1. How is the rapid expansion of businesses overseas not a sign of economic strength but of underylying weakness at home?
2. How do you think the way you wrote the book - incorporating personal experiences with research - affected the way the readers embraced your book?
3. What chapter do you consider your "favorite" in such a way that it was the most interesting for you?
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
3/19 Three Questions for Schlosser
1. What were your motives for writing Fast Food Nation?
2. What do you feel that you have accomplished after writing this piece?
3. Our teacher has asked us, what impact does fast food have on our lives and I am curious to know how fast food affects your life? Did your views on fast food change before, after, or during the formation of Fast Food Nation?
2. What do you feel that you have accomplished after writing this piece?
3. Our teacher has asked us, what impact does fast food have on our lives and I am curious to know how fast food affects your life? Did your views on fast food change before, after, or during the formation of Fast Food Nation?
Monday, March 16, 2009
czink's anecdote
Pizza Hut Anecdote
When I was going through Pizza Hut’s management training program I worked in many different stores in many different areas. One store I worked at was in a lower class community and most of its employees were from that community. The manager this particular location was very tight with his labor spending. He never gave raises to his employees. He’d often ask employees to stay after their shift off the clock in exchange for a ride home. None of his employees received any benefits from the company because they all would either quit or be fired by the time they were eligible. He would work his crews ragged by short staffing almost every shift, disregarding the effects it had on his customer service and the welfare of his employees. I went back and visited that location two years after I left it and one of the employees was surprisingly still there. When I had worked with her the general manager had her managing shifts for new hire pay. I asked her if she had received a raise in the two years since I’d been there and she said no. I asked her how many hours she was working a week and she said around fifty five or sixty. She was getting paid overtime but after two years and increased responsibility she still made minimum wage. Many of the big fast food companies give bonuses to managers who run lower labor then they were budgeted for a period of time. In some cases, like the one I described, general managers will abuse their employees for the sake of extra money to line their pockets. According to investigations, this company’s labor abuse has spread throughout the world. In China a study was done showing that employees of companies like Pizza Hut, KFC and McDonald’s were being paid up to thirty percent less then their country’s minimum wage. Part time employees were being worked shifts up to thirteen hours long when their region’s laws permitted no shift longer than five. It’s a wonder that a business with such little concern for its employees can manage to be so successful.
When I was going through Pizza Hut’s management training program I worked in many different stores in many different areas. One store I worked at was in a lower class community and most of its employees were from that community. The manager this particular location was very tight with his labor spending. He never gave raises to his employees. He’d often ask employees to stay after their shift off the clock in exchange for a ride home. None of his employees received any benefits from the company because they all would either quit or be fired by the time they were eligible. He would work his crews ragged by short staffing almost every shift, disregarding the effects it had on his customer service and the welfare of his employees. I went back and visited that location two years after I left it and one of the employees was surprisingly still there. When I had worked with her the general manager had her managing shifts for new hire pay. I asked her if she had received a raise in the two years since I’d been there and she said no. I asked her how many hours she was working a week and she said around fifty five or sixty. She was getting paid overtime but after two years and increased responsibility she still made minimum wage. Many of the big fast food companies give bonuses to managers who run lower labor then they were budgeted for a period of time. In some cases, like the one I described, general managers will abuse their employees for the sake of extra money to line their pockets. According to investigations, this company’s labor abuse has spread throughout the world. In China a study was done showing that employees of companies like Pizza Hut, KFC and McDonald’s were being paid up to thirty percent less then their country’s minimum wage. Part time employees were being worked shifts up to thirteen hours long when their region’s laws permitted no shift longer than five. It’s a wonder that a business with such little concern for its employees can manage to be so successful.
Glionna, John M. "China's Carnivorous Eating Habits Become Food for Debate." Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles] 4 July 2004, A3 sec.
In John Glionna’s article about China’s meat-eating habits the major issue is not the morality of meat-eating, or even the harmful effect on the environment, but the effect on those consuming the animal flesh. Glionna notes the peculiar and sometimes dangerous foods eaten in China, such as scorpions, silkworms, snakeheads, cats, and badgers. There have been many food scares in China, and outbreaks of illnesses that have been caused by the animals in the Chinese diet. Glionna says that the SARS outbreak in China is believed to have come from the consumption of Civet cats, a species commonly eaten in southern China. Unlike the American take on vegetarianism, Glionna points out that in poor areas of China the meatless diet is not exactly an option. He says, “In poor areas, residents have adapted their diet to whatever staples they can find, including cats, and even rats.” An issue in China that is not relevant in the U.S. is the slaughtering and consumption of rare and even endangered animals, such as turtles that are cooked in many high class restaurants. Another problem is that many of the delicacies in China are the most dangerous. A prime example is the savory treat known as “drunken shrimp”. The shrimp are dipped in alcohol and eaten alive after the head is pinched off. Shrimp carry many parasites that can be harmful if eaten raw, but this issue is made less important than the taste of the delicacy. The Chinese are promoting vegetarianism to develop a healthy food environment, not to protect the rights of animals.
I thought this article was so interesting, not only because of all the crazy foods that the Chinese consider delicious, but because not eating animals is not a moral issue to them as it is to us. Since we don’t experience a fraction of the sickness and disease that comes from animals as they do, we don’t consider much the health related reasons for a vegetarian diet. I think that even not eating certain animals is a priority in China rather than giving up meat altogether. What is interesting is that the argument against meat eating presented here is almost the opposite of Peter Singer’s argument. This argument simply considers the human needs and effects of meat, not the effects on the animals. It actually has nothing to do with the wellbeing of the animals. In China abstaining from meat is seen as something one might do to protect him or herself from disease, while in the U.S. it is immediately seen as a cry for animal rights.
Freston, Kathy. "Vegetarian is the New Prius." AlterNet. 7 Feb. 2007. 15 Mar. 2009.
In Kathy Freston’s article “Vegetarianism is the New Prius” she explains the numerous environmental reasons for altering one’s diet to exclude meat. Freston says that "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” She mentions the amount of crops we are required to grow in order to feed the animals we raise for slaughter, and the amount of transportation required to distribute the meat all over the country. According to the article, animal agriculture takes up about seventy percent of all agricultural land, and over thirty percent of the total land surface of the planet. Freston also takes into account the harmful gasses produced by factory farming such as methane and nitrous oxide. She notes that the U.S. slaughters over ten billion land animals each year. At the end of the article, Freston sort of hints at a society where there are more vegetarians than meat-eaters. She believes that this information about meat production’s harmful effects can be used as a tool to help save the environment.
I believe that Freston brings up shockingly relevant information about what our food culture is doing to the environment, but I also believe that any sort of expectation for a large quantity of people to change their diet to meatless because of this news is too high of an expectation. I think that, as of now, this information is not inaccessible, but that people are simply ignorant to the fact that their diet has any effect on the environment. The fact is that when we use today’s factory methods of raising animals for slaughter we waste a huge amount of food in the process and loose nutritional value. In many cultures a vegetarian diet would be almost impossible, so I think that many Americans might rebel against the idea if it were somehow enforced by saying that their meat eating must also be considered a necessity. It is a hope of mine that someday the majority of people will change their diet of their own accord, after realizing the effects of their meat consumption on the world
Singer, Peter. "Equality For Animals?" Practical Ethics. Cambridge UP, 1979. 1-14.
In chapter three of Peter Signer's book Practical Ethics he discusses the morality of the treatment of non-human animals and the ethics behind our food choices. His philosophical argument breaks down into two different parts: why it is wrong for animals to suffer and why it is wrong for us to kill and eat animals. He believes that we have a moral duty to extend the principle of equality to those animals that are non-human, and that if we do not, we are practicing a form of racism. He calls this type of discrimination "specieism, " and believes that we believe it is okay for us to use animals for our benefit for arbitrary reasons. In his words, "Specieists give greater weight to the interests of members of their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species." Singer believes that our discrimination towards animals is no different than whites discriminating against blacks and so on. SInger believes that the only factor of important when it comes to considering a being's moral rights is that being's ability to suffer and/or experience pleasure. He describes how you cannot defend a lifestyle that causes animal suffrage by saying that they lack knowledge or skill, because there are many human beings who lack these things, but we consider it morally unacceptable to kill these humans. Singer explains how meat is not necessary for good health and therefore meat is, for most, a luxury. Therefore we are inflicting this suffering on animals in order to obtain something that we don't truly need. Singer makes it a point to recognize that there are many primitive cultures who may not be able to survive, at least in their current state, without the consumption of meat. He talks about eskimos, and tribes who hunt for their own food. He points out, however, that hunting for one's own food is a better method than today's mass production techniques that do not take the animals into consideration at all and simply treat them as objects to be sold. Singer ends the essay with a comparison of humans and animals, and notes that most of the differences between the two are differences of "degree rather than kind."
I believe Singer makes many relevant points in the essay, but that his argument has a fundamental problem. The debate Singer is attempting is one, I think, that cannot be won by philosophy. The argument presupposes that the "principle of equality" is a universal good; that if things are equal somehow they are better. Singer says, "having accepted the principle of equality as a sound moral basis for relations with others of our own species, we are also committed to accepting it as a sound moral basis for relations with those outside our own species." I, personally, accept this principle of equality, but there are many people who have not, and so we cannot ask them to consider extending a principle which they do not accept. I think that the exceptions to his rules are too many, and could be made more numerous by the ambiguity of words like "necessity" and "luxury." Every person has a different conception of their own needs. Singer believes that most animals are capable of suffering, but that if we cannot know if they have this capability, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and still try to eliminate their suffering even if we are not sure it exists. I think that if he would give the "benefit of the doubt" to animals like ants, then considering whether any animal suffers is irrelevant. We could give the benefit of the doubt to any living thing, like a plant, and then we wouldn't be able to eat anything. I tend to lean more towards Singer's arguments against factory farming and the way in which meat is produced, because of the environmental and nutritional consequences. I also agree with him that humans should not assume that animals were simply put on the earth for their benefit, and that we have a right to kill them because they don't have the skill or intelligence that we possess. I think that it is impossible to make any philosophical argument that is one hundred percent right or true, but I also believe Singer should re-evaluate the principle of equality and it's universality.
Anecdote:
The car I drive around (my brother's) has a bumper sticker that reads, "toss my salad, i'm a vegetarian!" Usually I neglect to remember that it's back there, but occassionally I'm reminded when I get a honk or a creepy stare from a fellow driver. I was a vegetarian for a little over a year between the ages of sixteen and seventeen. My main reason: my brother was a vegetarian and I wanted to be just like him. Other reasons included being disgusted at the thought of biting into flesh and caring about animal rights. After researching the moral arguments for vegetarianism I think that now I would choose the lifestyle not because of any moral argument, but because of the environmental consequences. Now whenever someone positively responds to the bumper sticker I wonder about their reasons for choosing a meatless diet; whether they're environmentally conscious, care about animal suffrage, or simply want to have a peace-loving, earthy, hippyish image.
In John Glionna’s article about China’s meat-eating habits the major issue is not the morality of meat-eating, or even the harmful effect on the environment, but the effect on those consuming the animal flesh. Glionna notes the peculiar and sometimes dangerous foods eaten in China, such as scorpions, silkworms, snakeheads, cats, and badgers. There have been many food scares in China, and outbreaks of illnesses that have been caused by the animals in the Chinese diet. Glionna says that the SARS outbreak in China is believed to have come from the consumption of Civet cats, a species commonly eaten in southern China. Unlike the American take on vegetarianism, Glionna points out that in poor areas of China the meatless diet is not exactly an option. He says, “In poor areas, residents have adapted their diet to whatever staples they can find, including cats, and even rats.” An issue in China that is not relevant in the U.S. is the slaughtering and consumption of rare and even endangered animals, such as turtles that are cooked in many high class restaurants. Another problem is that many of the delicacies in China are the most dangerous. A prime example is the savory treat known as “drunken shrimp”. The shrimp are dipped in alcohol and eaten alive after the head is pinched off. Shrimp carry many parasites that can be harmful if eaten raw, but this issue is made less important than the taste of the delicacy. The Chinese are promoting vegetarianism to develop a healthy food environment, not to protect the rights of animals.
I thought this article was so interesting, not only because of all the crazy foods that the Chinese consider delicious, but because not eating animals is not a moral issue to them as it is to us. Since we don’t experience a fraction of the sickness and disease that comes from animals as they do, we don’t consider much the health related reasons for a vegetarian diet. I think that even not eating certain animals is a priority in China rather than giving up meat altogether. What is interesting is that the argument against meat eating presented here is almost the opposite of Peter Singer’s argument. This argument simply considers the human needs and effects of meat, not the effects on the animals. It actually has nothing to do with the wellbeing of the animals. In China abstaining from meat is seen as something one might do to protect him or herself from disease, while in the U.S. it is immediately seen as a cry for animal rights.
Freston, Kathy. "Vegetarian is the New Prius." AlterNet. 7 Feb. 2007. 15 Mar. 2009
In Kathy Freston’s article “Vegetarianism is the New Prius” she explains the numerous environmental reasons for altering one’s diet to exclude meat. Freston says that "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” She mentions the amount of crops we are required to grow in order to feed the animals we raise for slaughter, and the amount of transportation required to distribute the meat all over the country. According to the article, animal agriculture takes up about seventy percent of all agricultural land, and over thirty percent of the total land surface of the planet. Freston also takes into account the harmful gasses produced by factory farming such as methane and nitrous oxide. She notes that the U.S. slaughters over ten billion land animals each year. At the end of the article, Freston sort of hints at a society where there are more vegetarians than meat-eaters. She believes that this information about meat production’s harmful effects can be used as a tool to help save the environment.
I believe that Freston brings up shockingly relevant information about what our food culture is doing to the environment, but I also believe that any sort of expectation for a large quantity of people to change their diet to meatless because of this news is too high of an expectation. I think that, as of now, this information is not inaccessible, but that people are simply ignorant to the fact that their diet has any effect on the environment. The fact is that when we use today’s factory methods of raising animals for slaughter we waste a huge amount of food in the process and loose nutritional value. In many cultures a vegetarian diet would be almost impossible, so I think that many Americans might rebel against the idea if it were somehow enforced by saying that their meat eating must also be considered a necessity. It is a hope of mine that someday the majority of people will change their diet of their own accord, after realizing the effects of their meat consumption on the world
Singer, Peter. "Equality For Animals?" Practical Ethics. Cambridge UP, 1979. 1-14.
In chapter three of Peter Signer's book Practical Ethics he discusses the morality of the treatment of non-human animals and the ethics behind our food choices. His philosophical argument breaks down into two different parts: why it is wrong for animals to suffer and why it is wrong for us to kill and eat animals. He believes that we have a moral duty to extend the principle of equality to those animals that are non-human, and that if we do not, we are practicing a form of racism. He calls this type of discrimination "specieism, " and believes that we believe it is okay for us to use animals for our benefit for arbitrary reasons. In his words, "Specieists give greater weight to the interests of members of their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species." Singer believes that our discrimination towards animals is no different than whites discriminating against blacks and so on. SInger believes that the only factor of important when it comes to considering a being's moral rights is that being's ability to suffer and/or experience pleasure. He describes how you cannot defend a lifestyle that causes animal suffrage by saying that they lack knowledge or skill, because there are many human beings who lack these things, but we consider it morally unacceptable to kill these humans. Singer explains how meat is not necessary for good health and therefore meat is, for most, a luxury. Therefore we are inflicting this suffering on animals in order to obtain something that we don't truly need. Singer makes it a point to recognize that there are many primitive cultures who may not be able to survive, at least in their current state, without the consumption of meat. He talks about eskimos, and tribes who hunt for their own food. He points out, however, that hunting for one's own food is a better method than today's mass production techniques that do not take the animals into consideration at all and simply treat them as objects to be sold. Singer ends the essay with a comparison of humans and animals, and notes that most of the differences between the two are differences of "degree rather than kind."
I believe Singer makes many relevant points in the essay, but that his argument has a fundamental problem. The debate Singer is attempting is one, I think, that cannot be won by philosophy. The argument presupposes that the "principle of equality" is a universal good; that if things are equal somehow they are better. Singer says, "having accepted the principle of equality as a sound moral basis for relations with others of our own species, we are also committed to accepting it as a sound moral basis for relations with those outside our own species." I, personally, accept this principle of equality, but there are many people who have not, and so we cannot ask them to consider extending a principle which they do not accept. I think that the exceptions to his rules are too many, and could be made more numerous by the ambiguity of words like "necessity" and "luxury." Every person has a different conception of their own needs. Singer believes that most animals are capable of suffering, but that if we cannot know if they have this capability, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and still try to eliminate their suffering even if we are not sure it exists. I think that if he would give the "benefit of the doubt" to animals like ants, then considering whether any animal suffers is irrelevant. We could give the benefit of the doubt to any living thing, like a plant, and then we wouldn't be able to eat anything. I tend to lean more towards Singer's arguments against factory farming and the way in which meat is produced, because of the environmental and nutritional consequences. I also agree with him that humans should not assume that animals were simply put on the earth for their benefit, and that we have a right to kill them because they don't have the skill or intelligence that we possess. I think that it is impossible to make any philosophical argument that is one hundred percent right or true, but I also believe Singer should re-evaluate the principle of equality and it's universality.
Anecdote:
The car I drive around (my brother's) has a bumper sticker that reads, "toss my salad, i'm a vegetarian!" Usually I neglect to remember that it's back there, but occassionally I'm reminded when I get a honk or a creepy stare from a fellow driver. I was a vegetarian for a little over a year between the ages of sixteen and seventeen. My main reason: my brother was a vegetarian and I wanted to be just like him. Other reasons included being disgusted at the thought of biting into flesh and caring about animal rights. After researching the moral arguments for vegetarianism I think that now I would choose the lifestyle not because of any moral argument, but because of the environmental consequences. Now whenever someone positively responds to the bumper sticker I wonder about their reasons for choosing a meatless diet; whether they're environmentally conscious, care about animal suffrage, or simply want to have a peace-loving, earthy, hippyish image.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
3 Sources by Hesham
1. CAVANAUGH, JACK. (1987, September 27). SLEEPING OFF THE JOB IN CLASS. New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)), p. A.4. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from ProQuest National Newspapers Core database. (Document ID: 957171421).
This article is focused on a couple of schools who have noticed that part time work has been affecting the performance of student on their academic progression.
This article’s main focus was on reports from school systems in Fairfield and New Haven Counties and Hartford that high school students have been snoozing in class due to fatigue or sheer exhaustion from after-school jobs. The author of the article derives his information through interviews with some of the school’s board members. The author finds out that this increase of part time jobs with schools is usually due to children trying to help their parents or just rather trying to buy things for themselves like boom boxes and clothes. And some of the employers are offering incentives for the kids to stay. And these children are being encouraged to work these part time jobs; for example, McDonald's gives $50 to every kid working there who brings in another employee who stays at least three months. Not only are the kids being tired in school, these part time jobs diminished the number of volunteer work done by students. Also it took away time from after school extra-curricular activities, such as sports bands etc. And with the increase of opportunity for part time jobs this trend will not diminish but rather be boosted to cover a bigger population of young school kids.
2. David Sterrett. "McDonald's opposes Obama on unions | Crain's Chicago Business." Chicago business news, analysis, rankings, and more | Crain's Chicago Business. 08 Dec. 2008. 16 Mar. 2009
McDonald’s USA President Don Thompson urged 2,400 franchisees to "contact your U.S. senators and representatives to oppose" the Employee Free Choice Act. This act will greatly help workers to form unions, which will threaten the McDonald’s Corporation labor strategies.
This EFCA, or "card-check" bill, would enable unions to organize a workplace by obtaining the signatures of a majority of workers on authorization cards. It would also establish a bargaining process that could lead to binding arbitration for labor contracts. If this act is passed then the 600,000 employees of McDonalds corp. could unionize and demand higher pay and stricter work rules in McDonald's kitchens. Unions have been almost nonexistent in fast food in the past 25 years. Removing the secret ballot requirement would have a particularly strong effect on the fast-food industry because of its high turnover rate and large percentage of young workers who may be more easily pressured by co-workers to sign union cards. Now thinking on the other side of this if the employees get better wages the higher the prices will become for fast food. This will completely diminish the aspect of “cheap” fast food. This really will destroy the franchise money making strategy. But on the other hand it will help out with the wages for the people dependent on a fast food job.
3. Selliott. "When teens have jobs, schoolwork suffers | Get on the Bus |Observations on schools, kids, teachers, teaching and education by Scott Elliott, Dayton Daily News." Dayton Daily News | Dayton, Ohio, News and Information. 285 Apr. 2006. 16 Mar. 2009.
This article is describing the author’s finding about the effects on part time jobs on teens derived from an argument from a study done by a Cleveland State University professor.
In this article the author told us that after school jobs are bad for kids by lowering their grades, affecting their behavior and in some cases even forcing teachers to lower their expectations. The author lists some statistics that he has found from the professor’s study. One of the statistics was that most adolescent part-time work is in the fast-food sector with few skills to acquire or transfer to other jobs; these jobs are filled by adolescents only to meet the demands of the sector through minimal wages. Another statistic would be how teachers lower their expectations if they have a large number of students working long hours, therefore having a spill-over effect on the overall teaching-learning environment, including those who do not work. And finally how only in the U.S. is part-time work widespread among high school students; while it is rare in other industrialized countries, where students are only expected to continue their education. This article is a great complimentary article with the “SLEEPING OFF THE JOB IN CLASS” because they both combine to give a bigger picture to the youth part time work.
Anecdote
I was constantly being pressured by people all around me to get a job. One of these people would be I, who desired many things for me but with financial issues due to the $5 a week allowance. Yes I only got $5 a week. My parents though that all I ever needed in life was to have roof on top of me and a lunch box. I would have to save up for so long to be able to buy anything for myself. So I finally took the initiative and applied for a job. My first job was at a Chick-Fil-A fast food restaurant. It was what was expected as the fast food industry is highest employer for teens between the ages of 14-17. I started out with a pay rate of $6.00 an hour; also expected from the industries usual minimum wage pay rate. Even though I was able to achieve what I wanted; I have drastically increased the responsibilities in my life. I would go to work 4 times a week; shifts starting directly afterschool to about 9 pm or sometimes later. This left me with a measly one and a half hours to do my homework, which I never did. Even in the days I was off I was too lazy and tired from the week’s work to do anything productive. I was simply too tired. This is a problem for me till this day; it is extremely hard for me to manage school, work, and personal life all equally and in a timely manner. This is why I am writing this at 2 am in the morning.
This article is focused on a couple of schools who have noticed that part time work has been affecting the performance of student on their academic progression.
This article’s main focus was on reports from school systems in Fairfield and New Haven Counties and Hartford that high school students have been snoozing in class due to fatigue or sheer exhaustion from after-school jobs. The author of the article derives his information through interviews with some of the school’s board members. The author finds out that this increase of part time jobs with schools is usually due to children trying to help their parents or just rather trying to buy things for themselves like boom boxes and clothes. And some of the employers are offering incentives for the kids to stay. And these children are being encouraged to work these part time jobs; for example, McDonald's gives $50 to every kid working there who brings in another employee who stays at least three months. Not only are the kids being tired in school, these part time jobs diminished the number of volunteer work done by students. Also it took away time from after school extra-curricular activities, such as sports bands etc. And with the increase of opportunity for part time jobs this trend will not diminish but rather be boosted to cover a bigger population of young school kids.
2. David Sterrett. "McDonald's opposes Obama on unions | Crain's Chicago Business." Chicago business news, analysis, rankings, and more | Crain's Chicago Business. 08 Dec. 2008. 16 Mar. 2009
McDonald’s USA President Don Thompson urged 2,400 franchisees to "contact your U.S. senators and representatives to oppose" the Employee Free Choice Act. This act will greatly help workers to form unions, which will threaten the McDonald’s Corporation labor strategies.
This EFCA, or "card-check" bill, would enable unions to organize a workplace by obtaining the signatures of a majority of workers on authorization cards. It would also establish a bargaining process that could lead to binding arbitration for labor contracts. If this act is passed then the 600,000 employees of McDonalds corp. could unionize and demand higher pay and stricter work rules in McDonald's kitchens. Unions have been almost nonexistent in fast food in the past 25 years. Removing the secret ballot requirement would have a particularly strong effect on the fast-food industry because of its high turnover rate and large percentage of young workers who may be more easily pressured by co-workers to sign union cards. Now thinking on the other side of this if the employees get better wages the higher the prices will become for fast food. This will completely diminish the aspect of “cheap” fast food. This really will destroy the franchise money making strategy. But on the other hand it will help out with the wages for the people dependent on a fast food job.
3. Selliott. "When teens have jobs, schoolwork suffers | Get on the Bus |Observations on schools, kids, teachers, teaching and education by Scott Elliott, Dayton Daily News." Dayton Daily News | Dayton, Ohio, News and Information. 285 Apr. 2006. 16 Mar. 2009
This article is describing the author’s finding about the effects on part time jobs on teens derived from an argument from a study done by a Cleveland State University professor.
In this article the author told us that after school jobs are bad for kids by lowering their grades, affecting their behavior and in some cases even forcing teachers to lower their expectations. The author lists some statistics that he has found from the professor’s study. One of the statistics was that most adolescent part-time work is in the fast-food sector with few skills to acquire or transfer to other jobs; these jobs are filled by adolescents only to meet the demands of the sector through minimal wages. Another statistic would be how teachers lower their expectations if they have a large number of students working long hours, therefore having a spill-over effect on the overall teaching-learning environment, including those who do not work. And finally how only in the U.S. is part-time work widespread among high school students; while it is rare in other industrialized countries, where students are only expected to continue their education. This article is a great complimentary article with the “SLEEPING OFF THE JOB IN CLASS” because they both combine to give a bigger picture to the youth part time work.
Anecdote
I was constantly being pressured by people all around me to get a job. One of these people would be I, who desired many things for me but with financial issues due to the $5 a week allowance. Yes I only got $5 a week. My parents though that all I ever needed in life was to have roof on top of me and a lunch box. I would have to save up for so long to be able to buy anything for myself. So I finally took the initiative and applied for a job. My first job was at a Chick-Fil-A fast food restaurant. It was what was expected as the fast food industry is highest employer for teens between the ages of 14-17. I started out with a pay rate of $6.00 an hour; also expected from the industries usual minimum wage pay rate. Even though I was able to achieve what I wanted; I have drastically increased the responsibilities in my life. I would go to work 4 times a week; shifts starting directly afterschool to about 9 pm or sometimes later. This left me with a measly one and a half hours to do my homework, which I never did. Even in the days I was off I was too lazy and tired from the week’s work to do anything productive. I was simply too tired. This is a problem for me till this day; it is extremely hard for me to manage school, work, and personal life all equally and in a timely manner. This is why I am writing this at 2 am in the morning.
Anecdote
As a kid, I remember sitting in the cool basement family room when it was too hot to do anything outside. I would turn on Cartoon Network, or Nickelodeon. I wouldn't have thought that this many years later I would remember the commercials more than the shows. It's not that I remember the commercials specifically. But I remember, Fruit by The Foot, Dunkaroos, and Pop-Tarts. But food lends it self to advertising. Over 80% of food in America is branded. I always new about foods that sounded good and looked good on tv, so it was up to my parents to wage war against the television and still try to have me eat healthy. This can be very difficult. It was estimated that during that time, around 1999, 7.3 billion dollars was spent on food advertising in America. Compared to 300 million dollars on nutrition education. I wonder how much advertising has effected my life even to this day. Would I be any different without it?
Bibliography and Anecdote
Vikki Sloviter. . "So That's Why My Kid is Overweight. " Pediatrics for Parents 1 Jul 2008: 5. Health Module. ProQuest. Community College of Baltimore County, Essex. 15 Mar. 2009
This is an article that was found on Proquest; it is about advertising toward children and fast food. I found that this was a perfect fit for my topic and saw that it contained a lot of good information. The text it about how advertising is divided into two different age groups and that a majority of advertising seen by children is about food and restaurants.
This article is more geared toward advertising food to children in general rather than just fast food. In this article it is explained the facts from a study done at the Institute for Health Research and Policy at University of Illinois, Chicago. In the study, kids are broken into two different age groups since advertising is age specific: Children (age 2-11) and adolescents (age 12-17). There are some very good facts given in this article with regard to advertising toward children. For example: it was found that 36.4% of the products advertised to children were food related (30% for food products, 2% for non-fast food restaurants, and 4.4% for fast food). The article also gave similar numbers for adolescents: 26.3% of advertisement was food related; 18.3% for food products, 1.5% for non-fast food restaurants and 6.0% for fast food restaurants. I found in this article that it was not useful for me that there were two different categories. I felt that the “children” category was a lot more useful to this project and the topic that I chose for this project. One fact that was astonishing was that “all the food products advertised to 2-11 year olds, 97.8% were high in fat, sugar or sodium.”I think that this a key concept to talk about in advertising to children and that healthy choices are not being advertised enough. Finally I found that It was necessary and important that the article touch upon the point that these children are easily influenced by what they see and that they have the power to influence their parents’ spending habits. Overall, I think that this is a useful article and presents a lot of good useful information that can be used in this particular project.
Karen Collins. . "Is Fast Food the Problem? " Au - Authm Action News [Scottsdale, Ariz.] 1 Jan. 2008,27. Ethnic NewsWatch (ENW). ProQuest Community College of Baltimore County, Essex.15 Mar. 2009
This article was also found on proquest and the particular article is taken from a newspaper. This article talks about fast food and the choices that are present on the menu. The author argues that the choices on the menu have very high concentration of calories and that the serving size is also quite large.
“Research links frequent eating at fast food restaurants to greater weight gain and an increased tendency to be overweight.” This is the main point that this article argues; fast food is usually high in calories and makes people unhealthy and gain weight. This article touches upon the fact that people who eat fast food regularly have a extremely high BMI and intake more calories then those who don’t eat fast food often. The article also states that fast food chains classify large servings as “medium”, and this adds to the impact of calories and diet onto our weight. In this article, there are a few facts given on different experiments that were done in the past, and shows the correlation between fast food consumption and weight gain. At the end, this article gives a few alternatives to fast food and suggests how you can keep away from this negative impact of fast food. Overall, I think that this article presents only a few good points that can be used in this project. The main point was repeated plenty of times which I thought was a down side to this article. Another negative about this article was that it did not have many statistics, rather a lot of broad statements and conclusion to different experiments.
Rouse, James "Fast Food Advertising to Children." Fast Food Advertising to Children. 6 Nov. 2008. EzineArticles.com. 15 Mar 2009
I found this article on-line and I thought it was a good article because it relates fast food and advertising to children. This article starts out by giving a few facts in the introduction and then explain the tricks that are used to market to children. One part that I fond interesting was that it mentions how internet is now used for fast food advertisement.
In this article, it first explains that there is over 10 million spent on fast food advertisement to children annually. Most of these commercials are for high fat and high sugar food that are unhealthy for children. It explains how certain times and shows are used to target children of certain age groups for products that best fulfill their wants. After this, the article speaks about “sneaky tactics” and how advertisers use different kinds of ads to make children scream and beg to their parents to get what they want. “This is all about providing for their children and the guilt that comes with not being available enough for their kids.” Then there was also a paragraph that I though was interesting as it was about advertisement on the internet. Here, it states that advertising on the internet is more cost efficient than television. It also states that marketers know how kids use the internet and love how they like to click on links (such as “click here” or “win this”) Another point made about the internet is that marketers now use email addresses to advertise their products. Overall, I think that this is a very good article and presents some interesting points. Though this article doesn’t have many specific facts and statistics, it gives a good ides on how advertising is used. I especially like the part on internet advertising and I believe that this is sometimes overlooked by many people. Things like email and flashing link is a good way to capture the attention of kids and convince them to do or buy something.
Personal Anectode:
As a young child in North America, I didn’t exactly know what advertising was but I knew what I wanted and I knew that my parents were the people who could get that to me. My first experience with fast food was when I saw a McDonalds play place and decided that I HAD to go there. Bright colors and a tall swirly structure was what first caught my eye. When we went inside, I saw that there were numerous colors and characters that made the place seem like paradise for a kid. Now, as a young adult I realize how I was manipulated by these chains, and that these mechanisms are used by many companies to influence children. When I see my little sister watching television I now notice why I was so stuck on going to McDonalds as a child. There are many advertisements targeted toward child; “on average children view over 40,000 commercials a year most of which are for candies, cereals, toys, and fast food restaurants.” It is no surprise then that so many Americans are obese and overweight. When a company is able to hook a consumer as early as childhood, they can be sure that they have obtained a “regular customer”. Children today have more purchasing power because they are able to use different tactics to get what they want. From kicking and screaming to guilt; it seems like children influence the economy more that we think. “Fast food businesses will claim that this is to provide a more pleasant visit to their store for the parents but in reality it is baiting children to desire fast food.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)