> > Ehrenreich's observations about how difficult it is to
> > live on very meager pay are either correct or not;
> > there is no debate, only fact checking. What exactly
> > is the other side?
>
>
> As I understand, Ehrenreich merely describes what her life in a low wage
> position was without making any explict claim as to "what's wrong with
> this picture" or what the "proper" situation should be. The implicit
> argument is that for the "living wage" i.e. the pay that should cover
> the cost of living, although Ehrenreich does not specify whether that
> shoul dbe achived by raising th eth epay or providing affordable housing
> and transportation - the two major drains on the low wage earners.
>
> With that in mind, "the other side" can consist of the following three
> demurers:
>
> 1. While Ehrenreich's description of her experience in low wage
> position is accurate, that does not lead to the conclusion that
> corporations like Wal Mart should be paying higher wages (assuming that
> wages are determined by the market). Rather, one should demand
> affordable housing and transportation, which is the responsibility of
> the government/private charity rather than that of a private employer.
>
> 2. While Ehrenreich's description of her experience in low wage
> positions is accurate, generalizing from that experience is quite
> misleading because her experience was atypical for the "average" person
> working in this type of job. Low wage earners often pool their
> resources (housing and transportation) to lower their expenses, which
> Ehrenreich did not as she explicitly states in her book. Given the cost
> saving measures that low wage earners usually take, the minimum wage is
> in fact a living wage. Implying that this wage does not meet some
> arbitrary high standards (such as Ehrenreich's insistence on lving and
> communiting alone) has no merits, because we can arbitrarily cite a
> standard (say, a five bedroom flat on the East Side) that is beyond most
> wage levels.
>
> 3. While Ehrenreich's description of her experience in low wage
> positions is accurate, and it is indeed difficult to make ends meet
> depending only on low wage earnings - using that to argue for a higher
> "living wage" misses the point because such low wages were never
> intendeded to be the main source of income. Instead, they are sources
> of supplementary income for people who otherwise would be exluded from
> the job market altogether (e.g. students or th elderly). Since those
> people already have a source of income (such as social security or
> parental support) - earning a few extra dollars working a low wage part
> time job actually makes them better off. If the employers were forced
> to pay higher wages, this extra income opportunity woul dbe greatly
> reduced or eliminated altogether.
>
>
> I presonally think that #1 is quite convincing from the Left's point of
> view, because it is asking for a collective (build infrastructure)
> rather than individualistic (increase individual wages) solution.
I thought it was interesting that the sam walton story was proposed as 'the other side'. I always thought that right-wingers didn't like associating one man's wealth/success with another's poverty.
-gr