Friday, April 28, 2017

Assignment: Should the government subsidize college? (Due Tues, May 2)



The Economics of Funding College Education:

Image result for iowa universitiesImage result for iowa universitiesImage result for iowa hawkeyes

Currently, the state government and taxpayers of Iowa pay for about 2/3 of any resident's tuition if he or she attends one of the state's three public universities (listed above).

-In one paragraph, analyze one argument in favor of the government subsidizing college tuition.  Be sure to evaluate one outside 'expert' source in support, using in-text citation.

-In one paragraph, analyze one argument against the government subsidizing college tuition.  Be sure to evaluate one outside 'expert' source in support, using in-text citation.

-In a final paragraph, defend your position on the government funding college education.

This assignment is due by 11:10 am on Tuesday, May 2.

Glass ceiling

Men could be to blame for the glass ceiling but it may not be due to today's prejudices. For many years before now women were discriminated and men were hired for the executive positions making them the dominant sex in those positions. Just following tradition and not questioning it may reinforce the hiring of men. a woman makes about 76 cents for every dollar a man does nationwide,(CNBC.com 2015) 

Although many also say there is no glass ceiling or women are to blame. Most statistical analyses are done without including maternity leaves, sick days and the overall danger of the jobs, many jobs such as carpenters and construction are somewhat dangerous jobs taken up mostly by men, these jobs are plentiful and high paying in some cases, these numbers boost the income to higher numbers. If women aren't running the country or big business, it's mainly because we just don't want to. Any glass ceiling that's in place these days isn't an enemy to women (Maureen Rice 2011)
I believe women are smart and as capable as men but said by Maureen why would women want those dangerous jobs? I think a natural chivalry is done in which men have those dangerous jobs and keep the women safer. Meanwhile when women want those jobs and can prove capable they are more than welcome to those jobs 


The government should increase taxes on gasoline to decrease the pollution because America has pollution problem and we don't want it to be as bad as China. America's main priority should be to decrease emissions from cars and have more fuel conscious people on the road. Taxes on specific consumer goods often discourage work by even more than the income tax does," (Picker, nber, 2017). 

I think that the increase on pollution tax for gasoline is a bad idea. When prices are high on consumer goods people don't like to spend too much money it. It would be unfair in the business efficiency area because it will produce the amount of transactions for gas and the overall production of it if the prices go up. 

Some people believe that if you increase the pollution tax than it will discourage people from wanting to work even more. When certain consumer goods are taxed it can cause a rise in the amount of people who work. Turning people away from putting in work to face a huge problem in America because of the already millions of people out of work. Increasing the pollution tax on gasoline would only discourage people from working which is not what we need.



Green tax

There should be a tax on gasoline in order to maintain clean air for future generations. This is planning for our children's future not just ours. India and Japan has also introduced carbon tax (Golem Kibria RMIT University 2009) Japan is a forward leader in renewable energy. If a gas tax was in place it would boost growth in jobs, clean air and renewable energy.

On the other hand why tax our biggest income for the country and sacrifice oil mining jobs, this goes against capitalism and growth of business. MORE THAN 2.1 million jobs have been created in the oil industry and remains steady because everyone needs gasoline. (Fracking Jobs 2015)

There shouldn't be a taxation on such a big industry. Changing a few numbers means big consequences to jobs, income and other things, gasoline is already a regressive tax to poorer people and if people can barley afford gasoline they won't be able to pay for a new Tesla or Prius.
There should be a tax on gasoline in order to maintain clean air for future generations. This is planning for our children's future not just ours. India and Japan has also introduced carbon tax (Golem Kibria RMIT University 2009) Japan is a forward leader in renewable energy. If a gas tax was in place it would boost growth in jobs, clean air and renewable energy.

On the other hand why tax our biggest income for the country and sacrifice oil mining jobs, this goes against capitalism and growth of business. MORE THAN 2.1 million jobs have been created in the oil industry and remains steady because everyone needs gasoline. (Fracking Jobs 2015)

There shouldn't be a taxation on such a big industry. Changing a few numbers means big consequences to jobs, income and other things, gasoline is already a regressive tax to poorer people and if people can barley afford gasoline they won't be able to pay for a new Tesla or Prius.

Pollution Tax

The government should raise the gas tax because the group that benefits from this is everyone included in society. This is because the way we get money for building infrastructure is through this tax. We build new roads fix them, build bridges and provide mass transit projects through the gas tax which is 18.4 cents per gallon. With inflation this should be 29 cents per gallon. If we were to raise the tax in Iowa and Illinois we would be able to fund the I-74 construction. A pollution tax may help reduce emissions of dangerous gases that effect the atmosphere.

A problem that we would likely face if we were to raise the tax is that some companies may move to other countries to avoid the tax placed in the U.S. It is difficult to manage and enforce the tax on pollution, this is because so many things that we currently have such as lawnmowers, cars, and factories release so much carbon dioxide it would be hard to enforce this(Vnrc.org).

I feel as though making the tax more pricey that it would benefit the infrastructure funds. As we are going to always need to fix old roads and fix old bridges it is beneficial. But the problem we may face with raising this tax if it hit a global level less developed countries may have a harder time advancing technology. And making new innovations as they already have a hard time with energy. Many of these not so developed countries don't have large transportation sources either so making a pollution tax higher and emission tax higher these countries will take even longer to catch up to other countries.

Gas Tax

Gas Tax Feller

One argument for raising the gas tax is that this tax actually taking away stuff we do not like, for example pollution and carbon emissions. Most taxes take away our money to add more things to our community not take away the bad things.  "And while certain taxes disincentivize, to some degree, things we like (such as work or investment), the gas tax, by raising the cost of driving, gets us less of things we don’t like (pollution, carbon emissions, and road wear) (Surowiecki, The New Yorker, 2015)." This explains how the tax would be a good thing because it is taking away negative things from our community. Some people do believe that this is true and I am not one of them.

One argument against raising the gas tax is the fact that the governments goal of the gas tax is not even to take away pollution from our atmosphere. The tax hike on gas would have to be enormous in order to really make a difference on pollution. "neither getting people to drive less nor reducing carbon emissions is a goal of the federal gas tax. Instead, Congress instituted the modern tax in the 1950s to help pay for construction of the interstate highway system" (Bledsoe, The Washington Post, 2014). The biggest thing against raising the gas tax is that lowering pollution is not currently a priority of the government and to really make a difference with pollution the tax hike would have to be unreasonable. The majority of people will not change their driving habits because of a small raise in gas tax. 

I think that the government should not raise the gas tax because it will not do anything unless the hike is so large that it will change peoples driving habits. Also, I do not think that lowering pollution with the gas tax is currently a priority of our government. I think that raising the gas tax would have no benefits received because I do not believe pollution is that big of a problem, that would force people to change their driving habits. In return of paying a higher gas tax I would get nothing other than cleaner air that I don't believe I would even notice. 

Gas Tax

One major argument to raising to minimum wage would be using the money from gas taxes for infrastructure and roads. The argument coming from James Suroweiki of the New Yorker of raising gas taxes for reasons of infrastructure is smart and what Iowa did to get money for roads and the I-74 bridge. He also says now is the time to do it because gas prices are at a lower price than a few years ago.

The problem to raising the gas tax would be it would take 1.5 billion dollars away from Americans per every one cent raised. (Abby Attia, The Heritage Foundation) What would happen is instead or Americans spending money on other things which could help the economy it would spent on gas that more Americans need. So, rasing the gas tax would actually hurt the economy among other things according to The Hertitsge Foundation.

I believe we should not have a gas tax because it would hurt people more than anything. It would also be a regressive tax which would really hurt poor people who have a car to get to work. Also, that 1.5 billion would be very very helpful in speeding growth within the economy. Having the gas tax also keeps the economy from growing because people will not go shopping much because people would not be wanting to spend close to 3 dollars a gallon for gas.

Bettendorf Economics Blog: Assignment: Should the government increase its pollution tax on gasoline? (due Fri., April 28)

      Should the government put a pollution tax on gas company's? Yes the government should put a tax on gas company's. This will help fund great ferment projects in the cities. This will also give insensitive for gas companies to be innovative and come up with a non polluting energy source. 

     Should gas companies have a tax put on them for pollution?  No, doing this will only make it harder for everyone to obtain gas. This is almost a need for everyone in the U.S.  as most drive to work. It might even cause the business to either raise prices or lay off workers to get their revenue back.

      I think the government should not put a tax on gas. It is us fair under business effects. Then cost to buy gas will go up because of this tax this will affect the business and all those who purchase it. The government should also not restrict a business that sells gas since it is needed by everyone.

     Increasing the tax is good because it way better for our economy and for our planet. "Such a tax would generate about $88 billion in 2012, rising to $144 billion by 2020, the report said, slashing U.S. debt by between 12 and 50 percent within a decade, depending on how high the deficit climbs...," (Economic arguments for and against a carbon tax Jason Welker 2016). Therefore, I believe it is good w tax it then there would be more money in American and less pollution. 
     Tax increase is not a good idea because "tax on CO2 emissions is that it would drive up the costs of energy production, leading to higher energy costs for the nation’s households and firms. This boost in prices would increase costs to producers of all other goods and services in the economy, effectively reducing the supply in several key sectors of the US economy, leading to falling national output" (Jason welker 2016) it would drive all prices up and slow down production. 
     I believe that it's good to have an increase is good on the planet and it would bring our economy so much money. Our diet would start to go down and there would be positive changes in the economy. Also taxing pollution would help,people stay more green and we'd have better air. 

     Would a gas pollution tax be a good thing for our society? Some say it would for one huge reason. The money earned could be used to fix the crumbling roads and bridges in America. "a good opportunity for state governments to raise their gasoline taxes to help pay for road repairs and other needed transportation investments" (nytimes.com, Jan. 15, 2016). This tax would allow for the unsafe roads and bridges in our country to be fixed. It could also be used for Illinois to finally pay for their side of the bridge. This tax would also help decrease pollution which would be great for the environment. A tax on gas could be a good thing for our economy.

     Although the benefits of a gas tax are great, is it worth it? Lots of people argue that a tax like this would take a huge toll on the middle class and by doing that taking money out of the economy. "It’s estimated that a 1 percent increase in gas prices takes $1 billion out of consumers’ pockets. That’s $1 billion dollars that could be spent on eating out, clothes, and leisure activities" (Emma Boone, atr.org, May 29th, 2015). By enacting this tax our environment might be better, but our economy will take a huge hit. Small businesses would be pushed to the limits. A tax on gas has benefits for the environment and the roads, but is terrible for the economy.

     Although I believe that a tax on gas is important to help stop climate change I don't think a tax like this should go into effect today. This is simply because it has no business efficiency. All businesses would suffer from a tax like this. The gas companies would see a decrease in consumption due to the tax and small businesses would also see a drop in consumption due to the need to save more money for gas. If a tax like this is started our roads might be fixed, but we will see unemployment and inflation in our society. A tax on gas is certainly for the future, but is not for today.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Pollution Tax on Gas

The pollution tax on gas is an example of an excise tax. Its taxed in a similar manner to cigarettes because the government is trying to limit the harmful gas emissions let out into our environment. Raising the tax more will incentivize people to find newer, greener ways of transportation. The argument against raising the tax is that it will hurt our economy. But the state of Washington has the second highest gas tax rate at at 44.5 cents per gallon and also has the best economy nationwide (taxfoundation.org, 2016). It's quite possible that by raising Iowa’s gas tax we can boost the economy as well.

If the gas tax on pollution were to be raised again, there wouldn’t be much of a noticeable impact. If anything it would lower incentive for families or individuals to travel for vacations. In many states such as Florida, vacationer’s spending and tourism is a large percentage of their overall state economy. With a higher gas tax, less people would travel and cause many states to lose revenue; without people driving to visit, their system will crumble. Also, raising the tax won’t solve the problem of congestion. Each year, Americans waste over $100 billion just sitting in traffic (cato.org, O’Toole, 2014). Raising the price is only going to cause us to waste more money in the same situation.

Higher taxes on gas will not incentive people to use it less. It will just take money out of pockets that could be put towards something much more beneficial. For companies who depend on large quantities of gas, this potential raise in tax will slow business efficiency and possibly cause them to take their business elsewhere. Another factor is that this is a regressive tax which means it does not take personal income into account and this tax will hurt the poorer population much more than the upper class. Raising the tax even higher on gas isn’t going to have much of an impact on how much is used, it's just going to make people mad when they have to go fill up their tank.

Gas Tax Deere

          Gasoline causes a lot of problems for the environment. So, as the prices drop it's a great time to raise the taxes on gas for pollution. When people buy gas more money can then go to roads and such. "And while certain taxes disincentivize, to some degree, things we like (such as work or investment), the gas tax, by raising the cost of driving, gets us less of things we don’t like (pollution, carbon emissions, and road wear) (Surowiecki, The New Yorker, 2015)."  So a gas tax wouldn't do any harm when the price is low, it would actually help with pollution.
           A gas tax might also make everything more expensive. When the gas tax is raised the cost of driving is too. "A gas tax hike will increase the price of consumer goods. The transportation of goods is primarily done via highways. Cars drive on highways and gas fuels cars. It’s a no-brainer that raising the gas tax will cost drivers more to fuel their way to deliver goods. Higher gas taxes, leading to higher gas prices will mean a higher cost on goods (Boone, atr.org, 2015)." So a higher gas tax means higher price for everything which affects everyone, but poor people the most as a gas tax would be a regressive tax which would be terrible for everyone even though it might barely help the environment.
            I believe gas tax would not help because of the ability to pay reason. When the gas tax is put in to place it raises the price to drive and thus the cost of all things transported by road are also raised. A tax on gas would be a regressive tax which would affect poor people's ability to pay for everything, gas and all things transported that way. Even if a tax would help with pollution the economy would sink through the ground because of inflation and higher prices on everything. So a gas tax would do only mostly harm for what it would to the economy even though it would slightly help with the environment and pollution. 

Pollution Tax


     Some would argue that a pollution tax on gas would be a great thing for our government to do. The main reason is because so many Americans drive that they would have no other option than to pay the extra tax that would be put on gas. As a whole, Americans drive about  million miles a year (grist.org, Alder, 2013 ). With so many people needing to drive and needing to fuel their cars with gas, the government would be able to profit so much money by only adding one dollar per tank of gas (grist.org, Alder, 2013 ).

     Even though our government would make a lot of money, people will argue for why putting a pollution tax on gas is a bad idea. The big on is because this tax would just create another cost for Americans to pay. Some Americans do not make enough money to then have to pay for this extra tax. The only way to kind of even this out so that Americans are not paying a lot in taxes is if the government reduces the tax off of another good that just as many people use. If the government would just add another tax, many people would tank a financial hit, which is not good (howmoneywalk.com, Roder, 2015).

     I personally do not think there should be a tax on pollution because it is just another thing that people will have to pay and it is unfair to those who are dependable on using a car who cannot afford the tax. Also, it is not fair unless the government would then give something back to the population for adding a tax.
Increasing the pollution tax on gasoline can potentially help our country greatly. It can help reduce gas consumption per capita, and pollution. It can also help increase hours worked. According to The National Bureau of Economic Research "a 10 percent increase in gasoline prices would decrease gas consumption by 4.3 percent, or roughly 37 gallons per household per year. That same increase in gas prices would also increase hours worked by 0.07 percent, approximately 2 hours per household per year. Raising the gasoline tax thus has the triple benefit of lowering fuel consumption, decreasing pollution, and providing an incentive for people to work at a more socially optimal level" (NBER Les Picker, 2017). This displays the possibility that increasing the pollution tax on gas could help the United States on three separate subjects. Reducing pollution and gas consumption while increasing incentive to work.

A pollution tax increase on gas can potentionally be very bad because there is no guarantee it will solve all of the problems it promises to fix. With cars being more efficient than ever it is possible that the small decrease in gas consumption will not make any affect at all. According to the Cato Institute "State and federal gasoline taxes should be abolished. Local governments should tax gasoline only to the extent necessary to pay for roads when user charges are not feasible. If government feels compelled to more aggressively regulate vehicle tailpipe emissions or access to public roadways, pollution taxes and road user fees are better means of doing so than fuel taxes. Regardless, perfectly internalizing motor vehicle externalities would likely make the economy less efficient-not more-by inducing motorists into even more (economically) inefficient mass transit use" (Cato Institute, Taylor, Van Doren, 2007). This supports the idea that the economic hardship that increasing taxes will cause does not outweigh the absolute minimal effect it will have in the environment.

Personally, I do not think we should increase the pollution tax on gasoline. I think that it will hurt our economy too much for little to no gain. On top of this it could cause companies who consume a large amount of gasoline to move outside of the country. This would mean a lot of jobs lost for something that will have almost no affect. According to Steve Forbes, chairman of Forbes magazine, "Higher gas taxes will help save the environment. No, they won't. They'll make us poorer, which is bad for everything, including the environment. Poor nations have lousier environments than do rich ones. Cars emit a tiny fraction of the pollution they once did. The big, bad thing in gasoline--lead--was dealt with decades ago, when it was removed" (Steve Forbes, Forbes, 2015). This supports the fact that increasing taxes on gasoline is inefficient and does not solve the problems it is aiming too. It will only countinue to hurt our economy.

Increasing the Tax

The government should increase taxes on gasoline to decrease the pollution because America has a horrible pollution problem. America's goal is to decrease emissions from cars and have more fuel conscious people on the road. "That is because a gas tax provides immediate, direct incentives for drivers to reduce gasoline use" (Karplus, NYtimes, 2013.  This means that the increase in a gas tax will help eliminate emissions and pollution which costs our nation millions.

Some people believe that if you increase the pollution tax than it will discourage people from wanting to work even more. When certain consumer goods are taxed it can cause a rise in the amount of people who work. "Taxes on specific consumer goods often discourage work by even more than the income tax does," (Picker, nber, 2017). Discouraging people to work is a huge problem in America because of the already millions of people out of work. Increasing the pollution tax on gasoline would only discourage people from working which is not what the country needs.

I think that the increase on pollution tax for gasoline is not a good idea in our country. It would be unfair in the business efficiency area because it will produce the amount of transactions for gas and the overall production of it if the prices go up. When prices are high on consumer goods people don't like to spend too much money it.

     Should the various levels of government increase their pollution taxes on gasoline. Many people believe that the government should because it will result in better benefits from the gas tax. "In fact, the authors estimate that the health benefits of a gasoline tax would increase by 90 percent once the variation in responsiveness of vehicle emissions is taken into account," (Gasoline Taxation and Air Pollution Claire Brunel 2017). The argument with the pollution taxes is that they are putting a proportional tax on gasoline, making everyone pay the same tax, when they should be making the cars that are less fuel friendly pay more. 
This would lead to better benefits for the government and have people paying more. 
     Although the better benefits are a good argument for increasing the pollution tax some people still argue that pollution taxes are unfair for lower income families. They spend the majority of their income on things that will emit pollution, so they are paying more for the tax. "The most common argument against pollution taxes is that they would be unfair. Poorer families spend a bigger share of their income heating their homes and fueling their cars, and would therefore pay a bigger share of their income in pollution taxes," (Believe it! Pollution taxes would help the poor and our environment more than the current system-Arik Levenson 2017). They have to spend their money on gas for their cars, so they can get to work all the time and make more money, and heat to keep their house warm during cold weather just like everyone else. This is why many people argue that raising the tax would be even more unfair than it already is now on families with low income. 
     Although these are both valid arguments for increasing or decreasing the pollution tax on gasoline, I would argue that we should raise the tax for a different reason. I believe that we should increase the pollution tax on gasoline to better help our environment. "Most Democrats agree that we can't tackle our long-term debt issues through spending cuts alone. Some sort of tax reform that raises revenue will have to get thrown into the ring. So why not do that through a tax on carbon pollution or other assorted environmental unpleasantries?" (If we need taxes, why not pollution taxes?-Brad Plumer 2011). If we are already experiencing massive debt issues why not tax things that we want to discourage such as pollution, in this case. Increasing the tax would prevent people from driving as much for unnecessary ordeals, and persuade people to buy more fuel efficient cars. I believe this is the bets reason for raising the pollution tax on gasoline. If we want to live on this beautiful planet, why not back off on the great damage we have already caused?

Gas Tax

Gas is something that is a huge money maker here in the States. By having a gas tax, we are able to fund many government things, such as roads for those vehicles to drive on. With this tax, there is also the tax for it being pollution for the environment. The tax is supposed to deter people from buying so much gas, but citizens will always be buying gas. It's good to have the gas tax though because some people do think twice about how much they drive, and how they utilize the gas. "It’s a viable plan for addressing our state’s long-term infrastructure needs" (Cope, www.thestate.com, 2017). Funding for these projects has to come from somewhere, so why not take it from something that is bought a lot. Overall, gas is a huge money maker, so adding a tax to it really has never been a big deal. 
Although gas is a very sensible to put a pollution tax on, it really hurts the middle class. The upper class never has a problem paying for something like gas, and the lower class usually doesn't buy much gas, or car pools more often. If Americans have more money to spend on other stuff, that helps out the economy a lot. "By increasing the gas tax, not only are you lessening the amount of money in their pockets, but the amount of money being pumped into the economy is being lessened too" (Boone, www.atr.org, 2015). There is nothing like having more money and paying less taxes on everything. It makes sense to have a gas tax, but it really does hurt the middle class. 
I think that it really comes down to how something effects the middle class. The middle gets screwed a lot, so why not make stuff good for them. They are the ones who really make the economy, so I think the gas tax isn't a great thing. Business efficiency is very important, so I don't think there should be a raised gas tax. It funds roads and other things, but it's better for the customers to have money left over for other things, and not just keep paying taxes. Overall, I don't think the gas tax is a good thing, and think business efficiency is best when customers everywhere have more money. 
Rei d ore here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article147028294.html#storylink=cpy

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Assignment: Should the government increase its pollution tax on gasoline? (due Fri., April 28)



The Economics of Pollution Taxes:

The current federal sales tax specifically on gas is $0.18/gallon.  Additionally, purchasers of gas in Iowa pay a sales tax of $0.32/gallon (Source: taxfoundation.org).  Should the various levels of government increase their pollution taxes on gasoline?  Analyze this issue using the following format:

1) In paragraph one, evaluate at least one argument in favor of the government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

2)  In paragraph two, evaluate at least one argument against the government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline.  You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

3) In paragraph three, justify your position on the government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline.  Be sure to reflect on one of the four criteria for tax fairness (ability to pay; efficiency; simplicity; benefits received) in your explanation.

This assignment is due by 11:10 am on Friday, April 28.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Glass ceiling

Men in the work force are to blame for the glass ceiling. Men dominate a large portion of the high paying jobs and management positions. Since men have a large role in executive jobs it intimidates women who want to climb the ladder of opportunity (Moazzam, Tribune, 2013). This causes more men to have higher paying jobs because women are afraid to become CEOs, or managers of companies. Because the men stop women from having the courage to break through the glass ceiling they are causing a large population of women to not work.

Some say that women are to blame for the glass ceiling because they are putting up too many barriers for themselves. Women believe that they have no control over the glass ceiling which is causing the them to victimize themselves (Broader, Entrepreneur, 2013). Women who create groups to help break the glass ceiling put a band-aid over the issue and does not help it. They create a metaphoric barrier about the glass ceiling that creates confidence issues in the workforce for women. When they pay attention to everything they can’t do it makes them believe actually believe they can’t do it.

I believe that women are to blame for the glass ceiling because they create one. Women convince themselves that their is a huge barrier between women and men in the work-force that causes women to lose confidence. This barrier is not there and only exists because women create it. If they did not create it then they would not have the issue. One way to fix the pay gap between women and men is to bring awareness to the fact that there is not a glass ceiling ( Smart Living, Popsugar, 2012).

Friday, April 21, 2017

Cheating in School - Hayes

Cheaters should be punished harsher in school. Cheat on a test cheat on everything once a cheater always a cheater. If you're are in school and caught cheating you should be dropped from the class and in some cases placed in a lower level of the class you are taking for example, if you cheat in English 10 you could be dropped to English 9. This was done in a Californian high school, a student caught cheating in English was dropped to a lower level English with the idea that if he has to cheat to pass the higher class he must not be caught up enough to that level of English. (Jessica Carlson, 2013)

On the other hand why should children be punished I'm such a harsh way that could affect their future so much? In a religious point of view it is said all humans are born sinners. Cheating on a test, hiding and lying to a teacher is simply a child developing and later on will learn morals which schools do not teach. Teaching morals rather than punishing would be better, any positive reinforcement is better than negative punishment. (Ephesians 2:3)

I believe in the idea of everyone is a born sinner, no one is perfect. Schools should not be the decider for punishing students. I believe if it is to happen it should be handled with the students parents. With positive reinforcement I believe students would seize from cheating.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Bettendorf Economics Blog: ASSIGNMENT: Should punishments for cheating in school be harsher? (due Tues., April 18)

      Schools should have harsher punishments instituted for cheating. Having harsher punishments will deter future cheaters when they see their classmates made an example of. There are many student that do cheat on study's results were “in between 80 and 95 percent percent of high school students admitted to cheating at least once in the past year”( Tim Walker, neatoday 2012). Cheating will decrease and the students real test ability will be shown. This will also help the student for colleges and life where cheating is not accepted and punish harsher.



     Cheating should not have harsher punishments in place for students. Other solutions might serve better than just harsher punishment. One school found that “Our position favors less harsh penalties, more frequently applied,"( Jay Matthews, Washington Post 2001). The school found that student that got less punishment frequently would seize to cheat. Another problem with harsher punishment is the students may find a way to cheat their way out of it. One example of this would be to simply skip a detention.



      I believe that schools should have harsher punishments. As shown paragraph 1, there are a lot of student that cheat. This shows us that the system we have for cheating is massively failing. By having harsher punishments student would be to scared to risk chanting. Some examples of punishments could be cleaning the lunchroom, not being allowed school lunch for a week, and a class roast of the offender. This will decrease cheating and prepare students for the real world where cheating in dealt with very harshly.

 


Are men really the reason why the 'Glass Ceiling' is even a topic in today's society? Things will only start to change once we stop blaming women, and start challenging the flawed system they must navigate ( huffingtonpost.com, Gloudeman, 2015). Men could be the reason why the glass ceiling is a thing and maybe why it isn't still an "issue" today. Man has set the bar low for women and therefore they have not been able to work their way up through the 'Glass Ceiling."

On the other hand, women could be at fault as well. I feel women spend more time claiming that man has discriminized them or "put them down" than actually going out and getting jobs that would require them to get outside their comfort zone and eventually break the glass ceiling. Women are still far more timid in the workforce then men. Men are more likely to go ask for a raise or push themselves out of their comfort zone in order to achieve greatness. (Dailymail.com, Goodson, 2008).
If women would just shut up about how men have put them down and actually went out and did something about it then things would probably change, if they need to at all.

In my opinion it is the women's fault they the can not break the glass ceiling. I mean Hillary Clinton was most qualified to be the Prseident of the United States and she still lost to Trump. That isn't mans fault that is her fault. We talk about the median in class and how you take the 50th man and woman and compare their salaries and the man has more money than the women. Maybe that man took more risk than the woman he was compared to and has achieved more. Men are more likely to promote themselves and even lie to do so (Dailymail.com, Goodson, 2008). Basically a man is willing to do the extreme to achieve success when women will just settle, which is fine.
It is undeniable that inequality still exists, and my recent research into leadership across multiple sectors suggests that this trend that leaves universities the poorer. Indeed my study concludes that women are, in fact, better suited to positions of management in all but one of the five categories. These categories covers traits of effective leaders, including the ability to withstand job-related pressure; the ability to take the initiative and communicate with clarity; an ability to innovate, to retain curiosity and ambition; the ability to support colleagues and work inclusively; and finally an ability to set goals. With my colleague Lars Glaso, I analyzed data from a survey of nearly 3,000?managers- more than 900 women, more than 900 in senior management and nearly 900 from public sector. I found out that women achieved higher scores in four of the five traits. This indicates that women are far more naturally suited to positions of leadership than their male counterparts. The one area in which women performed less well was the ability to withstand job-related stress. It is undeniable that the top jobs in higher education carry a heavy burden of responsibility. But consider how women outperform men in the four other crucial areas (Oyvind Martinsen, Timeshighereducation.com, 2017).

What’s to blame? Industry matters ― the largest gaps appear in technology-based spaces such as videogames, IT and engineering, as well as finance and insurance. In the healthcare industry, it’s 23%. In addition, survey evidence shows that women ask for less money and employers comply: on average, employers offered women about 3% less than what they offered men for the same role. There’s also the “glass ceiling”, meaning it’s harder for women to break into more senior roles, and they therefore face a shorter wage ceiling.However, there’s another less-spoken way that working women can achieve pay equity: having access to quality, affordable birth control. Contraception doesn’t close the pay gap per se, but rather the opportunity gap. By giving women control over their personal lives, they have the time, energy and ability to focus on their careers without worrying about unexpected pregnancies. Delaying a first birth by a few years can reduce the pay gap that typically exists between working mothers and those who have decided to delay having a child during their careers (Sandra Pelletier, huffingtonpost.com, 2017).

I do not think men is to blame for the glass ceiling. Many women is capable to be equally like men and paid equally like men, but they choose not to take that role themselves. It's easy to blame women for not being assertive enough. There is good evidence that women tend to want to be able to do 95 per cent of a job description before they'll apply for it whereas men will apply for it being able to do 60 per cent of it. Men are more confident, men are more assertive and will go for higher increases and so on. A common reaction to that is to say women should become more like men ( Britt Mann, stuff.co.nz, 2017). This shows that women can be equal to men but they choose not to take the challenge.

Glass Ceiling Deere

          Who's fault is the glass ceiling? Woman can't be to blame as they are the ones who want to break through it, so it must be men trying to keep women down. "Here, we get the rare sense that systemic forces, not women, are at fault for an enduring lack of equality at the top. And in thinking about the broader social and cultural forces at play, the whole paradigm suddenly shifts (Gloudeman, 2015, HuffPo)." Because men run the system it is easy for them to keep women below them as they all have preconceived notions of what women are. Men think that woman get pregnant and take off time from work and expect there job so they can't run a large business. When in reality, woman would do a much better job running any business run buy a man. Not only that but men are the ones who get women pregnant in the first place so it's like double oppression.
           Most men are not sexist though, so that argument means nothing. Maybe woman can't break the glass ceiling because they only believe they have more important things in there lives. "Research shows a significant 92 per cent of British women harbor hang ups that are holding them back in their lives - and the workplace is where British women feel they would most benefit from an injection of confidence (Winter, 2013, DailyMail)." So it's not that men are trying to keep women down, it's that most women don't feel they move up with what is going on in their lives. Men only focus on getting a promotion or a raise because that is what is most important to them, where as women might be more interested in other facets of their life.
          However, we can't put men and women into such general baskets of how they act. Woman would not hold themselves back, that notion is absurd. Men have to be the ones holding woman back or at least were and has carried over to today. The only way to break through the glass ceiling is to raise the minimum wage. "Two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women. Two-thirds of workers in low-wage, tipped occupations are also women. Raising the minimum wage and the tipped minimum wage are important steps towards fair pay for women (Vagianos, 2015, HuffPo)." If we raise the minimum wage then is will raise the median wage and close the gap between men and women in the workplace. Of course raising the minimum wage causes loss of jobs, but who cares because "EQUALITY."

Glass Ceiling

According to the Huffington Post, women are trapped within certain areas because men keep them there. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikki-gloudeman/no-the-glass-ceiling-is-non-womens-faults_b_6701482.html To elaborate it says that women cannot get higher up in cooperate because men already in cooperate keep them where they are. The reasoning behind that is men do not believe women are as skilled or qualified in cooperate jobs.

Here is the reason to why men are not apart of the glass ceiling, men take more dangerous and higher paying jobs more than women. According to a study UNC conducted, men are more likely to become electricians, mechanics, managers, construction laborers and finally the military and police. Women tend to fill jobs of teachers, secretaries/assistants and cosmetologist which points to why women are making less than men all together. http://demography.cpc.unc.edu/2015/03/16/male-and-female-dominated-occupations-2013/

I believe the glass ceiling is not caused by men but an ideal women created to feel they are under privileged and deserve more. It is a fact you would see men in more dangerous jobs and take higher skilled jobs. Also, women just do not take the initiative in taking toughen jobs. The glass ceiling can easily be broken right now just women would rather have it spoon fed to them than work for it.

Glass Ceiling

The pay gap is a problem but i do not believe men are specifically to blame for it. On a post from Forbes.com titled "Women: Are We Partly To Blame For The Gender Pay Gap?" there is a post that is quoted from reddit from a user who talks about when hiring men and women men typically ask for more than women on an annual earning. Women will normally settle with the initial offer of 45k a year whereas men normally ask for a bit more around the lines of 50k because 45k isn't enough (Forbes.com). In this it shows that men are not to blame for this pay gap as women can ask for more than they typically accept, all they have to do is ask for more.

On the other hand, it is understandable that as men rule most of the largest companies as a study showed that out of 500 companies only 21 of them were run by women. For there to be a way to help change and fix this pay gap men will have to recognize that there is a pay gap and from there pay women the same amount as they pay men. (Tech.co). For there to be a fix on the pay gap men will have to shift their focus or at least some of their focus on this problem so that this can be resolved for future workers in these companies.

As I said in my previous paragraph, men need to recongnize that the pay gap is an actual problem and a way to fix this is when in an interview with a woman offer the same amount that men in the same position are earning. There can still be negotiation done through the interview but start off with the same annual amount that men in that position earn. I do believe if women want to earn the same as male counterparts they should be more assertive on their pay (tech.co).


The Glass Ceiling 
The workforce seems to be dominated by men which account for over 53% of the population. Women only account for 47% of the working population. This number has increased over the years but is still lower than the male working population. Women are more concentrated in certain types of work places like staff and support jobs. These jobs do not offer the chance to get to the top like being a CEO. In a recent Washington Post survey most women named main obstacles to be 3% family responsibilities and the rest of the obstacles to be gender related like, slow advancement for women, and the attitudes towards a female boss ( Arlington, Feminists, 2014). More than 80% of the working women on wall street say they face harder judgement towards them from being a working women. 

On the other hand many believe that in this day and age the only thing that stops you from getting the job you want is you. People believe that getting the job you want takes hardwork and some women do not want to work this hard to become a CEO or manager of a company. The real glass ceiling barriers have to do with low self esteem, lack of integrity, ignorance, and fear. Becoming a manager of a company takes lots of responsibility and courage to stand up for yourself and remain strong throughout the job. Many women can do this as well as men which makes the argument that men are to blame for the glass ceiling irrelevant because it ultimately comes down to the person and their work ethic. 

I do not believe that men are to blame for the glass ceiling. I think the problem is not the gender gap but the different levels of confidence throughout the work place. Some women do not feel superior to men and it stops them from moving forward in their job. If women had more confidence and felt like they could do everything women could do the glass ceiling would not exist. I think fixing the pay gap between women and men could be solved by pay transparency (Elsesser, Forbes, 2015). If people knew what they were earning compared to others it would bring more awareness to the issue and help solve it. 

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Glass Ceiling: Who's to Blame?

Before women entered the workforce, it was an expectation for them to raise and take care of their family 24/7. Since then, the ‘all women are housewives’ stereotype has been slowly chipped away at but still exists much more subtly and is an expectation for some families. Placing the expectation on women to be the sole caretaker limits their ability in their career. This can lead to them having to take leaves of absence, cut back on hours, and for some women, stop working all together. If men were more involved in home life, women would have more opportunities in the workplace for advancement. Also, men are four times as likely to ask for a pay raise compared to a woman, which contributes to the wage gap (npr.org, ludden, 2011). Overall men are too aggressive and should help more with home life.

There are many contributing factors creating this theoretical glass ceiling. Maternal responsibilities is a huge factor for many women in the workforce. Since the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, both men and women have access to 12 weeks of leave regarding the birth or adoption of a child (lifescript.com, Fritscher, 2007). With this opportunity many mothers and fathers choose to alternate their leave so they’ll still have one income. But often times the responsibility is left solely to the mother. Regardless of how the parents choose to handle this responsibility, in no way is it “the man’s fault”, it is the couple’s choice.

The fact that US females have the median earnings that are only 79% that of males is misleading. Most of that gap is attributed to women’s career choice, resulting in lower paying jobs. For the most part in the United States, men and women working the job are receiving equal pay or very similar pay and fixing that is what has helped to begin to close the earnings gap. If women want to be truly equal in this aspect, more must seek higher education and be more aggressive to earn those higher positions. No one is to blame for the glass ceiling. If anything, we can blame those practicing good economics in the situation where a man is hired over a women due to a woman’s potential leave in the future. With so few top level positions, it will take more time for women to fully integrate into CEO and other higher up positions. A solution that many companies have adopted is having daycare facilities at the workplace. Through providing this on-site daycare, large companies have saved between $150,000 and $200,000 in wages and in turn the parents get to spend lunch breaks with their children while still being able to focus on work afterwards (smallbuisness.chron.com, Magloff, 2017).
     Men are to blame because men feel like they have more power over everyone else and since they founded the country and not woman men feel like they should have more and the women should stick to the jobs that pay less. Woman always get penitalized because there the ones that have kids and have to say home. Usually woman stick to jobs that do pay less such as teachers or secretaries, but some people are saying that employers are gearing them towards those jobs. “This is not to say that employers do not discriminate by sex. Some employers still steer women into lower-paid positions with lesser prospects,” (Motherhood Still a Cause of Pay Inequality-Eduardo Porter 2012). I agree because it is likely that employers are pointing them towards these jobs, so that they can put men in those positions instead. 
     Men are not to blame because they are not to blame because everyone is paid for the amount of work they are putting in. They are also not to blame because there is a larger number of men competing for these jobs. An article called, ‘Does the glass ceiling still exist?’ (debate.org 2016), “Equality is not measured by how many leaders from a certain group get a job; but, by whether or not they were discriminated in competing for those jobs. It is not surprising that there are less female prime ministers, currently, since men compete for these positions in higher numbers than women.” I agree because if the men are competing for the job more then it is more likely that they will get the job. 
     I believe that men are not to blame because they push themselves to get higher paying jobs. Men want to be the dough maker so they push them selves in making money. Men compete for stuff and push themselves to be right so I believe that's a reason for men getting the higher jobs woman have baby's and need to stay home with the baby so I believe that the inployer also looked at that as a factor and doesn't want to lose money so he also goes with the safer choice and go with the male. 

'Glass Ceiling'

Men are to blame for the "glass ceiling'  for a few reasons, but one is being that they do not take after home/ family responsibilities. Since it is typical for women to stay home with sick kids, fix household problems, etc. men are more likely to get the job (Forbes.com 10/31/2011). To many people that seems sexist. Men are to blame for this because if they would do the same for their families that woman are expected to, women and men would have an even playing field.

Others disagree and would say men are not to blame for the 'glass ceiling'. Organizations that demand equality in fact make it worse for women, When women are demanding something that does not fix the problem. Also, a lot of women are mean and think they are better than the other women in their work environment. Since women are mean to one another, that makes people disrespect women (entrepreneur.com Broder 10/16/13).

I do not think men are to blame for the 'glass ceiling'. Women being treated differently than men is a society thing; not a men are to blame for this problem (entrepreneur.com Broder 10 /16/13). I agree with this because women are just as able as men to have high paying jobs and become successful. Everyone had the opportunity and keys to success and if you choose to use them or not to use them that is on you, and not someone else.  
     The glass ceiling is a big problem in our society today, but who is to blame for it? According to Daily Mail it's because men are too aggressive "Shannon Goodson claims that women are still far more timid than men in the office," (dailymail.com, 2008). This makes the case for men being the reason for the glass ceiling. Due to a man's aggressiveness to brag about achievements, ask for a raise, or ask for a promotion they are likely making their female counterparts look less prepared for the job. Women also want to be more lady like which men take advantage of so that they may receive the promotion or raise. Men are to blame for the glass ceiling due to their aggression.

     Men are often blamed for the glass ceiling, but is it really their fault? It isn't their fault because most of the time women are just trying to fill a 'mandatory quota' that they feel they need to fulfill in the name of women's rights. According to entrepreneur.com not only do women give the glass ceiling too much power they also complain about their flexibility and their desires "36 percent of men said they want to be CEO, whereas only 18 percent of woman said the same" (Lindsay Broder, Entrepreneur.com, 2013). This explains that women aren't the majority of CEOs simply because they don't want to be. They also want to have a family, but most successful CEOs are without families because of their extreme dedication to their company. Although men play a part in the creation of the glass ceiling it is the women who keep it alive today.

     Are men really to blame for the glass ceiling? I believe that it is men who created it, but that it's women who allow it to prosper. They give it power and they feel that they must break the ceiling in the name of women's rights, but then they aren't choosing what they want to do they're doing what society tells them they need to do. According to the atlantic.com a lot of women are running from higher paying jobs due to hostile work environments so they had a solution that might help decrease the gap, "part of that solution has to include changing workplace cultures that are inhibiting women from taking jobs that increase their wages" (Bourree Lam, atlantic.com, 2016). I believe this is the best way to go about it. It will allow for the women who actually want to go into these executive positions a chance feel safe and ready to do their job. I feel that the most important part is that it will still allow for women who don't want to go into higher executive positions the ease of mind that they are no longer being forced into a position they don't want to go into all in the name of women's rights. The glass ceiling has caused a lot of problems in our society and it is time to stop pointing fingers and solve the problem so everyone has the equality they deserve.


Are Men to Blame for Women's Glass Ceiling

Some people believe that men are to blame for women's glass ceiling. They believe that men are sexist when employing people for there positions. According to thebalance.com, "jobs may be offered to a less qualified male applicant just because he is male"(Lahle Wolfe, thebalance.com, 2016). Women are also subject to be judged by what they look like and what they wear. Thus blaming men for profiling and being sexist in the workplace. When men are being sexist and profiling it does not allow women to get jobs they want, and does not allow them to break through the glass ceiling.

Blaming men for the women's glass ceiling is just the easy thing to do because women and others have no one else to blame but themselves. Men are not to blame in this day in age because of all of the freedom women have to do whatever they please. "The highest ranking women in most industries are in non-operating areas such as personnel, public relations, or, occasionally, finance specialties that seldom lead to the most powerful top-management posts." (Empowering women in Business, feminist.org, 2014) This really is the reason why people believe that there is a "glass ceiling" for women, because they choose certain career paths that do not allow them to rise to the top. This is perfectly fine and their right but people cannot then blame men. 

I believe that men are not to blame for the women's glass ceiling, simply because women are not aggressive enough in the workplace. According to entrepreneur.com "The women who complain about inequality in the workplace are often the same women who want flexible work schedules or other benefits so that they can have it all" (Lindsay Broder, entrepreneur.com, 2013). This is another reason why no fault should be placed on men when most women who complain about inequality want all the other benefits of the job as well. One way to fix the inequality of pay between men and women is to have the same exact benefits for both and then talk about pay. 
One possible reason for the reality that most CEOs are men is that all men in leadership positions are sexist. According to feminist.org "when deciding who to promote into management, male corporate leaders tend to select people as much like themselves as possible - so it is no surprise that women are frequently not even considered at promotion time. Instead, the men at the top look to former colleagues and old school ties" (Feminist Majority Foundation, 2014). This supports the possible reality that all men in leadership positions are sexist because the FMF says that men promote people only who are most like themselves which almost always excludes women.

A possible explanation for why men are not to blame for women's lack of corporate success is some women simply make different decisions and are not as ambitious in getting promoted. According to Penny De Valk, ILM chief executive, and dailymail.co.uk " The poll of 3,000 members of the Institute of Leadership and Management revealed that women managers have lower levels of ambition and confidence than their male counterparts...Women managers tend to lack self-belief and confidence at work compared with men" (De Valk, dailymail.co.uk). This can explain why less women are in CEOs because some choose other paths and others are just not willing to fight to the top. It may mean that the reason women are not CEOs is because of themselves not sexist men.

Personally, I do not think men are to blame for the glass ceiling or women not commonly being CEOs. I think it all comes down to personal choices and what is important to people. I simply believe different things are more important to women like relationships, a healthy marriage, and spending time with their children. According to Huffington Post and a member of the National Association of Professional Women  " I realized during the five years in my current role, work-life (managing multiple projects, balancing family, etc.) disallowed me to advance my skills in pursuing professional development opportunities either internally or externally to the organization. was so consumed with working to meet deadlines, managing projects, and rushing out the door to tend to family (nothing wrong with that), I did not strategically network to build relationships in the workplace which would have ultimately given me the visibility required to get to the next level" (Shanna B. Van Ness, Huffington Post). This supports my belief that it is just choices each individual makes because women often make choices that make moving up the corporate ladder come second.

Are Men Responsible for Glass Ceiling

I do believe that men do have some responsibility in the whole glass ceiling thing. In the early years it's been all men doing everything and even back when just men worked paying jobs. It has been steadily increasing for the last 40 years, but it's still not equal, and most likely never will be. Men have made women feel less important and therefore they don't want to do important jobs. "This cage is held together by the misgivings we have about our ability to succeed and handle the demands of leadership without sacrificing our other aspirations outside the workplace" (Warrell, www.forbes.com, 2013). If men didn't start off mistreating women, then I believe women would love to do all the important jobs, and even construction type jobs. I see men as creating the glass ceiling, only in the way of making them feel less wanted. 
The other side is that men aren't responsible for the glass ceiling. With everyone wanting to be treated equal today, I don't see why this is still even talked about anymore. You don't hear women complain of not getting higher up jobs, it's just that they usually don't want to do it. Applying yourself is the biggest thing in the workforce, and I don't see how that isn't the main reason for the pay gap. Men also ask for raises more and promotions, because we don't get feelings hurt if it doesn't happen. "The women who complain about inequality in the workplace are often the same women who want flexible work schedules or other benefits so that they can have it all" (Broder, www.entrepeneur, 2013). Women like to have everything their way and won't be flexible. Overall, I think women are to blame because of how they act and aren't as hungry for better positions. 
I believe men are not repsonsible for the glass ceiling in this day in age. It comes down to what women want in a job and how flexible they are. You can't take emotions into account and it also comes down to ambition. Women also like to complain, while men just keep it to themselves and don't make a scene. "68 percent of workplace bullying is same-sex harassment and of that 68 percent, 80 percent of cases are women-on-women harassment" (Broder, www.entrepeneur.com, 2013). Overall, I believe men are not in charge of the glass ceiling anymore, and it is getting better. 
Are men to blame for the glass ceiling, or pay discrepancy, for female workers? Some believe this is true because men have created the laws in favor of themselves. An article titled, ‘Now it's official: you can't blame women for earing less than men,’ written by Angelina Chapin in 2016, stated, “...women earn less because of good ol’ fashioned discrimination. It’s no surprise, since for most of history work cultures were created by men to help other men advance. The pay gap will only close once companies become environments that cater more to the female sex.” Men have been getting paid more for centuries because they are the ones creating the laws towards required work payments for men and women. 
Although that argument makes sense there are still other people who believe that men are not to blame for this pay disrepancy. “...men and women aren’t paid the same amount of money because they are choosing to go into different professions, and the labor market rewards their choices differently. In other words: unequal work, hence unequal pay,” says an article titled, ‘What Gender Pay-Gap Statistics Aren't Capturing written by Bourree Lam in 2016. These people believe that women would be paid the same if they were choosing the same job positions as men. 
In my opinion, men are not entirely to blame for this pay discrepancy now, but they did have a big part in starting it. Even if it is a man who is deciding how much women are getting paid for their work that does not mean that all men are to blame for this problem. One solution for this is to show that women are all getting paid equally by data, and if the pay discrepancy does exist, find out why, and fix it. 

Bettendorf Economics Blog: Assignment: Are men to blame for the 'Glass Ceiling' for women? (Due Thurs, 4/20)

      Are men to blame for the glass ceiling? “In 2005, 60% of women were in the labour force; ten years later, this ratio had edged up only slightly to 63% (it was 80% for men in both years).”( The Data Team, The economist 2017). This mean that less jobs are given to women and more are be given to men. Men are taking jobs that could go to women. The field should be leveled to stop men from having the glass ceiling.

      Men are not to blame for the glass ceiling. The glass ceiling is defined as “: an unfair system or set of attitudes that prevents some people (such as women or people of a certain race) from getting the most powerful jobs”( Merriam-Webster.com, 2017). The system is not unfair to women by man's fault, women have equal opportunity in America to get a job. The only thing that shifts the balance one way is maternity leave and even that is a stretch.

       In my opinion men are not to blame for the glass ceiling. The main reason for this is that we can’t be blame pad for something that does not exist. The reason why many believe it does is that men have higher paying jobs and usually the higher income end of a family. The men usually work hard to they can get more money for their family. Women will usually not strive as hard because their spouse already makes more money and provides for them. In one study done” According to a survey by management experts, the biggest obstacle on women’s climb to the top is their level of confidence – not their gender.”(Steve Doughty, Daily Mail 2011). This concludes that the problem is women lacking ambition and competition not men being sexist.

People say that men are a large cause for the glass ceiling. Some even go to say they cause women to make less. "Overall, women continue to earn 15% to 20% less than men—a disparity that grows the longer that women remain working outside the home." (Fortune.com). Women make up about 22% of cooperate executives nowadays, giving a compelling argument that men could be causing the glass ceiling. 
      Other people argue that men do not cause the glass ceiling. The glass ceiling exists because of different levels of difficulty and work ethics. Those who do not try to succeed will not succeed. "The majority of the male interviewees (13 out of 19) reported that they eventually became comfortable projecting authority, gaining enough confidence to lead client interactions into personal territory. As one said, “You need to develop a sense of maturity so that you can win over clients as a peer.” (http://knowledge.insead.edu/career/how-women-and-men-internalise-the-glass-ceiling-4587#QUjMuCtS00Y7ZhIt.99).
   Personally I don't think anyone is to blame for the glass ceiling, I think people just need to be more assertive to make themselves known and get more power in the work place.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Assignment: Are men to blame for the 'Glass Ceiling' for women? (Due Thurs, 4/20)

The Economics of 'Equal Pay for Women'


In America, the median (middle) pay for women is 78% of that for men (according to 2016 US Census Data).  Are men to blame for this 'glass ceiling', or pay discrepancy, for female workers?

1) In paragraph one, evaluate at least one argument in favor of men being to blame for the 'Glass Ceiling' for women.  You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

2)  In paragraph two, evaluate at least one argument against blaming men for the 'Glass Ceiling' for women.   You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

3) In paragraph three, justify your position on blaming men for the 'Glass Ceiling' for women.  Explain at least one solution for fixing the pay discrepancy for women, based on your position. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

The due date is 4/20/17 at 11:10 a.m.

Cheating Punishments

One argument in favor of giving out harsher punishments for cheaters in school is that harsher punishments will always make students think twice before cheating. At our school if you are caught cheating on a test for the first time, then all you get is a 0% on that test. Which for most kids would be terrible to their grade, but a lot of people still do it and making the punishment harsher, like failing the course would definitely make the number of kids cheating go down. In a survey done by Rutgers University 95% of high school students from 70 high schools admitted to cheating in some form (Jonah Lehrer, plagirism.org, 2014). Harsher punishments will definitely lower that number which is way too high in the first place.

One argument against harsher punishments for cheating in school is that kids do make mistakes and one mistake should not give a kid a failed course. Others think that cheating is not that big of a deal and that students need to value there actual learning over grades and test scores. Once the students and colleges value this, harsh punishments won't be needed. Many people think that harsh punishments for cheating discourage students from learning. "Also, it affects students badly because it leads to a break in educational progress of students" (Hammadi, linkedin, 2015). Harsh punishments will discourage students from learning and prevent them from getting a better education.

I believe that harsher punishments would work the best because it will always make the student think twice before cheating and thus lower the number of cheaters. 95% of students admit to being cheaters in school, which I think is way to high of numbers and needs to be cut down. Kids are always afraid of punishments and if you make it known that the punishment for cheating will be harsh they will not do it as much.


Should students receive harsher punishments for cheating? Well a pro to harsher punishments is students will be less likely to cheat. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-students-expelled-cheating-zainab-al-hammadi The article talks about how harsher punishments such as being expelled would negatively affect a person. I disagree because first of all do not cheat and second if you're going to school to become a doctor and you have to look at notes during open heart surgery you should not be a doctor.

https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/why-do-students-cheat-in-school/comment-page-18/?_r=0 A con to harsher punishments is just you are punishing students for something teachers just will not enforce. According to The NY Times access to cheat is easier than ever and teachers just do not care enough to enforce it, which is why students cheat so much. So it would not be fair to punish students more when the pipunishments are there just not enforced so students are more likely to cheat. 

I believe there should be harsher punishments when it comes to cheating. If you increase how you would get punished and the severity of it the likelyhood of it happening goes down and teachers also have to enforce those rules for it to go down.

Cheating is a significant problem in private and public schools all over the world. The question is why is cheating such a common action and why do students feel the need to copy someone else's work? Well, there is multiple situations that lead to cheating. What is the ideal punishment for cheating? Should punishments be harsher to prevent cheating? Cheating can lead to suspension, automatic zero, or at home discipline (law.lawyers.com, 2017). Those punishments may not be enough to really scare kids into not cheating, maybe an automatic fail in the class or expulsion is enough. Expulsion can be argued that it is too harsh, but some people would agree that this is a fit punishment.

On the other hand, punishments for cheating are already harsh enough as is and do not need to be changed. I know an automatic 0 in a class off the bat is very hard to recover from, not from personal experience, but from another source. Also, mistakes are made and kicking a kid out of class on the first offense is pushing it a little bit. It is important to have an open mind when you are having a conversation with your child and make sure you hear their side of the story. If you don't and just start taking away privileges without talking, your child might just go back to his or her old ways and that is what you were trying to avoid from the start (Lisa A. Goldstein, noodle.com, 2017).

In my opinion, I think the punishments for cheating now are enough as is. There shouldn't be a strip of lisense law or automatic expulsion from school that is extra. If a child wants to cheat I, honestly, would let them cheat. They can figure out that you won't be able to cheat your way at a certain point in your life and eventually fail. If it got way out of hand then I would take action to an automatic fail or something.

Cheating

There are many consequences to cheating in school. Over 66% of students have admitted to cheating on an exam in school and 80% of kids say they have let someone copy their homework or have copied someone else's work (Middleearth,Wordpress, 2014). A harsh punishment of failing the student out of the class is an appropriate way to handle the situation because it teaches the student not to continue to cheat. Failing a course stays on the students record making it hard for them to apply to colleges and other programs they need their transcript for. Failing a class also makes it aware to other teaches that the student was caught cheating and was punished. If a student is never punished they were never learn to stop cheating.

Some people though believe that cheating can not be punished and that the incident is a learning experience for the student. Some students may have trouble understanding academic dishonesty which makes it harder for them to understand the wrong behind cheating (Coles, Morningcall,2003). If a student is caught they should be taught the wrongs and consequences of cheating but not actually be punished. A lot of students have been caught cheating their first time which doesn't make sense to fail them out of a class if they don't even understand the consequences. This makes the student understand the effects of cheating to help prevent them from doing it while still managing to teach the student something.

I believe the punishment for cheating should depend on the type of cheating being done and if it is the student's first time cheating. If the student has not cheated before then I think teaching them the effects of cheating is a good way to help them understand the wrong and make them not do it again. Cheating is wrong regardless of the situation but should be punished depending on the act or amount of cheating done.
Pros

In every school there are students who cheat. Students who take advantage of careless teacher. Indeed, three out of four high school students admitted to serious cheating on tests-- in a recent survey of about 4,500 students by Rutgers University professor Donald McCabe (Jay Mathews, TheWashingtonPost(WP CompanyLLC), 2001). On a student's first offense, it should not be taken very harshly. Although, after the first offense, they should flunk the class or be expelled.

Cons

Cheating happens because of fear of failing, fear of being average, and fear of not being able to participate in sports or extracurricular activities. Cheating at school happens often and at particically all grade levels. Harsher punishments should not be issued. It should should vary prior to the age or grade of the child. Students who cheats will or at least should- feel an immediate response from their parents and the school (school law, education-law.lawyers.com, 2005). Harsher treatments does not teach the student better morals. Although it does ruin their self esteem and causes the student to think even more less than himself.

Conclusion

I do not think students should have harsher treatments. The school system can not punish the whole nation because of cheating. Everyone has cheated before, it's just that they have not been caught yet. I think people can learn from getting a zero on the assignment or a test. If cheating continues, then yes,  harsher punishments should be in place.
Cheating is a severe problem in many schools throughout the country and one main consequence for children is no after school activities during the week or weekend. The lesson should be learned that cheating is a big deal and should be taken seriously (Martindale, Education-lawyers, 2017). Cheating in schools sets children up for the rest of their lives causing them to cheat later on in life in things like college and the work place. Taking away a child's right to have fun activities or clubs shows the child that the issue of cheating is a big deal and is not taken lightly. Over 90% of children admitted to copying someone's test in school which is an extremely large number. Threatening to take away something the child enjoys would cause the child to see the wrong in what they are doing. 

Cheating ultimately relies only on the person who is doing the cheating which causes some schools to not punish their students. Instead of failing the student immediately or not allowing them to participate in certain activities some schools just let the student off with a warning. Cheating can permanantely haunt an academic career which makes the chance of students encountering a teacher who knows they cheat very likely. For some this punishment is enough because it is the students responsisbilty to uphold themselves in school (Hearst, Education. Seattle, 2017). Not choosing to punish students for their cheating makes the student realize their reputation and the effects it has on them. 

I believe students should be faced with a warning and just a failing grade when they have been caught cheating. The act of cheating ultimately relies on yourself because you chose to do it. I think the consequences of cheating should be kept to a minimum and should mostly let the student worry about it. Having teachers know you cheat and the failed courses appear on your record is enough for any student to want to stop cheating.