In the
last posting, this blog reviewed a list of fallacies that are used in
rhetorical efforts. They are not
necessarily used every time a speaker engages in rhetoric, but experience shows
the temptation, on the part of politicians, salespeople, lawyers, or other
persuaders, to use them is formidable.
The list consists of appeal to ignorance,
appeal to authority, appeal to popular opinion, association fallacy, attacking
the person, begging the question, circular argument, false causation fallacy,
false dilemma/dichotomy, illogical conclusion, slippery slope, and syllogism
fallacy. Each was described and an
example of each was given.
There are other fallacy types. They include overstate one’s premise of a
position as the determining factor of the case and lay the burden of proof on
those who are questioning a policy position.
Some of these types are similar one to another, but each can be
distinguished from the others.
And with that, this writer will begin
a promised set of postings in which he will, in real time, report on an attempt
to develop a unit of study. The topic
for that unit is foreign trade and that trade’s effect on employment
opportunities. This is a legitimate
topic under the concerns of the mental construct (or social philosophy),
federation theory – the construct promoted by this blog.
This
inclusion is justified by the fact that foreign trade since the 1970s has had
much to do with the elimination of high paying manufacturing jobs that has
stricken what is generally described as the “rust belt” and other manufacturing
centers around the country. This has
affected those workers in that their status as economic actors or as political
entities within the polity have been highly compromised. For many, the changes have taken place at a
time in life that disallows them to improve their statuses. This is a genuine equality issue.
Beyond
the conditions at the individual level, what has also developed is a shifting
of national income away from workers toward the entrepreneur class or to those
who have high levels of capital accumulation.[1] In addition, that trend has accelerated:
A new Pew Research Center analysis of wealth finds the gap between
America’s upper-income and middle-income families has reached its highest level
on record. In 2013, the median wealth of
the nation’s upper-income families ($639,400) was nearly seven times the median
wealth of middle-income families ($96,500), the widest wealth gap seen in 30
years when the Federal Reserve began collecting data.[2]
While this quote refers to wealth, the gap reflects the shifting
of income toward the upper-class. Here are
a few more statistics: the median income
– median meaning half of those measured fall above and half below – for the
middle fifth of income earning households rose a mere 13% between 1970 and 2014
– an average rise per year of just under 0.3% – and a lot of that increase was
due to the influx of women workers during those years. Overall median income rose 0.3% between 2000
and 2004, while those of Canada and Great Britain rose circa 20% during those
same years.[3]
Therefore, the current condition offends federalist values as
described and explained in this blog. In
turn, foreign trade with its consequences has been a significant contributing
factor.[4]
Hopefully, the reader agrees with this
short rationale. Assuming he/she does,
this posting continues with the planning process. As a reminder, the writer – henceforth referred
to as the developer – has identified the solo source of information he is using
in this demonstration. That is Edward
Alden’s book cited above. He will
augment this by using readily available sources of information such as
Wikipedia.
The planning begins with identifying an
insight that can be derived from a reputable source such as a book by a
legitimate writer like Alden, from news accounts from legitimate news sources
like the New York Times, or from a
legitimate study such as those developed the Pew Research Center.
Once identified, the insight is
thought of and a lesson is imagined that instructs the essence of the
insight. Insights are deemed worthy for
consideration by evaluating its power (the numbers of people affected), its meaningfulness
(the quality of its effect on people’s lives), and its relevancy given the
students being taught. The developer
will make comment on these qualities as he introduces each insight.
Instruction for given lesson can be didactic (dispensing of
information) or interactive in which students engage in a discovery
activity. The latter will be
favored. Each insight – during this
development – will not be introduced in any given order, but as they become
known to the developer. Remember, this
account is shared on a “real time” basis and the developer presently does not
know how this effort will work out.
The attempt here will be to give the non-teacher reader a sense of
what a teacher does when preparing a lesson plan – a lesson plan that goes beyond
just reviewing what the textbook offers next.
In addition, this demonstration is to introduce an instructional
approach to civics which this blog has entitled historic-based dialogue.
The first insight is as follows: Displaced workers who have lost their jobs to
workers of other countries cannot follow those jobs to those other countries. There are three reasons for this
inability. There are language barriers,
cultural barriers, and, compared to what their lifestyles demand, depressed
wages.
A second insight is: Along with competition emanating from
imported goods and foreign producers, there is also competition factors
relating to technology that further add to the disadvantages of US workers. Specifically, the introduction of computers
and all related technologies have proven to further assist shifting jobs abroad
and to introduce automation domestically.
While both are hurtful to US workers, it is foreign competition that is
most detrimental in that it physically takes jobs away.
A third insight is: Agreements among nations that have very
detrimental effects on the availability of jobs in the US have been the North
American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Currently, another potential agreement is the
Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). NAFTA
was agreed to in 1993 and WTO in 2003.
TPP is still under negotiation and President Trump has drawn the US out
of what, to date, had been agreed. In
addition, NAFTA is presently under renegotiation talks.
The supporters of these agreements have argued they create new
jobs; lead to higher wages; and will make available greater diversity of
consumer goods. Opponents argue that
they send jobs elsewhere; decrease wages; and increase inequality. The developer would add another benefit; these
agreements have led to lower consumer prices.
To start the thought process in
developing daily lesson plans, the next posting will take up this first set of insights
and begin formulating a lesson for each that determines what students will be
instructed and what they will be called upon to do. This will be a short paragraph or two that
summarizes what each lesson will be.
[1] Thomas
Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2014).
[2] Richard Fry
and Rakesh Kochhar, “America’s Wealth Gap between Middle-Income and
Upper-Income Is Widest on Record,” Fact
Tank, December 17, 2014, accessed on August 31, 2017, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/17/wealth-gap-upper-middle-income/ .
[3] Edward Alden, Failure to Adjust: How Americans Got Left Behind in the Global
Economy (Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers, 2016).
No comments:
Post a Comment