An Analysis and Evaluation of Edmund Phelps' Plan

Case one proclaims that the American economy is failing millions of Americans. In today’s day in age, having a full time job does not guarantee an income above the poverty line. Currently, there are “80 government assistance programs” which provide working families the means to survive. It is important to note that these programs cost $153 billion annually, and these costs are covered by the government from the tax revenue they receive from hard working Americans (Myers). Businesses, like Walmart and McDonalds, pay full time employees so little that they live under the poverty line. Businesses can do this is because the government bails them out in the form of the assistance programs provided for their employees, which would be unnecessary if fair wages were paid to their employees. The case questions whether it is moral for well-established corporations to prosper at the expense of the government subsidizing their drastically underpaid employees. In this essay, I will analyze this dilemma through the lens of Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.

The main concepts of the article are describing the corporate welfare system and how it is responsible for growing economic imbalances between the poor and rich populations. The article elaborated on how we cannot ignore the issue anymore because of the substantial loss that we are facing by letting the gap grow (Huff, 1993). The article also goes into the IRS and how there are tax exemptions and deductions that people qualify for and what is allowed.

A great number of those who reside in New York find the current U.S welfare reform to be very exhausting, humiliating as well as fraught. According to New Yorkers, this welfare will fail them. These simply because they are not poor enough, most of the citizens are already working (De Mause & Lewis Pp 1). The centerpiece of this welfare reform demanded that every citizen to work. There is a need that the state should ensure that almost half of the citizens get public assistance from the government. The beneficiaries should be working for at least thirty hours a week since working for more hours is one of the necessary in welfare reform (Eaton 7)

It is not enough to provide material relief to those experiencing extreme deprivation(158). Therefore the federal government should establish and create opportunities for the poor to gain and maintain their citizenship in standard living. According to the book, "$2.00 a Day" writer Kaitlyn Edin emphasize one have the strong will to work but opportunities lack extremely, in which concede the fact that there aren't enough jobs with adequate pay, hours, and stability to go around(159). On one hand, I agree with Edin that the will of the poor is there, but the federal government should play more substantive role in getting individuals jobs.For instance, stated in the book, “In-depth interviews with 209 EITC claimants in the Northeast and Midwest in 2007 showed that while TANF receipt confers stigma and shame, claiming the EITC gives people dignity and restores their pride”(172). Also the federal government need to restore relationships in the workplace, increase wage, and prevent wage theft . For example, a successful grocery store called Market Basket located in New England starts employees off at twelve dollars an hour, offer health insurance, and paid sick to all employees(164). Creating better jobs and opportunities is the government role as it is our role to maintain a job and contribute as

Race, gender, and social class has several implications in the United States and how it shapes policy and perceptions of those who live in poverty. Current welfare systems are not perfect, and capitalistic policies do not work as intended to solve income inequalities. Given this, we will discuss social inequalities and capitalism, the welfare system, and propose two policies that solves welfare, and social and income inequalities.

The President’s plan builds a smart, effective immigration system that continues efforts to secure our borders and cracks down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. It’s a plan that requires anyone who’s undocumented to get right with the law by paying their taxes and a penalty, learning English, and

The benefit of what I propose is that the U.S. economy would benefit from the money provided however the programs wouldn’t be as good as they could be and won’t provide as many benefits to the people.

The Proclamation of 1763 was issued by the King of England to prevent colonists from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains. The king passed this law after Pontiac’s Rebellion for fear of the colonists upsetting the natives anymore by settling on their land. The colonists, who felt that they had rightfully earned this land in the French and Indian War, ignored the proclamation and continued to settle in the land they had won anyways.

It is a commonly known fact that many employers employ immigrants to save themselves a few dollars in the long run. A couple ways they do that is by paying undocumented immigrant’s lower wages with no healthcare benefit options. One can also assume that these employers recognize the fear immigrants have of being deported, which keeps them from reporting issues that normally would not be tolerated by an American citizen. I strongly disagree with these practices and am very relieved to know that a big part of the proposal includes: an “effective employment verification system which prevents identity theft and ends the hiring of future unauthorized workers, requiring prospective workers to demonstrate both legal status and identity through un-forgeable electronic means prior to

“If you work, you should not be poor” (Duncan 1). This quote is essentially the theme of the book, Higher Ground: New Hope for the Working Poor and Their Children, as well as the motivation of the founders of the New Hope Antipoverty Program. This experimental program was implemented in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1994. The goal of the program was to help low skilled and low-wage working individuals whom did not receive all the benefits they deserved because of their low incomes. One thousand three hundred and fifty-seven low-income adults, living in the two poorest neighborhoods of that city, volunteered to take part in the study to see how effective this experimental program would be. The participants were all randomly assigned, and half of them would receive the New Hope benefits while the other half served as a control group that would not receive the benefits. These benefits included earning supplements, subsidized childcare, and subsidized health care to anyone who would work weekly, full time (thirty hours per week). If you could not find a job, the program offered community service jobs for up to six months, paying minimum wage (Duncan 3-4, 12). The study lasted for three years and the results were tremendously encouraging. The MDRC concluded in their evaluation that, “Overall, New Hope increased employment and earnings, leading in turn to increased income...and enabling more low-income workers to earn their way out of poverty…New Hope

A standout amongst the most much of the time made inquiries in our nation is by all accounts: Should the lowest pay permitted by law be raised or would it be a good idea for it to be brought down or wiped out inside and out? Raising the lowest pay permitted by law would lift unique individuals out of destitution as well as lift the spirits of these persevering people by remunerating them decently, subsequently reinforcing organizations and the economy general. The lowest pay permitted by law would decidedly influence understudies and society a considerable measure.

The author speaks a lot about productivity and how this is what drives wages, and how when productivity is increased our income per capita grows and unemployment is lowered. In Chapter 10, Reducing Labor Restrictions: From School Choice to Right to Work, productivity and economic growth is the primary focus. Some of the ideals he presented here seemed really good in concept, but lack in terms of how they would be put into motion. Labor Restrictions was the first thing discussed, in this he talks about how costly it is for new businesses to open up here in WV, due to all the labor restrictions we impose compared to our neighboring states, thus leading employers to seek labor elsewhere, where it doesn’t cost as much. He even goes as far as comparing them as shoppers in a market. I do agree with the fact that if they

This is amnesty, and I oppose it… Amnesty would be unfair to those who were here lawfully, and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration…” Additionally, Robert Byrd (Senate) stated in his excerpts from his Address to the United States Senate, “To capriciously grant amnesty to three million immigrants who circumvented these processes, who have resided and worked in this country illegally, sends exactly the wrong message”. The wrong message being that amnesty only invites more illegal immigrants into the country without reprimanding the ones who are currently here. However, the secondary problem here, as Bush recognized and stated is that, “…it is neither wise, nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border”. Admittedly, amnesty seems to manifest several problems, mainly with continued unlawful immigration, however; it does not make sense to send millions of integrated immigrants out of the country. Instead, a partial amnesty could be granted, which would be fairer to lawful immigrants, but also give illegal immigrants a chance to lawfully obtain citizenship and continue living in the United States.

Today, more than ever, there is great debate over politics and which economic system works the best. How needs and wants should be allocated, and who should do the allocating, is one of the most highly debated topics in our current society. Be it communist dictators defending a command economy, free market conservatives defending a market economy, or European liberals defending socialism, everyone has an opinion. While all systems have flaws and merits, it must be decided which system is the best for all citizens. When looking at both the financial well being of all citizens, it is clear that market economies fall short on ensuring that the basic needs of all citizens are met. If one looks at liberty and individual freedom, it is evident

Thompson has proven that shortages of day-care and transportation are not the issue regarding why welfare recipients cannot obtain and hold jobs. He has also proved that education and training are not essential factors in cutting welfare dependency, and sharp reductions in welfare do not lead to severe economic depression. Lastly, Thompson has proven that there are jobs, but welfare recipients are not being motivated enough to search and obtain them (Rector). The main reason for the success of Thomson’s reform is the fact that under his policies applicants are continually being bothered by program managers, and put under the stress of the possibility of being cut off from welfare benefits. They are required to work for their money and thus the hammock-like-state of welfare is removed from the equation. They are given strict time limits for how long they have to obtain a job, and if a job is not obtained they must endure the consequence of community service. By making welfare unattractive, Thompson has resolved virtually all issues regarding welfare as seen