Money, Success, and the Working Class in Serving in Florida
This paper responds to Barbara Ehrenreich's "Serving in Florida" by examining the economic struggles of working-class characters Gail, Ellen, and George and what they might do to improve their material well-being. Drawing on the contrasting views of Horatio Alger's rags-to-riches optimism and Ehrenreich's critical portrayal of low-wage labor, the paper argues that while upward mobility is theoretically possible, structural barriers make it difficult for many Americans to escape poverty. The author contends that regardless of ambition or effort, workers in low-paying jobs deserve a living wage and a comfortable standard of living, and that corporations with substantial profits bear some responsibility for inadequate worker compensation.
- Introduction: Framing the response to Ehrenreich's text
- Escaping Financial Hell: Challenges to escaping working-class poverty
- Alger vs. Ehrenreich: A Critical View: Critiquing Alger's optimism through Ehrenreich's lens
- Corporate Responsibility and Worker Compensation: Corporate profits versus fair worker pay
- Conclusion: Structural honesty over fatalism or optimism
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in a specific literary text (Ehrenreich's "Serving in Florida") while expanding to broader economic and social claims, giving it both textual and analytical dimensions.
- It directly engages two contrasting ideological positions — Alger's optimism and Ehrenreich's critique — and takes a clear, argued stance rather than merely summarizing both sides.
- The argument acknowledges nuance: the author does not claim upward mobility is impossible, only that structural realities make it inaccessible for many, and that this does not justify poverty wages.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses comparative ideological framing to organize its argument. By positioning Horatio Alger's self-reliance ethos against Ehrenreich's structural critique, the author creates a clear dialectic that allows each counterpoint to sharpen the central claim: that systemic inequality, not individual failure, is the primary barrier to economic well-being for working-class Americans.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief framing introduction, followed by a section challenging the myth of easy upward mobility. It then critiques Alger's optimism across multiple paragraphs addressing income inequality, the necessity of entry-level work, and corporate profit distribution. A short conclusion ties the argument together by rejecting fatalism while affirming structural honesty. The structure is linear and point-driven, suited to a short argumentative response essay.
Introduction
This paper responds to the question and dilemma posed in Barbara Ehrenreich's Serving in Florida and considers what Gail, Ellen, and George could do to improve their material and economic well-being. The discussion offers suggestions about what it takes to make it in the United States, especially for someone raised in the working class as opposed to a person brought up in suburbia or among the wealthy. While it is theoretically possible to escape the financial hardships associated with working-class life, not everyone achieves this, and whether by choice or circumstance, people in the working class should be able to earn a living wage.
Escaping Financial Hell
Many people acknowledge the struggles of immigrants and working-class Americans. Indeed, many people do not earn enough to constitute a living wage, find a better life, or realize the proverbial American Dream. Some dismiss such concerns as superficial or untrue, but that dismissal is simply incorrect. A few go so far as to argue that it is impossible for people to leave the working class and become financially secure. While many individuals have disproven this claim, it is equally true that a great many people never escape their financial struggles during the course of their lives.
The circumstances into which one is born — or at least into which one enters American economic life — can be severely limiting when it comes to escaping poverty. Even so, not everyone aspires to be an executive or a professional, yet they still want to earn a living wage. For many Americans, that modest goal remains out of reach.
Alger vs. Ehrenreich: A Critical View
The Horatio Alger ideal holds that succeeding despite adversity is absolutely possible, as people demonstrate every day in the United States. This view runs counter to the outlook offered by Barbara Ehrenreich. Ehrenreich makes valid points: there will always be people who must fill lower-end jobs in society. Given this reality, those who for whatever reason do not escape the working class should be able to earn a living wage and live at least somewhat comfortably, even without significant upward income or economic mobility.
Alger's perspective is flawed for several reasons. First, the chasm between poverty and wealth in this country is growing ever wider. The share of overall wealth held by the poor is shrinking while the share held by the wealthy is rising. This is not to say that people from poor backgrounds cannot succeed, but there will always be a need for janitors, seamstresses, and other workers in generally low-paying occupations. Those people deserve to live decent lives even if they do not aspire to higher incomes. Family priorities and personal choices often matter far more to some people than career advancement, and this reality should not be ignored.
Another flaw in Alger's thinking is that even people who do climb the economic ladder must start at the bottom, and those workers are frequently underpaid during that climb. Some argue that this is what family support networks and shared living arrangements are for, but that should not be necessary in a country with the wealth and resources of the United States. Nearly everyone begins at the bottom, and whether a person is moving upward or is content to remain where they are, they should be able to live comfortably on their earnings. As scholars of income inequality in the United States have documented, the structural barriers to economic advancement are substantial and growing.
Conclusion
There will always be winners and losers when it comes to who holds what job and why, and not all of that dynamic is controlled by individuals simply reaping what they sow. Even people who engage in good habits and make sound decisions will not always achieve the best outcomes. Good people often face hard times despite their best efforts, and this is true more often than proponents of the Alger myth would have you believe. Acknowledging this is not fatalistic or nihilistic — it is simply being honest about what is truly happening in American economic life. The goal should not be to convince every working-class person to strive harder, but to ensure that the economic system provides a dignified baseline for everyone who participates in it.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.