This week’s lesson had no hidden message or ideas, so I was
intrigued by how similar and relatable all the texts were. Soon after watching
and reading the video clips and the articles that were provided, I assumed that
the overlying theme or topic was income inequality, with a special look at how
we treat poor people (people in poverty), as the lesser. What I found
fascinating was the different standpoints that people have on the different
sides of the income spectrum.
Within the article, “Guest: Show respect for fast-food
workers with sufficient pay,” I noticed that this man was sharing conflicts
with paying bills and buying food for a family that has struggled to support
themselves. Not only was he intending to blame his low wage that he has been
making, but he was also standing up for himself and going on strike against the
wage theft and other serious issues that have been going on. What made this
article stand out was its intro. The fact that his kids began to notice him not
being around makes this issue very personal, which also made me feel very sorry
for this man. Related to this article was the other two about fast-food
workers, “Pay fast-food workers sufficient wages,” and “Why U.S. Taxpayers Pay
$7 Billion A Year To Help Fast-Food Workers.” Whether or not they are against
raising fast food wages and supporting their protests, I was interested in some
of the comments that was within the Seattle Times article. I do not want to
stir up a controversy, but I seem to agree that people that are not satisfied
with their fast-food wages should seek another or a different job. Where I have
grown up, these jobs seem to be reserved for 16-25 year olds that are intended
to make money as a part time job. I relate to this article because I believe
that if a person is the main wage earner in the family, he or she should not be
working a job that is paid hourly. Without a college education, you can still seek
better jobs that could possibly be paying more. I was also convinced that we
should not raise wages to $15.00 an hour because I do agree that we will be
cutting jobs. Fast-food joints would hire less people, which would then leave
more people jobless.
What I found fascinating was the different impacts the
videos have left on me. For example, the “Inequality for the All” trailer
shared about the U.S. economy and the fact that we have a suffering lower and
middle class. I do understand what this means, but considering I am a non-political genius,
I seem to steer away from my opinions on this. However, I did find it
interesting how much it related to the “Money and Happiness” article or image.
The stats even express that people that make over $100,000 are generally happy
(49% of people). Being a math geek myself, the graph shows exponential growth
rather than decay. This graph does not lie, and seems to support the claim that
the lower and middle class are suffering.
The last two texts seem to leave me stumped. Yes, I do
notice in the “Trading Places” movie trailer that they seem to be targeting the
way we treat poor people, but how significant does it tie into other texts. I
enjoyed the trailer because it was quite funny (thanks to Eddie Murphy), but I
was curious if there was any reason that the poor man was played by a black
male? I know the goal of the unit is not to discuss race and its relations to
poverty, I just thought I would ask the question. Lastly, related to “Trading
Places,” “The Million-Pound Bank Note” seems to highlight the rich and how they
are more likeable because they are worth and contain the power. Though these two
videos do relate to one another, they seemed to target people’s views on the
poor and the rich, compared to the opinions that people have on the fast-food
wages.
No comments:
Post a Comment