<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Barbara Ehrenreich</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/barbara_ehrenreich/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 10:39:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The poor: America&#8217;s piggy bank</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/17/the_poor_americas_piggy_bank/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/17/the_poor_americas_piggy_bank/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 14:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Poverty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12922030</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How government and corporations use underhanded strategies to extract money from the poverty-stricken]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Individually the poor are not too tempting to thieves, for obvious reasons. Mug a banker and you might score a wallet containing a month’s rent. Mug a janitor and you will be lucky to get away with bus fare to flee the crime scene. But as Business Week <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_21/b4035001.htm">helpfully pointed out</a> in 2007, the poor in aggregate provide a juicy target for anyone depraved enough to make a business of stealing from them.</p><p>The trick is to rob them in ways that are systematic, impersonal, and almost impossible to trace to individual perpetrators. Employers, for example, can simply program their computers to shave a few dollars off each paycheck, or they can require workers to show up 30 minutes or more before the time clock starts ticking.</p><p>Lenders, including major credit companies as well as payday lenders, have taken over the traditional role of the street-corner loan shark, charging the poor insanely high rates of interest. When supplemented with late fees (themselves subject to interest), the resulting effective interest rate can be as high as 600% a year, which is perfectly legal in many states.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/17/the_poor_americas_piggy_bank/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/17/the_poor_americas_piggy_bank/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>51</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What &#8220;other America&#8221;?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/15/the_truth_about_the_poor/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/15/the_truth_about_the_poor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Poverty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12678371</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As more and more Americans slip out of the middle class, it's time to realize: There is no "culture of poverty"]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It’s been exactly 50 years since Americans, or at least the non-poor among them, “discovered” poverty, thanks to Michael Harrington’s engaging book "<a href="http://click.linksynergy.com/deeplink?mid=36889&amp;id=FYUtulI7nw4&amp;murl=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.barnesandnoble.com%2Fbooksearch%2FISBNInquiry.asp%3FEAN%3D9781451688764%26 ">The Other America</a>." If this discovery now seems a little overstated, like Columbus’s “discovery” of America, it was because the poor, according to Harrington, were so “hidden” and “invisible” that it took a crusading left-wing journalist to ferret them out.</p><p>Harrington’s book jolted a nation that then prided itself on its classlessness and even fretted about the spirit-sapping effects of “too much affluence.” He estimated that one quarter of the population lived in poverty -- inner-city blacks, Appalachian whites, farm workers and elderly Americans among them. We could no longer boast, as President Nixon had done in his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Debate">“kitchen debate”</a> with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Moscow just three years earlier, about the splendors of American capitalism.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/15/the_truth_about_the_poor/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/15/the_truth_about_the_poor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>61</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the 99 percent was born</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/how_the_99_percent_was_born/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/how_the_99_percent_was_born/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Movement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10413121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Great Recession destroyed the right's myth of a "liberal elite," and forced the middle class to band together]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The “other men” (and of course women) in the current American class alignment are those in the top 1 percent of the wealth distribution -- the bankers, hedge-fund managers, and CEOs targeted by the Occupy Wall Street movement. They have been around for a long time in one form or another, but they only began to emerge as a distinct and visible group, informally called the “super-rich,” in recent years.</p><p>Extravagant levels of consumption helped draw attention to them: private jets, multiple 50,000 square-foot mansions, $25,000 chocolate desserts <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/25000-for-a-hot-chocolate/">embellished</a> with gold dust. But as long as the middle class could still muster the credit for college tuition and occasional home improvements, it seemed churlish to complain. Then came the financial crash of 2007-2008, followed by the Great Recession, and the 1 percent to whom we had entrusted our pensions, our economy, and our political system stood revealed as a band of feckless, greedy narcissists, and possibly sociopaths.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/how_the_99_percent_was_born/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/how_the_99_percent_was_born/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Homelessness becomes an OWS issue</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/24/homelessness_becomes_an_ows_issue/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/24/homelessness_becomes_an_ows_issue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10141408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Protesters are discovering just how difficult the government makes life for its most downtrodden citizens]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As anyone knows who has ever had to set up a military encampment or build a village from the ground up, occupations pose staggering logistical problems. Large numbers of people must be fed and kept reasonably warm and dry. Trash has to be removed; medical care and rudimentary security provided -- to which ends a dozen or more committees may toil night and day. But for the individual occupier, one problem often overshadows everything else, including job loss, the destruction of the middle class, and the reign of the 1 percent. And that is the single question: <em>Where am I going to pee?</em></p><p>Some of the Occupy Wall Street encampments now spreading across the U.S. have access to Port-o-Potties (Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C.) or, better yet, restrooms with sinks and running water (Fort Wayne, Indiana). Others require their residents to forage on their own. At Zuccotti Park, just blocks from Wall Street, this means long waits for the restroom at a nearby Burger King or somewhat shorter ones at a Starbucks a block away. At McPherson Square in D.C., a twenty-something occupier showed me the pizza parlor where she can cop a pee during the hours it's open, as well as the alley where she crouches late at night. Anyone with restroom-related issues -- arising from age, pregnancy, prostate problems, or irritable bowel syndrome -- should prepare to join the revolution in diapers.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/24/homelessness_becomes_an_ows_issue/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/24/homelessness_becomes_an_ows_issue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>101</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How America turned poverty into a crime</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/09/america_crime_poverty/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/09/america_crime_poverty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/08/09/america_crime_poverty</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The poor aren't just struggling during the recession; they're being actively hounded by urban officials]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I completed the manuscript for <a href="http://click.linksynergy.com/deeplink?mid=36889&amp;id=FYUtulI7nw4&amp;murl=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.barnesandnoble.com%2Fbooksearch%2FISBNInquiry.asp%3FEAN%3D9780312626686%26">"Nickel and Dimed"</a> in a time of seemingly boundless prosperity. Technology innovators and venture capitalists were acquiring sudden fortunes, buying up McMansions like the ones I had cleaned in Maine and much larger. Even secretaries in some hi-tech firms were striking it rich with their stock options. There was loose talk about a permanent conquest of the business cycle, and a sassy new spirit infecting American capitalism. In San Francisco, a billboard for an e-trading firm proclaimed, "Make love not war," and then -- down at the bottom -- "Screw it, just make money."</p><p>When "Nickel and Dimed" was published in May 2001, cracks were appearing in the dot-com bubble and the stock market had begun to falter, but the book still evidently came as a surprise, even a revelation, to many. Again and again, in that first year or two after publication, people came up to me and opened with the words, "I never thought..." or "I hadn't realized..."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/09/america_crime_poverty/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/09/america_crime_poverty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>151</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will drones change how we see war?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/11/drone_wars/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/11/drone_wars/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/07/11/drone_wars</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As machines take the place of humans on the battlefield, our relationship to combat is shifting]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For a book about the all-too-human "passions of war," my 1997 work "Blood Rites" ended on a strangely inhuman note: I suggested that, whatever distinctly human qualities war calls upon -- honor, courage, solidarity, cruelty and so forth -- it might be useful to stop thinking of war in exclusively human terms. After all, certain species of ants wage war, and computers can simulate "wars"that play themselves out on-screen without any human involvement.</p><p>More generally, then, we should define war as a self-replicating pattern of activity that may or may not require human participation. In the human case, we know it is capable of spreading geographically and evolving rapidly over time -- qualities that, as I suggested somewhat fancifully, make war a metaphorical successor to the predatory animals that shaped humans into fighters in the first place.</p><p>A decade and a half later, these musings do not seem quite so airy and abstract anymore. The trend, at the close of the 20th century, still seemed to be one of ever more massive human involvement in war -- from armies containing tens of thousands in the 16th century, to hundreds of thousands in the 19th, and eventually millions in the 20th-century world wars.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/07/11/drone_wars/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/11/drone_wars/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Slap on a pink ribbon, call it a day</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/12/02/womens_health_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/12/02/womens_health_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breast cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare Reform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//2009/12/02/womens_health</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That little loop seems to have replaced real feminism, which is why women's health priorities are so screwed up]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Has feminism been replaced by the pink-ribbon breast cancer cult? When the House of Representatives passed the Stupak amendment, which would take abortion rights away even from women who have private insurance, the female response ranged from muted to inaudible.</p><p>A few weeks later, when the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended that regular screening mammography not start until age 50, all hell broke loose. Sheryl Crow, Whoopi Goldberg, and Olivia Newton-John raised their voices in protest; a few dozen non-boldface women <a href="http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1109/680841_video.html?ref=newsstoryhttp://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1109/680841_video.html?ref=newsstorypicketed">picketed</a> the Department of Health and Human Services. If you didn&#8217;t look too closely, it almost seemed as if the women&#8217;s health movement of the 1970s and 1980s had returned in full force.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/12/02/womens_health_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/12/02/womens_health_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>81</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Did feminism make women miserable?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/15/ehrenreich_women_happiness/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/15/ehrenreich_women_happiness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2009/10/15/ehrenreich_women_happiness</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why a recent study on declining female happiness really stinks]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Feminism made women miserable. This, anyway, seems to be the most popular takeaway from "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness," a <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1405977">recent study</a> by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, which purports to show that women have become steadily unhappier since 1972. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20dowd.html?_r=1">Maureen Dowd</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-sad-shocking-truth-ab_b_290021.html">Arianna Huffington</a> greeted the news with somber perplexity, but the more common response has been a triumphant: I told you so.</p><p>On <a href="http://www.doublex.com/section/news-politics/whine-womyn-and-thongs">Slate's DoubleX Web site</a>, Christine Rosen concluded from the study that "the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s gave us a steady stream of women's complaints disguised as manifestos &#8230; and a brand of female sexual power so promiscuous that it celebrates everything from prostitution to nipple piercing as a feminist act -- in other words, whine, womyn, and thongs." Or as Phyllis Schlafly <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32305">put it</a>, more soberly: "[T]he feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy in which their true worth will never be recognized and any success is beyond their reach ... [S]elf-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/10/15/ehrenreich_women_happiness/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/15/ehrenreich_women_happiness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>165</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chasing Monica</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/01/29/cov_29newsa_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/01/29/cov_29newsa_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/01/29/cov_29newsa</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The House managers got their wish -- a chance to probe, examine and even "de-brief" the luscious Lewinsky.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="+1">W</font>hen the House managers wrapped up their presentation in the president's impeachment trial two weeks ago, the only question was "How will Clinton get out of this?" But then the great Houdini delivered his <a href="http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/1999/01/cov_20newsa.html">State of the Union address,</a> in which he cleverly outflanked the Republicans on the right by proposing a first step toward the privatization -- i.e., elimination -- of Social Security along with vast new largesse for the Pentagon. Hillary beamed; the pundits swooned; and the question du jour became, How will the Republicans ever get out of this, and why don't they do so now?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/01/29/cov_29newsa_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/01/29/cov_29newsa_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Communism on your coffee table!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1998/04/30/feature_5/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1998/04/30/feature_5/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Soviet Union]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/feature/1998/04/30/feature</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Barbara Ehrenreich on how all-conquering capitalism has turned Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" into a glossy adornment that goes with most decorating schemes.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="+1" color="#000000">A</font>h, Karl! You thought those frantic scratchings and snortings were the sounds of capitalism digging its own grave, but all it was doing was preparing a nice niche for you -- a market niche, in fact. The leftish British press Verso has seized upon the 150th anniversary of "The Communist Manifesto" to re-issue that rousing old tract in an upscale version, suitable for display at the cash register. "It's very chic and looks like something for the sybaritic classes," Verso's PR person observes proudly, adding that it should "get us some great displays in the book chains." Adding impenetrable levels of irony, the cover has been designed by those playful ex-Soviet artists Komar and Melamid, whose gorgeously rippling red banner against a black background should be readily accessorizable with the cashmeres in primary tones coming to us for fall. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1998/04/30/feature_5/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1998/04/30/feature_5/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

