In Nickel and Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich discusses the differences between the “economic man” and the “low-income worker”. Barbara believes that instead of making employees feel more comfortable and secure through paid wages, employers try to maximize efficiencies within the workplace. Since many employees do not stand up for themselves when their situations are inadequate, she advocates for higher wages, and better paying jobs. Ideally the “economic man” is supposed to voice his or her concern in order to create the most economic pleasing benefits (Ehrenreich 205). Yet, many people do not leave their jobs and find better paying occupations for many reasons such as income, topographical area, affiliations with friends, and lack of information exchange.
What came as a surprise to Barbara Ehrenreich was that many people do not leave their jobs and move, from Hearthside to Jerry’s, like she did. Yet the answer for why is quite simple. These people are poorer than her, and as a result it is harder for them to just pick up and move places without serious consideration and preparation. Low-income workers do not typically have cars and often are dependent on family members, boyfriends, and relatives to drop them off and pick them up from work each day.
In addition, many individuals pick their workplace in the same topographical region as their childcare center or babysitter’s house. Therefore, if these individuals moved they would have a serious problem trying to start over. When Barbara moved to Minneapolis and the Key West, many of her workers rode bikes to work. As a result the switching of jobs would drastically impact their geographical range for occupations. Furthermore those with cars faced the problem of paying for gas, as gas prices steadily increased. Additionally, these workers were asked to take drug tests, fill out long and tedious applications and paperwork, and be interviewed prior to starting a new job.
Another surprising aspect of the job search is that many places put up advertisements in newspapers when spaces are not actually available. This not only creates anxiety and stress, but uncertainty for those in serious need of a job. Thus, starting a new job proves to be intimidating and lacks resolution and security. Even after an individual starts a new job, they quickly are forced to learn new procedures, techniques, and make new friends.
A further way low-income workers differ from the “economic man” is through their exchange of information. Low-income workers do not always have access to the latest information on job opportunities or employee benefits, and consequently are at a disadvantage. In order for the individuals to have a fair chance, they need to be well informed on their commitments prior to accepting the job, as well as learn the best possible job opportunities within their area.
Even without such technological advancements or technology, affluent job hunters would be expected to study “the salary-benefit packages offered by their potential employers, watch the financial news to find out if these packages are in line with those being offered in other regions or fields, and probably do a little bargaining before taking the job” (Ehrenreich 206) and ultimately have the advantage over low-income workers who have little information available to them. Low-income workers do not normally have Palm pilots, cable tv, or computers where Internet is easily accessible, and as a result the help-wanted ads and signs are the only things they have to use at their disposal. Thus information about where to apply, and the wage earnings per job are traveled only by word of mouth. Therefore, there is no immediate benefits or answers. In addition, Barbara states that there is a “code of silence surrounding issues related to individual’s earnings” because many individuals feel inadequate and inferior to those who make millions or billions of dollars each year (Ehrenreich 206). Therefore, people may not even realize that a job down the street pays better than their current job as a result of lack of communication.
While reading Nickel and Dimed, I learned that low-wage workers have no freedom within this capitalist society. Instead they must leave their civil liberties and personal beliefs at home. What is disturbing and troubling is that a large number of citizens within this country are living their life in poverty with no safety, security or money. In addition, citizens, in this dictatorship, are being hurt psychologically through degrading procedures such as drug testing, and searches through personal belongings. After also being treated as an untrustworthy individual within a workplace, it is hard not to feel insufficient and deprived. So, after being constantly reminded of their lowly position in the social hierarchy they consequently accept that stereotype and their pride and self-respect disappears to almost nothing. In conclusion, there will still remain a clear separation between the “economic man” and the “low-income worker” until a great economic change occurs and employees seek fair and equal rights.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Nickel and Dimed Both Yesterday and Today
Since the beginning of written history, when societies formulated the ideas that govern its members today, a rift existed between certain groups within it. Generally, differences in race, gender, and economic status caused a separation between people that still exists in the modern world. The lives of those within different socio-economic classes vary so greatly that if a member of one class tries to live as one of another, he or she might find it hard to even survive. Author Barbara Ehrenreich successfully lived as a lower-class woman and recounted the events of her temporary lifestyle in her bestseller, Nickel and Dimed. Although Ehrenreich completed her studies within the last decade, her experiences reflect many of the same issues that the uneducated “living poor” have to cope with, especially when she lived in Florida and Maine.
Ehrenreich began her case study in Florida working as a waitress for two different restaurants, which she renamed out of privacy. Holding employment at these restaurants provided her with an opportunity to become close to those actually living on salaries just above minimum wage. She listened to their daily complaints and even found herself empathizing with them as she gradually discovered the hardships they endured. For example, she mentions that, “Tina, another server, and her husband are paying $60 a night for a room at the Days Inn. This is because they have no car and the Days Inn is in walking distance of the Hearthside” (Ehrenreich 26). Ehrenreich eventually recognizes the importance of managing money and choosing the best option for spending it when living off of such a low salary (28). Similarly, those who work entry-level jobs today are forced to survive on little funds. When asked to research entry-level jobs and potential homes, the class discovered that people who live like this on a daily basis also have to search for multiple ways to live and spend their money, as Ehrenreich and her fellow employees did.
After her stint in the restaurant industry, Barbara Ehrenreich moved to Maine to continue her studies. She took on two jobs as a maid for a cleaning service and as a dietary aide at a nursing home after a tedious job search that involved pre-employment screening, as most jobs do, as well as negotiating salaries with irritable employers (Ehrenreich 58). While on her job search, she lived in a motel until she could afford an apartment. She learns about more hardships endured by a new set of fellow employees, as she did in Florida. One such co-worker is named Maddy, who is a single mother tending to childcare issues and relies on her boyfriend’s sister as a babysitter, rather than a daycare facility (Ehrenreich 80). This woman’s struggle was also a factor that the class had to consider when performing the “living poor” simulation. Proper childcare was required for the child of each class member, and as more factors are introduced into the budget of a low-wage worker, surviving essentially becomes much harder. Ehrenreich recognized this each day during her case study, and those living in a similar manner today continue to see it as well.
Nickel and Dimed portrays the struggle its author undergoes when living on a minimum wage occupation. Today, many endure the same difficulties, despite the time that has elapsed since Ehrenreich published her experiences. Unfortunately, the “living poor” will probably be maintaining the same lifestyle ten years from now, unless a great economic change is implemented in the near future.
Ehrenreich began her case study in Florida working as a waitress for two different restaurants, which she renamed out of privacy. Holding employment at these restaurants provided her with an opportunity to become close to those actually living on salaries just above minimum wage. She listened to their daily complaints and even found herself empathizing with them as she gradually discovered the hardships they endured. For example, she mentions that, “Tina, another server, and her husband are paying $60 a night for a room at the Days Inn. This is because they have no car and the Days Inn is in walking distance of the Hearthside” (Ehrenreich 26). Ehrenreich eventually recognizes the importance of managing money and choosing the best option for spending it when living off of such a low salary (28). Similarly, those who work entry-level jobs today are forced to survive on little funds. When asked to research entry-level jobs and potential homes, the class discovered that people who live like this on a daily basis also have to search for multiple ways to live and spend their money, as Ehrenreich and her fellow employees did.
After her stint in the restaurant industry, Barbara Ehrenreich moved to Maine to continue her studies. She took on two jobs as a maid for a cleaning service and as a dietary aide at a nursing home after a tedious job search that involved pre-employment screening, as most jobs do, as well as negotiating salaries with irritable employers (Ehrenreich 58). While on her job search, she lived in a motel until she could afford an apartment. She learns about more hardships endured by a new set of fellow employees, as she did in Florida. One such co-worker is named Maddy, who is a single mother tending to childcare issues and relies on her boyfriend’s sister as a babysitter, rather than a daycare facility (Ehrenreich 80). This woman’s struggle was also a factor that the class had to consider when performing the “living poor” simulation. Proper childcare was required for the child of each class member, and as more factors are introduced into the budget of a low-wage worker, surviving essentially becomes much harder. Ehrenreich recognized this each day during her case study, and those living in a similar manner today continue to see it as well.
Nickel and Dimed portrays the struggle its author undergoes when living on a minimum wage occupation. Today, many endure the same difficulties, despite the time that has elapsed since Ehrenreich published her experiences. Unfortunately, the “living poor” will probably be maintaining the same lifestyle ten years from now, unless a great economic change is implemented in the near future.
From the Congo to Concord
Throughout this unit on the Social and Economic side of Human Rights, we have read and discussed different ethnic and racial groups, such as poor whites, African-Americans, and illegal immigrants. One group of people in America who we have not discussed, and one whom I have had a significant amount of exposure to, are the Africans who are being brought to the United States from refugee camps in Somalia, Rwanda, The Congo, and other war and famine ridden nations. Unfortunately, the refugees who are brought to America are often simply put into communities with little support or guidance in the ways of living and prospering.
My hometown of Concord, New Hampshire is one of the cities where the Government and Lutheran World Services place refugees. In the last few years, hundreds of “Displaced Persons” from Africa have moved into the city. For many of these people, it is the first time they have ever seen paved roads, stores with food, or even over-weight people. There are a significant number of refugees who have never seen doorknobs, stairs, or a kitchen sink. Recent immigrants being struck and killed by cars is a common news story, for many Africans have no concept of safely crossing the street, because they have never had to in their lives. There is a cruel joke in Concord that drivers must be careful to “Dodge the frost heaves and the Africans.”
The major problems are the inadequate social and educational networks that have been set up for the refugees. When the refugees arrive in Concord, usually straight off the plane from Africa, the Government gives them $1600 for housing, a debit card with a limited amount of money on it for food shopping, and not much else. While social workers do as much as they can, the number of social workers is insufficient to handle the increasing number of immigrants. It is very hard for immigrants to find work, for very few of them can speak even rudimentary English. In Nickel and Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich states that, “Unlike many low-wage workers, I have the further advantage of being white and a native English speaker.” (Ehrenreich 6).
My mother, a 4th grade teacher at a public elementary school, has first hand experience with the difficulty of educating the refugees. A recent example is that a month ago, a new refugee child was assigned to her class. This girl is from Burundi, a neighboring country of Rwanda, and was born in a refugee camp. The girl speaks no English except, “Hello”, and she has never been to school before. There are only a few ESL aids for the whole school district, so she can only meet with them once or twice a week. According to “No Child Left Behind”, this girl must take the same exams and do the same work as a normal 4th grader, and because the school district could not keep up with the standards set by “No Child Left Behind” it lost a significant portion of its federal aid funding. This girl now spends her days coloring with crayons in the back of the room because there is nothing else for her to do.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said that, “A new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all – regardless of station, race, or creed.” (Sunstein 13). I believe that more should be done to help the refugees who are brought to our country to begin a new life. The money that is currently being used to fund the war in Iraq for a single day could be used to hire many new social workers and start adaptation programs. The “Sink or Swim” mentality currently in place does not work if the person has literally never seen a pool before.
Social and Economic Rights: Module 3
The struggle for the recognition of ones rights, as exemplified by history, has been bloody, traumatic and at times, severely tragic. Thousands have died in attempts to better the lives of those in their communities. Conversely, several governments have violated the trust of the people by neglecting their desperate need for certain civil, political, social, and economic rights. As a result of this neglect, a series of documents have been created that protect the desired rights of the people from all corners of the world.
Besides the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, there are another two fundamental human rights documents. The first of these is known as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). This particular covenant primarily defends man’s fundamental right to life and claims with strict authority that no man, woman or child may be ‘tortured, enslaved, arbitrarily imprisoned, and made to do forced labor.’ (http://cyberschoolbus.un.org/treaties/civil.asp) Similarly, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that no one may be ‘restricted from such basic rights such as movement, expression and association.’ (http://cyberschoolbus.un.org/treaties/civil.asp) A fundamental feature of this particular covenant is that it reaffirms a persons’ right to self-determination. The significance of self-determination provides individuals or particular groups with the capacity to achieve their own civil and political desires. (Evolution of Human Rights, 185) The second of these documents is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Shortly after the international acknowledgment of the provisions of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, members of the United Nations formulated and eventually signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The provisions of this covenant recognise the rights that ‘derive from the inherent dignity of the human person.’ (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/acescr.htm) This covenant provides a list of the ‘equal and inalienable rights’ afforded to mankind and claims that such rights are ‘the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ (Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: http://www.unhchr.ch/) The rights included in this covenant therefore range from the right to work, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to an education, and the right to self-determination.
Cass R. Sunstein mentions in his text ‘The Second Bill of Rights’ that in order for governments to provide their people with the above-mentioned rights, there must be an adequate amount of resources to do so. For example, a government is not obliged to invest millions of dollars in an attempt to provide medical assistance to the people if it does not have the necessary resources to do so. South Africa has a distinctive approach to this dilemma. South Africa’s 1996 Constitution contains a comprehensive Bill of Rights that provides the people with a wide range of social and economic rights. However South Africa’s government recognizes that it has limited resources and as a result, may not ‘respond to all problems at once.’ (Sunstein, 103) Consequently, governments must meet the standards set out by the international conventions as long as they have the necessary resources to do so.
A famous example the attainment of such rights is the African National Congress’s struggle against the racist Apartheid Regime of South Africa. Nelson Mandela, Walter Sizulu, Steven Biko and many other great men and women risked their lives in a tumultuous struggle to free themselves and their people from an the oppressive regime. During the Apartheid era all different ethnic groups were forced to live separately. Blacks were forced into highly deprived shanty-towns. The black population of South Africa constituted nearly 80% of the entire population. However, they were made to live on less the 17% of the land. Like those who struggled for the recognition of civil rights in the US during the 1960’s, black South African’s and their respective leaders were determined to achieve a state whereby they are treated equal to any other citizen of the nation.
The question regarding civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights is as vibrant today as it was during Apartheid. We however no longer question whether each and every human being is entitled to them or whether such rights are necessary for the existence of man. Today, the relevant question is where are these rights taking us? What purpose does the universality and inalienability of human rights serve in a society where thousands of people continue to be exploited, mistreated by their governments, and even completely neglected?
Besides the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, there are another two fundamental human rights documents. The first of these is known as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). This particular covenant primarily defends man’s fundamental right to life and claims with strict authority that no man, woman or child may be ‘tortured, enslaved, arbitrarily imprisoned, and made to do forced labor.’ (http://cyberschoolbus.un.org/treaties/civil.asp) Similarly, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that no one may be ‘restricted from such basic rights such as movement, expression and association.’ (http://cyberschoolbus.un.org/treaties/civil.asp) A fundamental feature of this particular covenant is that it reaffirms a persons’ right to self-determination. The significance of self-determination provides individuals or particular groups with the capacity to achieve their own civil and political desires. (Evolution of Human Rights, 185) The second of these documents is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Shortly after the international acknowledgment of the provisions of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, members of the United Nations formulated and eventually signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The provisions of this covenant recognise the rights that ‘derive from the inherent dignity of the human person.’ (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/acescr.htm) This covenant provides a list of the ‘equal and inalienable rights’ afforded to mankind and claims that such rights are ‘the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ (Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: http://www.unhchr.ch/) The rights included in this covenant therefore range from the right to work, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to an education, and the right to self-determination.
Cass R. Sunstein mentions in his text ‘The Second Bill of Rights’ that in order for governments to provide their people with the above-mentioned rights, there must be an adequate amount of resources to do so. For example, a government is not obliged to invest millions of dollars in an attempt to provide medical assistance to the people if it does not have the necessary resources to do so. South Africa has a distinctive approach to this dilemma. South Africa’s 1996 Constitution contains a comprehensive Bill of Rights that provides the people with a wide range of social and economic rights. However South Africa’s government recognizes that it has limited resources and as a result, may not ‘respond to all problems at once.’ (Sunstein, 103) Consequently, governments must meet the standards set out by the international conventions as long as they have the necessary resources to do so.
A famous example the attainment of such rights is the African National Congress’s struggle against the racist Apartheid Regime of South Africa. Nelson Mandela, Walter Sizulu, Steven Biko and many other great men and women risked their lives in a tumultuous struggle to free themselves and their people from an the oppressive regime. During the Apartheid era all different ethnic groups were forced to live separately. Blacks were forced into highly deprived shanty-towns. The black population of South Africa constituted nearly 80% of the entire population. However, they were made to live on less the 17% of the land. Like those who struggled for the recognition of civil rights in the US during the 1960’s, black South African’s and their respective leaders were determined to achieve a state whereby they are treated equal to any other citizen of the nation.
The question regarding civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights is as vibrant today as it was during Apartheid. We however no longer question whether each and every human being is entitled to them or whether such rights are necessary for the existence of man. Today, the relevant question is where are these rights taking us? What purpose does the universality and inalienability of human rights serve in a society where thousands of people continue to be exploited, mistreated by their governments, and even completely neglected?
Module 3
The question of human rights and how they relate to economic stability has and will always be one of the grayer areas of our democratic society. Yes, we all would agree that it is the government’s duty to protect and take care of its citizens. Naturally, we expect this to mean that the government won’t allow us to go hungry or to possibly perish because we don’t have the expenses to sustain life. However, it is clear that this is not the case. The hard fact, is that the government does not intentionally leave its people on the street with very little to sustain life, but that our economic practices have failed in certain aspects. This module looks at two very different causes of poverty with very different mandatory government reactions.
In the case of Dr. Martin Luther King’s campaign for economic and civil rights for African Americans, the government was in the wrong. By not allowing equal opportunity for blacks and whites to attain gainful employment, federal laws were literally taking food out of peoples mouths. These actions were clear violations of human rights codes set out by the constitution. Because these infractions on human rights were completely unjustified and rooted in illicit claims about the work ethic and worth of black workers, Martin Luther King’s crusade for democratic socialism and economic rights was completely legitimate. Through the Montgomery boycott Dr. King saw how important economic power was to the rights of all people. The boycott allowed “Montgomery’s predominantly working-class black population [to win] an economic battle with a wealthier adversary wielding a formidable arsenal” (Jackson, 62). This proved that equal opportunity for jobs and economic prosperity would allow blacks to have a say in the politics of their communities instead of being pushed around by the wealthy white elite. Martin Luther King’s movement for civil and economic rights was a valid fight for human rights because the government was intentionally holding an entire race of people back.
The struggle that the working poor has in our society to make ends meet on a daily business strikes me more as a public policy issue rather than that of human rights. We live in a free market capitalist society that applies a degree of laissez-faire to the fiscal lives of its people. Even though we have essentially reached the stage of development in which society can become a welfare state and help its people, the democracy we have created has not interpreted this as financially bailing out everyone who has fallen on hard times. It is certainly not a perfect system, but it does not seem like a violation of human rights. The situations that those in Barbara Ehrenreich book Nickel and Dimed find themselves are unfortunate, but not caused because the government has created laws that have taken away their options for work. Instead, this is an issue of economic structure. The poverty line is being raised because the cost of living is going up due to economic strains such as gas prices. The issues this book presents are rooted in our problems, as a country on the whole, not attacks on the human rights of a select demographic. She asks “how in particular…were the roughly four million women about to be booted into the labor market b welfare reform going to make it on $6 or $7 an hour?” (Ehrenreich 1). Her question proves the point that is it the economic issues facing the country at this time that is the source of hardships facing the working poor. It is not, like in the case of Martin Luther King jr. , a case of government condoned racism and oppression.
In the case of Dr. Martin Luther King’s campaign for economic and civil rights for African Americans, the government was in the wrong. By not allowing equal opportunity for blacks and whites to attain gainful employment, federal laws were literally taking food out of peoples mouths. These actions were clear violations of human rights codes set out by the constitution. Because these infractions on human rights were completely unjustified and rooted in illicit claims about the work ethic and worth of black workers, Martin Luther King’s crusade for democratic socialism and economic rights was completely legitimate. Through the Montgomery boycott Dr. King saw how important economic power was to the rights of all people. The boycott allowed “Montgomery’s predominantly working-class black population [to win] an economic battle with a wealthier adversary wielding a formidable arsenal” (Jackson, 62). This proved that equal opportunity for jobs and economic prosperity would allow blacks to have a say in the politics of their communities instead of being pushed around by the wealthy white elite. Martin Luther King’s movement for civil and economic rights was a valid fight for human rights because the government was intentionally holding an entire race of people back.
The struggle that the working poor has in our society to make ends meet on a daily business strikes me more as a public policy issue rather than that of human rights. We live in a free market capitalist society that applies a degree of laissez-faire to the fiscal lives of its people. Even though we have essentially reached the stage of development in which society can become a welfare state and help its people, the democracy we have created has not interpreted this as financially bailing out everyone who has fallen on hard times. It is certainly not a perfect system, but it does not seem like a violation of human rights. The situations that those in Barbara Ehrenreich book Nickel and Dimed find themselves are unfortunate, but not caused because the government has created laws that have taken away their options for work. Instead, this is an issue of economic structure. The poverty line is being raised because the cost of living is going up due to economic strains such as gas prices. The issues this book presents are rooted in our problems, as a country on the whole, not attacks on the human rights of a select demographic. She asks “how in particular…were the roughly four million women about to be booted into the labor market b welfare reform going to make it on $6 or $7 an hour?” (Ehrenreich 1). Her question proves the point that is it the economic issues facing the country at this time that is the source of hardships facing the working poor. It is not, like in the case of Martin Luther King jr. , a case of government condoned racism and oppression.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Module 3 - Social and Economic Rights
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s presidency contained main topics; freedom from fear and freedom from want. He said that the nation “cannot be content, no matter how high the general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people – whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth – is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure” (Sunstein 12). He created the Second Bill of Rights, which included rights to a decent home, a good education, adequate medical care, and protection from economic fears. Roosevelt argued that these “rights spell security” (Sunstein 15). The second bill of rights attempted to provide security for a wide range of social risks and to see that security as a basic right (Sunstein 95). The most “concrete result” of the second bill of rights proposal was the GI bill of rights, which offered returning veterans housing, medical, and educational benefits (Sunstein 15). However, Congress rejected the bill.
While the New Deal promised security for all citizens, it usually favored middle and working class men and their families in many ways. Agricultural and domestic workers did not receive minimum wage and social security. African Americas also faced discrimination from the government. This included welfare and the administration of the GI Bill (Jackson 13).
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “opposed racism, imperialism, poverty, and political disfranchisement in increasingly radical terms” (Jackson 1). Dr. King’s strategy, unlike some of his contemporaries, was to remain nonviolent and un-bought by false promises. King’s public definitions of freedom in the “Negro Revolution” of 1963 were job opportunities, decent wages, and the sharing of political power (Jackson 155). He argued that African Americans were being exploited politically and economically and that voting was key to gaining opportunities (Jackson 155).
The 1963 March on Washington was done to draw attention to the general problems of African American unemployment, poor housing, and malnutrition. Marchers urged the government to improve black education, employment, and social services (Jackson 177). The March on Washington was considered a success. Dr. King was proud that the March on Washington bright white American citizens “closer into harmony with its Negro citizens than ever before” (Jackson 184).
However, Dr. King was assassinated before completing his goal of equality for African Americans and the middle and working classes. His work greatly influenced the country and its progress for gaining equality for all citizens.
While the New Deal promised security for all citizens, it usually favored middle and working class men and their families in many ways. Agricultural and domestic workers did not receive minimum wage and social security. African Americas also faced discrimination from the government. This included welfare and the administration of the GI Bill (Jackson 13).
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “opposed racism, imperialism, poverty, and political disfranchisement in increasingly radical terms” (Jackson 1). Dr. King’s strategy, unlike some of his contemporaries, was to remain nonviolent and un-bought by false promises. King’s public definitions of freedom in the “Negro Revolution” of 1963 were job opportunities, decent wages, and the sharing of political power (Jackson 155). He argued that African Americans were being exploited politically and economically and that voting was key to gaining opportunities (Jackson 155).
The 1963 March on Washington was done to draw attention to the general problems of African American unemployment, poor housing, and malnutrition. Marchers urged the government to improve black education, employment, and social services (Jackson 177). The March on Washington was considered a success. Dr. King was proud that the March on Washington bright white American citizens “closer into harmony with its Negro citizens than ever before” (Jackson 184).
However, Dr. King was assassinated before completing his goal of equality for African Americans and the middle and working classes. His work greatly influenced the country and its progress for gaining equality for all citizens.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Module 3- Nickel and Dimed
Nickel and Dimed presents an interesting but somewhat flawed analysis of the hardships experienced by the people who live practically their entire lives on poverty-level wages. Though Barbara Ehrenreich looked to emulate the life of an extremely low-income worker, she was unable to fully portray this way of life. In some instances, Barbara opted to take a lower paying job at Wal-mart as opposed to attempting a longer workday at a plumbing store. If she were truly attempting to survive on minimal wages, this would not have been an option. Her rational for taking this job offer was that, “…given Wal-Mart’s position as the nation’s largest private employer, whatever I experience there will at least be of grand social significance.” (pg 149) Based on this decision she was unable to afford to even afford the relatively low living costs in Minnesota.
An interesting point brought up by Ehreneich is the difficulty in even acquiring a job in supposedly booming job markets. Often, she finds, job ads are unreliable as they are sent out and published even when no jobs are actually available. “…the employers’ insurance policy against the relentless turnover of the low-wage workforce. Most of the big hotels run ads almost continually, if only to build a supply of applicants to replace the current workers as they drift away or are fired…” (pg 15) Once Ehreneich finally manages to get hired, she finds that this is indeed true among many of her jobs. For example, she finds that when she is first hired as a maid, co-workers are reluctant to get to know her because they assume she will be quitting shortly. “Forty minutes go by before anyone acknowledges my presence with more than a harried nod.” (pg 71) For those who find themselves struggling to survive with little income, this type of experience will only further isolate them from society. Not only are the maids not permitted to interact with their actual customers, but their employers also treat them as less than human with little opportunity to initially bond with their coworkers. For somebody down on their luck, especially when they are first attempting to establish themselves at a new job with few connections, this could easily discourage them from future efforts to find better jobs.
Despite some of the shortcomings of her study, Ehreneich was able to assume some of the attributes of a low-income worker. After a few weeks successfully learning to navigate her job at Wal-Mart, she finds that a minor confrontation with a new co-worker who interrupts her daily routine leads to one very un-Barbara like mindset. “What I have to face is that ‘Barb’ is what I was called as a child, and still am by my siblings, and I sense that at some level I’m regressing. Take away the career and the higher education, and maybe what you’re left with is this original Barb, the one who might have ended up working at Wal-Mart for real…” (pg 169) What Barbra is attempting to confront is the fact that anybody can end up in this low-income employment situation, not necessarily by his or her own shortcomings. Anybody can find himself or herself caught up in the stress of constantly trying to make ends meet financially.
The one key component that seemed to serve as the glue that held the lives of many of the struggling workers together was family. Often, these workers were able to afford their otherwise unaffordable rents by sharing the cost of living with both immediate family members and added “family” such as boyfriends and girlfriends who also worked similarly paying jobs. “Almost everyone is embedded in extended families or families artificially extended with house-mates.” (pg 79) Without these connections, people would not be able to survive on these wages. The individuals forced into this life often find themselves crammed into apartments and trailers well above a comfortable occupancy level.
The most disturbing factor of this entire book is the lack of social mobility that exists for this class. The things taken advantage of in the middle class such as social capital in the form of networks with doctors and lawyers do not exist for the lower class. Ehrenreich was able to draw upon this form of capital, even during her summer, when faced with an otherwise costly skin condition. In addition to this, the middle class often has superior health benefits in comparison to the meager health benefits provided in the book. For someone in the lower class, such a skin condition could have easily set them back multiple weeks of pay, possibly eating into their rent money. Such inequality exists between the classes that as Barbara put it in regards to the struggling lower class, “they are bound to tire of getting so little in return and to demand to be paid what they’re worth. There’ll be a lot of anger when that day comes, and strike and disruption.” (pg 221) One day, the lower class will have to join together and take a stand. Overall, I think Barbara Ehrenreich does a good job in getting the message out about the impossible struggle undertaken by such a large percentage of the American population every day in a form that is easily read by the middle class.
An interesting point brought up by Ehreneich is the difficulty in even acquiring a job in supposedly booming job markets. Often, she finds, job ads are unreliable as they are sent out and published even when no jobs are actually available. “…the employers’ insurance policy against the relentless turnover of the low-wage workforce. Most of the big hotels run ads almost continually, if only to build a supply of applicants to replace the current workers as they drift away or are fired…” (pg 15) Once Ehreneich finally manages to get hired, she finds that this is indeed true among many of her jobs. For example, she finds that when she is first hired as a maid, co-workers are reluctant to get to know her because they assume she will be quitting shortly. “Forty minutes go by before anyone acknowledges my presence with more than a harried nod.” (pg 71) For those who find themselves struggling to survive with little income, this type of experience will only further isolate them from society. Not only are the maids not permitted to interact with their actual customers, but their employers also treat them as less than human with little opportunity to initially bond with their coworkers. For somebody down on their luck, especially when they are first attempting to establish themselves at a new job with few connections, this could easily discourage them from future efforts to find better jobs.
Despite some of the shortcomings of her study, Ehreneich was able to assume some of the attributes of a low-income worker. After a few weeks successfully learning to navigate her job at Wal-Mart, she finds that a minor confrontation with a new co-worker who interrupts her daily routine leads to one very un-Barbara like mindset. “What I have to face is that ‘Barb’ is what I was called as a child, and still am by my siblings, and I sense that at some level I’m regressing. Take away the career and the higher education, and maybe what you’re left with is this original Barb, the one who might have ended up working at Wal-Mart for real…” (pg 169) What Barbra is attempting to confront is the fact that anybody can end up in this low-income employment situation, not necessarily by his or her own shortcomings. Anybody can find himself or herself caught up in the stress of constantly trying to make ends meet financially.
The one key component that seemed to serve as the glue that held the lives of many of the struggling workers together was family. Often, these workers were able to afford their otherwise unaffordable rents by sharing the cost of living with both immediate family members and added “family” such as boyfriends and girlfriends who also worked similarly paying jobs. “Almost everyone is embedded in extended families or families artificially extended with house-mates.” (pg 79) Without these connections, people would not be able to survive on these wages. The individuals forced into this life often find themselves crammed into apartments and trailers well above a comfortable occupancy level.
The most disturbing factor of this entire book is the lack of social mobility that exists for this class. The things taken advantage of in the middle class such as social capital in the form of networks with doctors and lawyers do not exist for the lower class. Ehrenreich was able to draw upon this form of capital, even during her summer, when faced with an otherwise costly skin condition. In addition to this, the middle class often has superior health benefits in comparison to the meager health benefits provided in the book. For someone in the lower class, such a skin condition could have easily set them back multiple weeks of pay, possibly eating into their rent money. Such inequality exists between the classes that as Barbara put it in regards to the struggling lower class, “they are bound to tire of getting so little in return and to demand to be paid what they’re worth. There’ll be a lot of anger when that day comes, and strike and disruption.” (pg 221) One day, the lower class will have to join together and take a stand. Overall, I think Barbara Ehrenreich does a good job in getting the message out about the impossible struggle undertaken by such a large percentage of the American population every day in a form that is easily read by the middle class.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Module 3 - Social and Economic Rights
There has been a constant give-and-take between the theory of laissez-faire and concrete demands for government help for specific social and economic purposes. Many citizens believe that there is too much government regulation. They feel that some of the rules they must follow are unnecessary. Many other Americans believe, however, that strict regulations are needed to keep businesses from cheating or harming workers or consumers in order to increase business profits. For the greater American good, the latter is essential.
On January 11, 1944, Roosevelt called for a Second Bill of Rights, including the right to education, the right to a decent home, the right to adequate medical care, the right to a job, and more. It was also the legal realist attack on laissez-faire. It showed that no one is truly opposed to government intervention. Sunstein agrees and adds to this same idea when he notes:
...No one really opposes government intervention. Even the people who most loudly denounce government interference depend on it every day. Their own rights do not come from minimizing government but are a product of government. The simplest problem with Laissez-faire is not that it is unjust or harmful to poor people, but that it is a hopelessly inadequate description of any system of liberty, including free markets. Markets and wealth depend on government. (19) Those who most sternly call for government affairs to get out of their business are, in reality, the ones who very much want the government protecting their business.
It is the affluent, self-absorbed groups of society who advocate solely for their individual benefit – not a benefit in relation to others’ prosperity. They correlate the terms “individual control” with “laissez-fair” and immediately jump on the bandwagon to do away with government intervention. This is why laissez-fair receives so much criticism in this area of specific wealth prioritization alone. What they fail to acknowledge is that their wealth and power is connected specifically to intervention of the government in the marketplace. By enforcing one particular set of rules and laws of property and contract. What these "free market" advocates are really saying is that they want the rules to continue to be set and stacked in their favor; rather, in ways that may better serve both society and liberty for all.
Milton Friedman, a strong supporter of free markets, also adds on these same ideas in admitting why free markets are so rare. He notes:
Free societies restrain power. They make it very hard for bad people to do harm, but they also make it very hard for good people to do good. Implicitly or explicitly, most opponents of freedom believe that they know what is good for other people better than other people know for themselves, and they want the power to make people do what is really good for them. (344) People have no incentive to counter one another’s success. Government intervention is necessary, at least to establish crucial ground rules for the fair advancement of all citizens.
Government intervention is not the abolishment of liberty. If anything it causes America to work together to expand liberty. Without social and economic security a person has very limited liberty. Roosevelt's assertion was that if a citizen plays by the rules, works hard, and is an active participant in citizenship, then they should not have to fear social or economic disaster.
A close look at American history reveals a stunning government activism in the economy. The Second Bill of Rights supports this as a statement of the nation's most fundamental commitments. It gives America an understanding of how we got where we are, and how these ideas can benefit us in the future. It compellingly centers our nation on the expansion of liberty and citizenship. The idea the freedom requires governments’ presence, not absence.
On January 11, 1944, Roosevelt called for a Second Bill of Rights, including the right to education, the right to a decent home, the right to adequate medical care, the right to a job, and more. It was also the legal realist attack on laissez-faire. It showed that no one is truly opposed to government intervention. Sunstein agrees and adds to this same idea when he notes:
...No one really opposes government intervention. Even the people who most loudly denounce government interference depend on it every day. Their own rights do not come from minimizing government but are a product of government. The simplest problem with Laissez-faire is not that it is unjust or harmful to poor people, but that it is a hopelessly inadequate description of any system of liberty, including free markets. Markets and wealth depend on government. (19) Those who most sternly call for government affairs to get out of their business are, in reality, the ones who very much want the government protecting their business.
It is the affluent, self-absorbed groups of society who advocate solely for their individual benefit – not a benefit in relation to others’ prosperity. They correlate the terms “individual control” with “laissez-fair” and immediately jump on the bandwagon to do away with government intervention. This is why laissez-fair receives so much criticism in this area of specific wealth prioritization alone. What they fail to acknowledge is that their wealth and power is connected specifically to intervention of the government in the marketplace. By enforcing one particular set of rules and laws of property and contract. What these "free market" advocates are really saying is that they want the rules to continue to be set and stacked in their favor; rather, in ways that may better serve both society and liberty for all.
Milton Friedman, a strong supporter of free markets, also adds on these same ideas in admitting why free markets are so rare. He notes:
Free societies restrain power. They make it very hard for bad people to do harm, but they also make it very hard for good people to do good. Implicitly or explicitly, most opponents of freedom believe that they know what is good for other people better than other people know for themselves, and they want the power to make people do what is really good for them. (344) People have no incentive to counter one another’s success. Government intervention is necessary, at least to establish crucial ground rules for the fair advancement of all citizens.
Government intervention is not the abolishment of liberty. If anything it causes America to work together to expand liberty. Without social and economic security a person has very limited liberty. Roosevelt's assertion was that if a citizen plays by the rules, works hard, and is an active participant in citizenship, then they should not have to fear social or economic disaster.
A close look at American history reveals a stunning government activism in the economy. The Second Bill of Rights supports this as a statement of the nation's most fundamental commitments. It gives America an understanding of how we got where we are, and how these ideas can benefit us in the future. It compellingly centers our nation on the expansion of liberty and citizenship. The idea the freedom requires governments’ presence, not absence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)