Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of welfare reform
Pros and cons of welfare reform
Welfare reform in the us
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros and cons of welfare reform
Economic Growth
in the
United States
Economic growth can be defined as increases in per capita real GDP (gross domestic product) measured by its rate of change per year. Growth rates are very important because even a small change can make vast difference in the coming years. The knowledge of economic growth is also important because it can provide the means to allow us to gain valuable insights. According to Robert D. McTeer, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, two factors determine the rate of economic growth: productivity increases (more output for the same amount of inputs), and labor (the number of hours worked).
Productivity in the United States, due to new innovations (that are coming together after years of investment), is growing to levels not seen since the 1960’s. For example: productivity growth has averaged 2.3 percent from 1996 to 1999, doubling the 1.1 percent average productivity growth from 1973 to 1995. At a rate of two percent from 1996 to 1999, labor has also increased, as unemployment fell and welfare recipients have gone to work. The economy has been growing at a rate of about 4.5 percent each year, due to this.
However, the increase in the workforce , or hours worked, limits labor growth. Again, according to McTeer, in the long run, productivity growth is the key to rising living standards.
On another note, there are many benefits that go along with the economic expansion we are experiencing. The current economic expansion has commonly been referred to by economists as "The 1990’s Economic Boom", because the current growth of the U.S. economy is the longest ever in peacetime. Economists observe that this expansion has benefited nearly every American. According to the reports of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than three out of every four jobs created from 1989 to 1995 were highly-paid professionals and managerial positions. The Council of Economic Advisers reported that in 1995 and 1996, more than half of new jobs created were in fields where the average wage ranked in the top third of all salaries. Another great benefit according to the Investor’s Business Daily January 19, 1999 publication, is that 1.67 million families left welfare rolls, and 1.74 million more single parents found jobs.
Though this economic expansion has been the longest since World War II (according to the New York Times, October 18, 1998), growth during the 1990’s has been weaker than during any growth cycle since the end of the war.
despite the vanishing jobs Americans’ productivity is on the rise and Americans still lead the
John sits at home each night with his wife and two children and watches the news. He listens as experts on the economy tell him that the economy is growing and that the GDP is growing. He wonders how this can be, because he lost his job months ago and has not been able to find work since. Has the very country that John lives in moved on and left him behind? This is the question that many Americans are asking themselves, and many more will be soon. In the 1960s and early 90s productivity in America increased by record amounts. The nation was prospering, people had jobs, and they were spending their money. All of this was done by simple government intervention. Now America is looking at another rise in productivity, but this time it may be a little bit different unless the government takes the proper steps.
According to the Forbes article, America depends on economic expansion and an increase in population. Both are factors to how we are able to sustain the economy
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different even opposing views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role on their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things is far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure. Hobbes’s initial argument of natural state, in human nature, proves how society is in a constant state of destruction, mentally and physically, if not under controlled or command. Although Hobbes’s opinion was morally correct, Rousseau believes that all people are born in a state of emptiness, somewhat of a blank state and it is life experiences that determine their nature, society being a major driving force for people’s ill-will and lack of moral sensibilities. Hobbes, overall, is proven correct because all people need to be directed in order for society to properly function.
It was said that once-in-a-century advances in technology are transforming our economy. The computer chip is doing for today's knowledge economy what electricity did for our industrial economy a century ago. Synergies in technology are driving acceleration in productivity growth that enables us to grow faster with less inflation. Economic progress is speeding up; the speed limit is rising. “Real GDP growth has averaged 4 percent for the past four years, with declining inflation. This almost doubles the 2 percent to 2.5 percent not long ago considered the maximum noninflationary potential. But we've been growing faster than potential and sustaining the unsustainable for four years and counting. Sounds odd, doesn't it? Our faster output growth is based primarily on faster productivity growth and secondarily on faster labor force growth”. Productivity growth now appears to be at least 2.5 percent and rising. An increase from 1 percent to 2.5 percent is an increase of 150 percent, a huge jump with profound implications if sustained. Last year was encouraging. Productivity raised over 3 percent for the year and over 5 percent in the second half. It was said that the United States entered the 21st century with its economy on a roll. GDP growth averaged more than 3 percent a year in the 1990s. The country created 17 million jobs, driving unemployment down to a 30-year low of 4.1 percent. In the 1999-2000 the economy wasn’t doing so bad the unemployment rate was down, there were more jobs available, and production was doing well. When 2001 stated and even before then the economy was going down, many people were being laid off and so on. Then it happened the September 11th attack on the US, this attack has left the
...ns. Hobbes, insist that the nature of mankind is a state of savagery if left to its own device and the amalgamation of people under the confines of law allows people to seek the peace they thirst for. On the contrary Rousseau advocates that people are a naturally social species, and the submission to a greater good of the community by parting with their born rights is paramount to the superfluidity of the society. Both essentially agree that giving up natural right for the civil liberties within the state is a necessary exchange for the preservation of both the individual and the state itself.
Rousseau’s political theory revolves around a central idea that in order to deal with moral or political inequality (“social” inequality), man must move out of the state of nature and establish a social contract, “a form of association which defends and protects… the person and goods of each associate, and by the means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 432). Although Rousseau’s plan pledges to protect individual liberty, the plan rests on the legislation of the “general will” and the successful unity of a “body politic,” both of which are vaguely defined and become too concerned with state interest.
Social contract adheres to the concept that in pre-societal terms man relied on the state of nature: life with no government and no regulation. Interpretations of state of nature from English Philosopher Thomas Hobbes and that of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau differ on the basis of development and operation of the social contract. Hobbes proposed that man lived in fear and self-interest to the point that it was in human nature to seek security and self-protection to which he [man] enters a social contract. While Rousseau argues that man’s individualism, freedom, and equality is diluted through the formation of modern civilization and is “forced to be free” (p.46). How social contract operates from perspective of Hobbes and Rousseau
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have very different views on the social contract largely based on their fundamental views of the state of nature in humanity. These basic views of natural human nature cause Hobbes and Rousseau to have views on opposite sides of the spectrum, based on two controversial speculations, that human is inherently good or that human is inherently inclined towards egotism and perpetual insecurity. Due to his belief that they are of this nature, Hobbes viewed an all-powerful sovereign of a rather totalarianistic nature to be necessary. Rousseau on the other hand, viewed that the sovereign should represent the common will of the people, the sovereign being agreed upon by all constituents. It is my assertion that Rousseau’s argument, although flawed in its own ways, is superior to Hobbes in that it has an answer for the inequalities that may arise in a society by Hobbes’ princples.
Locke’s belief in “consent” by the people creates a democratic structure of community. In this way, the community is merely created to protect the rights and the property of the people. His idealistic government would have the power controlled by those who are being ruled, the people. Locke explains that we must “make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest” (Locke 101).The government is a reflection of the “majority” of the community, and will represent the wishes of the people. The power is held by those who are being ruled, and they have equal rights in deciding their political outcomes. Locke explains that “wherever law ends, tyranny begins”, so once the rights of the people are suppressed this injustice begins (Locke 102). Locke also explains that if a government was to act unjust, not with the best interest of the majority, then it is the right and the responsibility of the people to overthrow “tyranny” (Locke 102). The people, who have the power, should always defend their human rights, especially from unlawful rulers. This view of government shifts with Hobbes’ perspective. Hobbes believes that one man should rule the community, and therefore the government should have power in the ruler rather than the people being ruled. This single ruler will be educated about the corrupt nature of mankind and the bad nature of
The human body endures a great deal of wear and injury during its lifetime. It is for this reason that the body has several tissues that are capable of regeneration. Bone is one of those tissues that receives extensive use so it is necessary that it is strong in order to carry out its functions; however, it will occasionally face injury. Although our bones are capable of regeneration, a new method would help the elderly and others that have a more difficult time healing after injury. I viewed a “TED Talk” lecture, which discussed a new way of regenerating bone with the help of our own bodies. Molly Stevens, the head of a biomaterials lab, presented “A New Way to Grow Bone” where she discussed a new technique called “in vivo bioreactor”. She also answered why this new procedure is beneficial. Researchers like Stevens are constantly trying to find innovative new techniques and they do this by asking questions. The question that Stevens presented in the video was an intriguing one: “Can we recreate the regeneration of bone on demand and transplant it?”.
In the class Psychology of Women, the film Makers Project: Women Who Make America was shown. The film supplied background information about the treatment of women before, during, and after the Women’s Movement. As a result of the Women’s Movement, there has been a vast amount of changes impacting society.
Economic growth focuses on encouraging firms to invest or encouraging people to save, which in turn creates funds for firms to invest. It runs hand-in-hand with the goal of high employment because in order for firms to be comfortable investing in assets such as plants and equipment, unemployment must be low. Hereby, the people and resources will be available to spur economic growth.
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.