Nickel and Dimed (2011 Version) (TomDispatch essay, from the 10th-anniversary afterword; republished by History News Network)

Barbara Ehrenreich · 8 Aug 2011

Read the piece on historynewsnetwork.org ↗

Barbara Ehrenreich did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

Our reading
The official definition of poverty is way off the mark

Their wordsthe official definition of poverty was way off the mark, since it defined an individual earning $7 an hour, as I did on average, as well out of poverty.
Our reading
Ten years on, things have got much worse for the working poor

Their wordsThe short answer is that things have gotten much worse, especially since the economic downturn that began in 2008.
Our reading
The Nickel and Dimed experiment could not be repeated: the jobs are gone

Their wordsIt would have been impossible to repeat my Nickel and Dimed “experiment,” had I had been so inclined, because I would probably never have found a job.
Our reading
The blue-collar working class has borne the brunt of the recession

Their wordsthe brunt of the recession has been borne by the blue-collar working class, which had already been sliding downwards since de-industrialization began in the 1980s.
Our reading
Welfare procedures turn poverty itself into a kind of crime

Their wordsThe ostensible goal is to prevent welfare fraud, but the psychological impact is to turn poverty itself into a kind of crime.
Our reading
The criminalization of poverty has intensified as the economy weakened

Their wordsIn defiance of all reason and compassion, the criminalization of poverty has actually intensified as the weakened economy generates ever more poverty.

Keep reading

The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.