I agree the the government should raise the tax on pollution because its good for the environment and it will improve energy conservation. Everyone need gasoline and raising the tax will lower the oil demand and preserve out reserves. if people are forced to pay a 50 cent tax on gas pollution then that money could go towards helping the environment and getting the Co2 out of the air.
A lot of people rely on gasoline for their cars every day and putting a tax could make people no buy as much gas and that would reduce the amount of traffic and people would be taking more fuel efficient ways to get to where they need to go. If the gas is taxed, not as many people will want to pay it so they may sell their cars and buy electric or more efficient cars. They make just about everything with a battery alternative so people could try and cut gas as a whole."Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), the leading smart-growth advocate in Congress, has proposed raising the gas tax to 33.4 cents per gallon and pegging it to inflation. This idea is terribly unpopular, as few people who drive everywhere want to spend more on such an essential commodity."(Grist Magazine 2019)
I think the gas Tax should come into play because it would overall be better for the environment and there wouldn't be a choice to weather you want to pay it or not. People would basically be forced to help the environment and wouldn't really be able to argue it. If people don't think that this tax idea is a good idea then they have the option to get a more fuel efficient car or electric car.
Thursday, May 2, 2019
Pollution Tax
As of right now, taxes miss opportunities to clean up the environment (William Gale, brookings.edu, 2005). The taxes currently put in place only incentivise companies to over produce product with little punishment for failing our enironment as well as stifle incentives to create cleaner technologies. With more direct pollution taxes people will begin to realize the price for ruining our environment and begin to second guess themselves when using products that don't protect our environment. Some might say raising the prices through taxation won't stop people from using the products; however, increasing the prices might make people realize their is potentially a safer and cleaner option for the environment.
Many believe an increase in pollution tax benefits the environment. The pollution tax (ecotax) is used on activities considered to be harmful to the environment. The reason for this tax is simply to promote more environmentally friendly options and reward those through economic incentives such as not paying the pollution tax (environmental taxation guide, oecd.org, 2011). However, today more than 249 million people in the united states rely on cars or a gasoline-fed form of transportation. By increasing the pollution tax on gasoline it will leave more people struggling to afford cars which overall negatively effects the economy. If people are unable to afford transportation to things like jobs then this becomes a big issue for the economy. In conclusion, an argument made against raising pollution taxes is because so many people rely on this form of transportation, the rise in prices would only cause people hardships when trying to afford it (Tabitha Benney, scholars.org, 2019).
Should the government raise pollution taxes on gasoline. I don't think that is benefical. The bottomline is regardless of what new technologies are created people will still need gasoline for everyday mechanics. By increasing the prices they are only hurting the economy and making lower income families lives harder. Some people believe the increase will get people to realize their are cleaner options for the environment; however, I see it as more of an economic issue if the prices are increased and it isn't 100% clear that the price increase will really benefit the environment if people still choose to use gasoline.
Many believe an increase in pollution tax benefits the environment. The pollution tax (ecotax) is used on activities considered to be harmful to the environment. The reason for this tax is simply to promote more environmentally friendly options and reward those through economic incentives such as not paying the pollution tax (environmental taxation guide, oecd.org, 2011). However, today more than 249 million people in the united states rely on cars or a gasoline-fed form of transportation. By increasing the pollution tax on gasoline it will leave more people struggling to afford cars which overall negatively effects the economy. If people are unable to afford transportation to things like jobs then this becomes a big issue for the economy. In conclusion, an argument made against raising pollution taxes is because so many people rely on this form of transportation, the rise in prices would only cause people hardships when trying to afford it (Tabitha Benney, scholars.org, 2019).
Should the government raise pollution taxes on gasoline. I don't think that is benefical. The bottomline is regardless of what new technologies are created people will still need gasoline for everyday mechanics. By increasing the prices they are only hurting the economy and making lower income families lives harder. Some people believe the increase will get people to realize their are cleaner options for the environment; however, I see it as more of an economic issue if the prices are increased and it isn't 100% clear that the price increase will really benefit the environment if people still choose to use gasoline.
Gas Tax
Increasing the tax on gas would bring lots of money back into the government. According to Ben Adler in 2013, he estimated that Americans travel about 3 trillion miles each year(grist.org). Raising the tax would influence more people to buy electric cars because they don't want to pay for the high prices. The extra money they get can go to the many roads that need to be serviced each year. There are many benefits for the government by raising the gas tax.
Having a low tax rate will please the general population. If we raise it the government will get more money but there is no guarantee it won't be wasted. With low tax prices Americanś will have more money to spend at other businesses which then they would have to pay sales tax. The New York Times reported that France had to cancel their increased gas taxes because of the 3 weeks of riots they had from protestors.
I believe that we should not raise the gas tax until we start running out. There is a possibility that it could cause protests like what happened in France. The government already gets money through people buying other goods so if you increase the gas tax then that decrease the sales tax. Many people say that we can't burn as many fossil fuels but that is still are a major source of electrical energy that would power our cars.
Having a low tax rate will please the general population. If we raise it the government will get more money but there is no guarantee it won't be wasted. With low tax prices Americanś will have more money to spend at other businesses which then they would have to pay sales tax. The New York Times reported that France had to cancel their increased gas taxes because of the 3 weeks of riots they had from protestors.
I believe that we should not raise the gas tax until we start running out. There is a possibility that it could cause protests like what happened in France. The government already gets money through people buying other goods so if you increase the gas tax then that decrease the sales tax. Many people say that we can't burn as many fossil fuels but that is still are a major source of electrical energy that would power our cars.
Gasoline pollution tax.
People have argued that whether the government should increase its pollution tax on gasoline or not. Increasing the pollution tax on gasoline can be a good thing. According to pbs.org, “ raising the federal tax on gasoline is a way to improve the nation's roads, highways and bridges “. If they can raise taxes on gas this can be a good way in order to pay for those important things on our roads. If that tax money can go to those things on the road, they can put other money towards other funds.
In this paragraph I will talk about how Increasing the pollution tax on gasoline can be a bad thing. According to American tax reform, “ Tax hikes have a negative impact on economic growth.” Higher tax means higher gas prices which will reduce the income of million of Americans. According to American tax reform “lower gas prices could add as much as half a percentage point to GDP growth this year.”This just shows us that raising the gas will hurt our economy.
In this paragraph I will talk about my opinion on this. I believe that we should increase the gas prices on vehicles. If we do not increase it then we won't be able to afford nice bridges, roads or highways. But if we do increase it we can use that money on those important things so then we can use other money for other important funds. That is why I think that increasing the tax on gas is a good thing.
Raising Gas Tax
Raising the gas tax would benefit our government because it would lead to more
money going to our government and help save the environment. Our country is in
severe debt, owing trillions every year, and raising the tax on gas can help us clear
this obstacle. The tax for gas in America is 18.4 cents per gallon, but in Europe, the
price is about ten times higher. Taxing as much as these other countries do would
not only help provide funding for our government but also help the environment.
In today’s society, Americans travel about 3 trillion miles a year, which is more
than pretty much any other society on Earth (Ben Adler, grist.org, 2013).
Raising the price of gas would encourage people to drive less or get an
electric car, which would definitely help the Earth.
money going to our government and help save the environment. Our country is in
severe debt, owing trillions every year, and raising the tax on gas can help us clear
this obstacle. The tax for gas in America is 18.4 cents per gallon, but in Europe, the
price is about ten times higher. Taxing as much as these other countries do would
not only help provide funding for our government but also help the environment.
In today’s society, Americans travel about 3 trillion miles a year, which is more
than pretty much any other society on Earth (Ben Adler, grist.org, 2013).
Raising the price of gas would encourage people to drive less or get an
electric car, which would definitely help the Earth.
Raising the tax for gas would not be beneficial because it will not solve the real
problem and raise the prices for consumer goods. Right now there is a problem
because the HTF is spending more money than they have access too, and
increasing the amount of money they have will only increase the amount
they spend. For example, right now the gas tax brings in about $34 billion, and
the HTF spends around $50 billion (Jyskes, art.org, 2015). If we raise the amount
gas tax brings in to about $50 billion, then the HTF will likely increase their spendings
to around $75 billion. Also, raising the gas tax would cost consumers more to drive to
the supermarket to get their consumer goods. This is the same with delivery services;
if the price for tax goes up, then the price it will take for cars to come to deliver something
to your house will increase.
problem and raise the prices for consumer goods. Right now there is a problem
because the HTF is spending more money than they have access too, and
increasing the amount of money they have will only increase the amount
they spend. For example, right now the gas tax brings in about $34 billion, and
the HTF spends around $50 billion (Jyskes, art.org, 2015). If we raise the amount
gas tax brings in to about $50 billion, then the HTF will likely increase their spendings
to around $75 billion. Also, raising the gas tax would cost consumers more to drive to
the supermarket to get their consumer goods. This is the same with delivery services;
if the price for tax goes up, then the price it will take for cars to come to deliver something
to your house will increase.
Finally, I believe that we should not raise the gas tax. Pretty much everyone relies on
their gas-powered cars to get everywhere, from work to social gatherings. However,
not everyone can afford to pay so much more for each gallon of gas or to buy an
expensive electric car. This is a reflection on the “ability to pay” tax fairness rule.
Raising the price for gas might be alright to rich people, but to the less unfortunate, it
could mean spending hundreds of more dollars a month because you’re trying to earn money.
their gas-powered cars to get everywhere, from work to social gatherings. However,
not everyone can afford to pay so much more for each gallon of gas or to buy an
expensive electric car. This is a reflection on the “ability to pay” tax fairness rule.
Raising the price for gas might be alright to rich people, but to the less unfortunate, it
could mean spending hundreds of more dollars a month because you’re trying to earn money.
Pollution tax on gasoline
Someone can argue that increasing taxes can help out our government and help out our city or states. If taxes on gasoline were increased then the government would make more money to help pay for things wrong with the area you are in. According to atr.com raising the product tax will help us slowly decrease out debt. If we could take our country out of debt then it would help out our country a lot.
The number one problem with our debt or trying to fix it is a bad idea because think of the mount of resources and time we would have to set aside to decrease the debt number. If the gas taxes were raised it would less benefits than things bad about it. "Currently the gas tax brings in around $34 billion annually, yet the federal government is spending roughly $50 billion each year." (ATR.org) even though we already receive a lot of money with the tax all we do is spend it almost right away so we don't actually receive any money for it.
Should the government increase it's pollution tax on gasoline? I believe that the government should not raise the tax on gasoline because not very many people could afford a raise. A lot of people already have trouble paying for gas so if they raise taxes then many vehicles would not be able to be driven. Since many people will not be able to afford the gas overall or in general. According to NBC news most Americans can't afford cars which can also have a monthly payment and gas considering is a weekly payment depending on how much a person drives to get places. Then you also have to include taxes that people receive from various things and groceries so raising a pollution tax will decrease the amount of people that drive or the amount of gas people use every day.
The number one problem with our debt or trying to fix it is a bad idea because think of the mount of resources and time we would have to set aside to decrease the debt number. If the gas taxes were raised it would less benefits than things bad about it. "Currently the gas tax brings in around $34 billion annually, yet the federal government is spending roughly $50 billion each year." (ATR.org) even though we already receive a lot of money with the tax all we do is spend it almost right away so we don't actually receive any money for it.
Should the government increase it's pollution tax on gasoline? I believe that the government should not raise the tax on gasoline because not very many people could afford a raise. A lot of people already have trouble paying for gas so if they raise taxes then many vehicles would not be able to be driven. Since many people will not be able to afford the gas overall or in general. According to NBC news most Americans can't afford cars which can also have a monthly payment and gas considering is a weekly payment depending on how much a person drives to get places. Then you also have to include taxes that people receive from various things and groceries so raising a pollution tax will decrease the amount of people that drive or the amount of gas people use every day.
Having a higher tax on pollution will help not just the environment, it will also help the poor. Improving the environmental quality of our land will be the least expensive thing that the economy will do. "It is generally believe that “green taxes” will reduce environmental harm in the least costly manner, by encouraging changes in behaviour by firms, organisations, communities and households and individuals etc. Taxes on pollution provide clear incentives to polluters to reduce emissions and seek out cleaner and sustainable alternatives." (Kibria, www.researchgate.net, 2014). Providing an incentive to buy less products that produce pollution will be beneficial to the economy, changing the behaviors of people who would normally be wasteful.
On the other hand, having a tax on pollution can have its risks. A news article in Paris, France stated that they have tried to apply a 'green tax' on diesel. "Rioters torched cars and buildings in central Paris on Saturday following two weeks of protests caused partly by higher fuel taxes which Macron says are needed to fight climate change. Some protesters called for him to resign." (Felix, www.reuters.com, 2018). People that affected by the taxes in Paris didn't take too kindly to the new laws, causing riots, destroying property, and even asking for the president to resign.
My position on the situation is that I am in favor of a pollution tax, despite the risks that would come such as the angry protesters and riots. With the tax being present, it will help the environment in the long run. Some people aren't too fond of having their means of transportation taxed, but there are other ways to get somewhere without the need of pumping pollutants in the air.
On the other hand, having a tax on pollution can have its risks. A news article in Paris, France stated that they have tried to apply a 'green tax' on diesel. "Rioters torched cars and buildings in central Paris on Saturday following two weeks of protests caused partly by higher fuel taxes which Macron says are needed to fight climate change. Some protesters called for him to resign." (Felix, www.reuters.com, 2018). People that affected by the taxes in Paris didn't take too kindly to the new laws, causing riots, destroying property, and even asking for the president to resign.
My position on the situation is that I am in favor of a pollution tax, despite the risks that would come such as the angry protesters and riots. With the tax being present, it will help the environment in the long run. Some people aren't too fond of having their means of transportation taxed, but there are other ways to get somewhere without the need of pumping pollutants in the air.
Gas tax
There are many reason for why we should and should not raise tax on gasoline to control pollution. One negative is that it will effect the lower and middle class. people with a lot of money will still be able to buy a lot of gas and the pollution output would not change that much. Also raising tax on gas could not only hurt the people but businesses also. With the gas being more expensive people will want a lower millage car. This could hurt businesses because they would not be able to sell their bigger and more expensive suvs and trucks. One example is the United Kingdom. According to the Vehicle Licensing Statistics, at the end of December 2018, the major of people owned a smaller more fuel efficient car, (Vehicle Licensing Statistics, assets.publishing.service.gov.uk, 2018).
The main reason that there should be a higher tax on gas is that it is due-able. Even though people would not like it, they would find a way to live with it. More people would just start using a more fuel efficient car, drive less or more efficiently, or start using public transportation more. Also, even though it would not help much, A higher tax would reduce the pollution output, and according to the EPA, motor vehicles collectively cause 75 percent of carbon monoxide pollution in the U.S. So cars are the only problem but limiting the biggest contributor could help.
Overall, I do not think that their should be a higher tax on gasoline for pollution. A higher tax would just hurt lower classes and their income and the upper class would still be able to do what they want. I think that the price gas is at right now is good because the majority or people can afford. I think that a better solution would just be setting fuel efficiency standards higher on cars and/or making those cars the only ones available.
The main reason that there should be a higher tax on gas is that it is due-able. Even though people would not like it, they would find a way to live with it. More people would just start using a more fuel efficient car, drive less or more efficiently, or start using public transportation more. Also, even though it would not help much, A higher tax would reduce the pollution output, and according to the EPA, motor vehicles collectively cause 75 percent of carbon monoxide pollution in the U.S. So cars are the only problem but limiting the biggest contributor could help.
Overall, I do not think that their should be a higher tax on gasoline for pollution. A higher tax would just hurt lower classes and their income and the upper class would still be able to do what they want. I think that the price gas is at right now is good because the majority or people can afford. I think that a better solution would just be setting fuel efficiency standards higher on cars and/or making those cars the only ones available.
Wednesday, May 1, 2019
Pollution Tax and Gasoline
One argument that is for our government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline, is that it encourages the use of environmentally friendly fuels. According to Admin have stated that "The introduction of social cost on Carbon emission will encourage firms and individuals to look for alternative sources of fuels like solar power in order to avoid high prices on carbon pollution tax (Admin,ProanCon.com,2018). Since people are somewhat fed up with the taxes that they have pay they are likely to switch the forms of transportation that they would be using.
On the other hand, one argument that is against our government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline is the higher administration cost. According to admin have stated, " to implement a carbon tax the government needs a huge amount of capital."(Admin, ProanCon.com, 2018). Since the government needs the money for the carbon tax and that we should not be giving the government the capital money.
I think that we should not increase the taxes on gas because increasing the taxes for them would make people poor since the gas would be a lot of money. For tax fairness, is that the people that are in the middle class that is already having a hard time paying for gas but the rich people are not even having any trouble paying for the gas. Overall everything, I think that we should not increase the taxes on the gas but just leave it as where it is because everybody is being able to pay for it without having to struggle with it.
On the other hand, one argument that is against our government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline is the higher administration cost. According to admin have stated, " to implement a carbon tax the government needs a huge amount of capital."(Admin, ProanCon.com, 2018). Since the government needs the money for the carbon tax and that we should not be giving the government the capital money.
I think that we should not increase the taxes on gas because increasing the taxes for them would make people poor since the gas would be a lot of money. For tax fairness, is that the people that are in the middle class that is already having a hard time paying for gas but the rich people are not even having any trouble paying for the gas. Overall everything, I think that we should not increase the taxes on the gas but just leave it as where it is because everybody is being able to pay for it without having to struggle with it.
Pollution Tax on Gasoline
Everyone needs gas and people won't go without it. There are some positives to increasing the tax on gasoline. According to Business Insider, increasing the tax on gasoline will lower oil demand and that will preserve our reserves (Rapier, www.businessinsider.com, 2018). We can save what we still have by increasing the tax and that will make people buy less of gasoline plus it will cut down on air pollution.
Increasing the tax on gasoline is a bad idea and can hurt some people. If we raise it then people that need the gas but can't afford it if it is increased can't get gas then. According to Americans Tax Reform, if we increase the tax on gasoline, it will hurt the middle-income Americans the most (Boone, www.atr.org, 2015). People will spend so much just on the increased tax that if they didn't then they could be doing something else with the money like eating out or doing some sort of activities.
I believe that we should not increase the tax on gas. It will make people go poor because gas will be expensive and people still need it to get around. Tax fairness is that people that are middle class will start to struggle to pay for gas but the rich people will be fine. Overall, we shouldn't increase our tax on gas and keep it the same because right now it is affordable for most Americans.
Increasing the tax on gasoline is a bad idea and can hurt some people. If we raise it then people that need the gas but can't afford it if it is increased can't get gas then. According to Americans Tax Reform, if we increase the tax on gasoline, it will hurt the middle-income Americans the most (Boone, www.atr.org, 2015). People will spend so much just on the increased tax that if they didn't then they could be doing something else with the money like eating out or doing some sort of activities.
I believe that we should not increase the tax on gas. It will make people go poor because gas will be expensive and people still need it to get around. Tax fairness is that people that are middle class will start to struggle to pay for gas but the rich people will be fine. Overall, we shouldn't increase our tax on gas and keep it the same because right now it is affordable for most Americans.
Should the Government raise pollution tax on gas?
When it comes to paying a gas pollution tax in the U.S. we have it easy. In other countries it is upwards of three bucks compared to the U.S.'s $.18. One argument to raising the tax is that less people will drive less. The people that do drive will help generate more money for the government to use in funding. According to The U.S. chamber of commerce a .25 cent tax raise would generate "about $840 billion through 2050"(energyinovation.org). $840 billion is a huge chunk of money that the U.S. could defiantly benefit from. Whether that goes to the U.S. debt or improving technology to better the environment. Raising a gas tax would be a good thing not only for the economy but for the people that live under it.
The real expense of a gas tax hike would be the people. With people using less gas jobs would be lost do to the lack of necessity. Or workers wont be paid as much because gas and oil company's wont be making as much. "While raising the gas tax would increase government revenues, it would only do so at the expense of economic growth, jobs, and family income"(Rae Hederman). We have currently been getting better at lowering unemployment rate. This would increase employment rate tremendously. Instead of taking peoples lively hoods away and money from family's we should find another way for the government to make money.
In my opinion I do not think we should raise the gas pollution tax. We currently don't have the ability to pay for it as a country. We don't have the extra jobs for the people that would be laid off. It might sound like a good idea on the surface, but after looking into it there are many flaws. I would not want to be taking food out of people mouths because companies couldn't afford the workers. Maybe a small tax raise would work. But I feel anything over 10 cents would be a stretch.
The real expense of a gas tax hike would be the people. With people using less gas jobs would be lost do to the lack of necessity. Or workers wont be paid as much because gas and oil company's wont be making as much. "While raising the gas tax would increase government revenues, it would only do so at the expense of economic growth, jobs, and family income"(Rae Hederman). We have currently been getting better at lowering unemployment rate. This would increase employment rate tremendously. Instead of taking peoples lively hoods away and money from family's we should find another way for the government to make money.
In my opinion I do not think we should raise the gas pollution tax. We currently don't have the ability to pay for it as a country. We don't have the extra jobs for the people that would be laid off. It might sound like a good idea on the surface, but after looking into it there are many flaws. I would not want to be taking food out of people mouths because companies couldn't afford the workers. Maybe a small tax raise would work. But I feel anything over 10 cents would be a stretch.
Gas pollution tax
This paragraph is about good things that would happen if we increased the gas tax. According to prosandcons.com one pro to this argument is that it would help the environment. If people are fed up with the tax they are more likely to switch to some form of transportation that doesn't take gas. In the next paragraph I will talk about a con about increasing the tax.
In this paragraph I will talk about how increasing the tax could be a bad thing to do. According to prosandcons.com one con of making the tax higher is that it will incur age tax invasion. If the tax gets to high for some people they will avoid paying the tax. In the next paragraph I will talk about my option in this topic.
In this paragraph I will talk about my opinion in this argument. I think that there should be a higher tax on gas. My reason why is that less people will buy it and will switch to alternatives. And if everyone did that the earth will be a lot cleaner. Overall I think we should make the tax higher on gas.
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
Assignment: Should the government increase its pollution tax on gasoline? (due Thurs, May 2 at 9:50 am)
The Economics of Pollution Taxes:
The current federal sales tax specifically on gas is $0.184/gallon. Additionally, purchasers of gas in Iowa pay a state sales tax of $0.305/gallon. For comparison, the sales tax on gas in England is $3.44/gallon (Source: taxfoundation.org, 2018). Should the various levels of American 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 our 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 our 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 US 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 9:50 am on Thursday, May 2.
Monday, April 22, 2019
Cheating
Many teachers believe that punishments for cheating should become harsher in high school because they are very harsh later on in life. In college the punishments for cheating can range from a zero on the test to failing the course or getting expelled from school. A class president was recently caught cheating on the final and only receive a zero on the test.(Jay Matthews, 2001, The Washington Post). Many people at the school thought he should be kicked out of class president.
There are also people who believe that a zero is a good punishment for cheating. They claim that students will learn from their mistakes. Schools can also leave an permanent mark on the students file which can hurt them when applying for college(2019, seatlepi).
I believe that schools should increase their punishments for cheating. The schools are designed so that you can almost fail one test and still get a decent grade in the class. Many students are fine with a lower grade. If there was a suspension from extracurricular activity students would not cheat as much because many value sports or schooling.
There are also people who believe that a zero is a good punishment for cheating. They claim that students will learn from their mistakes. Schools can also leave an permanent mark on the students file which can hurt them when applying for college(2019, seatlepi).
I believe that schools should increase their punishments for cheating. The schools are designed so that you can almost fail one test and still get a decent grade in the class. Many students are fine with a lower grade. If there was a suspension from extracurricular activity students would not cheat as much because many value sports or schooling.
Cheating is not something a whole lot of teachers want to see their students do in order to pass a test. Though in terms of punishment, some are in favor for harsh punishment. One study found that a majority of academics believe that essay mills (people who write essays for the students) should be made illegal. 41 percent believe they should be criminalized. (Study International Staff, www.studyinternational.com, 2019).
While physical punishment is one way to prevent students from misbehaving. It is an ineffective and wrong way of doing it. It is a form of abuse to both the psyche and the physical body. As a negative effect, it undermines the relationship between the teacher and the pupil. It also seems to send out the wrong message. (Goodman, soapboxie.com, 2017).
To be honest, I can go either way on this, I never really got a harsh punishment since I don't cheat, nor do I get caught on cheating (if I do so anyway), it all depends on how severe the action was in the matter. If they paid someone to write an essay for them, then they do deserve a harsh punishment. But if they were to copy someone on a test or have a little answer sheet with them, then no, go right at it, just don't get caught.
While physical punishment is one way to prevent students from misbehaving. It is an ineffective and wrong way of doing it. It is a form of abuse to both the psyche and the physical body. As a negative effect, it undermines the relationship between the teacher and the pupil. It also seems to send out the wrong message. (Goodman, soapboxie.com, 2017).
To be honest, I can go either way on this, I never really got a harsh punishment since I don't cheat, nor do I get caught on cheating (if I do so anyway), it all depends on how severe the action was in the matter. If they paid someone to write an essay for them, then they do deserve a harsh punishment. But if they were to copy someone on a test or have a little answer sheet with them, then no, go right at it, just don't get caught.
Cheating
Cheating in school is a very common activity that kids and young adults do throughout high school, and most of the time they don't get caught for it. But when a child or young adult is caught the consequences are very high. "Cheating can rise to the level of a legal violation when students steal other people's copyrighted work. For example, a student who lifts excerpts from someone else's paper and then uses them in her own published paper has committed copyright infringement. She could be sued by the creator of the work for any financial damages the creator suffered as a result of the infringement. Most cheating in college does not rise to this level, but it is still a possibility." (Seattlepi.com).
On the other hand students shouldn't be punished for cheating as harsh as they should be due to the condition that the teachers put the students under or what they do for the test. "In an ideal world, professors could hand out take-home tests and know that their students would not cheat; this would save class time for lectures instead of exams and preserve the integrity of the university. Universities should expect all of their students to live up to a standard of honesty, but that is unrealistic. Everybody cheats, and if they haven’t, they probably didn’t treat a class with as much consideration as it deserves." (Thetartan.org)
I think that the more they have done the cheating and how much it's worth cheating should determine the punishment, not just a harsh one from the start since every kid does cheat in some point of their life time.
On the other hand students shouldn't be punished for cheating as harsh as they should be due to the condition that the teachers put the students under or what they do for the test. "In an ideal world, professors could hand out take-home tests and know that their students would not cheat; this would save class time for lectures instead of exams and preserve the integrity of the university. Universities should expect all of their students to live up to a standard of honesty, but that is unrealistic. Everybody cheats, and if they haven’t, they probably didn’t treat a class with as much consideration as it deserves." (Thetartan.org)
I think that the more they have done the cheating and how much it's worth cheating should determine the punishment, not just a harsh one from the start since every kid does cheat in some point of their life time.
Cheating in school
Cheating has been a big thing in school. Everyone has cheated, and there has been a discussion on whether if we should have harsher punishments or not. Today, I will be talking about the pro of harsher punishments and the con and my view on this. Cheating in academic schools can be a big problem and academic schools should be harshly punished. It is not only dishonest but it is unfair to the other students around you (debate.org). Whether it is using another persons paper and calling it yours or looking at someones people it is dishonest and wrong. If you tell them to stop cheating they would actually lie and cheat again that they say they wouldnt do it again, that is why they need a harsh discipline so they know next time not to do it (debate. org).
School's should not have harsher punishments when disobey the school rules. If a student were to cheat, that student should be instead given advice and be informed on whey cheating is bad ( Wired.com). The kinds of punishments you would give them would not help the students learn to be more obedient or self disciplined. Also if there are circumstances outside of the students control which lead to the student to break the rules he or she may not deserve punishment (wired.com) That is why cheating in school should not have harsh punishments.
My view on this is I think we should have harsher punishments in school for cheating. When you cheat you are being very dishonest and you are being unfair to the other people who worked very hard to get a good grade. Whether if a person uses someone elses paper or if you look at someones paper it is not right. If you dont have a punishment the kid will never learn and he will just keep doing the same thing over and over again. cheating is a very bad thing and we need a punishment so a kid can learn to stop cheating.
School's should not have harsher punishments when disobey the school rules. If a student were to cheat, that student should be instead given advice and be informed on whey cheating is bad ( Wired.com). The kinds of punishments you would give them would not help the students learn to be more obedient or self disciplined. Also if there are circumstances outside of the students control which lead to the student to break the rules he or she may not deserve punishment (wired.com) That is why cheating in school should not have harsh punishments.
My view on this is I think we should have harsher punishments in school for cheating. When you cheat you are being very dishonest and you are being unfair to the other people who worked very hard to get a good grade. Whether if a person uses someone elses paper or if you look at someones paper it is not right. If you dont have a punishment the kid will never learn and he will just keep doing the same thing over and over again. cheating is a very bad thing and we need a punishment so a kid can learn to stop cheating.
Punishment for Cheating
Corporal punishment should be a thing in all states because it is considered harsh now a days but it gets the job done. Corporal punishmnet also handles cheating very well and makes it so kids do not cheat as often. According to ProCon.org "Corporal punishment sets clear boundaries and motivates children to behave in school"(https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005350). Corporal punishment would be very helpful because it would make a child learn how to act. Also it will motivate them not to act up and to just follow the rules. Also these types of punishments help show other students to not act up or they will fear getting the same punishment.
Corporal punishment can be a great thing and stop kids from cheating but there are some bad sides to it too. According to ProCon.org "Corporal punishment creates an unsafe and violent school environment" (https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005350). Having corporal punishment can cause students to use violent aggressive behavior which may result in more fights in school and more problems. This is teaching kids to be harsh and to have aggressive behavior which is not a good thing.
In my opinion they should not have corporal punishment for cheating and just find another soultion that is not as harmful to the kid. If we use corporal punishment for kids then it will result in more aggressive behavior and that is not good for a school because it may result in many fights. Although cheating is bad the punishment should not be as harsh but there still should be a punishment that is less harsh.
Corporal punishment can be a great thing and stop kids from cheating but there are some bad sides to it too. According to ProCon.org "Corporal punishment creates an unsafe and violent school environment" (https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005350). Having corporal punishment can cause students to use violent aggressive behavior which may result in more fights in school and more problems. This is teaching kids to be harsh and to have aggressive behavior which is not a good thing.
In my opinion they should not have corporal punishment for cheating and just find another soultion that is not as harmful to the kid. If we use corporal punishment for kids then it will result in more aggressive behavior and that is not good for a school because it may result in many fights. Although cheating is bad the punishment should not be as harsh but there still should be a punishment that is less harsh.
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Cheating
Cheating is a big deal in college and there are harsh consequences, but cheating in high school, there aren't bad consequences which makes people keep doing it. According to Seattle Pi, in college, you could get suspended or even expelled if you cheated on anything(Thompson, education.seattlepi.com, 2019). If high school did this, then more students would be afraid of getting caught and then it would stop cheating going on.
Cheating is bad for students but harsher punishment is not the way to do it. According to The Spectrum, students need to learn from their mistake and so that they don't do it again (The Spectrum, www.ubspectrum.com, 2018). If we don't have harsher punishments for students, then they can learn from their mistake and that could be good from them and that will make them not cheat again.
I believe that schools should have harsher punishments. Students cheat because they are lazy and if there is a suspension for doing it then it will make students work and try on the test instead of cheating. This is the only way to stop it from happening, we need to follow how colleges treat cheating.
Cheating is bad for students but harsher punishment is not the way to do it. According to The Spectrum, students need to learn from their mistake and so that they don't do it again (The Spectrum, www.ubspectrum.com, 2018). If we don't have harsher punishments for students, then they can learn from their mistake and that could be good from them and that will make them not cheat again.
I believe that schools should have harsher punishments. Students cheat because they are lazy and if there is a suspension for doing it then it will make students work and try on the test instead of cheating. This is the only way to stop it from happening, we need to follow how colleges treat cheating.
Cheating in School
Cheating in our schools is a problem that has persisted throughout time, and has become even easier and a more viable option as technology becomes more prevalent in the classroom. If schools want to curt back on cheating, imposing more severe punishments for being caught must be put into place. Possible removal from the class, suspensions and permanent marks on records should be put into place to discourage cheating. "There are now a lot honor codes that are being developed at the high school and middle school level. If you talk about it, admit there’s a problem, come up with a way to show it won’t be tolerated, and have everyone sign onto doing something about it, cheating can be curbed."(Tim Walker, neatoday.org).
Getting a nice F on that test and permanently tarnishing your reputation with teachers sounds like a punishment to make any high school cringe. Some argue that there is no need to make more severe punishments for students who are caught cheating. There are some out there that think that teachers should redesign curriculum and exams to help combat cheating.Students are less likely to cheat on work in which they feel invested. A multiple-choice assessment tempts would-be cheaters, while a unique, multiphase writing project measuring competencies can make cheating much harder and less enticing. (Andrew Simmons, edutopia.com)
I do think that punishments for cheating should be stepped up. As a high school senior, I have seen and participated in my fair share of cheating, and I wasn't ever really worried about what would happen if caught. But, if there were more strict consequences for cheating, it would 100% help deter and prevent students from cheating.
Punishments for Cheating
There are multiple reasons why harsher punishments like corporal punishments is a good way to handle cheating. A reason why corporal punishments are good is that it is effective the behavior adjustments. According to a navajocodetalkersadmin" Corporal punishment is one of the quickest and effective ways to discipline a child who is acting up." (Navajocadetalkersadmin, navajocadetalker.org,2015). While having these punishments to help discipline the students is a good thing because then they would understand not to do it again. And having these types of punishments it can show the other students what the consequences are when they act up.
There is plenty of reason why harsher punishments like the corporal punishment are not the correct answer for cheating is that it inflicts long-term harm on both physically and mentally on children. According to Crystal Ayres " children who receive physical punishment for their problematic behaviors are more likely to respond with aggression and have problems with attention compared to students who receive other forms of consequences." (Crystal Ayres,connectisfund.org,2019). Having the corporal punishment can lead the students to be aggressive towards others because of how harsh the punishment that they got because they misbehaved.
I think that harsher punishments like the corporal punishment are not the right chose for the students that cheat because while the corporal punishment could make the students have aggression and also have problems as the result of using the type of punishment. I think that they should use other options that would not involve harming the students physically, and also mentally.
There is plenty of reason why harsher punishments like the corporal punishment are not the correct answer for cheating is that it inflicts long-term harm on both physically and mentally on children. According to Crystal Ayres " children who receive physical punishment for their problematic behaviors are more likely to respond with aggression and have problems with attention compared to students who receive other forms of consequences." (Crystal Ayres,connectisfund.org,2019). Having the corporal punishment can lead the students to be aggressive towards others because of how harsh the punishment that they got because they misbehaved.
I think that harsher punishments like the corporal punishment are not the right chose for the students that cheat because while the corporal punishment could make the students have aggression and also have problems as the result of using the type of punishment. I think that they should use other options that would not involve harming the students physically, and also mentally.
Punishments for Cheating
Cheating in schools has been an issue long before rules were set in place on how students should be treated. Some believe by enforcing rules with stricter punishments and in some cases, this includes corporal punishment then the rate of cheating or the rule being broken will decrease. A study by Birmingham University found that with criminals the more police patrolling and the more punishment that was enforced on individuals breaking the law, the less crime there was actually being committed (Toby Helm, theguardian.com, 2012). Although this situation in the article doesn't directly relate to schools it shows that the harsher the punishment inflicted the less the crime was being committed, if this mentality was used in schools then the rate of cheating could be decreased.
Even though there is evidence to show harsher punishment is positive, there is also research to show harsher punishment is harmful to the development of children. The argument, in this case, is with physical punishment it results in an increase of aggression in children and can create more violent situations. If schools were looking for harsher punishments there has been research to show not only does corporal punishment negatively affect students mentally, but there also is no evidence that it benefits anyone in the long run (Sandi Schwartz, mother.ly, 2018). There is research to show creating a relationship with students increases trust and can limit rules being broken such as students cheating. The punishments put in place already show children that they are in the wrong.
In my opinion, I think the punishments we are given for cheating aren't nearly as harsh as they could or should be. I don't necessarily agree with going as far as corporal punishment because of the research indicating negative effects; however, I think more should be brought to the student than a slap on the wrist and an F on the assignment. In college, cheating or plagiarism can result in expulsion and I think it should be taken just as seriously in high school. Cheating is a serious issue and it has become normalized by fellow students and society determining your worth based on a letter grade. The amount of pressure added to kids to receive good grades only enables cheating and should be discussed with teachers. The harsher the punishment is, I think only decreases the amount of cheating happening.
Even though there is evidence to show harsher punishment is positive, there is also research to show harsher punishment is harmful to the development of children. The argument, in this case, is with physical punishment it results in an increase of aggression in children and can create more violent situations. If schools were looking for harsher punishments there has been research to show not only does corporal punishment negatively affect students mentally, but there also is no evidence that it benefits anyone in the long run (Sandi Schwartz, mother.ly, 2018). There is research to show creating a relationship with students increases trust and can limit rules being broken such as students cheating. The punishments put in place already show children that they are in the wrong.
In my opinion, I think the punishments we are given for cheating aren't nearly as harsh as they could or should be. I don't necessarily agree with going as far as corporal punishment because of the research indicating negative effects; however, I think more should be brought to the student than a slap on the wrist and an F on the assignment. In college, cheating or plagiarism can result in expulsion and I think it should be taken just as seriously in high school. Cheating is a serious issue and it has become normalized by fellow students and society determining your worth based on a letter grade. The amount of pressure added to kids to receive good grades only enables cheating and should be discussed with teachers. The harsher the punishment is, I think only decreases the amount of cheating happening.
Should Students Receive Harsh Punished for Cheating
Many think that students who cheat in class should not receive a second chance. At Sequoia High School a student was kicked out of his class for cheating. Many were outraged. "And in an informal online reader poll by this newspaper, 84 percent of about 300 respondents said students should not get a second chance when caught cheating"(Noguchi 4/26/12). The school received lots of backlash for their actions despite many people agreeing that kids should only get one chance. The setuation at Sequoia High School is a perfect example of people in favor for a harsh punishment for students who cheat in class.
Cheating in a class is very unethical. But there is a very controversial topic about rightful punishment for these wrong doings. Schools tend to have a zero tolerance policy for cheating. “There is the possibility this will cause permanent harm. What university will it keep him out of? Will that have far-ranging consequences in what kind of job he can get?” (Berghouse). The students father is very worried about how this could look in the future. He believes that getting kicked out of a class for cheating was harsh and could affect his sons options in the future.
I believe the students should receive a harsh punishment for cheating. Nothing bugs me more when people ask me for answers to homework or a test. Not because they aren't my friends or I don't like them. Its because I'm not going to let someone else use me to take the easy way out for their lack of work and effort. I am positive most people feel the same way. For those reasons I do think that cheating should result in a harsh punishment for students.
Cheating in a class is very unethical. But there is a very controversial topic about rightful punishment for these wrong doings. Schools tend to have a zero tolerance policy for cheating. “There is the possibility this will cause permanent harm. What university will it keep him out of? Will that have far-ranging consequences in what kind of job he can get?” (Berghouse). The students father is very worried about how this could look in the future. He believes that getting kicked out of a class for cheating was harsh and could affect his sons options in the future.
I believe the students should receive a harsh punishment for cheating. Nothing bugs me more when people ask me for answers to homework or a test. Not because they aren't my friends or I don't like them. Its because I'm not going to let someone else use me to take the easy way out for their lack of work and effort. I am positive most people feel the same way. For those reasons I do think that cheating should result in a harsh punishment for students.
Saturday, April 20, 2019
Punishment for cheating Nick Johnson
There are multiple reasons why harsher punishments like corporal punishment is a good way to handle cheating. Corporal punishment makes kids think twice before doing something they are supposed to do because this type of punishment is worse than punishments like simple detention. Another reason that corporal punishment is good is that it sets "boundaries" for students, "Advantages like this occur when the understands that there are specific boundaries which cannot be crossed in certain circumstances."(Crystal Ayres, connectusfund.org, 2019). These boundaries are good for all students to understand, so even if corporal punishment doesn't help correct the actions of one student it can help to show other students what the consequences are for acting up.
There are plenty of reasons why harsher punishment like corporal punishment is not the answer for cheating. On big reason is that according to studies done by Barbara Woodhouse, a professor of law at Emory University, have shown that "Spanking and other harsh methods make children's behavior worse not better."(Barbara Woodhouse, psychologybenefits.org, 2017). There have also been other studies that have shown that students who are punished by corporal punishment have a higher chance to suffer from depression and withdraw themselves socially from school.
I personally think that harsher punishment like corporal punishment is not the right answer for students who cheat. While corporal punishment could help scare kids into doing the right thing in school, I think there are better options that would work just as well if not better than hitting students. I think the best way to handle with cheating in school is not to punish kids for doing it but to just make it nearly impossible to cheat. As a student I think the reason why kids cheat is becuase it is sometimes easier than putting in the time to study so I think if you make finding a way to cheat harder than just studying it will help fix the problem.
There are plenty of reasons why harsher punishment like corporal punishment is not the answer for cheating. On big reason is that according to studies done by Barbara Woodhouse, a professor of law at Emory University, have shown that "Spanking and other harsh methods make children's behavior worse not better."(Barbara Woodhouse, psychologybenefits.org, 2017). There have also been other studies that have shown that students who are punished by corporal punishment have a higher chance to suffer from depression and withdraw themselves socially from school.
I personally think that harsher punishment like corporal punishment is not the right answer for students who cheat. While corporal punishment could help scare kids into doing the right thing in school, I think there are better options that would work just as well if not better than hitting students. I think the best way to handle with cheating in school is not to punish kids for doing it but to just make it nearly impossible to cheat. As a student I think the reason why kids cheat is becuase it is sometimes easier than putting in the time to study so I think if you make finding a way to cheat harder than just studying it will help fix the problem.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Should Punishments for Cheating be harsher?
When a student cheats in school, it is most likely because of a lack of studying. Punishing a student for cheating will probably lead to this student feeling guilt, regret, and not cheating again. However, this does not happen if the punishment is too soft and doesn't give the student a long-lasting impression. According to surveys, "in between 80 and 95 percent of high school students admitted to cheating at least once in the past year and 75 percent or more admitted to cheating four or more times" (Walker, Neatoday.org, 2012). If 95% of students are cheating, then the school must be doing something wrong. It is important for students to learn in school, and part of learning is failure.
When it comes to punishing students for children, I do not think the current punishments for cheating should be harsher, but part of me thinks that they should not be as harsh. Some punishments, like spanking, do not work, period. Studies have been made on how being spanked affects a child, and it actually does more harm than good. "A new analysis of two decades of research on the long-term effects of physical punishment in children concludes that spanking doesn’t work and can actually wreak havoc on kids’ long-term development," (Rochman, healthland.time.com, 2012). However, I am not saying that punishments should be removed completely. Without any punishments, there will be an incomprehensible rise in cheating, and nobody would learn anything.
I think that cheating punishments should not be as harsh for multiple reasons. One reason is that many punishments that are already in effect could ruin a student's life instead of doing what it should actually do. Some students have been punished so harshly for cheating that they are no longer able to get any college to accept them. This, in a way, can effectively ruin the life a student and their family has planned out in front of them. Punishments should not exist to ruin lives, but to reform them. A punishment should just be something to scare a student to not cheat again, and harsher punishments should only be used upon repeated offenders.
Corporal Punishment on cheaters
Corporal punishment is a very debatable topic. Here is one side to this argument, One is that it can be useful when used in moderation to avoid form them cheating. According to Crystal Ayres from Connect us.com corporal punishment con be useful in moderation and setting boundaries. She says if the child is testing your limits physical force could be used to let them know the limits. By doing this they would learn their lesson and not cheat again.
Now on to the other side of the argument not using it. Here is one thing good about not using corporal punishment. According to pro con.com form pro con.com it can result in anger and attention. A study done in Dec 2016 showed that kids that got corporal punishment are more likely to emulate that punishment in the future to others. And them having anger issues from cheating is not a good trade off. You should use alternatives than physical force.
My position in this argument is that I disagree with the punishment. The reason that I disagree is that the child would have issues in the future. And I do not want my child to have these issues from just cheating on a test.I would use alternatives than physical force. Overall I disagree with corporal punishment.
Harsher punishments in schools can be better then most people think. According to Navjocodetalkers.org harsher punishments such as corporal punishment can is the quickest and most effective way to discipline a child who is acting up. It is also free and it also gives them and idea of right and wrong. A quick punishment will let them know what they were doing was wrong and will give them a sense of right and wrong.
Harsh punishments like corporal punishments can have negative effects on a child. It can give the teach a misuse of power and can lead to abusing children if they are in a bad mood or fed up with the child. It can also promote more violence. If a student sees that violence solves problems then they will think that it is the best way to solve their problems. According to the Navjocodetalkers.org it can cause mental harm and cause problems with authority and an extreme dislike of schools and the educations systems.
I think that there should be a little bit more harsh punishments in school but not as extreme as corporal punishments. Cheating is a major issue for schools around the world and the consequences for it are not that bad. I think that if there was more punishment for cheating then less students would do it.
Harsh punishments like corporal punishments can have negative effects on a child. It can give the teach a misuse of power and can lead to abusing children if they are in a bad mood or fed up with the child. It can also promote more violence. If a student sees that violence solves problems then they will think that it is the best way to solve their problems. According to the Navjocodetalkers.org it can cause mental harm and cause problems with authority and an extreme dislike of schools and the educations systems.
I think that there should be a little bit more harsh punishments in school but not as extreme as corporal punishments. Cheating is a major issue for schools around the world and the consequences for it are not that bad. I think that if there was more punishment for cheating then less students would do it.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
ASSIGNMENT: Should punishments for cheating in school be harsher? (due Monday, April 22 at 8:10 am)
The Economics of 'Cheating in School':
1) In paragraph one, evaluate at least one argument in favor of harsher punishments for cheating in school. 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 harsher punishments for cheating in school. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).
3) In paragraph three, justify your position on harsher punishments for cheating in school.
The due date is April 22, 2019 at 8:10 am.
1) In paragraph one, evaluate at least one argument in favor of harsher punishments for cheating in school. 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 harsher punishments for cheating in school. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).
3) In paragraph three, justify your position on harsher punishments for cheating in school.
The due date is April 22, 2019 at 8:10 am.
Monday, April 15, 2019
Community Service
There are many good reasons to have required community service. One positive of doing community service hours is it looks better on collage applications and it can even get you scholarships. It is also a great way to help out your community and meet more people around your city.
There are not very many cons to having required community service. The biggest reason to not have required community service is students wouldn't have enough time. Many students have jobs, sports and a lot of homework. Some students would not have enough time to do everything.
I think we shouldn't have to do community service because a lot of students have enough time to do it. A lot of students have to go to work, do sports and do homework. There would a lot of students that would not be able to. There would also be a lot of students that couldn't get there.
There are not very many cons to having required community service. The biggest reason to not have required community service is students wouldn't have enough time. Many students have jobs, sports and a lot of homework. Some students would not have enough time to do everything.
I think we shouldn't have to do community service because a lot of students have enough time to do it. A lot of students have to go to work, do sports and do homework. There would a lot of students that would not be able to. There would also be a lot of students that couldn't get there.
There are benefits of service hours, many of which involve better social skills. It connects one to many other people, doesn't matter where one may work at, they are bound to make friends, especially when the volunteer work doesn't involve pay. "One of the best ways to make new friends and strengthen existing relationships is to commit to a shared activity together. Volunteering is a great way to meet new people, especially if you are new to an area." (Community Engagement, wcsu.edu, 2019). Community service hours can be a benefit to people in terms of socializing with others, creating bonds with others.
There are cons of service hours, depending on who is working anyway. The list can extend to many reasons, just as much as the pro list. One may not have the time to commit themselves to such service, especially teenagers when they have to juggle homework, after-school activities, and school at the same time. "But another key problem is that volunteers can become so committed and involved in their particular cause, they can easily become frustrated that others don't share their passion" (James Roland, www.livestrong.com, 2019). Some may put a little bit more effort into the work to a point where if others don't put in the same work, they grow frustrated with them.
My position on this subject is that I am not in favor for community service hours due to even more limited hours that people may have. With high school students participating in after-school activities, along with that, they have jobs, so trying to fit in extra time for volunteer work may prove more stressful than beneficial
There are cons of service hours, depending on who is working anyway. The list can extend to many reasons, just as much as the pro list. One may not have the time to commit themselves to such service, especially teenagers when they have to juggle homework, after-school activities, and school at the same time. "But another key problem is that volunteers can become so committed and involved in their particular cause, they can easily become frustrated that others don't share their passion" (James Roland, www.livestrong.com, 2019). Some may put a little bit more effort into the work to a point where if others don't put in the same work, they grow frustrated with them.
My position on this subject is that I am not in favor for community service hours due to even more limited hours that people may have. With high school students participating in after-school activities, along with that, they have jobs, so trying to fit in extra time for volunteer work may prove more stressful than beneficial
Service Hours
having service hours and be beneficial in some ways and can be a waste of time. I personally don't think that you should be required to do a certain number of service hours for schooling because you already have enough things on your plate as is. I understand that they look great on college applications and help with your career path, but it shouldn't determine weather you are able to graduate or not.
Service hours
Caleb Mack
Economics
Mr Hornaday
April 14th
Economics
Mr Hornaday
April 14th
Service hours
A lot of school around the area make there kids do community service hours for there students in order to graduate. For this topic there is a positive and a negative to this. A positive on service hours is it creates good personal development. This happens in a number of ways. Students learn about there strength and weaknesses, community service and exposure to different situations can teach students how to develop the skills that they have and work on areas they struggle in (Prep Scholar). Community service can also allow students to become directly involved in there communities (Prep Scholar). By helping in there communities it doesn't just help the people in there community but it helps the students. The knowledge that they are making a real difference also affects students on a personal level. When students know there work is helping someone they so increased rates of self esteem.
A negative on service hours is the students who do community service work will not take it seriously. They will not really care about the cause and they will do low quality work just to get hours (Calabasas courier). This is a big point because some people who come in and sign up just want to get the hours so they can graduate. I know when I was at my other school we were required to do community service hours and some times I wasn't excited about going. But I just went because of the hours I need. Also, science says that working more than 40 hours a week can have effects on you ( Inc.com). You can have a risk of cardiovascular issues, depression, injuries and high levels of stress (Inc.com). Science says you should only work 40 hours a week or less, you should not be working more than that. So if you do extra hours like community service that could effect you physically and mentally.
My position on community service is it should be mandatory for high school's. I think that high school's need to get there students working in the community. They can help the community by doing these hours and community service can help high school students to become more mature. Just like in the positive paragraph, service hours can help students lift up there self esteem and it can help them work on there strength and weaknesses. I am not saying that schools should have there students do a ton of hours. I am just saying that schools should have to students do some service hours in order to graduate high school.
Service Hours - Savage
Forcing community service time on students can be helpful. "One of the most common ways of involving young adults in community activities is through volunteerism" (Emma Caldwell, mlive.com, 2011). Not only does it help involve students in their community, but it also prepares them for their future. Managing the amount of time needed to put into different activities is a helpful skill to learn for when you have a job. It can also teach students to be more respectful and encourage them to put more time into community service in the future.
All of this extra time that schools are forcing students to use can also end in a negative way. Many students and parents complain about how schools force too much homework on their students and this steals too much of the student's free time. Being forced to do all of these hours of community service can put a student in the position of having to choose to do their community service hours or do homework / study their academics (Diane Loupe, aasa.org, 2019). There are many students who use most of their time studying for very difficult classes in hopes to get in a college they want. These hours of community service are highly unnecessary and a burden to any who might take school seriously, so they should be abolished.
I believe that schools should not be forcing hours of community service onto their students. When these students are being forced to "volunteer" for these community service hours, they're not volunteering at all. When their school forces them to do community work, the act of volunteering is turned into homework that needs to be done. Some people may say that forcing high school students to do community service will encourage them to volunteer in their own time, but there are also students that feel fed up with community service after having it forced on them for all of high school. These students will likely feel discouraged from community service and will take all measures necessary to avoid it. In conclusion, since forcing high school students into community service will likely worsen their academics and discourage them from attempting it in the future, we should not enforce community service in Bettendorf High School.
All of this extra time that schools are forcing students to use can also end in a negative way. Many students and parents complain about how schools force too much homework on their students and this steals too much of the student's free time. Being forced to do all of these hours of community service can put a student in the position of having to choose to do their community service hours or do homework / study their academics (Diane Loupe, aasa.org, 2019). There are many students who use most of their time studying for very difficult classes in hopes to get in a college they want. These hours of community service are highly unnecessary and a burden to any who might take school seriously, so they should be abolished.
I believe that schools should not be forcing hours of community service onto their students. When these students are being forced to "volunteer" for these community service hours, they're not volunteering at all. When their school forces them to do community work, the act of volunteering is turned into homework that needs to be done. Some people may say that forcing high school students to do community service will encourage them to volunteer in their own time, but there are also students that feel fed up with community service after having it forced on them for all of high school. These students will likely feel discouraged from community service and will take all measures necessary to avoid it. In conclusion, since forcing high school students into community service will likely worsen their academics and discourage them from attempting it in the future, we should not enforce community service in Bettendorf High School.
Service hours
One positive about making community service mandatory is that it builds on your personality. Community service is supposed to help teach students responsibility, communication skills, and can expose students to different career paths. And according to the original 1997 MCPS memo, all community service activities, whether it be direct or indirect, encourages career preparation and reflection(MCPS, silverchips.mbhs.edu, 1997). Not only does the student benefit from community service hours but the community that they are volunteering in benefits.
One negative about community service being mandatory is that it takes away from the whole point of volunteering. By making service hours mandatory it forces kids to volunteer because they need it to graduate, and not because they want to. And volunteering should come "from a student's passion and interest."(silverchips.mbhs.edu, 2011). Some students also don't have a lot of time outside of school to volunteer that much. This is because students are involved in after-school sports or clubs, or some have jobs.
I think students should volunteer and do community service, but I don't think it should be made mandatory or a graduation requirement. I agree with the article when it says some students don't have time to volunteer and that it should be because the student wants to and not because they need to. If you make community service requirement kids will just do the bare minimum and won't get anything out of it because they didn't want to do it in the first place.
One negative about community service being mandatory is that it takes away from the whole point of volunteering. By making service hours mandatory it forces kids to volunteer because they need it to graduate, and not because they want to. And volunteering should come "from a student's passion and interest."(silverchips.mbhs.edu, 2011). Some students also don't have a lot of time outside of school to volunteer that much. This is because students are involved in after-school sports or clubs, or some have jobs.
I think students should volunteer and do community service, but I don't think it should be made mandatory or a graduation requirement. I agree with the article when it says some students don't have time to volunteer and that it should be because the student wants to and not because they need to. If you make community service requirement kids will just do the bare minimum and won't get anything out of it because they didn't want to do it in the first place.
Service hours
Volunteering for different events in your community exposes you to many experiences that are both beneficial and enjoyable. Through community service you can meet new people who live in your community and make new friends. Studies have shown that volunteering can boost ones self esteem as while as lower depression because it feels good to help people and make a difference.(Western Connecticut State University) It can also be used as a way to remove stress in your life and give back to your community. If kids practicing volunteering during school than they are more likely to enjoy it and give back to the community even when they are adults.
Students should not be required some many service hours in order to graduate. Most students think of these service hours as a giant assignment that they don't care about and just want to get it over with. Community service is more genuine when people are helping out in their free time rather than being told by someone else.(Nadia Khan, 2008, Chicago Tribune). This means that some students will put in as minimal effort as possible. The majority of students have other activities outside of school as well such as work, sports, homework, and clubs.
I believe that schools shouldn't have a service hour graduation requirement. Helping out your community should come naturally and not be forced onto people. Even though these opportunities provide a way of meeting new people as well as making a difference, you have to put forth effort to achieve these things. Many students will do the minimum and not get anything out of it. There are still lots of people in high school that volunteer on their own.
Students should not be required some many service hours in order to graduate. Most students think of these service hours as a giant assignment that they don't care about and just want to get it over with. Community service is more genuine when people are helping out in their free time rather than being told by someone else.(Nadia Khan, 2008, Chicago Tribune). This means that some students will put in as minimal effort as possible. The majority of students have other activities outside of school as well such as work, sports, homework, and clubs.
I believe that schools shouldn't have a service hour graduation requirement. Helping out your community should come naturally and not be forced onto people. Even though these opportunities provide a way of meeting new people as well as making a difference, you have to put forth effort to achieve these things. Many students will do the minimum and not get anything out of it. There are still lots of people in high school that volunteer on their own.
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Service Hours
There are very good pros to having service hours as a requirement for graduation. The first pro is that service hours expose people to other cultures, backgrounds, and ages (Pearce, classroom.synonym.com, 2018). Exposing teenagers to other cultures and ages before going to college will help then fit in with there community when they get older. It is also said that whoever learns to give back to their community, will continue on after graduation. Overall having it a requirement could be a good thing.
There is a con for having service hours as a graduation requirement. A study was down and "when students or any individuals perceive that they are being controlled externally, the natural human response is to lose enthusiasm for the project and toward the behaviors that are being promoted"(Pearce, classroom.synonym.com, 2018). According to this study students just tend to lose interest in the involvement and don't have fun. Having mandatory service hours could be a bad thing in some peoples eyes.
I believe that service hours for a graduation requirement is a good thing. I feel like it will get people more interested in finding a job in college and also help people think of ideas for college. Some people will probably not do it but they need to think about how it could help them later down the road. Overall I believe that mandatory service hours for graduation is a good idea
There is a con for having service hours as a graduation requirement. A study was down and "when students or any individuals perceive that they are being controlled externally, the natural human response is to lose enthusiasm for the project and toward the behaviors that are being promoted"(Pearce, classroom.synonym.com, 2018). According to this study students just tend to lose interest in the involvement and don't have fun. Having mandatory service hours could be a bad thing in some peoples eyes.
I believe that service hours for a graduation requirement is a good thing. I feel like it will get people more interested in finding a job in college and also help people think of ideas for college. Some people will probably not do it but they need to think about how it could help them later down the road. Overall I believe that mandatory service hours for graduation is a good idea
Service Hours
One positive for having service hours is that it is rewarding because you don't get paid for doing the hours. Plus it rewards you with emotional and also spiritual rather financial. It gives you the chance to help out with people and also get to make new friends while doing it. According to the non-profit Botanic Garden Conservation International the opportunity to give back to society and feel useful, to fill in a gap in your personal life and intellectual stimulation and growth. (Botanic Gardens Conservation International, bgci.org, 2019). Since having service hours is rewarding towards some people, it can also help other people that want to meet new people or even help out with society.
On the other hand, there are a few negatives for having service hours because it can be time-consuming for some people. According to James, Roland states that having the time commitment to the service hours, it can lead to having problems like having to schedule problems for it because you would spend more time doing the service hours and not having enough time for school, work and family. ( James Roland, livestrong.com,2019). While having trouble with the time commitment you can make it clear to the organizers about how much time you could devote to the service hours.
My position is that we should have service hours because you are giving back to society, and helping out. Since you can qualify for getting a scholarship for the service hours that you want to do is a good idea because then the scholarships that you are getting from the service hours can help you find a college that you want to go to.
On the other hand, there are a few negatives for having service hours because it can be time-consuming for some people. According to James, Roland states that having the time commitment to the service hours, it can lead to having problems like having to schedule problems for it because you would spend more time doing the service hours and not having enough time for school, work and family. ( James Roland, livestrong.com,2019). While having trouble with the time commitment you can make it clear to the organizers about how much time you could devote to the service hours.
My position is that we should have service hours because you are giving back to society, and helping out. Since you can qualify for getting a scholarship for the service hours that you want to do is a good idea because then the scholarships that you are getting from the service hours can help you find a college that you want to go to.
Economics of Service Hours Reflection Porter
Requiring students to have a certain number of service hours to graduate could be a very beneficial experience for the students. Making students get out into the community and interact and help gives them the opportunity to give back to the community. Service hours also provide valuable real world experiences and lessons they can take with them for the rest of their lives. One more possible advantage of requiring service hours could be to introduce the students to a career they might be interested in pursuing in the future(Nadia Khan, chicagotribune.com).
While requiring students to have a certain number of service hours could benefit them, there are also downsides to this policy. Not every single student will embrace this idea of required service hours, and will neglect the possible advantages they can receive from it. Having to keep doing volunteer work over and over and over again could get old, and some students will just do the bare minimum and do whatever work halfheartedly just to fit a quota. It is possible by requiring service hours to graduate, students will lose any actual interest in making a difference(Nadia Khan, chicagotribune.com).
I think that students should not be required to have service hours to graduate. I feel that it is an unnecessary experience for a student to have, and that the student would gain more benefits from volunteer work if they were doing it of their own accord. I agree with the con argument, that forcing students to do it, most of the students would do the absolute bare minimum and take the easiest possible route in serving their hours.
Service hours
Their are many befits to doing community service hours. One positive thing is that they can be rewarding emotionally. According to James Roland Life strong.com 2019 even though the volunteering is a non paying job it can be rewarding in a emotional way. Making you feel accomplished after helping someone out.
But with the positives there are always negatives. One of theses negatives is the time commitment. According to an article done by Jody Hagensen on the classroom.com 2019 they say that teenagers are often busy in their day to day life. They say that often teenagers don't go because they are overwhelmed with home work and jobs and etc.
My potion is that student should have the choice to do volunteering work. If the teenagers is already struggling to do their homework and gt to their job on time they should focus on that instead of volunteering. But if the teenager has nothing to do and is board they could go volunteer. So that it would look good on their college resume.
Saturday, April 13, 2019
Should Graduation Require Service Hours?
There are many schools that have mandatory service hours to graduate. There are multiple reasons school require students to do so According to Simrin Gupta. Gupta goes on to say "But perhaps the most beneficial part of the SSL hour requirement is that it gives students experience with group dynamics"(Silverchips.edu) This is a huge point to be brought up as students are becoming increasingly less social as time goes on. School work also does not necessarily provide the best team work skills that most jobs require post high school.
Many school also don't require service hours. Many people feel it is very time consuming and doesn't provide students with any extra know how. According to Claire Koenig "High school is a busy time - many students juggle jobs or multiple after school activities in addition to their schoolwork"(Silverchips.edu). I am sure many students will vouch for what she is saying. I myself sometimes feel that way while juggling two jobs, two high schools, and any left over time with sports.
I believe that we should have to complete mandatory service hours. While high school students are a little pressed for time that does not outweigh the experiences students can receive by such hours. People I talk to in high school lack the communication skills it takes to work in the real world. These hours would help increase these traits for students to better prepare them for the work force.
Many school also don't require service hours. Many people feel it is very time consuming and doesn't provide students with any extra know how. According to Claire Koenig "High school is a busy time - many students juggle jobs or multiple after school activities in addition to their schoolwork"(Silverchips.edu). I am sure many students will vouch for what she is saying. I myself sometimes feel that way while juggling two jobs, two high schools, and any left over time with sports.
I believe that we should have to complete mandatory service hours. While high school students are a little pressed for time that does not outweigh the experiences students can receive by such hours. People I talk to in high school lack the communication skills it takes to work in the real world. These hours would help increase these traits for students to better prepare them for the work force.
Friday, April 12, 2019
Student Servicing hours
The best pro that service hours has is that it builds up for outside opportunities and allows you to learn more life skills you may need for the future or future jobs. "Students who make a commitment to volunteering in their community will gain exposure from different cultures, backgrounds and ages" (Pearce Classroom.synonym.com 2018). It also allows students to be more diverse and open minded about decisions and problems in the future helping them through life. Or for a student that volunteers their time with the elderly can learn from them and get some life lessons on what not to do or what is good in life. This is a very important role in service hours which is teaching you or getting you ready for the future.
Too much service hours can scare someone away from future service hours or future involvement. Mandated service-learning requirements may or may not be perceived as external control, but if they are, this perception can alter the student’s desire in the future to continue being socially active (Deci Classroom.synonym.com 1985). Service hours and the pressure it puts on some students may mess with their head and their social interaction. Then in the future it could mess with future opportunities they may have had before the service hours getting to them.
I believe that a small amount of service hours should be mandatory, but if the student seems incapable at performing then just don't allow them to do the service hours. Only let the students that have the free time and that seem capable or more than capable to do service hours. Since they are the ones that seem to want to go to college more and will be closer to success and get better opportunities in the future. Or students that completely fell down the hole have them try to earn some responsibility so they can learn more about the future and what is expected of them. If they do service hours then it will help them learn a bunch of life lessons that they will need so it will help them succeed.
Too much service hours can scare someone away from future service hours or future involvement. Mandated service-learning requirements may or may not be perceived as external control, but if they are, this perception can alter the student’s desire in the future to continue being socially active (Deci Classroom.synonym.com 1985). Service hours and the pressure it puts on some students may mess with their head and their social interaction. Then in the future it could mess with future opportunities they may have had before the service hours getting to them.
I believe that a small amount of service hours should be mandatory, but if the student seems incapable at performing then just don't allow them to do the service hours. Only let the students that have the free time and that seem capable or more than capable to do service hours. Since they are the ones that seem to want to go to college more and will be closer to success and get better opportunities in the future. Or students that completely fell down the hole have them try to earn some responsibility so they can learn more about the future and what is expected of them. If they do service hours then it will help them learn a bunch of life lessons that they will need so it will help them succeed.
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Assignment: The Economics of 'Service Hours' (due Monday, April 15 at 8:10 am)
'Objectivism' is a philosophy that promotes the freedom and effort of the 'Individual' (made famous in Ayn Rand's book, "Atlas Shrugged"). It values each person's creativity and independent spirit. Everyone should be self-interested and only engage in actions for personal gain-- for example, property should only be received in exchange for productivity and entrepreneurship. Individual happiness cannot be achieved by just wishing for it-- it must be worked for. With no one else to rely on, every member of a society is pushed to do his best for himself. Socialist ideas of 'community' and 'service' are constraints on free will and obstruct the benefits of individual drive. Therefore, societies that value freedom, effort, and Capitalism will be the most productive, the most advanced, and the happiest.
As a reflection on 'Objectivism', evaluate the utilization of a potential 'Service Hours' requirement for BHS graduation. Click on 'New Post' in the upper right corner and write a post, using the following format:
1. A minimum of one paragraph that analyzes at least one positive of the program-- be sure to evaluate at least one outside source (cite using in-text citation: author, source, date)
2. A minimum of one paragraph that analyzes at least one negative of the program-- be sure to evaluate at least one separate outside source (cite using in-text citation: author, source, date)
3. A paragraph where you justify your position on the program
This blog entry is due by 8:10 am on Monday, April 15. Make sure to both 'Save' and 'Publish' your post after writing it.
Sunday, April 8, 2018
“Should MLS merge with Liga MX?”
I have not watched an entire American MLS (Major League Soccer) game live or on TV in a few years-- the last one I attended was in Tucson, Arizona, circa February 2013 as Thierry Henry and the New York Red Bulls were playing a pre-season friendly. However, rarely will I miss the English Premier League (EPL) or Barcelona, especially now with DirecTV's numerous European football viewing options (BeIn Sports, Fox Sports Network, etc.). The reason: the quality of the players. There is no doubt that American soccer players have never been better. Growing up, however, the only time I saw the world's best players was every four years on televised World Cup matches. Even then, World Cup football was not nearly the same quality as European football, with too many teams packing it in after too little time training as a unit-- it simply cannot compete with the fluid football played by professional teams over 10 months every year on beautiful, immaculately tended pitches. When MLS started in 1996, I was hooked. When Chicago was granted a franchise in 1998, I became a Fire fanatic. Then, in the early 2000s, American television viewers were given the opportunity to see the likes of Messi and Ronaldo, Barcelona and Real Madrid, oftentimes twice a week! Now that I know who the best players and teams are, I demand the best with my limited resources. MLS is like frozen pizza to Spain's La Liga being deep dish from Lou Malnati's in Chicago-- if they both cost the same, which would you buy? That said, could a merger of MLS with Mexico's Liga MX improve the quality of domestic soccer and possibly draw better players to the United States?
Pros
- Average attendance is roughly the same: The Mexican League's 18 teams averaged 21,232 spectators per game during the 2013-14 season, with Club America (43,370), Tigres (40,784), Monterrey (30,548), and Tijuana (22,715) leading individually at the gates (www.worldfootball.net, 2014). The 20 teams in MLS averaged 21,259 through early August 2015, led by Seattle's 41,324, Orlando's 33,324, New York FC's 28,959, Toronto's 25,254, San Jose's 23,627, and Los Angeles's 21,889 (www.statbunker.co, 2015). Thirteen of the MLS teams were below the league's average attendance, as were 13 teams in Liga MX. If the top 10 attended teams from both leagues constituted a new Superleague, average attendance worldwide would trail only the German Bundesliga-- 43,502 in 2013-14 (www.worldfootball.net, 2014)-- and the English Premier League-- 36,657 in 2013-14 (www.espnfc.us, 2014). The top ten from Mexico had a mean attendance of over 27,000, while the top ten from MLS averaged over 25,000. These twenty teams would have average attendance numbers rivaling those of Spain's La Liga, which averaged almost 27,000 fans in 2013-14 (www.european-football-statistics.co.uk, 2014). With more fans, either more sponsors will be attracted or current sponsors can be charged more by club owners, as those sponsors' brands will be seen more. Having one of the highest attended leagues in the world should attract better players.
- Over 40 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the U.S.: According to the 2013, U.S. Census Bureau, Mexican-Americans constituted 10.9% of America's population, numbering 34.6 million, and the United States is home to 24% of all the Mexicans in the world. There are also over 7 million undocumented Mexicans in the country, according to the Pew Hispanic Center (2009). As cited by www.ussoccer.com (2015), 7 of the 20 highest attended games in America's soccer history involved either the Mexican national team or a Liga MX club. Univision Deportes's early February 2015 broadcast of the Chivas-Club America match outdrew 4 nationally televised NBA games that week, along with 6 NHL games and 4 EPL games on the NBC Sports Network (Alicia Rodriguez, www.thegoatparade.com, 2015). The same 2 teams' rematch on Univision in late April attracted 3 million American viewers and outdrew 6 nationally televised NBA playoff games and 35 NHL Stanley Cup games that week (Andy Furillo, The Sacramento Bee, 2015). Ideally, bringing highly recognized Mexican clubs and players will attract more Mexicans and Mexican-Americans to domestic games.
- Spreading the Brand Name: Manchester United, Barcelona, Real Madrid, and the richest football clubs all partake in pre-season tours around the world to spread brand recognition, drawing huge crowds, increasing jersey sales, and adding millions of dollars in revenue via future worldwide television rights. Every business wants exposure to more potential customers.
Cons
- Discrimination: In 2013, two former Chivas USA coaches filed a discrimination lawsuit against the club, claiming they had been fired "because they were not Latino". Shortly after buying out his partners in 2012, new sole owner Jorge Vergara was accused of informing his Chivas USA staff that anyone who did not speak Spanish would be let go. (Kevin Baxter, Los Angeles Times, 2013). Vergara also owned Liga MX's Chivas de Guadalajara, who were seen as Chivas USA's 'big brother'. The lawsuit was settled out of court. In its last year of existence in 2014, Chivas USA averaged about 7,000 fans per game-- easily lowest in the league (www.espnfc.us, 2014). To be fair, other MLS owners have been sued. In addition, other clubs throughout the world have discriminated against one culture in favor of another. Athletic Bilbao of La Liga only rosters players of Basque ethnicity. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would certainly prevent Real Salt Lake from fielding only Mormons, as an example.
- Racism. In early 2014, Liga MX had to put FIFA's anti-racism protocol into effect after incidents of racist chanting, noises, and signs involving four foreign players at two separate matches. The first stage involves stopping the game and making an announcement over the stadium's PA system. The second stage involves suspending the game for up to 10 minutes, with teams being sent back to their locker rooms. The final stage involves emptying the arena before play is continued (www.soccertranslated.com, 2014). This protocol applies to MLS as well, but a situation for its application in the league has never arisen. Games have been forfeited and played in empty stadiums all over the world because of fan racism and xenophobia, but American crowds have been above this.
- Citizenship rules and foreign players: At one point in early 2015, 40% of the players in starting lineups in Liga MX were born outside of Mexico. This was accelerating towards the 46% of starters playing in Europe's largest five leagues not being born in their countries of employment. Club America was starting nine players born outside of Mexico. Only one of the league's top ten scorers was born within Mexico. Why the upward trend of foreign-born players in Mexico? Any Central or South American player who has resided in Mexico for at least two years can become a naturalized citizen and be counted as a domestic player. This 'naturalization' then frees up a foreigner slot, as each team is only allowed 5 non-Mexican players (Tom Marshall, espnfc.us, 2015). In America, the naturalization process necessitates 5 years of residence if the foreigner is not married to an American (www.uscis.gov, 2015). The Canadian naturalization process involves 6 years of residence (www.cic.gc.ca, 2015). MLS teams are each allocated 8 international player slots (non-Americans or non-Canadians), which can be traded (www.pressbox.mlssoccer.com, 2015). Would Mexico's more 'lenient' naturalization process create too unfair an advantage for Mexican teams, or does the fact that more international players are allowed on MLS teams negate this? Would Chicago or Los Angeles, for example, be able to roster as many Mexican players as they wanted to, as these players would now count as ‘domestics’?
- Fiscal discipline differences: There is no salary cap in Liga MX. The MLS salary cap for 2015 was set at just under $3.5 million for each team's first 20 players-- an average of $175,000 for each man on the club's 'senior roster'. In addition, 8 players constitute each team's 'supplemental roster', earning between $50,000 and $60,000. The maximum salary on the senior roster is $436,250. Each team is allowed 3 'Designated Players' whose compensation can exceed the aforementioned maximum salary but only counts as a salary cap hit of the maximum salary (www.pressbox.mlssoccer.com, 2015). The average player salary in the EPL was about $3.5 million in 2014. That same year saw average salaries in the Bundesliga at about $2.26 million and about $1.87 million in La Liga. The average salary in Liga MX in 2014: $411,000. The average salary in MLS that year: $210,000-- ranked #22 in the world's leagues (www.dailymail.co.uk, 2014). The biggest spending team in MLS during the 2013 season, the LA Galaxy, had an average salary of over $550,000--ranking 219th in the world. Barcelona's average salary that year was over $10 million (Jon Arnold, www.americansoccernow.com, 2013). However, there were at least 11 players in MLS that had higher salaries than any player in Liga MX in 2015, with the likes of Giovinco, Villa, Kaka, Lampard, Gerrard, and Pirlo joining the league as Designated Players with salaries over $4 million. Liga MX's highest salaried player was Roque Santa Cruz at $2.6 million (www.mlsgb.com, 2015). Average team income in 2014 was $33 million in Mexico and $25 million in the U.S., with total player salaries costing Liga MX teams over $10 million on average and MLS teams over $5.5 million on average. As a comparison, the average team in the EPL saw an income of $240 million and player salaries costing over $85 million (www.dailymail.co.uk, 2014). In sum, the MLS is hugely cost conscious, but its players' salaries are on the rise. Would the league's owners be amenable to drastic increases in expenses that a merger with Liga MX might require? Would Liga MX agree to an MLS-style salary cap? Would MLS be open to dropping its salary cap?
- How do you split the 38 teams currently in MLS and Liga MX? As mentioned earlier, there are currently 20 teams in MLS and 18 teams in Liga MX. In addition, there are 16 teams fighting for promotion into Liga MX in the Mexican 2nd Division (Ascenso MX). Would you field a 38-team top flight league, or would a 2nd Division be created? Which teams would be relegated to this 2nd Division? Would there be a rule that half of the teams in a 20-team top flight had to be from the MLS every year?
- Would American and Canadian teams draw in Mexico? Top English and Italian players may draw well in New York, but what about in Mexico City? Sure, the America-Mexico soccer rivalry cannot be discounted, and the importance of regional rivalries to MLS attendance cannot be understated. But, would the appearance of Vancouver in Monterrey necessarily bump up attendance there?
- Weather: Liga MX follows the European football calendar, which runs August thru May. MLS commences March thru November, as several teams in the league simply cannot play during the cold, snowy winter months. Could the teams in Mexico play during June and July? Mexico City's average temperatures are in the 70s during these months. It's actually cooler in Guadalajara in June than in May. Certainly, there are no concerns of snow in Mexico. The largest contention here comes with Mexico lining up with the European calendar, giving total attention each June and July to national teams and blocking off entire weekends of domestic play during the season to free up players for national team duty. With its condensed time frame, the MLS simply cannot afford to take off any weekend, let alone all of June and July (which happen to be the league's best months of attendance.)
- Travel: Seattle Sounders G.M. Adrian Hanauer (Seattle Times, 2015) commented that a chartered flight to Latin America for a midweek CONCACAF (the North and Central American version of a champions' league) game costs between $100,000 and $200,000. A commercial trip, which is all that cost-conscious MLS teams are allowed to take for league games, costs $20,000 on average for a group of 30. (Champions' league games can be chartered.) Would top players from around the world be drawn to a league with the promise of business-class seats for an eight-hour flight to Mexico City?
- Canada and Mexico?: The Mexican-Canadian population is only 96,000 (www.statcan.gc.ca, 2014). Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are three of MLS's top teams in terms of attendance, but would hosting Mexican teams necessarily help their gates? What about the additional miles of airfare from Canada to Mexico?
Conclusion
This proposed move would have some huge hurdles. However, MLS has reached a point where it realizes that top-level talent in some of its cities predicates larger attendance and more sponsor revenue. The league’s soccer-specific stadia seat between 18,000 and 31,000. This suggests that MLS is being practical, but is it also guilty of not ‘thinking big enough’? Dropping parts of the fiscal discipline business model that the league prides itself on would be necessary for its soccer to come anywhere close to the level of play found in Europe, but these concessions would also be incredibly risky for an association that has seen North American soccer leagues-- indoors and outdoors-- come and go. If both sides agreed to an expanded salary cap, if Mexico agreed to the summer-heavy schedule, and if all Mexicans, Americans, and Canadians became ‘domestic’ players throughout the new league’s rosters, I would argue that this NAFTA experiment could be quite interesting, exciting, and full of higher quality soccer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)