University of California Covid 19 and The American Economy Research Paper

User Generated

wnpbolva16

Writing

University of California Davis

Description

My topic is: How has the Covid-19 pandemic disturbed the American economy? How did the pandemic alter the lives of low-income workers? And how did it exacerbate the income inequality problem in the U.S.?

So I need some reseraches for my topic, but sources should be focusing on how to solve the problem that I mention in my topic.

The following is the what need to be done:

1.

Record a minimum of EIGHT new sources you found for the topic in 8th edition MLA formatting,

2.

Use the following questions to compose a 2-3 page source analysis of at least two sources that make advocacy arguments and a tentative abstract with an advocacy argument. Be sure you define and describe what the advocacy efforts are:

Sample:

Contemporary approaches (first source analysis): In recent years, advocates of the First Amendment have worked tirelessly to protect free speech on campus. UCI Chancellor Howard Gillman and Dean of UC Berkeley's Law School Erwin Chemerinsky, for example, wrote a book, Free Speech on Campus, for students and teachers that is intended to raise awareness about what they perceive to be a growing threat to free speech on college campuses that is mostly expressed in student-led demands for protections against hate speech. They contend that these efforts are misplaced and evolved, by and large, as a result of ignorance about the First Amendment. Students make demands that colleges and universities censor hate speech without understanding that, not only does the law forbid such censorship, it would be a terrible precedence to set even if the law allowed it. These authors and many others have made it somewhat of a crusade to revisit the history of First Amendment jurisprudence in speeches, in the classroom and in articles in order to show the younger generation that the First Amendment is not about protecting despicable speech (though that is, according to them, an unfortunate by-product), but about protecting historically marginalized groups from acts of censorship by the government, organizations and individuals who would try to silence them. They argue that all campuses should be committed to an environment of tolerance and "democratic deliberation," where multiple conflicting points of view can exist and work to foster "intellectual innovation."

Counterarguments (second source analysis): Some have argued that there is no free speech crisis on campus, there is only a hate speech crisis on campus and that students who expect and demand an inclusive environment that protects their educational opportunities and insures their physical and psychological well-being are neither demonstrating ignorance about the First Amendment nor intolerant of other perspectives. These other advocates do not regard the change as needing to come from students, but from the free speech absolutists themselves who, in a misguided attempt to solve the problem, have entirely missed the point of student activism around hate speech protections. Journalism Professor Jelani Cobb, for example, addresses the history of racial discrimination on many college campuses and argues that most students involved in demands for hate speech protections are themselves black and have been the targets of hate speech not only from individual students or student led organizations, but of administrations. The only way to solve this problem, he argues, is to subject these institutions to public scrutiny (which often comes in the form of student led protests).

My Argument: I agree with the free speech absolutists that campuses should foster an environment of "democratic deliberation" and that people should be able to engage multiple conflicting points of view. However, I find it disturbing that some University free speech advocates (with the exception of ACLU legal director David Cole) don't encourage student protest. It is telling that UCI's Chancellor discusses his own activist past, but only describes student activism today as misguided. I agree that those efforts are misguided where the students simply expect administrators to create policies that will solve every problem. But I am with Jelani Cobb on this: some administrations are the problem. It's not that they aren't doing enough to punish badly behaved students or faculty; it's that they don't want to do anything at all. Doing something would mean addressing a history, not simply a policy. Therefore, current student-led efforts (on the campuses of Yale, University of Missouri and elsewhere) to address institutional racism and its effects are the most profound and powerful way to express and maintain First Amendment protections on campuses. In this essay, I argue that these efforts show that the First Amendment on campuses is alive and well in all the right ways; it's just a matter of getting administrators to believe it.

You should have sources that help you answer all of the following questions.

  • Do your sources help establish a trend in the advocacy approaches? (For example, with campus hate speech the "trend" of past decades was administrative; but what is happening now?)
  • Does the source help establish WHO are the advocates involved and what is the purpose of the advocacy?
  • Does the source help establish WHO has a stake in blocking efforts to solve or mitigate the problem?
  • Does the source show how the advocacy has been helped or hurt by public opinion? Or does it describe any common perception about the issue that determines the advocacy approach
  • Does the source show how policy or law or other reform measures have failed?
  • Does the source help define the root causes of failed advocacy?
  • Does the source help establish HOW advocates have been successful in resolving or mitigating the problem?
  • Does the source help establish an evaluation of cost to benefit?
  • Does the source help establish the feasibility of your proposed solutions? (does it establish precedent? Show current action? Efforts at implementation?)
  • Does the source offer a solution to the problem similar to the one you envision? (if so, has their been any action after the work was published? If so, what? If not, why do you suppose that is?)
  • Does the source function as opposition to your proposed solution? Does it show, in other words, what might be problematic about your argument? (you will want real voices with real arguments here).

3.

Include a list of ADDITIONAL key research terms: Good keywords are specific: they involve legislation, policy, court cases, organizations and government institutions, names of important figures. Keywords should always help you to find relevant, related sources. Also, keep a separate file for key terms, dates, policies, events, people, etc. that you find in the articles you read that will help you to develop a vocabulary for discussing the specific policies, legislation, and/or other key players and related issues.

Example:

Good key research terms: "Communications Decency Act of 1996" "The National Declassification Center" "Facebook v. Sullivan" "Abrams v. United States" "Freedom of Information Act"

Poor key research terms: "the first amendment" "free speech" "libel"

4.

Include at least THREE NEW specific argument-based questions that you want for your research to answer for you.

Good argument-based questions (note that good claim-based questions assume the reader has already been provided in earlier parts of the essay with an account of the key terms at work in the question): How have the Espionage and Sedition Acts constrained press freedom? Why has originalist jurisprudence posed a problem for groups advocating against hate speech? How does the advocacy surrounding free speech campus legislation threaten academic freedom?

Poor questions (note that poor claim-based questions are inaccurate or overly vague): Why is hate speech illegal? (It isn't.) Why does the government censor people? (Who? Far too vague.) Why is Trump trying to ruin the press? (He isn't; he's trying to shape public opinion about the press; some might argue that the press is already ruined!) Why do campuses censor their students? (As a general rule, they don't.)

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Research Project Part Two: Advocacy The second half of your quarter-long research project, the AP asks that you ​1)​ ​introduce and evaluate one or more significant efforts to address the problem you described in your CP; 2) develop an argument about which of the efforts to address the problem work best, explain why, and offer possible next steps; OR make the case that none of the efforts to address the problem works, explain why, and offer possible next steps.​ ​Unlike the CP, an expository essay that asks you to use your research to describe the problem, the AP requires you to stake out a clear position in a thesis statement that you must defend through deeply engaged research. An advocate takes a position in a debate or conflict and works to solve problems. Social justice advocates, for example, aim to give voice to the marginalized and defend the vulnerable from harm by forging resolutions among stakeholders where intractable problems persist. To advance their aims, advocates must be strategic: they must consider whether or not various modes of redress will effectively mitigate or resolve the problem at hand. And to be strategic, they must also be informed. You, too, must be deeply informed about the advocacy landscape and ongoing conversations concerning your topic and the problems associated with it. Your initial research for the AP should explore the various efforts to shape public opinion through the media; to change policies; to institute new laws or amend existing ones; or to pursue litigation. As you examine these efforts, you should assess their short- and long-term outcomes; their costs (in a variety of senses: cultural, economic, personal, moral, institutional, to name a few) and benefits; their relative fitness in comparison to one another; their ability to produce equitable outcomes; and the obstacles that stand in their way. Thinking about obstacles necessitates thinking about rhetorical context. The role of public opinion, for example, has always been instrumental (for better and worse) in shaping advocacy efforts. Advocates must consider the values expressed through social affiliations--political, institutional, religious, cultural, and regional. Sometimes these considerations involve compromise (advocates have terms for these compromises: “respectability politics” is one; “matters of expediency,” another). Where there is compromise that bends to corporate interests or public opinion, there may exist other kinds of compromise, such as short term solutions that satisfy demands in the present but fail to address damaging consequences in the long term. You should account for similar dynamics in the representation of advocacy efforts you examine. 1 Indeed, you will learn that few advocacy efforts enjoy universal support, and accounting for the range of attitudes toward and characterizations of your chosen efforts—some you may agree with, others you may strongly contest—will strengthen your advocacy analysis. By the time you complete the AP, you should be able to: ● Write a developed thesis statement that clearly and concisely articulates the central claims of your argument. ● Develop your argument by analyzing the positions of academics and other experts, including those who offer perspectives that are not in agreement with your own. You should continue to practice the major skills from the CP in terms of: ● Practicing information literacy by assessing how and why you are giving authority to certain sources and crafting effective annotations that will help you to compose a developed essay ● Integrating sources of generic variety and purpose with attention to their argumentative purpose and rhetorical effect ● Developing your command of integrating a variety of quotation, summary, and paraphrase ● Employing organization and style appropriate for addressing a general academic audience ● Collaborating to give and receive constructive feedback ● Incorporating multimodal evidence for specific rhetorical purposes. ● Using a standard citation system, and avoiding plagiarism Assignment Requirements Process work​ is required to be eligible to submit a final draft for a grade. This may include but is not limited to a proposal or prospectus and multiple essay drafts. Late or incomplete process work may result in a grade penalty on the final draft. At a ​minimum​ the argument in your AP should integrate evidence from ​6-8 new sources​, at least two of which should involve complex, comprehensive arguments that substantively consider the obstacles at work in solving the problem you addressed in your CP. You may continue to use relevant sources that you found while researching for the Contexts Project. ​Keep in mind that the total number of sources for the entire project’s bibliography is 12-20 sources. Your final submission should be an approximately ​2000-word ​multimodal​ composition​. It should be formatted in ​MLA style​, with parenthetical citations, a Works Cited page, and a descriptive academic title. 2
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Here is the first part. Please advise accordingly.

Surname 1
Covid-19 and the American Economy
Student’s Name
Course Date

Abstract
The struggles that low-income workers in America have gone through during the Covid-19
pandemic have increasingly become the topics of discussion in widespread advocacy, legislative
activities, and public debates. Advocacy can be seen from the viewpoint of claims-making or
how groups and individuals influence policy by shaping and defining a social problem. This
paper aims to focus on the wage-related claims by various advocates and the rationale they used
to either support or go against raising minimum wages. These advocates and opponents
acknowledge the challenges faced by low-income workers during the Covid-19 pandemic. Still,
they sit on different sides of the fence regarding offering solutions to help alleviate the
challenges faced by low-income workers and their families. They cite economic and social
justice concerns, financial considerations, and moral justifications to maintain or raise the
minimum wage and provide multiple arguments to help support their claims.

Keywords: “Low-income workers,” “Federal minimum wage,” “Hourly pay,” “Income
inequality,” “Stimulus package.”

Surname 2
Contemporary Approaches
The recent Covid-19 pandemic has changed the world economy as the number of cases
continued to rise during the first few months of the outbreak. Living wage advocates have been
tirelessly fighting the rise in low-wage employment over the last few decades in an attempt to
alleviate pressures such as affordable housing. Still, the recent pandemic has thrown a spanner in
these advocates’ efforts in making sure that employers pay their workers above or at the state or
federal poverty line. Minimum wage and wages during the pandemic have experienced a
downward trend even as more and more people continue to lose their jobs. The American
government continues to take unprecedented steps to counter the effects of the Covid-19
pandemic on its economy. Advocates such as Davante Lewis, a lifelong advocate from the state
of Louisiana, have argued that an increase in the federal minimum wage will enable workers
affected by the Covid-19 pandemic to survive during a time of crisis (Duhé). As a result, lowincome workers’ lives would not be severely affected even as businesses and employers look to
comply with government regulations on fighting the Coronavirus disease. This advocate and
many others have made it clear that Joe Biden’s proposed plan to include a stimulus package for
workers affected by the Covid-19 pandemic would help out many working folks across America
and ensure they can survive and live off of what they earn. Therefore, according to Lewis, if the
American government wants to rebuild its economy and make its states prosperous. It needs to
invest in its people, particularly the low-income earners, by giving them a raise and providing
them with the opportunity to thrive in the American economy (Duhé). The current global
pandemic has highlighted the problems of poverty and has brought to light that low-income
workers are the most affected.
Counterarguments
However, some have argued that such decisions ought to be made on a case-by-case
basis. A blanket approach would undoubtedly exacerbate the income inequality problem in the
United States. Opponents claim that inequalities have increased between workers and also
between firms. For example, companies involved in the technological frontier have quickly
broken away from the rest of the pack, capturing the larger share of profits and becoming
dominant in markets becoming increasingly concentrated. The increase in automation of middleand low-skilled tasks has transferred the demand for labor to higher-level skills, hurting jobs and
wages at the lower end of the skills pool. Since the new technologies favor capital, higher-level
skills, and winner-take-all business outcome, labor, and capital income distribution has become
unequal, and income has shifted to capital from labor.
Although hiking the minimum wage would pull millions of workers above wages that
place them below the poverty line, many American jobs would be lost as a result. Owners of
small businesses heavily rely on their bottom lines to make their businesses work. Therefore, if
they are unable to gain enough income to cover their bottom lines, they will likely cut their costs
of labor or increase the cost of services and goods to protect their bottom lines. Suppose the
government is considering taking measures such as increasing the minimum wage or introducing
a stimulus package to help the low-income earners and those most affected by the pandemic. In
that case, it should consider that businesses will be forced to increase the costs of their goods and
services to cover their bottom lines. However, this move might not be good because the
American economy is currently not in a good state.

Surname 3
Advocate Kyrsten Sinema, who is also serving as the senior United States Senator from
Arizona, claims that she would not support increasing the minimum wage during the
Coronavirus pandemic because it is not directly related to the short term Covid-19 ...


Anonymous
Really great stuff, couldn't ask for more.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags