Talk:Nickel and Dimed

message: It said: "Even with the odds stacked on her side -- a college education culminating with a Ph.D. in biology, a car, no dependents (other than herself), and initial funds -- Ehrenreich fails to achieve a sustainable lifestyle."
I took the bit about her degree out, since as a part of her exparament, she didn't reveal her educational background.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.207.174 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: made a correction in the 'storyline' part

message: In response to your request for comments, here are my reactions:
#well-written in terms of basic grammar, syntax, writing style, consistency, encyclopedic (or book review) tone.
#Interesting topic. My familiarity with the book is limited to having read the original article in Harper's from which the book was expanded, plus a long desriptive review in the NYRB. At least by those, I think your facts are accurate and balanced.
My suggestions
#Give a 1-2 sentence summary of her main message related to each of her jobs. You did that for most, but it would round out the summary and reduce some vagueness. It doesn't have to be a list and you have a good start. I am imagining perhaps another 5-10 sentences in the article.
#There is one sentence that seems like a problem to me:   With the odds stacked on her side, a college education culminating with a Ph.D. in biology, a car, only one person to support, and initial funds, Ehrenreich fails to sustain a suitable lifestyle. "a suitable lifestyle" is way too vague. Does she mean suitable to her middle class tastes, or is she arguing that any 40 hour a week job should pay enough to afford ___, ___, and ___? Is she arguing for raising the minimum wage, for requiring better benefits in low end jobs, or something else?
Overall, nice job. Your work here will be welcome. alteripse 04:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: peer review

message: Hey folks. I realize there has been some recent discussion about the book in the sections above. However, it's clear to me that this article got off track a few months back causing the primary image and intro to be removed. Here's where the article seems to have gone astray. Someone removed these important elements, then vandalism occurred which essentially solidified the bad edits. 
Here's my first restore, which brings back the bulk of the better version. Here's a second "fix-up", which reinstates the good edits that have recently been made. Hopefully this is agreeable to all the legitimate editors involved in this article. --Wolf530 (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored last good version, 11/21/06 

message: Why is there no criticism of this book?  It is presented as if it where Gospel!  No one has done the legwork to get valid criticism?
TuckerResearch 19:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism section was erased because it did not cite any sources. However, there is now a new criticism section, which cites an article from The Christian Science Monitor as its source. This is a legitimate source, so it is OK to include it in the article. If anyone wishes to add any other criticisms, please cite a source. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the criticism of this book? 

message: People do live like this. Face reality instead of constantly trying to sweep it under the rug.
:Perhaps because it appears biased, and internally contradictory.  The author appears to have gone into this with an agenda.  For instance, she complains that these workers don't get enough to live on yet assumes that these same people can afford drugs and thus be put screened out by drug tests. If they have enough funds for drugs, then obviously they have enough to live on.  She seems laments that these workers have to live with family or others in order to have a place to live.  This is a near universal circumstance among even middle class students and young people.  Even young professionals find cost sharing and roommates make more social and  financial sense, even when they could afford more.  She shows bias in calling work uninteresting and degrading, which is pure personal opinion.  Manual work, often leaves the mind freer to contemplate other things that mental labor.  She complains that some have to live more expensively in hotels for lack of first and last month deposits, hmmm, why aren't they living with relatives or other workers and doing a saving? It is a shame, she could have written a self-help book with ideas for improving the lives of low wage workers, sharing strategies  like cost sharing living arrangments, instead she blames society for not giving these workers a life on a silver platter. --68.35.2.8 (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason is that there are large masses of conservatives that express their POV in open venues. Anything that expresses the viewpoint that America be anything less than the model Capitalist (and usually white Christian) country, and questioning of the existing order or championing of the under classes, will provoke their ire, and the sort of thing you see here. It's in their nature to be knee jerk reactionaries and Ehrenreich is the kind of person that is like a dog whistle for them.  Only wiki policy have kept this reaction from being more severe in this article than what you currently see. Try to do the same thing to an article about something in their camp and be prepared for interminable squeals. 198.255.198.157 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is there so much hatred for this book?