Example Of Oatmeal Analogy

By imposing a sugar beverage tax, consumers will demand less of the good and drive demand downward. Similarly, the sugary beverage market is elastic to price changes ("Price elasticity of the demand for sugar sweetened beverages and soft drinks in Mexico"). If the prices of sugar beverages increase, the demand will decrease ("Price elasticity of the demand for sugar sweetened beverages and soft drinks in Mexico"). However, a counterclaim does arise which argues that even if consumers of these beverages decide to stop purchasing a taxed good, they will purchase substitute goods that have the same satisfactory effect at a price that isn't affected by the tax. This idea was presented by Jason Fletcher from the University of Wisconsin. In his published research, Fletcher found that BMI remained constant or increased even when consumers are confronted with a beverage tax (Fletcher, Frisvold & Tefft 2009).

Provided for people of color, affirmative action ensures the security of a black individual to have the same opportunities as their white counterparts. Although the mass genocide of Native Americans and enslavement of Africans cannot be corrected, affirmative action was made to partially “make up” for these wrongdoings. White people claim this to be discrimination but it is a necessary policy that helps people of color in their daily lives. The absence of affirmative action would lead a greater divide in the power and representation between whites and black in

The affirmative action program is important because it gives job opportunities for many people regardless of their race, color, religion, gender, and national origin. The work force should be well represented by the different ethnic backgrounds of our society. Some people look at affirmative action as reverse discrimination, but this program doesn’t guarantee employment based on race, ethnicity, or gender. The affirmative action program gives equal consideration to individuals from a different race, ethnicity, or gender, but not one of these factors may be the only factor used to determine an individual’s qualifications for any job.

In Professor William Shaw’s The Organization and the People In It, Shaw delves into the debate that is affirmative action. According to Shaw, “affirmative action means programs taking the race or sex of employees or job candidates into account as part of an effort to correct imbalances in employment that exist as a result of past discrimination, either in the company itself or in the larger society”(Shaw, p. 437). Affirmative action promotes the diversity of job opportunities for both genders and all races. Some of the opportunities can cause an unfair advantage to minorities when paired against equal or sometimes better-qualified white counterparts. This can become a moral issue by causing unfair advantages to some people. By attempting to level the playing field, affirmative action actually over compensates for potential discrimination and can place white males at a disadvantage. Affirmative action attempts to balance the application system for college or postgraduate work, however at the expense of some qualified students.

Among the citizens of America affirmative action is a sensitive subject with some seeing it as a necessity to help those who have been repressed and others seeing it as reverse racism. Many Americans may also be conflicted about affirmative action, because it is such a complex issue. People fervently debate affirmative action, because it is a complex issue revolving around one’s own race, experiences, and desires.

Our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence were based on the idea that all men are created equal. What this really meant then and means even more today is that all men should have equal opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Affirmative Action is the one sure legal means to make that possible for everyone, regardless of race, religion or gender. ""Affirmative Action is a policy designed to create a nondiscriminatory environment for the management of human resources and the distribution of economic benefits...It means taking a second look to be fair to everyone who applies for a job or admission to college." (Anderson PG).

Nestle touches on some “equally well researched” (citation) principles including the concept that there are “prime real estate” areas in every store. She then goes into the system of incentives surrounding which products get these prime spaces, including the concept of “slotting fees.” Slotting fees are fees that other companies pay to get their product in the best parts of the store. By bringing up this concept, Nestle brings more companies than just supermarkets into the deception and manipulation of shoppers.

Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities of the protected classes within a society to give them equal access to that of the privileged majority population.

Two people stand in a room looking at a vibrant painting and receive a totally different image. This is something we all realize can happen. It is our different perspectives that make us valuable too each other. When trying to solve a problem or create a new idea, we need each other to bring forth considerations and concepts that would never occur otherwise. This concept is something most of us grasp in theory, yet it never ceases to confound and confuse us if someone draws a conclusion tangent from ours when presented with the same information. This situation lies at the heart of the argument over affirmative action. Policies that are viewed by some as righting past wrongs are viewed by

Systematic exclusion directly relates to affirmative action in a multitude of ways. Affirmative action addresses systematic exclusion of certain individuals based on several different elements including talent, gender or race, all in an attempt to promote each individual to develop, perform and contribute to the best of their ability ("AAAA" 2). This includes abilities in a myriad of fields, including the job market, education, and community. Affirmative action addresses systematic exclusion by opening opportunities to individuals with limited experience and talented backgrounds who have endured constant and persistent discrimination from members of other races and genders ("AAAA" 2). Directly opposite of systematic exclusion is the idea of social utility. This concept says that an increased population of specific minorities or genders would certainly create a balance, resulting in better communities. In addition, members of that minority will be inspired to succeed, for they will see how people of their own race have excelled. One example of social utility is when communities of racial diversity require a diverse police force, for it aids in acquiring trust and dedication of an entire communities populace ("Affirmative Action" 5). Even though equal opportunity and systematic exclusion are, without a doubt, important to the understanding of affirmative action, the most important principle is yet to be discussed.

    Most people desire to consume only what satisfies their taste buds, which is mainly foods and beverages that contain high levels of unhealthy ingredients, but they do not realize the harm it causes to their health. General Mills conducted an experiment in order to see how consumers would react when they had the option to buy healthy products or foods that tasted good: “General Mills, he said, acted responsibly to both the public and shareholders by offering products to satisfy dieters and other concerned shoppers, from low sugar to added whole grains. But most often, he said, people bought what they liked, and they liked what tasted good” (Moss 476). Companies of course need to keep their businesses running and in order to do that, they must manufacture

The lifelong dream of a virtuous student, acceptance into a prestigious college of choice, crushed by the prejudice of a single law. Hopes upon hopes of attaining one’s dream job, demolished due to the same impassive law. Affirmative action, a national dilemma, continues to crush the dreams of many across the country; although meant with noble intentions, affirmative action offers an ineffective, impractical, and useless rectification to correct a historical social evil, the growing imbalance of different ethnicities. Instead of augmenting this common problem, affirmative action plays a critical role in reverse discrimination, equating race to diversity in opinion, and destroying the idea of meritocracy.

In Marion Nestle’s essay, The Supermarket: Prime Real Estate, she claims ” From their (supermarkets’) prospective, it is your problem if what you buy makes you eat more food than you need and more of the wrong kinds of foods in particular” (62). Nestle introduces several tactics that supermarkets use to increase their profits, for example, particular ways of they put the products, surveys or membership cards that they give to customers and even coordination’s with food companies. From my perspective, these tactics are all justifiable, since the supermarkets can operate better and gain profits by applying these strategies. Firms’ higher payoffs may lead to positive outcomes: higher salaries and better welfare programs for their workers, donations to charities or higher national GDP. Because society is a large context, even there might be some worse off situation for some people, but considering the whole, people still become better off.

Inside the front doors of a grocery store, customers are presented with a diverse, vibrant display of fresh fruits and vegetables. With its inviting rainbow of bright colors, the produce section leads past the wafting, sweets smells of bread and pastries in the bakery and through winding aisles stocked with an assortment of goods. Linings the aisles and fillings shelves are rows and rows of boxes of pasta, pre-made meals, processed foods, and more snacks and sweets than one would know what to do with. Grocery stores present shoppers with a myriad of choices. The shelves and displays are filled with a variety of different brands and options to choose from, which offers customers a tough and potentially stressful decision when shopping. However, before a customer decides upon a specific brand or item, whether that happens to be a name-brand product, competitor, or store-brand, they are faced with an even more important choice; they must first make a decision on whether they want to buy whole foods and produce, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and other healthy choices, or more processed “junk” foods like sugary drinks and snacks or enriched breads and pasta. Not only must costumers decide between specific brands and deals, but they must also choose which of these types of food is best for them and their interests. Consumers must constantly weigh the different factors that are presented when comparing foods; between price, ingredients, health, availability, and overall

At first this miscellany is very attractive to the buyer but when the process of decision making begins, the real problem erupts. If she is not certain about what she wants to purchase, she will keep shuffling between packets and shelves to make a choice. Seeing the variety she may want to make the best possible choice out of the available options and she must make a choice in order to avoid being frozen in endless doubt. Thus the modern super market offers numerous more choices, ironically much less satisfaction. Due to this it has been observed that consumers tend to return to the products they normally buy, not paying attention to 75% of the other products which are also a good competition for price and quality (Schwartz, 2005:12).