The Hopeful Future of a Universal Basic Income

Universal basic income is a necessary step the United States must take to maintain the middle class and is overall beneficial to the economy of the United States. What is a universal basic income? Universal basic income is the idea that the government will supply citizens when an “x” amount of income on a scheduled basis to help all citizens in an equal way with “no strings attached” (“Universal Basic Income Explained – Free Money for everybody? UBI” 2:20-2:25). Now, how might this idea work? By taxing large corporations that benefit by using machines rather than hiring people, we could create a universal basic income that could support the lower class and create a larger middle class, not to mention some of the most influential people of our time and the past support the idea. We will also discuss what we could expect from implementing this idea.

When it comes to taxing large corporations, we should start by looking at how much these corporations who benefit from machinery rather than human labor. For example, Amazon paid a total of 0 dollars in taxes in 2018 who had a profit of 10.8 billion dollars. Just by taxing amazon 30% of their profits we can supply US citizens 3.24 billion dollars equally. Amazon in the past 10 years has only paid 3% of its total profit in taxes. Amazon is not the only fortune 500 company not paying its fair share in taxes, an analysis of Fortune 500 companies shows that at least 60 of the nation’s largest corporations were not paying a dollar in taxes last year. You might be wondering how is this possible? Well, because of legal loopholes Amazon and other companies can put their profits towards “research and development and giving employees stock-based employee compensation” (Davis). By eliminating these loopholes, we can implement universal basic income by taking the tax revenue earned by the government and distribute it to the people.

But wait, if you know anything about economics you might be thinking “Won’t this cause a large amount of inflation with prices rising and nothing changing to combat all this money coming in?”. In short, no. Because we aren’t just printing more money and just distributing it equally among all adult citizens there will be no inflation. Universal basic income will only be distributing already existing money from a variety of sources. These sources could include but aren’t limited to; taxing large corporations, cutting the military budget, getting rid of welfare programs, etc.

Now, back to the topic of why universal basic income should be implemented in the United States. With automation rapidly growing larger more and more jobs will be lost. So at some point, some sort of system must be put in place to make sure the lower and upper class don’t grow exceedingly large, there have been multiple theoretical solutions to this including such as universal basic income, larger minimum wage, and larger welfare systems, the last two options are significantly flawed. Universal basic income can provide many citizens with a way to get back on their feet, be a fallback in case of emergency, and get out of abusive situations.

Let’s start with the flaws with raising the minimum wage, according to a study published by the Obama administration. This study shows that 83% of current jobs that pay less than $20 in 2010, as shown in Figure 3a, “will be under pressure from automation” (Furman, 14) and possibly gone in the coming decades. Not to mention that 31% of jobs that pay 20 to 40 dollars an hour will also be gone. However, raising the minimum wage is a short-term fix and won’t ultimately fix the pay disparity between the lower and upper class. The other issue of increasing the minimum wage is the issue of small businesses. Large companies may be able to deal with being forced to pay their employees higher levels of pay, but small businesses may not be able to afford these costs making less incentive for entrepreneurs to take the risk of starting up a business. With a universal basic income, you could use this guaranteed income as a bargaining tool to get employers to pay you more for minimum wage jobs just by being able to say no to work that you might not think is worth it.

On to the issues of welfare systems, welfare can be argued it does more bad than good. It tends to keep people in their economic situations rather than get them out. Welfare just has to strings attached to people that limit them such as, “taking classes, applying to certain jobs a month, and accepting any job you get no matter if it’s a good fit or what it pays” (Kurzgesagt, 2:25-2:38). The time spent having to deal with all these requirements could be spent finding the right well paying job that will last for you. Welfare tends to keep people in poverty rather than taking them out of it, with many welfare programs if you make more than the welfare program provides it will be taken away. For example, if the program you are aligned with gives you 1000 dollars a month and you end up making around 1200 dollars from this new before taxes your program will probably be taken away. At first sight, this might seem right but if you look further into it after taxes you will probably end up having less money than you had before which will then incentivize laziness and lead to no motivation to better your given situation, therefore, trapping you in the “welfare ceiling” (Kurzgesagt, 3:40-3:50). So not only by taxing companies that benefit from automation we could also end up closing welfare programs to an extent and taking the money in those programs and shifting them to a universal basic income program. Nobel Prize winner in Economic Science, Milton Friedman, agreed with the idea of getting rid of welfare systems saying that “we should replace the ragbag of specific welfare programs with a single comprehensive program of income supplements in cash—a negative income tax which would do more efficiently and humanely what our present welfare systems does so inefficiently and inhumanely” (Friedman).

Timeline A: Shows key influential people from the United States Supporting the idea of a universal basic income.

Milton Friedman isn’t the only influential person who supports a change towards universal basic income; from famed publicist Thomas Paine to Elon Musk, one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our times, who supports Presidental Candidate Andrew Yang who is bringing the idea of a universal basic income to reality with his “Freedom Dividend”. As shown in Timeline A, even someone who is considered the greatest mind of time and one of the greatest social rights activists in the United States supporting the idea of some kind of basic guaranteed income, Martin Luther King Jr. went so far to say that “ The solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income” (King).

Democratic Presidential Candidate, Andrew Yang, plans to implement a form of this idea called the “Freedom Dividend”. The Freedom Dividend would supply all Americans 1000 dollars a month and adds up to be 12,000 dollars annually.  Andrew Yang believes that this idea is in the best interest of the American people and illustrates why he believes so. “With 4 million jobs being taken by automation by 2015,  many people predict that  one-third of all working Americans will lose their job to automation in the next 12 years” (Yang).  If you think about it, this is a scary statistic and something must be done about it. The Freedom Dividend would make sure that everyone is just above the poverty line, but with more and more jobs being taken by automation the Freedom Dividend will only grow larger and give people more and more money to do what they please with it. To do this Andrew Yang plans to “implement a Value added Tax of 10 percent and consolidate some welfare programs” (Yang) to reach that 1000 dollars a month.

Universal basic income takes people out of many bad situations including the “welfare ceiling” (Kurzgesagt, 3:40-3:50). Universal basic income can allow people to pay off debts that would continue to grow and always leave a looming cloud of stress over their heads to worry about. Instead, this money could be put towards furthering your education to get a better paying job and live better a lifestyle. Aside from universal basic income helping with the obvious instances it could also help people in some of the worst situations. Abusive relationships, these situations can be one of the toughest things to separate from especially when the one being abusive is the one with the money, leading to the person getting abused forced to stay with them and possible keeping their child in this situation with them. “Between 94%-99% of domestic violence survivors survived some form of economic abuse” (“Quick Guide: Economic and Financial Abuse”). With a basic guaranteed income, these people who were being abused could have the chance to get out of these situations and find a new place to live or travel to get away from the relationship and begin a new life.

In the paper you might have thought wouldn’t it just be easier to make companies higher workers rather than using machinery, the answer is no, we shouldn’t. Automation is not a bad thing its what make human civilization to continue forward and motivate us to reach places we have never been before. By letting labor jobs be taken over by automation we can let humans do what they do best, think. People can spend their time thinking on how to do something more efficiently, better their lives, and better everyone’s lives around them and take an approach to life they would never have been able to do without automation and an implemented universal basic income.

With all these influential people supporting it, the statistics backing it up, and just the all-around benefits of a universal basic income there is no question this should and will be implemented into many countries including the United States in the coming decades. Automation is not something you can stop, it is inevitable. With that just being how it is, we should find ways to work around this to make our society not only continue to work, but to make it better than it ever has before.

References

Caputo, Richard K. “Hopes and Realities of Adopting Unconditional Basic Income Guarantee Schemes.” Caputo, Richard K. Basic Income Guarantee and Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. 3-17. Book.

Gardner, Matthew. “Amazon in Its Prime: Doubles Profits, Pays $0 in Federal Income Taxes.” ITEP, 13 Feb. 2019, itep.org/amazon-in-its-prime-doubles-profits-pays-0-in-federal-income-taxes/.

Johnston, Matthew. “How Fortune 500 Companies Avoid Paying Income Tax.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 18 Nov. 2019, http://www.investopedia.com/news/how-fortune-500-companies-avoid-paying-income-tax/.

US Census Bureau. “Search Results.” US Population, US Census Bureau, 4 Apr. 2019, http://www.census.gov/search-results.html?searchType=web&cssp=SERP&q=population.

“Quick Guide: Economic and Financial Abuse.” NCADV: National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, NCADV, 12 Apr. 2017, ncadv.org/blog/posts/quick-guide-economic-and-financial-abuse.

“Why Do People Stay in Abusive Relationships? – The Hotline.” The National Domestic Violence Hotline, National Domestic Violence Hotline, 12 Apr. 2019, http://www.thehotline.org/is-this-abuse/why-do-people-stay-in-abusive-relationships/.

“Milton Friedman.” Econlib, The Library of Economics and Liberty, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Friedman.html.

“Universal Basic Income Explained – Free Money for Everybody? UBI.” Performance by Steve Taylor, YouTube, Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell, 7 Dec. 2017, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl39KHS07Xc.

“The Freedom Dividend – Yang2020 – Andrew Yang for President.” Yang2020, Andrew Yang Campaign, 2019, http://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/.

Davis, Andrew. “Why Amazon Paid No 2018 US Federal Income Tax.” CNBC, CNBC, 4 Apr. 2019, www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/why-amazon-paid-no-federal-income-tax.html.

United States, Congress, Executive , et al. “Artificial Intellegence, Automation, and The Econonmy.” Artificial Intellegence, Automation, and The Econonmy, Executive Office of the Presidency , 2016, pp. 14–15.

@AndrewYang “Supporting Universal Basic Income and championing the #FreedomDividend puts you in very good company throughout history.” Twitter, 30 May 2019 10:01 a.m., https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1134142762381692929

To Drive Or Not To Drive

Cars and their role in pollution, overcrowding, and the need for the fossil fuel industry gives reason for stricter laws to change our mindset of seeing them as a necessity in our daily lifestyle. Automobiles are arguably one of the greatest inventions in history. Humans rely on them every day. Americans spend an average of almost an hour each day driving (NewsRoom). To say that cars are the backbone of daily life is an understatement. Not only did the impact of cars drastically change our lives but it will continue too in the future. However, there are plenty of downsides from this innovation that hold us back. Pollution is a topic that has greatly risen to the table in the last couple of decades. Although not playing a major role, cars have a large chunk of ownership in some of the pollution put into our atmosphere. One of the reasons for them having such a large role is because of the pure number of cars on the streets. The Triple-A NewsRoom reports that twenty-eight percent of households have more cars than drivers. Do we need that many cars? Having this many cars leads to problems as you might be able to tell. A mass of cars isn’t good under and circumstance, yet as a nation, and as a whole limits on these types of things have been very lenient. These issues will continue to boil and unless addressed, the future may be a devastating realization. Again, cars aren’t the only problem plaguing us, but it might be the necessary start.

 Almost all kids on the exact day they turn sixteen, at least in my home state of New Jersey, they go to take their drivers test. It’s something seen as so normal duty in today’s world. If lucky, most kids either receive a car or a hand-me-down to drive as a gift from their parents too. I believe cars aren’t seen as a luxury in our world today. Almost every family in America, eighty-six percent to be exact, own at least one car (NewsRoom). Even going somewhere, such as the store, to grab something “real quick” has been made a lot easier because of cars. Although, could there be such a thing as having too many cars on the roads? America has its fair share of rural areas and cities, like many other countries. However, many other countries have an extreme amount of people in one area compared to that of ours. For example, our own New York City has a population of just over eight million people, while China’s Beijing has a whopping twenty-one and a half million people. Even though these numbers are distant, there remains a common problem. Both have experienced a surge in traffic and unnecessary outcomes from having excess cars swarming about. Although there is no visible pollution such as Beijing’s smog, it could be foreshadowing an event that could plague our own NYC as well. With focus on NYC, because of the recent boom of riding apps this decade, traffic issues have taken the big apple by storm. “Average speeds during business hours in Manhattan’s core dropped to…about six miles per hour (Bliss, “New York Cities Traffic Woes”).” We all love being able to hop into an Uber and be somewhere without worrying about things like a designated driver and knowing which roads to take. However, Uber isn’t the only one populating the city. Tons of drivers flocked to the city with their companies like Lyft and Via too. “With a whopping 59 percent increase in the number of for-hire vehicles”, NYC seems to have entered a new age in transportation (Bliss, “New York Cities Traffic Woes”). Is it now time for New York to take action to change the ridiculous population of cars?

Many other countries in Europe and Asia have implemented a series of laws to help with this overflow. The strategy of “Road Space Rationing” has been introduced to many countries and has grown in popularity. “In Beijing, the restrictions were imposed on odd and even license plate numbers which reduced about a third of the typical vehicle traffic and a 40% reduction in emissions (Davies, “Road Space Rationing”).” First, this addition to the community was temporary in preparation for the 2008 Summer Olympics that were hosted there. But, because of its success, it was decided to be kept as a rule. Switching to another congested city, London, also found itself hosting a Summer Olympics. They too enforced a law of keeping some lanes restricted for certain groups of people (Davies, “Road Space Rationing”). This overall simple way of eliminating traffic flow provides reduced emissions while solving a possible traffic nightmare.

Even going somewhere, such as the store, to grab something “real quick” has been made a lot easier because of cars. Although should you need to use your car in the first place? I believe we take for granted what the automobile industry has brought us. The overuse in cars isn’t all in the mindset of us though. A far part of the blame can be put on the government and how our infrastructure and building is done today. As our population continues to grow today, there’s more and more expansion in terms of housing, schooling, and other necessary community buildings. Overall, this means the distance between destinations will increase. “Over 66 percent of total driving trips and nearly 62 percent of total miles driven are done by drivers without a passenger in the vehicle (NewsRoom).” At first, this statistic may seem random and unimportant. However, how many of these trips could be avoided or condensed to dissolve this statistic? As a nation, we need to look at why this could be happening as well. Like previously said, the placement of buildings important to everyday life drives this number. The degree in how often we must drive fuels the need for a high demand in gas. Not to mention fuel-efficient cars are being overlooked today because of their lack of flashiness and having a persona of being ‘soft’. The long chain of pollution from start to end is a process with many hands involved. “To date, 13 cities and counties have filed lawsuits against major oil and gas producers such as ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell, suing over damages caused to its infrastructure and coastal communities by climate change (Burger & Wentz,”Where Does the Law Stand”).” Action is now being taken to put those from the start in the hot seat. While this may seem hopeful, the true identity of these companies’ wrong-doings won’t ever be known because of the inability to track who is responsible for what pollution.

Fortunately, living in the United States has sheltered us from many problems other countries experience due to pollution and the impact of cars. One of the biggest visual issues we struggle to combat overseas is smog. In China, more specifically their capital of Beijing notoriously has had complications with their skyline being plagued with smog. One way the government minimizes the impact of the smog is by implementing a law that allows only certain cars to be out depending on the day. “Several Chinese cities have started restricting vehicle licenses as a way of reducing car use.” The overall goal, of course, is to positively reduce the pollution levels. Some cities, such as the city of Hangzhou have taken action by limiting the number of new plates being issued (Duggan, “China to Scrap Millions Of Cars”). These steps by China are definitely in the right direction, but is it enough? Do more strict laws need to be put into place or does a huge scale of reform need to be drawn up? Just like America, China has standards when it comes to emissions. Both countries have the right to allow and to not allow depending on the level of emissions the car tests at. Although, no matter how clean a car maybe, in the end, it still burns gas. Their government took another great leap when it came to another plan. They stated that they look to take, “6 million vehicles that don’t meet emission standards off the roads by the end of the year (Duggan, “China to Scrap Millions Of Cars”).” Initiatives like this boost the health of our planet and turn eyes so others can see the good that must be done. Unfortunately, Taking cars off the road doesn’t solve the underlying problem of their emissions but it helps to rid the problem China has with vehicles not reaching national standards.

   Addressing the problem at hand is easy because it’s fairly visible and easy to see. However, if motions are put into certain places, it may reduce the overall issue. For example, New York City has always been congested and it will most likely continue to get worse. Although, the indirect problem is the lack of care towards the infrastructure. The subways and taxi services lack when it comes to their competition. If these issues were fixed it would provide a reason to reduce the number of cars on the road. Unfortunately, it will not be that easy. Money doesn’t appear out of thin air. This is why pressure must be put onto the people to respond to make a difference. It is just the question of whether or not we’ll do it on our own, or get to the point in which we must be forced to do it legally. The topic of government and their control over us has always, and most likely will always be a heavily debated topic. In the case of pollution, it’s a question of are we going to do something now or continue to push it off till later. This topic is a ticking time bomb, and although cars may only be one part of the bomb, sooner or later it will go off.

“Equality” in Twitch

The internet media is growing exponentially every day. Daily, there are additional and faster opportunities to connect with each other. Now, the transmission of information happens within minutes.  For example, an international user learns of American news in less than a minute and likewise. Along with the progression in media and technology, the demand for the transfer of information is also snowballing. There are progressively more people joining social media platforms every day. As a result, more companies are trying to grow into the media business. For instance, what started with Facebook has now grown into numerous social media platforms like Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, and many more. Along with such social media platforms, there are companies, such as YouTube, which focus on connecting with people through video format. Twitch is a media similar to YouTube where content creators have an opportunity to connect with their viewers through live streams, which are a method of communicating through live videos, and the viewers can connect with the streamers through the chat section (Pires). Twitch allows one person to show his/her work through live streaming, such as gaming or vlogging. However, along with such great opportunities, there could be negative aspects following them. The Twitch chat section is slowly becoming an additional element for gender bias in the platform. The chat session has become a flaw because of slurs, verbal abuses, and descriptive and derogatory language, which can affect a female streamer’s experience on Twitch. Therefore, there has to be a better moderation around a streamers chat section.

Twitch, as a platform, has shaped its language. Since the chat sections of popular streamers move incredibly fast, meaning comments stroll in one after another in less than a second, Twitch users have created short words that could help communicate faster and efficiently: “monkas”, “lul”, and “pop champ”. Monkas is used when Twitch culture and meme culture collide (Hathaway). Lul is used lame uncomfortable laugh (InternetSlang). The creation of such language has created a new culture in Twitch, however, with such new words, there are a lot of descriptive and derogatory words that have made their way into the streaming platform. Users have brought in descriptive words, especially of such that point out genitalia. These words degrade a female streamer and negatively impact their streaming experience. Gradually, a typical Twitch chat section of a female streamer is beginning to appear like this.

Figure 1 (image from Medium: https://medium.com/@s4b0t4g3fire/twitch-users-breeds-discrimination-9fbdb3ba90cd )

Figure 2 (Image from Kotaku https://kotaku.com/study-shows-twitch-chat-is-very-different-when-women-a-1789302281.)

A website named Kotaku has recently conducted a survey of the chat section of a male and a female streamer. According to the Figure 2 above, the bigger the word displayed the higher the frequency of the word used. For instance, words like “bo*bs” and “t*ts” have been used more than terms like “love”. It is observed that female streamers have a lot of objectifying words, such as “b*tch,” “bo*bs,” and “beautiful”. On the other hand, male streamers have little to no such words used against them. Although Twitch claims to be a gender-neutral website, it is very biased to females by many users. What is shocking to hear is that owners of this platform are also biased to female streamers.

The primary audience of Twitch is male. Just like every other business, Twitch would want higher customer retention compared to its competitors, such as Mixer. Although customers are pivotal to a business’ survival, the business has to strive to keep their employees happy too. The employees in the particular context could be the streamers. The untold truth about the Twitch administration is that although there are multiple options available to stop the gender discrimination in the Twitch chat section, the administration is not willing to take the action to improve customer retention. According to a Twitch demographics survey, 81.5% of viewers are male. Because of this large number of males and in correlation to the words used to objectify females, this can cause problem (Iqbal). If the Twitch administration takes an action against such gender discrimination through the chat section, there will be a high amount of customer dissatisfaction, and the company will have a very low customer retention rate. As a result, the owners would decide not to take any action on such repulsive behavior. It is very disappointing how the female streamers’ comfort and pride is thrown down a drain so that the business is more profitable. 

Recently, a Twitch streamer was cyberbullied by many Twitch users. Kaylynn Creighton is a streamer who had recent problems with bullying. She was referred to her by her private parts and views were asked to go against her. This impacted her life and her streaming experience was negatively impacted (“A Lot Of Twitch Streamers Bullied A Female Pokemon Player”). This only a single incident of the many Twitch streamers. Similar or worse incidents have happened to streamers like Imane Anys whose physical appearance has been recorded and discriminated against. 

The problem of a negative chat section filled with slurs and bias is not a new problem nor is it a problem that no one ever mentioned about. It has been mentioned multiple times before by the media, streamers, and internet articles. The Twitch administration has tried to respond to the issue by giving the streamers an option to block a user from the channel. However, it is hard for a streamer to block people when thousands of people are watching them. Hence, this method could be considered impractical. Even though the streamer blocks a user, many users return with a new account. Although the Twitch team has made a move towards the issue, this method of blocking users did not work for very long. As a result, the female streamers’ streaming experience is still hindered by the derogatory language used against them.

Critical issues could have multiple solutions. As technology is advancing, there are multiple solutions that could digitally hinder a user’s ability to use specific words. For instance, when people are allowed to make a user ID in Call of Duty, the game restricts the players from using few obscene words. Similarly, when PlayStation users get to create a new user id, the users do not have an opportunity to use an offensive word in the user ID; the software will immediately block them from creating a new ID. Therefore, if Twitch as a platform could adopt such technology for their chat section, it could dramatically boost the streaming experience for female streamers. By implementing such a design, there will be a positive atmosphere on the website and both the streamers and users can have a positive experience. Although there is a method to solve the problem, Twitch officials might be against it due to customer satisfaction problems. However, if they do not implement it there could be larger issues.

In companies with a high level of employee dissatisfaction, there will be more and more employees leaving the company. If the Twitch administration does not fix the problems as soon as possible there will be more female streamers who get dissatisfied and will eventually leave the company. This will largely impact Twitch because as female streamers leave the company, many audiences will leave Twitch too. As a result, the depletion of customers and the employees will increase rapidly and the business side of Twitch will be negatively be impacted. As a result, Twitch has to implement these strategies to have a safe and positive future.

It is very disappointing that in the modern world we live in, women are still being discriminated against every day on Twitch. It is disappointing to know that women are still being referred to by their body parts. If the administration does not take quick action, there could be severe consequences. Many female streamers wake up and love to do their job, but their adoration is hindered because Twitch refuses to make their job easier just for business profit. By not taking action against such behavior, Twitch administration is making a woman streamer’s job miserable. Well, it is finally time for Twitch to wake up!

Works Cited

“A Lot Of Twitch Streamers Bullied A Female Pokemon Player.” GuruGamer.com, GuruGamer, 8 May 2019, https://gurugamer.com/features/a-lot-of-twitch-streamers-bullied-a-female-pokemon-player-3044.

D’Anastasio, Cecilia. “Study Shows Twitch Chat Is Very Different When Women Are Streaming.” Kotaku, Kotaku, 23 Nov. 2016, https://kotaku.com/study-shows-twitch-chat-is-very-different-when-women-a-1789302281.

Hathaway, Jay. “A Beginner’s Guide to Twitch Emotes, Gamers’ Weird Secret Language.” The Daily Dot, The Daily Dot, 26 Apr. 2017, https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/twitch-emotes/.

InternetSlang “What Does LUL Mean? – LUL Definition – Meaning of LUL.” What Does LUL Mean? – LUL Definition – Meaning of LUL, 11 Sept. 2011, https://www.internetslang.com/LUL-meaning-definition.asp.

Iqbal, Mansoor “Twitch Revenue and Usage Statistics (2019).” Business of Apps, Business of Apps, 27 Feb. 2019, https://www.businessofapps.com/data/twitch-statistics/.

Pires, Karine, and Gwendal Simon. “YouTube Live and Twitch: A Tour of User-Generated Live Streaming Systems.” YouTube Live and Twitch: A Tour of User-Generated Live Streaming Systems, 18 Mar. 2015, pp. 225–230., http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2713168.2713195.

S4B0T4G3FIRE. “Twitch Users Breed Discrimination.” Medium, Medium, 19 Sept. 2019, https://medium.com/@s4b0t4g3fire/twitch-users-breeds-discrimination-9fbdb3ba90cd.

Youth Football Concussion Controversy

Youth Football Concussion Controversy

            One of the biggest sports controversies in the twenty-first century has been over the severity of head injuries in youth and professional American football. This topic has led to a drastically increased focus on research for prevention and treatment of head injuries. The research has focused concern on the degenerative brain disease, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. Youth football, or pre high school football, has become the most dangerous youth sport due to the lack of on-site athletic trainers that are commonly present at high school, college, and professional football games and practices. Despite all the research and attempts at mitigation, head related football injuries have continued to rise, and youth tackle football needs to be banned. Although youth football provides children with exercise, an opportunity to make friends, and learning how to become part of a team, it should be banned for the following reasons: The brains of children are not yet fully developed, they are not mature enough to learn how to properly tackle without risk of injury, there is poor enforcement of the safety rules at this level of play, and there is not sufficient medical attention or athletic trainers made available for youth football games.

Youth tackle football should be banned because player’s brains are not fully developed until age 25. Undeveloped brains are at a higher risk of long-term cumulative brain damage, such as Post-Concussion Syndrome, due to traumatic brain impacts. One study by Dr. Christopher Whitlow analyzed the impacts of repetitive head impacts in youth football players aged 8 to 13. This study only focused on players that didn’t sustain any concussions and had Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) studies done before and after the football season. The results of this study showed that, “Young players who experienced more cumulative head impact exposure had more changes in brain white matter, specifically decreased Fractional Anisotropy (FA), in specific parts of the brain” (Whitlow). White matter in the brain refers to nerve fibers in the brain that are particularly sensitive to injury in not fully developed brains, and in this study, decreased white matter and Fractional Anisotropy (FA) is indicative of the beginning of Traumatic Brain Injury. These results are important because they prove that continuous head to head contact in football can harm the brain even without concussions, and also proves that youth football can harm underdeveloped brains and possibly create long term issues. The University Health Network completed research on the effect of brain injuries on post-concussion syndrome (PCS) with youth, and discovered that, “Half of the athletes who developed PCS were under the age of 18” (University Health Network). Post-concussion syndrome is a disorder in which brain symptoms may last for months after a concussion is sustained, and which should have already healed. The results of this research show that underdeveloped brains have a higher chance of developing PCS, and possibly other long-term injuries following a concussion or other head injury.

Youth tackle football creates another risk of head injury due to the player’s inexperience with tackling. Young football players generally spend years learning how to properly tackle, and poor tackling form can cause greater stress on the head and neck, particularly in the case of head on head collisions. The majority of head and neck injuries in football occur while making a tackle. The American Academy of pediatrics wrote that the safest way to tackle in football is by, “Initiating contact with the shoulder while the head is up.” (Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness 1424). Football players are taught this tackling technique to prevent head to head contact and primarily focus the contact onto the shoulder. The problem is that it takes a great deal of time and a lot of practice to get used to tackling without using your head, so there is a greater risk of injury while trying to learn how to tackle safely. This makes practice just as dangerous as the actual football games because it’s been estimated that 39% of all football impacts occur during practice. Football players tend to have repetitive head injuries related to tackles, which can cause Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), a very serious degenerative brain disease. CTE is described as, “A progressive and non-reversible condition that progressed steadily even after the exposure to head trauma had ceased” (Lehman). Everett Lehman researched CTE and compared the symptoms as having similarities with other degenerative diseases such as Dementia or Alzheimer’s. This disease is found primarily in professional football players after spending most of their lives continuously experiencing head collisions. After their careers are complete their brains continue to degenerate, but goes unidentifiable as CTE until an autopsy is performed. The risk is not only because of their professional careers, but a substantial part of it is due to the massive number of collisions sustained to their heads during their youth football seasons. In studies of youth football players using special helmets to track collisions, the children experience hundreds of mini head collisions throughout the games and practices of each season.

In pre high school football leagues, there is a severe lack of athletic trainers and medical staff dedicated to player safety as well as evaluating head trauma injuries. In high school football and up, there is a staff of athletic trainers to set baselines for concussions and authorization for players to return to play. In youth football, it is generally up to the parents and coaches to determine if the child is injured or should not be playing. This presents a danger because the child wants to continue playing and may not admit to their coaches or parents that they were in a collision, or have any symptoms or pain. In many youth football players, there can be minor head trauma that goes unnoticed by coaches and parents which with repeated blows can lead to more severe concussions. In the book, Concussive Brain Trauma, Rolland S. Parker explains that when a child experiences a head injury, “The results may not show up until years later in lack of mental development or lack of physiological development (e.g., inability to attain puberty)” (Parker 44). Parker is suggesting that with children, the parents may not notice any apparent problem from an initial injury, but over time the child may not fully develop mentally. The child may experience a lack of memory of the injury itself, and not attribute the head symptoms to a concussion, therefore going untreated and risking traumatic brain injury.

Despite all of the dangers involved in youth football, many people still argue that youth football provides a necessary component of communities and a child’s development. Football provides growing children the chance to exercise, learn the sport, build relationships with other teammates, and learn to work as part of a team. Many argue that if youth football were to be banned then, “Athletes will be ill prepared and forced to learn these skills at an age where they are bigger, faster, stronger, more coordinated, and capable of delivering more forceful blows.” (Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness 1424). They make the case that it is more problematic to delay learning proper tackling form until high school, since the players are bigger and stronger, and therefore in more danger of sustaining a head injury. Although the players would be bigger, their maturity would enable them to better realize the dangers of the sport, and the potential for injury. This would lead them to practice tackling without using their full force until they develop the proper and safe technique  If children learn how to tackle when they are playing pre high school youth sports, they wouldn’t understand the dangers as well, and not be able to control how much force they use. The brains of youth football players are much less developed and are thus in a vulnerable state playing a hard hitting contact sport like football.

Youth football does provide some benefits to children by developing social skills, teaching teamwork, providing a form of exercise, and bringing the community together at games. Despite all of this, the sport of youth football up until high school age should be banned because young children’s brains are not fully developed, and can more easily develop post concussion syndrome such as traumatic brain injury. Learning safe tackling form as a child is more dangerous than learning it at an older age when the players better understand the dangers of improper form to their brain and spine. There is also not as big of a focus on medical attention or athletic trainers in youth football leagues, which can lead the coaches and parents of players to not realize when the child experiences harmful brain injuries. There are numerous team sports that young players can engage in as a safe alternative to football. These other sports also offer great exercise, learning teamwork, gaining social skills, and bringing the community together for games.

Work Cited

Brooks, Linda. “Brain Changes Seen in Youth Football Players without Concussion.”

Radiological Society

of North America, RNSA Media Relations, 24 Oct. 2016,

https://press.rsna.org/timssnet/media/pressreleases/14_pr_target.cfm?

ID=1905.

Lehman, Everett J. “Epidemiology of neurodegeneration in American-style professional

football players.”

Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, vol. 5, no. 4, 22 July 2013,

link.springer.com/article/10.1186/alzrt188.

Parker, Rolland S. Concussive Brain Trauma: Neurobehavioral Impairment and Maladaptation. CRC

Press LLC, 2001.

“What Happens to a Teen’s Brain After a Concussion?” University Health Network,

7 Oct. 2014, www.uhn.ca/corporate/News/Pages/what_happens_to_brain_after_concussion.aspx.

The Powerful Impact of Music

Music has played a pivotal role accompanying the development of society over the past years. Certain time periods and events throughout the nation have inspired the emergence of different types of music. During the 20s and 30s, big-band jazz and swing music was popular because this was when the country was celebrating itself during and after the War. In the 60s and 70s, Civil rights protests lead to music with a more hippie and psychedelic type of sound, whether that was Janis Joplin, The Beatles, or Jimi Hendrix. In the 90s, the Generation X teenage nihilist movement occurred coming off the Reagan years. This cynical attitude rejected social norms and ended up leading to a more grunge sound in music with bands like The Foo Fighters, Nirvana, or The Smashing Pumpkins (Hilton 2008). Music is a way to express feelings and emotions, and it can be very sincere when it is created in a group setting and is not super processed or refined by technology. As society evolves, so does technology, which means that music also develops and its sound will change over the years. The new usage and exploration of technology has made new popular music seem less authentic and heartfelt than that of older popular music that was recorded altogether without all the digital processes. 

Before technology was anywhere near as widespread as it is today, music had to be recorded in smaller and more simpler settings. This allowed for musicians to really read each other and discuss the details of how they wanted certain things to be performed together. There were no fancy computers or drum-machines or auto-tuning, so everything was forced to be more real and authentic. Music used to be created and produced in an analog format, which entailed that records and tape cassettes were distributed. Someone would start up the tape or record and everyone would have to play together. So, if someone messed up, they would either have to start over completely or they would try to continue the tape by replacing it and recording over it. Now, different members of a band can record any of their parts from different places. This shows that technology being incorporated into the music industry can be good, because although many people would prefer to play together face-to-face, geographical or physical limitations can make it nearly impossible. So, it gives the opportunity for new bands to collaborate who would have never thought they could together (Waldron 2018). But, sometimes when bands try to create music without actually being in the presence of each other, it can be hard for them to truly read and understand each other. This can create different opinions of the mood of a certain piece and therefore can make the song lose its authentic and communal feel that it would have from a group recording session. The beauty of analog style music is that it is similar to live music, in that anything could happen so it creates this sense of vulnerability. In more digital and modern music production, everything seems so much closer to perfect. 

Digital music has changed the aura of music. It used to be just mostly physical instrumentation and vocals, but as the western culture began to evolve, music evolved along with it (Perlovsky 36). Technology usage is continuing to grow and appeal to the younger generations with smartphones, smart watches, newer laptops, and more. Consequently, the music industry is also turning to the digital world for assistance in its creation or production. The newer auto-tuning technology allows artists to not only instantly correct any imperfections they have but also lets them change the overall sound of their voice. Music quality used to be judged on the artist’s natural talent, but now it is sometimes fairly obvious to see performers mouthing during concerts. This creates a focal point more on the image desired by the artist instead of the quality of their voice live. Their image can be expressed through either dancing or special effects. This makes their voice and attitude not their entire focus anymore. So, in a way, technology has distanced the performer from the audience in that the natural imperfections are taken away. Those raw and real factors are what add to the emotion of music and they are what help the listener feel closer with the artist. 

Today, a band could have a recording of a song and then say they will send it somewhere else to have someone solo on top of it. While this opens up doors to new sounds, some musicians admit that it does not feel right to share something so authentic and personal with strangers and then expect them to be on the same page. Singer, Ezra Koenig, from Vampire Weekend said in an interview that his band was going to collaborate with a popular country band. People were so excited to hear how they would sound together and they thought it would be pretty big. The country band said they would be willing to play over a sent recording of Vampire Weekend’s song. But, Vampire weekend felt that sharing their music to be tinkered with by complete strangers depersonalized it (Broken Record 2019). There is something about the people that record together who are close that creates this bond, and therefore more heartfelt music; memories are made, friendships form, and they all undergo the process together. 

Technology allows for musicians to be able to share and produce music without necessarily being in the same room, and this can create both ups and downs. Technology and digital music provides instant gratification. This means there is not as much of a wait time for music, so it can make things a lot less exciting since people can get things at ease whenever they want. Music used to have more of a communal excitement, as people would be waiting together for new albums to come out. Today, people can just click a link and listen to any song within minutes, instead of having the built up thrill of buying a new record, CD, or seeing an artist live. But, one could argue that technology in the music industry is also beneficial. Streaming music services allow artists to have their music listened to easily and internationally. Their popularity can skyrocket, even without particularly strong marketing tactics because certain “radios” can expose new artists to new audiences (RonaldShannonJackson 2017). An example of this is an application called Spotify. On this app, every account will be provided with a “Discover Weekly” playlist that is tailored every week to introduce the user to new music that they think they would enjoy. The models used in this app makes it so every person’s playlist is customized for them. It takes into account what they already listen to and how often they listen to each of those artists or genres (Bca). This then allows for new and developing artists to be easily exposed to new audiences. All-in-all, technology has been both advantageous and disadvantageous relating to music production and authenticity.

The new electronic music that has evolved from technology introduces a whole new type of sound. It is not only convenient to produce but it also seems to appeal to a lot of people from Generation Z. Although its sound is unique compared to other types of music, sometimes it is considered not as personable. This is because everything can sound much more ideal, and the flaws that come with being human can easily be edited out to create a false sense of perfection. Again, this “perfect” and new constructed sound can inadvertently disassociate the listener from the artist as they feel they cannot relate to them as much. Concerning instrumentation of more modern popular music, electronic pianos have also been introduced. Even those pianos differ in sound than real grand pianos because the volume for a grand piano is greatly affected by how hard someone hits the keys. This allows the artist to bring their feelings and emotions into their playing with dynamics. On electronic pianos, the volume does not change as much depending on how much force is applied to a key. As said before, vocals also have been impacted greatly by the new editing technology. Before auto-tune and a lot of editing was popular, listening to music was more authentic because the audience could hear the artist’s true tone, even if that meant they had cracked their voice or missed a note. This created a more personal bond between the artist and the audience, as the listener could feel that they relate to the musician more in their true, natural state. 

Music has evolved from simple vocals and naturally-made instruments, from resources throughout the land, to more modern day technologies. Throughout the past century especially, music has begun to turn to the digital world more and more. There are quite a bit of advantages to incorporating technology into the music industry, whether that is auto-tuning, electronic instrumentation, or new platforms to share music on. This allows for artists to grow their popularity in a faster and more convenient way whether that is from social media or from “radios” on certain music applications. The new technology also allows for people to access almost any song they want within minutes from either an online source or from another music application, such as Spotify or Apple Music. But, this new usage and exploration of technology with music does cause some musicians to lose that sense of sincerity and vulnerability present to make their music seem real, emotional, and moving. Live performances are one of the best experiences one can undergo to get a sense of the musician and their passion for what they do. Music is such an influential art and can have such a soul-stirring impact when performed authentically. 

Works Cited

Bca. “Discover Weekly: How Spotify is Changing the Way We Consume Music”. Technology 

and Operations Management. https://digital.hbs.edu/platform-rctom/submission/discover-weekly-how-spotify-is-changing-the-way-we-consume-music/

Broken Record with Malcolm Gladwell, Rick Rubin, and Bruce Headlam. “Vampire Weekend 

Returns: Ezra Koenig with Ariel Rechtshaid”. Apple Podcasts. 21 May 2019. 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/broken-record-malcolm-gladwell-rick-rubin-bruce-headlam/id1311004083?i=1000438946858

Hilton, Robin. “The Sound of a Generation.” NPR, NPR, 6 June 2008, 

www.npr.org/sections/allsongs/2008/06/the_sound_of_a_generation.html. 

Perlovsky, Leonid I. “Music, Passion, and Cognitive Function”. Ch 4. pp. 36. Academic Press, 

2017. http://resolver.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/openurl?genre=book&atitle=&title=Music%2c+Passion%2c+and+Cognitive+Function&isbn=9780128094617&volume=&issue=&date=20170101&au=&spage=&pages=&sid=EBSCO%3aeBook+Index%3a1158564&site=ftf-live

RonaldShannonJackson. “How Has Technology Changed the Way of Music?” How Has 

Technology Changed the Way of Music? – RonaldShannonJackson.com, 

www.ronaldshannonjackson.com/how-has-technology-changed-the-way-of-music/.

Waldron, Janice. “Questioning 20th Century Assumptions About 21st Century Music  

Practices.” Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, Apr. 2018, eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=72151a05-1f8e-48cd-baf3-ec58624cd896%40sessionmgr102 

Testing Downfall

Standardized testing has been a part of American society since the 1900’s to measure a student’s academic success. These tests were created by large corporations for the purpose of judging how well a school and the students are doing on certain academic topics. While these tests may show how well the students are retaining information, what they fail to show is how much the students are actually learning in class. Over the past decade, standardized tests have become increasingly used in schools. These tests are only taking account for a small percent of student’s intelligence and knowledge in a class.  Students are cramming just to get the passing score and teachers are doing everything they can to be the teacher with the highest percent pass rate. Our society’s education system has been based off of a student’s ability to take a test and the score is used to measure their knowledge and understanding in a class. However, over the years standardized testing have changed tremendously and are becoming increasingly reliant on test scores which leads to stress on the students and teachers. The American School systems standardized tests only represent a select few students test taking abilities and intelligence and fail to represent student’s success in other courses. Standardized tests should be abolished because they do not accurately represent a student’s academic ability and additionally, they replace actual class time learning with test preparation. 

Today’s schooling depends heavily on the test scores from standardized tests. Teachers are now being rewarded for how well their class does on the tests and the students test score sometimes depends if they pass or fail that class. However, testing has not always been like this.  In 2002,the No Child Left Behind Act was signed by president George W. Bush and was made for the purpose of holding schools responsible for the academic progress of students (Klein 2018). The law made it possible for students to be tested through a standardized test from grades three to eight with the purpose of seeing how qualified their teachers are. So, it is no surprise that school counties want to qualify above the proficiency bar, thus putting an emphasis on end of the year testing to the teachers. Since its passing, the No Child Left Behind Law has been heavily criticized for basing school systems on standardized testing. Due to the law, schools are being forced to spend extra time on math and reading tests leading to a small portion of class time spent on classes that are not being tested like foreign language and arts. This can be shown though the report by The American Federation of Teachers, which concludes that students spend over 110 hours per year doing test prep, a total of roughly 15% of instructional time. This proves that students are spending most of their time at school and outside of school either preparing for or taking these tests. The time spent on test preparation uses up time that could be spent on collaborative projects or interactive activities.  Additionally, standardized tests could be characterized as unfair because the students who excel in art and foreign language aren’t being recognized and they are only tested on their math and English skills. These standardized tests should be abolished because the tests only measure a small portion of student’s intelligence and knowledge.

Many people argue that they are testing the memorization of students rather than their actual knowledge. It has been shown that there are various forms of intelligence, not just one (Gardner, 1994). This means that these tests are only measuring a small percent of individuals intelligence and are neglecting to measure student’s interpersonal intelligence. Standardized tests are made to see student’s intellectual ability however many students differ in their innate ability to respond to the correct answer choice. Additionally, the multiple-choice format is an inadequate tool for assessing students. The multiple-choice standardized test makes it possible that there is only one correct right answer and all of the rest are incorrect answers. However, this does not apply to real world situations. Standardized tests do not allow students to use all of their skills and talents and are made for a specific type of student that excels in English and math. A 2006 study by the center of Education Policy found that since the No Child Left Behind Act was passed, 71 percent of school districts have cut back on subject like history and music so that they could spend more time on tested subjects like math and reading(Klein, 2018). By cutting back class time on other subjects, the school system is defeating the purpose of education and proving that the majority of their concern is high test scores by students. Standardized tests do not accurately represent a student’s academic ability in all of their classes and only result large amount of stress in students and teachers. 

Furthermore, since the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act, schools have had no option but to administer these tests to their students, but many counties and schools are beginning to retaliate due to the negative effects it is causing to students. For example, a students’ grade in the class often depends on how well they do on the state test. In the past decade, the tests have transitioned to more high stakes testing meaning high stakes are used to make important decisions like graduation, student promotion, or granting teacher tenure. As a result of high stake testing often leads to a narrow-based learning focused primarily on testing preparation. Having high stakes testing is proven to not be beneficial and does not improve educational quality. In the article “The Case Against Standardized Testing”, it states the 2016 rankings by U.S news Washington Lee was ranked 17 as being one of the best schools in the nation. For many students this resulted in major anxiety because these students are expected to do exceptionally good and if not better on the standardized tests to keep their ranking. High pressure is placed on students from the state to do well on standardized tests and A report from 2015 showed that 80 percent of students opted out of taking the standardized tests in New York and it was reported that 76 percent of psychologists from New York’s 600 districts claimed that state tests cause more anxiety than local tests(The Case Against Standardized Testing). These statistics lead to Virginia putting in efforts to reduce the number of standardized tests. Standardized tests often put large amounts on students which can lead to extreme difficulty in classrooms. For example, as a result of stress some students can experience disturbed sleep patterns, abnormal tiredness, and extreme anxiety. All of these are shown to be a direct result of high pressure placed on students through standardized tests. Additionally, test scores often times affect student’s confidence and lead to students developing a negative attitude towards school. These tests are more detrimental than beneficial because many students do well in the class but completely bomb the test because of the amount of stress put on them. Standardized tests have the ability to be beneficial for schools however they fail to represent a vast majority of student’s knowledge and other creative abilities. The school systems need to find an accurate way to assess students’ knowledge on the material that does not have stress effects and consume class time with test preparation. 

Change is difficult. We have been using standardized tests for decades to measure students’ academic ability but as years go on, they have become less and less beneficial. A substitution for standardized testing may include assessments that encourage students to be active learners to analyze and use real world knowledge. Finland does not use standardized tests and is ranked the top of international education using these techniques. While the No Child Left Behind Act was created with good intentions for assessing students and teachers, our society has seen the minimal beneficial effects it has for students and it is time for change. Schools are slowly beginning to move away from standardized testing in America and new laws are being passed to replace standardized tests. Standardized tests should be abolished because they do not accurately represent a student’s academic ability and additionally, they replace actual class time learning with test preparation. 

Works Cited

“The Case Against Standardized Testing.” Harvard Political Review The Case Against Standardized Testing Comments, https://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/case-standardized-testing/.

Klein, Alyson. “No Child Left Behind Overview: Definitions, Requirements, Criticisms, and More.” Education Week, 25 Oct. 2018, https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overview-definition-summary.html.

Ascd. “Why Standardized Tests Don’t Measure Educational Quality.” Why Standardized Tests Don’t Measure Educational Quality – Educational Leadership, http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar99/vol56/num06/Why-Standardized-Tests-Don’t-Measure-Educational-Quality.aspx.

“Pros & Cons – ProCon.org.” Standardized Tests, https://standardizedtests.procon.org/.

Gardner, H. (1994). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. Teacher’s College Record, 95(4), 576–583.  

Gentrification And Its Adverse Effects

In its simplest definition, Gentrification is the urban renewal of an area that conforms to middle-class liking. Gentrification affects a multitude of inner cities around the United States of America. Gentrification has adverse effects that impacts lower income neighborhoods. Gentrification negatively affects neighborhoods because it results in lower income residents being forced to move out of existing neighborhoods, it relocates thriving residents to neighborhoods of lower living standards, and it only suits middle-class taste with neglect to lower class residents.

The Move

Gentrification negatively affects neighborhoods because it results in lower income residents being forced to move out of existing neighborhoods. Residents who have spent lifetimes thriving in their communities are often greeted by new residents with much higher income and education. This seems minuscule; however, this indirect interaction is destructive to existing lower income communities and their residents. These existing residents are met with higher property values; which, is beneficial to landlords; however, this not beneficial to tenants. Higher property values mean the property is more valuable thus, landlords want to increase their profit. To do this, landlords increase rent and the existing residents cannot afford to pay more rent. As a result, the existing residents are forced to move. According to a paper examining the negative impacts of gentrification, the author states “As building prices continue to increase, the problem exacerbates because it becomes even more profitable to convert these apartment buildings into non-residential areas” (Chong). This excerpt describes how once property values and rent increases, the issue of gentrification continues to expand because it is even more profitable to “gentrify” the area. This issue can be seen specifically in a Richmond, Virginia neighborhood. In Richmond’s historically black neighborhood, Jackson Ward, gentrification drastically affects the residents there. Jackson Ward was historically a predominately African-American neighborhood of mixed education, lifestyle, and profession. The residents in Jackson Ward had careers that ranged from doctors and lawyers to bank tellers and domestic workers. Despite the historical significance of Jackson Ward, it is currently being gentrified. According to an NCRC article by Lee Gibbson-Whitehurst and Bruce Mitchell:

            Between 2000 and 2010, median home value in Jackson Ward climbed more than $100,000. However, there are neighbors who can’t afford to buy into the transformation, which unfortunately means they have had to leave. Some 19 percent of the black population moved out during that same time frame. (Gibbson-Whitehurst and B. Mitchell)

This excerpt specifically shows the effects of gentrification in an American city.

The Relocation

Gentrification negatively affects neighborhoods because it relocates residents to neighborhoods of lower living standards. Now that the lower income residents are forced to move out due to increasing rent costs, where do they go? Many of these residents are forced to move into lower income neighborhoods, commonly referred to as “the projects”. These areas are often riddled with crime, and even unhealthy living conditions. Another article from NCRC describes takes a personal approach to the effects of gentrification experienced by Richmond, Virginia resident, Shekinah Mitchell. The article describes how she grew up in the East End of Richmond and watched the effects of gentrification with her own two eyes. She also has become a victim of gentrification as she moved around from place to place all within five years. This is all due to the rising costs of rent and the selling of property by landlords. Shekinah also describes how the increasing property values forces natives to find affordable housing elsewhere. According to this article, the issue of gentrification in the East End of Richmond seems to be intentionally created through the concentrating of public housing units in Richmond’s East End. Out of 3255 public housing units, nearly 2000 of them are concentrated with in the East End (S. Mitchell). This forces residents who can no longer afford housing to move into the city’s public housing units; as a result, living conditions plummet due to the concentration of poor residents. An article by The Guardian describes how Atlanta, Georgia is experiencing the effects of gentrification. The article examines how Atlanta is being gentrified at a rate so fast that its poor residents have nowhere to go (Lartey). Lartey also examines the personalized effects of gentrification in Atlanta through the life of Cheryl Henderson, that excerpt states:

In the past two years Cheryl Henderson has seen her rent swell from $599 to $850 a month. Her longtime apartment in Mays, about 10 miles east of downtown, has been besieged by air-quality issues due to mold, and property managers have told her that if she moves to a different unit with no mold issues, her rent will increase to $980 a month, an amount she cannot afford (Lartey).

This except is key to understanding the effects of gentrification in American cities, specifically Atlanta, Georgia. This excerpt also is key to understanding how relocated residents are often subjects to inhumane, deteriorating living conditions. Relocated residents often find themselves in a vicious cycle. How long before another neighborhood becomes gentrified again? The notion of being gentrified is not confined to a numerical value. Gentrification can reoccur. Simply because a relocated resident was indeed relocated does not prevent gentrification from happening again. Gentrification is indeed a never-ending cycle.

Suiting Middle-Class Tastes?

Gentrification negatively affects neighborhoods because it caters to middle-class tastes. Gentrified neighborhoods across America all have at least one thing in common; That is that it now caters to the middle-class. Many gentrified neighborhoods see a tremendous upgrade in infrastructure, businesses, and overall appearance. An article by the CDC (Center for Disease Control) examines the healthy effects of gentrification; however, these “healthy” effects are mostly associated with the middle-class. The article states that gentrification increases the availability of healthy food choices, transportation choices, quality schools, bicycle and walking paths, and social networks. Some may conclude that gentrification is inherently positive from this source; however, the completed research proves otherwise. These “healthy” effects are usually only implemented when lower income residents are forced to move. Why do residents of higher social and economic stature receive better neighborhood resources and upgraded infrastructure? This is a clear disparity which does not reflect “healthy”. An article titled, Editorial: The mixed blessings of urban gentrification examines how middle-class features can be found in gentrified neighborhoods. The article directly states,“Neighborhoods in Washington that not 30 years ago were dangerous after dark now feature well-lit sushi restaurants, bistros, and tapas bars. Middle-class apartment houses are now luxury condos…” This excerpt describes the introduction of new restaurants, bistros, and bars. These features do not truly reflect middle-class tastes. Lower income residents would be just as grateful for upgraded infrastructure, larger variety of stores, walking/biking paths, and quality schools just as middle-class Americans would be. According to a scholarly publication by University of Massachusetts student, Marilyn Pineda, “If poor residents have to move out of their gentrified neighborhood, that will also cause them harm because they have to go somewhere else where they do not have the same access to the new facilities a gentrified neighborhood has” (Pineda). This excerpt further reiterates the clear disparity between gentrified neighborhoods and neighborhoods of relocated residents.

Conclusion

Gentrification is an issue that causes lower income residents to relocate as property values and rent increase due to the influx of residents with higher income. This issue negatively affects neighborhoods because it results in lower income residents being forced to move out of existing neighborhoods, it relocates thriving residents to neighborhoods of lower living standards, and it only suits middle-class taste with neglect to lower class residents. These reasons are supported by the multitude of research and knowledge performed and obtained.

This image depicts the transformation of dilapidated buildings to new apartments or cafes.

Works Cited

Florida, Citylab, Richard. “This Is What Happens After a Neighborhood Gets Gentrified.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 16 Sept. 2015, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/this-is-what-happens-after-a-neighborhood-gets-gentrified/432813/.

Chong, Emily. “Examining the Negative Impacts of Gentrification.” Georgetown Law, 17 Sept. 2017, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/blog/examining-the-negative-impacts-of-gentrification/.

Mitchell, Shekinah. In Richmond, Virginia, gentrification is colonization. NCRC, 18 Mar. 2019, ncrc.org/gentrification-richmondva/.

Whitehurst-Gibbson, Lee, and Bruce Mitchell. “Gentrification: A mixed bag in historic Richmond, Virginia, neighborhood.” NCRC, 9 Apr. 2019, ncrc.org/gentrification-a-mixed-bag-in-historic-richmond-virginia-neighborhood/.

Lartey, Jamiles. “Nowhere for People to Go: Who Will Survive the Gentrification of Atlanta?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 23 Oct. 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/oct/23/nowhere-for-people-to-go-who-will-survive-the-gentrification-of-atlanta.

CDC.gov. “Healthy Places.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/gentrification.htm. Accessed 21 Nov 2019.

Pineda, Marilyn. The Effects of Gentrification: Inhabitants, Education, and Displacement.2017.University of Massachusetts Boston, Honors College Thesis. ScholarWorks at UMass Boston, https://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=honors_theses.

Journey to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

It does not take much research to find that one of the biggest ways humans impact the environment is with single-use disposable plastic. It is also one where people can start today to reduce that impact significantly. Consumers tend to not be informed about the serious consequences of choosing a plastic bag at the grocery store checkout, rather than a paper bag or their own reusable shopping bags. Plastic bags have been banned in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Oregon, and Vermont; however, the other forty-two states have not made this transition. The average American household brings home almost 1,500 plastic shopping bags a year, and the average person uses a plastic bag for only about twelve minutes before it is discarded. Every second about 160,000 plastic bags are used worldwide. Single-use plastic, such as plastic bags, should be banned or have a fee placed on them in all states to help better the environment and not put animals and their habitats in danger, because these animals are necessary for providing natural resources in peoples day to day lives.

            Ireland made a change in 2002 to put a fifteen-cent tax upon plastic bags at stores, instead of being given away for free. While not placing an entire ban on the bags it allowed consumers to have the choice of paying extra or bringing their own reusable bags, which greatly influences the amount of plastic litter. After the fee was in place there was a huge positive impact. Plastic bag use went down ninety percent, and the amount of plastic litter found in the nearby areas greatly decreased as well. Americans are late to this environmental change due to the European Union, China, Indian and dozens of other countries already have a nationwide plastic bag ban or fees set in place. The states in the US that have this ban in place currently have great findings that support the ban. California shows that since their ban in August 2014, “approximately 89 percent in the storm drain system, 60 percent in the creeks and rivers, and 59 percent in the city streets and neighborhoods” (Scientific American 2014) have had plastic litter reduction. The main reason most states have not introduced the plastic bag ban/fee is due to convenience. Customers like the easiness of plastic bags, but they must be informed of the damage these bags due to their hometown and the oceans of the very planet they live on, “On average people only recycle one in every 200 plastic bags that they use”(ConservingNow 2016). Keeping reusable shopping bags in the car before going to the grocery store makes a huge difference, and many people are switching to this alternative. Placing a fee on plastic persuades customers to do the better thing for the environment instead of having to pay more. It also helps stores and businesses save money when they no longer have to purchase plastic bags for their customers. It is beneficial from a business standpoint and will help the country save money, “According to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. goes through 100 billion plastic shopping bags annually. The estimated cost to retailers is $4 billion” (ConservingNow 2016). Also, the amount of petroleum it takes to produce a single plastic bag could drive a car for 36 feet. By using petroleum to make plastic, it means people must dig and use even more oil to also have gas for their cars. Eventually, fossil fuels will run out, and wouldn’t you rather be able to drive your car than have a bunch of plastic bags? The plastic bag bans/fees which are already in place within America are great examples of how it does work and benefits the environment, which should be convincing templates for the rest of the country to follow. 

            Not many people consider what happens to their plastic bags after they discard them or one accidentally flies away, but that is when the detrimental consequences happen to the environment. There are two main ways the plastic winds up in the ocean. When the bags are thrown out and are on their way to the landfill the bags often are taken away by the wind due to being very lightweight, and usually lands into drains and waterways. Also, litter dropped on the street never stays in the same place. Heavy rain and wind easily carry this plastic waste right into streams and rivers which lead directly to the ocean. A 2015 study estimated more than 15 trillion pieces of plastic trash are in the ocean and are growing every year (Denchak 2019). 100,000 marine animals are killed each year by plastic bags alone. This is due to marine creatures, such as sea turtles, who mistake plastics as food because they resemble jellyfish perfectly while floating in the water, and they ingest it. Once ingested the plastic cannot be digested or passed by an animal so it causes blockage in the gut. Once their digestive system is blocked, they have no way to get nutrients, and they lose their appetite because their stomach is full of plastic, and this eventually leads to death. For instance, a sperm whale was found this year, 2019, dead on a beach with its entire stomach full of plastic. After analyzing it, it was discovered that the whale contained 100 kg of plastic just inside its stomach (Horton 2019). These plastic bags not only affect the animals residing in the water, but also the birds that rely on the ocean habitat for food. In 1998 a pelican was found dead after consuming seventeen whole plastic bags from the ocean, while in 2003 a platypus “overcame the species’ inherent shyness to approach a person for help” when a plastic bag became wrapped around its body so tight that it cut deep into his skin(Planet Ark). Plastic bags are among the twelve items of debris most often found in coastal cleanups, according to the nonprofit Center for Marine Cleanups; however, it can easily be reduced by implementing the ban/fee nationwide across America. 

• 

            Eventually, most of the ocean’s plastic litter makes its way to a place that is 1.6 million square kilometers in size, double the size of Texas and is also known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Millions of tons of single-use plastic are trapped by the currents here, harming the marine life in their own habitat. The plastic will never biodegrade but instead will be eaten by hungry sea creatures. It is also very easy for animals to try to pass through this massive garbage patch, one of five in the world, and simply become entangled within the plastic and not be able to help themselves. Over time, the plastic will break up into micro-beads, and travel to all parts of the ocean. Micro-beads are very tiny but can do more harm than bigger plastic. For example, in the case of fish, and pretty much any marine mammal that breathes water through its gills, “are increasingly at risk to microscopic plastic debris. A study performed at the University of Exeter UK suggested that microscopic marine debris could take up to six times as long for the animal to rid themselves of in comparison to ingesting the debris orally” (Henn 2019). That is in the case that these animals even can pass the plastic, most cannot due to the amount that has made its way into their system and causes blockage and death. Close to one million fish die due to this issue annually. This is a huge problem not just for the environment, but for people. Fishing is a large industry that brings in a lot of revenue for the economy, and a source of food. If fish continue to die at the rate they have been, then there will be serious consequences including job loss for fishermen and the supply and demand of fish for food will be negatively affected. Also, a domino effect will begin to occur, affecting other creatures that also rely on fish for food.

            Plastic has been making people’s lives easier since it was introduced in the early 1900’s. When it comes down to it, paper bags are biodegradable while plastic bags are not. So, why is this such a difficult decision for people to make while checking out at the grocery store? Yes, plastic bags may seem easier to carry, are lighter and easier to bundle up and throw away, but the consequences they bring along with them are harmful to the earth’s inhabitants. In the long run, people are just hurting themselves by destroying their natural resources by choosing that plastic bag over the paper at the checkout. This is a very time-sensitive issue because if people do not start to make changes now, the plastic in the ocean will continue to rise in numbers and affect the resources we need from that habitat. Implementing the plastic bag ban/fee nationwide is cost-effective, environmentally friendlier and will save sea creatures from a stomach full of plastic instead of jellyfish.

Works Cited

1. AFC – How Plastic Bags Affect Wildlife, Planet Ark, https://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/index.en.php?id=934.
2. Denchak, Melissa. “Ocean Pollution: The Dirty Facts.” NRDC, 6 June 2019, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/ocean-pollution-dirty-facts.
3. “Do Plastic Bag Bans Work?” Scientific American, Scientific American, 14 Oct. 2014, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plastic-bag-bans-work/.
4. Gibbens, Sarah. “See the Complicated Landscape of Plastic Bans in the U.S.” National Geographic, 16 Aug. 2019, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/map-shows-the-complicated-landscape-of-plastic-bans/#close.
5. Henn, Corrine. “These 5 Marine Animals Are Dying Because of Our Plastic Trash … Here’s How We Can Help.” One Green Planet, One Green Planet, 22 Apr. 2019, https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/marine-animals-are-dying-because-of-our-plastic-trash/.
6. Horton, Helena. “Whale Dies with 100kg ‘Litter Ball’ Including Plastic Bags and Cups in Its Stomach.” The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 2 Dec. 2019, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/02/whale-dies-100kg-litter-ball-including-plastic-bags-cups-stomach/.
7. “Ocean Plastics Pollution.” Ocean Plastics Pollution, https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/ocean_plastics/.
8. “Plastic Bag Consumption Facts.” ConservingNow, 27 July 2016, https://conservingnow.com/plastic-bag-consumption-facts/.
9. Valentine, Isabella M. “Single-Use Plastic Harm.” TakeCHARGE, 2017, https://www.takecharge.earth/.

Gender discrimination on Twitch

English research plan

Context of the article: The internet media is growing everyday and there are multiple opportunities for people to connect with each other. One platform where views get to connect with the streamers is twitch. Twitch is an internet streaming platform made fore streamers to streamers and connect with their audiences. Streaming could be put as live vlogging where the streamers and audience can interact with each other. However, a recent issue that has been escalating is how male views are using descriptive language to describe female streamers. As a result, this is affecting a lot of streamers’ streaming experiences on the platform. As a result, the article aims to address issues and give solutions to solve such problems.

Thesis statement:

The twitch chat section has become a hoax because of slurs, abuses, and descriptive and derogatory language which affect a female streamer’s experience on twitch. Therefore, there has to be better moderation around a streamers chat section.

Supporting points:

• Twitch is a streaming platform where streamers get an opportunity to communicate with their viewers. However, primarily with women, the users/viewers often use derogatory language to describe a female streamer’s body parts.
• The use of slurs and derogatory language is hindering the streaming experience for a female streamer. As a result, many are either disappointed and this might cause many twitch streamers to leave the job too.
• The primary reason for the issue to exist is because there is not enough monitoring on the twitch chat section. As a result, the viewers have found freedom to use descriptive language against female streamers.

 Research strategy

• The task will try achieving its primary purpose by combining logos, pathos and ethos to persuade the audience of the article.
• The article will show a graphical representation of the words used in the twitch chat section. It will graphically show the difference between a typical male and a female streamer.
• The picture will directly refer to a actual twitch chat section and show how descriptive the words could get.
• In addition to facts, the task will argue by intertwining pathos and ethos. The task will refer to famous twitch female streamers and will describe bad experiences they had with their viewers and how it affected them personally and professionally.
• Another strategy that will be implemented is statis theory.

test post

Why am I laughing?