Book Review: Nickel and Dimed
Jun. 26th, 2006 04:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Just finished Nickel and Dimed: On (not) getting by in America. Total crock, which sucked because it was a book I was eager to get to.
The premise is the author wanted to see if it's possible to live on a 6 or 7 dollar-an-hour job. She left behind her life and tested 3 cities (Key West FL, Portland ME, and Minneapolis MN.)The idea intrigued me because a) I did it through college (and for a while post-college), b)my main cause is Hunger, c)I'm a committed cheapskate and as much as I empathsize with the poor, I also feel that Americans have a warped sense of want vs. need.
The book was nothing but two hundred pages of the author whining about how much her feet hurt. I'm not kidding. Broad was clueless about how the working class lives and stayed so throughout the course of the book. She glommed on to the most pathetic of her "co-workers", I suppose to make her story more melodramatic, and pretty much ignored the others.
A lot of what she had to say was boarderline offensive. Like, she would go on and on about how she had to "cover up" her college experience so she wouldn't raise the suspecions of her interviewers. I guess because no one with a college degree has ever worked below their educuation. <----- sarcasm. Or that somehow, a college degree makes one too good for such work.
And, her other pet notion was that she couldn't try to "save" her co-workers. Lady, they didn't need you in order to figure out working at Taco Bell or Wal-Mart sucks.
To be fair, she did bring up some important issues, such as low-wage jobs might cover current expenses but they don't provide much for emergencies or for savings. Getting an apartment requires a ton of upfront cash--something folks living from paycheck to paycheck don't have. And she noted, but didn't really examine that in poorer neighborhoods there are plenty of fast food resturants and convenience stores but few grocery stores.
Mostly though, the book stank of someone who's never really had to live low-fund situations.
The premise is the author wanted to see if it's possible to live on a 6 or 7 dollar-an-hour job. She left behind her life and tested 3 cities (Key West FL, Portland ME, and Minneapolis MN.)The idea intrigued me because a) I did it through college (and for a while post-college), b)my main cause is Hunger, c)I'm a committed cheapskate and as much as I empathsize with the poor, I also feel that Americans have a warped sense of want vs. need.
The book was nothing but two hundred pages of the author whining about how much her feet hurt. I'm not kidding. Broad was clueless about how the working class lives and stayed so throughout the course of the book. She glommed on to the most pathetic of her "co-workers", I suppose to make her story more melodramatic, and pretty much ignored the others.
A lot of what she had to say was boarderline offensive. Like, she would go on and on about how she had to "cover up" her college experience so she wouldn't raise the suspecions of her interviewers. I guess because no one with a college degree has ever worked below their educuation. <----- sarcasm. Or that somehow, a college degree makes one too good for such work.
And, her other pet notion was that she couldn't try to "save" her co-workers. Lady, they didn't need you in order to figure out working at Taco Bell or Wal-Mart sucks.
To be fair, she did bring up some important issues, such as low-wage jobs might cover current expenses but they don't provide much for emergencies or for savings. Getting an apartment requires a ton of upfront cash--something folks living from paycheck to paycheck don't have. And she noted, but didn't really examine that in poorer neighborhoods there are plenty of fast food resturants and convenience stores but few grocery stores.
Mostly though, the book stank of someone who's never really had to live low-fund situations.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 11:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 05:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-28 04:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-10 02:42 am (UTC)Hmm, now I am more curious to read it. I suspect I will end up agreeing with you.