Two opposite books . . . Nickel and Dimed & Scratch Beginnings

[MrsPete]

I recommend both of these books, though they are quite opposite.  Enough to whet your interest:

Nickel and Dimed was written by a bleeding heart liberal who wanted to prove that the poor simply can't get ahead.  She left her home, her health insurance, the benefits of her education.  She took whatever low-level job would be available to a person with just a high school education.  She worked (briefly) as a waitress, at Walmart, and in a nursing home.  She lived in a hotel and -- lacking cooking facilities-- ate fast food.  She did keep her car.  She attempted to live like a lower-middle class person on a minimum wage salary.  She noted that other poor people had methods of getting by:  sharing with family, sleeping in their cars, doing without.  She did none of these things. Every time she had an extra dollar, she found a new expense.  She discovered that the poor have a nobility of spirit that the middle class don't possess, but they have no financial chance in the world. 

The author of Scratch Beginnings read her book in college and thought she was wrong.  So after college graduation, he tried the same experiment.  He left his home and went to another city where he had no support of anynkind.  He had no car.  He took $25 and an empty gym bag.  He lived in a homeless shelter, ate at soup kitchens 'til he could feed himself, and worked at as many jobs as he could.  He constantly looked for better paying work and second jobs.  He did not whine and make excuses, even when he was injured and unable to work.  At the end of the year, he lived in a duplex with a roommate.  He owned a working vehicle, had a full time job, and had money on the bank.  He completely shattered the idea that the poor can't get ahead.  The dude was totally awesome and his frugality blows away everyone on this board, myself included! 

I recommend both books, but if you're only going to read one, make it the second one. 

[Grigory]

The author of "Nickel and Dimed" was either an ignorant buffoon or she did everything in her power to fail and sabotage her own project. (Or maybe it's both.)

It's been a while since I read that book, but I do recall that she:
-refused to get a roommate and stayed at a hotel instead of, say, renting a small studio;
-insisted on shopping at expensive grocery stores;
-had several meltdowns and ran back to her comfy house to unwind, thus getting out of character and destroying what little validity her study may have had.

Anyone could do that... The fact that thousands (millions?) of people praise her book without having read it (not you, MrsPete, but all the lemmings out there) means the book accomplished at least one thing, though: it showed that people are gullible and utterly devoid of critical thinking skills.

[arebelspy]

I agree with Grigory.

I couldn't recommend Nickel and Dimed to anyone, and have no respect whatsoever for the author.

Scratch Beginnings is neat, but again, probably not worth reading (as it's just a counterpoint to N&D, which is pointless itself and thus needs no refutation).  SB is fine, it's just that there are so many other books worth reading, it wouldn't make any list that I'd create.

YMMV.

Thanks for the reviews though, I appreciate you sharing.  :)

[MrsPete]

Note that I began by pointing out that she's a bleeding heart liberal.  I don't think she purposefully sabotaged her experiment; rather, I think she started out with the hypothesis that the poor can't get ahead . . . and, surprise surprise, she proved it.  I do think the book's worth reading because it gives an insight into the mind of people who genuinely believe that people just can't get ahead. 

[oldtoyota]

Note that I began by pointing out that she's a bleeding heart liberal.  I don't think she purposefully sabotaged her experiment; rather, I think she started out with the hypothesis that the poor can't get ahead . . . and, surprise surprise, she proved it.  I do think the book's worth reading because it gives an insight into the mind of people who genuinely believe that people just can't get ahead.

"Bleeding heart liberal" makes your position fairly clear. =-)

That author seemed to be on the forefront of writers who live a certain "crazy" way and then write a book about the experience--the chosen experience.

If I recall correctly, the author noted when she left her created world and returned to her regular world. At one point, she goes to the movies and allows her friend to pay. Some hotels I've stayed at have been very cheap ($19/night) and that is not much more than rent in areas with a low cost of living.

I can't really speak to whether or not the author spent too much on her hotel since I don't think she mentioned the cost of it in the book.

It's been years since I read the book. Maybe she did outline her expenses, and I just do not remember them.

[grantmeaname]

Thanks for coming to the book club to review the books! It's gotten sleepy in here!

What did you take of value out of the first book that makes it good enough to recommend? Did anything surprise you?

[BPA]

ha ha  I have been accused of being a bleeding heart liberal, so I laughed at the scathing review, but I haven't read the book, so can't comment.  Just wanted to say thanks for the laugh.  Luckily I'm able to laugh at myself and the perceptions of people who think like I do.

Seems like a book I'd want to skip.

I do feel bad for the poor (since I grew up that way) and especially poor children.  But I get a bit aggravated when haves try to mimic the poverty experience when at any time they can go back to their more cushy lives. 

[grantmeaname]

But I get a bit aggravated when haves try to mimic the poverty experience when at any time they can go back to their more cushy lives.

Especially if they manage to not learn anything from the experience -- which is probably equally true of both authors. Each just confirmed their own beliefs, then continued with their life the way it was.

[Grigory]

I don't think she purposefully sabotaged her experiment; rather, I think she started out with the hypothesis that the poor can't get ahead . . . and, surprise surprise, she proved it.

I stand by my assertion that the book's author was either a self-saboteur or an idiot. Possibly both. (Because we all know that poor people live in hotels and only buy top-notch organic food.)

And poor people can get ahead in this country. It certainly isn't easy, but it is possible. Barack Obama was from a dirt-poor single-parent family. One of my coworkers was a waitress before she joined my company (it's in Fortune-500, you've probably heard about it) and now she's about to become a high-paid manager with stock options and all that jazz.

The point is that if you're good enough at BSing and self-promotion, you can get out there and find anecdotal proof for any assertion and any hypothesis.

[Justin234]

I stand by my assertion that the book's author was either a self-saboteur or an idiot. Possibly both. (Because we all know that poor people live in hotels and only buy top-notch organic food.)

And poor people can get ahead in this country. It certainly isn't easy, but it is possible. Barack Obama was from a dirt-poor single-parent family. One of my coworkers was a waitress before she joined my company (it's in Fortune-500, you've probably heard about it) and now she's about to become a high-paid manager with stock options and all that jazz.

The point is that if you're good enough at BSing and self-promotion, you can get out there and find anecdotal proof for any assertion and any hypothesis.

Not having read either book, I feel highly qualified to weigh in here :) The above quote appears to be referring to Nickle and Dimed, but it applies just as well to Scratch Beginnings as far as I can tell. The second author is starting with a hypothesis - presumably that anyone can get ahead with a good work ethic - and setting out to selectively present information to prove his preconceived notion. Fans of Nickle and Dimed love that book because it supports what they already believed, and people will like the ideas of Scratch Beginnings because it supports the preconceived idea that the poor are poor because of a lack of work ethic and lack of discipline.

A college educated white guy, without kids, and with family to fall back on is not experiencing what it is like to be poor, and his experiment trivializes the experience of poverty. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I've spent several years working with kids and families in the child protective system in various cities, so I feel I have some observational experience behind my opinions about poverty. If you really think the issue is simply "work harder", or, "you can do it if you try", than you are living in a dream world. Kids growing up in the inner city do not have access to the same ideas, opportunities, habits, and hopes that lucky American kids do. They lack the freedom to change their environment, and there are relatively few role models to support them along the way. Many are victims of traumatic experiences. The system IS stacked against them. Some succeed (if that's you, congratulations) but most who have only the average level of innate perseverance and medium to poor luck do not see a way out. People don't turn 18 and suddenly move beyond all of that history and experience.

The issue of poverty in this country is a very complicated and tragic situation involving real people living difficult lives. I'm only adding this perspective because people in the the personal finance world (including on this thread) tend to use anecdotal evidence to make the issue seem simpler than it really is.

(By the way, Obama was not dirt poor; he was more like lower middle class, I believe, and was smart and fortunate enough to take advantage of a scholarship to an elite private high school; for 99% of kids, this isn't a pathways to opportunity).

[oldtoyota]

But I get a bit aggravated when haves try to mimic the poverty experience when at any time they can go back to their more cushy lives.

Have you ever read Black Like Me? It's about a white guy who passes for black and his experiences in the 1960s. I think it's still a good book even though he could go back to his other life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me

[olivia]

I stand by my assertion that the book's author was either a self-saboteur or an idiot. Possibly both. (Because we all know that poor people live in hotels and only buy top-notch organic food.)

And poor people can get ahead in this country. It certainly isn't easy, but it is possible. Barack Obama was from a dirt-poor single-parent family. One of my coworkers was a waitress before she joined my company (it's in Fortune-500, you've probably heard about it) and now she's about to become a high-paid manager with stock options and all that jazz.

The point is that if you're good enough at BSing and self-promotion, you can get out there and find anecdotal proof for any assertion and any hypothesis.

Not having read either book, I feel highly qualified to weigh in here :) The above quote appears to be referring to Nickle and Dimed, but it applies just as well to Scratch Beginnings as far as I can tell. The second author is starting with a hypothesis - presumably that anyone can get ahead with a good work ethic - and setting out to selectively present information to prove his preconceived notion. Fans of Nickle and Dimed love that book because it supports what they already believed, and people will like the ideas of Scratch Beginnings because it supports the preconceived idea that the poor are poor because of a lack of work ethic and lack of discipline.

A college educated white guy, without kids, and with family to fall back on is not experiencing what it is like to be poor, and his experiment trivializes the experience of poverty. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I've spent several years working with kids and families in the child protective system in various cities, so I feel I have some observational experience behind my opinions about poverty. If you really think the issue is simply "work harder", or, "you can do it if you try", than you are living in a dream world. Kids growing up in the inner city do not have access to the same ideas, opportunities, habits, and hopes that lucky American kids do. They lack the freedom to change their environment, and there are relatively few role models to support them along the way. Many are victims of traumatic experiences. The system IS stacked against them. Some succeed (if that's you, congratulations) but most who have only the average level of innate perseverance and medium to poor luck do not see a way out. People don't turn 18 and suddenly move beyond all of that history and experience.

The issue of poverty in this country is a very complicated and tragic situation involving real people living difficult lives. I'm only adding this perspective because people in the the personal finance world (including on this thread) tend to use anecdotal evidence to make the issue seem simpler than it really is.

(By the way, Obama was not dirt poor; he was more like lower middle class, I believe, and was smart and fortunate enough to take advantage of a scholarship to an elite private high school; for 99% of kids, this isn't a pathways to opportunity).

I couldn't agree more.  I have read Nickled and Dimed.  The author may be a bleeding heart liberal, but she certainly wasn't lying about the plight of people who are stuck in dead end jobs.  Not everyone gets to be the person who gets ahead-that's why it's called getting ahead.  All the people someone gets ahead of are still fucked.   

[arebelspy]

Can't people get ahead of where they were?

Can't they get had of poverty, even if not getting ahead of everyone else?

You have a very narrow definition of getting ahead.

Think about some of the Scandinavian countries, for example, and look at their average standard of living, and how it is, in general, ahead of our counter examples.

[olivia]

Can't people get ahead of where they were?

Can't they get had of poverty, even if not getting ahead of everyone else?

You have a very narrow definition of getting ahead.

Think about some of the Scandinavian countries, for example, and look at their average standard of living, and how it is, in general, ahead of our counter examples.

Of course they can, but there don't seem to be many avenues for most of the coworkers Ehrenreich describes to do so.  It's been a while since I read it, but she IIRC she mostly worked with uneducated, impoverished women in rural areas.  The author of Scratch Beginnings was young, male and college-educated.  That's a trifecta of privilege, without even taking into account race and class. 

Structural problems in this country make it difficult for people to get ahead of poverty.  My close friend was a social worker for several years in the city we're in, and she said it's as if there are 2 separate cities, or even countries.  You can go from million dollar apartments to boarded up windows in a few miles.  I'm not saying it's impossible to break out of poverty, or that people shouldn't try.  I would say busting your ass at a shitty waitressing or housecleaning job is trying to get ahead.  We're not talking shiftless welfare queens.

As for Scandinavia, sign me up.  I have family who lives in Sweden and would LOVE it if the US could adopt oh, any of their policies.  I would gladly pay more taxes to get what they get.  Childcare and maternity leave in particular would help so many families.  The childcare system there is extremely high quality and very inexpensive due to government subsidies.  My family member pays around $150/month, which is actually the most anyone can pay.  (It's a sliding scale and they're at the top of the scale.)

[grantmeaname]

The author of Scratch Beginnings was young, male and college-educated.  That's a trifecta of privilege, without even taking into account race and class.

Being young makes your poorer and less politically significant than being old. Being male makes you less likely to be college-educated than being female, whether or not any pay gap between the genders still exists. Finally, wherever they come from, individual attributes like work ethic totally swamp other factors like gender when it comes to making your success in the world, and if you don't choose to believe that you may not have a great fit here.

[olivia]

The author of Scratch Beginnings was young, male and college-educated.  That's a trifecta of privilege, without even taking into account race and class.

Being young makes your poorer and less politically significant than being old. Being male makes you less likely to be college-educated than being female, whether or not any pay gap between the genders still exists. Finally, wherever they come from, individual attributes like work ethic totally swamp other factors like gender when it comes to making your success in the world, and if you don't choose to believe that you may not have a great fit here.

Wow, I wasn't aware that assuming all Poors are lazy and buying into bullshit bootstrap rhetoric was a requirement for posting on the MMM forum!  Thanks so much for enlightening me! 

[grantmeaname]

Where did I or anyone say anything of the sort?

[Justin234]

The author of Scratch Beginnings was young, male and college-educated.  That's a trifecta of privilege, without even taking into account race and class.

Being young makes your poorer and less politically significant than being old. Being male makes you less likely to be college-educated than being female, whether or not any pay gap between the genders still exists.

I disagree with both of these statements - you seem to not be aware of some basic facts, such as that older people have more trouble getting jobs and are more likely to have health issues, disabilities, and dependents.

Finally, wherever they come from, individual attributes like work ethic totally swamp other factors like gender when it comes to making your success in the world

Grant, you seem very confident in your opinion. I would love to see some studies that 'prove' the above statement. I was not aware that it had been demonstrated beyond a doubt. Please send me some links to peer-reviewed articles.

and if you don't choose to believe that you may not have a great fit here.

Wow, you don't seem to be very open to hearing things you disagree with. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it sounds like you are saying, "These ideas aren't welcome here." Maybe you should let people decide on their own whether they are a good fit. I agree with Olivia's perspective, I don't "choose to believe" your opinion, and I feel as though I've fit in great here: Trying to make good decisions, hear new ideas, take responsibility for my own actions without passing judgement or making sweeping generalizations about people that I don't know and who are less fortunate than me. Seems pretty in line with MMM's attitude.

[Justin234]

Where did I or anyone say anything of the sort?

My comment came before seeing Olivia's and I had essentially the same reaction (down to the "wow"). What did you mean by:

...and if you don't choose to believe that you may not have a great fit here.

?

[arebelspy]

He meant that you decide your own destiny.  You can succeed.  Believing so is necessary, however.

That doesn't mean poor people are lazy, as you infer (somehow?), but it means things like work ethic (which grant names) as well as attitude and other such things can easily be used to overcome things that otherwise may make it harder for you (potential examples may be race, gender, age, etc. etc.)

[takingbackmylife]

Even though I read the forums every day I don't usually comment.  I am not in a position to believe I even qualify for stubble yet - but this I could not let go by.

People do not magically know how to work.  It is not a character trait you are either born with or not.  It is something you are taught, along with a host of other everyday actions which lead to success.  If you are lucky, you had strong examples in your parents - who were themselves familiar with the ingredients of success in this world.  Everyone is not so fortunate.  The playing field is not even for everyone.  If you think it is, I would urge you to investigate volunteer opportunities with CASA or some similar worthy organization.  Your eyes will never view your ivory tower quite the same way again. 

That is not to say that people who had rough childhoods can't succeed.  But in my opinion, they must have come across someone or something over the years to help them learn that there are other, easier ways of success than they have previously had modeled for them.

I am not a 'bleeding heart liberal', but neither am I so close-minded and certain that my world view is the only existant reality that I feel entitled to pass judgment on others and their experiences - constantly find them lacking in any number of ways.

I was born to privilege as a white, middle class citizen of the United States with well-educated parents.  I was taught these traits by them and other great role models.  I STILL managed to make a great big mess out of my financial life for many years.

Sometimes it takes being knocked around by life a little bit to realize just how high up on your horse you were perched.

No doubt certain pugnacious people will vehemently disagree with this and quote 10,000 'statistics' that are only as valid as the hypotheses they are bent to support.  That is OK.  I would just challenge anyone who does to put their money where their mouth is and actually meet some people who have lived different kinds of lives than you have.  Talk to them.  Listen to them.  Help them and in turn, let them help you have a fuller, richer life.  It is worth it.

[olivia]

The author of Scratch Beginnings was young, male and college-educated.  That's a trifecta of privilege, without even taking into account race and class.

Being young makes your poorer and less politically significant than being old. Being male makes you less likely to be college-educated than being female, whether or not any pay gap between the genders still exists.

I disagree with both of these statements - you seem to not be aware of some basic facts, such as that older people have more trouble getting jobs and are more likely to have health issues, disabilities, and dependents.

Finally, wherever they come from, individual attributes like work ethic totally swamp other factors like gender when it comes to making your success in the world

Grant, you seem very confident in your opinion. I would love to see some studies that 'prove' the above statement. I was not aware that it had been demonstrated beyond a doubt. Please send me some links to peer-reviewed articles.

and if you don't choose to believe that you may not have a great fit here.

Wow, you don't seem to be very open to hearing things you disagree with. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it sounds like you are saying, "These ideas aren't welcome here." Maybe you should let people decide on their own whether they are a good fit. I agree with Olivia's perspective, I don't "choose to believe" your opinion, and I feel as though I've fit in great here: Trying to make good decisions, hear new ideas, take responsibility for my own actions without passing judgement or making sweeping generalizations about people that I don't know and who are less fortunate than me. Seems pretty in line with MMM's attitude.

Ditto all of this.  I didn't feel like taking the time and energy to break it all down, so I'm just going to follow you around and quote you tonight, Andrew! 

[Justin234]

He meant that you decide your own destiny.  You can succeed.  Believing so is necessary, however.

You are ignoring the the fact that Grant suggested that if you don't agree with his opinion you won't "fit in here". I don't think that is a particularly productive was to deal with differing ideas... Not the kind of reading group I'd want to join.

That doesn't mean poor people are lazy, as you infer (somehow?), but it means things like work ethic (which grant names) as well as attitude and other such things can easily be used to overcome things that otherwise may make it harder for you (potential examples may be race, gender, age, etc. etc.)

Where did anyone say that work ethic and attitude were not important? I would love to hear people's ideas on how to promote these attributes in a practical way, since clearly some people have more than others. Where does work ethic come from? Is it in-born? Taught? A choice? I think this is an important question.

Earlier in this thread you referred to the Scandinavians. I'll just quote you...

Think about some of the Scandinavian countries, for example, and look at their average standard of living, and how it is, in general, ahead of our counter examples.

You are talking about classic welfare states (I say this in a good way) in which the poor have a strong safety net, good education, universal healthcare, high minimum wage. Do you realize that all these things don't have anything to do with work ethic? They are there so that people can get to the point where they have a decent chance of success, where they can take risks, and where they can recover from bad luck, accidents, and mistakes.

I think maybe the challenge here is that you think that this is a zero-sum game, like if we start acknowledging environmental and social factors (race, gender, age, location, access to education, access to skills, language) that means that people are going to give up. I would argue that both are true: People are held back in our society due to factors outside of their control, AND having optimism, perseverance (among other things) are likely to help you overcome these challenges.

[arebelspy]

I feel like you enjoy trying to "win" arguments rather than learn from discussions.

Given that, I don't feel that there's much of a point responding to the many things in your post (attacks, straw man arguments, whatever).  In my opinion we agree on much more than you'd want to admit, but you want to make those differences huge in order to "win."

Alright, dynamite, well done.

takingbackmylife: Great post. Thank you.

[Justin234]

I feel like you enjoy trying to "win" arguments rather than learn from discussions.

Given that, I don't feel that there's much of a point responding to the many things in your post (attacks, straw man arguments, whatever).  In my opinion we agree on much more than you'd want to admit, but you want to make those differences huge in order to "win."

Alright, dynamite, well done.

takingbackmylife: Great post. Thank you.

Sorry you feel that way. I was trying to put forward my opinion as it relates to the contrasting opinions of the two books. I appreciate you saying that we agree more than we disagree - you are probably right, just looking at things from different perspectives.

Edit: Also, I didn't mean anything as an attack.

[destron]

The author of Scratch Beginnings was young, male and college-educated.  That's a trifecta of privilege, without even taking into account race and class.

Being young makes your poorer and less politically significant than being old. Being male makes you less likely to be college-educated than being female, whether or not any pay gap between the genders still exists.

I disagree with both of these statements - you seem to not be aware of some basic facts, such as that older people have more trouble getting jobs and are more likely to have health issues, disabilities, and dependents.

You can disagree all you want but both statements are correct. There are these pesky things called facts. For instance, 60% of college graduates now are women. I fail to see where Grant said that old people are healthier and have fewer dependents (although they do have fewer dependents since their children are adults).

[Justin234]

The author of Scratch Beginnings was young, male and college-educated.  That's a trifecta of privilege, without even taking into account race and class.

Being young makes your poorer and less politically significant than being old. Being male makes you less likely to be college-educated than being female, whether or not any pay gap between the genders still exists.

I disagree with both of these statements - you seem to not be aware of some basic facts, such as that older people have more trouble getting jobs and are more likely to have health issues, disabilities, and dependents.

You can disagree all you want but both statements are correct. There are these pesky things called facts. For instance, 60% of college graduates now are women. I fail to see where Grant said that old people are healthier and have fewer dependents (although they do have fewer dependents since their children are adults).

You are right, and I could have phrased that better. What I was getting at was that I don't agree that the statements are relevant the point being made, which was that the author being young, male, and college educated put him in a position to succeed, and that someone who was older, female, dark-skinned, a parent, or without a college education would have faced more barriers. The reason I mentioned the health issue was that I felt that ability to get and maintain a job was more important than the idea of having more political significance.

Not trying to win any points here, just clarifying my meaning.

[arebelspy]

We can debate whether it's more of a disadvantage being young (poorer, less political clout, no experience, higher unemployment rate), or old (harder to get a job if you don't have one, more dependents, health issues, etc.) or a man (less likely to be college educated) or a woman (paid less for the same job - if you buy those stats, less likely to be hired, etc.) or XYZ race..

That all (besides being pretty tough to actually determine and reach a consensus on), ends up being irrelevant, is the point.

One can overcome those obstacles.  Do some have a much tougher road to climb?  Absolutely?  Should we, as a society, be providing some support in some way to those incapable of doing it?  Yes.

However  the point is that most of us are here because we believe we can make our lives better through our hard work, despite any disadvantages we might have.

[Justin234]

However  the point is that most of us are here because we believe we can make our lives better through our hard work, despite any disadvantages we might have.

I agree with your point; my point was that that point is only part of the point. That is clearly a minority perspective on this blog, but I think I can live with that, and I am glad I raised it.

[grantmeaname]

I disagree with both of these statements - you seem to not be aware of some basic facts, such as that older people have more trouble getting jobs and are more likely to have health issues, disabilities, and dependents.

It's your prerogative to disagree with whatever you'd like. But you can't change the facts, no matter how hard you try to think things you disagree with out of existence.

Grant, you seem very confident in your opinion. I would love to see some studies that 'prove' the above statement. I was not aware that it had been demonstrated beyond a doubt. Please send me some links to peer-reviewed articles.

You would like me to provide you with a single peer-reviewed article clearly demonstrating a complex and multifaceted issue that isn't easily captured by quantitative measures, when you can't be bothered to so much as Google common statements and obvious trends to see whether they're true?

Wow, you don't seem to be very open to hearing things you disagree with. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it sounds like you are saying, "These ideas aren't welcome here."

I am not saying that. I have plenty of respect for people with opinions different than my own. Olivia, let me make this abundantly clear: I have no more right to ask anyone to leave than anyone else has to ask me to leave, and that was not what I was trying to say at all. Here's what I was trying to say in a little greater length: this entire community is based on the notion that people have the ability to determine their future. If you feel like you have no power to change your circumstances, then 1) you're wasting your time here and you believe you'll be exactly where you are now, forever, and 2) you're going to have a really tough time convincing anyone of your opinion, because all the other members of the forum are here expressly for the purpose of changing their lives.

[Zamboni]

This is an interesting discussion.  I haven't read either book, but I have read many, many, many peer reviewed studies that have clearly shown how certain factors (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) have a HUGE impact on the ability of an individual to get a job, and thus get ahead.  There was a classic Princeton study where clean cut male students were sent out, all dressed the same, to apply to HS graduate level jobs.  Things like working in restaurants or at mall stores were sought, and they filled out applications with the store manager as one would for those jobs.  The rate of job offers for blacks and whites was not equal until the white applicants had a fictional FELONY CONVICTION listed on their applications.  Then it was EQUAL.  A more recent study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science had researchers sending an identical resume (the only difference was that one had "John" as the applicant name and the other with "Jennifer") to professors in academia for feedback.  Each professor received only one resume:  either John or Jennifer.  Among other findings,  based upon the professors looking at the same applicant with just different names, John was rated as significantly more competent and was given a hypothetical starting that was about 10% higher.   The professors had no idea this was for a study; they were duped into showing their true bias.  Another one I read recently that wasn't so scientific was a lady, say her name was Shaniqua Black (that's not really her name as I can't remember it, but it was something like that) who decided to always apply to the same jobs twice:  once with her real name and again with identical qualifications but the name Bianca White.  This was for white color jobs through online services such as monster.com.  Bianca got tons of call backs; Shaniqua got nearly none.

There are literally hundreds, possibly even thousands, of these types of studies.  So, when folks say maybe there is bias against some people in getting a decent job or maybe there is a pay gap, it just makes me roll my eyes.  And if you are about to say "But I would not do that myself, because I am not a racist," then please read Racism without Racists by Eduardo Bonilla Silva and very carefully consider how you have lived your life before you chime in.  By the way, I am white, fair, tall, decent looking, extremely highly educated, and with extremely highly educated parents.  So this isn't crying "Oh poor me!" it's just putting $0.02 of reality into this discussion with my fair stubble.

My experience has been that people want to give me a job as soon as I walk through the door, unless they are expecting a man.  Hilariously I have a man's name, so this "oh gee I wasn't expecting you" world's shortest interview has happened more than once, and the look on the hiring manager's face has been priceless when I walk in and he realizes I'm female applying for a job for which he absolutely will NOT hire a female (foreman at a factory type jobs and military jobs are when this has happened; not saying there are never women hired into these positions, but I'm sure me being female absolutely was a surprise and that the hiring manager immediately withdrew me from consideration in some of these jobs.)  I really wish I could have captured this interviews on candid camera.  Ah well, it all worked out in the end, as I now have a great job.

[oldtoyota]

The author of Scratch Beginnings was young, male and college-educated.  That's a trifecta of privilege, without even taking into account race and class.

Being young makes your poorer and less politically significant than being old. Being male makes you less likely to be college-educated than being female, whether or not any pay gap between the genders still exists. Finally, wherever they come from, individual attributes like work ethic totally swamp other factors like gender when it comes to making your success in the world, and if you don't choose to believe that you may not have a great fit here.

In the US, getting pregnant as a teen basically means you are effed in terms of finances. The data supports my statement.

I imagine Europe--with a year of support for parents--would be more kind to young parents.

[Justin234]

This is an interesting discussion.  I haven't read either book, but I have read many, many, many peer reviewed studies that have clearly shown how certain factors (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) have a HUGE impact on the ability of an individual to get a job, and thus get ahead.

If you have read this discussion you won't be surprised that I agree with you about all of this. What I ran into on this thread was what seemed like a difference in world views that I think parallels the two books being contrasted: From perspective A, it is important to focus on these way that opportunity of disadvantaged people is limited (e.g., what they call structural racism/sexism/violence), hopefully with the goal of decreasing the barriers to advancement, either through decreasing discrimination or increasing access to education, financial support, opportunity, etc. The other perspective seems to be that focusing on what holds people back is not that worthwhile, and it is more important to focus on the individual attributes bring about success; and the fact that there is opportunity for those who have the drive, despite the barriers.

At the risk of caricature, these perspectives are what they call "bleeding heart liberal" versus "libertarian", although there is obviously a lot of room in the middle for nuance.

I originally brought up the topic of lack of opportunity because I think it is dangerous to ignore, as it has real-world political implications in terms up public policy: the first perspective might imply to many that more government intervention is needed, either in terms of protection of rights of disadvantaged population, or the need for social programs that assist those who are subject to greater hardship or discrimination (I'm not saying this is the only solution, just a common one). In contrast, there is a large block of the country that doesn't feel this way, and wants less government intervention, less taxation, etc., and thus as a country we are pulled in very different directions at the same time.

Basically, I'm just trying to explicate the different perspective I ran into here, and to note that sometime you can have 100 studies that show a phenomenon, but if you are coming at the situation with different worldviews, it is hard to find agreement about what to do, or even how much importance that phenomenon should be given.

[SwordGuy]

Part of what Nickeled and Dimed tried to demonstrate is how hard it is to make good financial decisions when you're broke.

Is renting an apartment cheaper than a hotel?  Probably is, most times.  So, why would someone who is short on money make a "dumb" decision and stay in a hotel.

Well, there's the start up costs.  First AND last month's rent, up front.  Electricity company deposit.  Water company deposit. Gas company deposit.  I'll ignore the phone company deposit due to cell phones, but when that book was written they weren't so cheap or ubiquitous.  (If an employer can't call you to come into work, the application you filled is probably worthless.)

That's a lot of up-front money to come up with if you're broke.

I had a similar problem when I was in grad school.  My car developed a leak in the oil pan.   I could go thru a quart of oil a day, which is an expensive habit.  But getting the oilpan fixed was going to cost $200+, all at once.   So, $40 every two weeks for wasted oil or $200 I didn't have.  Couldn't get from classes to work in time with a bike or public transit.   It took awhile to get the money saved to get it fixed.  It was even harder to save that $200 because I was wasting $40 of it each pay period.

And, of course, if your hotel room doesn't allow you to cook food, you have to by prepared food, which is more expensive than bulk lentils, rice and beans.  And less healthy because of all the extra salt in it.

It's a nasty trap.

That's assuming you were raised to understand good financial choices or were smart and aware enough to figure them out for yourself.   Given that a host of Americans seem to be pretty darn clueless on this topic it's unfair to just blame the poor for bad financial choices.

[grantmeaname]

But again, where has anyone in this thread "blame[d] the poor for bad choices"? You're arguing against a straw man, taking a view nobody has disagreed with!

[SwordGuy]

But again, where has anyone in this thread "blame[d] the poor for bad choices"? You're arguing against a straw man, taking a view nobody has disagreed with!

At least one poster felt that living in a hotel instead of renting an apartment was a stupid choice.
They clearly had not understood why, so I explained why.

[arebelspy]

At least one poster felt that living in a hotel instead of renting an apartment was a stupid choice.
They clearly had not understood why, so I explained why.

It is a stupid choice*.

If you can afford that hotel room every night (but it's keeping you broke), saving up that money will, very very shortly, be able to get you an apartment for the whole month, and then you'll have a surplus of money.

I'd live on the street or in a shelter or with a friend or family member for awhile if I was broke - I wouldn't think "hotel room!  YES, that's the solution!"

Also, FWIW, there are tons of "$100 moves you in" apartments around here.  No first months, last months, security deposit business..  Probably not so much in NYC, but perhaps they need to consider moving to a cheaper cost of living area?   

*when I say stupid choice, I mean it's a far inferior choice than the multiple other options available to them. I have no comments on the person themselves, nor do I blame them for their situation, however the choice itself is, yes, a poor choice.

[Luck better Skill]

  I would like to weight in on the same work less pay for Women argument.  That was true years ago but in the last decade woman make equal or more pay for the same job.  Brooking institute publish on it last year.  Brooking looked at equivalent jobs.  Many studies use raw statistics of employment without accounting for time out of career for stay at home moms or comparing part-time workers to full time. 

[Zamboni]

^Link?

[davisgang90]

This thread really has made me chuckle.  I'm reminded of the old Goofus and Gallant cartoons from Highlights:

Goofus lives in a hotel and makes one bad money decision after another reaching the conclusion that it is virtually impossible for those dumb poor people to improve their lot in life.

Gallant lives in homeless shelters and works very hard to improve his lot in life ultimately succeeding and improving his lot in life.

Some in the thread want to make Goofus the heroine of this tale.

But what do I know, I'm part of that trifecta of privilege (although not as young anymore...)

[Justin234]

Some in the thread want to make Goofus the heroine of this tale.

Chuckle away, but no one is talking about heroism, just reality. Real people's lives are not as simple as cartoons, and success is a combination of luck, attitude, knowledge/education, ambition, luck, and the availability of social support and resources (among other things, I am sure).

[rightstuff]

This is an interesting discussion.  I haven't read either book, but I have read many, many, many peer reviewed studies that have clearly shown how certain factors (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) have a HUGE impact on the ability of an individual to get a job, and thus get ahead.

If you have read this discussion you won't be surprised that I agree with you about all of this. What I ran into on this thread was what seemed like a difference in world views that I think parallels the two books being contrasted: From perspective A, it is important to focus on these way that opportunity of disadvantaged people is limited (e.g., what they call structural racism/sexism/violence), hopefully with the goal of decreasing the barriers to advancement, either through decreasing discrimination or increasing access to education, financial support, opportunity, etc. The other perspective seems to be that focusing on what holds people back is not that worthwhile, and it is more important to focus on the individual attributes bring about success; and the fact that there is opportunity for those who have the drive, despite the barriers.

At the risk of caricature, these perspectives are what they call "bleeding heart liberal" versus "libertarian", although there is obviously a lot of room in the middle for nuance.

I originally brought up the topic of lack of opportunity because I think it is dangerous to ignore, as it has real-world political implications in terms up public policy: the first perspective might imply to many that more government intervention is needed, either in terms of protection of rights of disadvantaged population, or the need for social programs that assist those who are subject to greater hardship or discrimination (I'm not saying this is the only solution, just a common one). In contrast, there is a large block of the country that doesn't feel this way, and wants less government intervention, less taxation, etc., and thus as a country we are pulled in very different directions at the same time.

Basically, I'm just trying to explicate the different perspective I ran into here, and to note that sometime you can have 100 studies that show a phenomenon, but if you are coming at the situation with different worldviews, it is hard to find agreement about what to do, or even how much importance that phenomenon should be given.

I just read the following today which I think casts some perspective.  http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2013/Leetransfers.html    It is titled "Do the Poor Vote Their Self-Interest?

[davisgang90]

Some in the thread want to make Goofus the heroine of this tale.

Chuckle away, but no one is talking about heroism, just reality. Real people's lives are not as simple as cartoons, and success is a combination of luck, attitude, knowledge/education, ambition, luck, and the availability of social support and resources (among other things, I am sure).

We aren't talking about reality.  We are talking about 2 authors with safety nets pretending to be poor.  Therefore I will continue to chuckle away.

[totoro]

Haven't read either book so here goes nothing.

I totally disagree that you cannot get ahead in NA if you are born into a poor family like I was - as long as you have mental and physical health and are not addicted.  Many people get stuck in poverty because of these things and I believe this should be a top priority for society to address.  Canada has a social safety net that assists more with physical than mental health or addictions.  That is a problem imo.

Back to the author of N&D and to the comments by people with no experience of poverty, but who have read studies... so what. There is a study on everything.  Of course it is possible to get ahead in NA if you are able-bodied.  It is way easier with help from family, but entirely possible to do it on your own.  People who have no idea what is like to grow up poor sometimes blame the poor for their poverty.  Then there is the counter approach where the poor are absolutely not responsible if they don't improve their circumstances because there are so many barriers.  BS to both.

The truth is it is harder to get ahead if you start from poverty.  You will have to work and go to school at the same time.  You might live in some crappy places along the way and not be able to go out when your friends do.  But if you save more than you spend you will make progress and it will start to snowball if you learn to invest what you save.  Not all countries offer this option.

As for the N&D author, she obviously had a poor skill set for managing the situation - or a reason to live her premise so she had something catchy to publish (do you think?). 

[grantmeaname]

Totoro, I think you're railing against an imaginary composite of several posters, continuing the tradition of at least two others in the thread. This isn't about what studies say or ivory towers, because the only men quoting those views here are made of straw.

[totoro]

Meh, what's a little railing before bed...

[grantmeaname]

Not railing, really. I don't think your tone was unfair. I just think that what I had to say was quickly put in a "privileged white kid" basket and ignored with the help of some false assumptions, and seeing them repeated again is frustrating because nobody seems willing to discuss the actual ideas rather than the affluence of their source.

[totoro]

I'm not sure I follow - or care as much as you do about this particular issue.  I also don't care if you are privileged and white or the opposite and I'm not interested in debating the studies - read lots of them and some are good and some are not and life experience counts for as much. 

In plain language, yes,  coming from an impoverished background makes becoming affluent more objectively challenging assuming similar effort and motivation by a rich kid and a poor kid.  Most important in the whole thing of getting ahead is continued effort and motivation.  At some point you have to be committed to do what it takes to have what you want if you want change. 

Main point: I`m in the  Scratch Beginnings camp and think N&D is silly - all without having read either book.