6 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2016
    1. A minimum wage of $7.25 is not enough to live on. Full-time minimum-wage workers today earn about $15,000 a year. In 1968, they earned about $20,000 per year in today’s dollars. While certainly not enough for a life of luxury, it is enough for a family of three to stay above the poverty line – which can’t be said for today’s minimum-wage workers.

      This is true, $7.25 is not enough for people to live on. At first this was understandable because this was an ok amount for teenagers to experience their first job, but with unemployment rates high, people are forced to deal with minimum wage to make a living. This is not enough for them

    2. If we’re going to live in one unified America, we need an economy that works for all Americans

      I agree that if we are to be unified as a society, we need an economy that works to everyone's benefit.

    1. Developing the two Wyoming sites would make more than 640 million tons of coal available to mining companies, according to the Interior Department. Each ton of burned coal creates 1.66 metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to government data.

      This is an astounding statistic that would be hard for anyone to back up. It is issues like this that we need to address in order to stop the huge problem of climate change.

    1. But after decades of expanding enrollments, applications have begun tapering off. College enrollment peaked in 2011.

      This is the point i was trying to get across in my argument. College tuition is getting to the point where students are considering not going to school instead. This is a serious problem that should be addressed.

  2. Oct 2013
    1. The worse of two acts of wrong done to others is that which is prompted by the worse disposition. Hence the most trifling acts may be the worst ones;

      But how would anyone know what kind of disposition the doer really possessed? This seems something that only an all-knowing God or gods would know, that is why our justice system works off of the crime committed. You get into difficult judgement calls when you start at the root of why someone did something. Like when people plead mental illness for why they committed a crime. I'm not making a judgement call on whether this is right. I'm only stating that if we start going that route, when do we stop? Do we scan everyone's brain for why they did it and blame it all on mental instability? What about when our technology gets so good that we can see each area of their brain that has been affected by abuse? There most likely is something funky going on in everyone's brain who does something terrible... so should we judge them on their actions or the reasons behind them?

    1. Rhetoric is useful (1) because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites, so that if the decisions of judges are not what they ought to be, the defeat must be due to the speakers themselves, and they must be blamed accordingly.

      That completely absolves judges and juries of making bad decisions charges rhetoricians with fault when maybe they did their best and the hearers were not receptive to their argument even if it was at no fault of their own. The law is not black and white, that is why there are judges to "judge."