Firstly in the salary claims: Jurgis was earning one dollar and 50 cents per day, this is confirmed in the historical records. In 1904 it was indeed $1.50 per day , showing Sinclar was not bias here. He accurately describes the growth of the Unions, and the strength of the owners . He uses Jurgis as one of the strikebreakers that were so despised by the factory workers. This commentary is accurate in the sense that leading up to Sinclair’s factory visit this was major news in America, and was already being debated in government . Why Sinclair did not make more of this angle in the book is unclear. There was a lot of political capital to be had, if he had written more specifically about the unions and the need for them. Furthermore, he describes well the working conditions, the reality of people having no stability within their employment. If you were sick there was no payment, if you were off work long enough, there was no employment. Sinclair actually under exaggerates- in chapter four he mentions Jurgis working over 10 hours a day, whilst the historical references suggest workers worked an eighty hour a week or more in the packinghouses …show more content…
With unskilled qualifications, opportunities were slim and the atmosphere was dull, as reflected in the setting of the novel. Through the protagonist, Jurgis in The Jungle, the reader realizes that the American Dream is far from achievable, due to poor living conditions, poor health, low wages, death, depression and shattered hopes. Sinclair’s socialistic ideology and his vivid descriptions makes one question the amount of bias in The Jungle, but in fact several details are historically factual. Additionally the story in itself created history, by influencing politicians to change food production