Tuesday, January 07, 2014

All Classes---Blog Post due 1/17- NEXT WEEK

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/help-the-working-poor-but-share-the-burden.html?src=mb



1.  Read the article.  Consider the author's tone, structure of the article, validity of evidence, persuasive techniques, and your personal reaction.
2. Please add an intelligent comment (minimum 3 sentences) in response to the linked article from The New York Times.  Be sure to reference specifics from the article.
3. Optional: Comment on a classmates post in a second post (minimum 3 sentences)
*Use only your first name, last initial and class period.

15 comments:

  1. I think that plan a is the more logical plan because the goal is to bridge the gap between the wealthy and the poor so taxing the richer more would help the poor in return. Taxing companies that hire lower income workers is not smart because those companies would go down quickly. That would then unemploy the lower class
    Jack Murray period 8

    ReplyDelete
  2. Since the rich run this country, and the poor get what's leftover. More kids go through high school but when it comes to college they simply drop out because they either lose interest or they run out of money. And there are an increasing amount of undergraduates trying to find work, so they can finish college. As the article stated; "Reforming the education system so that more students graduate from high school and college is thus crucial to a more egalitarian prosperity. But upgrading the skills of the labor force is a decades-long project, not a quick fix. And educational reform is easier said than done." So, the college kids are stuck in this elongated process that is probably going to take years.

    And then the article talks about how minimum is effecting everyone, and talks about two different plans; Plan A and Plan B. In my mind I think Plan B would be the better of the two because it taxes huge companies that only hire low-wage workers. I personally like that because I'd hope they would actually pay what they owe. But it could back fire incredibly, let’s say the company is a retail company. Then the product could go up in price and then consumers would have to pay more. That could happen, or they would pay their workers for a lower amount. And all of the hard work for this bill or law to be passed would go to waste. If the United States of America decides to do this plan then we would be downing the “fairness meter”. (Invented just now) As the article states; “If we decide as a nation that we want to augment the income of low-wage workers, it seems only right that we all share that responsibility.”
    Lauren Andrews Period 8

    ReplyDelete
  3. The problem with plan A is that the distribution of wealth is so bad right now that both the middle and lower class are struggling. It would be a good idea to raise taxes on the upper class but as of a fair one, I'm not so sure. After all the wealthy are not at fault for the poor being poor. If it were you with millions of dollars I'm sure you'd be tempted to side with plan B as well. Nobody wants to put money into the system when it means that it's coming out of your paycheck but almost everybody wants something out of the system. These financial plans are not necessarily long term solutions. Throwing money at people will not have much of an effect on the lower class. Instead we should be trying to reduce the number of people in the lower class by giving them the proper education (we need to revise that too but that's a different topic) and we need to allow the arts to have a more prominent place in our society like they used to.

    That being said, plan B isn't great either. I can see a lot of things going wrong with it. Companies would be tempted to hire people 'off the books' or just relocate their company entirely to a place where they could get cheap labor. Even if they did keep the companies in America there are plenty of machines being made that can take the place of actual workers as Mr. Mankiw had said.
    Generally speaking, I would side with Plan A although I would be cautious of the tax on the middle class. As for Obama picking plan B, that was somewhat predictable. Whenever money and politics are involved laws can often have an ulterior motive, such as avoiding higher taxes on the upper class in this case.
    Shoshanna Longo
    Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  4. Raise your taxes! There are a lot of questions about what is going to work by getting people out of the poor and the plan A and plan B might work out, however, I know that raising your taxes will help. Even though it might seem like a big gap up there this is a solution that works out for everyone. The rich will not be that rich and the poor will not be that poor. The gap evens out and it is beneficial for both sides. Of course this is close to impossible to actually do something about, but if it happened there would be no discussion about this.

    Christian F.
    period 6

    ReplyDelete
  5. George H. P.7

    You can pick plan A or plan B both ways everyone is screwed. I've studied economic trade between the United States and foreign nations for a few years now and in doing so I have realized this nation is losing more money through foreign trade then any other expense. If we started building more stuff in are country again we could gain more jobs, save money on shipping, and we could start being independent with are economy rather then getting it involved with other nations money affairs. The economy is not an easy fix but doing more stuff within our borders would save lots in taxes and it would also provide many jobs for the folks who are unemployed or just starting out getting a job. Either way I think we should stop raising taxes and start building more jobs in our nation first then see what other problems await us afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Something that immediately struck me was the line that said, "If we could figure out a way to do it, the most effective solution would be to increase the skills of those low-wage workers" I think that this issue is a lot simpler than it is made out to be. In reality, the skills of low-wage workers are, well, low, because of the price of education today. Yes, scholarships and loans are available, but scholarships rarely make much of a dent, and loans are just stretching out financial problems. We should get at the issue from the root, the high cost of college. If the government were to subsidize more universities, more people would be likely to attend, which means more people would have more skills. Subsidies won't help on income in my opinion because then inflation will have to be taken into account and not much change can be made. But, the average college tuition is absolutely outlandish and in the long run, subsidizing that would be good for the economy, and it would help American citizens become better educated and less stressed about finances.
    Jennifer G.
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jackson Mariotti
    I agree with N. Gregory Mankiw for the most part of the article. He made an excellent point at the beginning of the article by saying that improving education should be the goal and is the most effective way. Yet, like he said, that takes a while. Even still, I do not like either plan A or B. True, Plan A is better, but that doesn't mean it is the best option. Plan B, was terrible and Plan A suggests that government takes money from everyone and gives it to the low wage workers, so I am not particularly in favor of either option but if I had to choose, my choice would be Plan A. I think Plan A would be effective in the short term, but we have to focus more on the education aspect of our society. If we can improve the education, the government won't have to tax people. In my mind, Plan A is a good short term project only to be in effect while the education process is happening. If it becomes a long term plan, then I would strongly disagree with it, but as a short plan I prefer it to other options.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the most important part of this article is within the first few lines when Mankiw talks about education and skill being the factor that will ultimately help the poor. I don't really like the fact that he stops talking about how improving education can help the poor because it will take to much time. I think that the only way to really fix it is by changing our education system, and yes it may take a long time but in the long run it will be a lot more effective that the plans A and B he talks about. In addition, plans A and B are basically just a less effective/quicker way to help the poor, its almost like finishing your homework in 5 minutes but getting it all wrong. Neither of these plans sound significantly effective at helping the poor. I believe it all lies in improving our education system and improving the skills of workers.
    Jessica M.
    Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  9. I totally, 100% agree with the author of this article. Plan A IS better than Plan B in the sense that if we the people want the subsidy, then WE get the result (financing the increasing taxes). Plan B proposes that businesses have to pay, which is totally unfair to the owners of those businesses and letting people that don't own businesses get away scot-free. We all know now how the government and the politicians work, such as masking the word 'tax' with the phrase 'higher minimum wage' to appeal to the public, but the public needs to do it's part and look in between the lines. After all, at least in my opinion, Obama is only using the phrase to look better in the eyes of the public and look like he's actually doing something after 6 years in office...
    While I do believe in raising the minimum wage of workers, I do NOT believe raising it to some ridiculous amount over $10 an hour. It is funny to think that some people, like McDonald's workers, believe that them standing around all day merits $15 an hour. While it is very hard to work off minimum wage on your own, businesses should not make it any easier for you because you chose to work a full time minimum wage job all your life, and/or including your spouse.
    Megan Glynn Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  10. Honestly, neither of these plans is going to make everyone happy. Plan A makes the upper class take care of the lower class. This is simply not fair. If you work hard enough to be successful, you should be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor; not be forced to give it away to people living off of welfare for 5 years. However, Plan B isn’t much better. There are many loopholes to this policy that large companies will definitely utilise, such as hiring off the books or just not hiring low class workers entirely. This effectively backfires on the original goals of the plan. While these two plans will not satisfy everyone, I honestly don’t think any one plan will. It is going to take years, if not decades, to try out and mold different plans. It is just irrational to think that one plan is going to fix everything.
    Skylar S. Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  11. This article made me look at the words "minimum wage" differently. The author brings a different perspective then I have thought about in the past. It's interesting that the article says minimum wage is the governments way of hiding the fact that they are taxing the businesses. I believe this is the wrong approach. However, I feel like both plans are not a perfect solution. We should continue aiding the lower class with education and outreach programs instead of throwing them money, which is only a temporary solution.

    Eleanor Hall
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with the author of the article in that plan A is better than plan B. In plan B the government subsidizes the incomes of low-wage workers, while the subsidies are financed by taxing those companies that hire low-wage workers. On the other hand plan A subsidizes the incomes of low-wage workers. These subsidies are financed by increasing taxes on middle- and upper-income Americans. This would let Americans who can't afford to be taxed because of their low incomes survive while those who have money can spare some. When the low class are able to get on their feet and start to make more money they would then be included in the middle class and then be taxed. This would make a fair and equal system in which everyone will help the government in one way or another.
    -Alec Janis

    ReplyDelete
  13. I strongly dislike how the financial gap between the rich and the poor is much larger than in most developed nations and much larger than it was 40 years ago. I am one who believes that there will always be a gap, but the fact that in comparison to other nations of similar soci-economical standards, we are much larger. It also irks me to no end how our gap is expanding. Why are we not making progress. In conclusion, my gripes are not with the author, or the article, or even the topic. My gripes are with the facts. They need to change.
    Ben GReenvall
    Per 6

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't really find that either plan A or B is the right solution to low wage earners income problems. In plan A they want to provide subsidies for the poorer class by taxing the upper and middle class more, but issues related to that exact solution have arisen before. Those who have money don't want to give it up, and it is hard to force people to pay more out of their pockets to assist people they don't have relations to. Then in regards to plan B, allotting the lower class with subsidies coming from their employers makes little sense. The companies that they would be taxing are the ones that are doing a favor for the less fortunate community. They are the people providing them jobs in the first place rather than leaving them with nothing on the streets. It all starts with employers such as Walmart, who give the less fortunate a chance to make a living without having some impressive resume to be considered. So they shouldn't be the ones being taxed for their charitable actions. I think there needs to be more time spent considering what could be a real solution rather than proposing ideas that don't fundamentally work.
    Alyssa Case
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  15. Many studies have shown that the financial return of education is now high by historical standards. Reforming the education system so that more students graduate from high school and college is thus crucial to a more egalitarian prosperity. But upgrading the skills of the labor force is a decades-long project, not a quick fix. And educational reform is easier said than done.

    ReplyDelete