NICKEL AND DIMED (has anybody done this on edg. )At the heart of Nickel and Dimed is Ehrenreich's conviction that government needs to regulate businesses more in order to protect employees, especially low-wage workers. The argument against too much government regulation of businesses is that it hinders companies and therefore their workers, too. Do you agree or disagree with Ehrenreich? Why? Give specific examples and reasons to support your opinion.

Please mark brainliest, I got a 100 for this on edge :)

Explanation:

I agree with Ehrenreich's argument. Besides the customers, a business's number one priority should be its workers, especially low-wage workers. Companies and businesses are regulated by the government, but none of the regulations protect workers. Ehrenreich notes that there are vital problems with the way government determines who is in poverty as well as the way in which the public sector aids these people. Ehrenreich argues that the laws of economics do not always apply to low-wage workers because they often are restricted geographically, are fraught with the anxiety of entering a new job environment, and do not have ample information available to them. She also considers why low-wage employees do not stick up for themselves, and can only offer observations. In her experiences she noticed workers were kept in line by the power of management, the requirement for employees to surrender their self-respect, as well as a variety of methods designed to directly control employees. Ehrenreich states that The Economic Policy Institute deemed that a “living wage” for a parent and two children is $30,000 and year, or $14 an hour. This is a bare-bones estimate, which does not allow the family money for entertainment or even nutritionally-balanced meals. However, Ehrenreich notes that many employees are making well below this hourly rate; many companies are not able to pay more.

hello it is $0 for apex