Erin Stringfellow

April 16, 2003

Political Economy 220 Term Paper

 

            In Nickel and Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich describes the real-life story in which she willingly placed herself into a situation many people pray to be rescued from everyday:  the “acute distress” of poverty  (Ehrenreich 214).  With a wonderful sense of humor and an adventurous spirit, she set out to three areas of the country:  Key West, Florida; Portland, Maine; and Minneapolis, Minnesota.  In each area, her goal was to, within a month, find a just-above minimum-wage job and earn enough money to pay a second month’s rent.  She set certain rules and limits for herself:  She couldn’t fall back on her doctoral education; she must take the highest-paying job and the cheapest accommodations that were reasonably safe and private.  Furthermore, she would always have a car, would not be homeless, and would not go hungry.   

            To be sure, Ehrenreich had several advantages that many of the true working-poor never receive, yet she acknowledged that fact and still saw her investigative study as a worthy pursuit.  Although she had no young children, had a car, and was in good health, she certainly encountered her own unique problems.  In Key West and Maine she had to work two jobs; she had trouble finding affordable housing in all three locations and ended up calling a motel room home on more than one occasion; the work was physically demanding.  Finally, and most importantly, it is not clear she would have made it past the second month, though in Maine she did come the closest to achieving her goal of paying the second month’s rent.  While she discovered first-hand the instability that rules the lives of the working-poor every day, she was able to escape that instability after only a month.  The fact that she was able to leave at any moment surely had psychological implications:  what psychological effects she did experience (loss of dignity, for example) were temporary and not nearly as profound as what her coworkers had to suffer through every day for their entire lives. 

            Despite the pervasive poverty, poor health, and desperation she saw in her coworkers, Ehrenreich was always heartened by their immense generosity.  Not only did they frequently welcome each other into their homes, creating an artificial, “extended” family, but they made frequent small gestures towards each other.  Even Barbara was a recipient of this kindness; one of her coworkers at Wal-Mart brought her a sandwich to replace the fast-food diet on which Barbara had been surviving  (Ehrenreich 163). 

            After quitting her job at Wal-Mart in Minnesota, Barbara was officially done with her investigation; but she tells us that that last defeat for her should be the beginning of a new battle for the rest of us.  Those of us who are wealthy cannot continue to ignore the working-poor.  Politicians can no longer avoid the issue of class and poverty.  The government must take responsibility for distributing housing, as it does (to an extent) for health care, food, and education.  Beyond that, though, wages must increase to compensate for the rising cost of housing  (Ehrenreich 201).  Finally, employers and managers must take responsibility for the detrimental effects on the psyche of the working-poor; every day that they are subjected to disrespect, maltreatment, and the loss of human dignity is a day that could be spent raising their morale and self-esteem. 

            To really understand the working-poor, we must first look at the psychological effects they are daily exposed to.  Then we must ask if the managers are correct when they claim it is all necessary for high productivity.  The answers are not as simple as they might seem.  While it can be said that no, the disrespect and maltreatment workers are daily exposed to is not necessary for productivity, it is not so easily confirmable that it is not necessary for capitalism itself.  Indeed, what keeps workers in their position is more than lack of power in relation to their employer; they are raised, live, and die in a culture that teaches obedience and respect to authority as two of the highest values to attain  (Coltrane and Collins 185).   It may be the case that the only way to substantially improve the condition of the working-poor is to reteach their values.  If this happens, they might just refuse to continue to conform to the capitalist system.  It is this deeper truth, below the guise of “productivity,” that many capitalists know at some level can ultimately disrupt life as they know it.

            The psychological effects of low-wage work are disastrous; it is not even possible to say which are “worse” than others, for more than anything it is the “repetitive injury of spirit” that is so damaging  (Ehrenreich 105).  Moreover, the many subtle differences that Barbara noticed in herself are indicative of the consequences of low-wage work:  increasing feelings of hostility and anger, especially towards customers and coworkers; “tunnel vision” as “work fills the landscape” and became the all-encompassing, identifying factor in her life  (Ehrenreich 106,171).  For the purposes of this paper, though, I will focus on the factors that are not only more apparent to us as readers, but are also less apparent to the workers themselves, for they are factors that have become commonplace in their lives.

            In Key West, Barbara first felt her acute frustration with the managers, who seemed to do nothing and were exceedingly condescending, often in an accusatory manner.  The workers were always suspect, whether of taking too many breaks, stealing ketchup packets, giving the customers too many biscuits, or even of talking too long to the customers.  Whether or not the workers were “guilty” of such accusations is not the pertinent issue here.  Rather, was it necessary to keep such strict control over their every move?  What role did it play to not spend more time and effort on the customers?  How detrimental to the efficiency of the restaurant would it have been to let the waitresses rest a little longer?  Would they not have been more energized when they got back on the “floor”?  Most importantly, what sort of morale is created in an environment in which no one is to be trusted?  Certainly not the kind of morale that keeps workers happy and healthy.

            In Maine, Barbara felt the stigma of being a housekeeper from every sector of society, for all are considered above the position of “maid.”  Whether it was the condescending homeowners whose feet she kneeled at to scrub the floors, the people in the supermarket whose sideways glances she was eminently aware of, or the boss, Ted, who allowed only five-minute breaks and refused the women water, Barbara and her coworkers were always made to feel insignificant and invisible.  What other circumstances can create such a perpetual feeling of low self-worth?

            When applying for a job at Wal-Mart and Menards, Barbara had to take “personality” and drug tests.  She certainly recognized the implicit reasoning behind the personality testing—how likely is the person to conform?  It is not known how many workers realize this subtle socialization, though they quickly learn the “correct” answers:  always have faith in the hierarchy of the workplace and one can “never be too much of a suck-up”  (Ehrenreich 59, 124, 135).  To be sure, such tests “[whittle one] down to lie up to fifty times in the space of…fifteen minutes or so”  (Ehrenreich 127).   Whether one calls it “sucking-up” or lying, the potential employee is still challenged by those in power to prove his or her conformity.  This is apparent, too, in the drug testing process now so common.  Barbara was continuously astonished at the lack of dignity during this process.  As she mentions in a footnote, the necessity of such tests has not even been proved, and yet they are continuously used, despite the high cost to employers (Ehrenreich 128).

            Once again, workers feel untrustworthy and inherently bad.  Why else must they “give a stranger access to things, like your self-doubts and your urine” (Ehrenreich 209), if not to remind the employee that he or she deserves to be, can be, and will be subjected to such indignities?  Indeed, such tests are supposed to “weed out the rebels,” but if the lies and detoxification which Barbara used are any indication, this is not being accomplished anyway.  Moreover, the people working these jobs are often from the working-class, which has been taught not to rebel  (Coltrane and Collins 184-185). 

            Wal-Mart had another way of nearly brainwashing its workers.  As potential employees are hurried through the application process, they rarely have time for asking questions, let alone negotiating wages or schedules.  None too soon, they are indoctrinated at the hours-long orientation, in which they must watch several “feel good” videos that warn about the evils of unions and the importance of “feeling like a family.”  Many workers certainly buy into this propaganda, especially if they know little about unions or what their “family” is doing behind their backs.  In short, they are being tricked; though they may not recognize this at first, they surely do once they have worked long enough to become embittered.  Once again, they have been lied to and exploited by those above them:  what anger at oneself and at society must these situations create?

            Though Barbara was allowed little creativity at any of her jobs, she found it to be the worst at Wal-Mart.  There, the monotony of work made her feel as if she were “selling her life” when she sold her time by the hour  (186-187).  When one is not allowed any room for creativity or individuality at his or her job, which takes up many hours of the day, and if one does not have a secure place to go home to (as many don’t), then when does one find time to discover oneself?  Without knowing oneself, one cannot know one’s value or worth as a person. 

            As awful as these psychological consequences are—loss of self-esteem and dignity, feeling untrustworthy, angry, invisible, and insignificant—they are nevertheless deemed necessary by capitalists.  They claim that “surrendering basic civil rights and self-respect” are necessary to keep productivity high  (208-209, 211).  In Understanding Capitalism, it is assumed that workers and employers are always in conflict about how much work is going to be done—the worker would like less, the employer more  (189).  There are only a couple ways to get a worker to work harder:  either by working for themselves (owning the capital and products) or by paying a higher wage, for “only a higher wage makes the worker care about the job”  (185, 195).  Barbara Ehrenreich would directly refute this, for she found that her coworkers often took pride in their work, no matter what the wage  (212).  She also quotes Lawrence Michel at the Economic Policy Institute, who wonders why workers aren’t getting paid more.  After all, productivity has been rising, and it is the intensity of labor which employers supposedly reward with higher wages (Ehrenreich 203; Bowles and Edwards 196).

            Barbara questioned the role of managers, who often seemed to only be an obstacle to getting work done.  Even in Understanding Capitalism, it is acknowledged that “such coordination [by management] is often trivial or need not be done by those bosses”  (190).  But while Bowles and Edwards question the necessity of managers, they do not question the detrimental effects managers can have when they have nothing to do but over-supervise and over-control their workers.  To be sure, Barbara and her coworkers had to hide from their managers if they were talking, in order to avoid punishment, though they certainly were still getting their work done. 

            However, even such extreme supervision has its benefits for employers.  Lowering unit labor costs is one way of raising profits—always the goal of capitalists.  One way of accomplishing this is “if the employer can find a way to improve the supervision of the labor process—for example, by watching employees more closely or hiring others (or using TV cameras) to do so”  (Bowles and Edwards 197).

            The social organization of work discussed in Understanding Capitalism is an important factor for low-income workers and their employers.  The “social organization of work refers to the way in which jobs are defined, work tasks assigned, supervisory power delegated, and other social aspects of the workplace organized”  (Bowles and Edwards 205).   Simple control, which “focuses on the supervisors’ personal exercise of workplace rewards and sanctions to maintain the work place” is the form of social organization that Barbara experienced at all of her low-wage jobs  (Bowles and Edwards 206).  However, the account in Understanding Capitalism incorrectly characterizes this system, if Barbara’s experiences are any indicator.  An example given is that “the boss may reward a diligent worker by assigning him or her to a better shift or a more pleasant job; the boss may punish a worker by cutting back on his or her hours or giving the worker a dirty or unpleasant job to do”  (206).  In many instances Barbara described, punishment was given where none was deserved, and no rewards were received when they were long overdue.  Often it was coworkers who noticed her hard work, and sometimes not even then:  After a particularly difficult shift at the nursing home, she realizes that “no one will notice my heroism”  (106). 

            Moreover, these supposed rewards are given instead of raising wages, for raising wages is a last resort for employers.  The “rewards” Barbara mentions in her evaluation amount to very little in the grand scheme of things:  free meals, subsidized transportation, store discounts  (204); she certainly wasn’t given a better job or shift.  Clearly, then, the system works out best for employers, especially if the organization of the workplace is more like what Barbara experienced and less like the description in Understanding Capitalism.  In any case, good work is rarely rewarded with anything remotely substantial, such as a living wage or health insurance, and so the cycle of poverty continues.

            So why do workers stay?  This is a question Barbara asked and only began to answer.  In the words of Karl Marx, it is time to “desert the sphere” of pure economics where there alone “rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham.”  Instead, we must turn our attention to the “smirking” employer with an “air of importance,” followed by his worker, who is “timid and holding back”  (Tucker 343).   While in the sphere of pure economics, the employer claims productivity in the name of profits as the reason for mistreating workers; however, there is something deeper in the “hidden abode of production” that keeps our economic system functioning the way it does  (Tucker 343).  It is a cycle of poverty, a culture of repression that the working-poor are daily subjected to, that is absolutely necessary for the continuation of capitalism as we know it; and it’s not even clear that the capitalists themselves know it  (Ehrenreich 212-213). 

            The working-class and working-poor have certain distinctive values, constraints, and norms that cannot be ignored when analyzing their motives for staying at bad jobs.  What they are taught as children to value—hard work and obedience to authority—is often directly related to the work they will be expected to do later in life.  Few have very many marketable skills or assets; they follow traditional gender role patterns, making women especially more likely to subordinate themselves to male bosses; and the vulnerability and instability of their economic status makes it difficult for them to exercise other options (if they are even aware of such options).  Even more importantly, they might weigh their options but are reluctant to “exchange the devil [they] know for one that [they] don’t know,” only to be left “clueless and friendless” in a new work environment  (Ehrenreich 205).  There are slightly more practical reasons, too, for staying at a bad job.  Many depend on others for a ride to work, so changing jobs means changing routes means a possible loss of ride, which certainly means loss of work.  If one has one’s own transportation—a bike, for instance, or perhaps a used car—physical factors and gas prices limit each respectively. 

            These social psychological and sociological factors, so important in understanding our economic system, also imply certain psychological dispositions.  After leading lives in which loss of dignity and self-respect are common experiences; in which survival is a value and family is the only institution one can trust; in which their lives are perpetually surrounded and influenced by the “megascale corporate order, from which every form of local creativity and initiative has been abolished by distant home offices”  (Ehrenreich 179), it is no wonder low-wage workers start to believe what they are told day-in and day-out—that they are untrustworthy, lowly, lazy.

            It might seem that the answers to these tough problems are easy, even if typical and controversial.  If workers have low self-esteem, then improve it: tell them they are doing a good job and encourage workplace morale.  Eliminate the “fear and distrust” employers have of “the category of people from which they recruit their workers”  (Ehrenreich 212).  Get rid of useless managers—it’ll save on costs, anyway.  Allow workers to form unions (just as long as they don’t get too strong).  The government can help to improve housing conditions, so that home is a refuge again.  Politicians and the wealthy can begin to talk about and acknowledge class again, and maybe even help the impoverished a bit. 

            However, it is not clear that any of these solutions suggested by Ehrenreich will ultimately solve the problem—the culture of extreme inequality that creates a cycle of poverty  (Ehrenreich 212-213).  It is not just the employers who perpetuate this cycle—it is also the workers themselves.  Not that they do this intentionally, but the values they pass through the generations almost guarantee that the working-poor will never learn to rebel, to become nonconformist, to question their place in society.  And that is just the way the capitalists want it. 

            Barbara noted the pride her coworkers took in their work.  Perhaps this is the only source of pride they had in their lives.  After all, they could at least pat themselves on the back for a job well done, even if no one else did.  As long as workers continue to derive a sense of meaning from their work, they will do better than might be expected given their low wages.  Thus, employers won’t have to increase wages; but these low wages aren’t “living wages.”  Families, especially ones headed by single women, are barely surviving.  These single women, feeling lowly and without any options, have no chance to move out of their situation.  The cycle of poverty continues as wages stagnate but productivity remains high; why raise wages if it isn’t necessary to extract work from workers?  As we’ve seen, low-wage work has disastrous consequences on a person’s psyche:  and so low self-esteem remains an epidemic and pride is once again derived from almost nothing but what one accomplishes at work.  What better situation could employers ask for?

            Recognizing the seemingly hopeless situation we are faced with, I find strength in knowing that I have quite an opportunity here.  Raised in a working-class/working-poor background, I certainly know and have seen first-hand the detrimental effects such a lifestyle has on one.  However, I am now getting an education in sociology, driven by a passion to improve the lives of my loved ones.  But even I learned something from Ehrenreich’s book; I recognized how powerful the class consciousness is in determining one’s position in life.  I should have recognized it before; after all, I have adopted few if any of the values of the working-class, thanks to my mom’s middle-class background.  As soon as a low-income worker realizes he or she is worth something more than what low-wage work has to offer, a person will not immediately, if ever, become successful.  However, she will change how she raises her children—what values she teaches them.  And maybe they will become the nonconforming rebel she never could be.  It’ll take time, but eventually the working class will “rise up again, stronger, firmer, mightier” than before, and learn their own worth as people  (Tucker 481). 

 

 

REFERENCES

Bowles, S., and Edwards, R.  (1993). Understanding Capitalism:  Competition, Command, and Change in the U.S. Economy.  2nd ed.  New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers.

 

Coltrane, Scott & Collins, Randall.  (2001).  Sociology of Marriage & the Family:  Gender, Love, and Property.  5th ed.  Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

 

Ehrenreich, Barbara.  (2001).  Nickel and Dimed:  On (Not) Getting By in America.  New York, NY:  Henry Holt and Company. 

 

Tucker, Robert C., ed.  (1978).  The Marx-Engels Reader.  2nd ed.  New York, NY:  W. W. Norton & Company.