Known as a Land of Opportunities, the US allows some people to become successful, leaving the rest to survive by themselves and support the few fortunate ones. As a model of capitalism, the country may ignore the needs of those who do not contribute much to money and resource circulation. However, no one is exempt from being struck by the system. Unless a person is a billionaire set for life, they may find themselves struggling to survive at an inopportune moment, blurring the lines between the classes.
Nickel and Dimed and The Queen of Versailles supposedly present two financial extremes existing in American society, although they are not as different as one might think. Ehrenreich documents the life of various low-income communities throughout the country while attempting to experience it herself. On the other hand, the documentary shows the decline of a relatively affluent family due to the crisis and overall mismanagement they face due to not performing most tasks themselves. While it may seem that the stories are not related in any way, they share the concept of income, which affects their lives differently. People in Nickel and Dimed are used to constant survival, and the characters from The Queen of Versailles will have to learn what it means.
The documentary’s premise is that the family wanted to move to a bigger, more pompous house, which became an unachievable dream. The theme resonates with low-income people, too, as they wish to leave inconvenient accommodations (Ehrenreich 20). Ehrenreich’s co-workers from Hearthside had poor living conditions, ranging from “crowded situations” to trailers or boats (Ehrenreich 20). Unlike them, the Siegels kept their vast mansion after financial difficulties, but the size of the family and the help made the situation almost equally taxing (Greenfield 00:48:27-00:48:40). In both cases, it seems that those who are richer had no vested interest in changing the status quo, and working several jobs or auctioning goods could not resolve the issue. Perhaps, housing is one of those phenomena that affects everyone regardless of their income.
A curious fact about both works is that they mostly describe white people’s experience in those economic situations. While Ehrenreich has encounters with other ethnic or racial groups, she eventually moves to a mostly homogeneous Maine (Ehrenreich 33). She discovers that even if one is of the same race as the customers or the employers but at a disadvantageous position, their treatment can still be similar to a pimp (Ehrenreich 66). Meanwhile, The Queen of Versailles may focus on the struggles of white people from the other side of the spectrum, but the non-white servants’ perspective is also of interest. They are ambitious, but their dreams seem unachievable, especially during the crisis (Greenfield 00:37:00-00:38:00). Interestingly, Mrs. Siegel had to experience the same conditions that Ehrenreich describes, so her husband was not affluent from the beginning, but she appears to cope with the situation better (Greenfield 00:51:25-00:53:00). While it is important to note that the richest people are generally white, and people of color communities suffer from poverty the most, everyone is miserable in their way.
A major aspect that concerns one’s income is expectations or lack thereof. In The Queen of Versailles, the parents imply that they had no plans to send the children to college before the crisis, and the new state of affairs made them reconsider (Greenfield 01:19:25-01:19:50). For many families who struggle to save money to ensure their child’s bright future, the couple’s disappointed tone would seem outrageous. Meanwhile, most of the people with whom Ehrenreich interacts do not seem to have a degree, which could be a part of the problem. While the rich have great expectations for their children, low-income communities live in uncertainty, reluctant to produce children who would have to share their fate of poor living conditions and low-paying jobs. However, a child can serve as motivation, which is a recurrent theme in The Queen of Versailles. Everyone deserves to have expectations and hope for the best future, although they should be realistic.
The documentary reveals an unfortunate fact – the rich are not as adapted to the world as they would think. It is evident in the episode with dead pets and the children complaining about never going to a pet store (Greenfield 00:49:50-00:51:05). It might be a situation unthinkable for ordinary people, but for the Siegels, it is akin to being out of their comfort zone. On the other hand, the poor exist in a constant state of discomfort and scorn from those who are more well-off, but they continue to survive (Ehrenreich 120). Both situations are fundamentally wrong, although the former may seem ridiculous, and this wrongness unites people.
In conclusion, reflecting on the meaning of classes in the US, one might continue to believe in the strict hierarchy based on income. However, the two analyzed works show that while the obvious differences exist, once the rich lose a significant amount of money, they find themselves struggling. The process is not as harsh as for low-income communities, but the burdens left from the affluent times may great aggravate it. With the veneer of capitalism and alleged opportunities removed, all Americans are people who want to have a good future for themselves and their children. Unfortunately, the system is relentless to everyone, and even the most privileged kingmakers are not safe.
Works Cited
Ehrenreich, Barbara. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. Henry Holt and Company, 2001.
The Queen of Versailles. Directed by Lauren Greenfield, Magnolia Pictures, 2012.