grylliade.org Free minds. Free markets. Free beer.

What he did is most impressive, but I'm not sure that his experiences disprove Ehrenreich's. A young, healthy guy with no kids in a port city that's doing well has opportunities that a woman or older person or someone living in the rust belt wouldn't have.

Wikipedia entry
Long summary

Basically, what happened was this woman, Barbara Ehrenreich, decided to go "undercover" to report on the lives of the "working poor" in America. And then she goes wahh wahh wahh for like a thousand pages. She finds out:
- waitressing is HARD! You have to clean and stuff, too!
- housekeeping is HARD! You have to move around! (She crows later about how she's in totally awesome shape.)
- being a dietary aide is HARD! Old people drop food and you have to clean it up!
- being a maid is HARD! They make you wear ugly uniforms and people look down on you!
- working at Wal-Mart is HARD! You only make $7 an hour and sometimes the customers don't put stuff back in the right place!
- getting food stamps is HARD! The government won't let you buy whatever you want!
- getting housing is HARD! Sometimes you have to work more than 40 hours a week to afford it, or live in a crappy part of town!
- being poor in America is HARD! It is a STATE OF EMERGENCY.

Look, Christ knows that unskilled labor sucks and the life it buys you isn't always great. And I'm sure it's exponentially more difficult if you're trying to support kids (which she was not.) But this isn't the type of poverty that Theresa Funicello was writing about in Tyranny of Kindness, where people get trapped in third-world slum nightmares because they want or need to seek help from bureacrats who clearly realize that eliminating poverty means eliminating themselves right out of a job -- where babies freeze to death in unheated public housing and murders occur in the hallway outside the broken front door. This is I-don't-get-sick-leave poverty, Outback-Steakhouse-is-fine-dining poverty, I-only-get-three-channels-on-the-TV poverty, my-job-is-killing-my-back poverty. Of course I wish everyone could have jobs that let them sit in ergonomic chairs all day and gave them a free kitten (and if that job exists, sign me up!) But it ain't happening. And in the meantime, America's working poor can still afford televisions and cell phones and cars and computers and all sorts of things that were luxuries to earlier generations. And frequently people don't stay in this income bracket forever. Sometimes they do. But speaking as someone who is there, and will probably be there for many years to come? IT'S NOT THAT BAD. SUCK IT UP.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but seriously, hate. Haaaaate. Adam Shepard? Looooove.

I'd say his experiences wouldn't disprove everybody who's struggling to make ends meet, because there are a ton of factors he has in his favor: age, race, mental health, no disabilities, no kids. Even being a guy is a slight bump (I'd say it helps in being able to live in crappier places, but doesn't really affect earning ability that much.)

However, I think he does make a good counterpoint under the circumstances to Ehrenreich, because she has most of the same advantages, and starts out with way more money.

OH FINE BE HATIN' ON MY LINK

It's also the "if-I-get-sick-I'm-going-to-lose-my-house poverty, or I need a better job but can't cut back on work long enough to get educated poverty, or even my job will see to it that my body-is completely destroyed but workman's comp will refuse to pay for surgery because sometimes the-injuries-are non-occupational even though the doctor and my boss both say otherwise but I can't afford a lawyer to-fight it poverty." The last one is especially common among construction workers.

Do not concur. As Mo pointed out, being a guy is a huge bump, because there are all kinds of jobs that young men can do that trade the fact that they're strong and not too willing to think about what the consequences of their actions will be when they're 55 or 60 and their jobs have wasted their bodies. Ehrenreich also wasn't setting out to prove or disprove anybody by making something of herself; she was more trying to write something like Orwell's Down and Out in Paris. (which is an awesome book by the way) That she was whiny (and great god, did she ever whine) doesn't change the fact that there are economic dead zones in this country where jobs are rare and upward mobility is difficult.

Well, I'm really PMS-y, so I'm not going to argue. It's a cool story, Ehrenreich is super whiny, there are large segments of the population that DON'T find upward mobility/minimum-wage sustainability easy or even possible, I got nothin' else. I'm out.

Edit: Thoreau, I found community college a billion times better than regular college, because the classes were smaller, the teachers better, and the overall atmosphere more forgiving of nontraditional students (which I felt like I was, what with the working 55 hours a week). I'd be interested to see how your experiment turns out. I would LIVE in my community college if I could.

Well, I'm not sure I'd be too quick to vote for a young white guy with a college degree as the poster boy for the American Dream, especially not one who parodies the 'wrong attitude' with such statements as "Am I going to continue to go out to eat and put rims on my Cadillac?" (Compare classic Richard Prior routine: "Back in the 20s white people had what they call a Depression. See, white folks can't live without money....")

Look, I've known high school dropouts with crack habits who have managed to leave the shelters, get a job, car and apartment in less than a year, too. Sure it's possible. Happens every day. But both the attitudes and the coping skills (things like showing up on time for the interview, being able to fill out the employment application, dressing and behaving like one really wants a job and will do it if hired, etc., etc.) that Shepard brought to his little anecdotal experiment are the products of years of training and conditioning. Not to mention how much more confident many of his fellow shelter habitués might be with an emergency credit card in their back pockets. Give me a break!

That said, I haven't read Nickle and Dimed, but I'm perfectly willing to accept Ellie's characterization. For those who like such things (and I admit that I, oddly enough, do), may I suggest both the classic and only semi-fictional

Down And Out In Paris And London, by George Orwell,

and the slightly more contemporary (1981)

Rolling Nowhere: Riding the Rails with America's Hoboes, by Ted Conover.

Both very good reads, their politics aside.

MARKET FAILURE!

QFT

D.A. did a good job phrasing the same misgivings I had about the whole experiment.

DAR is, as usual, right that a lot of the skills Mr. Shepard brought to this are a product of training and conditioning. I've always been fond of Megan McArdle's comment that when she was in high schools, if all her friends had thought cutting school and doing drugs was the coolest thing to do, she would have been right there with them; but fortunately, her classmates thought the most important thing EVAR was getting into an Ivy League college, so she did that instead.

As for Nickle and Dimed, the best response I've read is that most poor people, like most other people in the world, have a lot of social capital from the social networks they've built growing up. This obviously doesn't really apply to the people who've just gotten royally screwed, but for the most part you'd have other people sharing some expenses, offering help, keeping an eye out for jobs you might want, and so forth; these are all things that Ehrenrich couldn't or didn't replicate.

Sorry. It's never bothered me, but I know she annoys some people. Any chance you can put your finger on what bothers you? I'm kinda curious.

It's hard to put my finger on it, but this is the same woman who wrote (about Iraq) that she was right to be wrong before she was right because we didn't know enough to be right at first so it was right to be wrong and wrong to be right.

As a philosophical point about knowledge, it might be right (or wrong, or right before it's wrong) but when there's a 6 digit body count attached, well, philosophy doesn't quite cut it.

When I get a chance I'll reread some of her stuff and see if I can figure out why she bugs me.

I will say that her commenters just bug the shit out of me. Whatever bugs me a bit about her, I've never had the urge to punch her. But when I read her commenters I want to reach through my screen and through the series of tubes so I can punch some of them.

the problem with nickled and dimed - and with the author herself it seems at least judging by subsequent interviews - is that she totally ignores social networks like churches. she comes across as such a rah rah rah atheist that even this apagnostic wanted to stick her head in a church dinner setting and say "sometimes people do stuff for each other and it involves jesus. we call it a religious community."

I lean more toward Shem than Ellie in this instance (sorry, Ellie!). My own life ... yeah, I can talk about how unfair it is that I didn't have parents willing to lend me a hand. Compared to many Americans my age, I can honestly say I was dealt a bad hand in life.

And yet, in retrospect I was very lucky in many ways. When I turned 18 and had to figure out how to support myself, I was lucky to live in southeastern Virginia, where you only had to be 18 to work in dance bars and--even more importantly, from my perspective--dance bars at the time were basically bikini bars. (I never, ever could've started out dancing topless.) So I was lucky in that, through no effort on my part, I looked a certain way that enabled me to make something like eight or nine times minimum wage right out of high school. And a couple of years ago, when I was utterly miserable because I realized "I always wanted to be a writer, and nothing else will make me happy, and I am wasting my life but I can't afford to take an entry-level writing gig at my age," I was fortunate to have a live-in boyfriend who told me "I make enough to support us both for awhile. Go get a writing job, even though it means a huge paycut, and I'll pick up the economic slack in the meantime."

Yes, I have writing ability, and yes, I have a good work ethic and sense of responsibility and blah blah blah. But that's not what got me where I am today. If I had exactly the same talent and personality, but maybe three less points on a ten-point attractiveness scale, my whole life would be different, and likely much, much worse.

Sorry if I was a total bitch earlier, Shem (and others) -- it's been a rough week, and I was all, "Hey, a feel-good story! What, discord on my beloved grylliade? NOOOOOOOO!"

I guess a lot of my annoyance with her comes from putting too much weight on my personal n=1.

I've been in Knoxville for five years as of last Thursday, and when I moved down here I was 19, fat & unattractive, severely clinically depressed and socially phobic, and didn't know anybody but David and his parents. And I survived. I coped. I worked crap jobs, usually two at at time, and I lived with roommates, and then I worked my way into a couple slightly less crappy jobs and got my own place. Oh, and I went to school full-time, too.

I totally get that I had vast, sweeping advantages over someone facing discrimination because they are disabled or Hispanic or an ex-con, or someone with health problems or kids. I had privilege out the wazoo. BUT -- I don't think I had anything Ehrenreich didn't have. I know "I did it and you can too!" is a terrible arguing platform, so I will endeavor to look at it more objectively, but that's where I'm coming from in her case.

I don't think Adam Shepard's experience proves that it's easy to be poor or if you're struggling it's just because you're not trying hard enough or any of that. And he certainly has some cocky attitudes. However, it seems like he (at least initially) began the experiment as a very specific critique of Ehrenreich and the way her book is taught in college, which is like JasonL says - "that the typical case is that the market system crushes people who makes good choices but can't get ahead" - that in America, if you become poor, you will NEVER climb out of it, that our consumerist capitalist economy has eliminated upward mobility completely. IDIAYCT isn't a comprehensive or scientific rebuttal, but I'm pleased to see that argument deflated in any way at all. Especially because the people who use it invariably seem to mean, "MY standard of living is fine, but all the people living better than me should give more money to the government so we can eliminate poverty."

It IS! Damn you, free market!

I'm absolutely certain certain people, due to their disadvantages, will never be able to live their life like I've lived mine, have the same level of success I've achieved in a few short years, or be as healthy and worry free as I am and if we're setting me as the minimum benchmark, I guess that would be a tragedy. However, as we're all gonna die anyway and there are levels of comfort below mine for people that need less to enjoy themselves and feel perfectly proud of their accomplishments in life, at what level do we say people have achieved a good success in life? The point of the social safety net is not to allow everyone to escape poverty and achieve greatness. Many won't. The point is to keep some civilness in society by bribing the many who don't want to achieve anything but stay alive and so instead of them necessarily robing individuals for food, we all pay protection money to spread the pain around.

I hate to say this, and maybe it means I'm not a True Libertarian (Donderrrooo!), but I think so*. It's fear of not having those "basic needs" that held me back as long as I did.

I am very fond of a book called The Lucifer Principle (note to self: tell Boss I want it back because I loaned it to him last summer) by Howard Bloom. The easiest way to describe it is "a look at the evolutionary origins of evil," though it also describes the motivation behind a lot of other apparently irrational behaviors, too.

There's a million details about it I haven't time to get into here, but here's one thing I remember: say you've got two animals of the same species. (In the book, the specific example they used was birds.) One of them has a full belly and some extra body fat, so he can safely go awhile without eating if he has to. The other is near starvation. You introduce some strange new berries they've never seen before.

New food is always a danger, because it might be poisonous. So you figure the starving bird will eat them because he has less to lose, right? Wrong. Animals near starvation are FAR more conservative, and less likely to try new things. The well-fed bird will try the berries, while the starving bird will shun them. Why is that? Because if the berries ARE poisonous, the fat, well-fed bird can afford to suffer a bout of food poisoning and a day or two of illness. The bird near starvation cannot.

*EDIT: I meant to write "I think I would've done better earlier." MAN, I messed that one up.

Jennifer,

So even if you were put in a situation where nobody talked to you, nobody promised you anything more than food, water and sustaining warmth for the rest of your life, you'd still be out there trying to succeed in some way? That's my point. You have the attitude and personality for success. Kept alive, you'll thrive. The people in Nickel and Dimed, given basic food and water and shelter would not thrive. Their mentality got stuck in the short term and no amount of government assistance and personal encouragement would allow them to see beyond their own present existence. They are being bribed to stabilize society. It is necessary to so that people like you can fall down and still get back up, but to say that those people are not achieving because we're not giving them enough is rediculous and I think that's what Ellie's saying. We give quite a bit, atleast the basics I've mentioned so far. I think beyond that, its the individual that determines his/her destiny, not the government.

I dunno, I get the same feeling about the current mouth-breathing horde of H&R commenters, so I don't know how fair that is. :)

Sad to say it, but the influx of Ron paul supporters (of which I am one, but hopefully not like them) really dragged down some of the threads on H&R. Not that I'm saying some H&R commenters are worth more than other commenters, but there have been alot more shitfests as of late, due to the conflict between those who have bought Paul hook line and sinker and those who like to stir up those who have bought Paul hook line and sinker. I can't filter them all and it certainly makes for some wierd threads to read.

They may be part of it, but another part has to be the influx of half-assed trolls - people specifically out to wind up libertarians.

Bear in mind these are reported violent crimes. Unreported rates are probably higher, and, due to domestic violence, may be less unequal.

OTOH, I wonder how often a gang member will report a beating by a rival gang member.

With domestic violence statistics, you also have to distinguish between the number of crimes and the number of victims. If a guy beats his wife regularly, the number of violent crimes against women is quite large, so it increases the number of crimes per woman. However, with many of those crimes being against a smaller number of victims, it doesn't increase the odds that a woman will experience a violent crime at some point in her life.

The only thing that's certain and easy in statistics is that "correlation does not equal causation", a most useful mantra to keep in mind! :)

"OTOH"? I said, "Unreported rates are probably higher"... At least Cathy Young does express actual opposites... ;)

And, while domestic violence may be more likely to be repeat crime to the same victim, I don't doubt that among some cultures regularly critiqued here (and others you might not think of), entire victims go unreported, no matter the number of assaults.

Point taken. I should've said "uncredentialed." There aren't many well-paying jobs you can get without first spending several years and many thousands of dollars for a piece of paper certifying you as A Person Capable Of Doing A Job.

Stop snitchin' dawg**

**Groin-grabbingly NSFW

Yes, but, there also aren't many well-paying jobs you can get without first spending several years learning the trade. The "many thousands of dollars" can vary depending on the types of skills one is learning.

And thoreau is correct. It is a mistake to make a blanket reference to construction jobs as "unskilled". Carpenters, masons or other skilled workers have skills that can take years of both training and practice to develop fully. However the skilled workers need help in the form of heavy lifting and shovelling and their time is much to valuable to have them doing those jobs. As one laborer once put it the only qualification required is "a strong back and a weak mind". It is these jobs that provide employment starts for many of the unschooled and untrained youths in our society. Those with a little ambition and aptitude will gain skills by watching and learning from the skilled workers and may be able to move up into those jobs with time.

It strikes me that people who are good at jobs like restaurant servers have skills that are more likely to be innate rather than learned. Things like an outgoing, friendly personality, a good memory and an ability to pay attention to details are the kinds of things required for the job. Of course these qualities are likely helpful in any number of life's endeavors. The point, it strikes me, is that with these qualities one can make a good living as a server without the years of training it takes to acquire the skills required for even more lucrative jobs.

Certainly that's true, and you won't catch me saying things like (for example) "Boo-hoo, this never-married woman of 26 who had eight kids starting at age 15 is now dirt-poor, and that proves American capitalism is flawed." But I--and I think Shem--am talking about the possibility that in certain circumstances, even people who never made such bad decisions can find themselves in situations where climbing out of poverty is practically impossible unless you're incredibly super-lucky.

The projects I've done and people I've worked with have largely been a matter of fortunate chances that I've seized. But I wonder how many other fortunate opportunities I overlooked. I suspect that if I hadn't taken the path that I took, I would have seized some other opportunity. Maybe I'd be better off, maybe worse off. Whatever the case, I'd probably be doing the same general thing and having fun with it.

Now, if I got into a car accident that damaged the part of my brain that is responsible for mathematical ability? Then I have no freaking clue what I'd be doing. Probably suicide.

So both case studies were about extremes. If only we could combine the variables of the two situations: get a young, healthy guy with his whole life ahead of him, and dump him in Appalachia or the rust belt with no money and no credentials. Do the same with a woman. See what happens.

Suddenly I think I misunderstood what you meant. Can you explain?

Conversely, the truly great advantage of an upper-middle-class is that you can make a couple abysmally stupid decisions and you'll have the social and financial capital to help you pull through it and start over again. If a rich white kid gets caught selling drugs, he's neglected and needs help and will get therapy. If a poor black kid gets caught selling drugs, that's 20 years. This example is both a bit unfair and a bit extreme, but the same general pattern will hold; if I dropped out of college now and became a beach bum for a few years, when I came to my senses my parents would be able to help me get back on track. The same isn't true of everyone.

Sandy-I get it now, though I'm not so sure there aren't more unreported male victims than female at this point. Though my only experience comes from volunteering in an area that's pretty open about female victims of domestic violence and tries hard to create an atmosphere where it's safe to get out. It may very well be different in areas that are more conservative. In fact, it probably is.

Well, Molly Ivins is from a planet we call crazy, but she was right saying that about W.

I just try to keep in mind that people have lives that are a lot harder than mine and that while I don't think the government should do anything about it, most of them do want to succeed and do well and sometimes folks work themselves into a situation that snowballs and don't know how to get out. But, yeah, I think a lot of flavors of libertarian have a weird social darwinist thing going and it's a bit uncomfortable. The amount of money you have to waste on stupid crap really hasn't got much to do with what sort of person you are. The number of totally shitty trust fund brats I knew growing up is more than proof of that.

Most people don't get to do what they want to do for a living. They may end up happy or at least not unhappy about what they do, but that's a different matter. For that matter, many of us who do get to choose how to earn a living end up dissatisfied in one way or another. For example, the percentage is very high of applied science and engineering trained folks who find themselves at mid career doing more management than hands-on tech stuff and start wondering "Well, why the hell didn't I just go to business school?" Lawyers have a high burn-out rate, as do social workers and teachers, just to balance the scale a bit.

I'm not going to bullshit you about how money doesn't matter. I've earned a six figure income throughout much of my professional career and I gotta tell you, rich or poor, it's nice to have a lot of money. No, it won't make you happy but it will make forestalling or avoiding a lot of misery much easier. OTOH, if you get the opportunity to do what Jennifer has done, you're a fool not to take it and that's true whether she (or anyone similarly situated) ends up succeeding or not. There are few greater joys in life than doing what you want to do with your time and gettin