of the author’s work, critical of her tendencies to reveal the dark and bleak situation for America’s working class, yet offers little in the way of a solution. In response, I would argue in favor of Ehrenreich suggesting this was not her goal, or object of her case study, rather as suggested earlier, to immerse herself into the entry level working class of America, and reveal the indignities of the job place, not to offer the solution which would be clearly audacious and arrogant as it cannot be rectified through a study only covering three states. Additionally, the reviewer at Salon.com openly comments on the political tendencies of Barbara Ehrenreich which I see as hardly pertinent, and if anything, it is bias on the part of the reviewer, as if too discredit her work. However, I do see a comment regarding the “bull****” test for admission at Wal-Mart in the face of an employee as an overstep of ones ethical boundaries, isolating this individual, stripping her of dignity, clearly indicating a lack of professional objectivity. In that regard, Salon.com is fair in their assessment.

Steve Early who wrote a review of Nickel and Dimed seems somewhat torn between his appreciation for her writing style and recreation of working class occupations, and his discredit to her, justified only by his belief that her work is “half assed”, or a poor replication of working class Americans. What Early fails to recognize is despite the fact that she has no children to look after during her work, this takes little away from her argument; if anything, this adds to strength of argument which would suggest the increased difficulty in raising children given her wages, displayed by the hardship of a single women to make bare subsistence. Early takes Ehrenreich’s work as an interesting and revealing expose’ of working class jobs, yet not a piece of work that can be effectively measured as testament to the struggle of working class America. Given the nature of Ehrenreich’s work, even if it was not an accurate recreation or immersion, it was as she had hoped a book which would draw attention to the apparent dismal wage and employment situation, irregardless of her methodology.

Alternatively, “making ends meet” an editorial by the NYtimes looks to an Ehrenreich’s work as an excellent conveyance of the working poor or America, brining a concise and clear set of findings that expose the underbelly of corporate and capitalist America. While this editorial holds high praise of Nickel and Dimed, it does not provide any evidence, support, or explanation to its praise, therefore the weight of Gallagher's praise falls flat. Rather it is a reiteration of the book itself, not an effective review. However, I was pleased to come across a less critical review of a book that I also thoroughly enjoyed and would insist as an essential read to anyone wishing to know more about the pressing social and class dilemmas/inequalities that press the Western American Continent.

<Gypsum Fantastic>
02-21-2005, 06:06 PM
Sounds a bit too Socialist for this forum!
p-)

Skaman
02-21-2005, 06:20 PM
Sounds a bit too Socialist for this forum!
p-)

Ideally, militaryphotos.net is the best place to post this kind of material as criticism and questions are far more intellectually rewarding than agreement and petty smiles from ones inward looking, and generally esoteric circle of academic peers. For one, I look to the uninhibited mass, observing the response of the greater mentality that this work is pertinent to. In hindsight, I may have revealed my intents, compromising my original objective, yet hopefully this comment will prevent an onslaught of "flames", shedding light on my “good intentions”.

FallenAngel
02-21-2005, 06:27 PM
Sounds a bit too Socialist for this forum!
p-)

You have no f*cking idea. I had to read this book for a writing class last quarter here at UCI. It was the most stupid biased piece of **** I've read in a long time.

I was terribly disappointed. We could have been reading Shakespeare, Poe, Dickins, Melville or any one of a hundred great authors and my hippie teachers assigns us this piece of ****.

f*cking university profs.

/rant.

Skaman
02-21-2005, 06:35 PM
[/img]
biased piece of ****


I would agree, yet I see the area under discussion, and evidence taken during her case study as far more valuable while Ehrenreich’s opinion is not, which is hardly the reason this material is often used to supplement course lecture.

Werewolf01
02-21-2005, 06:39 PM
Hmmm. My wife and I do fairly well. We have worked hard to get there and both of us are fairly well educated. Come to the US and watch some useless, lazy POS that is living off welfare people who work for a living are providing free to them at no cost pay for steak and shrimp with their damn food stamps then pull out a $50 or $100 dollar bill to pay for cigarettes, lotto tickets, and beer, and you will see why I have no sympathy for the worthless scum.
As for people who work hard and make thier way, I have nothing but sympathy for them; if they keep working hard, they will do well for themselves. The US still offers the individual the greatest chance to succeed IF THEY WANT TO WORK FOR IT, of any country in the world.
I have what I make because I work for it.

There is also a matter of priorities that I am not certain is being adequately addressed here. Sometime when you are in the US drive through some of these trailer parks. You will see lots of new trucks and sportscars and people running around in designer clothing. Ask yourself at that point: why does Billy Bob own a $30k sportscar and live in a damn trailer? Answer: because that is where his priorities lie. I could easily go out and buy me and my wife a brace of brand new BMWs, but what do we drive? We drive an 01 Cherokee and a 00 Escort zx2. We have a nice new home, we pay for all of our education, we put money away for the future and we live under our means. Yet, we eat very well at home since we both enjoy cooking, and we have plenty of money for "extras". We get at least 3 or 4 credit card offers in the mail a week and we shred them. People in this country are obsessed with wealth, but they want it given to them on a silver platter.
The point to my little rant is that the opportunities are everywhere in the US. People decide they need to live like Donald Tump and go ass over tip in debt to buy designer everything and get a new car every year and buy a house with a mortgage payment that would sink the Titanic, and end up on the crappy side of bankruptcy. Some people decide that working is too difficult and they sit aournd the house and get fat and crank out a new kid every nine months to up the welfare payment. Others work hard, but can't get anyhwere because their abilities will not allow them to do so, but those cases are few and very far betweeen. I would submit, however, that if there is a will to do better there is always a way to do it here. Sitting around and whining about it will definitely NOT get one there. Looking at what everybody else has and wanting it, and feeling cheated because somebody didn't give it to you, and not being willing to work hard to get it because that would require too much effort, is nothing but a white trash cop out. If you work hard and use you brains and a bit of common sense, you can do very well here.

<Gypsum Fantastic>
02-21-2005, 06:55 PM
Sounds a bit too Socialist for this forum!
p-)

I may have revealed my intents, compromising my original objective, yet hopefully this comment will prevent an onslaught of "flames", shedding light on my “good intentions”.

:lol: ;)

I do believe that anyone in countries such as Britain and America can make a good life for themselves. Providing they are willing to put in the appropriate effort. There is still a big class divide, but it is realistically acheivable to live comfortably.


You will see lots of new trucks and sportscars and people running around in designer clothing. Ask yourself at that point: why does Billy Bob own a $30k sportscar and live in a damn trailer? Answer: because that is where his priorities lie.
////
Some people decide that working is too difficult and they sit aournd the house and get fat

That's very true. But those types of people are exactly the same as useless lumps of flesh like Paris Hilton or "Prince" Harry. People who live off other peoples wealth and can't be bothered to acheive anything for themselves.

These people ae known simply as "Scum" and should be treated with the relevent contempt.

Jobu
02-21-2005, 06:55 PM
tl/dr

Werewolf01
02-21-2005, 06:59 PM
Sounds a bit too Socialist for this forum!
p-)

I may have revealed my intents, compromising my original objective, yet hopefully this comment will prevent an onslaught of "flames", shedding light on my “good intentions”.

:lol: ;)

I do believe that anyone in countries such as Britain and America can make a good life for themselves. Providing they are willing to put in the appropriate effort. There is still a big class divide, but it is realistically acheivable to live comfortably.


You will see lots of new trucks and sportscars and people running around in designer clothing. Ask yourself at that point: why does Billy Bob own a $30k sportscar and live in a damn trailer? Answer: because that is where his priorities lie.
////
Some people decide that working is too difficult and they sit aournd the house and get fat

That's very true. But those types of people are exactly the same as useless lumps of flesh like Paris Hilton or "Prince" Harry. People who live off other peoples wealth and can't be bothered to acheive anything for themselves.

These people ae known simply as "Scum" and should be treated with the relevent contempt.

Agreed. Trash is trash, whether rich or poor. ;)

TheKiwi
02-21-2005, 07:39 PM
Stolen from Lef****ch.com

Happy Birthday, Internet (and Barbara Ehrenreich's Mistake)

By Brian Carnell

Sunday, December 12, 1999


Today year is technically the 30th anniversary of the creation of the Internet and as a birthday present I'd like to deflate some Internet hype I see repeated by the Left about the role of the government and the Internet. A typically erroneous view comes from Barbara Ehrenreich in a 1997 piece in The Nation:

Maybe that will change--as, for example, people notice that it is the federal government and not the Chamber of Commerce that tends to organize disaster relief and that has brought us such innovations as the Internet. But for the time being, we're not going to get anywhere with a progressive agenda consisting of wonderful new government initiatives
First, it is ironic to see Ehrenreich defend what was in large measure a military program. I know a lot of right wingers who argue we need large defense spending because it creates spinoff technologies, but I'm surprised when I see left/liberals make that argument.

Second, for Ehrenreich to be correct, she must demonstrate that without the government innovations such as the Internet wouldn't exist. But this is as patently a false assertion as any I've seen in a left/liberal magazine. Back in the mid-1980s the Internet was the sole province of universities and government institutions. Private individuals who just wanted to send e-mail over the Internet would have had a hard time doing so.

But that doesn't mean there weren't vibrant computer networks. In fact there were tens of thousands of Bulletin Board Systems around the country that were relatively cheap to join and offered e-mail, files, discussion forums and a whole host of things that are now largely on the web; although some remnants of this BBS culture still exist.

The main problem with the BBS system was a lack of standards for interconnection. As the 1990s approached and computers became more powerful and modems supported more bandwidth there were several competing proposals for graphical interconnection standards, but those were wiped out by the Internet tsunami.

It is interesting, given Ehrenreich's view that the Internet was an innovation made possible by the government, that prior to the early 1990s almost nobody outside of governments and universities had home access to the Internet while several million had logged on to a BBS at one point or another. What caused the change? Something Ehrenreich and her left/liberal friends usually fight tooth and nail -- privatization. The floodgates of the Internet came open only after key resources became privatized and companies and individuals could operate on the Internet. For much of its existence, commercial activity on the Internet had been forbidden. The removal of that barrier is primarily responsible for the Internet we have today, where both anarchists and Abercrombie and Fitch use the web to broadcast their respective messages.

The Internet, in fact, reaffirms the basic free market critique of large government. Here for 30 years the government had an immensely useful protocol for transferring information, TCP/IP, but it languished with almost no added benefit other than to the military and academia. In less than a decade, private concerns have taken that protocol and created one of the most important technological revolutions of the millennia.

Now just imagine what the Chamber of Commerce could do for disaster relief!

Source:

When Government Gets Mean: Confessions of a Recovering Statist Barbara Ehrenreich, The Nation, November 17, 1999.

Skaman
02-21-2005, 07:50 PM
Werewolf01,

Your argument that the wealthy are in their position because they posses a good work ethic, and respectively the poor state of impoverishment are attributed to their lack of work ethic seems reminiscent of a 19th century American social commentator William Graham Sumner who took a Social Darwinist stance.
Rather than hand out ‘capital’ to the societal whole as a collective, Sumner takes an individualistic stance, promoting the ideal that all members of society are responsible to their own, and no other. Sumner goes to such lengths as to suggest that the rich are prosperous as they build their livelihood and wealth off of the inferiority of others who lack the drive to peruse progressive social mobility. This stark assertion can be made on page forty four in Sumner’s article-“What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, 1883”: “The men who have not done their duty in this world never can be equal to those who have done their duty more or less well”. All have the born right to seek equality, but in actuality, Sumner suggests it is not a reality at all, and this is left to chance and ethic. Page forty three stipulates in one quote: “Rights should be equal because they pertain to chances, and all ought to have equal chances so far as chances are provided or limited by the action of society”, Ultimately, Sumner sees helping the less privileged as simply moving ones capital to another, and futile as a means of equality. Those that are poor have no one to blame for themselves, suggesting Sunmer is unwilling to partake in this perceived failed endeavor.

My opinion:

How can a people make a life for themselves and rise in social status when they are the very victim of Sumner’s ‘superior economic elite’?
Therefore, we seem to deny the very people we legitimize as poor, attributing the whole to a lazy and unmotivated select. As suggested in Ehrenhreich’s work, the working classes are poor not because they choose not to work, rather, occupational jobs pay too little and cannot coincide with living costs, hindered further by a lack of social and educational programs that help the willing to facilitate post secondary schooling. Single mothers, newly landed immigrants and working class families are forever stuck in the vacuum of poverty in a cyclical and fatalistic stratum of society. Those who use the “rages to riches” example fail to realize the limits and rarity of these instances, consequently only serving as a testament to the individuals unwilling to offer aid, merely justifying ones current financial situation perceived as willingness to “work hard”
Thank you for those that have this far added input, it will be noted,

Skaman

Skaman
02-21-2005, 07:59 PM
tl/dr

?

walford
02-21-2005, 08:43 PM
In order to overcome the "unequal distribution of wealth and dominance of big business," you must have an equal distribution of wealth and a dominance of big government -- which entails an unequal distribution of power.

Given that there are unequal distributions of discipline, intelligence, character as well as luck, there will be unequal outcomes. If someone is unequal to his wealth, there are plenty who will be only too happy to relieve him of it.

Those who argue for forcible redistribution know that they cannot bring everybody else up. All they can do is chop everybody down to the same level -- save for the Philosopher Kings of course. In other words, all they can offer is a Shared Poverty.

Only a dozen years ago, PCs were only affordable to a few. The existence of a Bill Gates shows where the ceiling is. To make it so he would make the same money as a shoe repairman as he did making personal computers affordable for millions would be to consign us to abject poverty.

Bill Gates is a greater benefactor to humanity than Mother Teresa could have ever hoped to be in ten lifetimes. For that he is entitled to every penny he gets.

Many of us seem to be unable to comprehend the concept of CREATED WEALTH. We think that there are a finite number of pies that must be distributed fairly. People like Bill Gates bake new pies. They create wealth where none had previously existed and we all benefit.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1100
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Marshal_Pareto/Marshal_Pareto.html

Skaman
02-21-2005, 10:49 PM
In other words, all they can offer is a Shared Poverty

The ethos of communism according to a capitalist. p-)

disabled1
02-21-2005, 10:52 PM
who needs to buy the book he just re wrote it on here

walford
02-21-2005, 10:59 PM
In other words, all they can offer is a Shared PovertyThe ethos of communism according to a capitalist.The consequences of repeated attempts at redistributionist economics according to someone who has yet to find one example where it has ever worked.

who needs to buy the book he just re wrote it on hereHe shouldn't mind unless he is corrupted by the profit motive.

ibstolidude
02-21-2005, 11:05 PM
blame Canada.

EvanL
02-21-2005, 11:06 PM
blame Canada.
how about blame ducimus, as this thread has nothign to do with Canada p-)

ibstolidude
02-21-2005, 11:18 PM
blame Canada.
how about blame ducimus, as this thread has nothign to do with Canada p-)
atleast you presented a relevant logical point of your own design rather than finding an opinion of someone else that conformed to your preconcieved ideas, bias and beliefs; and allowed you to 'knock down' those you with whom you disagree - therefore I completely concur.


oops - Why is that certain people are constantly obsessed with other peoples' problems; yet they offer no solutions, they simply point out the flaws.

EvanL
02-21-2005, 11:19 PM
blame Canada.
how about blame ducimus, as this thread has nothign to do with Canada p-)
atleast you presented a relevant logical point - therefore I completely concur.

Why is that certain people are constantly obsessed with other peoples' problems; yet they offer no solutions, they simply point out the flaws.
in the real world we call it penis envy.

walford
02-21-2005, 11:19 PM
blame Canada.how about blame ducimus, as this thread has nothign to do with CanadaThe fact that no direct blame can be assigned to Canada merely proves the point. It demonstrates how criminally devious you are.

Skaman
02-21-2005, 11:23 PM
In other words, all they can offer is a Shared PovertyThe ethos of communism according to a capitalist.The consequences of repeated attempts at redistributionist economics according to someone who has yet to find one example where it has ever worked.

Now, I can agree with that. Capitalism, the model in practice in contemporary Western democracies is the best and fullest realization we have yet seen of a functioning government initiative, however, deficiencies, and inequalities are clearly evident. With that said, I would urge someone too look beyond the totalitarian communism unit which seems to be synonymous within each other, rather ponder the possibility that some form of redefined Marxism in a twenty first century context could possibly be functional…..


who needs to buy the book he just re wrote it on hereHe shouldn't mind unless he is corrupted by the profit motive.

I’m against the purchase of the book, unless everyone shares in the wealth it generates.

p-)

Skaman
02-21-2005, 11:35 PM
blame Canada.
how about blame ducimus, as this thread has nothign to do with Canada p-)


However, it is applicable to Canada.

EvanL
02-21-2005, 11:35 PM
blame Canada.
how about blame ducimus, as this thread has nothign to do with Canada p-)


However, it is applicable to Canada.well if you dont like it then you should leave.

Skaman
02-21-2005, 11:42 PM
blame Canada.
how about blame ducimus, as this thread has nothign to do with Canada p-)


However, it is applicable to Canada.well if you dont like it then you should leave.

Or I can heed the call of our bruised and bleeding financially oppressed, working for progressive change in a nation I love and call my home. No, I will not leave; knowing I had done nothing, clearly an option only for the weak and those who falsely wish to do our land better.

walford
02-21-2005, 11:43 PM
I would urge someone too look beyond the totalitarian communism unit which seems to be synonymous within each other, rather ponder the possibility that some form of redefined Marxism in a twenty first century context could possibly be functionalI didn't even mention totalitarian Marxism. The prosperity of a given economy is in inverse proportion to the amount of government control thereof.

Marxism is unworkable because it is based upon false premises and is fundamentally opposed to logic, reason and the laws of nature. It is a secular religion that one must believe in without question. There is no way that it can work, because it is a Utopian Ideology. And that is a subject that I've explored at length. http://utopia-unmasked.us/utopiatext.html

The idea that 'inequalities' are by definition unjust is by no means a given. The higher that the top can go, the greater the general standard of living. As I said, the only choices is differences in income based upon the law of supply and demand or equality enforced by dragging everyone else to the same level. Redistributionism is completely incompatible with prosperity. It is one or the other.

I am fully aware that I am speaking in generalities that require support, but it would take volumes to explain it.

EvanL
02-21-2005, 11:47 PM
blame Canada.
how about blame ducimus, as this thread has nothign to do with Canada p-)


However, it is applicable to Canada.well if you dont like it then you should leave.

Or I can heed the call of our bruised and bleeding financially oppressed, working for progressive change in a nation I love and call my home. No, I will not leave; knowing I had done nothing, clearly an option only for the weak and those who falsely wish to do our land better.
well then move out of your house. sell your computer. give the money to those that need it. move into a tent with all those unemployed bums in Vancouver, and then you can start bitching about you. Teh fact is is that you have a job, live in a nice house with all these nice ammemnities *SP, and you have an education. Isnt it kind of ironic that you complain about people not caring about the financially oppressed, yet your sitting there in your leather computer chair, probably drinking a latte?

Skaman
02-22-2005, 12:19 AM
Walford,

I would be speaking falsely if I said my specialty lay within the discipline of economic history as it does not. Yet, as an avid proponent of class/race and gender equality I am always interested in social and economic relations and the feasibility in the implementation of various utopian or otherwise ill-conceived socio-economic models. As you had so clearly, and may I say, aptly put the outcome of centralized government economic policy in your last post, I must concede as I neither know, nor am I prepared to undertake the major task of writing my own Utopian Marxist-stylized handbook. Needless to say, as active participants of the capitalist ideal, we need to expose the shortcomings of this model, revealing the dark underbelly and facilitate progressive change, perhaps though the addition of social benefit programs, yet the complete restructure of a ground up monetary system of capital procurement is both ridiculous and ill advisable. Additionally, Marxism is with its flaws, hardly applicable to a post “industrial revolutionary” nation. Marx is pertinent to the Victorian era industrial ruling class, not the global conglomerates of the twenty first century. To you sir, I will tip my hat,

Skaman

Skaman
02-22-2005, 12:24 AM
blame Canada.
how about blame ducimus, as this thread has nothign to do with Canada p-)


However, it is applicable to Canada.well if you dont like it then you should leave.

Or I can heed the call of our bruised and bleeding financially oppressed, working for progressive change in a nation I love and call my home. No, I will not leave; knowing I had done nothing, clearly an option only for the weak and those who falsely wish to do our land better.
well then move out of your house. sell your computer. give the money to those that need it. move into a tent with all those unemployed bums in Vancouver, and then you can start bitching about you. Teh fact is is that you have a job, live in a nice house with all these nice ammemnities *SP, and you have an education. Isnt it kind of ironic that you complain about people not caring about the financially oppressed, yet your sitting there in your leather computer chair, probably drinking a latte?


"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."

-Albert Einstein

James
02-22-2005, 12:39 AM
Duci,

1st things 1st... I have no doubt that you are a pretty intelligent fellow. We may disagree most of the time, but you are consistent and articulate. Maybe too artuclate. When it comes to writing (if I am correct in thinking that you were the author of that 1st entry) you really should dumb it down a bit. You can write in a more simple fashion and still get your point across. That took quite a bit of effort to read. Just a thought...

A question - are you writing a book report? If you are writing a report on gender/social equality in N. America, you might look for some other sources (not instead of, but in addition too this work). Otherwise it is like using ONLY Michael Moore as a reference in a paper about Gun Control or something.

Just some thoughts...

Some personal experiences of mine... When I was a teenaged college student, I could easily get by on less than $1000 a month. Even after my active military time, when I was back in college, I was able to get by on very little. As I've gotten older, my income has increased quite a bit. If for some unseen reason I am forced to take a menial entry level job somewhere, well, that's my problem to deal with, but I have no doubt that I will be able to continue to live comfortably - I will just be a lot closer to the edge...

Part of the whole problem I have with this woman's work is that she went from a much more comfortable lifestyle/income and chose to work at the entry level, then bitched about it. When I was there, I didn't know any better. When I was a young college student, I can remember thinking "WOW! If I made $1500 a month I'd be a very rich man!" No I make considerably more than that, but I don't think I'm rich at all.

While my next statement isn't universal, there is one HUGE reason why I am glad that I am an American; here, more than any place I can think oif in the world, the way we live is more in our hands than anyone elses. We are free to succeed at the same time we are free to fail.

I will close with some humor - someone should post a link to all the threads that cropped up today about the illegal immigrants and the southern U.S. border... :P

walford
02-22-2005, 12:39 AM
Walford,I would be speaking falsely if I said my specialty lay within the discipline of economic history as it does not. Yet, as an avid proponent of class/race and gender equality I am always interested in social and economic relations and the feasibility in the implementation of various utopian or otherwise ill-conceived socio-economic models. As you had so clearly, and may I say, aptly put the outcome of centralized government economic policy in your last post, I must concede as I neither know, nor am I prepared to undertake the major task of writing my own Utopian Marxist-stylized handbook. Needless to say, as active participants of the capitalist ideal, we need to expose the shortcomings of this model, revealing the dark underbelly and facilitate progressive change, perhaps though the addition of social benefit programs, yet the complete restructure of a ground up monetary system of capital procurement is both ridiculous and ill advisable. Additionally, Marxism is with its flaws, hardly applicable to a post “industrial revolutionary” nation. Marx is pertinent to the Victorian era industrial ruling class, not the global conglomerates of the twenty first century. To you sir, I will tip my hat, SkakmanI appreciate your honesty and intelligence and would say so even if you vehemently disagreed -- but perhaps not quite as enthusiastically. ;) I have complimented people taking opposing positions for stimulating discussions before -- because it was kept civil.

Skaman
02-22-2005, 03:10 AM
Duci,

1st things 1st... I have no doubt that you are a pretty intelligent fellow. We may disagree most of the time, but you are consistent and articulate. Maybe too artuclate.

Your praise is flattering. I am humbled.

When it comes to writing (if I am correct in thinking that you were the author of that 1st entry) you really should dumb it down a bit. You can write in a more simple fashion and still get your point across. That took quite a bit of effort to read. Just a thought...

Are you sure you were'nt once a great writter to the masses, perhaps Thomas Paine in another life? p-)

A question - are you writing a book report? If you are writing a report on gender/social equality in N. America, you might look for some other sources (not instead of, but in addition too this work). Otherwise it is like using ONLY Michael Moore as a reference in a paper about Gun Control or something.

Yes, this is purely a scholarly review of Ehrenreich's case study. However, I did examine some subsequent reviews from other commentators, incorporating their criticisms and compliments in my closure for a more comprehensive opinion. Also, I noted in the body of my essay that pending further study along similar lines, judgment must be withdrawn as one must incorporate a comparative analysis from additional sources before arguing on this subject any significant detail.

Just some thoughts...

Some personal experiences of mine... When I was a teenaged college student, I could easily get by on less than $1000 a month. Even after my active military time, when I was back in college, I was able to get by on very little. As I've gotten older, my income has increased quite a bit. If for some unseen reason I am forced to take a menial entry level job somewhere, well, that's my problem to deal with, but I have no doubt that I will be able to continue to live comfortably - I will just be a lot closer to the edge...

Certain discrepancies could be noted in Ehrenreich’s work as I noted, including her infrequent but unnecessary spending on food and lodging that was clearly out of her budget. What is evident was the uneasy transition from the stratum of upper middle class living, to the perceived "impoverished" lowest dominator of American society. While a single person may be able to “get by” on a tight budget, unexpected circumstances such as health, dental, auto, and family concerns may bring entirely new variables into the situation which are not easily remedied, given an individual who has to live paycheck to paycheck.

Part of the whole problem I have with this woman's work is that she went from a much more comfortable lifestyle/income and chose to work at the entry level, then bitched about it. When I was there, I didn't know any better. When I was a young college student, I can remember thinking "WOW! If I made $1500 a month I'd be a very rich man!" No I make considerably more than that, but I don't think I'm rich at all.


While my next statement isn't universal, there is one HUGE reason why I am glad that I am an American; here, more than any place I can think oif in the world, the way we live is more in our hands than anyone elses. We are free to succeed at the same time we are free to fail.

I noted something in respect to a similar comment on the first page, drawing comparison to an argument made by the early American social commentator William Sunmer.

I will close with some humor - someone should post a link to all the threads that cropped up today about the illegal immigrants and the southern U.S. border... :P

Always a pleasure reading your posts,

Skaman

James
02-22-2005, 05:06 AM
Are you sure you were'nt once a great writter to the masses, perhaps Thomas Paine in another life?

I can only wish...

I think it's really great that one can disagree with someone here and get a better response than "You're a fag" or threats to beat me without mercy.

I hope you are well Duci. Semper Fi.

James

Werewolf01
02-22-2005, 11:50 AM
I think the problem we are all wrestling with is how do we provide an adequate saftey net for all members of a society without rewarding laziness or punishing success? Equality means enjoying equal rights under the law, it should not mean enforcing economic equality.
I do not think that any reasonable person would deny that some state supported welfare is necessary and frankly just considering we all pay taxes. However, on a personal level, I do think that there should be a labor exchange for the funds provided. People on public assistance should be required to work in return for the support that welfare provides. This would drastically reduce the amount of fraud and abuse.
On another note, people can do better for themsleves, especially in the US, if they apply themsleves to the task. Sitting and moping about what other people have, and how society has somehow "cheated" the poor is in no way productive, nor does it get one closer to the goal of economic prosperity. There are numerous opportunities for education and personal growth that lie dormant because people are uninterested in applying the effort it would take to make these opportunities a reality. Please refer back to my previous post regarding priorities. If this attitude categorizes me as a Darwinist from a sociological perspective, then I will gladly accept that nomen. After all, nature is a Darwinist as well.
In short, there is no argument that I can forsee that would ever convince me that taking from the pockets of the successful in order to "economically equalize" society by leveling the ecommoic playing field, is a just or good idea. I know there are individuals out othere with far vaster sums than I will ever realize during the course of my entire lifetime. That does not mean that I would think it somehow justifiable for goverment to redistribute their wealth to improve my station. In my mind, that is paramount to outright theft.

Trigger
02-22-2005, 12:02 PM
Great thread guys! woot



...you're all fags. :D

2Sheds_Jackson
02-22-2005, 02:59 PM
"It is apparent that for jobs that one often pre-supposes to require little skill are in actuality immensely difficult and clearly foreign to the uninitiated. Low wage working class occupations are implicit in the enforcement for one to adapt to a new inward looking job mentality or culture, and the expectation for one to exhibit the qualities of punctuality, cleanliness, cheerfulness and obedience, irrespective of exhaustion or work related hardships including physical strain and stress."

I shall paraphrase; "life is hard, entry level jobs suck, - they can be difficult for a person who has never had to do anything, you can't just come and go as you please, you have to do what your boss says, you have to look decent, and you can't cop an attitude with customers".

This kind of bewilderment at such a basic building block of capitalist life, can only come from somebody who has a fundamentally flawed notion of the nature of human existence. Ehrenreich must suppose that the basic human condition is one of plenty, of abundance, of happiness, ease, and leisure time. Quite the contrary is true of course - humans, without working hard to change the world they live in, would be cold, hungry, dirty, and miserable. That is where we come from, and it is only work that elevates us from there.

Those things I mentioned - "plenty, abundance, happiness, ease, leisure time" - are intangible, but are also highly prized - above almost everything else. They cannot be purchased with money, but they are a byproduct of higher tier jobs which offer more flexibility, higher wages, more authority. So these jobs, like anything else of value, must be worked for. It is not enough to work at a job, you must work for a job.

Each human being is obliged to better themselves, to educate themselves, to increase their value to society. In this way, one will not be working entry level jobs at 30 years of age. Those that Ehrenreich worked and lived with were given every opportunity to do exactly that - and nobody is to blame but the individual if those opportunities are lost. Fabricating some fanciful mechanism by which the rich are oppressing the poor under the American system is intellectually lazy.

So what are the alternative economic systems?

1) The capitalist system, using economic Darwinism - those willing to work to better themselves emerge as social and economic leaders. The rest, to varying degrees, fall behind.
2) An entitlement state, where the poor who have refused to work to better themselves are granted lavish subsidy by those who have done that work.

The difference, I would argue, would be that system 1 at least is sustainable. System 2 could (and IMHO would) eventually collapse as the producers of society tire of doing three times the work for a diminished reward. They would simply relocate to another country willing to reward their hard work.

I found Ehrenreich's methodology to be distasteful - it is quite illustrative of her mindset. She went to work and live among the poor, in entry level jobs - like Dian Fossey living amongst the gorillas. Apparently she needed to go on some kind of sabbatical, to "acquaint" herself with how most of us started out.

As to the review...it was well written, and presented both sides of the argument...i.e both for and against Ehrenreich's point of view pretty well. I must say that the writing style is a little stilted, and errs on the side of being verbose when plain language would do. As it stands, it reads sort of like stereo instructions, and isn't very engaging from an emotional viewpoint. But maybe this is what is expected by the author's academic reading audience? But the content was quite good - lots of "meat" there for the reader to get a good idea of what the book is all about.

americanbychoice
02-22-2005, 05:19 PM
And as far as equality goes, going back to a different post in this thread... I don't think anybody wants equality, even if they say they do. What people want is superiority.

What people want is F--- YOU money, and to be treated better than everybody else... not to be treated the same crappy way that we all get treated.

Why else do people drive faster than the speed limit, drive over the alcohol limit, roll through stop signs, cut in line (jump a queue? I think that's the UKnglish saying)? The law for other people doesn't apply to people who think the common law is beneath them...

2Sheds_Jackson
02-22-2005, 05:51 PM
And as far as equality goes, going back to a different post in this thread... I don't think anybody wants equality, even if they say they do. What people want is superiority.

What people want is F--- YOU money, and to be treated better than everybody else... not to be treated the same crappy way that we all get treated.

Why else do people drive faster than the speed limit, drive over the alcohol limit, roll through stop signs, cut in line (jump a queue? I think that's the UKnglish saying)? The law for other people doesn't apply to people who think the common law is beneath them...

Well, I suppose that's true if those people considered life a zero-sum game (by that I mean; they believe that for them to win, others must lose). Personally, I speed to get myself somewhere faster, not to get there before anybody else. If I were trying to get there strictly before somebody else, I'd be racing them, not just speeding. But yeah, there is a certain percentage of tools who have the "me first" mentality.