"Nickel and Dimed" Introduction and Chapter 1 Review

“Nickel and Dimed” Review

This book is about an experiment a journalist, Barbara Ehrenreich, carried out in the year of 1998. The basic point of the whole thing is for Barbara to go out into the minimum wage workforce and see if she can get a job and live off of it. The experiment includes moving to different locations, working at minimum wage (sometimes less) jobs, and attempting to survive off of it by paying rent and buying food. She says the experiment is not entirely realistic, the reason being when she runs out of her “new” money she will resort to her ATM card to survive and then move on to the next location. She supplies herself with a car and $1,100 for every new place she goes. She sets rules and guidelines including: Rule One- She can not search for jobs based on her background or education that could benefit her. Rule Two- She has to take the highest paying job that was offered to her and hold on to it for as long as she could. And Rule Three- She has to take the cheapest accommodations that offered an “acceptable” level of safety and privacy. She states in the introduction some of these rules were broken and/or bent but she conformed to them to the best of her ability.

In the first chapter she discusses her jobs at a hotel and restaurant in Key West, Florida. In the period of time she spent there she went through three jobs, two as a waitress and one as a housekeeper. She explains her relationships with the people who worked with her, noting on their health issues but genuinely good hearts. She says that the people who she worked with aren’t necessarily dumb or worthless, which many people seem to associate with jobs like that. The jobs actually require a lot of physical and mental strength, such as dealing with rude customers, managers, or other co-workers. The physical pains are obvious – Always on your feet, carrying heavy trays, cleaning for hours on end. And she also notes anyone trying to survive alone on minimum wage can not just have one job, but two. And that’s just supporting yourself solely, if you have a family that’s a whole different story. Also she points out two immigrants, Claude and George. They are both working for less than minimum wage and in her opinion being treated unfairly and with extreme disrespect. George is even accused of stealing and is going to be fired. In the middle of a crazed rush at the restaurant she can no longer take the conditions of her jobs and she simply walks out, leaving behind the people who actually have to do this everyday for a living whether they like it or not.

I agree with everything she says. I’ve worked at several food places as a hostess or server including; Lonestar, Midtown Diner, Fazoli’s, and J.D. Legends. She describes it exactly as it is. You never get to leave on time, you have to deal with harsh circumstances, even the thing she said about refilling the bleu cheese containers, I’ve done all that. Of course it’s different for me because I’m not supporting myself but I know the amount of strength it takes to work at those kinds of places. And I can not imagine doing that twice a day without a decent break. That would be, excuse my language, hell. I honestly don’t know how some people do it. And by reading just the first chapter I have so much more respect for the working class then I ever did before. Granted I was a part of the working class but I still have my parents to support me, those people do not.

"Cool Hunting" Video Questions

1. What is 'cool-hunting' and how is it done? What theories and methods of media research are the 'cool hunter' using?
'Cool hunting' is searching for a certain trend, personality, or way of entertainment that appeals to the teenage population. It is basically trying to find what 'cool' is, hence the name. Theories the researchers use are studying different teeenage lifestyles by going into their homes and asking them a series of questions. They also pay teens to go to certain events and analyze how they behave and if they appear to like what is being presented in front of them or not.

2. According to the commentators in the video, why do television, music, and fashion corporations want to understand how teenagers think and what they want?
Teenagers are the biggest group of people to market things to. They have a lot of disposable income because they are living at home and don't really have a lot of expenses like adults and working people do. They have money and they don't have anything to do with it so in order for companies to make their money and keep themselves in business they have to learn to appeal to the teenage generation.

3. How do MTV executives and other executives and other programming and marketing decision-makers characterize their relationship to teen culture? Do they say they are creating it or simply reflecting it?
They say that their relationship is out of touch and they have to hire other people they specialize in teenage interest because they themselves are not experts. They hire people to figure out what they want and what appeals to them so they can take it and mass produce it and hopefully sell it to them. They say that they are reflecting it. But in my opinion I think that they are creating it.

4. What is the difference between marketing research and human research, according tot the commentators in the video? What are the goals of each?
They say that there really isn't that big of a difference. When the marketers study how to sell their products or what products to create they are basically doing marketing research on humans, and that research leads to doing research on the actual humans they are studying. They have to get to know what appeals to them in order to be able to find or make something to sell to them.

5. Who is giving the most accurate description of the relationship between teen culture and commercialization, the 'merchants of cool' or their critics? What roles are these institutions playing in the socialization process? Argue for one of these two positions using specific points and examples from the video.
In my opinion I think the critics gave the most accurate description. Simply because they brought both sides of the commercialization process. They gave the negatives and the positives, making it easier to make a decision about agreement or disagreement. These insitutions are playing great roles in the socialization process. They affect how teens act and what they wear and how they talk to each other. They affect behaviors and actions of teens. If they see in their favorite band's music video people smoking pot and drinking and having a great time, they will be more likely to actually go out and do that. People in general, not just teenagers, are very impressionable. If something bad is associated with something good then it will more likely occur. And I'm not necessarily saying all the media is bad but most of it isn't good because they are trying to appeal to teenagers not give them the right choices.