I think a lot of the people who voice criticism about Ehrenreich’s book are not speaking to the merits of her writing or to how accurately she described the realities she observed. It seems like almost everyone who complains about her book are largely personal criticisms; they dislike her book because they had to read it in college (in the first place, this tells me that Ehrenreich’s book is one they would have avoided reading if they possibly could have; in the second, it tells me that most of these critics probably encountered Nickel and Dimes with the benefit of advantages which, for vanity’s sake, they want to believe that everyone else had). They dislike her book because they think her “attitude” undermines whatever presumptions they harbor about the realities of life in the service economy. They dislike her book because, as they seem to put it, she designed her exploration to be a failure – they site that she lived in “hotels” (bargain hotel rooms which she relied upon while she was looking for cheap, claustrophobic, unfurnished rental spaces which, in turn, came at artificially reduced rates because the commutes attached to them or the conditions of these dwellings were so undesirable that literally no one else would take them); that she bought a 40 dollar pair of pants once; that she “treated herself” to meals at restaurants (which I also find to be a mischaracterization of her story – she occasionally had to buy a cooked meal because some of the places she was staying didn’t have so much as a hot-plate).

So I would like to suggest a counterpoint. The reason that Ehrenreich’s project seems “designed to fail” to some readers is that, in fact, Ehrenreich’s project was designed to emulate the realities of life in America – a reality with which most people who make time to comment on web forums are woefully unfamiliar. In reality, Ehrenreich set very minimal standards of “success” for herself – her only design was to see if she could work the jobs that working poor people held, and she would consider it a success if she was able to move into a place with one month’s rent in her pocket, and then earn enough money to pay the following month’s rent when that came around.

Her project wasn’t (as Shepards seems to have been) to see if she could save a bundle of money – essentially, Shepard was a tourist – by working minimum wage jobs while living for two consecutive months rent-free in homeless shelters. Her project was to see if the realities and constraints that face actual human beings out there permitted even basic survival, let alone comfort or “success” as the middle class seems to view it.

If everyone who worked for Merry Maids or for Denny’s had the opportunity to live rent free, wouldn’t they choose to do so? Ehrenreich describes friendships with many people who live in their cars, or with relatives. The crux of her book is that free housing is not unlimited in supply, or even broadly available – and that if the only solution to keeping the masses of the working poor in America indoors is to give them free housing, then that is essentially a subsidy on their lifestyles in the very same sense that the welfare programs from which they were ejected by 1996 reforms was a subsidy.

Shepard’s “project”, on the other hand, seems to pose the question:
“Can a healthy, physically fit, college-educated white male make rent for 8 months without having to sell his body, deal drugs, or do anything else he’d be ashamed to include in a memoir – such as, getting addicted to drugs, or ending up with massive credit-card debt.”
He defines “success” as having a savings account with about 2500 dollars and a vehicle at the end of 10 months. If this is the nature of his inquiry, he could just as well have stopped right there – I have accomplished this (with similar privileges to the ones he had), as have countless friends. There are unlimited anecdotes as testament that it is possible to live in a state of (relative) comfort if you don’t have to support a family; he abstains from cigarettes and alcohol because he knows very well that he will regain these privileges again after his project concludes; I can fairly well assume that he never pays health insurance premiums, visits a dentist or optometrist, buys medication, supports a child or an ailing spouse.

Additionally, the idea that a person can keep working a job at a moving company indefinitely is pretty questionable in itself. I suspect that – even assuming they had the physical wherewithal to occupy a job like the one he had – the average person in such an occupation would, lacking the physical and kinesthetic education that he had, forget to do stretches, lift with their backs and not their legs, eschew working precautions necessary to the job. They would subsequently succumb to injury, joint pain, arthritis, and the host of other problems that accompany hard physical labor. He managed to get by for about 9 months. In fact, people who work such jobs at any length end up with carpal tunnel, sour backs and knees, ankle problems, etc. Unlike Ehrenreich, however, he doesn’t work a variety of jobs to get a broad perspective of what service work is like – he just finds one things that works for him and keeps at it, knowing that as soon as he reaches a finish line based on time or savings volume, he gets to call “game over.”

The characterization that Ehrenreich failed because of inclining herself toward failure, or that Shepard “succeeded” simply because of his indomitable spirit, is a very poor one. The reality here is that both “succeeded” in demonstrating that the working conditions at the bottom in this country are abominable and untenable, which seems to have been Ehrenreich’s foregone conclusion (and necessarily, also must be the conclusion of any sensibly inclined and impartial observer) and which was also Shepard’s conclusion, although he voiced it rather equivocally by fracturing the focus of his narrative into a host of different and unrelated topics (i.e., his preoccupation with the status of the “American dream,” which he attributes to Ehrenreich, but which Ehrenreich never presumes to address in her own book).

So his points are valid. I must confess though that it annoys me that not one, but two, wealthy people decided to *study* poverty as if the people living in it are monkeys. No year study can get the true mindset struggle of poverty. When you are in it, it is all consuming and finding a positive outlook is hard in the face of a real reality of a lifelong condition.

For everyone that gets out, more don’t. I’ve seen people live and die spit out by a system that doesn’t give a damn. Could they have done more for themselves–sure, who couldn’t. But it’s a terrifying process to see. I think at this point I’ve worked at to many hourly wage jobs where my co-workers are over 40. They’ve never made it and their forecast doesn’t look to hopeful either. Financial stability is probably the best they’ll do and they’re probably worry until they die. And I don’t know if my life will be any different. And it really pisses me off when I look forward and see a future that is subsistence when the schools promised me the world. I try to look through the anger because it’s not particularly helpful –but I must say that when you’re poor the outlook is a bi-polar chaotic mind twirl and no one can say what the future really holds.

Barbara Ehrenreich did not set herself up for failure. She was not trying to do what Adam Shepard did. Ehrenreich only spent one month at three menial jobs in three separate states in order to highlight the plight of the working poor to stay afloat financially. She was not trying to lift herself out of poverty like Adam Shepard. That was not her goal. Adam Shepard’s experiment takes place in an entirely different world from that of the working poor that Ehrenreich covered. Shepard is among homeless people in a shelter. Ehrenreich is not concerened about living as cheaply as possible, as Shepard is. That is because her experiment is to highlight what life experience is like for the working poor. Shepard is the one who is concerened about living as cheaply as possible in order to save as much money as possible. Shepard is a capitalist. Ehrenreich is a socialist. That is why Shepard makes, as you do as well, a gross error in comparing his experiment to Ehrenreich’s experiment. Finally, at no point in her book does Ehrenreich state that social immobility is impossible. She even talks about her father lifing her family up from poverty to become an upper middle class family. At no point in her book does Ehrenreich state that the working poor are doomed to eternal failure. She gives plenty of examples of upward and downward social mobility. Also, as a 60-year-old upper middle class woman in her experiment, you should be able to understand why she paints a bleaker situation that an idealistic, cocky young man like Adam Shepard. I believe that the reason you and Adam Shepard misunderstand her work is your opposition to her socialist views. You and Adam Shepard both need to give her book a second read and try to hear her out completely. She has important and valid points to make, as does Adam Shepard.

I side more with Ehrenreich than with Shepard because she gets this and he does not. She understands the difference between situational poverty and generational poverty. She knows that she is only playing a game, but Shepard thinks his game is real. Shepard is an idealist and a dreamer who is not grounded in reality, which is due in large part to his youth and privileged background. Ehrenreich brings a journalistic integrity to her project, while Shepard has no journalistic integrity, and is not a gifted writer like Ehrenreich. Note that Ehrenreich refuses to lie to anyone, although she omits details about her privileged background. Shepard concocts outright lies to achieve his goals and to get a job, and is a dishonest human being. He lies to get into the shelter, thus displacing someone in genuine need. He lies to get the government to cover his rent, food and clothing expenses, and banks the money, rather than donate it back to the shelter. He lies to his friends about his made-up life. His work should not be compared to Ehrenreich, even though I disagree with her left-wing politics. Also Shepard is dishonest in thinking that he does not have a political viewpoint, which is decidedly conservative (and there is nothing wrong with that). I am neither liberal nor conservative, I am a realist. I do not walk through life with rosy-colored blinders on, as Shepard does. He is blind to the benefits of white privilege, youth, good looks, financial literacy, having an educated demeanor, physical and mental health, and having a proper upbringing in a supportive, nurturing environment with loving parents.

It is false that you compare Ehrenreich’s project with Shepard’s project. She was not trying to do what he did. She only stayed one month at various menial jobs to highlight the plight of the working poor to stay afloat financially. She did not have the capitalist goals that Shepard has been indoctrinated to have. I also do not believe that Shepard’s goals are entirely healthy from a spiritual perspective. One cannot pull oneself up by the bootstraps when one does not have boots or straps. One does not need to share Shepard’s capitalistic views or Ehrenreich’s socialist views to be successful in life.

The message of this book needs to get out, despite it not serving any political ends.

Meals that he cobbled together. Well, that is most Italian dishes were created. Most Italian food American’s eat is really peasant food. Oh, we only have a cow leg, ok no problem we will create Osso Bucco. Today we only have cow intestine, ok we will make tripe.

Every immigrant will tell you about how there clothes were all hand-me-downs. In some cases, girls and boys were the same clothes.

As for entertainment, before movies, video games, and DVD’s people were sought entertainment in their communities and neighborhood. In Philadelphia, were I live, every corner had a tavern 70 years ago, high school sporting events would attract tens of thousands of spectators. Sadly, we have become intraverted and our sense of community has suffered.

I do reflect on some personal experiences, here; that I’ve had persistent beggars accept money but express a preference for food (looking at my bag from a bakery), and, while keeping the money, accept the food (my dinner: a bagel). Next time around, when I responded to the beggar, who was wailing for money for food? He turned down the food. Yup, my dinner was NOT ACCEPTABLE to the beggar. I’ve also noticed that not one – the few women, nor the more frequent men – ever offered to EARN the money they were asking for by, say, carrying one or more of the heavy bags I was lugging. And then I think to myself, No one was handing me money when I was picking up wood off the railroad tracks to heat my home. I’ve had people beg for money for “a cold soda” on a hot summer day – because apparently, water from a nearby fountain wasn’t acceptable. My feelings are mixed; I think this young man was, essentially, in the same position as a lot of young white male college graduates starting out and/or looking for summer jobs. Poverty IS a very different experience for women, women with children, or people who aren’t in robust or even good health. But I’ve spent a whole lot of years being poor (I had help staying that way), and I have encountered other people who could manage being poor better than they apparently choose to.

Yes, it DOES stick in my craw that the dinner which is good enough for me isn’t good enough for someone who is willing to beg.

I would like to make clear to those who have not read the book and want to say he was a “healthy” male whose experiment would have failed miserably if he had a health issue—this gets addressed in the book. He did not remain healthy throughout. He had problems that did effect his finances. Read the book to find out how he dealt with it.

I would also like to point out to “Daniel” above that Adam didn’t return to his mansion in the hills. He and his brother rent a three-bedroom apartment so they can care for his cancer-stricken mom who had lost her job.

Do your homework. Give credit where credit is due. Then go out and give someone a leg up.

What I don’t understand about people like Adam and people who admire them is, why can’t they acknowledge some people have superior innate ability? Some people really are smarter, more athletic, and so on. People are not created with equal skills sets, or opportunity.

If he truly wanted to show the American Dream is still alive, he would have been much more effective at paying his way through college. It is amazing someone with his advantages thought that saving $2,500 over the course of a year proved anything.

Upon reading some of the above comments, it seems to me most have not actually read Adam’s book.

I won’t talk about Adam’s book but let me talk about a few of the above comments.

1. Adam was white and good looking.

My son is in prison and sadly will most likely spend most of his life in prison. And he will never admit that it’s his fault. It’s The Man. No personal responsibility. It’s a very scary step to take, but admitting that one is responsible for one’s own actions, it a brave step in the right direction. And on a scale of looks, he’s a 10.

My wife’s father came to this country right after the revolution in Castro’s Cuba. He did not speak English. He tells me the story how he is standing on the street here in California, no money, doesn’t speak the language, no job with a wife and two very young children. He told me how he broke down and cried.

His two children, Ricky Noceda has become a respected doctor and his sister (my wife) Jeannette Noceda a successful attorney.

My wife and I along with her parents made a trip to Utah to find and pay a special visit to her father’s friend. This man would give my wife’s father little jobs so he could give him money. My wife’s parents never forgot this man’s kindness. They loved this person and will never forget him.

This is what makes our country the greatest country on this earth. I’m proud to be an American and I thank Adam for his fine book, I hope it becomes a movie.

[...] November 17, 2008 · No Comments I first heard of Adam Shepard’s Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream when the author was interviewed on Glenn Reynolds’ infrequent podcast. The twenty-something Shepard conceived his book as a kind of response to Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickled and Dimed, setting out to prove the “American Dream” was still alive. Shepard believed that Ehrenreich set herself to fail from the start — she was both ideologically committed to proving that the American Dream didn’t exist and also made some rather silly financial mistakes that Shepard would not repeat (specifically, Ehrenreich lived in a hotel and ate out for many meals). [...]

3. Public housing, with the size of the American GDP, it surely can afford decent public housing, again the rent connected to the minimum wage, so that those who cannot rent from the market have an alternative.

4. Public schools.

Surely if Americas can stock enough nuclear bombs to blow the earth many times over, it surely do this much for those of its citizens who are a little disadvantaged in one way or the other.

How long can the earth sustain 278 lb of meat (pork, beef, poultry) consumed by Americans per capita per year?(1999 figures)

Americans form 3 percent of the world’s population but consume 32 percent of the oil.

These rich, college educated, but very naive people temporarily “go native” in many third world countries, notably Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Thailand. After spending 6-12 months “keeping it real” and eschewing western culture (except for the things these people “need,” such as a multi-band cell phone and an internet connection), they return to the Larchmonts and Marbleheads of America and act if they have been “transformed” by the experience.

Here is an anecdotal account of “Muffie” calling her friend “Leesa” (notice the affectated spellings?). Muffie is just about to return to West Moneybucks, CT from 10 months in Costa Rica. Leesa returned from Nepal a week earlier. Of course, Leesa and Muffie want to get together to discuss how “fabulous” their slumming-it-with-the-natives experiences were.

Leesa offers to pick up Muffie at JFK. Leesa told Muffie she will be driving “dad’s car.” “Oh, which one?,” Muffie asked. Leesa replied, without any tint of irony in her voice, “I’m not sure if I want to take the 2005 Jag, the 2003 BMW Convertible, or mom’s 2007 Acura MDX.” Muffie asked Leesa to take the Acura, since she thinks her backpack will fit best in the SUV.

Just as most of his trustafarian brethren return “close to home” after about 10 months or so, Adam Shepard returned back to his wealthy North Carolina family, ostensibly due to “family problems.” HELLO? Poor people have family problems, also. However, the REAL poor cannot escape the “Trustafarian Disneyland” when there are family issues.

These people must continue to WORK and SCRAPE BY in spite of whatever life throws at them. If these people are lucky enough to even have a car, it is likely out of warranty and prone to mechanical breakdowns.

I would recommend this book to: People who drive around Wellesley, MA or Hewlett Neck, NY with a “Live Simply So Others May Simply Live” bumper sticker on the back of a two-year old Jaguar or Mercedes!

I am college educated with a good career and life skills, and the rug doesn’t get pulled out from under me often. My mother is oldish, has health problems, and living on the remnants of a union-job pension. My brother has an addictive personality (see alcohol, above) and having more brains than dedication or humility or something, it’s really hard to put into words); the rug’s been pulled out from under him too many times, both the result of his choices and other circumstances.

I feel, strongly, that our different responses to the same event reflected our different histories to that point. (Before anyone jumps on me, let me say now that I agree that of course our histories are strongly influenced by our attitudes and choices.) The same is true with Shepherd. It’s easier not to be beaten down by circumstance when it’s circumstance has beaten you up less. Nor could he disclaim all his advantages: he can’t hide his youth, sex, race, speech patterns, and ability to understand. He doesn’t have years of deprivation behind him, building up and making him want to go to a movie or eat out – for once – because all those attempts at frugality just haven’t gotten him that far.

That said, I think he’s right. Choices matter, attitude matters a lot (I’ve seen *so* many promising folk ruined by a sense of entitlement), perseverance matters a lot. “Shepherd did it, anyone can” is not be true but “Shepherd did it, many others can” is.

I read O’Connell’s book. It is absolutely terrible. And word has it that Shepard did his own promotion, so where was O’Connell on that one?

Pete

A great number of us who are working poor or struggling to stay afloat financially have no goals. A number of us just get through the day and literally cannot look forward to anything. Low-grade depression and an overall sense of being overwhelmed by life make it difficult to do anything else.

I won’t say that Mr. Shepard’s experiment wasn’t interesting or can’t be replicated, but he did start with clear attitudinal advantage. This can’t be overlooked.

I agree with you that it’s a very worthwhile read and I wouldn’t be surprised if Adam ended up being invited to share his experiences on the public speaking circuit!

[...] Anyway, even if you have no idea what book I’m talking about or think minimum wage is horrible, you should check out Get Rich Slowly’s post on Adam Shephard’s book. [...]

[...] (Then again, you could always abandon you children, pets, disabled parents, and other dependents, scrape $25 together, move into a homeless shelter, and start your life anew — except that your bad credit will certainly follow you around for seven years, so [...]

[...] is a book with an agenda: to disprove Ehrenreich’s argument about endemic poverty. In a recent interview, Shepard explained the differences between his approach and Ehrenreich’s: “She wrote about how [...]

http://bilbyfamily.blogspot.com/2008/03/book-report-scratch-beginnings.html

[...] professional or technical position into a working class job? At Get Rich Slowly, J.D. conducted an email interview with Adam Shepard, the author of Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American [...]

“I think that many homeless people would have been happy to start “from scratch.” But the problem often is that they don’t start at zero. They start below zero and have to climb from there.

Shepard also notes that he carried a credit card for emergencies. To me this suggests that on some deeper level he knows that there are some situations you can’t escape by dint of hard work or good attitude. Because he was able to bail at any time. In reality, he probably didn’t even need that credit card. One call to his mom or dad would have sufficed. Such is social capital.

He talks about delaying gratification as if it’s a new concept that he’s invented. But the reality is that many, many poor people have been delaying gratification for a long time, and not just by choosing not to buy those fancy rims (the author’s example). Some poor adults delay their gratification by giving their food to their kids. And they lie and tell their kids they ate already.”

My mother, my single mother, was violently dropped out of privilege, not white, didn’t know english, is a priss, came here on a refugee citizenship, had a completely useless college degree from a 3rd world country, had to take care, and still has to support her demanding mother, and had to deal with depression and more! She started from pizza prep cook, and became the top manager in nation. And now, here I sit, in her $.75 million dollar house in a stable upper middle class family with children she loves to death. As the author said, we all have our talents, we all have our shortcommings, and we all come from different backgrounds and just to use your specific set of shortcommings as an excuse to not make it in this wealthy society of ours is just not right. Everyone has talents and gifts from every background. My mother fits many of your “criteria of permanent disadvantage” and yet SHE MADE IT! (Female, single, not-white, no english, came as a refugee, etc)

It was hard for her, I wont deny that. It wasn’t a very happy time for her, (she talks about her college & school days alot when she gives stories of her past) but still, it’s possible.

And to be honest, women have it easier in the minimum wage job market. Waiting tables can be very lucrative if you learn how to work it. (and if you have a will, there is a WAY!) And the women always get wayyyyy more in tips. And tend to be hired more for many categories of jobs. And are in safer jobs which don’t drain your energy at the end of the day.

There’s countless examples of people of disadvantage clawing themselves out of it every day. I could say if a guy was gay, he could use the gay subculture connections to help himself out of poverty. Or he can be discriminated against for his lisp. Or he could use his superior sense of gay style & charisma to land lucrative sales jobs and eventually start his own successful chain of fine art stores. [I know one who's JUST LIKE THAT] Hispanic people have their huge cultural support networks to get themselves working in the USA. They manage to save several hundred dollars every month to send to mexico with their shit shit jobs all the time. Ooooh, but they’re hispanic, a woman & can’t speak english. But guess what, they MADE IT!