UNC Human
Rights Convention Blog:
Economic Rights
This blog is for Economic Rights. What objective rights do you want to cover here that deal with work, labor, economic security, healthcare, wellbeing of vulnerable populations? You are the representatives to this Convention and you are free to discuss, debate, and propose.
Comments
People should have the right to a decent job with decent pay. In addition, people should have the security in knowing that a CEO can not pick up leave to open in another country thereby leaving 1000s jobless. Minimum wage should equal a quality standard of living and not a standard of living that is below the poverty line.
I propose that all citizens should be able to pursue access to capital without the hindrance of predatory lending practices.
In America specifically, that means that markets provide fair opportunities
for accessing capital to traditionally under-served populations, including
low-wealth citizens, women, people of color, and rural residents. Various
community development financial institutions (including Self-Help in
I propose that citizens of the
I feel that in today's society this is crucial as other countries have
already taken a step towards this direction. Free health care would solve many
problems including the poor and refugees being turned away because of insurance
purposes. Everyone should have a right when dying or sick to be taken care of
with no discrimination towards any individual. This would be a giant step in
our society towards a better
I propose that all elderly should be provided for after the age of 65.
I feel that many elderly people have contributed to our society and helped shape our world, therefore they should not have to worry about how to take care of themselves when they get older. Those who have the financial means to support themselves would not need help, however others would. I believe that health care should be provided to them at a price in which they can afford. Also there should be programs that make sure they have proper housing and food available to them. Many elderly do not have families to watch after them, therefore the government should help make sure there are programs in which they will be taken care of.
I agree health care and care to the elderly should be a mandate of society. I have heard all of the counter arguments, perhaps the most bothersome one is that national health care leads to inefficiency.
For example, plaintiffs often put forth those inefficiencies in
I propose that all citizens have the right to an adequate standard of living. This should include sufficient food, water, and housing. It is the responsibility of the state to increase the standard of living for everyone regardless of economic status. Increasing the standard of living is good for the country. Some may say the country is only as strong as the weakest link. Since everyone is entitled to adequate standard of living, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that economic institutions are not exploiting citizens by controlling the interest rate, minimum wage, etc.
I propose that all citizens should be entitled to a free college education paid for by the government as there is an increasing need for higher education in the working force. In order for all individuals to have equal opportunity to achieve, the government should pay for 4 years of a college education. All individuals are free to choose the path of higher education, whether at a community college, a public or private university. If an individual meets the requirements for admission to a university, then the government should pay for its entirety if it is a community college or public university tuition. If an individual chooses to go to an out of state university, they will be given a voucher for the in-state tuition costs and the individual will shall pay the difference in costs. I propose the same voucher system to subsidize the costs of a private university. By providing free college educations, all individuals are able to better themselves and improve their overall standard of living.
I agree with the proposal of free college education. We all deserve the right to self-improvement and economic mobility. A college education is important to realize these rights. Education should not be dependent on one's financial situation. I think the voucher system for private and out of state universities is a good idea.
I do not know if I agree with all citizens are entitled to a free college
education. I feel that instead the government should provide access to a
funding/loan program for college. In
I feel that there a numerous amounts of scholarships/loans out there that
everyone that has received a high school education and has the desire to pursue
a college education is able to. I don’t think that a free education would be
ideal for the
While I agree with everyone that receiving a college education is important and making it easily available to everyone good, I don’t think it should fully be paid by the government. I think that the government should subsidized tuition for families that cannot afford to pay full tuition and also provide scholarships programs. But if college tuition is provide fully FREE then students will not work as hard and people will start to abuse the system. I feel that that the government should only help students with the tuition that is needed and the criteria for receiving help for the government should be changed so that families with an income a little bit above the poverty line can still receive help. The government should take in account that families have other expenses other than mortgages/rent and car loans, they have to pay for food and medical expenses as well which often is not taken into account by the government.
The idea of free education really does not have to do with people not working as hard as compared to paying for it. You are still required to meet the standards set by that school. If you do not meet the minimum standards, you still cannot get in even if it is free. If college education was free, it would probably make people work even harder knowing that money is no longer an obstacle to overcome. Free education would just level the playing field allowing people in poorer areas to actually have a chance to compete. On the other hand, free education would raise a lot of issues with funding and teacher salaries. It's easy to say "let's have free education" but funding this is a completely different story. I personally do not think free education would really work.
My problem with the idea of a free college education is possible decline in
the quality of the education.
I feel that a free education for every
This also ties in very closely with social rights, but I believe it addresses the root of some economic frustration and disparities between the rich and poor in our country. I propose a constitutional right to freedom from advertising. I believe capitalism, as an abstract idea, works. It makes sense in principal; it fails in practice. The problem is materialism. The rich keep getting richer because we are convinced that we need to have the biggest, the fastest, the latest. The poor often stay poor because it is difficult to discern our basic needs anymore. Advertisers tell us we need a half-ton pickup with a fully-boxed frame for our daily bumper-to-bumper commute. They tell us we can't truly see a football game on anything less than a fifty-inch HDTV. The result is a hoarding of wealth by the middle and upper classes for expense on frivolous luxury. What capitalism assumes and we don't seem to grasp is a basic understanding of moderation. There is more than enough money in this country to adequately provide for every person in this country, citizen or alien. Most, not all, advertising is a direct enemy of moderation. If we were not as inundated with materialistic greed on a daily basis, we may be able to provide economic equality without restricting the freedoms that capitalism provides. Yes, the economy as we know it would be shocked. Dolce & Gabbana and Mercedez-Benz would most assuredly go out of business. But I believe it would be changed for the better, and without legal intervention, advertisers, and the economy in turn, are not going anywhere.
I propose that Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) should continue to expand,
seeing as how it has been one of the most effective poverty reduction programs
in the
I agree with the third proposition. All people in
I would like to propose the right to transportation, though I'm not sure how to best phrase it.
It's great to guarantee people jobs, health care, education, and housing. But it's not necessarily possible to guarantee that the places of employment, education, and health care will be located near the housing. For many people today, transportation is extremely problematic. Commuting can be expensive, and thus excludes those unable to pay for transportation.
Guaranteeing a livable minimum wage might solve the transportation if people make enough money to cover their transportation costs. But, especially in light of rising energy costs, I think that there is still an advantage to promoting accessible, affordable public transportation by enumerating it in our constitution.
What do you all think?
The Constitution includes economic provisions which secured and promoted the
American economy. In essence, these powers helped to create an economic
environment that nurtured economic growth. Ultimately, through the power of
taxation, creation of national money system, borrow money capabilities, trade
regulation, and laws to execute these powers, the Constitution created a strong
economic foundation that gave the
Fashioned after Article 18 of the Liberian Constitution
All American citizens shall have equal opportunity for work and employment regardless of sex, creed, religion, ethnic background, place of origin or political affiliation, and all shall be entitled to equal pay for equal work.
I agree that transportation is a troubling issue for some people. However,
the best way to fix this problem may not be direct. If the government focused
on a more quality minimum wage, families might be able to afford their own
transportation. Some cities have free public transportation, which I think is
the best direct solution. But until the standard of living goes up, the
I propose that the National Poverty Line (as determined by governmental standards) be lowered to include the working poor. I'm not sure of the exacts of the calculations but the idea is based on how much it would cost to feed a family 3 meals a day
"In 1963-1964, Molly Orshansky of the Social Security Administration developed poverty thresholds. Orshansky based her poverty thresholds on the "thrifty food plan," which was the cheapest of four food plans developed by the Department of Agriculture. The food plan was "designed for temporary or emergency use when funds are low," according to the USDA. Based on the 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey from the USDA (the latest available survey at the time), Orshansky knew that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food. She then multiplied the cost of the USDA economy food plan by three to arrive at the minimal yearly income a family would need. Using 1963 as a base year, she calculated that a family of four, two adults and two children would spend $1,033 for food per year. Using her formula based on the 1955 survey, she arrived at $3,100 a year ($1,033 x3) as the poverty threshold for a family of four in 1963.
Orshansky differentiated her thresholds not only by family size, but also by farm/non-farm status, by the number of family members who were children, gender of the head of household, and by aged/non-aged status. The result was a detailed matrix of 124 poverty thresholds. Generally, the figures cited were weighted average thresholds for each family size.
In May 1965, one year after the Johnson Administration initiated the "War on Poverty," the Office of Economic Opportunity adopted Orshansky's poverty thresholds as a working definition of poverty.
(See Website for more info on poverty line calculation: http://www.ocpp.org/poverty/how.htm)
This definition of poverty is not realistic.. and doesn't take into account the realities of the cost of living. I don't think it it fair that this standard causes thousands of people to live without assistance and or aid from the government. These people, more commonly known in sociological circles as 'the working poor' are in a position that, with a bit of help, many could rise out of; but without such help, many remain in a bitter, generational cycle of poverty.
I think that all different people depending on race, sex, class etc should have the right to equal opportunities. This way public education needs to be raised in quality to allow for those in lower class areas can have an equal chance to receive the best education. As for healthcare, I think national healthcare is a bit unrealistic but it needs to be made easier to receive healthcare in our country.
I agree with Tim saying that people should definitely have the right to equal opportunities in all lines of work. From education to professional coaching opportunities. Health-care should be easier to receive it would help our country and the people in our country if it wasn't such a hassle to get. Another point that someone proposed was the fact that this country needs to mandate a quality minimum wage so that the lower classes to eventually have the options to pay for education.
I propose that the
If anyone knows their job inside and out it would be the employee. As an employee, one is entitled "ONLY TO DO WORK" that is asked of them. Never has it been stated on any job application that the employee must deal with hazardous working conditions, abusive treatment from supervisors, extremely unreasonably low wages just to name a few. Having the right to form labor allow employees voices to be heard and satisfaction in the workplace. Besides, who likes working places where they are unsatisfied with the conditions that surrond them on a daily basis. This idea hits close to home as I have witnesses numerous employees being fired from the Lenior Dining Hall on UNC-Chapel Hill's campus. The harsh labor hours and "dirty business," that seems to be kept hidden has led many to speak out about certain situations. The in return has resulted in the terminations of many jobs....
I proposed that all citizens that are dependent on military guardians retain their benefits even past age of dependency. The benefits given to military personal ever after retirement consist of "free" healthcare and "free" education. Although, my personal experience have proven that this is not a promised benefit, I proposed that these benefits not only be a promised condition but those dependent on military guardians keep those benefits past the age of dependency. Once a dependent reaches the age of about 22 or fails to go to college consecutively, those benefits disappear. For the years that military guardians spend in the military, their family serves as well and should qualify for those benefits for the same amount of time.
I propose that American residents, not just citizens, who have lived here for five or more years and paid their taxes consistently, have the right to economic security. Those who are below the National Poverty Line would especially benefit from such a law. Although it seems unfair for a resident alien who is not a citizen or a permanent resident to gain such rights within five years, it would be justified. Different countries residents have different quotas for when they can get their residency and the duration it would take them to gain this status. However, this new law would make sure that regardless of such a discrepancy between nationalities, all Residents of the same state would gain a right to economic freedom and peace of mind.
I really like the idea of the HECS program that was proposed. I think that this would assist people that want to go to college as well as for the college students that want to become a teacher (or another career that is not very financially rewarding). Many teachers, even with their master's degree and all of their pay raises will not make very much money.
Also, I think we should really consider including funding for either home nurses or an adequate nursing home for senior citizens that cannot take care of themselves. For families that do not have much disposable income, that is a tough decision to make when their loved one can no longer take care of themselves.
I believe, generally speaking, that economic rights need to gain more prominence and importance in terms of legislation. There is no doubt that the masses are speaking out for economic rights in regard to such issues as poverty, welfare and so on. But, these issues are most often looked upon as challenges to the development of policy. In my opinion, something needs to be done to revamp the situation in order to allow these issues to entail the true human rights concerns that they are. They include people's livelihood, their health care, their housing, their gateways to social mobility, etc. These are implicit matters of human rights, and need not be looked upon as policy obligations. The government needs to address them with the full accountability of human rights matters.
I agree with the support of those unable to take care of themselves, with
either home nurses or retirement homes. Since not only is it costly for low
income family, but extremely time consuming. One possibility would be to train
family members to handle most of the work and pay them while having a home
nurse do check ups. This however creates the potential for fraud, which might
require more money than its worth to monitor. As well as could let to the very
people we try to help being mistreated.
Help with college is also a good idea, but as someone said earlier I don't
think that you can make it all free, because the overall status of that
education will go down. However, more widespread and better funded version of
the you do well in school, we send you to college. Since as it stands many
families fall into the category of not having enough to send their children to
school, but making to much to qualify for financial aid.
Transportation would be great to give to everyone, but is an extremely costly
endeavor, one which is well worth it in big cities, however they still wouldn't
solve the problem of the many rural poor. Who busing would cost a fortune to
help a few. Not that they aren't entitled to feel that they deserve a ride to
work, but its a policy that would take lots of money that could be better used
somewhere else.
Here is one of the problems that I have with many of these suggestions. Most of the policies addressing poverty that are in place look to help the individual. This goes back to sociological thinking that it is an individual's fault for poverty. Instead of trying to help the structural forces that cause poverty, current policies focus on trying to bring up the individual. The above proposals follow the same line of thinking, "Let's give individuals more money, more food, or more help on the individual level." I think that as revolutionary as the first constitution was for its time, we should think outside of the box and revolutionize a new constitution. Now is the part where I get jumped on....because I do not have the solution. It is just as hard for me to find a way to get at the root of the problems when we all have grown up in an environment that dictates our way of thinking. I guess that I would end this by challenging myself to do just that. Try to escape the forces that shape my thinking and really come up with a solution.
The rights of women are important because not only do they aid women, but it aids the environment. In order to empower women, we must maintain equality with power in the family as well as in society. For example, the more educated women are the less children they have. As a result, the desired fertility goes down and there is less stress on the environment. Therefore, I believe that the rights of women are crucial because it effects multiple facets of society. It helps the environment as well as shows children the power and equality that they can have as a result of the example of their mothers.
I forgot to add the economic part of my post. The reason that I believe this falls under the economic sub-title is because one way to empower women is provide them with equal pay. Women deserve same pay for same work which will help them empower themselves (by allowing them to make their own financial decisions and be more independent from men), which will cause some of the effects I explained in my previous post.
I am responding to Tessa's proposal about the right to transportation. I agree that simply raising workers' wages to a livable minimum wage (one that keeps people ABOVE the poverty line) would be an ideal way to offset the problem of transportation costs. However, if the minimum wage is not going to be improved, then I think providing free transportation should be a right for all people. Not everyone lives in a city where walking is more convenient than driving. For those who need transportation for work, education, health care, or just running errands, a free bus system or other form of accessible transportation should be provided, regardless of the town's population and size. This would also address an environmental issue, since carpooling or public transportation is encouraged to cut down on air pollution. I agree with Tessa that free, accessible transportation should be included in our constitution.
I believe that not only should workers be given fair wages, but they should also have the ability to make time for leisure. No one should have to work 100 hours a week to make a manageable living. I propose that the constitution allow for 40 hour work weeks to be a livable income; this way, workers have time for leisure instead of being worked to death.
I went through and read all the posts that people have made and they are all great and all rights that citizens should have. There is only one problem, if we all try to implement every single right that we think we should where will the money come from? People do not like paying taxes but if they depend on the government to give them every thing how will the government do this with out substantially raising taxes? I don't want to be the guy the shoots down the idea of democracy because of money but I think it is just as important to make sure we have the money to ensure rights instead of pushing it off on the next generation of this constitution. I know many people may respond by saying we can cut certain defense spending or other spending but no matter where we cut spending from those programs will suffer. The broadness of this constitution would require a restructuring of the entire government. Just something to keep in mind.
I would like to propose a modification to the "right to freedom from advertising."
Sure, materialism is a problem. But advertising is a crucial method of
communication in our society, and I refuse to believe that advertising and
materialism are inextricably linked. Although profit-generating corporations
certainly utilize advertising, so do other groups seeking to inform and educate
the public on a variety of non-commercial issues such as safer sex, AIDS,
energy conservation, environmental sustainability and tobacco-free lifestyles.
One of the most celebrated examples in marketing is the recruitment efforts of
the nonprofit Teach for
And even in the private sector, advertising promotes a flow of information to the marketplace. It helps consumers learn which corporations have values that align with their own (i.e. community involvement, sustainability, working conditions of employees, etc.) It also helps consumers differentiate between product offerings and learn about special offers. For example, think about a high school senior applying to college. She needs to know which colleges exist, and which colleges offer the classes, programs, and general environment that would best support her. She also needs to know which grants, scholarships, and low-interest loans she'd be eligible for. Even if the perfect match exists, an ignorance of its existence makes it worthless to the student.
In an advertisement-free world, more than unsympathetic luxury brands would
fall victim. New players to the marketplace would be at a huge disadvantage,
which would hinder small business ventures. The lack of competition would lead
to less innovation, ultimately hurting consumers. Just in the
I believe most adults would prefer the freedom to information over the freedom from advertisement.
Instead, I propose freedom from advertising for all children under twelve.
The Swedish government instituted such a ban in 1991. Many studies find that
children, unaware of the persuasive intent of marketing, are especially
vulnerable in weighing brand image too heavily in economic decisions. In these
cases, advertising is indeed unethical. An interesting example of a study
involving McDonalds and Head Start children can be found at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/06/mcdonalds.preschoolers.ap/index.html
I think that all children should be allowed free healthcare to a certain
age. I know everyone has been proposing that everyone should have healthcare,
but I feel that if we can not get healthcare for everyone at least children
should have that right. There are nearly 13 million children that live in poverty
today in the
I propose an actually living wage. We have a minimum wage right now, but that is not a livable wage. There needs to be some floor on this because right now a famliy of four could not fully survive on $9.50 an hour. How do you expect a family to survive on $6.15 an hour. People are being paid crap money and are expected to work their way out of poverty. Even those who work really hard cant get off of welfare becuase they are not earning enough to stand on their own.
First of all, I agree with Laura about having a livable income working 40 hours a week, although 40 hours a week may be too idealistic. Either way, a reasonable amount of hours should be fixed that allows for a livable income and for leisure along with periodic vacations with pay as mentioned in article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Secondly, I feel that a big emphasis should be placed on child poverty in
the
I agree with Nicole about a new "living wage". I think that it is unfair
for people to work two and three jobs and still not be able to make a living.
If minimum wage is increased there will be much less poverty in the
Secondly i agree with the proposal that children should
have free health care until they are a certain age. I also agree that it is not
possible to give everyone person in the
It seems like every social and economic welfare policy is tailored to
individuals, just as John stated. And also child poverty is something that
needs to be dealt with in the
All employees should have the right to occupational safety, fair wages, and
respect in the workplace. As seen in the movie/book Fast Food Nation, many
people in the
I feel that the right to free health care is crucial. There are many
questions to ask as to how this will be funded, but if
Someone has already mentioned this, but I think that something needs to be
done so that all people are truly able to get and keep jobs if they choose to.
Even with issues of discrimination, lack of education, and healthcare
notwithstanding (all of which compromise the ability of underprivileged people
to get a job), it is still difficult (and sometimes impossible) for people to
physically get to a job interview or work each day. Even though
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination. However, forty years later there is still a 70 cent to 1 dollar ratio for earnings between females and males respectively. As women overall are the primary care givers for children, we must work towards erasing this discrepancy so that poverty among children is not prevalent. We must do this by enforcing the Act of 1963 and by making amendments so that changes occur.
I propose that all
The European Social Charter has some interesting ideas on the right to information and consultation of workers. They have the right to "be informed regularly or at the appropriate time and in a comprehensible way about the economic and financial situation of the undertaking employing them, on the understanding that the disclosure of certain information which could be prejudicial to the undertaking may be refused or subject to confidentiality." They also have the right to "be consulted in good time on proposed decisions which could substantially affect the interests of workers, particularly on those decisions which could have an important impact on employment situation in the undertaking."
These seem like important rights to have when considering occupational duties. This gives employees an additional sense of responsibility which could, and studies have shown would, lead to an increased sense of ownership among the workers. Thus inspiring them to take pride in their accomplishments and duties. It would also in turn cut back on the amount of unfair working conditions because employers would be required to notify potential employees of the conditions of work.
I strongly believe that children are our future and there needs to be more of an emphasis on their upbringing and the cultivation of their minds, bodies, and perception of life. Therefore, I am an advocate of the right to alternatives and opportunities for children of all types, but especially low-income, low-class children that may not have the inspiration and family support needed to pursue their goals or to find their aspirations. Alternatives and Opportunities could be a non-profit or government funded program that would create more venues for children to develop theirselves: intellectually, physically, etc. This could happen through more community centers, more sports leagues, more mentors and positive role models, etc. However, it is achieved, it is a pertinent situation that continues a vicious cycle of neglect on the part of the government. In order to better the future of our country, we must start with our young.
I agree with Nicole and her proposal of a living wage. I believe this is one of the most important things. Yes the unemployment rates are down however, people are being exploited at home and abroad for their labor. I believe there needs to be some calculation of a national living wage for countries, factoring in things such as health care cost, gross national product, per capita income. It is an injustice for people to be employed and not make enough money to support themselves and their families.
Under economic rights, I believe that there should be legislation to protect
consumers and the American people from scrupulous practices by businesses.
First off companies need to be transparent so that everyone can act as a checks
and balance system. Also the use of foreign labor by large corporations needs
to be reigned in. I am not saying that the
So besides just setting up safety standards, I believe that companies need to be held to regulations on many levels. One way to do this would be to require them to be completely transparent about all functions of the business so that consumers could have "perfect information" and regulate who is in the market.
All workers are entitled to safe, healthy, and fair workplace environments.
However, rapid technological advances and dynamic workplace environments have
changed the nature of work, leading to new challenges for our safety and health
mission. The constitution protects certain labor rights of workers. For
instance, the illegal use exploitation of child labor, protect the basic rights
of workers, and the right to suitable working conditions. These laws are
enforced by modern departments like the United States Department of Labor and
other labor unions. Nonetheless, certain regulations. polices, and laws
increase the cost of manufacturing prices in the
I think the debate over whether or not everyone should be entitled to a free college education is interesting. On the one hand, it is natural to think that everyone who graduates from high school should be able to attend one of the public universities in their home state for free. But, on the other hand, the staff and faculty that work at these universities deserve a fair salary (and one could argue they deserve to be paid much more than the current average, since education is so highly valued in our society). Inevitably, if everyone was allowed to attend public universities for free, professors' salaries would decline. So I am torn between the right for everyone to have a higher education and the right for professors to receive a salary that represents the beneficial effect their work has on society.
I like the idea of a living wage. If people were able to support themselves and their family, I believe the result COULD be a harder working and happier working class. I worry though that if the minimum wage were increased to many people would abuse the system and the economy would suffer. The companies would be shelling out more money and their workers would not be working any harder. Still, it is more important for the workers to be able to have a job that actually pays them enough money to survive and support their families. It is all too common in today’s society where we hear of another company abusing their employees through low wages and harsh working hours and conditions. I wish there were a way to balance the system out through government regulation, but there is always going to be some form of inequality in the system
I agree with consideration of a minimum living wage. But what about a maximum wage?
I agree with the above opinion of the usefulness of unions, and allowing all
workers to form unions. I however wonder if allowing unions is a good decision.
Though unions have made great strides for worker well being they have also
caused huge cost to the companies and the citizens that depend on the products
that the firm produces; this is an issue because a unions main bargaining chip
is the strike. This is why in the
Both approaches have their downside, and I feel that something should be done
to help them. I just feel that we should after deciding something needs to be
done, like improve working conditions for workers. We should then discuss union
v. government mandates for working condition, and for who should this law apply
to, what are the pros and cons, etc. There are lots of things that can be done
to help workers, we need to figure out which ones work best.
I really like the point made earlier about senior citizens. Although there are currently options for families in regards to caring for their loved ones, many of these are not adequate or affordable. I think that everyone should have the right to age without worrying about how they will be taken care of. The uncertainty and fear that many old people feel as they reach the point of being unable to take care of themselves is heartbreaking. If someone is not fortunate enough to have money to afford a nice nursing home or nurse, or family that lives nearby to take care of them, then what are they supposed to do? These people that were contributing members of society should not be forgotten simply because they get old!
I would like to see how people feel about tax credits for situations such as
marriage and housing. For example, middle-class individuals have the privilege
to receive tax cuts for home ownership. Poor
people are forced to rent (because they can't afford a house), so they are
unable to get the tax cut. Further, they can't build equity via home ownership,
so their disadvantage is multiplied over time. The same goes for tax credits
for being married, which is a privilege reserved only for heterosexual couples.
I am not sure if this has been addressed on the blog yet, but I'm very interested in a point raised in class Tuesday night. One constitution addressed monetary compensation for raising children in the home. In our society, the "housewife" or "stay at home mom" does not get the recognition she deserves. Raising children and maintaining a household is a 24 hour job. Even mothers who work full-time come home to a "second shift"--unpaid time spent doing housework and taking care of children. I keep referring to women and mothers because in our society, it is more common for women to work in the home and men outside of the home (doing the so-called "real" jobs). In the utopia-like society we are trying to create, I propose monetary compensation and recognition for the parents who work in the home raising children and maintaining households.
I think that economically we need to look at the pay grades for companies. I do not know if I really think that the government should completely regulate business practices, but without legislation, capitalism has proven to push people to only look at the bottom line. I believe that the issue in many cases is not the question of supply, but of distribution. One way to address the problem of poverty is to address the distribution of wages in business. The pay grades in capitalism are very steep. If we look at examples of cooperatives in other countries, we see that there does not have to be this discrepancy in wage between different levels of workers. If the same wages were distributed differently then everyone would be more equal.
Although I believe that all people who graduate from high school should be provided with a college education, I acknowledge the fact that the money needs to come from somewhere. If the students absolutely cannot pay for their education, then more programs like the Carolina Covenant should be implemented. Which, guarantees the student that if they graduate from UNC they will graduate debt-free. This is accomplished through donations, scholarships, and providing the student with an on campus job.
After reading many of the posts about worker's economic rights, I began to
think about the concept of Fair trade in
I think that the
I also agree that all students after high school need to receive a college education if they desire. We should not force but enable all students to have a chance at a college education. If we force all students to receive a college education ...a college education want mean much in society. Furthermore, to fund these opportunities I agree with Jessica Pate above that programs such as the Carolina Covenant at all colleges should be implemented. I also believe that FAFSA is not an adequate way to distribute money to individuals who need help for their college education. Most kids are coming out of college in huge debt thus spending the rest of their lives trying to pay off college loans. This is a serious problem and needs to be dealt with.
I agree with all of the talk about providing high school grads with a
college education, however, a movement towards making that debt-free is not so
important. Carolina Covenant and such organizations are great and all, but I
don't feel like a kid having some debt when he graduates college is so bad;
it's better than not getting loans for college at all. Yeah, student debt is
rising, and college costs are definitely rising faster than inflation, but
As for the fair trade legislation, I agree whole-heartedly. Free trade has
cause so many jobs to be outsourced. For instance, the furniture industry,
which was formerly one of
On the other hand, these are the effects of living in a globalized
world. You produce where labor is cheap, and sell where prices are high; simple
economic theory. Also, there are government-sponsored initiatives for the
unemployed to go back to school to develop new skill sets, more acclimated to
the modern labor markets. So in the long-run, this is making the nation a more
professional and commercial atmosphere, I guess we must learn to look past
small, short-term recessionary trends, although they seem detrimental. Still
yet, I agree free trade must be monitored to ensure that it is fair trade so
that shifts in the economy like this example do not become stagnant.
I feel that we should do everything in our power to try and guarantee kids a chance to go to college even if they are unable to pay for it. There should be more programs set up around colleges that help kids receive an education after high school. This would benefit our economy greatly because of the better jobs people would be able to receive with a college degree.
Education is what makes or breaks people these days. As the importance of a college education (and even a graduate degree) has been on the rise, the numbers of people actually attending higher education institutions has not been keeping up the same pace. The extreme cost of college these days is one of the most important factors playing into the number of students. A revamp of our higher learning system could help the workforce in general by leading to generations of better educated individuals.
I think the right to higher education is something that should be guaranteed
to all citizens that work hard in high school and want to attend a university.
Recently, Hillary Clinton proposed a "baby bond" for all babies born
in the
Either way, I think that all young people should have the opportunity to further their education regardless of what tax bracket their parents are in.
Higher education is important for society to grow and prosper.
In our country now, undocumented immigrants are prevented from attending
universities due to high costs for them. As part of children's rights, I
propose that all students have access to higher education without discriminating
them based upon their immigration status.
I am at real odds as to whether or not i believe stay at home parents should receive a monetary salary. The one reason I really do support it is because people should be able to stay home with their children if they choose, but in today's society that is financially not the case. People can no longer live on one salary alone. To fix this problem, perhaps we need to go further back...perhaps we need to change the cost of living and put a cap on inflation. I don't even know if that is possible...economics is not my strong point. One thing I am sure should be instated is easier ways for working parents to come back into the labor force after they have taken years off for parenting. Jobs should not be able to discredit them so quickly!
I do not think stay at home parents deserve a salary. It is easy enough to have an income and raise your family in a safe and healthy environment and still earn a solid salary. It is not very easy to earn a solid living on a one salary home, so two salaries is usually necessary.
Parents should have the right to stay at home to raise their child, the way they want them to be raised. I believe that there should be some compensation for parents who decide to stay home, unless they come from a background where they can afford one salary. My understanding is that today's house moms come from a wealthy background, but everyone should have the right to raise their children the way they want to and society should help them have that right.
In thinking about higher education, I would like to bring up the "DREAM" act being proposed that would offer scholarship benefits to children of illegal immigrants, allowing them access to higher education. The reasoning is that these children do not choose to be brought into this country and as a result spend their lifetimes dealing with the consequences of for example their parents' decision to come here. Any thoughts?
About the educational rights to illegal immigrants I think people may have a big problem with this because that money for scholarships should be going to legal residents of our country. If we are giving free education to every person who walks across the border it will just exacerbate the problem we have now. A country's citizens are the most important for its constitution. We need to keep the children of illegal immigrants in mind but I don't think we can just pay for all their education. Just a thought.
In regard to the stay at home mom. I don’t think that stay at home mother should receive a salary, I think it is very rewarding to get the experience to watch and teach your children grow up. I don’t think you can put a price tag on that. Once the baby is born mothers make a decision to stay at home and care for their child or to put it into daycare/babysitter while they work. A mother must figure out the pros and cons of scarf icing pay to care for their child and whether they can afford it. This is a big decision for many women and I don’t think this should be a paid activity where you need to clock in or out or get a salary because this is a child that 2 people made. I think women should want to stay home and be grateful that they have a baby and not be greedy and want a salary to go along with motherhood.
We should somehow setup a system that doesn't discourage marriage among the poor. As it stands the poor with children are better off not marry the child's father.
I believe that the ability to collectively bargaining should be a right of all workers; however NC and VA have laws that prohibit this right.
Is there an economic argument to support that workers and employers will both be better off with unions and collective bargaining?
In regard to the DREAM act which gives scholarship benefits to the children
of illegal immigrants, I think that it would have a hard time passing in the
In response to the comments about the DREAM Act:
I think that two interesting ideas have been addressed. The first is that
the children of undocumented immigrants, who did not choose to come to the
I would like to add to the discussion:
It's interesting to think about a hierarchy in terms of rights coverage. My
first reaction would be to issue a blanket statement for our constitution -
either, these rights pertain to all citizens or these rights pertain to all
legal residents, or these right pertain to everyone within the borders of the
More specifically, in terms of education: In my public policy class we just
discussed the idea of education as a public good. Basically, while certain
people can be excluded from an education, everyone benefits from an education
nation. It follows, then, that we would want to offer education to those most
qualified for it, most likely to do something with it, etc... I think that
while Jessica makes a good point that currently we can't even pay for every
What do you all think?
I believe that the
Is this a good idea?
In addition to individuals having the right to adequate living and housing, I feel it is important that the government make sure the land lord treats these families as all families in world are to be treated. Many times families with less money or using government support are treated differently than families with money. It is only fair that the same treatment comes for families of different incomes.
Housing is important for all families in addition to food. It is easier for individuals and families to eat unhealthy because it is cheaper, however, if we do not all eat healthy now we will have more health problems in the future. Health problems require more money for medicines and doctor visits. Therefore I feel it is important that each family be supplied with healthy meals.
While Constitutions are supposed to be idealized, there are specific rights which could easily be included and enforced without infringing on the rights of others. Many of these rights include rights to just conditions of work. The European Social Charter gives great examples of rights of European citizens which are easily enforceable and very positive. For example, I realize it's not possible to give EVERYONE the right to have public holidays off, but it is possible to give those who works on public holidays additional monetary compensation or equivalent time off. The fact that this does not usually happen, negatively affects low-income people as they are the ones who often are working jobs which must be staffed on holidays. Additionally people with low-incomes often have to move from job to job more frequently than middle and upper class citizens. This is often because of a change in housing. There should be some way for them to still get vacation time off to spend with their families. As vacation time normally accrues as ones time with the company increases it is hard for low-income families to have any days to take children to the doctor when sick or to take care of household matters. Additionally, adversely affecting low-income citizens is the employer’s ability to tell them on a moments notice that their job may not be available the next day or week. This is especially problematic for low-income citizens they often they survive on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis.
It seems that education has become a popular topic here. I have mixed
feelings about the previous responses. I wholeheartedly believe that a quality
education is a privilege, but should be available to all
I agree with Bobbi. When it comes down to it, it should be the
In regards to the discussion on paying stay-at-home parents, I'm not clear on how that would work. I feel like people should have that option (and they do) but how would be fund that? Money for all of these provisions has to come from somewhere and I feel like sometimes you have to give and take. If it came down to it, I would much rather be able to provide people with adequate housing or healthcare rather than paying stay-at-home parents. Are there other countries where this is the case where we could see how it works out in practice?
To go along with the project that we are doing, I believe that there should be collective bargaining/ worker rights for all workers on a national level, no matter what sector.
I propose that all Universities in the
I propose the right for all minorities, including sexual minorities to be protected against employment discrimination. This should include equal right to be hired and equal salary. Sexual Minorities do not have these rights and employers can discriminate against them without punishment. This should not be the case.
I propose that all of those involved with the guest worker program, (H2A) be granted citizenship after five years of fulfilled contractual work. The Bush administrations has proposed in the past to grant illegal immigrants their citizenship as part of their immigration policy. This is completely absurd considering tens of thousands have been going about this legally, through the guest worker program, being granted visas and contracted to farms, much like a modern day rent-a-slave initiative. Thus, I believe they have as much right, if not more, to citizenship.
I am going to somewhat disagree with Miranda here. While I agree that everyone should be given an equal opportunity, a level playing field to compete in the work force, employers need to be able to discriminate between job candidates. It is part of the job. No, this discrimination should not be based on a person's color or heritage or sexual orientation, but a constitutional protection against discrimination in the work place would essentially give the judicial branch the power to decide who an employer hires. If an employer does not want to hire a person because they are a minority, either in race or sexual orientation, it is unfounded and irrational discrimination, but it is still their company, their prerogative.
Adding to the previous commit. I think we should also allow for them to collectively bargain. So that states cannot take away the main weapon of unions. They can only have little to know effect with out collectively bargaining.
In a previous post there was a proposal to pay stay at home parents; i feel that this is not really a possible thing to do and that if you are able to stay at home for your children then you should have enough money to support them. There also isn't really a pay scale that they could work off of and asking to tax the population in order to pay for this would not be right.
I agree that paying stay at home parents is not practical. But I would like
to propose that free child care, in particular from 2:15pm until 6pm. My apples
assignment is to work at the
I believe that one of the ways we can create the most positive change is to modify our economic policies. Many social issues and human rights situations lack the monetary support necessary to fix them. Thus, by finding ways to economically empower those affected by these problems we will be making strides towards eliminating these issues.
I think paying stay home parents is not practical at all. As someone said, if one of the parents doesn't work then it would make sense that the other parent makes enough money to support the family. Otherwise, the stay home parent should probably find a job. But if there are circumstances that prevent that parent from working, and the other parent's income isn't enough, then the government should support that family.
To expand on a posting about the exploitation of workers, I would just like to add that it is a bigger problem than we think. Most of the time when we think of exploitation and the abuse of workers it is in an extreme condition. I used to work with several Hispanics and Latinos when I was in high school, and even then, I could tell that we were being treated differently. Though we worked harder, had more overtime hours and always completed tasks with perfection, our work was sometimes overlooked. I think it is vital that all workers have equal opportunity in the workplace and all workers be treated as equal despite their race, ethnicity and work ethic. Though some people naturally work harder than others, an equal amount of work should be expected of all workers in a corporation.
I agree that paying stay at home parents might not be the best way to support those that need it economically. Instead, I think there should be a policy that gives single parents an option of childcare expense-free.
Additionally, I think an issue we need to address is affordable housing. I'm not sure if public housing is always the answer. If it is, there needs to be policy's put in place to make public housing safer and more livable.
In regards to the proposal for equal rights to employment, I do not believe that it is possible to completely level the playing field in terms of discrimination within the work force. I would love to live in a world in which no person saw gender, race, ethnicity, or religion. However, we do not live in such a world. While it is necessary to have an outlining document that protects against workforce discrimination, it is a difficult right to protect. Corporations should hire the candidate that is most qualified for the job; however, businesses are private entities and thus, have the right to hire whom they chose for whatever reasons. It would be extremely difficult to determine why some people are hired and why some people are not. This is not to say that women or minorities should not be protected from economic inequality within their jobs. A more realistic right would protect the right to equal pay and equal benefits of all people regardless of sex, religion, or race.