At the conclusion of Nickel and Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich offers the following explanation of what she thinks our proper response to her depiction of minimum wage work should be:
Guilt, you may be thinking warily.  Isn’t that what we’re supposed to feel? But guilt doesn’t go anywhere near far enough; the appropriate emotion is shame — shame at our own dependency, in this case, on the underpaid labor of others.  When someone works for less pay than she can live on — when, for example, she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently — then she has made a great sacrifice for you, she has made you a gift of some part of her abilities, her health, and her life.  The “working poor,” as they are approvingly termed, are in fact the major philanthropists of our society.  They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high.  To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor; to everyone else.
First, explore the specific reasons Ehrenreich offers readers for why they should feel “shameful.”  Why, in her view, is this the appropriate response for us to have when we are shown the lives of the underclass? And where specifically in the passage above do you find evidence of her argument? Next, evaluate how compelling or convincing you think this claim is.  Do you agree? Why or why not? And finally, compare Ehrenreichs argument to another writer we read this semester, one whose views about money, social class and/or success differ from those Ehrenreich is expressing above. Which of these views do you find more appealing or convincing, and why?