Words: 671
The purpose of this assignment is to help students to develop an ability to identify opposing views, and the arguments supporting them, on a social Issue of relevance to understanding the relationship between business and society. Instructions 1 . Select a topic from the ‘List of Topics’ below and find the two articles dealing with the social issue related to this topic. 2. Clearly define the social issue addressed In the articles. 3. Outline the opposing views on this social Issue.
Pick one quote from each of the two articles that you think best captures their respective positions. 4. In a short paragraph, outline the argument behind the respective positions. Provide what you think are the reasons (the ‘premises’) offered In each of the articles to support each of the opposing views. 5. Include proper bibliographical references (see She and Whittle, Chi. 9). List of Topics: All articles available through www. Fraternities. Org and www. Plenipotentiaries. Ca 1. Labor Unions in Society Clemens, Jason and Nielsen Vellums, Should ‘Right-to-work’ Come to Canada? Fraser Institute, Septet. 2013.
Hennessey, Trash, ‘Lowering our Standards’ Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, septet. 2013. 2. Post-secondary Education Hepburn, Claudia, ‘Tuition woes’, Fraser Institute, Gag. 2003. Shaker, Erik, ‘There’s NO Excuse for the Soaring Tuition in Canada’ Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Cot. 2012. 3. Poverty and Inequality Clemens, Jason and Nielsen Vellums, ‘Inequality Is Fundamentally Misunderstood’, Fraser Institute, Novo. 2012. Mackenzie, Hugh, Why the 99 per cent Still Matter, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Jan. 2013. 4. Free Trade Milk, Mark, ‘Think Global, Not Local’ Fraser Institute, Gag. 013. Tree, Stewart and Scott Sinclair, Why workers should unite against Canada’s negotiation trade deals’, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, July, 2014. [Sample Assignment] Name: [Your Name] and Student #: EXCESS Task Name: Tutorial: # X Date: Cot. 2, 2014 TOPIC: Austerity 1 OFF government spending on social programs and public services lead to a more prosperous Canadian economy? SOURCES : Clemens, Jason and Nielsen Believes (May 1 1, 2009). ‘Canada’s advantage; As Canada’s experience in the sass showed, the path to economic growth lies in shrinking government, not growing it’.
Retrieved on Septet 18, 2014 from: http:// www. Fraternities. Org/research-news/news/display. Saps? Id=11491 Jackson, Andrew Noun 1, 2010). ‘Beware the Canadian Austerity Model’. Retrieved on Septet 18, 2014 from: http://www. Plenipotentiaries. Ca/publications/monitor/beware- countersignatures-model OPPOSING VIEWS: YES According to Clemens and Believes: “If the Conservative government truly wants more prosperous Canadian economy, it would do well to return to the austerity policies of the sass and put forth a plan to reduce the size of the federal government” (p. 1).
NO According to Jackson: “The desirable approach to debt reduction is to maintain strong economic growth at low real interest rates and, if necessary, to raise taxes in a fair way to pay for the needed maintenance and expansion of programs” (P. 1). OUTLINE OF ARGUMENTS: According to Clemens and Believes, in the sass “the federal government led by prime minister Jean Christie and finance minister Paul Martin reduced program pending by nearly 10% between 1994/95 and 1996/97” (p. L). The authors claim that smaller government and program spending cuts is a good thing for the economy.
They reject the claim that government spending creates Jobs, arguing that spending cuts meant that “a greater share of the resources in our economy was controlled by individuals, families and businesses rather than governments” (p. 2). Citing an MIFF study, the authors argue that cutting spending aggressively will lead to economic and employment growth. According to Jackson, those who look at the way the federal overspent reduced the deficit in Canada during the sass as a success fail to recognize the negative impact program spending cuts had on Canadian families (p. ). He notes that recessions cause deficits to rise, that cutting spending makes deficits worse and economic recovery makes deficits shrink. He argues that the real effect of the austerity program in the sass was not to stimulate the economy, but to redistribute wealth upwards: “Between 1993 and 2001, the after-tax and transfer income share of the bottom 80% of families fell as the share of the top 20% rose from 36. 9% to 39. 2%” (P. 2).