Although societies have always incorporated technology into the educational experience, modern developments are changing how we picture the classroom of tomorrow. It can be a significant tool that we use to connect the younger generations with the knowledge they need to become tomorrow’s leaders. We use it in the pedagogical methods available to today’s students in a variety of ways.

Instead of using the traditional chalkboard, teachers are now facilitating group instructions by using electronic whiteboards. This tool makes it possible to teach languages, social studies, mathematics, and science in interactive ways to help their students understand concepts more rapidly. Technology flips educational opportunities by using their personal devices to watch lectures or complete work on a school server.

We have grown far beyond the computer lab in the modern school by having affordable technology options available to each student. Videoconferencing, mobile learning, and virtual field trips are just some of the ways that schools are preparing children for tomorrow’s world.

All of this technology comes at a cost which is usually funded by taxpayers, so poor communities may not see these advancements as quickly. The pros and cons of technology in education also cover these additional thoughts.

List of the Pros of Technology in Education

1. It creates active engagement with the learning material.
Technology is an interactive resource that teachers can bring into the classroom. It helps students learn new skills or understand the curriculum more effectively because they are using a hands-on approach for research, work, and receiving feedback. This tool makes it possible for students to become more passionate about what they are learning because it allows the classroom to focus on individual engagement while still offering a group setting.

Instead of looking at pictures or listening to a teacher lecture, technology allows for the inclusion of interactive tools, videos, or even games that help to teach core educational concepts.

2. It addresses real-world issues in the classroom.
Instead of creating a sheltered environment in the classroom for students, technology brings the real world to them in a meaningful way. The Internet allows students to research current events which are related to the curriculum for the institution at that moment. It gives children an opportunity to further understand the lesson they are learning because there are moments of practical application available to use.

When students have an opportunity to practice what they learn immediately, then they can retain up to 90% of the information that the teacher relayed in the classroom. If the format of learning is lecture-based, then that figure can drop to as low as 10%. That is why having technology in the classroom is such a critical investment for many communities.

3. It provides an opportunity for simulation and modeling.
Simulation software allows teachers to bring real activities into their classroom that would be impossible to see without the presence of technology. Specific tools make it possible for kids to see planetary movements, how a tornado develops, or even how past civilizations made a life for themselves on our planet. This tool makes it possible for dinosaurs to become alive, phonetics to become easier to understand, and other dynamic characteristics which are not always possible when using the static models of previous generations.

Humans are visual learners, so technology provides video resources, animation, and other tools that make it possible to bring core learning concepts to life in meaningful ways.

4. It allows students and teachers to continue the discussion outside of the classroom.
Through the use of software tools and the Internet, it is possible for students to create online groups that reflect their classroom. Teachers can create web pages and blogs as a way to communicate to parents what they are teaching at school each week. Forums, social media, and virtual communities make it possible for real-time connections so that the discussion which happened inside of the classroom can also occur outside of school hours.

By having more opportunities to hear and read the opinions and experiences of others, it becomes easier for students to start refining how they think. This process creates a foundation where it becomes possible to reach a deeper understanding and higher levels of comprehension over specific subject materials.

5. It doesn’t limit the learning opportunities to what is available in the community.
The Internet also makes it possible for students to connect with others from around the world to gain an alternative perspective on what they are learning. It is possible to interact in real-time with international classrooms, teachers, and students to see what other cultures think, say, or do regarding the subject being studied under the current curriculum. Because we are no longer bound by the walls of the classroom or the resources of a single community, technology allows us to understand more about ourselves because we receive more exposure to the diversity of humanity.

6. It provides an opportunity to create working groups.
There are times when every student should be in front of a computer, tablet, or other mobile device when technology is brought to the classroom. By having immediate access to this tremendous resource, it is possible to pursue an individualized learning lesson with little difficulty. This benefit allows students to create working groups with one another even if they are not sharing space at the moment. When these groups get together, then it establishes democratic group ideas while encouraging discussions, debates, and activities which tie-in to the lesson for the day.

7. It offers an opportunity to coach students toward success.
It would be fair to say that the modern teacher is closer to a coach than an instructor. Instead of being responsible for the delivery of a lesson, it is necessary for today’s classroom to offer support and guidance for every student activity. The role of the teacher is to offer feedback while coaching the class to receive academic training and the appropriate lesson for the curriculum that the school follows.

It is now the role of the teacher to guide their students in the development of research, problem-solving, and decision-making skills.

8. It creates more opportunities for assessment and comparison.
Technology in the classroom ensures that students are learning the concepts they need for a robust education well becoming familiar with the tech resources they have at their disposal. Activities typically include critical thinking exercises, problem-solving skills, and personal interactions with software, video, or games to set the stage for development. These tools give teachers constant feedback regarding the progress of each student, making it possible to individualize lessons while still maintaining a group environment.

Teachers can also use the information stored by technology for comparative purposes with other students. This benefit can apply at the local, community, state, or national level. By viewing how successful a child is in relation to their peers, it becomes possible to see where there might be learning gaps to fill.

9. It provides students with a meaningful vocational skill to use later in life.
Computers are never going away at this point in time in our culture. We are spending more time in front of this technology for our vocational work then arguably at any other time in our history. By giving students an opportunity to practice their tech skills, typing, coding, and other skills, teachers make it possible for today’s children to be ready for the careers of tomorrow. The tools help students to learn new words, check their spelling, and even save notes for future needs so that the studying experience can replicate what a job feels like later on down the road.

List of the Cons of Technology in Education

1. It is up to the teacher and school administrators to bring technology into the classroom.
Nancy Kassebaum once said, “There can be infinite uses of the computer and of new age technology, but if teachers themselves are not able to bring it into the classroom and make it work, then it fails.”

Teachers must know how to use the technology items in their classroom for this set of tools to become useful for their students. If there is a whiteboard present and no one knows how to use it, then the product is a wasted investment. Students still go to school each day with a blank slate because they are ready to learn. That means it is up to each district to ensure that their instructors are up-to-date on their tech training, receive an ongoing education, and have supports in place to facilitate the learning experience in the modern classroom.

2. It still requires teachers to present a structured lesson plan.
“Any teacher that can be replaced with a computer deserves to be,” said David Thornburg. Technology does not replace a teacher. It is simply a tool that instructors use to reinforce the lessons that they are offering to their students. Assuming that the Internet can provide children with all of the information they need to be successful in life will almost always create a negative outcome. We must have the skills necessary to integrate technology seamlessly into our current learning environments instead of viewing it as an add-on item to a structure lesson plan so that there is a deeper desire to keep learning.

3. It is a tool that can come at a tremendous cost for some schools.
North Iredell Middle School, which is located approximately 60 miles north of Charlotte, gave each of its 650 students a MacBook Air computer to facilitate the learning process in March 2014. The equipment was part of a $20 million federally-funded plan by the school district to issue technology to seven high schools and nine middle schools.

“This is about changing the way we instruct students,” said Patrick Abele to Time Magazine at the time. He served as the Executive Director of the Race to the Top District grant. The project helped to improve student grades and performance, but not every school district in the United States has access to $20 million in funding outside of whatever local funds they receive from property tax levies.

4. It can become a distraction to the learning process.
The joke about having a parent’s computer fixed by their child isn’t far from the truth in most families. Kids often know more about technology because it is available to them in the classroom. Since they can understand how to use it at an advanced level, it is possible for some brilliant minds to work around any firewalls or blocks that are in place to facilitate the educational use of this tool. You might find students watching videos that are unrelated to the lesson plan, chatting with their friends on social media, or playing games instead of focusing on the learning lesson.

Parents, teachers, and administrators must work together to identify students who are using technology in an inappropriate manner in the classroom. As with any child who is bored with school, there is an excellent chance that the manipulation of a computer or network reflects the fact that they are not being challenged enough by the curriculum.

5. It can overload the network of the school because of the number of required devices.
When you begin to distribute technology to the teachers, students, and other staff of a school, then it becomes very easy for the local network to become overloaded. It is up to each district to ensure that there is a robust design in place that can handle all of the wireless devices that it may need to serve. Many of the schools in the United States use a wireless network infrastructure that was designed for the previous generation of students when online activities were restricted to a single computer lab.

When every classroom has each student on a laptop or tablet to facilitate learning, then the bandwidth levels can deplete severely almost immediately. This disadvantage requires each district to complete a wireless site survey if they plan on making any significant changes to how technology is used in their classroom.

6. It comes with the threat of a safety breach.
Most students are not malicious when using technology in the classroom, but they are curious about what they can find online. Most kids look for ways to push the boundaries of the rules just to see if they can. If your network grants them admin access in any way, even if it is not published or widely known, you can bet at least one person is going to figure out that gap to exploit it.

Security is one of the most significant challenges of having technology in the classroom, and it is the reason why many schools have decided against using this tool in the past. It is up to each district to ensure that role-based access controls are in place on every computer so that you always know who, what, when, and how connections to your network occur.

7. It provides students with an opportunity to cheat.
Students who wanted to cheat in the past might have listed answers on their arm, created a small piece of paper to reference, or even looked over the shoulder of a smart friend. Thanks to the presence of technology in the classroom, it is easier than ever before to create notes or hidden files on a device that can provide the answers to a test or report. There are even freelance platforms where papers, book reports, and other assignments can be purchased so that the homework can be outsourced.

Thanks to changes in the tools we use with our technology today, this issue is not as prevalent as it once was. Software companies are creating access points where administrators and teachers can see student screens while in the classroom. This disadvantage will continue to evolve as blocks occur, so it is up to everyone to stay on their toes to ensure the learning environment remains healthy.

8. It creates a risk of damage.
Kids present a higher risk of damage to the technology in the classroom because they are still learning how to use their bodies. If you have ever seen a child go through a growth spurt and struggle to stay coordinated, then apply that to the first handful of incidents where they receive access to an expensive device. It is imperative that all students receive a quick tutorial on how to use and care for what they receive in the classroom. Investing in durable cases and covers for the product is helpful as well, while all districts will want to consider an insurance policy that can limit the losses that inevitably occur.

This risk includes the potential of losing the device if schools issue a computer to a student that becomes their own to use 24/7. There must be a policy in place that dictates what the response must be should this issue occur, and parents must sign-off that they understand their responsibilities in this area to limit potential losses.

9. It creates a pace of change that can be challenging to meet.
Some schools are unable to keep up with the rapid pace of changing technology. Upgrading equipment is a costly chore for districts today, and there are some institutions that may not have the human capital present to manage the shift. Since the average classroom has about 20 students and each device may need work to meet the expectations of the current curriculum, there are times when there just isn’t enough money to go around.

This disadvantage impacts school districts in poor or rural communities most often because they have fewer resources available to them for use. A bring-your-own-device policy doesn’t help here either because every institution has families that cannot afford to purchase computers or tablets for their children.

10. It changes the social dynamics of the classroom.
When students are using technology as the primary component of their learning process, then they are not spending as much time with face-to-face interactions. This disadvantage changes how kids interact with each other socially, shifting how relationships and friendships form. It may become more challenging to understand the various non-verbal cues that are present in communication, which means having friends in real life feels different than a virtual friendship.

When technology is used for teaching, students may not take their teacher as seriously if they are learning online since there are fewer methods of discipline available to help maintain a child’s focus. You can’t exactly send a student learning at home with a tablet to the principal’s office.

Conclusion of the Technology in the Classroom Pros and Cons

The rate that technology continues to evolve is remarkable. In less than a generation, we have gone from having a small computer lab in the wealthiest schools to providing students with their own device to encourage learning inside and outside of the classroom. It is possible to connect with teachers in a variety of ways, create interactive lessons, and encourage research skills that will be useful in future careers.

We must work to balance the risks that are present with the use of technology as well. The curiosity of students could lead them down a path toward identity theft, cheating, and other possibly negative outcomes.

The pros and cons of technology in the classroom help us to provide mobility to the learning experience. It allows teachers to create interesting lessons that incorporate a variety of ethnic and cultural perspectives. What this investment provides is access to diversity, which is why it offers the next generation an advantage of strength when those in charge carefully monitor how each item is being used.

A juvenile curfew law is a local ordinance that prohibits people of a specific age, usually teenagers, from being in public or in a business establish during certain hours of the day. Most communities that operate this policy restrict teens from being outside of their home between the hours of 11 PM and 6 AM unless they are with their parents, attending a school function, or have another authorized reason to be in violation of the policy – such as coming home from work.

The legislative intent behind the use of a teenage curfew is to maintain specific social order goals. By making it illegal for teens under the age of 18 to be out during this time, officials hope to prevent the number of crimes that involve juveniles from increasing, protect kids from potential predators, and maintain general peace during hours when people need to rest.

A teenage curfew is ineffective if it does not create a consequence for its violation. The actual punishments vary from each community, but they typically involve a fine, community service requirements, enrollment in an after-school program, restriction of a driver’s license, and possible time in detention if there are repeat offenses. Some parents who are proven to knowingly allow their kids to violate these laws may experience a similar outcome.

List of the Pros of a Teenage Curfew

1. There are exceptions in place for teens who need to be out during the curfew.
Although there are some teenage curfew laws that do not provide any exceptions, most of them identify specific activities under which juveniles can be lawfully outside during a restricted time. The exceptions can vary based on the community, but they typically involve the following situations.

• A parent or guardian is accompanying their teen after the curfew begins.
• Teams who have employment in their community and come home after-hours are permitted to be outside if they carry proof of their job.
• Attending a school event or a religious activity with verification is permitted under most laws.
• Minors running an errand for their parents, guardians, or an authorized adult are sometimes exempted from these laws.
• All emergency situations that may exist.

2. It provides an element of safety for the teens and their community.
Did you know that a child goes missing every 40 seconds on average in the United States? That means there are over 460,000 missing children each year, although there are about 1,500 kidnappings included in that data. About 300 kids each year are taken away from their homes in an incident that doesn’t include a family abduction. The presence of teenage curfew laws works to prevent this issue from occurring, especially for girls between the ages of 12-17, because it stops predators from having easy access to them while on the street.

3. These laws work to teach teens about responsibility.
In almost 90% of the missing children cases that exist in the United States, abduction is not the issue. Some teens decide to run away from their home. Getting lost is a significant issue, even with GPS functions on a phone. Simple miscommunication is another leading cause of this problem. By having a teenage curfew law in place, a community works to create a specific time each night when families can get together to discuss what is happening in their family. Although these conversations don’t guarantee that a teen might decide to start making choices on their own, it does give them a safe place to be while learning how to be responsible for their choices.

4. It offers peace of mind for the parents and guardians.
When a juvenile curfew is enforced consistently in a community, then the parents or guardians of that child can rest assured that there is a safe environment for them to access. With adult supervision becoming necessary with these laws at a restricted time for anyone under the age of 18, then it lessens the risk of having something terrible happen when response times may not be fast. Having a teen at home at night helps a family to feel relived because there is an assurance that nothing will happen without there being a chance to respond.

5. Teenage curfew laws help kids to understand boundaries.
All of us set boundaries in our lives in various ways. By restricting the time that a teen can come outside late at night, the juvenile curfew laws help to show why there are specific structures in place that keep all of us safe. It is a way to reinforce the boundaries that parents set in the home while fostering the independent spirit of teenagers as they work to discover who they are as a person. This advantage works well when there is active parental involvement in the teen’s life, but a mentor can also help kids to see the benefits that are possible when you make a decision to follow the rules.

6. It helps to provide structure in a teen’s life.
The biological changes that happen during a teen’s life between the ages of 13-18 can cause them to become impulsive. They start to think about the short-term benefits of what they are doing instead of any potential long-term consequences. Even teens who earn high grades, work a job, and have their family as a top priority in their life can make potentially harmful decisions that could impact the rest of their lives. The presence of a juvenile curfew provides an extra level of structure so that a random situation which could leave an adverse effect has less of a chance to happen.

At the same time, a teenage curfew should offer teens a reward that goes beyond not getting into trouble as a way to be effective. When we praise kids for making positive choices, then it begins to reinforce the positive habits that they’re trying to create in their life.

List of the Cons of a Teenage Curfew

1. Curfews have a negligible effect on crime in a community.
Information on teenage curfews that dates back to 1983 continues to show that the impact of this policy on our community has a negligible effect in the reduction of juvenile crime. Although most criminal activity occurs in the late afternoon when looking at teenage offenders, the structure of curfew laws only restricts the nighttime hours. Since the funding for enforcement typically comes from summer employment programs and other youth support mechanisms, it is not uncommon for the presence of a strictly-enforced curfew law to increase criminal activity from juvenile offenders.

The Campbell Collaboration examined over 7,000 studies on teenage curfews and synthesized a dozen of the most rigorous studies that were in that batch. Their report states that the presence of a curfew can actually increase the number of crimes that a community experiences from teenage offenders.

2. It encourages a system of autocratic, authoritarian parenting.
Research indicates that the authoritarian parenting style tends to be the least effective way to help children learn about who they are and how to function in society. By creating instructions which demand compliance where the only reward is that you don’t get in trouble, families often find that the presence of a teenage curfew creates more rebellion then it does community safety awareness. When a teen gets in trouble for being out in the community after-hours even with a permitted excuse, the entire encounter undermines the benefits that this law is supposed to create it in the first place.

3. Teens become a scapegoat for everything wrong that happens in a community.
Even during the years of the late 1990s, when juvenile crime was at an all-time low in the United States, teams were often blamed for the violent incidents that occurred in a community. This perspective caused the use of curfews to increase, often in areas where there were no issues with juvenile offenders. That is often why this law does not have the intended effect on criminal activities in a community. It is restricting the access of teens when most of them are not outside doing anything against the law.

4. It invites law enforcement to target teens with their enforcement.
In addition to the failures of reducing juvenile crime, a teenage curfew law invites unfair enforcement because it allows police officers to target people based on their looks, race, or views on life. According to Youth Law News, children who do not have both of their parents are home or are a racial or cultural minority are over-represented in the curfew violation statistics. Since there is little research available to determine what role a teen’s race plays in enforcement, there are perceived inequalities in many communities that can create division and undermine the effectiveness of the law.

5. The impact of a juvenile curfew is more about the needs of the parents or guardians.
Mayor Ted Green of Orange, NJ, told The Marshall Project in 2018 that the purpose of their curfew is safety. “With summer in full swing,” he said in July, “we want to remind our young people and their guardians that our city has a long-standing juvenile curfew. Safety continues to be our number one priority, and preventive measures such as curfews are paramount during the months when school is out.”

Councilman Glen Pruitt sponsored a curfew ordinance in Montgomery Alabama. “I really don’t understand why there is so much disdain or confusion for a curfew,” he said. “I have a son who is 16 and his rear-end is in the house at 11 o’clock, 12 o’clock.”

The reality of many teenage curfews is that they act as another parent or guardian, giving the family tools to use if they feel like their teen is being “too rebellious.” Although there are times when these laws can prevent victimization, it tends to be a tool that parents use more than police officers to create compliance.

6. It can create a false sense of security.
Even when a community has severe issues with juvenile delinquency during the overnight hours because of gang-related activity, poverty, or similar issues, a teenage curfew is not a cure-all for the problems that are happening in the community. It is necessary to solve the root cause of the behavior in the first place if you want to see things start to change. Kids join a gang for a specific set of reasons. Trying to counter the conditions of being poor through stealing is a commentary on the rest of society. We must look beyond the short-term decision to determine how a teen got to the place where they started breaking the law for a curfew to begin being effective.

7. Curfew laws don’t prepare teens for how the real world operates.
When a community decides to impose a juvenile curfew on everyone, then it makes an assumption that every teen is a potential troublemaker. It also suggests that these kids don’t have an awareness on how to care for themselves. The real world does have laws which demand compliance, but adults rarely find themselves restricted by a curfew situation unless there is an emergency situation happening. When teens must start making their own decisions in life without the protection of curfew rules, the responsibilities asked of them may become a shock to their system.

8. Could it be unconstitutional in the United States?
We have numerous laws which restrict behaviors to keep the general population safe, but they apply to everyone in that specific situation. Driving laws impact all drivers. Tax laws impact all income earners. Yet curfew laws typically target only teens and adolescents without holding adults responsible for their behavior during this time. By enacting consequences on people through assumption instead of fact, we are setting a dangerous precedent on what laws could target other demographics in the future.

The pros and cons of a teenage curfew all depend on what is happening in a community at any given moment. If there are high levels of juvenile crime during the overnight hours, then this law makes sense to implement. Since most communities see a peak in youth crime during the late afternoon during the transition between school and home or work, it makes more sense to implement after-school programs that reduce the amount of downtime that teens have. By taking this logical step, we can begin to move away from the unfounded fears of the 1990s.

If there were term limits in place for Congress, then it would be challenging to overstate the extent at which this action would change the legislative body. Most Americans support the idea of limiting the number of years that Senators and Representatives could serve in Washington, D.C. The people who are primarily opposed to this concept are the incumbents and the various groups which depend on their presence in the government to support specific causes.

The presence of term limits for Congress would help to reduce many of the serious political issues that we experience in the United States right now. It would act to counterbalance many of the advantages that occur because of incumbency which apply only to the politicians, possibly improve the quality of representation for each state and district, while reducing the number of incentives that occur due to wasteful policies and spending.

Term limits would also change the structure of experience that we have in Congress. Having a career politician who knows how to form relationships across the aisle, work with foreign governments, and limit waste is just as useful as getting officials out of office when they encourage bad habits.

There are several pros and cons to consider when establishing term limits for Congress. These are the key points to review.

List of the Pros of Term Limits for Congress

1. Term limits could encourage politicians to have courage.
One of the primary reasons why legislation happens at a snail’s pace in the United States is because most elected officials start concerning themselves about their next election once they start in office. President Trump began his re-election campaign the moment after his inauguration in 2016, and similar examples of behavior exist all the way down the ladder in Washington. If our Representatives and Senators know that they can make a meaningful change

2. It would limit the potential for corruption in the government.
Politicians have less time to get “dirty” when there are term limits in place. Although someone could be elected while under the influence of special interests, most would start from the very beginning, not knowing how to influence the governing body for their personal gain. Most newly elected officials are skeptical of lobbying groups and undue pressure for specific legislation, which would give American society an extra level of resilience against unwanted rules and regulations.

“As a lobbyist, I was completely against term limits, and a I know a lot of people are against term limits, and I was one of the leaders, because why?” asked Jack Abramoff. “As a lobbyist, once you buy a Congressional office, you don’t have to re-buy that office in six years, right?”

3. Everyone could have influence in the government.
Congress currently functions more like a union than they do a legislative body when handing out specific assignments. It works on a system of seniority that benefits the leadership group with powerful posts, leaving the rest of the newly elected officials to scramble for positions on desired committees instead. That structure encourages specific districts or states to keep voting the same person into office because their power equates to local economic influences. By instituting term limits on Senators and Representatives, we would have these politicians spending less time trying to get their foot in the door, allowing them to govern like they were elected to do by their state or district.

4. Term limits could limit the influence of corporate lobbying.
Anyone can lobby the government at any time. If you are dissatisfied with the way that your elected officials are behaving, then you can write a letter to them which conveys your feelings. The problem with our current system of lobbying is that the people and businesses which have the most money get to have the highest levels of influence in the government.

When lobbying actions take place, then there is a specific goal to that behavior. The effort is to create an outcome which is favorable to the business or the individual that wouldn’t be available to them otherwise. It is not unusual for these requests to be contrary to what the rest of the American people want, which is why their influence can be so harmful. Term limits could help to stop this behavior.

5. It would stop the various political games that people play.
Congress passes a lot of bills that include stipulations for various actions, activities, or funding requests that have nothing to do with what the actual legislation is supposed to cover. The Credit CARD (Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure) Act of 2009 is one of many examples of this issue. The legislation implemented new rules that govern credit card companies which sought to reduce fraud, seek help with mortgages, and improve the clarity of information given to consumers.

This legislation also contained an unrelated provision which allows visitors to national parks and wildlife refuges to carry loaded weapons if they are otherwise allowed to possess a firearm. By implementing term limits on Congress, the goal would be to stop these bills that aren’t “clean” by encouraging ethical behavior.

6. Having term limits in place could encourage people to vote more often.
When you live in a district where you know what the outcome of a vote will be before you cast a ballot, then any opposition is largely symbolic. Although there are local elections where voters can have influence on both sides of the aisle, that is not always the case for Congressional elections. Fewer seats are up-for-grabs each year than ever before according to data gathered by Rasmussen Reports. People are moving toward communities where there are like-minded people as their neighbors, which helps to polarize the national election map. Term limits would create circumstances where voting would be necessary because you wouldn’t know the status of the election.

7. Term limits could help to bring new ideas into Congress.
The relationship dynamic between Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a prime example as to why the inclusion of term limits would be a great idea for the United States. You have a young person with big ideas trying to take on the establish old guard who wants to have the structure of the legislative body to follow a specific course of action.

Even though it can make us feel uncomfortable at times, the harshest critics of the United States are often the best arguments for our government system. We need fresh ideas to reach Congress every so often to ensure that we aren’t being blinded by our comfort. Term limits would help to make that happen.

8. It changes the perspective of what it means to be a politician.
There are elected officials in our country who have served in Congress for over 50 years. Names like John Dingell and Robert Byrd fill the halls of this legislative body because they made a career out of being an elected official. Carl Hayden, Daniel Inouye, Jamie Whitten, John Conyers, and Carl Vinson all had uninterrupted tenures of more than 50 years as well. What is even more notable about this list is that with the exception of Strom Thurmond, Joseph Cannon, and Thad Cochran, the top 20 longest-serving politicians in the history of the United States were all Democrats.

By implementing term limits, we would change the idea of what it means to be a politician. Instead of turning this work into a career of its own, the service would become more like it was intended to be under the original Articles of Confederation – an act of civic duty.

9. This structure could help to bring centrism back to the government.
Term limits would naturally shift politicians on both sides of the aisle toward a perspective that is closer to centrism than extremism. Ever since the 2016 election, the rhetoric, insults, and lack of productivity on all sides has seen a dramatic increase. People are less civil toward each other because of what they see in Washington. When there are restrictions on the length of time that people can serve, then it encourages elected officials to ignore the extremism that happens in all parties.

“Too many in Washington display a ruling class mentality,” said Ron DeSantis, “and Congressional term limits would go a long way towards restoring the citizen-legislator ethos of the Founding Fathers.”

List of the Cons of Term Limits for Congress

1. Term limits would force good politicians to retire from Congress.
Every job goes through a specific learning curve. Even with an entry-level position, the general rule which applies to a new employee is that it takes six months to get to know a job, and then another six months to become good at it. Politicians need time to learn how Congress operates from a legislative standpoint, feeling out the relationships, committees, caucusing, and office management requirements as they go along. With term limits, they could be forced to go elsewhere just as they’re getting going on what they can do.

Even though we elect politicians, this is a job which requires skill. We don’t ask doctors, lawyers, welders, or marketers to seek a different career once a specific deadline passes. Elections are already a way to remove an unwanted politician from office.

2. It would change how politicians approach Washington.
If there were term limits in Congress, then politicians would work faster to pass their agenda because they know that they’re on a deadline. Although this might increase the speed of legislation and reduce gridlock, it would also lead to a lot of rushed bills that would create unintended consequences.

We’ve already seen in 2019 what happened with the rushed GOP tax bill, sometimes tripling the amount of taxes that children under the age of 18 must pay if one of their parents was killed in the line of duty. Now imagine that level of error applying to every pill.

3. There could be politicians who decide they don’t care.
When there are term limits in place for Congress, then there is the potential for an unmotivated politician to fill that office on their final term. Because they are being forced out of their position due to this legislation, there is little motivation for them to be an authentic representative of their state or district. People in this state of mind could decide to ignore what their communities want to follow their own agenda instead.

That’s not to say that every politician would follow this route. It does increase the chances that something like this could happen. Lobbyists would likely target those in their last session with significant sums to get specific legislation passed as well.

4. We would lose the networking benefits of our elected officials.
Every employee develops a personal and professional network as they grow into their job and a politician is no exception to this rule. We all get to benefit from their experience because they can connect through back channels to help speed along critical legislation at the right time. If we have new people coming into every session of Congress that must start from scratch, then it lessens the little bit of efficiency that is already present in the House and the Senate. Without these established networks, the political gridlock we already see today could get a lot worse.

5. It takes power away from the voters.
Term limits would dictate to the voters who they can choose to put into office. A fundamental principle of the U.S. governing system is that it is each state and district who gets to choose who their representative happens to be in Washington. When voter choices receive restriction at the ballot box by barring a candidate from being on the ballot, then it could be an action that goes against what the majority wants. Establishing term congressional term limits might help to rotate some fresh faces through this legislative body, but it might be accomplished under protest.

6. Term limits would not stop the deference behavior in Congress.
Even if term limits on Congress were to receive implementation tomorrow, the freshmen members of each elected class would still likely defer to the more experienced lawmakers when composing legislation, passing laws, or learning how things operate. Even if there are only 1-2 terms of service under the belt of someone else, that is more experience than a freshman representative would have. This deference would still consolidate the power in those who have the most experience in making laws, but it would be less experience than we have now since we’d be forcing career politicians out of office.

We would have a new, less-experienced establishment still running things, which could create many policymaking problems in the future. It is almost always the member-to-member interactions that solidify the final measures of legislation, even when staffers are primarily responsible for crafting a bill.

7. This structure would limit the incentives for gaining policy expertise.
When elected officials know that their time in Congress is limited, then there is less pressure placed on them to develop expertise on specific issues since that knowledge won’t be useful within a few years. We know this disadvantage exists because Republicans already have limits on House committee chairs, giving them six years to stay at the helm. Since they are forced to leave at a specific time, there is less urgency in place to dive deeply into the policy details which fall under their jurisdiction.

There were seven House chairs that announced their retirement during the 115th Congress. Shifting the foundation of experience at this critical level changes how we can go about the business of governing.

8. It would not shift the power dynamics in Washington.
Although term limits could work to restrain the powers of the elected official in Congress, it would not shift the dynamics of our governing structures. Each district would need to make changes to how they ran elections, which would be an expensive and time-consuming process. Reforms would put more restraints on the local government while the federal branches continue to operate, so it would be a financial cost that they average taxpayer would need to manage.

9. Term limits have zero legislative support.
There have been bills and amendments for term limits in Congress introduced in almost every session since 1943. The reality of this issue is that Americans are satisfied by seeing lip service instead of real action with this subject. Almost 3 out of 4 people support term limits, so it is up to each district to choose politicians that will support this point of view if that is what is wanted in the United States.

Conclusion of the Pros and Cons of Term Limits

Congress is consistently at or near the bottom of the polls when Americans are asked about the respect they have for the people who are in charge. The only profession which is less popular than being a Senator or Representative is being an attorney. By a substantial majority, the general population has fixed on the idea that term limits are a solution to some of the problems that we are seeing in Congress.

According to information published by The Heritage Foundation, have hearing the pros and cons of term limits during a polling session, the support for having them in place in Congress rose by three full percentage points. This issue is one of the few that doesn’t fade at the ballot box when compared to the data gathered in the polls.

There is an obvious distaste for the career politician, but this role is also needed in our government. Support for having term limits dates back as far as Eisenhower and Truman. When the Constitution received an amendment in 1951 that allows a President to only serve two terms, it created an imbalance with the rest of the government. States are already taking this step. Is it time for the federal government to do the same thing?

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are the common accounting rules which define how a transaction should be reported. It also includes rules about the information to include or disclose on financial statements. It is a unitary set of standards that has helped to solve many problems in the accounting world for organizations, but this system has also been responsible for creating problematic outcomes as well.

There are several countries who have not yet adopted IFRS, including the United States. Because this system does not receive global acceptance, the accounting by foreign-based companies that conduct business in a nation which doesn’t use the International Financial Reporting Standards becomes more of a challenge. These firms must create a statement using one system, and then make another report using the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles that others use.

As with any other method of accounting, there are some specific advantages and disadvantages of adopting IFRS to consider. This system can offer more flexibility, but that benefit can also lead to the manipulation of standards to make an organization seem more financially secure than what it is in reality. That’s why each key point must receive careful review and consideration.

List of the Advantages of Adopting IFRS

1. It would create a single set of accounting standards around the world.
Instead of using multiple accounting standards based on the preference of each country where an organization does business, adopting the International Financial Reporting Standards would enable agencies from different segments of the globe to apply the same standards in every transaction. The advantage to find here is an increase in transparency, which would then allow for more accessible cross-border investments. It would decrease the cost of capital while providing higher liquidity during each transaction.

2. It would reduce the time, effort, and expense of preparing multiple reports.
The presence of International Financial Reporting Standards around the world would allow organizations to cut down on the amount of time they spend on preparing their financial statements. There would be fewer costs associated with this work as well since there would no longer be multiple standards and regulations to follow based on where the company is doing business each year. Some agencies would immediately reduce the number of reports they produce from three to just one each year, saving them more time, labor, and money since there is less work to do.

3. It would not be a costly transition in the United States.
Although one of the disadvantages of adopting IFRS is the one-time cost that would impact the economy, the actual expense of transitioning to this global standard is minimal. The total cost for the entire economy of the United States would be approximately $8 billion, which means the average one-time cost to a multinational company would be $3.25 million. Most agencies would save a lot of money if they adopted International Financial Reporting Standards because it would reduce the amount of work it takes to remove errors, meet multiple regulations, and distribute the information effectively. Over 100 countries so far have either adopted or are in the process of adopting IFRS right now.

4. It would make it easier to monitor and control subsidiaries from foreign countries.
Under the current system in the United States, agencies and their subsidiaries must create parallel reports using GAAP and IFRS, which means there is an increased risk of error and additional auditing requirements necessary to ensure compliance. If the International Financial Reporting Standards were to receive adoption in the U.S., then it would eliminate the potential for misunderstandings. It would help shareholders and firms to simplify their investment decisions.

The U.S. has long been the world leader for taking a strong moral stand on financial ethics, with most nations following the same standard as the United States for generations. Now over half of the world is moving in the direction of IFRS, which means it should be strongly considered for implementation for American firms as well.

5. It would follow the same process that many American agencies already follow.
Another benefit to consider with the adoption of IFRS is the fact that many American-based companies doing business overseas are already preparing reports based on this standard. They are producing a simultaneous GAAP report to satisfy domestic regulations while meeting the international rules. By adopting this practice, the U.S. would help many large businesses to stop their excessive work immediately, allowing them to focus on what they do best. This advantage would allow U.S. businesses to be the driving force in the establishment and adoption of international standards once again.

6. It would offer more flexibility in the accounting practices.
International Financial Reporting Standards use a principles-based system instead of one that is based on a philosophy which follows specific rules. That means the goal of each standard in IFRS is to reach a reasonable valuation, and there can be several ways to reach that outcome. This structure gives an agency the freedom it needs to adapt the global system to fit their specific situations, which eventually leads to the production of useful statements that are much easier to read.

7. It would make it easier for all companies to do business in foreign countries.
The Internet, transportation technologies, and communication tools encourage us to use a system of globalization today more than ever before in human history. Almost any company has the power to expand beyond their country of origin when providing goods and services to their customers. Because small business owners face a high cost of compliance since there are two sets of standards in place today, the added cost of reporting a financial statement using IFRS and GAAP can be cost-prohibitive. That limits the ability of today’s startups to become tomorrow’s international disruptors.

Having a single set of accounting standards for every agency around the world would allow for more expansion opportunities because there would be fewer regulations in the way. You would get to streamline operations internally because you would have the confidence in knowing that every other agency was behaving in the same way.

8. It would help to streamline the system by creating one centralized authoritative body.
If we were to adopt IFRS, then we would be adopting a single set of unified global accounting standards. This advantage would allow for rulemaking and policy authorities to have a vestment in a central authoritative body that could oversee the standards and overall compliance. The current standards and rules for the different accounting systems in use are currently set by the legislative branches in their respective nations. Instead of working with a patchwork set of systems that could require a new report in each country, moving to the International Financial Reporting Standards would create a committee that would be charged with the fair implementation of these rules.

9. It would create a higher return on equity.
More than 70% of the companies examined between 2004-2006 had a higher return on equity under IFRS when compared to the GAAP system used in the United States. Reconcilation amounts always vary by industry and country, but the advantage remains the same. Whether the firms operate inside the U.S. or outside of it, there are better returns to find when using these accounting standards. Although the net income levels for the firms show declines in the differences between the two standards, the overall benefits can better support economic growth thanks to increases in stock value, dividend payments, and a strong regulatory environment.

10. It would improve the rates of foreign direct investment around the world.
The presence of the International Financial Reporting Standards globally would make it easier for companies to invest in one another whenever there is a market opportunity which presents itself. Research in the area of foreign direct investment shows that the presence of multiple standards creates uncertainty in this monetary transfer because of the uncertainty which exists in the differences between the various financial standards. There may also be a lack of familiarity or understanding with the anticipated future cash flows.

When we adopt IFRS, then there will no longer be a home-bias in place for shareholders to prefer domestic firms over international ones. There will be a familiarity and certainty in the financial information that will enhance their decision-making process.

11. It would be helpful to newer investors and smaller investments.
IFRS would help investors who are new to their industry to understand the information in the financial statements because the data would be simpler and of better quality. This advantage would allow anyone to become competitive because there is a greater understanding of what is going on with the financial health of an organization. This structure creates risk reduction benefits during each trade because everyone will be working from the same understanding of each data set instead of the multiple-tier system that we currently use for international companies and small U.S. firms.

List of the Disadvantages of Adopting IFRS

1. It would increase the cost of implementation for small businesses.
Large businesses would absorb the cost of adopting the International Financial Reporting Standards thanks to their need to produce these reports outside of the U.S. already. Only small businesses which provide local goods and services would receive the brunt of this expense since they’d be forced to change as well. Since there are fewer resources available for SMEs, it would take them more time and effort to train their staff in this method. This process means that it would be the sole proprietors, single-person LLCs, and partnerships which would bear the brunt of this accounting change.

The SEC estimates that it would cost 12% of global revenues to implement IFRS standards in the United States, so the $8 billion estimate could be way off. Since the primary benefit with this effort would be to achieve additional comparability, the system may not be worth the expense. Kara Stein, who serves as an SEC member, describes the situation in this way. “I am not convinced of a need to abandon U.S. GAAP in favor of IFRS,” she said. “That is not to say that the GAAP system is perfect. Nor is IFRS perfect… neither may serve investors well in today’s post-financial crisis, technologically disrupted, and data-driven world.

2. It would lead to concerns with standards manipulation.
The flexibility of IFRS can create numerous benefits, but it also creates a disadvantage with this feature. Organizations can choose to use only the methods that they wish to incorporate in their reporting, allowing their financial statements to show the results they desire. This structure makes it easier to incorporate profit or revenue manipulation into the findings, making it easier to hide financial problems that might exist. The International Financial Reporting Standards can even lead to fraudulent activities, like changing the method of inventory valuation to make more income come into the profit and loss statement to make it seem like the company is in a better position than it actually is.

3. It would require global consistency in auditing and enforcement.
The enforcement of the International Financial Reporting Standards can create some disadvantages as well. Although the United States has an effective enforcement policy on its accounting rules, trying to enforce this level of consistency on other member countries can be challenging. The differences in political and economic systems works to reduce the amount of comparability which is available, even if it can improve the efficiency of audits or eliminate information understanding.

4. It would increase the amount of work placed on accountants.
The implementation of a new system of global accounting standards would require a complete revision of the domestic accounting processes and strategies. Although the CFO of each organization would be responsible for this task under most circumstances, the implementation of the new rules would come from the accounting team. These departments are already busy trying to manage the rules and regulations that are in place currently, so they would be asked to continue with their daily work while creating the foundation for this system to receive implementation too.

When you add in the additional training that many accountants would require to stay in compliance with the new rules, determining how continuing education programs would work is an issue that has little clarity at the moment.

5. It would create an adjustment period filled with tumult.
When organizations begin to move from their current accounting standards mandated by the country of origin to the global accounting rules set by the International Financial Reporting Standards, then there is an increased risk of suffering from a costly delay or mistake during the transition period. Since every country maintains their own complex systems of regulations that govern financial reporting without direct involvement with the standards in use, there might still be a requirement to offer multiple reports as well. That means the only difference we see when adopting IFRS globally is a shift in the presentation of what the agencies provide.

6. It would require changes at the educational level as well.
There are numerous business that would feel the financial impacts of adopting IFRS immediately, even though the SEC estimates that about 100 firms are already using this as their primary standard since a majority of their revenue comes from overseas. We must also adjust the curriculum offered at many business schools because the International Financial Reporting Standards are not taught regularly in the United States. Even though it would make cross-border investments much more accessible, it would require a grassroots movement to shift the educational perspective in accounting to achieve many of the benefits listed above.

7. It would not reduce the home-court advantage for the modern firm.
Although there are some shareholders who would be more inclined to support foreign businesses if we adopt IFRS, there is no guarantee that this would happen throughout every demographic. Authors Teri Yohn and Messod Beneish found that there is a home bias effect still in place after adopting the International Financial Reporting Standards internationally. Investors prefer to work with companies that are closer to home, so foreign firms receive fewer direct investments even when the switch to the global system takes place.

8. It would still require global acceptance to be useful.
If the United States decides to adopt IFRS, then there would still be other holdouts around the world that would choose to use their preferred domestic standard. Any companies choosing to do business overseas might need to continue producing 2+ reports when necessary to comply with those standards. Since a majority of the businesses in the U.S. operate locally, the time and expense to implement this system would not make much sense. The greatest brunt of the disadvantages of the International Financial Reporting Standards would always be felt by the country’s smallest companies.

Conclusion of the IFRS Advantages and Disadvantages

Although a number of countries have made the move to adopt IFRS, the United States is not one of them. Mary Jo White, the Chairman of the SEC, recently said that promoting a standard set of global accounting rules should become of the top priorities of her agency. How that would look from an American perspective could be very different than what the rest of the world is already using.

IFRS has been in place since 2006, and it offers an increased comparability across agencies who operate between countries. The reality of this system is that the debate could be in reverse as well. Other countries could evaluate the pros and cons of joining the U.S. GAAP accounting practices instead to make it easier to do business in North America.

The advantages and disadvantages of IFRS work to eliminate the reconciliation of the books that must happen under the current system so that there is a unified picture available before making future decisions. Creditors would no longer face this issue when comparing or evaluating the creditworthiness of agencies operating abroad. We are all seeking ways to reduce barriers to global expansion, which is why switching to these standards is one idea that receives robust consideration.

An oligopoly is a market state where there is a limited amount of competition available for consumers to consider. When this structure is in place for an economy, then only a small number of producers, distributors, and sellers interact with the customer base to distribute items. There are times when only two different providers for some products exist.

Although this market state can occur at a societal level across all industries, such as what you can find in some communist governments or communities living on the socialism scale, it is usually present within a specific industry. Oligopolies are present throughout the world today, and in some market sectors they are rising rapidly. It typically occurs when one corporation dominates a specific market, but it can also be present when a handful of them have a significant influence over what happens.

One of the most significant oligopolies that exists in the world today involves the national mass media and news outlets in the United States. 90% of the active media outlets in the U.S. are owned by just 6 corporations: Time Warner, Viacom, CBS Corporation, NBC Universal, Walt Disney, and News Corporation. Apple and Android have an oligopoly on smartphone operating systems, while the automobile industry has one through the actions of the GMC, Ford, and Chrysler brands.

There are several advantages and disadvantages of an oligopoly when it forms. Here are the key points to consider.

List of the Advantages of an Oligopoly

1. An oligopoly can adopt a competitive strategy.
Although an oligopoly can adopt a strategy which leads to inefficiencies and a lack of innovation, it can also work toward competitive outcomes if it so chooses. When the companies involved use this advantage to their benefit, then the economic result is similar to what is available under more competitive market structures. Consumers can even benefit from lower prices and better quality goods and services in this situation. The market itself will still lack competition, but the behavior of the organizations can still be highly competitive.

2. The extra profits earned from an oligopoly can go into research and development.
When an economy experiences an oligopoly in some way, then it can create a dynamic set of products and processes through a desire to be innovative. Because the level of profits is often super-normal in this state, the extra funds can funnel toward research and development projects that can help consumers in a variety of ways. We often see this advantage when looking at the outcomes presented by the pharmaceutical industry as the higher cost of medication helps to fuel new research into drugs that could help to reduce the impact of disease.

3. It can bring price stability to the market.
Although the consumer prices in an oligopoly are often higher than what they would be under regular competition levels, a society can experience significant price stability benefits because of the actions of each organization. This advantage allows consumers to start planning ahead for needed expenses so that there is less debt for them to manage. It allows work to stabilize their expenditure habits, eventually working toward a stabilized trade cycle that takes advantage of the conditions of the global economy.

4. Oligopolies can offer more information to their consumers.
The companies involved in an oligopoly are still competing for customers. Because there are fewer choices available in the market, these companies must take their outreach campaigns to new levels to draw attention to their products or services. You will discover that marketing efforts typically center around the amount of value and innovation that one company says it can provide over all of the others.

Apple chooses to market itself more as a superior brand than a product which is substantially better than its competitors. One could even argue that the technology components in their devices are inferior in some ways. Their ecosystem with the App Store, the launch of Siri, and the development of products like the Apple Watch causes more investments into the brand. This process creates loyalty to the company that becomes challenging to break over time.

5. It allows for more product refinement to occur.
Remember when the first Apple iPhone came out more than a decade ago? People bought into the concept because there was familiarity with the design if you were already using an advanced iPod to manage your music. When there is enough money be transferred into the research and development process, it doesn’t just go to the creation of new, possibly revolutionary products. This investment can help to refine the current inventory as well to increase the overall value proposition that consumers experience in each situation.

List of the Disadvantages of an Oligopoly

1. Higher concentration levels reduce consumer choice.
When there are only a handful of organizations that are active in a specific industry, then the higher concentration levels in society can reduce the amount of choice that consumers receive. Imagine that you’re in the market right now to purchase a commercial aircraft to start building a new fleet. There are only two global airliner manufacturers left: Boeing and Airbus.

“Now that Bombardier is out of the segment, the CSeries clearly has only a niche future as part of the Airbus line,” writes Michael Boyd for Forbes. “That puts finis to the last potential and truly threatening competitor to Airbus and Boeing.”

2. Collusion is possible in this structure to further reduce competition.
There are three specific types of collusion that are possible with an oligopoly: overt, covert, and tacit. The first occurs when there is no attempt made to hide an agreement. One could argue that OPEC is a form of this option. Covert ones occur when the companies involved attempt to hide the results of their “partnership,” often done to avoid the detection of regulators for some reason. Price fixing is a common example of this second form.

The third option is tacit collusion and it arises when organizations work together even though a formal or informal agreement is not in place. This issue can be difficult (or impossible) to prove, but it can result in an increase in regulation over an industry if negative market behaviors are suspected.

3. It can lead to decision-making bias and irrational behavior.
Because an oligopoly removes the threat of competition from the market, those who practice it are sometimes free to manipulate the consumer decision-making process. There are several ways to do this, with the complexity of a mortgage being one of the best examples of this disadvantage. If customers don’t fully understand how a process works, then they fall back on generalities and the “rule of thumb” choices that other people talk about online or in reviews.

This disadvantage can even inspire consumers to make purchases which add no utility their lives. There are even times when the companies involved in the oligopoly will encourage harmful financial decisions to their customers because their actions will improve revenues and profit margins.

4. Deliberate barriers to entry can occur with an oligopoly.
When there are firms participating in an oligopoly, then their goal is to keep disruptors out of their industry at any cost. They can do so by creating a complex series of barriers that prevent others from offering new products or services. There are several ways that this disadvantage can keep innovation from coming to the market.

• Government regulations backed by oligopoly-based special interests that can create restrict licensing, limitations to raw materials, and costly regulatory hurdles.
• Higher start-up costs may occur if patents or proprietary methods are the primary way to begin operations within a specific industry.
• Operating on an economy of scale like Walmart allows for lower prices and greater accessibility to customers.
• Working together to limit new companies from having access to distribution channels or suppliers can cause this issue too.

5. There can be a potential loss of economic welfare in an oligopoly.
Because consumers are given limited choices with an oligopoly, there can be more saving activities in the economy than spending. Any interactions that occur at the retail level become minimal unless there is a core need for the products or services offered through this economic structure. This disadvantage is one of the reasons why the United States pushes toward energy independence by creating new domestic oil and gas resources. By limiting the purchases through OPEC for these necessary fossil fuels, less wealth transfers to the companies and countries who took advantage of this structure in the past.

6. An oligopoly does not require efficiencies to be useful.
Many industries that function through an oligopoly tend to inefficient with their production and allocation. There is no need for them to try to make their products or services cheaper because they consumers must purchase them if they have a need. It allows them to fix prices artificially high in a manner similar to a monopoly, but with the presence of other companies in the marketplace.

7. The economic benefits require perfect compliance to be beneficial to society.
When there is an oligopoly in place for a specific industry, then the government typically tries to subsidize the firms in that segment to encourage continued growth and prosperity at a national level. The economic benefits that come from perfect compliance can create more jobs, higher wages, and better living conditions for consumers. The only problem with this structure is that the companies often pocket the tax breaks and subsidies instead of passing them along to the consumer.

Nike is one of the biggest benefactors of government subsidies, receiving over $2 billion in appropriations that cover 75 individual programs. Intel receives almost $4 billion per year covering 59 different subsidies with its chips. Then there is Boeing, who receives over $13 billion from 148 unique financial handouts. In 2013, the company receive the highest tax-break in the history of the United States under the threat of moving the company to a different location.

8. Customers must put up with poor service because there are no other choices.
In March 2019, CNN and other news outlets reported that Boeing was delivering airplanes to the U.S. military without having the final product go through an extensive inspection. There were tools left in the planes after handing them over, the aircraft were full of trash, and even nuts and bolts were scattered around the KC-46s that were ordered.

When there is an oligopoly present, then the companies know that customers have no choice but to work with them to have their needs met. There is no desire to provide excellent customer service or a quality product because no competitors exist to challenge them. That leaves a customer in a position where they must accept the abuse to get the bare minimum of what they require or to go without.

9. Companies can add fees and charges because there is no competition.
For more than 15 years, the telecommunications industry was putting on overage charges, termination fees, and other unfriendly practices that were helping the companies bring in millions of dollars in extra revenues each year without really providing a service. If you had a cell phone, then you had things good enough. Even when T-Mobile decided to break from that tradition, their desire to merge with Sprint (and others) over that time has only encouraged the oligopoly to continue.

When companies act in parallel with one another, making the same choices that impact the marketplace, then this creates the same effect as a monopoly. It is curious to see how the government won’t put up with a single company that acts in ways that are harmful to the consumer, but it sees 3-4 of them taking the same actions as “competition.”

10. It creates the appearance of choice without really giving you one.
Consumers are often misled by product labeling. When they see a different brand name, then it seems like they are choosing a competitive product. That thought couldn’t be further from the truth. When you visit Walmart, Target, or your local drugstore the next time, take a moment to review what is available in the toothpaste aisle. You will see dozens of different brands and variations available on the shelf.

Only two firms control 80% of the toothpaste market in the United States: Procter and Gamble and Colgate-Palmolive. Even Tom’s of Maine fits into that oligopoly since it isn’t a true independent brand. You’ll see this problem in the beverage industry, the dairy industry, and many other consumer segments that see multiple brands often feel like a competitive market, but they really are not. Even the beer industry fits into this category. 1

Conclusion of the Pros and Cons of an Oligopoly

An oligopoly should not be confused with a monopoly. There must always be at least two firms active in a specific segment of the market for this structure to be present. A monopoly means that there is only one company supplying all of the customers for that specific industry. The New Yorker once said that it wasn’t monopolies that were the problem in the United States – it was the oligopolies.

Although an oligopoly offers theoretical benefits if the companies involved are all good actors, the reality is quite the opposite. When only a handful of companies hold most of the market, then the lack of competition often creates a lack of innovation.

The pros and cons of an oligopoly depend on your perspective of the market. Businesses in this situation can manipulate pricing structures to innovate, but they can also take those actions as a way to boost their profit margins without regard to the consumer. The advantages help to promote innovation and choice, while the disadvantages can force a lack of spending in the local economy. That is why the presence of this economy in specific industries is watched carefully since it can do as much harm as it can provide for the common good.

A two-party system in politics creates a structure where the electorate gives a significant majority of its votes to only two major parties. That means one or the other can win a majority in the legislature. It is the system of governing that is present in the United States, but the actual implementation of forming a government is similar to systems that have multiple parties. There are factions in the Democratic and Republican party struggling for power, showing that there can be a divergence of interests underneath a single-party umbrella.

The structure of the two-party system compels participants to strive for a majority of votes in specific electoral areas. Members of the national representative assemblies are chosen from single-member districts, with voters often choosing between two fairly evenly matched politicians who compete with each other for the office.

Third-party politicians have the right to run for office in a two-party system, but defeat is usually the outcome unless the people involved receive support or representation from one of the two larger parties. Since the end of the Reconstruction era, there have been 30 Senators, 112 Representatives, and 28 governors who were not affiliate with a major party. In 2016, there were 144 Libertarians holding office at a local level, 139 Green Party members, and 26 Constitution Party officials.

List of the Pros of a Two Party System

1. It places restrictions on the amount of extremism that enters the government.
When there is a multi-party system in place, then anyone with a view that is exceptionally conservative or liberal can become a representative in the government. That includes people who may hold racist, segregational views, theocratic principles, and old-fashioned ideas on genderism. The goal of only have two major parties is to select someone who best represents the platform of the entire body – not just one of the segments fighting for power.

Some would argue that the election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton show that a two-party system can do the opposite as well. Neither received a full majority of the vote in their election, yet Trump represented a full GOP majority for his first two years in office.

2. It encourages the government to offer majority representation.
Although no candidate since 1900 has even come close to winning a presidential election in the United States, there are a handful of incidents where some people made a strong stand. Teddy Roosevelt ran for a second term in office as a third-party candidate and received over 27% of the vote. Ross Perot received over 18% of the vote in 1992. George Wallace won electoral votes in the 1968 election. The reason why it is so difficult for candidates to be successful in a third party is because the two-party system of governing encourages a majority every time.

This system works to be inclusive by allowing each major party to create a platform which represents the overall will of the people. Anyone can join either organization in this system and then fight for the policies they wish to see enacted.

3. It gives every eligible person a chance to run for office.
The primary system in the United States acts like what a multi-party election does for other governments with one key exception: instead of sending representatives into office, it creates a run-off election to choose one person. This process allows each district and state to vote for the one person they wish to represent them on behalf of their favored party.

Then each party receives representation on the ballot if they qualify. What is notable about the 2016 election is that 5.6% of voters chose someone outside of the two major parties, lifting the level of third-party contributions to its highest amount since 1996. Over 1,700 candidates filed a Statement of Candidacy that year, although only six candidates made it on more than 15% of the general election ballots.

4. It speeds up the governing process for the country.
When an emergency situation arises, the two-party system makes it easy for the government to respond quickly to the situation. Every branch of government in the United States, going all the way down to the local level, is linked through this centralized system of electoral representation. This structure eliminates the need for a coalition because even the third-party candidates must work with Republicans or Democrats to create a majority set of circumstances. That means there is less gridlock in place than there would be in other governing styles.

Although Congress receives low approval ratings often due to their lack of action, the two-party system seats itself each session. When Belgium held elections in 2010, there were 11 parties elected to the Chamber of Representatives and none of them had more than 20% of the seats. It took 541 days of negotiations to form a governing coalition. That doesn’t happen in the United States with this governing structure.

5. It gets more people to start participating in their local government.
Each person who runs for elected office must declare which party they will represent in office, even if they decide to be an Independent. When there are dozens of parties available to join, then understanding the platform of a candidate can become challenging. Some governments allow anyone who wants to start a new party to do so as well.

Thanks to the two-party system, there is a general consensus already known about a candidate due to their affiliation. In the United States, Republicans are generally thought of as being conservative, while Democrats are usually regarded as being more liberal. This identification creates instant recognition for the voter so that they can cast a confident ballot when it is time to vote.

6. It allows more ideas to become legislation.
Every political party promotes partisan ideas that support their platform interests. Republicans and Democrats in the United States are no exception to this rule. The difference that you will find in this governing setup is that the minority can still have influence on the majority to ensure needed legislation goes through. You will find more places for common ground because of the emphasis on centrism with this system. Although this advantage can disappear if the elected officials write-off different ideas, a two-party system that embraces an open mind can become quite successful.

7. It simplifies the process of governing.
Voters can cast a ballot for any political party they want at any time. Even if someone registers as a Republican, they can vote for a Democrat with their ballot – and the opposite can occur as well. Some people vote a straight ticket for one party because that is how they feel like the government can represent their needs. Because of the structure of the two-party system, there is less confusion because it is always a winner-take-all solution. You are either going to get what you want, or you will not because of how everyone else votes around you.

List of the Cons of a Two Party System

1. It creates inconsistent governing patterns for the country.
Coalition governments may have several disadvantages to consider when compared to the two-party system of the United States and others, but there is one distinctive advantage: consistency in governing. When coalitions must form to create a government, then there is more centrism available to the nation compared to the platforms offered by two major parties by themselves.

Since the Republicans and Democrats have distinctively different platforms, a shift in governing power also creates inconsistent policies. What one party starts, the other one cancels in this system unless there are safeguards in place that do not allow it to be overruled – like a Constitutional amendment. It creates a see-saw effect that has a 2-year cycle at times.

2. It eliminates the idea of having 100% representation of personal ideas.
Because the two-party system puts multiple factions underneath on general umbrella, it creates a “bite your tongue’ set of circumstances for voters. They might not like the candidate that represents their preferred party, but that person is perceived as being better than the person running on the other side of the ticket. If you were in a multi-party system, you could vote for the exact person who represents your values. With this structure, you might vote for someone based on their stance on 1-2 important issues instead. That means the government may not be an authentic representation of what everyone wants.

3. It forces the parties into a fixed, but still changing, set of political views.
The foundation of the two-party system starts with the creation of a set list of priorities that everyone will attempt to accomplish during each election cycle. In the United States, that means the Republicans and Democrats create a platform of critical ideas that they wish to pursue for a fixed time – usually four years. Then each person votes for one platform or the other. When the next election cycle comes along, another set of platforms is released, allowing voters to choose again. Although there can be consistency in these views, the two parties typically build a platform based on what they think will get them elected more than what the country might actually require.

4. It limits the number of new ideas that can be introduced to the electorate.
Although the United States is a two-party system, it can become a multi-party system at times when someone other than the Republicans or Democrats gets at least 5% of the national vote. For two election cycles, the Reform Party was classified as a major party in the American governing system. This threshold seems minimal, but it is rarely met in U.S. politics because of the structures in place. People might support third-party candidates in the polls, but that rarely transfers to the ballot box.

For the 2016 election, there were times when Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson was polling above 15% before the election. When the votes were eventually counted, he received less than 4% of the national vote. Because of this restriction on who can become a majority party, it can limit the number of new ideas that can enter the political spectrum.

5. It reduces the concept of individuality in governing.
Why did Bernie Sanders run as a Democrat during the 2016 presidential election cycle? He told voters in a town hall in Columbus, Ohio, in March of that year that he had no choice. “In terms of media coverage, you had to run within the Democratic Party,” he said, adding that it would be almost impossible to raise money if he tried to run outside of this process.

Ralph Nader wrote in an op-ed for The Chicago Tribune that he knew what would happen when he ran for president as a third-party candidate. “Historically, many major reform movements have come out of smaller parties that never won national elections, starting with the anti-slavery Liberty Party in 1840,” he wrote. “Several different parties for women’s suffrage followed. Then came parties representing farmers’ struggles against railroads and banks, a movement that peaked in 1892 with the Populist Party.”

We might get new ideas to enter the two-party system from outside of it, but the overall structure limits individuality. You’re either with the party or against them.

6. It creates a system of exclusiveness.
Some states in the U.S. almost always vote for one party exclusively in the presidential election cycle. If your state votes for Democrats almost all of the time, then begin a Republican puts you on the outside of the election. You know that your vote counts, but it won’t contribute to the electoral tally for the presidential election since a majority vote doesn’t matter. People can feel excluded in the two-party system because neither option works for them, but it doesn’t allow for representation of an independent either.

There is also an aura of exclusiveness and superiority in this system. Unless you’re in the party that wins, it can feel like those from the outside are targeting you with their conduct.

7. It is a system which limits the choices of the voter.
Even though there were over 1,700 people who filed a Statement of Candidacy for the 2016 presidential election, the primary system produced two candidates for the majority parties that struggled to win a majority of the votes from within their own party. Donald Trump may have won 37 states and earned 14 million votes (which was a record), but he only earned 44.9% of Republican votes during that time. In comparison, John Kasich only won his home state, but earned 13.8% of the total votes. Because delegates (not votes) count in the primary system like electoral votes count in the presidential system, the choices for the voters are sometimes drastically limited.

8. It creates patterns of voting that are based on name recognition.
One of the reasons why term limits are a popular concept for Congress in the United States is because the same people keep getting voted in by their districts. Their career presence in Washington is seen as a disadvantage because their work looks to be a reflection of staying elected. When there is a two-party system in place, it actually encourages this type of voter behavior.

If you don’t like elements of the Democratic platform, then a straight-ticket Republican vote is not an unusual outcome. Some states even offer a choice on their ballot that allows you to check one box to vote for every candidate from the same party. This process makes it easier to participate in this civic duty, but it also encourages votes without thought. Instead of looking at the experience and qualifications of the candidate, they’re looking for the (D) or (R) by the name.

9. It will eventually lead to societal polarization.
P.J. O’Rourke describes this disadvantage with these words. “The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.”

James Morcan puts it this way. “Democrats and Republicans were essentially the same party with different faces and that was why, no matter how many promises each leader made, significant change rarely transpired.”

Or there is this comment from Michael Parenti. “Democrats – lily-livered, weasel-assed collaborators.”

People identify with their political party as closely as they do to their family, friends, and brands that they prefer. Criticizing the party platform becomes a personal insult, so another is offered in return. That is why the structure of a two-party system often leads to societal polarization.

Conclusion of the Pros and Cons of Two-Party Systems

The two-party system has some tremendous advantages to consider. It provides a clear majority in almost every election, encourages centrism, and limits the number of radical ideas that enter into the national discussion.

It also has some tremendous disadvantages, leading with a lack of genuine representation. Many voters describe the experience of casting a ballot as a vote for the “lesser of two evils.”

If you are voting for a “lesser evil,” then you are still not voting your conscience. That is the ultimate problem that we can find in the pros and cons of the two-party system. You are almost always forced to compromise on what you believe on some level, despite the potential benefits that might come your way.

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) goes by many names, but it is always a sweetener that comes from corn starch. This product is broken down into glucose by enzymes, and then further processed to convert some of it into fructose. It is a sugar-substitute that was first marketed in the 1970s by the Clinton Corn Process Company and the Japanese Agency of Industrial Science and technology.

HFCS receives comparisons to granulated sugar in most food conversations, but there are some advantages that it has comparatively as a sweetener because it is easier to handle and cheaper to produce. The Food and Drug Administration in the United States says that it is a safe ingredient, with a 42% fructose composition used for breakfast cereals and other foods, and a 55% version made for soft drinks.

The primary debate regarding high fructose corn syrup involves whether or not there are greater health risks with this product compared to other sweeteners. As it continues to increase in popularity from a food manufacturing standpoint, it is essential to review the pros and cons of this product to determine if adding it to your diet is the best choice to make.

List of the Pros of High Fructose Corn Syrup

1. It provides versatility to food products when added as an ingredient.
High-fructose corn syrup is one of the most versatile ingredients that is currently on the market. The sweetener adds texture to foods, helps them to maintain their color, enhances the flavor of many items, and provides a helping hand in the quality sector. All of these additions come at a cost that is typically cheaper than any other caloric sweetener that is available to the food manufacturing industry, which means it offers several value add-ons without experiencing price destabilization as often as its competitive products.

2. HFCS reduces the manufacturing costs of sweetened drinks.
High-fructose corn syrup is an ingredient which food companies use in their formulation of soft drinks because it creates a particular freshness in the final beverage that regular sugars are unable to produce. It offers textures and flavors that are appealing to customers as well. When manufacturers use HFCS instead of a regular sweetener, then it can cost the production costs by up to 50%. That means a significant savings can be passed along to the consumer while the agency can maintain a greater profit margin simultaneously.

Current estimates suggest that the high-fructose corn syrup added to foods and beverages saves over $3.8 billion in total costs each year.

3. It allows foods to have superior browning levels during production.
High-fructose corn syrup is a reducing sugar, which means that it will give baked goods a superior level of browning when compared to using granulated sugars. That means your dinner rolls, breakfast cereals, bread products, cookies, and cakes all have more visual appeal because of the chemical composition that promotes this trait. Because you receive a better crust on your product, the flavor of the baked goods tends to remain more intense without the use of MSG or other enhancers to promote a tastier product with fewer additives too.

4. HFCS offers a lower freezing point.
High-fructose corn syrup has a lower freezing point than other sugar products, which means that a frozen beverage concentrate can be poured straight out of the freezer instead of waiting for it to thaw. That makes it easier for consumers to mix the product with water so that they can have something to drink in their home. This benefit can apply to most food products as well since HCFS offers more stability thanks to this feature. The quality of condiments and beverages remains high because this sweetener protects them from storage temperature fluctuations and low product acidity levels.

5. It offers a superior level of freshness to the final food product.
HFCS works to inhibit microbial spoilage because it reduces the amount of water activity in the food product when included as an ingredient. This advantage makes it possible for the foods to taste better and fresher for a longer time while it also extends the shelf life of the product. If you enjoy the firm texture of canned fruits and some vegetables, then you have high-fructose corn syrup to thank for that outcome. It even works to protect fruit from experiencing freezer burn when the food product is kept in cold storage.

6. This ingredient provides consumers with the exact foods they want.
Consumers often say that they want to avoid specific ingredients in their food, but the purchasing data from U.S. grocery stores suggests that they do not. Sweetener360 worked with Mintel and Nielsen to survey over 11,000 consumers in data commissioned by the Corn Refiners Association. The goal of this work was to determine how the presence of sweeteners affected the shopping behaviors for specific brands or products.

All consumer groups in the survey said that they avoid soda, but all of them would also purchase it. Even in the group of people who have high sugar awareness, 67% said that they avoided purchasing soda at the store, but 92% of them purchased. Over 50% of consumers in total say that they avoid sweeteners, but the actual purchase data suggest otherwise. HFCS is present because that’s what consumers want.

7. Not every study on the “evils” of HFCS uses best practices for data collection.
Princeton reported in 2010 published a study which reports that high-fructose corn syrup caused greater weight gain than table sugar when fed to rats, which then caused the researchers to conclude that HFCS was fueling the obesity epidemic.

NYU Nutritionist Marion Nestle critically assessed the Princeton study in this way. “I’m skeptical,” she said. “I don’t think the study produces convincing evidence of a difference between the effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar) on the body weight of rats. Once measurements on caloric intake were added into the data, the research actually showed that the observed differences between HFCS and sugar with statistically insignificant.”

8. Almost any food offers the potential for harm if not consumed responsibly.
The disadvantages of high-fructose corn syrup often involve the possibility of weight gain and insulin resistance, both of which can lead to serious disease development later in life. When any foods or beverages are consumed outside of moderation, then there is a risk that there could be adverse health effects developing with that repeated behavior. It is up to the consumer to read ingredient labels, understand what is in their food, and make choices accordingly based on what their budget can handle.

The average American was already consuming 39 pounds of fructose and 84 pounds of sucrose each year in the 1980s. By 1994, that figure increased to 66 pounds of sucrose and 83 pounds of fructose. The average person receives 25% of their caloric intake from sugars when they should really be including about 10% of their diet with sweetened ingredients at maximum.

List of the Cons of High Fructose Corn Syrup

1. It contributes an unnatural level of fructose to your regular diet.
The fructose levels in high-fructose corn syrup can be problematic for people when they are consumed at excessive levels. When you eat starchy carbohydrates, such as white rice, then the food is broken down into glucose, which is the basic form of the carbs. HFCS is 50% glucose and 50% fructose, so half of the product requires further processing by the body to be useful. The fructose from this ingredient must be converted into glycogen or fat by the liver before it can be used as fuel, which means there is a significant risk of experiencing weight gain when too much is consumed.

Although table sugar experience a similar problem with its composition, less of it is used because of the cost considerations in the food manufacturing industry today. The only way to avoid this disadvantage is to moderate your diet in such a way that you can limit the amount of high-fructose corn syrup you consume.

2. HFCS easily converts into fat.
When you consume too much high-fructose corn syrup, then the body’s natural reaction is to convert the excessive amount you’ve eaten into fat. Because fructose is metabolized by the liver, it will turn it into stored carbohydrates of which there is limited storage capacity. Smaller levels of fructose burn off just fine, but a large dose from baked goods or sugary carbonated beverages can overload the liver quickly to produce higher levels of fat.

When you have HFCS exposure at critical levels over an extended time, then this can lead to serious health concerns like fatty liver disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes. It only takes three weeks of high-fructose corn syrup over-consumption to increase liver fat levels by up to almost 30%.

Celebrity chef Thomas Colicchio describes the use of high-fructose corn syrup in this way. “I don’t know too many parents that want to feed their kids soda, but high-fructose corn syrup is cheap. The price of soda in 20 years has gone down 40% while the price of whole foods, fruits, and vegetables has gone up 40%. Obesity goes up right along that curve.”

3. It is an ingredient which contains no essential nutrients.
Like with other added sugars in the foods and beverages you consume each day, high-fructose corn syrup does not contain any essential nutrients that contribute to your overall health. When you include this ingredient in your diet, then you have empty calories to process. Eating HFCS consistently can decrease your nutrient ratio since when you eat more of it, there is less room for the nutrient-dense foods that support your health.

If you are struggling with your weight or energy levels, then avoiding high-fructose corn syrup whenever you can may be one of the simplest and most effective ways to start lowering your overall risk of disease development.

4. HFCS has links to numerous risk factors for severe disease development.
There are several serious diseases which have direct links to the over consumption of fructose. It is one of the primary drivers for internal inflammation, which is associated with an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancer. When you receive insulin spikes from this ingredient, then you can increase your risk of tumor growth. Excessive intake of high-fructose corn syrup may also increase the number of advanced glycation end products in your body that could contribute to cell harm or premature aging. Even your risk of gout increases with HFCS because of the increase of uric acid production.

5. This ingredient is a key factor in the development of insulin resistance.
Before the 1970s, the risks associated with insulin resistance were typically directed towards individuals who consumed too many sugar-filled products. Because high-fructose corn syrup makes foods and beverages cheaper and therefore more accessible, it leads to higher consumption levels today. When you have too much of it, then your body can start to develop insulin resistance. This outcome decreases the flexibility of your cells to metabolize carbohydrates. That means blood sugar levels rise, and then so do your insulin levels. That’s why this ingredient is believed to play a role in metabolic syndrome, which also has links to specific cancers and heart disease.

6. It can increase your levels of visceral fat.
HFCS will cause fatty liver disease, but it will also increase the risk of visceral fat forming in your body as well. This fat is the type that surrounds your organs. Its presence is associated with an increased risk of experiencing a heart attack, developing heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, colorectal and breast cancer, and type 2 diabetes. There is even some evidence to suggest that it may be a contributing factor to Alzheimer’s disease. You can manage this disadvantage by getting more exercise, managing your stress levels, and eating a diet that avoids sweetener-laden foods.

That is one of the reasons why Dean Karnazes, an ultramarathon runner, never touches this ingredient. “I eat nothing that’s processed or refined,” he said. “No high-fructose corn syrup, no sugar, no trans-fats. I eat a lot of fish and monounsaturated fats from nuts, olives, and olive oil. A lot of organic fresh fruits and vegetables, but no bread, no gluten, no wheat, or no rice.”

7. There is a risk of pesticide exposure with this ingredient.
Because high-fructose corn syrup is an agricultural product, there is a risk that the pesticides and herbicides used on the fields to produce a corn crop each year are within the sweetener. It is not unusual for farmers to use these items as a way to guarantee a harvest. Even organic farmers can use approved items in this category if they have a natural formulation. When you have this by-product in the ingredient, then you may have more health issues to worry about than if you consume sugar that came from beets or cane since those crops don’t need the artificial interventions.

8. The lower cost of HFCS in the United States is due to food subsidies.
The only reason why high-fructose corn syrup is such a cheap and popular product in the minds of many is because of the number of agricultural subsidies that are in place for it. Author Michael Pollan, who is also a professor of journalism at the UC-Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, puts it this way.

“Very simply, we subsidize high-fructose corn syrup in this country, but not carrots. While the surgeon general is raising alarms over the epidemic of obesity, the President is signing farm bills designed to keep the river of cheap corn flowing. That guarantees that the cheapest calories in the grocery store will continue to be the unhealthiest ones.”

9. You can find HFCS in foods that normally wouldn’t contain sugar products.
There are several foods that contain high-fructose corn syrup which normally wouldn’t have any sweeteners added to them, so consumers do not always know what is in the foods they eat if they don’t check the ingredient list. You can find HFCS in sweetened yogurt, salad dressing, boxed dinners, granola bars, ketchup, nutrition bars, and coffee creamer.

Pollan describes American eating habits like this: “To wash down your chicken nuggets with virtually any soft drink in the supermarket is to have some corn with your corn. Since the 1980s, virtually all of the sodas and most of the fruit drinks sold in these stores have been sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup.”

Conclusion of the Pros and Cons of High-Fructose Corn Syrup

HFCS is an ingredient that can contribute to type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and many other health problems. Since 2013, numerous organizations have been petitioning the FDA to determine what the safe limits on this ingredient are in the food products we consume. If you drink a 20-ounce bottle of soda, then the 16 teaspoons of sweeteners you drink come directly from this ingredient. That is twice the daily limit suggested by the American Heart Association.

Pollan says that the only way to truly avoid this ingredient is to start preparing meals at home whenever possible. “Cooking for yourself is the only sure way to take back control of your diet from the food scientists and food processors, and to guarantee you’re eating real food rather than edible food-like substances with their unhealthy oils, high-fructose corn syrup, and surfeit of salt.”

There are some benefits to consider with high-fructose corn syrup, but most of them involve the cost of the product or the amount of profits that it can earn for a food manufacturer. Cheaper food is a tempting choice for households living paycheck-to-paycheck, which is happening more often today than ever before in history.

The Atlantic reported in 2012 on a study which showed that the countries who use HFCS the most also have higher levels of diabetes. A 20% increase in this disease was found to be entirely independent of obesity and total sugar consumption. That means the pros and cons of high-fructose corn syrup must be weighed carefully to determine what your health can manage. If you must use it, then do so with moderation.

The Uniform Crime Report is a nationwide, cooperative statistical effort that includes over 18,000 institutions in the United States. This data goes to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to create a database on crimes that occur at the local, country, state, and federal level. The program has been administered annually since 1930, and it continues to assess and monitor the types of criminal activity that occur across the country.

The primary objective of the UCR is to generate reliable information for use in the administration of law enforcement activities. It provides assistance with the management and operation of enforcement at every level. In recent years, this information has also become one of the most critical leading social indicators in the United States. Everyone from municipal planners to sociologists use this info for their various planning and research purposes.

As with any other effort to collect data on a specific subject, the uniform crime report offers several pros and cons worth considering.

List of the Pros of the Uniform Crime Report

1. It provides specific details about crime and arrests in communities.
The methodology of the current reporting system allows the Uniform Crime Report to provide detailed information about the arrests and criminal activities that occur in various levels of society. By understanding what the trends are for this behavior, local officials can work to prevent more unwanted activities from occurring because they can identify trends in specific crimes. That makes it easier to identify potential offenders, protect possible victims, and reduce the threat of violence.

2. It collects information about specific crimes in several different categories.
The Uniform Crime Report focuses on various different crimes that can occur in the community. It tracks violent classifications, curfew offenses, and even loitering. The most common statistics that organizations pull from the UCR tend to involve the upper-tier offenses of homicide, aggravated assault, forcible rape, and robbery. Other crimes that are monitored through this report include embezzlement, drug offenses, fraud, DUIs, disorderly conduct, forgery, and counterfeiting. That is why this database serves as the primary source of crime statistics in the United States.

3. It is information that anyone can access if they wish.
You do not need to have a special permission to access the information in the Uniform Crime Report. Anyone with access to a computer can quickly see what is in the report and what it means for their community. You can access the 2018 UCR by following this link: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/preliminary-report

Although you are cautioned against making comparisons between cities with this information, valid assessments are possible when you take into account the various range of unique conditions that are present in each jurisdiction. This process makes it possible to understand more about what is happening at every community level when further research into the figures takes place.

4. It provides a resource that reviews hate crime statistics in the United States.
The Hate Crime Statistics Program is part of the UCR, providing information on crimes that are motivated by an offenders’ bias against their victim’s race, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, culture, or ethnicity. This information is collected in other reports as well, but the Uniform Crime Report makes it easier to compare the data from past years to identify trends where a specific group might see more targeting.

5. It is the oldest reporting system currently available in the country.
The reason why the Uniform Crime Report is such a popular report to use is because it contains decades of data for reference. Since it is also run by the FBI, there is an added level of certainty available with the information because it comes from one of the top law enforcement agencies in the country. This structure gives the database opportunities to provide old-trend analysis while collecting from a broad range of information resources to ensure that the voluntary data is as accurate as possible.

6. It places the data into a usable format.
The Uniform Crime Report comes in two different forms. You can receive the raw data that you can then filter and sort by yourself to find specific information. It also comes with a report summary that makes the info easier to consume for the average person. That makes it easier to see what the historical perspective of crime is for communities or the country, making it possible to view how our population perceives this conduct differently over the years. You will receive a consistent local, regional, and national sample with the report so that various trends can be compared in each community even if the actual data points are not useful for that activity.

List of the Cons of the Uniform Crime Report

1. It is a system of reporting that relies on voluntary data.
Communities are not forced to report their information to the Uniform Crime Report each year. Although there are 18,000+ institutions which regularly provide data to the FBI, this information is not a complete picture of what is going on in our communities. Some institutions may not keep track of all of the different categories that the UCR covers as well, so the data does not always reflect the various trends which are present in the community. If the information from a report is complete, then this database is useful. Far too often, the info that one community reports can be very different from what another one offers.

2. It relies on crime discovery to be an accurate tool.
Some estimates suggest that up to 40% of the violent crime that occurs in the United States goes unreported each year. Some experts such as Steven Barkan suggest that as few as 3% of all criminal activity that happens in each community is discovered by a law enforcement official and noted in the data. That means the actual statistics on crime can be extensively higher than what the Uniform Crime Report suggests with its annual report. If you want to receive an accurate picture of what is happening in a community, then you may need to double some of the figures which are present.

3. It uses a system of hierarchy for reporting criminal activity.
The Uniform Crime Report often receives criticism for the way that it handles the statistics it receives from the community because it implements a hierarchy rule for multiple offenses. If the same person commits multiple crimes simultaneously, then the most significant crime is the only one that receives a statistical notation in the UCR.

Let’s use the example of a fatal carjacking incident. The individual charged with the incident might have several crimes charged to them during the arrest, ranging from traffic violations to the theft of the automobile to the murder of the driver. Under the structure of the Uniform Crime Report, only the homicide would receive a report. And then, if the suspect were to get in a shootout with officers and kill one of them, the incident with the official would receive a priority.

4. It does not include some crimes, even though they get reported.
The UCR does not include some data on rape because of the way the information in the report gets collected. For the Uniform Crime Report, the term “forcible rape” in past versions of the report only refers to an incident where a man forces himself onto a woman against her will. That means any rape incidents that are same-gender or an incident against a man do not count in this category. If they do receive inclusion in the report, then it may be as an aggravated assault at best. This disadvantage means that the data provided does not always accurately reflect what is happening in the community because the presence of definitions is lacking.

Although drug use is part of the Uniform Crime Report, this activity does not get reported as consistently as other criminal activities. Part of the reason for this issue is the lack of definition for this category. Since recreational marijuana laws permit usage in several states, what is legal in one community could be illegal in another.

5. It does not report data very quickly.
As of April 30, 2019, the information that is available for the Uniform Crime Report includes the first six months of 2018. This data can then be compared to that same period from the year before or any other previous year. There are times when it takes more than 12 months for the complete report to reach the public, which can make it challenging for the community to provide the necessary response to the criminal activities. An immediate response is impossible unless officials decide to use the data they’d send to the UCR for their own purposes at the same time.

6. It does not offer information about the criminals.
The Uniform Crime Report only provides information about the specific crimes that occur in a community based on its hierarchy rules. You do not receive any data about the individuals involved with the criminal conduct. Since only the highest crime is reported as well, you may receive an incomplete picture of what happens since some people commit multiple crimes of similar types frequently. It creates a system where the data can even be manipulated if the voluntary reporting purposely excludes some information.

7. It struggles to find reporting errors.
The Uniform Crime Report relies on the accuracy of the information that communities provide to it on a voluntary basis. If there are errors in the reported statistics, then the FBI has no way of knowing that this issue is present. That can make it challenging to uncover some key data points about criminal behavior, especially when the data omits certain crimes. If you were to only look at the Summary Reporting System, there are just eight crimes listed as Part I offenses. That makes it challenging to know from a law enforcement perspective what is happening in a community.

The pros and cons of the Uniform Crime Report are important to review because this tool is useful, but incomplete. It is challenging to compare data from different geographic regions in the United States because the voluntary reporting from each community might have different rules to follow. Think of this information as the first step toward determining what trends are shaping each community and the country as a whole since it can monitor several key data points at once.

Beam bridges are one of the simplest support structures that create a span over open space in use today. The stringer design incorporates a pier or abutment at each end with the deck resting on simple supports which travel across each side. Extended bridges using this design may use multiple piers to support the weight of the passenger traffic that occurs above.

The simplest designs in this bridge category use stone slaps, wooden planks, or even logs that go from one end of the span to the other. When engineers create a beam bridge using modern components, it will usually entail reinforced concrete and steel to create a sturdy foundation for the deck. Any concrete elements built into the bridge may be post-tensioned, pre-stressed, or reinforced. Plate girder, box girder, or a standard girder bridge design fits into this category.

Construction types include I-beams, trusses, or girders. Engineers can design them to be half-through or braced across the top to create a through bridge.

The Feiyunjiang Bridge in China is almost 10,000 feet long, over 100 feet wide, and it uses the simply supported structure of a beam bridge to create the necessary span.

List of the Advantages of Beam Bridges

1. It does not take long to build a beam bridge.
Since most beam bridges today are a combination of steel and reinforced concrete, a building project does not take long to complete. Shorter spans for heavy transportation needs can go up in about 6 months. If you prefer something more rustic, a simple tree across a stream can create a bridge in less than a day. Longer expanses like the Feiyunjiang Bridge can be finished in about 50% of the time required for more complex designs. If you need to have a continuous span available immediately, then this is the design to use.

2. No moments are transferred with the beam bridge design.
Thrust cannot be accommodated from the beam bridge design because there are no arches in place that work to transfer moments. That means engineers must incorporate innovative design elements to ensure that the span is safe and secure for continued use. That is why you will see designs with bow-string arches and lenticular trusses added to the structure to contain the horizontal forces that the bridge must endure.

3. Beam bridges are useful in almost any location.
Although you will find that some beam bridges work better than others because of their placement location, this design is useful in a variety of situations. It is the most common bridge used along highway networks because it can quickly and effectively provide enough support while offering room for traffic to flow beneath. You can find them in use with railroads, cycling trails, and more. If you encounter a bridge while walking along a nature path, there is an excellent chance that it follows this design. This proven versatility is why it is such a popular option for communities around the world.

4. You can use multiple types of material to build a beam bridge.
Most bridges that incorporate the beam design tend to use steel and reinforced concrete because it is an inexpensive combination. Some of the elements of the bridge can be made on-site, while pre-made components can be shipped to the construction location as needed too. You can use stone slabs to create a bridge like this if your support columns will support the weight. Wooden bridges use this design in natural settings to reduce the amount of labor needed to haul materials to the location. As long as the material is strong enough to support the weight of the expected traffic, then you can use it create this bridge.

5. There are multiple design options available for this bridge.
Most beam bridges use a side-by-side beam design that permits a deck to rest on top of the supports. You would have the piers, then the underneath supports, and then the deck. This placement works well with its simplicity to create a bridge that works almost anywhere. Designers can use H-beams, girders, or trusses to manage the horizontal stresses that the structure will encounter over time. Viaducts can even be used to support the span, such as the one in the Feiyunjiang Bridge example.

You can even build aggregate bridges that incorporate multiple segments over a span to build a useful addition to the transportation infrastructure. The Virginia Dare Memorial Bridge crosses the Croatan Sound between Roanoke Island and Manns Harbor in North Carolina. It uses 2,000 pilings and 88 concrete columns to span a 3/4-mile of wetlands, and then another segment crosses 4.5 miles over the sound. The actual deck uses 7,250 tons of epoxy-coated reinforcement steel, giving it an expected lifespan of 100 years.

6. The cost of a beam bridge is minimal for most communities.
Unless exotic materials are used in the composition of a beam bridge, it is one of the most affordable building options that is available today. Since you can cut down a tree for the cost of a saw or an ax to have to span a creek, this advantage can range from a few dollars for the simple to the $90 million expense spent on the Virginia Dare Memorial Bridge. When you need to connect one spot to another over a span of any type, this advantage tends to be why it is the first choice considered by most communities.

List of the Disadvantages of Beam Bridges

1. There are no built-in supports for beam bridges.
The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway is a fixed-link of two parallel bridges that cross the lake in southern Louisiana. The northern terminus of the structure is located in Mandeville, while the southern end is based in Metairie. Since 1969, this bridge (which is almost 24 miles long) has been listed as the longest continuous bridge over water in the world. The weight of the desk is supported by over 9,500 concrete pilings.

Although beam bridges can be built in such a way that they can support quite a lot of length, most of them are used for short spans because there are no built-in supports for the structure. Only the piers work to provide relief from the stresses that the passenger traffic creates. Most of them are 250 feet or less in total size.

2. Span limitations exist for beam bridges.
You can only cross a specific amount of space when using the beam bridge design since it requires ongoing pillar support. Although you can use natural materials and this option has a high resistance to bending forces, you will rarely find a single span of more than 250 feet with this option. You can go for an unlimited length if you use multiple spans together with thousands of pilings, but that work may not be feasible in communities that experience severe weather events frequently.

If you chain multiple beams to create a longer span, then you will increase the construction time of the project as well. The work will still go faster than other design options, but it is an advantage with severe restrictions as you contemplate a longer length.

3. Beam bridges can sometimes start to sag as they age.
The weakness of the beam bridge design is that it does not offer any weight transfer as traffic crosses on the top of the deck. If it should receive a weight that is consistent in its placement on a specific area of the bridge, then the support mechanisms can begin to buckle. The sagging continues to worsen unless maintenance interventions occur. That is why you will see some weight limits posted on small bridges in rural communities. A bridge could actually fail if it sees a reduction in support at the same time heavy vehicular traffic begins to pass on the overhead deck.

4. There is little aesthetic value to consider with a beam bridge.
The standard beam bridge looks a little like a table. You have the deck on top, the supports below, and piers that work to support the weight. Many of them stay low to the surface of the water on an extended span because of the stresses involved in such a placement. You will quickly discover that there is nothing architecturally fascinating about this design since it looks like any other roadway. If you want to create something distinctive that will become a landmark for the community, a different option other than this is more suitable.

5. The cost of steel often dictates any price advantages which may be present.
There are times when the construction of a beam bridge is more expensive than other options because of the presence of steel tariffs, import shortages, and other marketplace factors that raise the price of the construction material. Some communities may decide to wait on the final approval of a bridge since the variation in costs can be as high as 25% in some years. Since you need the strength of this metal to get the work done, you might find that the cost disadvantages of this project might outweigh the possible benefits.

6. Beam bridges can go through a significant amount of wear-and-tear in their lifetime.
Most beam bridges have an average lifespan of 50 years or less. Even when you use reinforced concrete and steel for the bridge, a span which receives heavy traffic might have a rated lifespan of just 25 years. If you create a simple bridge with natural materials for pedestrian traffic, you might receive 5-10 years of life. Ongoing maintenance can sometimes increase their usability, but the costs eventually start to add up.

Although it isn’t a beam bridge, the 1935 construction of the Deception Pass Bridge connected Whidbey Island, WA to Fidalgo Island across Pass Island. Almost 1,600 tons of steel were provided for the construction. When crews had to paint the bridge in 1983, it cost more to do that work than it did to build the bridge in the first place. Beam bridges encounter a similar circumstance.

7. Beam bridges do not offer a lot of flexibility.
The design of a beam bridge is meant to provide a safe deck to cross a span and nothing more. There are limited options available to engineers when there is a need to handle challenging atmospheric conditions at the placement site. If there are severe side winds that impact the structure consistently, then there is no protection for the traffic or the deck from this pressure. Your ongoing maintenance costs will become much higher in that situation because of the increased levels of wear-and-tear.

Flexibility is not part of the beam bridge design. Although there is an advantage in its rigidness, this issue may create some specific disadvantages at some geographic locations.

8. You can spend more on maintenance costs with beam bridges when compared to other designs.
Beam bridges are very affordable from an initial construction viewpoint. Boston has one of the most expensive roads in the world, paying $1 billion per mile to complete the construction. When Seattle began the recent update to the Alaskan Way Viaduct, the expense was over $180 million per mile. Using steel and concrete to form the structure can help to lessen the costs somewhat, but it is still more than $1 million per mile when bridges and roadway expenses come together. The cost-savings occur partially due to the fact almost all overpass bridges over a highway are beam bridges.

9. The width of the deck span is limited with a beam bridge.
Most beam bridges will support two lanes of traffic because of its size and strength limitations. That is why the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway is technically two bridges that run parallel to one another. The design is mean to hold a specific amount of traffic weight and nothing more. If you need to support four lanes of traffic, you’ll still see the double bridge design used for overpasses. The only difference is that the unit is placed side-by-side instead of running next to one another.

Although it is still cheaper to build two beam bridges than one long span of a different design that can support an equal amount of weight, there are more size and placement considerations to evaluate when choosing the beam bridge option.

10. There are limited placement options available for beam bridges.
Most beam bridges cover short spans because that limits the number of piers, pilings, and supports that are necessary to support the structure. Most of them will cross small navigable waterways, highways, or natural obstacles. Construction projects like the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway are more of the exception than the rule. Because there is no flexibility for the traffic which passes beneath the bridge, this design is typically reserved for longer spans over water where minimal boat traffic is necessary.

Your only other option is to build a steep bridge with a rigid frame like the Eshima Ohashi Bridge that connects Matsue and Sakaiminato over Nakaumi Lake in Japan.

Conclusion of the Pros and Cons of Beam Bridges

One of the most common bridge designs in the United States is called the Cortez Bridge. It is a produce offered by U.S. Bridge, who has AISC certification as an advanced bridge fabricator. It is a beam bridge that can be used with asphalt and concrete, offering a simple span that supports a concrete deck slab and stay-in-place forms. It also works with a plank and asphalt system. It is available in custom lengths of up to 80 feet and comes with painted, galvanized, or self-weathering finishes.

Beam bridges have come a long way in their design options over the years, but the primary elements of this concept remain the same. As long as you have a sturdy support system in place that allows traffic to pass by on an overhead deck, then you can create a span that will cross challenging terrain or long distances over water.

This design is easy to maintain and affordable to install, but the pros and cons of beam bridges also suggest that there are challenges to face with this design as well. By taking the time to work with your contractor to determine which type of bridge is best for your community, you’ll find it is easier to build a structure that can support the needs of everyone whenever there is a need to travel somewhere by car, bicycle, or foot.

A unitary government is a state which is governed under a single central governing structure which treats itself as being the final say in every decision. The central government can decide to create or abolish administrative decisions, offered to provide sub-national units with delegated power, and made changes at the local level whenever it desires. It is the most common form of governing in the world today, with 165 of 193 UN member states having a unitary system of government.

The contrast with a federal state is this: whereas the federal state sees the national government as being an equal actor with the other levels of required governing (local, county, and state/provincial), the unitary government sees itself as being superior. It is possible to have a unitary republic or monarchy while using this structure.

Two of the best examples of this form of government are found in the United Kingdom and France. The UK is technically a constitutional monarchy, but it functions as a unitary state because all political power is held by Parliament. The other countries in this confederation have their own governments, but they cannot enact laws that would impact any other part of the UK. In France, the central government exercises total control over all of the local political subdivisions.

Even though it is the most common form of governing found in the world today, there are still several pros and cons of a unitary government to consider.

List of the Pros of a Unitary Government

1. It creates less confusion over the governing process for the average citizen.
In the United States, the average person is subject to the laws of four different co-equal governing bodies simultaneously. If you decide to travel to a different town in a neighboring county, then you’re still subject to your own local laws in some situations, while also being required to follow what is expected in that other community. You’re also bound by the different state laws – if you buy legal recreational marijuana in Washington State, you can’t take it to a location where it is illegal to have it in your possession.

The advantage of the unitary government is that this confusion disappears. Instead of having multiple layers of bureaucracy to navigate, you have a clear set of expectations to follow. That may provide some inconvenience at times, but it can also reduce the risk of an unknown violation of the law.

2. This government structure can respond quickly to emergency situations.
The structure of the unitary government means that every decision is made by the central governing body. This process saves time during an emergency situation because there are not multiple layers of bureaucracy to navigate so that resources can get to where they need to go. Whenever an unexpected situation arises, whether it is from a natural disaster or a declaration of war, the government can respond with better accuracy and more speed domestically or overseas because one decision instead of four or more needs to be made.

3. Unitary governments are usually cheaper to run.
Because you are not contending with multiple layers of bureaucracy under the unitary style, there are fewer administrative costs to manage with this centralized government. It provides a smaller structure to the overall state of the nation, potentially reducing the tax burden on households without creating a reduction in the access to services that they require. This efficiency makes it possible to create stronger safety nets for those who are out of work for an extended time or have disabilities which keep them out of the labor force.

4. It is a smaller form of government.
Local services are still a priority for a unitary form of government. The only difference is how communities are able to access this resource. Instead of working with local governing officials, the centralized state will send a delegate to oversee the needs of each community. That is how France structures it’s form of government.

There are almost 1,000 local political subdivisions that they call “Departments” in the country. Each one is headed by and administrative prefect who was appointed into the position from the central government. Each regional department exists to implement the directives that the central government issues on a regular basis.

5. There is less complexity in the legal system of a unitary government.
In the United States, the constitution specifically reserved some of the powers of governing to the federal government. Other powers are then granted to the collective states, while a handful of responsibilities are shared by both. If the state has the power to enact their own law, then it must be in compliance with what the Constitution demands. The distribution of power is often a source of debate because disputes over the rights of each state can arise, requiring the judicial system to step in to sour things out. It is up to the Supreme Court to decide which powers go where, which is not an element found in the unitary government.

6. A unitary system of governing can replicate federated states.
Although the unitary government is centralized and makes decisions through authoritarian processes more often than not, this structure can be designed in such a way that it replicates the style of a federated state. Instead of a local government, a unitary system will place a delegate, ambassador, or someone in a similar position to administer local resources. People can speak to the officials at their local office to voice their concerns about local matters. Then the state representatives can communicate these issues to the governing body to ensure that enough attention is given to the problem.

7. Unitarian governments work to create a system of unity.
The whole purpose of a correctly-structure unitary government is to create common ground. Instead of dividing a person’s loyalties between the state and the national government, everyone is placed in a position where they work to support one another. There are no overlapping districts, issues with gerrymandering, or political polarization because everything operates through the central system. Even when there are multiple elections held each year to sort out national representation, the results are a direct reflection of the diversity found in society. Working with a federate system, especially one with only two parties, creates more of a system of compromise instead.

List of the Cons of a Unitary Government

1. A unitary government can be lacking in infrastructure.
Although it is possible for a unitary government to make decisions quickly, the structure can lack in the infrastructure it needs to implement the choices it makes. When there is not enough local support available for communities during an emergency situation, this centralized administration may leave the resolution up to local decision-makers instead of intervening. Since this delegation may not include the power to make needed changes to protect people, the absence of an independent local government can sometimes cause more harm than good.

2. It is a structure that can ignore local needs.
The benefit of having a government at the local, county, and state level is that it can concentrate on local needs without interfering on the national level. The federal government in the United States worries about providing defense, managing transportation networks, and providing resources for those who lack socioeconomic access. Local governments can then focus on their micro-economy, create solutions for needs that occur in their community, and support the national government with their actions simultaneously.

Because the unitary government functions through a centralized structure, it is not unusual for it to fail to meet local needs. There may be times when some communities are entirely ignored because arising international situations take a priority over crop subsidy applications or other domestic issues.

3. This governing structure can encourage an abuse of power.
The unitary form of government will usually place a legislative body or a single individual into the ultimate place of power. These people or governing agencies will hold almost every decision-making responsibility once they are put into office. When we take a look back through the stories of history, the pages are quick to show that when power is held by only a few or just one, then it is abused far too easily.

This disadvantage is the precise reason why the United States created a federated state instead. Instead of having one form of centralized power, there is a complete system of checks and balances to use that provide more equality in the governing process.

4. Manipulation can occur quite easily in a unitary government.
Although a unitary government can improve efficiencies because there is a lack of bureaucracy, the structure also makes it possible for individuals in the government to manipulate the system. When someone in power decides to pursue more wealth or governing opportunities for themselves, then there are very few ways to stop that activity. By creating a system which offers a chance to manipulate the system for personal needs, the majority of the population must pay for the boost in power and wealth that one person receives.

5. It is a governing structure that will protect the central body first.
Because the goal of a government is self-preservation, the various “arms” that work at the local level are usually the first resources cut when they’re in budgetary issues. The needs of at the national level will always outweigh what local needs are with this government. That means the decisions it makes are typically based on its own survival first instead of taking the interests of the population under consideration. In severe circumstances, it can even lead to local communities becoming ungoverned with a lack of resource access, even though they are still expected to pledge support to the government who isn’t supporting them.

6. Many unitary governments do not allow areas of any autonomy.
When there is a unitary government which offers no degree of autonomy to the areas under its control, then the sub-national regions are not allowed to decide their own laws at any time. Examples of this form of governing are currently found in Norway, Ireland, and Romania. Even where the government permits the presence of sub-national governments in this structure, there is not a sharing of power. Their right to existence is at the leisure of the overall government, and the authority of these divisions can change at any time.

7. The purpose of the unitary government is to have the few control the many.
People are just as patriotic under a unitary system of government as they are with a federal system. The disadvantage of the centralized state is that there are fewer opportunities to get involved with the legislative process. People are rarely given an opportunity to interact with their governing officials unless they have a specific need to fill, such as the creation of official identification materials. If there is a shift in policy that takes rights away from select groups of people, there might not be anything that the general population can do to stop that process from happening.

8. It can also have a slower national response in localized emergencies.
The decision-making process of a unitary government may be fast, but the design of their resources means that the response can be very slow. Every authorization for assistance must come through the centralized government. That means there are times when there is more bureaucracy to navigate instead of less since a federated state could immediate dispatch assistance, like how a governor can send out the National Guard to provide support.

9. Unitary governments can run into a lot of bloating.
If a government switches from a federated system to this one, the benefits often shine brightly at first. It feels like everything begins to move at a more rapid pace. Then the bloating begins to happen in the government. Because it must suddenly become everything to everyone, the processes can get significantly bogged down. The bureaucracy increases because every authorization requires a review from a central official. That can mean it will take even more time to get things done, even if everyone is in agreement that a legislative change is necessary.

10. This structure can artificially shape the discussions of society.
A unitary government can decide at its leisure what is legal or illegal in society. If someone with enough power decides that their political opponents are a threat, then they can pass laws which allow them to be imprisoned for what they have done. The majority typically rules at the expense of the minority in this situation, only granting rights to people when it suits their best interests. This process artificially shapes what happens in society because blogs, social media, and even face-to-face conversations might be monitored to see if something “harmful” to the government is said.

Conclusion of the Unitary Government Pros and Cons

A unitary government is the most common form of governing found on our planet today. There are several advantages to consider with this process which occur mostly due to the simplicity and cost-effectiveness of this structure. Instead of following multiple laws simultaneously, the general population is asked to follow one specific set of regulations instead. This process limits confusion and bureaucracy.

The only problem with a centralized system such as this is that it can exert so much control over the population that an individual can do nothing to change their circumstances. A unitary government can work to control every aspect of life for the people it governs. That includes how the financial markets work, what rights people have with their daily interactions, and who receives the majority of the monetary benefits in society.

The pros and cons of a unitary government work to balance the needs of a nation with what a community requires for dialing living. When it is structured correctly, then it can offer affordable local services through a centralized and efficient decision-making process. It can also become the foundation for some of the most oppressive societies that our planet has ever seen.

The democratic leadership style is a method that includes participative leadership and sharing in the responsibilities in a team environment. Although it is most often seen in the workplace, you can spot parents using this style with their children, coaches incorporating it with their teams, and teachers using it in the classroom. The goal of using this method is to encourage everyone to have more of a participative role when there are decisions that need to be made.

Any organization, public or private, can decide to make the democratic leadership style a top priority within their executive team. This process typically focuses on group equality to encourage a free flow of ideas and information, but the leader is not exempt from their role as a mentor, providing control and guidance throughout the process. Some groups allow everyone to have a say in the process, while others allow the manager to determine who gets to be in the group and who has a voice.

The democratic leadership style is one of the most effective methods that anyone in an executive position can use. It often leads to higher levels of productivity, more contributions from the group, and better morale because everyone feels like they have some level of ownership over what they’re being asked to do each day.

List of the Advantages of the Democratic Leadership Style

1. This leadership style connects people to their work.
When employees feel like they have a connection to their team and employer, then they are more inclined to be happy and productive. Improvements of up to 25% are possible by creating more engagement through the democratic process. When the entire team buys into the solution that they’re working toward, then they have 28% less internal theft and another 20% boost in production. Workers who feel like they are engaged are then 27% more likely to report that they perform with excellence.

2. It works to promote the free flow of ideas.
Democratic leaders care about getting their team involved with the problem-solving process. They want their direct reports to feel like there is a benefit to earn when they contribute their knowledge and experience to an outcome. It provides opportunities for the manager to seek out opinions from others while encouraging each person to make an informed, empowered decision about what can become possible. Because there is more input available when using this structure, then the ideas and information flow better and become more usable for each person.

3. This structure encourages trust and respect throughout the team.
Workers must be in an environment where they feel comfortable sharing an idea with their supervisor. The democratic leadership style gives each team member the knowledge that their opinions will be given serious consideration, even if the idea presented does not become part of the solution. Sustainable relationship-building work is the only way to create this internal environment.

Democratic leaders must move beyond productivity and performance to create relationships that have meaning personally and professionally. It is this advantage which sets them apart from the autocratic or transactional leaders that are working out there today. A democratic leader wants to see the person succeed in addition to the project.

4. Democratic leaders place more of an emphasis on values and morality.
The belief system of the democratic leader will become the foundation of what the entire team decides as their identity. The people who use this style must believe that every person on their team has a fundamental right to be heard. These managers must facilitate interactions with everyone, even those who are reluctant to join, because it provides for the greater good of the entire group. That’s why you will see this philosophy in action with almost every executive leadership team in the corporate world. By soliciting more advice, it becomes easier to make decisions that are ethically and morally correct with greater regularity.

5. Leaders who use this style are seen as being more competent.
When you are a leader in any definition of the word, it becomes a challenge to remain in that position if your ideas are thrown away consistently. Trying to keep everything straight can be an immense challenge. There must be more competency in the role of an executive, manager, or team leader for the opinions, experience, or advice to become useful. These leaders must also have a natural intelligence in how they approach or utilize ideas from their team.

You must have a balance in the inclusion of a free-flowing conversation with control over the direction of its topics. If the leader doesn’t take charge of the discussion, then the group can become distracted and start talking about topics that have no meaning on the current problems which require a resolution.

6. It takes an open and honest mind to be a democratic leader.
Democratic leaders must keep an open mind when they find themselves in a management situation because there will be dissenting opinions almost all of the time. The managers and executives might even find themselves at odds with what the rest of their team wants to do. There is always a time and place where those in charge will listen and take alternative ideas into account because there might be some words of wisdom to glean from that feedback. Failing to implement this advantage indicates that the person in a leadership role is not ready to manage using democratic principles.

7. Democratic leaders receive a more diverse set of ideas.
Democratic leaders do more than make decisions based off of their personal experiences or education. They must include a diverse set of ideas that come from the team members who are around them each day. This feedback becomes a valuable source of input because the people who are working on the front lines often see internal information in a different way. Direct reports usually have a better grasp on the decisions that must be made to help an organization is clientele more than the senior leadership team. By asking these people their thoughts, opinions, or observations, it becomes possible to make a better decision because there were more team members involved in the outcome.

8. It allows teams to develop more strength.
Because the democratic leadership style encourages teams to work together through discussion to find the best possible decision, it is more likely than not that a strong team unit will begin forming. Workers typically understand the importance of being a team player with regards to the implementation of the mission and vision of the organization. There is a natural respect for the ideas and thoughts of their co-workers, even in disagreement, because the different perspectives allow everyone to reach their goals with greater simplicity.

This advantage makes it possible for the individual relationships on the team to experience an increase in admiration and trust, which then enhances all of the other benefits that come with the democratic style.

9. This leadership style can create a robust vision for the future.
There will always be people who disagree with the group decision that is made when using the democratic leadership style. An entire team might decide that they should move in a different direction than the course of action that was decided upon by their supervisor. Instead of offering feedback that suggests one idea is superior to another, this method of making decisions encourages team members to discuss the pros and cons of each idea to ensure that the best possible outcomes occur every single time.

10. It increases the amount of knowledge that is available to the team.
Diverse ideas do more than build a firm foundation for the corporate choices that must be made. These discussions also help people to expand their knowledge in a variety of ways. Different people bring their unique skills and experiences so that everyone contributes their personal perspectives. This process allows each team member to work on their unique strengths to support the overall mission of the organization. It is an advantage which often provides an outcome where more competencies develop over time for everyone involved.

List of the Disadvantages of the Democratic Leadership Style

1. The democratic leadership style requires extra time to implement a decision.
Democratic leaders can quickly increase the levels of morale other team by soliciting ideas, opinions, or advice from each team member. The only problem with this approach is that you can take a significant amount of time to complete. Because there are a large number of direct reports involved in the decision-making process, it takes more resources to reach the correct choice. If this process is inefficient, then it can hinder productivity and reduce the pace of the workflow. This disadvantage can often leave employees feeling more frustrated about their team compared to having a leader make decisions immediately.

2. This leadership style in ineffective during crisis situations.
The democratic leadership style works exceptionally well when there is enough time to develop an informational database from an entire team of direct reports. If an organization is facing an emergency situation, then the time it takes to solicit feedback from each worker becomes a hindrance because it increases the delay of resource implementation. Even leaders who are tasked with making an immediate choice in the situation may feel uncomfortable doing so because they are so used to involving the input of their team or fellow managers.

3. This method relies on the expertise of the team to be useful.
Most managers and executives get into their leadership position because they have the capability to make a final decision when it becomes necessary to do so. Their experiences in the industry in which they work allows them to steer their direct reports in the correct direction for each project. When supervisors decide to implement the democratic leadership style, then there is a direct reliance on the experience of each team member. Even when the emphasis is on hearing every possible voice, there is no guarantee that the employees will have the necessary experience to provide meaningful feedback.

4. The emphasis of the leadership style can take a priority.
The democratic leadership style can sometimes cause managers to solicit as many opinions as possible when a decision must be made even though they already have their mind set on a specific course of action. When the emphasis of the leader’s activities is to hear has many voices as possible instead of listening to the opinions or advice they receive, then there is no point to this process. This disadvantage can lead executives to make a poorly informed choice that doesn’t solve the problem at hand because they are blinded by their own misguided self-confidence.

5. Democratic leaders must often deal with rejection.
There are two layers to this disadvantage that must be taken under consideration when thinking about the democratic leadership style.

• Anyone on the team who offers an opinion that is disregarded by the leader for the final decision will experience the negative emotions that come from that rejection.
• Leaders who have their mind set on having an idea implement it one way, but then their team overrules that concept with a different approach, will need to manage the rejection that they experience from their direct reports.

Whenever someone asks another person for their opinion, then there is an expectation that the concepts shared through that discussion will be implemented in some manner. There will be times when a democratic leader must make a challenging decision about which approach to use, and how they will inform their direct reports about which ideas were excepted and the ones that were rejected. Intense feelings often come from this interaction.

6. This leadership style can sometimes encourage workplace procrastination.
When a leader finds themselves in a position where decision must be made, then a heavy reliance on their team members can lead to a position of procrastination. There are times when a choice must be made immediately, but a desire to avoid conflict or confrontation might cause a different outcome. Even when a decision doesn’t need to be made immediately, and the leaders who use the style might decide to wait to see if they can receive a better idea than the ones that they have available to them at the moment.

7. It is very rare for a team to reach a consensus decision.
Democratic leaders who decide to wait for a consensus when pushing forward with the decision may find themselves waiting forever. Unless you are working with a very small team, reaching a true consensus can be virtually impossible. Because everyone has an opportunity to share their experiences, voice their opinions, or offer a perspective they learned through their education, the time it takes to reach a final decision can become a liability. Having discussions that creates uniformity with the team could cause lower levels of productivity instead of inspiring additional work.

8. There is always an element of uncertainty when using the Democratic leadership style.
Every team has a set of unique personalities that can encourage some members to share ideas readily and others to avoid speaking at all. People who are uncomfortable with the idea of discussing a critical decision with their supervisor are more prone to stay quiet during a brainstorming period even if they have a great idea. There can be apprehension involved with this environment because someone’s ideas may have been rejected multiple times without any positive feedback in return. Sometimes leaders only use this method sporadically, so their direct reports never know when they’ll be called upon to offer an idea.

When there is no consistency in the application of the democratic leadership style, then the employees will begin to lose confidence in their leader. The executive team might lose control of their policies. You might even see a complete abandonment of effort by the front-line workers.

9. This leadership style does not always come with a clear definition.
Managers to use the democratic leadership style often define themselves by their own conduct instead of using the team concept. It is not unusual for the direct reports of a supervisor to define themselves as a team based off of the decisions and conduct that they see in their immediate leadership. Trying to measure the responses our outcomes that are generated from the group discussions and free flow of information can be challenging because they’re not always clear definitions for creative answers. It is necessary to start this process with a firm structure to ensure this disadvantage is avoided at all costs.

10. Some leaders do not know how to correctly use this technique.
Some executives struggle with the democratic leadership style because they are so used to making decisions by themselves. Team members can find the structures of this option challenging because they are so used to being told what to do. Many direct reports already feel like they do more of the important work for the organization and then their direct manager, so there can be feelings of discontent already in place. If the manager always uses one person’s ideas without giving that individual recognition, then there can be problems with insubordination, higher levels of employee turnover, or a refusal to participate in the decision-making processes of the future.

11. The democratic style encourages no one to take responsibility for a bad idea.
Because everyone is involved in the decision making process with the democratic leadership style, then it encourages not want to take responsibility should a failure occur. There will always be a lot of blame to pass around when something unexpected happens, but the structure doesn’t start with the person who offered the suggestion that didn’t work. Because everyone from the executive team to leadership to the frontline workers can have a say in the process, an organization can find itself struggling to survive because no one steps up to fix the situation.

12. Democratic leaders must know how to request information from others.
Feedback is only beneficial when using this leadership style if there is an authenticity to it. Leaders must have a specific level of confidence in themselves so that they can solicit information from their direct reports to ensure that the advantages of diversity are present in whatever solution that occurs. People who do not have the necessary education or needed skills will be less likely to provide a creative solution that could produce meaningful results – and this disadvantage applies to the entire chain of command in an organization. Unless there is wisdom present in the democratic discussions, then positive outcomes become exceptionally rare to find.

Conclusion of the Advantages and Disadvantages of the Democratic Leadership Style

One of the best practices to follow when implementing the democratic leadership style is to keep a record of every idea that a team suggests. It is almost impossible to utilize every approach or idea that could be suggested during a brainstorming session. By keeping track of each idea in some way, executives can keep track of possible solutions that could be useful in future situations.

There will always be people who are not excited about the idea of a long, drawn out process to make a decision. Sometimes workers benefit from immediate feedback instead of waiting for their annual review. Organization succeed more often when there are specific issues that can bypass this leadership style so that emergency situations can reach a quicker resolution. Simple problems and common issues should be noted as such to make the decision-making process faster.

The advantages and disadvantages of the democratic leadership style promote productivity, encourage each employee to have a voice in the problem-solving process, and encourage individual creativity. By creating an environment which focuses upon diversity, companies can create strong teams with high morale that can drive innovation forward. Because this style is more of a skill than a talent, it is up to the hiring managers of each organization to pick out the people that they believe will make the most significant impact today, tomorrow, and into the future.

Universal health care is a concept which suggests that everyone deserves the right to seek help with a medical situation whenever it occurs. There should not be any fear of cost for the services offered because coverage is already provided to each person through taxpayer funding and other monetary allocations to offer help for annual checkups, vaccinations, and pre-existing conditions.

The United States is the only country of its type at its level of development to not offer complete universal access to health care services to everyone. If your income levels are low enough, then your family can qualify for Medicaid. When you reach a specific age, then you can tap into Medicare coverage. Everyone else is forced to look for insurance on the private market, as a benefit from their employer, or through the exchanges that were originally set up by the federal government through the Affordable Care Act.

Cost is the primary issue to consider with universal health care, but there can be quality concerns to look at as well with this issue. American society also faces expense issues in an approach that is distinctly not universal, so there are several advantages and disadvantages to consider here.

List of the Pros of Universal Health Care

1. The economic cost of universal health care is less than free-market systems.
When there is a universal health care system in place on a national level, then the administrators of that plan can leverage the size of their coverage pool to limit the cost of doctor visits, prescription medication, and specialist services. More people equate to an improved pricing structure that is based on the value of care given instead of the total number of services offered to a patient.

Some doctors, nurses, and other industry providers earn a lower salary with their work in the universal health care industry, but patients receive similar care without spending as much. Some medications in a universal system cost less than $10, but Americans pay over $2,000 for them because of the differences in health care.

2. It reduces the administrative costs of health care access.
Administration costs are built into the services that doctors, nurses, and specialists provide for patients with each visit. As a patient, you are dealing with multiple levels of paperwork expense, starting with the doctor’s prescription and ending with the insurance company’s evaluation of the bill. When there is a universal system in place, then everything becomes centralized to reduce the need to transfer the same information between different agencies. When there is only one bill to pay, the costs for everyone go down eventually.

“In the United States, providers charge whatever they think they can get away with, and they can get away with a lot, because it’s really difficult to put a price on not dying,” notes educator and author John Green.

3. Universal health care removes the need to be competitive for money.
Competition might be healthy in most free market systems, but it is not always that way in the world of health care. Because funding is the top priority, medical providers target the wealthiest consumers in each community to become their patients. Then doctors have the motivation to provide as many services as possible because that is how they can earn their revenues.

Universal systems tend to focus on the quality of care received first. Instead of pricing products and services outside of what the average person can afford, profits are set aside for the purpose of provide care as a right. That doesn’t mean you won’t pay each month for the care you receive, but it does mean that you’ll still receive help even if you can’t pay for it.

4. It takes the third parties out of the conversation about patient care.
There are insurance companies in the United States right now which must approve a medical service before a provider offers the care that their doctor recommends. This issue usually appears when there is a specialized need in the diagnostic process, such as a CAT scan or an MRI to confirm a diagnosis. When there is a system of universal care in place to follow, then the doctor becomes the primary administrator of the treatment plan instead.

The American system does allow for a patient to request a second opinion or demand to receive services outside of their insurance approvals, but that can also mean they will be responsible for entire cost of their care. Universal care removes this problem altogether. “Disease, sickness, and old age touch every family,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren. “Tragedy doesn’t ask who you voted for. Health care is a basic human right.”

5. Universal care also helps children to receive the care that they need.
The United States offers Medicaid to low-income families as a way to ensure that children can receive the medical attention they require. This program is a form of universal care that is available to those who qualify for it. When kids fall outside of this situation, then their access to care can go down. We define our future success or failure as a society based on the health of our next generation. If we can reduce the issues we have with chronic health concerns, weight gain, and education access, then crime levels go down, graduation rates rise, and there are fewer chronic disease costs to pay.

Although there are higher costs to pay from a taxation perspective in America to transition to a system of universal health care, the private insurance costs would get smaller. Considering the average family already pays $12,000 per year in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses and employers pay double that, there is an excellent chance that there are some savings to find.

6. It would raise the levels of health care in the labor force.
Nearly 50% of patients in the United States went to the emergency room to receive medical services because they could not afford to go anywhere else for care – despite their participation in the labor force. Emergency rooms are one of the few places where care cannot be declined, even if someone does not have the ability to pay. Universal health care extends this principle to every provider. By focusing on preventative care, having more tools to react to a health issue, and encouraging people to visit when they feel ill, we can raise productivity levels because there are fewer sick days needed.

7. It provides access to health care instead of allowing access to it.
“Having access to health care does not mean that they are guaranteed health care,” said Senator Bernie Sanders. “I have access to buying a $10 million home. I don’t have the money to do that.”

When a society has access to universal care, then it becomes more affordable to go to the doctor. Having access by itself is not enough, which is what the free-market systems suggest. African-American women die more frequently from heart disease issues in the United States because they don’t have the level of access to the medical care systems in each community. Universal care would help to solve that problem.

8. You are still paying for your health care in a universal system.
The average Canadian pays about 30% of their total health costs, while the provincial plans pay about 70%. Medical equipment, skilled nursing care, social work outside of the hospital, and some other services are not covered by the basic universal plan. You would need to access these items through a private insurer, which is usually available through an employer. The idea that you receive care for free is an idea that comes from the fee-for-service industry in the United States.

You are paying for your care through government-based policies like Medicare and tax support. Instead of paying again after you visit the doctor, your medical costs are covered if you meet the criteria in place.

9. It places health care as a responsibility for each community.
Because everyone has a stake in the costs of health care with a universal system, there is a societal desire for wellness. You will find structures in cities that encourage walking and cycling instead of driving. There are programs that encourage fitness at work. It becomes part of your responsibility to take care of yourself because visiting the doctor is an expense that you and everyone else is financing. Instead of taking that approach from a family-based perspective, this approach to health care includes everyone – no matter how much they actually pay into the system.

List of the Cons of Universal Health Care

1. It could reduce the quality of the care that some people receive.
Doctors tend to prefer universal health care over private-pay systems because it allows them to help people who might normally never visit them. When you have one medical provider available for 1,000 people, then there isn’t enough time in the day to take care of every need that someone might have. Because everyone has the right to visit the doctor for basic needs, the schedule can become overwhelming very quickly.

As doctors rush through each appointment to help as many people as possible, the overall quality of the care that they can give goes down. When you multiply this issue across an entire country, then there is the potential to have worse care offered instead of better. “Just last month [January 2018], the British Medical Journal reported a surge in rationing for various treatments, including… arthritis medication,” wrote Sally Pipes in Forbes.

2. Universal care can require a long wait time to see specialists.
Because everyone can visit the doctor whenever they choose, a lack of specialists in a community can result in a lengthy wait time to see someone for a health problem. It is not unusual for patients who cannot afford private care to wait at least 10 months to see someone about a non-life-threatening issue. Canada, which offers both private and public systems, has seen wait times above 40 weeks in some rural province areas. That means some patients are asked to live with their condition for quite some time before they can eventually get the relief they deserve.

Universal care prioritizes an emergency need. If your health requires a surgery in 30 minutes to survive, then you receive that care. When your hip goes out and a replacement becomes necessary, that is when the wait times can get long.

3. Doctors receive a limited payout with universal health care.
Many doctors decide to decline taking Medicaid or Medicare patients because of the long wait times they endure for compensation. Some decide to limit the number they receive because of this issue. Although there are systems when immediate weekly compensation occurs, most universal systems struggle to offer compensation in a timely fashion. Labor is the most significant expense in health care for most patients, so restructuring those costs becomes a top priority for the state or provincial-based administrators.

The starting salary for a junior doctor in the United Kingdom is about $33,000, which is 17% below the average income for the country. A subway operator earns double the salary of a medical professional without the need to work 100 hours per week. Even a general practitioner in the UK earns about 50% of what they do in the United States.

4. It limits the accuracy of a diagnosis for a patient.
If doctors are working 100 hours per week to support their community, then their fatigue leads to a higher risk of experiencing an inaccurate diagnosis. Diagnostic errors are common in all countries, but it can be significantly higher in areas where universal care is the standard offered to the general population.

Very Well Health says that there are six specific red flags you should consider in any situation that suggest you may have experienced a diagnostic error.

• Your institution tells you that there is something wrong.
• Your doctor isn’t listening to you during the interview portion of the appointment.
• Information searches suggest a different diagnosis is possible.
• The response to any issue you have is to provide you with a prescription.
• You have health issues which are not getting any better.
• More attempts to speak with your doctor provide discouraging results.

5. Some people may stop being careful about their approach to good health.
One of the fears that exists with a universal health care system is that some people may no longer decide that healthy choices should be a priority. There would be no financial incentive to set fitness or wellness goals because anyone could access the basic care they require for free. The only way to offset is this disadvantage is to take the approach that many Canadians have, where there is a societal stigma against poor personal care since that creates a higher financial burden on everyone else.

6. There is less funding and incentive available to develop new technologies.
The vast majority of the medical advancements which occur in the world today either come from the American free-market system of care or receive funding from it. This outcome is possible because of the innovative culture that is in place in the United States. Over 50% of the world’s new medicines from 2002-2011 came from the U.S. system of care. There are 12 of the top 20 medical device companies in the world headquartered in America, with over 3,000 new pharmaceutical products in development. It is an industry which contributes over $200 billion to the economy.

If the U.S. were to transition to a universal health care system, then some of these benefits would go away. It could even be argued that the reason why other countries can have their systems is because of the culture of innovation which is only available right now in the United States.

7. It changes the spending patterns of the government.
Universal systems can be held at the state, provincial, or national level. Canadians spend as much as 40% of the annual government budget on this expense. Unless there are experienced politicians who can manage this spending wisely, universal care systems can find themselves in debt rather quickly. When this outcome occurs, then there are usually fewer services offered to patients or each person is asked to pay more into the system.

When one looks at the history of spending in the United States, the mismanagement of the Social Security program and the amount of debt its owned from other federal budget lines is astounding. There is no reason to believe that the treatment of health care spending would take a different path.

8. There may be multiple systems to navigate with universal care.
Universal care typically provides basic services. That means a hospital stay doesn’t give you a private room to use. Dental care might not be part of the package. You may need to pay for a portion of your prescription medication if a generic option is not available for you. There are also private-pay systems, health insurance, and additional costs to navigate, creating a complex system that can sometimes increase the expenses that patients pay. Government-run programs do not have the same approach to efficiency as private opportunities, which is why many systems incorporate some elements of private care into them.

9. It can limit services to the people who need them the most.
An excellent example of this problem is found in the Medicare expense profile in the United States. About $0.25 out of every dollar is spent to provide care for the people who are within their last six years of life. Palliative care is a significant expense that these programs absorb. That is why you are finding more programs around the world privatizing this aspect of care in some way. When you are in a universal system, then administrators (not doctors) can still choose which services to cover and which receive exclusion. That means there is no guarantee that you will receive your promised care.

Verdict on the Pros and Cons of Universal Health Care

Universal health care is the standard for developed countries around the world because the goal is to offer access to everyone who might need it. The free-market systems of the United States do provide some advantages in the ability to access care at any level without requiring permission first, but it does not come without a cost. That is why the U.S. spends up to 18% of it GDP on health care expenses when everyone else is spending 10% or less.

The provision of universal care occurs in a mixed economy, which is something the United States already has. Medicaid and Medicare are already different types of this coverage which millions of people use each year. Extending this benefit to everyone would help the U.S. join up with what the rest of the world is already doing.

These universal health care pros and cons do not suggest that this system is easy to navigate or implement. What it does do is offer more access to local medical providers for those who want or need it. That is why about 56% doctors in the United States support government-sponsored care at some level.

Vending machines sell consumer items that are grab-and-go by design to provide instant relief from a specific point. They are usually filled with snacks and sugary beverages, but this business opportunity can sell water, sandwiches, yogurt, muffins, and even fruits and vegetables. When these machines are placed in schools, then the goal is to fill them with healthy items since junk foods can have a detrimental impact on how kids learn.

There is an element of personal responsibility to consider with vending machines at schools, but we must also consider the maturity levels of the students who spend their money with these businesses. When there is a choice between celery or a candy bar, most students will choose the unhealthy option. Instead of choosing water, a soda becomes the preferred choice instead.

It is helpful to have food and beverage options throughout the day, but the pros and cons of having vending machines in schools can also create health issues that may reduce the learning opportunities which are available each day.

List of the Pros of Vending Machines in Schools

1. Vending machines can be used to offer healthy foods.
The traditional vending machine might offer gum, candy bars, potato chips, cookies, and other high-calorie snacks which offer low nutritional value. When schools use this technology to provide nutritious foods like string cheese, carrots with low-fat dips, dried fruit products, milk, yogurt, or veggie fries, then the healthier foods can improve the learning environment for each student.

You really are what you eat when looking at your health profile. Using vending machines to teach better eating decisions can help students feel like they are taking charge of their health. “Increasing the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables as snacks in schools will go a long way toward creating a healthy school food environment and improvement nutrition for 32 million school children,” said Dr. Lorelei DiSogra, VP of Nutrition and Health of the United Fresh Product Association.

2. It allows a student to manage their snacking habits.
Eating poor-quality foods each day can contribute to a lack of learning opportunities, but so can the presence of hunger. If a student is focused more on the fact that their stomach is grumbling than the information in the classroom, then their grades will go down over time. The presence of vending machines in school makes it possible to satisfy a snack craving so that the focus can remain on the teacher.

Affordable prices are necessary to take advantage of this benefit, which is why many schools either work with local vending businesses to limit costs or purchase the equipment themselves to offer the needed snacks. “When peer pressure and stigma drive low-income students to purchase less healthy competitive foods instead of eating healthy school meals, they lose out nutritionally in a much bigger way than their more affluent peers.”

3. These machines can be used for non-food purposes in schools.
The debate about having vending machines in schools often centers around the quality of the food products which are available to the students. Today’s equipment can be used for a variety of options, including to make payments toward an after-school program, purchase computers, sign up for athletics, and purchase supportive equipment like tape, bandages, and other items that are needed for a consistent academic performance.

When there are high levels of accessibility available to the student body, everyone wins. The school earns more money from the presence of the vending machines, while the students and their parents or guardians receive access to the critical items they require for a successful school day.

4. It offers a resource for students and teachers to get what they require.
School vending machines are a convenient way to offer what people need to have during the day at any time. Some schools have even taken the step of offering safe sex products on campus as a way to encourage safer behaviors from their student body, although this advantage typically occurs more at the college level. If you are short a pen or pencil for an exam, need a notebook, or forgot lunch and don’t want to hit the cafeteria, then you can take advantage of what is inside a school vending machine to take care of what you need.

This advantage is especially important for students who don’t get the chance to make it home between school and practice. Having a vending machine available allows them to get a snack that they can use as fuel until they can make it home for dinner.

5. This equipment can improve employee satisfaction.
When you have happy and healthy students and faculty on a school campus, then you increase the potential outcomes that are possible in each classroom. Making sure that the basic needs of each person are within easy reach is a small, but important morale booster that should not be ignored. People who have immediate access to items they want or need feel like they are cared for personally, that their goals are a priority, and that the administration is working to support them in multiple ways.

List of the Cons of Vending Machines in Schools

1. The focus of a vending machine is to make a profit.
Unless a school purchases and stocks vending machines personally, most districts use a licensing arrangement that allows a local business to use their equipment to earn some money. Larger districts can earn as much as $100,000 per year by selling contracts which allow vending professionals access to their student body. That means the emphasis of each item is on profitability more than health and wellness, so each machine gets stocked with the products that are most likely to sell.

That is why you see junk food in the average school vending machine. There are sodas and flavored milk present, but not as many healthy items. Those companies need to make back the cost of the contract and still earn some take-hone cash to meet their needs as well.

2. it can encourage health issues and obesity with the products sold.
Some of the most popular consumables that you can find with the vending machine industry are carbonated sugary drinks. These sodas and soft drinks add empty calories to the student’s diet, which can eventually lead to weight gain, heart disease, high blood pressure, arthritis, and diabetes. There are numerous ill effects to consider when consuming junk food regularly, which is why many school districts are looking at the benefits of banning the presence of vendors instead of encouraging more contracts.

“Many parents are working hard every day to make sure they provide healthy, balanced meals and snacks to their kids,” said former First Lady Michelle Obama. “Unfortunately, we don’t always have control over the snacks our kids have access to when they’re away from home.” That’s why healthy snacking options must be part of school vending machines.

3. Students may not be able to recognize what a healthy snack is in the vending machine.
It is up to the student to recognize which snacks are healthy and what ones are not when they purchase food for themselves. That means an understanding of the information on a nutritional label is critical to the success of a school vending machine. Young students may not yet be equipped with the knowledge to make healthy choices in this area, which means even the presence of labels may not be enough to encourage a better choice.

Many kids make impulsive choices with snacks when they are not under the supervision of an adult. They choose what tastes good or what they like as a dessert, so you’ll see a lot of chocolate and candy chosen instead of healthier items. That’s why the profit-making potential is frowned upon with these machines. Adults are profiting off of the kids in their community.

4. There are added administrative costs to consider.
Even if the school does not own the vending machines that are on campus, the employees and students in the district will want their money back if the equipment malfunctions for some reason. Someone on the administrative staff must be given the responsibility of handling a claim, processing refunds, or communicating the issues to the vendor responsible for managing the equipment.

There is a time cost to consider for schools here as well. Teachers and staff who visit a vending machine to grab something to eat are going to be spending 5-10 minutes with each visit doing something that is unproductive. If you need 3-4 quick snacks each day, then that’s 30-40 minutes of lost time per person. That figure adds up quickly if you have 100 staff all doing the same thing.

5. You will still have competition from other food vendors.
When there are vending machines located in the school, then any subsidizing of this equipment could take money away from other operations that occur on campus. Students and employees might choose to use the items in your vending machine instead of visiting the cafeteria or using other school lunch options. People will always go to where the money is for them. Schools already have multiple snack options available, so adding a vending machine could cause someone else to leave.

6. The quantity or quality of snacks offered can be questionable.
Schools are promoting healthy eating habits with their curriculum, so providing unhealthy snacks as a way to reduce hunger and increase focus can send a mixed message to staff and students. Districts must speak with their vendors or stock their machines with fruit, nuts, granola bars, and similar items to match their mandate. Failing to do so may eliminate the educational progress of some students.

7. There is no guarantee that people will purchase the food.
Schools might see high levels of foot traffic throughout the day, but that is not a guarantee that someone will visit the vending machine for a snack or something to drink. This industry always runs the risk of having the food go stale while waiting to be sold in the machine. That’s why you typically find snacks with a long shelf life inside the equipment. It eliminates the losses of waste. Since most schools want fresher foods stocked, there is a risk that the food might go bad if the vendor doesn’t come back to refill the machine for some time.

8. The equipment has a cost consideration to look at if you have vending machines present.
If schools want to have their own vending machine on campus, then they can expect to pay at least $3,000 for the equipment – even if they look for used products in this category. That’s a high price to pay if only a handful of people are going to be using this item between classes. You’ll then have the cost of snacks and beverages to stock in the machine, which means prices are usually a little higher than what people would pay at retail because of the convenience. If you purchase a vending machine which accepts credit or debit cards, then you have the transaction fees to pay.

Stocking your machine requires a staff expense as well, either from the vendor or within the school. You must keep an eye on the expiration dates on each product as well, which means you must budget some waste into the expense.

9. Smart snacking regulations can cause schools to lose a lot of money.
Sandra Ford, who is the director of Food and Nutrition Services at the Manatee County School District in Florida, told U.S. News and World Report that her district could lose almost $1 million per year just to keep the foods in vending machines that are required by the U.S. government since 2012 – even with a relaxation of the original standards. It is cheaper for some schools to remove the equipment altogether because of the added costs of changing laws in this area. That’s why more licensing occurs today, which drives up the overall costs of supplying foods and beverages to students and teachers.

Conclusion of the Pros and Cons of Vending Machines in Schools

Vending machines can offer a significant boost in revenues to school districts who need some extra support. The contracts from a vendor can help to pay the salary expenses for an extra teacher or two. Large districts can sometimes clear over $1 million in total revenues across all of their locations each year with this option, which is funding that is difficult to ignore in an era when governments are trying to trim expenses.

The pros and cons of vending machines in schools must also look at the quality of foods and beverages provided as well. Healthier items tend to have a shorter shelf time, which is why they are ignored so often when stocking the equipment. If your school promotes healthy eating habits and stocks junk food, then the hypocrisy of doing so won’t be lost on your student body.

Artificial sweeteners are low- or no-caloric sugar substitutes that provide little nutritional value, but then modify the flavor of foods or beverages so that they become more appealing to the consumer. Brand names in this category include Splenda, NutraSweet, and Sweet’ N Low. The most common products in this category are sucralose, aspartame, saccharin, neotame, and acesulfame potassium.

Sucralose currently holds the status as the most common sugar substitute used in the world today for foods and beverages, holding 30% of the global artificial sweetener market. Estimates project the value of this product to be about $3 billion by the year 2022.

Although sugar of lead was used in the Medieval era as a sweetener before its toxic effects were known, the first modern artificial sweetener was saccharin. It was first synthesized in 1879, creating during an experiment with toluene derivatives. Saccharin does cause cancer in high doses in rats, but this occurs through a mechanism that is not present in humans. In 2001, the United States repealed a warning label requirement for it.

If you are looking for a way to cut back on your sugar intake, then these are the advantages and disadvantages of artificial sweeteners to consider.

List of the Advantages of Artificial Sweeteners

1. Artificial sweeteners may be derived from natural substances.
Although an artificial sweetener is a synthetic sugar substitute, it can be made from naturally occurring substances from the environment around us. Herbs and even the sugar plants themselves can become the foundation of these items. Since they tend to be much sweeter than an actual sugar product, they are an attractive alternative for those who need to watch their intake levels thanks to a diabetes diagnosis, weight concerns, or other medical needs. That’s because almost every artificial sweetener adds virtually no calories to your diet.

2. You can use artificial sweeteners in almost anything.
Artificial sweeteners are found in many processed foods because they react in a similar manner as sugar does during the baking, canning, or packaging process. You will find them in candies, baked goods, canned foods, jams, jellies, and several dairy products. They are commonly found in sweet carbonated drinks, drink mixes, and other beverages as well. Some products that contain these sweeteners might be listed as a “diet” product, but that is not a free license to over-consume.

Even though artificial sweeteners have a minimal caloric presence, they can cause an imbalance of alcohols through digestion that can make your stomach hurt with regular consumption. “You may not think you eat a lot of corn and soy beans, but you do,” says author Michael Pollan. “75% of the vegetable oils in your diet come from soy, representing 20% of your daily calories, and more than half of the sweeteners you consume come from corn, representing 10% of your daily calories.”

By choosing an artificial sweetener, you can eliminate potentially 10% of your unnecessary calories almost immediately.

3. This sugar substitute can help people to control their weight.
Artificial sweeteners have virtually no calories to them, even if you consume them in significant amounts. If you compare this advantage to the 16 calories per teaspoon that you receive when eating a sugar-containing product, then you can quickly reduce the levels that you consume every day by making this one change. If a can of soda contains 10 teaspoons of sugar, then that is 160 calories which are added to your diet. Replacing that with an artificially sweetened products can help you get a start on the health changes that you need, even if the long-term benefits of the switch are not fully clear.

4. It is an effective product to use for people with diabetes.
It is essential to note that artificial sweeteners are not carbohydrates. Unlike a traditional sugar, these products will not usually raise blood sugar levels during consumption. If you have received a diagnosis of diabetes, then you will want to talk with your doctor about this product and other options that can support your ongoing health needs. Replacing sugar with an artificial sweetener is only one step toward better health and wellness, as diet and exercise are often needed as well.

5. Artificial sweeteners could support better oral health.
The consumption of sugar plays a significant role in the development of tooth decay, cavities, and other issues with oral health. By removing the sweetener that can encourage bacterial growth and plaque along the gum line, it is possible to reduce the adverse impacts that you’re eating and drinking habits can create overtime.

Dental agencies across the United States promote the use of Xylitol in products because it offers an anti-cariogenic effect. There is evidence to suggest that this option when compared to those that produce sugar alcohols can prevent tooth decay by killing the bacteria which can harm your teeth. There are no concerns about de-mineralization of your teeth with this ingredient either.

6. There is less adverse chemical exposure when using artificial sweeteners.
When you are consuming artificial sweeteners, then you are eating something that does not contain artificial pesticides or herbicides to promote the growth of a crap like sugarcane. You can experience this advantage if you purchase organic sugar products at the grocery store as well. Although there will always be issues with health and wellness if you do not consume items in moderation, the positive attributes that you will find with saccharin, sucralose, and similar products will usually outweigh whatever disadvantages may occur.

7. You have several different options from which to choose.
There are four common artificial sweeteners which you can find in most grocery stores today. All of them are priced competitively with a traditional sugar product, but all of them are also sweeter in comparison.

• Acesulfame-K is 200 times sweeter than sugar and is found under the Sweet One and Sunett brand names.
• Aspartame is 180 times sweeter, and you can find it as Equal or NutraSweet.
• Saccharin is 300 times sweeter than sugar, selling under the names Sugar Twin, Sweet Twin, and Sweet ‘N Low.
• Sucralose is 600 times sweeter and sells as Splenda.

NutraSweet also produces an artificial sweetener that goes by the name of neotame or E961. It was approved for use in 2002, but it still is not widely available in food products. This product can be up to 13,000 times sweeter than standard sucrose.

8. Artificial sweeteners are available in a variety of size options.
Most manufacturers of artificial sweeteners are making their products available today in a manner that is similar to table sugar. You can also find the colored packets which are available for individual servings at your local supermarket, restaurants, or another favorite place to eat. Quantities are available in sizes up to 10 pounds in some geographic locations.

That means you can take your preferred artificial sweetener home with you for cooking, or to add sweetness to almost anything. Although you may need to use more to create a similar textural profile for some items, the advantage here is that you can use it just like you can with regular sucrose whenever you want to be active in your kitchen.

List of the Disadvantages of Artificial Sweeteners

1. Artificial sweeteners do not provide added bulk or volume.
There are several artificial sweeteners which are popular for home use. Some of them are even appropriate for use in cooking or baking activities. You will find that certain recipes can require modification because unlike a natural sugar product, artificial sweeteners provide zero volume or bulk. That means you will need to check the labels on your preferred products before incorporating them in your recipes to ensure that they will work in your kitchen.

2. These products can leave a sour aftertaste.
Some artificial sweeteners might provide a sugar substitute that improves the flavor of foods or beverages, but there are also some which can leave a sour aftertaste behind when consuming items that contain this product. The flavor can be distinctly unpleasant for some individuals, which means there may be a need to use a combination of artificial sweeteners or to choose a different product to obtain your caloric goals.

The issue with this disadvantage is the fact that a small amount of an artificial sweetener can produce a sweeter taste than the same levels of real sugar. When someone receives an overstimulation of their sugar receptors, then they can limit their ability to accept complex flavors in healthy foods. It is not unusual to see people rejecting fruits and vegetables because they are frequently using artificial sweeteners to improve the flavor of their foods.

3. Some people are concerned about artificial sweeteners causing health problems.
During the 1970s, research studies with animals suggested that the ongoing consumption of artificial sweeteners could lead to a higher risk of cancer. Some countries went as far as banning most of the products that were on the market at the time to protect consumers. Over the next 40 years, we discovered that the cancer-causing mechanisms in mice and rats that artificial sweeteners trigger is not present in the human population.

Between then and now, products like saccharin carried a warning label to tell consumers that they were potentially unsafe. Some households still avoid artificial sweeteners because of this older research.

Damon Gameau puts it this way: “Respect your body, and look forward to feeling healthy and clean. Your body deserves better than laboratory-made sweetness.”

4. You can still consume too much of it when measured against your body weight.
Artificial sweeteners are considered safe if you consume them at or below the acceptable daily intake for your current body weight. An individual weighing 150 pounds would need to consume 3400 mg of aspartame to exceed their acceptable daily intake. Since the average can of diet soda contains 200 mg of this artificial sweetener, it is challenging for someone to exceed their safe limits, but it is still a disadvantage which must be taken under consideration.

5. You are replacing sugars with chemicals when choosing artificial sweeteners.
According to information from the Lehigh Valley Health Network, the sugar in products which contain artificial sweeteners is a chemical instead of a natural product. Some experts would say that this carries an increased risk of disease, including cancer, and could cause neurological problems or raise cholesterol levels by changing how the liver can process fats. Several studies also show that the regular consumption of an artificial sweetener can increase your cravings for other sweet items.

The only exception to this disadvantage is Stevia, which comes from a plant-based resource. Every other artificial sweetener is a laboratory-created in some way.

6. Artificial sweeteners can lead to possible weight gains.
Although artificial sweeteners are a no- or low-calorie solution for many foods and beverages, a study from the University of Texas-San Antonio suggests that the presence of this product can cause individuals to confuse sweetness with the number of calories they consume each day. This result causes them to choose sweeter foods over healthier ones more often, which becomes a foundation for gaining weight in the future.

Some people find that the use of artificial sweeteners is similar to the outcome that people have when switching to a gluten-free diet. Eating this product can make it so that you feel hungrier afterward, which can make it challenging to stick to your diet plans. Even though you can save calories with the switch, you might find that it is harder to stay away from extra ones.

“Artificial sweeteners may trigger cravings for other sweet foods,” says Suzanne Somers. “when your body is not fed nutrients, it asks again and again for more food, triggering heavy-duty cravings for fattening, sugary foods.”

7. These products change the outcomes of your cooking and baking efforts.
Sugar substitutes are routinely used in baked goods and cooked items. It is essential to realize that the outcomes you expect from your efforts must change if you decide to use an artificial sweetener. Although these products are exceptionally sweet, they don’t provide the same chemical composition as table sugar. That means the appearance and texture of your favorite items will change if you switch from sugar to one of these alternatives.

Most baked goods with a sugar substitute tend to be a lighter in color because the browning effect can no longer take place. Cakes, muffins, and similar items tend to be flatter when they come out of the oven. Items also tend to be denser and drier, with a texture similar to that of a biscuit, since artificial sweeteners do not hold moisture in the same way. That also means your items can become stale faster.

8. You need to read ingredient labels to ensure that you’re avoiding them.
If you don’t want to include artificial sweeteners with your dietary habits, then you will need to start reading ingredient labels at the grocery store immediately. These products are becoming widely available in foods which you may not think about their presence. You can find these items in ice cream, cereal, fruit juices, and sport drinks. There is an excellent chance that you have purchased and consumed something that contains an artificial sweetener without realizing you have done it.

“Sweeteners… are known to increase appetite and results in overeating,” remarks Mehmet Oz. “Be on the lookout for artificial sweeteners, and when possible, steer clear of them.”

9. Some products might collect in the gastrointestinal tract.
Since most artificial sweeteners do not come from natural products, the human body does not always know what to do with it. There are times when your preferred product may begin collecting within the gastrointestinal tract. When this issue occurs, you may find several bothersome symptoms begin to develop rapidly.

Bloating, loose stools, and gas-related pain are the three most common side effects complained about by those who use artificial sweeteners on a regular basis. Then your body will eventually move the unnatural item towards the liver so that it can begin the detoxification process. If you don’t like the feelings that occur as your body processes the product, then the best thing you can do is to stay away from that whenever possible.

10. It can change the metabolic rate of your body.
It is important to remember that your health and wellness goals must involve more than just your body weight. Observational studies that include artificial sweeteners show that there is an increased risk of metabolic conditions with regular consumption. This disadvantage includes problems like heart disease and metabolic syndrome. Although there is no proof of cause-and-effect, there are published studies that have found your risks of Type 2 diabetes can be over 120% higher through the consumption of diet soft drinks.

The consumption of diet soft drinks is also linked to a 34% increase in risk for the development of metabolic syndrome. There can also be issues with disruption in the gut bacteria and glucose intolerance due to the ongoing presence of artificial sweeteners in the gastrointestinal tract.

Conclusion of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Artificial Sweeteners

Artificial sweeteners do not carry the dangers that we once thought they did, but that does not mean this product in any of its forms is the correct choice to make for your dietary needs. When compared to a traditional sugar, there are significant advantages to consider because of the caloric profile that these items offer. Because some of them can produce sugar alcohols as part of the digestive process, they may not be as healthy as some may realize.

The National Cancer Institute and numerous agencies from around the world have found out scientific evidence to suggest that artificial sweeteners can cause health problems or cancer in humans. Some countries, including the United States, still ban certain options out of a preponderance of safety, but the research supports the idea that these products can provide health benefits when consumed at reasonable levels.

If you feel that artificial sweeteners are not the best choice for your health needs, you don’t need to go back to regular sugar. Molasses, maple syrup, honey, nectars, and juices can provide a natural sweetening effect for foods as well. Some of these may even have some health benefits that a lab-created product cannot offer.

The advantages and disadvantages of artificial sweeteners provide key points that each consumer must evaluate for themselves and their families. If you aren’t sure of what the best option for your dietary needs happens to be, then a consultation with your primary care provider can help to shine some light on the ways that you can start to take charge of your health and wellness habits.

When companies want to expand their business operations in multiple ways, but still stay on the same path of production, then vertical integration is the process which they choose to pursue. The most common way to vertically integrate for organizations today is to become the supplier and distributor of goods or services simultaneously. It is possible to integrate forwards or backwards in this way.

If a company decides that forward integration is in their best interest, then they push the production cycle in a vertical direction. Distribution is one of the most common examples of this effort. A backwards integration takes the cycle in the opposite direction. In this circumstance, the manufacturer would need to assume control of their supply chain so that their processes receive internal support throughout the production effort.

There are several advantages and disadvantages to consider when looking at the concept of vertical integration in the modern business world. This effort can lead to improved efficiencies in multiple areas, but it can also reduce the amount of diversification that is available within the organizational portfolio.

Because of these issues, the pros and cons of vertical integration must have every critical point reviewed by an organization’s leadership before instituting an effort to achieve it.

List of the Pros of Vertical Integration

1. It allows a business to control more than one stage of the supply chain.
Vertical integration occurs when a company can control more than one stage of its supply chain, which is the process an organization uses to turn raw materials into a usable product that the consumer can purchase. There are four phases of every basic supply chain: commodities, manufacturing and production, distribution, and retail sales. An effort in this area allows for the company to control two or more of these areas.

2. Companies no longer need to rely on suppliers.
Many organizations look at vertical integration as a way to build independence within their supply chain. When this effort is successful, then the company no longer needs to rely on its suppliers to bring products or services to the market. That means there are fewer risks to assume if their partnerships create disruptions due to a lack of management skill. This advantage also makes it easier to avoid labor disputes and frequent employee strikes when the business operates in countries with mixed economies that trend closer to socialism than capitalism.

3. It allows the organization to dictate the terms of the relationship.
There are times when vertical integration is necessary because the suppliers in the market hold enough power to dictate terms to the company. This issue occurs frequently if one of the suppliers has a monopoly in an area where the organization in question does business. By working to vertically integrate on the supply chain, it becomes possible to go around the providers which control a majority of the market, reaping the benefits of being able to provide better pricing structures since internal costs have more control.

Better delivery methods are possible with this advantage as well because the organization is less likely to fall short of the critical elements that are necessary for a final delivery.

4. This process allows an organization to achieve an economy of scale.
When an organization begins pursuing vertical integration, then they are seeking to achieve an economy of scale. This benefit occurs when the size of the company allows it to cut costs because it can lower the per-unit cost of purchasing in bulk. It becomes possible to make the manufacturing processes more efficient with this effort or improve the delivery mechanisms that bring products or services to the consumer. Companies who are successful with vertical integration can eliminate overhead expenses because they are consolidating management in the middle.

5. It allows companies to know what is selling well.
When you walk into a Walmart pharmacy, then you will see shelves that are packed with numerous brand-name products. Things like Benadryl, Tums, and Advil are popular commodities that people purchase every day because they meet basic needs. Because of the processes that vertical integration supports, it is possible to see or know what sells well and then create a replica of the items in question underneath a store-based brand. If you purchase an Equate products from Walmart, then this is what you are doing.

Since the brand-name products require the distribution channels from Walmart to get their items in front of possible consumers, there is less of a risk of a lawsuit for copyright infringement. That means the company wins because they are more competitive on price, and then the consumers win because they pay less for what they need.

6. Prices are almost always lower because of vertical integration.
Consumers appreciate the effort a business takes to vertically integrate because it almost always results in a lower price during the checkout process. Companies which are successful in this effort can lower their costs, increase the quality of what they offer, and build higher levels of customer loyalty because of their ability to take control over their supply chain. Almost all grocery stores today that are part of a regional or national chain use vertical integration as a way to increase consumer choice and decrease costs.

7. Vertical integration can open new markets for an organization.
Weather an organization decides to move forward or backward in their effort to vertically integrate, this investment and the processes which follow can lead the company into new markets where consumers are already wanting to purchase the item at the retail level. This outcome makes it possible to establish additional revenue resources that can allow the business to continue expansion efforts, improve internal qualities, or even hire more people thanks to the increased interest in their products.

Even partnerships which allow for access to the different stages of the supply chain instead of complete ownership can bring about this advantage. Properties, technologies, and access to proprietary information can create local access that is unavailable to a business before their effort at vertical integration. Because there are more leads to pursue, it is possible that additional profits can make the organization scalable.

8. It is easier to build quality assurance into the system.
A successful vertical integration attempt allows an organization to review the overall quality of their products or services throughout the entire supply chain instead of only during one stage of it. This process makes it possible for a company to review the quality of each item from conception to its final sale. It allows for more value in the proposition offered to consumers because there is more reliability in the outcome at each stage.

When there is consistency throughout the supply chain, then there will be higher levels of consumer satisfaction. That makes it possible to retain more customers because the value proposition of the company inspires more loyalty, which then creates the potential for repetitive sales.

9. Vertical integration allows companies to focus on asset specialization.
Vertical integration makes it possible for companies to seek out specific skill sets as part of their recruiting efforts instead of trying to find them in contractors, freelancers, or vendors. By bringing in these people underneath the corporate umbrella, it is possible to focus on asset specialization from a team perspective instead of being forced into an outsourcing point of view. Not only does this outcome allow the business to differentiate itself from its competitors, but it also builds the foundation for a specific brand message that encourages a robust value proposition that will echo in the ears of its target consumers.

This advantage can eventually improve the local market share for a brand in multiple communities at once. It is possible because the company controls more of the supply chain after a successful vertical integration attempt. Their presence at multiple stages allows for better leveraging on micro levels because there is more data available about what customers are going to want or need.

10. It can increase product knowledge and marketability for a brand.
One of the less obvious benefits to a successful vertical integration attempt is to understand the market for a product and the information known about it. Producing items that correct the errors of previous attempts will provide additional value to a consumer when there is a non-pain point that must be addressed. This process makes it possible for a vertically integrated organization to meet the demand of their market with greater consistency, whether they decide to sell products that they manufacture or represent items from a strategic partnership.

List of the Cons of Vertical Integration

1. The expense of vertical integration is enough for some organizations to avoid it.
Vertical integration requires a significant capital investment by an organization if this effort has a chance to be successful. A company must have enough resources available to set up or purchase factories that can produce items for sale. Then the business must continue to keep these assets running in specific ways because efficiency must be maintained for the profit margin to remain consistent.

If there is not enough money in the bank for an organization to make the initial purchases that are necessary for vertical integration, then there is no way for the business to be successful in its efforts.

2. There is less flexibility available with a vertically integrated company.
When Walmart decides that Advil is not selling as well as it should be on its shelves, then it can look at other ibuprofen manufacturers to see if a competitive product would perform better. The organization might decide to pursue Tylenol or Aleve as a featured brand-name item to sell to customers. There are choices available because there are multiple producers in the industry that offer a similar product.

When a company decides to pursue vertical integration, then there is less flexibility available because the business is already producing the competitive product. If Advil sells better than Equate does for Walmart, then the only choices available are to stop producing generic ibuprofen or stop carrying the brand-name product.

3. Vertical integration can cause companies to lose their focus.
Each step of the supply chain requires a different set of skills within the leadership and executive teams. What it takes to run a successful retail business is very different then the set of skills that are necessary to supervise an efficient and profitable factory. Unless there is an effort to find staffing before an organization attempts to achieve a stronger footprint in their supply chain, then it is challenging to create a successful outcome. It is exceptionally rare to find leaders for the C-Suite who are good at multiple stages.

4. The organizational culture may not support vertical integration.
Most companies do not have a culture that can support multiple simultaneous stages for the supply chain. Organizations are used to working with the manufacturing process or the retail process, but not both of them. That is why businesses will often encounter resistance when they start pursuing vertical integration. Their staff does not have the wherewithal to respond to corporate needs which are outside of their expertise or comfort zone.

Successful retailers attract people who are skilled in sales and marketing. That culture is not as responsive to the needs of a factory as someone who is familiar with industrial cycles. These cultural differences can lead to misunderstandings, lost productivity, and even conflict in the workplace. It is even possible for a non-integrated company with cultural diversity to compete against ones that have been successful with these efforts.

5. It requires infrastructure to be successful.
Because vertical integration relies on an economy of scale to be successful, there must be a strong foundation in place before this effort begins if the outcome is going to be as expected. When there isn’t enough strength at the bottom of the organization, then the entire effort to vertically integrate can topple over quickly.

We saw this happen in recent years when Haggen’s decided to purchase over 100 grocery stores from Albertson’s as a way to expand throughout the western United States in 2014. The company went from 18 stores with 16 pharmacies to 164 stores and 106 pharmacies, moving from 2,000 employees to 10,000 workers almost overnight. In less than a year, the grocery store chain filed for bankruptcy, and now Albertson’s owns the Haggen core stores as well.

6. Companies may not be able to see barriers to entry.
Even though a successful vertical integration attempt can help to limit competition for an organization, it is only possible to achieve results when a complete overview of any market barriers to entry are in place. If the wrong materials for production are scarce for an unknown reason or the market information is inaccurate, then the decisions that the business makes to take over more of their supply chain are not as accurate as they should be. This outcome can mean higher expenses, less market access, or even a complete failure of the effort.

7. Vertical integration can create confusion in the consumer base.
Because of the many benefits that occur with vertical integration, numerous corporations have taken over every step of their supply chain to maximize profits. This outcome means that many different brands all fall under the same corporate umbrella. We can even see this disadvantage in the tech sector since Alphabet operates Google, Verily, and Waymo as subsidiaries. Coca-Cola has over 1,000 different brands to its name, while PepsiCo produces several popular food products – some of which even compete with each other.

Customers who feel dissatisfied with a specific brand may choose a different product without realizing that they are still shopping with the same company. Vertical integration can help businesses save a lot of money, but it can also create enough confusion within the consumer base that some organizations may never reach their full potential.

Verdict on the Pros and Cons of Vertical Integration

Vertical integration is not an investment that every company can or should make. This process benefits consumers the most when an organization is already operating on more than a regional scale. When Walmart, Target, The Home Depot, Lowe’s, McDonald’s, and other national brands make the effort to internalize every possible stage of their supply chain, then the final cost to the consumer can be significantly lower. The benefit is not always possible when small enterprises at the regional level attempt to do the same thing.

There is always a risk that an organization will bite off more than it can chew when pursuing vertical integration because there’s not enough experience available to follow through with the necessary work.

The pros and cons of vertical integration show us that it is a useful investment when there is enough capital available and plenty of consumer interest in specific goods or services. There are plenty of challenges that must be considered before the first steps toward the takeover of another supply chain stage is initiated. When successful, the outcomes provide more choices at lowers costs. When it fails, then a company may put itself on the verge of bankruptcy.

“Up until now, the biggest question in society about video games has been what to do about violent games,” said Shigeru Miyamoto, a Representative Director at Nintendo and a former game producer and designer. “But it’s almost like society in general considers video games to be something of a nuisance that they want to toss into the garbage can.”

Richard Posner, and American jurist and economist who sat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago for over 30 years, looks at this subject matter like this. “Violent video games played in public places are a tiny fraction of the media violence to which American children are exposed.”

With the American culture struggling with the cause of mass shootings, school shootings, and general acts of violence even with an overall lower crime rate in the country, one of the suggested answers is that there are violent video games influencing the youth of today.

Are there are any advantages to playing games like this? Are the disadvantages as bad as some of the opponents of the media claim? Here are the critical points to review in the debate on playing violent video games.

List of the Pros of Violent Video Games

1. More adults are playing violent video games than children.
Even though the story of playing the video game “Doom” was a central part of the narrative in the aftermath of the Columbine school shooting over 20 years ago, the reality of the video game economy is that more adults play games than kids. The average age of a game today is 34 years old. Adults represent 70% of the entire video game-playing population in the United States, with 60% of them saying that they do so every day.

There are more adult women in the video game-playing population (33%) than there are boys under the age of 18 (17%). The number of people playing these games is going up, but the crime rate continues to go down.

2. Mature-rated video games are the smallest share of the sales market.
Violent video games which have a mature rating for their violence and carnage represented the smallest amount of sales in 2017 according to the Entertainment Software Rating Board assigned ratings. The data breaks down like this.

• Games rated E for Everyone represented 34% of the overall market.
• Games rated E10+ were 22% of the industry.
• Items rated T for Teen represented 31% of the video game sales for the year.
• M for Mature games brought in just 13% of the overall revenues.

3. Playing violent video games can improve an individual’s perception of their environment.
Gamers who play regularly have a greater ability to spot targets on cluttered screens with speed and accuracy compared to someone who does not play as often. Research from the University of Rochester discovered that people who play at least 30 hours playing an action game can find specific items when given a request about 4 out of every 5 times. Those who did not put in the time to play the game only had a 30% success rate.

When this trait extends to the environment around someone, then they can pick out different details of potential danger before they appear. There is more anticipation available in the perspective because of the experience in playing the game.

4. Being a gamer in this category can improve focus and concentration.
Iowa State University conducted research on a small group of laparoscopic surgeons, separating one group to play video games while the other did not. Their findings discovered that the physicians who played at least three hours of games per week could be up to 30% faster with their work at their hospital or outpatient facility. There was also a 40% improvement in the error rates for gamers compared to the other group, even when violent video games were included as part of the titles being played.

5. It can reduce the amount of pain a person feels.
The University of Washington looked at how playing video games can work on a person’s pain receptors and their perception of discomfort. Their research teams found that when any game, including ones with violence, require a complete mental focus for success, then there are fewer issues with individual pain during that time.

Burn patients were given a complex video game to play as part of this study. They reported feeling up to 50% less pain from their injuries during the experience, no matter what type of game it was that they were playing. There could be benefits to those with chronic pain issues as well from this work.

6. The number of serious violent crimes committed by youth has gone down dramatically.
The peak of violent crime in the United States for kids between the ages of 12-17 was in 1993 when there were about 1,100 incidents across the country in that demographic. The number of incidents in 2012 were less than 200 in comparison, with 2014 and 2015 staying below that threshold as well. Compared to the acts of violence in 1980, there are 25% fewer incidents occurring in the key demographic that violent video game critics track.

The percentage of teachers reporting threats of injury has gone down since 1993 as well, from just under 15% of the educational community to under 10% in 2016.

7. Juvenile arrest trends do not suggest that more kids are committing acts of violence.
During the 1990s, the juvenile arrest rate for all offenses reached its highest levels by climbing above 7,500 arrests per 100,000 kids in the 10-17 age demographic. The rate stayed above this threshold from 1992 until 1998, reaching its peak in 1996. Since that time, the arrest trend in this group has declined by over 70%. There are fewer teens and adolescents in the juvenile delinquency system today than there were a generation ago.

The number of high school students who say that they were in a physical fight on or off school property has gone down in a similar way, dropping from over 50% of ninth graders to less than 30% since 1993. Every grade level reports fewer fight incidents since the peak of violence in the 1990s.

8. Violent video games can trigger lucid dreams for some gamers.
Gamers in every age demographic who play for 50 hours or more per week can experience lucid dreams at night. People who have the ability to become consciously aware that they are dreaming and maintain that state are more likely to perform cognitive tasks with higher accuracy rates than those who do not. There are also benefits in the improvement of mental health concerns, such as depression-like symptoms, when there is an extreme level of gaming in a person’s life.

Denholm Aspy, a researcher on this subject working out of the University of Adelaide in Australia, told Medical News Today that there are multiple benefits to the practice worth considering. “If a person has a particular phobia, then their lucid dream environment… provides an interesting opportunity to do things like exposure therapy, where you gradually expose yourself to the thing you’re afraid of, in an attempt to gradually overcome that fear.”

9. Playing violent video games can help to treat dyslexic conditions.
Children who play action-based video games that may include violence can improve their reading speed with just 12 hours of total exposure. There is no cost to the accuracy of what they read, even with a dyslexic condition present. A group of 10 children spent nine 80-minute sessions playing games and the research discovered that the effort helped to train the part of the brain which is responsible for mobile reception. This outcome made it possible to improve word recognition, creating a better opportunity to extract information from written text outside of the game environment.

10. It can become a career opportunity for elite players.
The prize pool for e-sports is becoming significantly high in some games, including those which can include violence. Over the course of the 2017-2018 competitive season for Fortnite, there was a $100 million prize pool announced. That season had $24.6 million contributed to DOTA 2 tournaments as well. Overwatch League professionals must earn a minimum salary of $50,000, with the league offering health and retirement benefits, training support, and housing. Blizzard also requires team owners to provide the signed players with bonuses representing 50% of the revenue and winnings for the team.

11. Playing violent video games can teach kids how to communicate with each other.
There are three elements to a successful outcome in almost any situation: talent, skill, and communication. You can find partial success with one or two of those elements, but all three are necessary for consistent success – and communication is the one with which most kids struggle in developing. Although there is toxicity in some game environments towards noobs (inexperienced players), the goal of the team or clan-based activities is to encourage cooperative gameplay by working out problems together. When you can learn how to be on a team together with a violent video game, then that skill can translate into being a team player later in life when pursuing a career.

12. It allows for a safe place to cope with challenging emotions.
Even though the World Health Organization classifies gaming disorder as a mental health disorder, there are numerous risk factors for addiction and self-control that must come into consideration. For Douglas Gentile, a professor of psychology at Iowa State University, playing a violent video game is similar to drinking alcoholic beverages. It is not a problem until it is.

“The issue is when the gaming begins to disrupt normal and healthy functioning,” Gentile says. “This may mean they’re getting worse grades, lying to people about time spent gaming, or they’re performing poorly at work.” For most people, playing video games is a healthy and normal way to relieve stress.

List of the Cons of Violent Video Games

1. Shooter games represent the largest share of sales in the video game industry.
Although games that are rated M for Mature represented the smallest share of revenues for the video game industry in 2017, the titles which involve first-person or third-person shooters were the biggest sellers. Almost 26% of the games sold that year where shooters, many of which never reached the 17+ age restriction. Another 22% of the games sold involved action of some type.

The best-selling game in 2017 in terms of units sold was Call of Duty: WWII. Half of the titles in the Top 10 involve committing acts of violence in some way, and that statistic holds true when you look at the Top 20 games that year for the industry as well.

2. More teachers report that they are being attacked in their classrooms.
The percentage of public school teachers who say that a student threatened them with injury may have gone down since 1993, but the actual number of physical attacks has increased over the same time. About 4% of teachers said that they had been physically attacked according to survey data published by the U.S. Department of Education in 1993, while that same survey reports that about 6% of teachers have encountered this problem each year since 2011.

Part of the reason for this data is the fact that violent video games create an urge to get revenge on others. The University of Missouri-Columbia found that consistent exposure to video game violence diminishes the response of the brain when it encounters real-life violent acts. The people with the highest levels of violent video game exposure would also have the most significant retribution responses when allowed to take vengeance against a fake opponent.

3. The number of violent school incidents is going up.
There were more acts of school violence recorded in 2018 in the United States than in any other year since 1970 when data on shootings was first collected. A total of 82 incidents took place on campuses across the country. Since 1970, Americans have heard above 1,300 school shooting incidents. There were 51 students killed in 2018 as well, when figures that include the shooter are included in the data.

California, Texas, and Florida are the three worst states for acts of violence in this category, with 669 incidents occurring outside on school property and 588 inside school buildings. That means over 1,200 of the 1,300 total incidents occurred in these three states.

4. Playing violent video games can lead to sleep disruptions.
When people of any age play video games as part of their bedtime routine, then the blue-light exposure from the electronic device can disrupt that person’s sleep patterns. Research from 2012 discovered that gamers who put in up to 2.5 hours of video games at night can experience up to a 40-minute delay when trying to get to sleep. Another 30 minutes of sleeping time is lost because of cycle disruption, including a critical 12 minutes of REM restorative rest.

When looking at how children react to video game and blue-light exposure at night, only 30 minutes of time can create similar disruptions in their sleep cycles.

5. It can impact the health of a gamer’s eyes to play violent video games.
Gamers who play long sessions of violent video games (or any other screen-based electronic) can suffer from symptoms which are similar to Computer Vision Syndrome. Although this disadvantage can be avoided if a 5-minute break every 30 minutes is taken while playing, some missions or events during the game can go beyond this threshold. Even PvP games like Overwatch can have a single competitive session last for longer than this recommended time.

Symptoms of this disadvantage can include neck pain, shoulder discomfort, headaches, blurry vision, and sensitivity to natural light.

6. Violent video games can teach aggressive tendencies to young children.
Science Daily released a research report from Dartmouth College in October 2018 which found that violent video game play by adolescents is associated with an increase in physical aggression over time. The team performed a meta-analysis of 24 studies from around the world which involved 17,000 participants over 7 years of work. Participants were between the ages of 9-19.

“Based on our findings, we feel it is clear that violent video game play is associated with subsequent increases in physical aggression,” commented Jay G. Hull, the lead author of the work and Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Dartmouth.

7. Playing violent video games can lead to individual isolation.
Although many gamers are on headsets talking with other people while they play, there is a higher risk of social isolation in the gaming community than most others. About 3% of people who consider themselves an “avid gamer’ face a higher risk of isolation due to their playing habits. Some people even struggle to separate themselves from the fantasy world that the games create, bringing elements of their gameplay into their daily lives.

One of the most significant contributors to this disadvantage is the addictive nature of the video games. The International Gaming Research Unit consistently finds that about 12% of gamers suffer the symptoms of addiction from their playing habits. This urge can even cause people to play violent video games as the expense of going to work or getting their homework finished.

8. These games can lead to physical injuries.
Repetitive game play can lead to injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis in the fingers, and other hand-based injuries based on the long-term grip on a controller. There can also be injuries that occur because of the lack of activity that happens when playing violent video games over a long time. Sitting on the floor, in a bed, or a non-supportive chair can lead to chronic back, shoulder, wrist, neck, and joint injuries over time.

There is also the issue of obesity in the gaming world which must be addressed as a potential disadvantage. Every hour that a teen plays a video game of any type contributes to a higher risk of obesity as they get older. Since some missions on violent games can last between 30-60 minutes without movement for the player, the lack of physical activity will quickly create the problems of a sedentary lifestyle for that person.

Verdict on the Pros and Cons of Violent Video Games

Do violent video games inspire kids or adults to commit acts of violence outside of the fantasy world of the game itself? Jack Thompson, an attorney and advocate against the publication of violent video games, thinks that there is one. He claims that titles like Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto cause children to attack one another. Many people are inclined to agree with the idea that violence creating more violence makes sense, even if the data might suggest otherwise.

What American society has right now is an identity problem. There is a refusal to discuss gun control because “guns don’t kill people,” yet how can the fake violence in a video game be responsible for an outcome if the actual firearm is not?

The pros and cons of violent video games show us that this product is a tool, just like any other one we might use. If people are trained to use them properly, encouraged to separate fantasy from reality, and focus on the benefits that can occur, then positive outcomes are possible. It is when this separation cannot take place for some reason that gamers may face a higher risk of future violence.

Welfare is a government program which works to provide financial aid to groups or individuals who cannot support themselves for some reason. These programs receive funding through taxpayer support, allowing families, households, and individuals to cope with financial stress during a rough patch in their life. Most of the people who receive benefits through these safety net programs receive a payment 1-2 times per month.

The goals of welfare vary based on the structure of the program. There are some which help people to find work when they are unemployed unexpectedly. Some make education a priority to help someone earn their GED, finish a diploma, or earn a vocational certificate because their current training is no longer relevant to the economy. Even a better standard of living is possible because of these programs.

Government welfare programs are designed for permanent residents and legal citizens of the country supplying the funds in most instances. Federal law in the United States bans state governments from using grants to assist most legal immigrants unless they can prove 5 years of residency. If a household has more than one person, then everyone must have a Social Security number. Additional requirements may be necessary as well.

List of the Pros of Welfare

1. Most welfare programs are designed to get people back on their feet.
The design of most welfare programs around the world is to provide individuals with enough resources to maintain the basics of life. It is a way to help families get back on their feet after difficult circumstances, provide assistance for those pursuing an education, or to encourage someone to get back into the workforce after their primary career was eliminated in our community for some reason.

Welfare programs are not long-term solutions in most countries. These programs are supposed to provide a safety net when something unexpected happens in their life. It supports individuals who have a disability and may be unable to work for some reason. That is why most programs either cap the amount of time someone can receive benefits or limit the number of qualifying applicants.

2. Welfare programs support children more than any other age group.
The primary beneficiaries of a welfare program are the children who face challenging financial situations. A significant majority of the people who receive benefits in the United States from welfare programs are kids. 75% of the applications to the TANF program each year involve families with children. Almost 90% of the families with children who live at or under the poverty line receive medical benefits of some type which qualify as welfare as well.

The average payment to a one-child family is under $350 per month in the United States under TANF. When families also qualify for SNAP, about 8% receive subsidized childcare so that the parents can work. Another 12% receive some type of subsidized housing so that they could meet their monthly rent or utilities obligations.

3. Welfare only goes to the people who qualify for the program.
The vast majority of people who apply for welfare benefits need to have them for some reason. Many of the families in the United States who use these safety net programs are already working at least part time. Almost 30% of the people to fit into this category are single parents, and often single mothers who are struggling to find any type of work in their community. Most of the people who qualify for welfare and have a job are earning less than nine dollars per hour. Even single parents with a specific criminal background do not qualify for some programs.

In most situations, you must be able to provide proof of citizenship in order to qualify for the welfare program. Most states will require you to prove your financial circumstances as well. Some programs even require an applicant to actively search for employment in order to receive their monthly benefit. This structure makes it easier to find instances of fraud that can cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year.

4. It provides an income supplement to those who are already working.
A report released in 2015 found that almost 75% of people who receive public assistance are members of the family helmed by someone in the workforce in the United States. As reported on by The Daily Beast, this study found that the federal and state governments in America are spending more than $150 billion each year on four anti-poverty programs used by working families.

The researchers discovered that taxpayers are using these programs as a way to supplement their regular salary so that they can make ends meet each month. A small percentage of these workers were even employed full-time during the survey period. That means the perception that people on welfare are just trying to collect a free check is not always correct.

5. Welfare programs can help to reduce poverty.
Before the welfare reforms passed in the 1990s, about 15% of seniors were living at or below the poverty line in the United States. By 2016, that figure had been cut to below 10%. At the same time, the overall rate of poverty in the country fell to 13%. Contributing factors to this benefit include the availability of welfare programs, distribution of Social Security benefits, and active encouragement to save money whenever possible.

Welfare programs close income gaps because they provide resources to those who need it the most. The benefits create an income source for local businesses who accept money from WIC, SNAP, or TANF in the United States, which helps support the local economy even further. In this situation, a rising tide tends to lift all of the boats.

6. The presence of welfare programs works to reduce income inequality.
We have seen an increase in the levels of welfare program usage over the past 40 years because of ongoing changes to the tax code. In the 1950s, an era which is often referred to as the “Golden Age” of the American economy, the highest tax rate in our progressive system was above 90%. Now that rate is one-third of what it used to be. Instead of creating community supports, we are using this safety net program to subsidize what was already in place. It is the one defense that we have against the ravishes of income inequality.

As the rate of membership plummets in these programs, the amount of income earned by the top 1% in the country continues to rise. Even with the potential for fraud in the system, it is helpful to have these programs in place to ensure that everyone can have a fair chance to pursue happiness.

7. It improves the healthcare situation for families in poverty.
There is a direct impact between the health of an individual and their ability to find a job which supports the financial needs of their household. If someone is unable to maintain a job or have access to proper care, then they have a higher risk of encountering an early death compared to those who do. Many welfare programs require specific items to be part of the received benefit as well, such as low-fat cheese, fruits, and vegetables. WIC even administers blood tests to children to ensure that their iron counts are reflective of the benefits given to each family.

8. Welfare programs reduce the risk of societal collapse.
Most families carry insurance policies to protect their automobiles, homes, and possessions against catastrophic loss. That is what a welfare program does on a societal level. There are times when hard-working people lose their employment through no fault of their own. If there is no way to support them and their household through that experience, then their productivity will permanently disappear from society unless they can find another job quickly. By providing insurance that offers food and shelter during this stressful experience, we can get the people who want to work back into the labor force once again.

List of the Cons of Welfare

1. Overworked administrators can easily miss instances of severe fraud.
The U.S. Department of Labor believes that about 2% of all welfare payments which are distributed each month are attributed to a fraudulent application. There are about 3 million households currently receiving a benefit in this category right now. Although most families get what they need, people like Linda Taylor took over $150,000 each year in tax-free income through the use of 80 different names and 30 fake addresses to collect food stamps. She was also receiving the Social Security benefits for four deceased husbands who did not exist.

Wael Ghosheh took nearly $1 million in government welfare funds illegally. Dorothy Woods took $377,000 in public aid to which she was not entitled. The Shalhout family even used their business to give customers 50% of their benefits in cash, and then pocketing the rest to buy a vacation home in Israel.

2. It can encourage corporations to pay less-than-competitive wages.
Welfare programs do more than help families get the basic essentials that they need for daily survival. These funds also make it possible for some of the largest corporations in the world to pay wages that are less than competitive. The expansion of Walmart is one such incidence of this potential disadvantage. The organization benefits from over $1.2 billion in free land, tax breaks, outright grants from governments, and low-cost financing. Taxpayers also provide an indirect subsidy by paying the healthcare costs of Walmart employees who do not receive coverage on the job and work through a public program like Medicaid.

3. This support system is not as effective as it could be for some families.
Welfare programs in the United States are more of a supplementary form of income than a wage substitute. The federal poverty requirement to receive benefits for a single person without children was to earn $12,000 or less during the year. Adding another person to the household created an additional $4,300 of extra income someone could earn before their benefits were cut. The reality of this program is that a single parent earning about $17 per hour will not qualify for most benefits, even though they may not be earning enough to support their entire family.

4. Using welfare benefits can create a negative reaction to you in public.
The people who use welfare benefits often try to shop early in the morning or late at night because of the way other people in the community react to their use of benefits. WIC families encounter high levels of resistance at the grocery store because each check they receive must be processed individually by the cashier. That means a couple weeks’ worth of benefits might require 6-8 unique transactions. The administrative work to process these payments takes time, which means other customers are forced to wait for the cashier to finish.

Instead of finding ways to help the family out of poverty, the typical reaction is to shame the person who needs to access welfare. Some programs even require periodic drug testing as part of the ongoing qualification process. The goal of this safety net might be to lift people out of poverty, but it typically creates a divide in society that strengthens the differences between the “haves” and the “have nots.”

5. Welfare supports are not consistent.
Unless the welfare program is administered by the national government, there is little consistency to be found in the structure of this safety net. Families who qualify for services in one state may find that they are unable to apply if they move somewhere else. Access to these programs is often not communicated clearly at the community level either, which creates uncertainty as to whether or not a family should apply. Because the federal government in the United States provides block grants to administer these programs, there can be some places where welfare benefits are available and others where it is not.

6. It does not attempt to address the core problem of poverty.
Our world is a rapidly changing place with automation and artificial intelligence quickly dominating numerous industries. Technology is quickly changing the way that we can be productive in today’s world. Even industries which are typically creative, such as graphic design and content writing, are discovering that tools like dictation or AI learning separate the elite from those who are just breaking into the business for the first time. Over 500,000 jobs could be lost in the next decade due to this issue.

Welfare programs are designed to be a temporary benefit that can help someone get back on their feet. It is not designed to address the core issues which create poverty in the first place. Although there are some opportunities to pursue additional job training and educational programs, most of these safety net benefits provide emergency assistance to prevent starvation and homelessness.

7. Some families may develop a pattern of dependence with their welfare benefits.
It may be our responsibility as a society to provide help for those who are unable to help themselves in some way, but we must also recognize a pattern of dependence when one emerges. Some households find themselves relying on welfare benefits as a way to make ends meet without pushing towards a better job, education, or paycheck. There is no incentive to work harder if the benefit provides enough monetary resources to live a comfortable life. This disadvantage is why many applicants find that there is a maximum amount they can receive if approved for a program.

The average family in the United States receiving welfare benefits earns $25 per day through their program. That places them in the top 20% of income earners in the world today. There are 11 states in the U.S. where qualifying families can earn a higher amount than the pre-tax wages of some rural teaching positions. Hawaii offers a total maximum safety net value of $49,000 per year with its higher cost of living.

8. The cost of welfare programs can reach extreme levels.
When you combine the costs of all welfare programs in the United States, the amount that taxpayers spend each year reaches more than $1 trillion. About half of the expenses that the general population subsidizes through this structure is directed towards healthcare needs. 40% of the funds go toward direct cash assistance, housing costs, and food expenses. It is notable that this amount is more than the annual budget of all but about 20 countries in the world today.

Even with this high level of spending, about 20% of American children still live in households classified as being food insecure. Some kids still receive only one meal per day at school because of the financial situation their family faces. That means we are spending a lot without getting much in return from this investment.

9. Welfare programs are not an automatic process.
The United States passed a series of welfare reforms in the 1990s which were intended to reduce the amount of fraud that occurred within the system. Before this legislation passed under the Clinton Administration, about 85% of qualifying families were receiving benefits based on their financial situation. Over the next 10 years, that figure would drop by more than 50%, with only 40% of qualifying families participating in the various cash assistance programs available to them at the state and national level.

Our reforms were meant to reduce the amount of fraud in the system, but what it really did was take away the number of families receiving benefits who needed them.

Verdict on the Pros and Cons of Welfare

Welfare programs work to balance the need of a household having enough to meet the basic necessities of life while encouraging a development of personal skills and ambition to make things better one day. When someone falls on hard times, this safety net can help to get them back on their feet again. Although there will always be a select few who try to take advantage of these programs, it typically helps more people than it hurts through fraud.

We can do better in our efforts to prevent fraud and limit costs. The only way we can fix the problem is to identify those who do not qualify for benefits in the first place. Governments are using drug testing, work requirements, and other changes to the system as a way to identify outliers that may be profiting from the system. Some may be making changes to further shame those who must apply for benefits in the first place.

The pros and cons of welfare show us that there isn’t an easy answer to the problem of poverty. We must be willing to be the keeper of our brothers and sisters as a way to lift them up, even if some people might see it as a hand out instead of helping to life them up.

Ethnocentrism occurs when someone judges the acts of another culture based on the preconceptions that are found in the standards and values of one’s own culture. This process can occur on a societal level or involve specific behaviors or actions in the areas of religion, language, behavior, or customs. It is in these specific categories or aspects where we can define the unique cultural identity of each ethnicity.

The term “ethnocentrism” was first developed by Ludwig Gumplowicz, and then used by social scientist William Sumner. It was used as a term to describe why one culture feels like it has always occupied the highest point of humanity when compared to other groups. This attitude or approach may apply to the current nations and cultures in the world, but it can also relate to all of the civilizations that existed in the past.

Someone who takes an ethnocentric approach will always view their own group as the center of everything in the world. Everything else is done scaled or rated with reference to their primary definition to “prove” seniority. It is an approach in life which often leads to vanity and pride, failing to see any strength in the idea of diversity.

Although there are mostly disadvantages to the views that ethnocentrism requires, some cultures and individuals can use this comparison to find some advantages.

List of the Advantages of Ethnocentrism

1. An ethnocentric perspective eliminates social order criticisms.
When a society takes an ethnocentric approach, then it works to eliminate any criticism there might be of the social order. The general population will not start thinking about different political philosophies or structures because they become loyal through ethnocentrism to what currently exists. This approach maintains the prevailing order so that each person can see and understand their role in their community. It eliminates any criticism because those who want change are viewed as outliers and disloyal, which means their opinions or perspectives don’t matter to the majority.

2. It can increase the levels of devotion to a community, country, or society.
From an American perspective, patriotism is seen as a positive attribute. It is an indication of a person’s solidarity and devotion to the way of life found in the United States. This loyalty is not possible unless there is an effort to maintain ethnocentric views from the top down. It is more than a home country that you support. It is a spirit where you believe that what you have is the best way to live life.

People who leave to live in a different culture are doing it for ethnocentric views, but in an opposite manner. Because you would feel that going elsewhere would inspire more loyalty, you would place yourself in the best possible position to surround yourself with people who can support you.

3. Ethnocentrism can enhance solidarity in society.
When the majority of people in the society think and feel the same way about ethics and morality, then it creates less conflict in the general public. You will not find problems with racial friction, class conflicts, or sectarian violence if ethnocentrism is the approach that people take to their interactions with others. When everyone is on the same page and focused on improving their society for everyone, then it can help to bring progress to a community of any size.

The ethnocentric approach allows an individual to promote a positive self-image without much risk of conflict or rigidity because of the similarities that they share with the majority in their cultural community. Although this approach can also inspire hatred and violence, most people take a nuanced approach so that they can focus on themselves and their families first before worrying about what other people are doing.

4. It can produce higher levels of self-esteem.
People will only start to compare their culture with what others experience when there are high levels of pride involved in the personal experience. You must love who you are and your community before you can make an accurate judgment on how someone else is living. This approach can be advantageous in certain circumstances because it creates opportunities for people to find common ground. By comparing who we are with who others want to be, it becomes possible to find connections with like-minded people so that we can avoid the perils of social isolation.

Humans need to feel like they’re connected to something or someone for them to feel like there is a place for them in this world. Despite its many flaws, ethnocentrism can make this possible.

5. This view can help an evolving society remember who it has always been.
The people who tend to follow ethnocentric views often take their cues from history and the traditions that their ancestors brought to the modern culture. Because there is such an emphasis on keeping things the same whenever possible, it is easier to feel like we are in touch with the past in meaningful ways.

Ethnocentrism gives us an opportunity to show future generations what is possible through the implementation of continuous best practices based on historical knowledge. This process is how we can keep the distinctive elements of a culture alive for centuries without the need to find a compromise.

6. Ethnocentrism created the world as we know it today.
Settlers who started venturing out to the Western states during the expansion era of America did so under the assumption that they had a manifest destiny to follow. It was God’s will that the “civilized” cultures of the east begin to migrate west to begin taming the final frontier. All of the work was completed under the idea that missionary work was occurring, bringing new opportunities to the tribal cultures already living there.

Every colonization attempting for the past 500 years has been an effort to develop new resources in foreign locations because of the belief that one’s home country is better than the colony itself. It is a rule that is similar to “finder’s keepers” because of the role that ethnocentrism plays in our personal approach.

7. It creates an attitude of independence.
The people who maintain an ethnocentric view in life will not typically bother much about other societies and cultures in the world, past or present. This attitude causes them to lead a self-directed life. Some groups may come together with a similar perspective of the world, but there are also others who decide to thrive under independent isolation. People find contentment when there is unity in thought or a desire to take action. It is a process which can bring more solidarity to specific elements of society while allowing other cultures to pursue their goals at the same time without any interference.

8. Ethnocentrism can be a way to improve the world.
There are some moral absolutes which exist throughout almost every human society in history. Can you imagine what life would be like if Nazi Germany had won World War II instead of the allied forces? Even though the thought of having our personal culture be superior to that of Nazi culture is ethnocentric by definition, most people would see that there is a positive element to that comparison. When people can come together to take a moral stand, then they can speak with a collective voice that can shape the world in positive ways.

The only problem with this approach is that people can speak with one voice in negative ways as well.

List of the Disadvantages of Ethnocentrism

1. Decisions are made based on unrealistic comparisons.
The attitude of ethnocentrism is always one of superiority. Someone from outside of an existing culture is judging the actions of another people based on perspectives gained without the use of wisdom. Although every person on our planet has their own definition of “normal,” we cannot apply this observation to anyone else. Each person, even within a similar culture or ethnicity, leads an independent life. Their perspectives and differences are unique.

That means the conclusions which people draw when using ethnocentrism as their foundation for decision-making are based on generalizations and opinions instead of facts. Because this information does not include the other side of the equation, the conclusions we reach when using this approach are misleading at best.

2. Ethnocentrism can cause societal polarization.
It is easier to be scared of something or someone who is different than you then it is to embrace the diversity that can develop through the intermingling of ideas. When we think of someone who comes from a different culture, then the initial perspective tends to be one that looks at what we don’t like about that other system. Ethnocentrism is an embrace of negativity because the only goal of this approach is to prove individualized superiority. It makes us feel good to think that the decisions we made in life are better than the ones that other people made, especially in the areas of religious salvation, moral fortitude, and family planning.

When you have two individuals or groups who look at each other and think of that other culture as being inferior, then you create polarization in society. With each group not willing to compromise because they fear that there is a lack of morality or superiority in such a position, then people take sides instead of trying to get along with each other.

3. It can impact every aspect of life if we allow it to do so.
After the 2016 presidential election in the United States, there were couples filing for divorce because of the candidate whom they chose on their ballot. People can separate themselves even in the same religion by preferring one denomination over another because they think their belief structure is the best one to follow. Parents can become divided over how they decide to discipline their children. Any time that we think of one group as being superior to another (and we are in that superior group), then it isn’t an ego that is talking. It is the philosophies of ethnocentrism rearing its ugly head.

This belief system requires us to close off our minds to different perspectives and opinions. We can no longer choose to believe anything but our own thoughts or ideas because no one else to be correct. That is why societies self-destruct over time – because no one is willing to listen to what anyone else has to say. Life becomes more about what is said in the echo chamber instead of outside of it.

4. Ethnocentrism drives people away from what they love.
If the only thing that a person experiences is rejection in life, then there is no desire to be around people who think of them as being inferior. This attitude drives a wedge between groups where those who are in the minority feel like the only option available to them sometimes is to leave. Communities in the United States are becoming more like minded than ever before because of this very reason. Whenever the approach of ethnocentrism is taken, it creates a circumstance where individuals or groups provide ultimatums to each other.

This approach is a “you’re with me” or “you’re against me” attitude in all aspects of life. There is no middle ground when taking the ethnocentric approach. Because the only relationships which form from these ultimatums are the ones which share specific belief systems, people are moving further away from diversity. In time, this will cause humanity to become weaker.

5. It is a philosophy which limits the human perspective.
Have you ever seen someone resist change even though the new policies or procedures they were being asked to follow would make your life easier? That is another example of ethnocentrism at work. Just because someone has been completing the same task in the same way for a long time doesn’t mean that it is the best way to operate. The act of dismissing any thought of evolution or change at the micro or macro levels is evidence of an ethnocentric perspective.

That’s not to say that all changes should be followed without question. The people who are enforcing change can be just as ethnocentric in their philosophies as those who are resisting it. The issue here is that the superiority of belief found on both sides of the aisle limits the ability to implement best practices in our personal or professional lives.

6. Ethnocentrism can have deadly results.
Are you the type of person who gets angry when someone has a disagreement on an opinion that you have shared? Have you changed the way that you go out in public if you’re an American because of the myriad of stories that involve gun violence in recent years? The problem that ethnocentrism ultimately brings to humanity is its nature of escalation. People become blinded by their personal perspectives to the extent where it becomes the correct choice for them to enforce their philosophies on other people at any expense.

When you see an act of terrorism, either domestic or foreign, then you are witnessing an act of ethnocentrism. If you see someone committing an act of violence against another person, then this is also ethnocentrism. Although people in the minority will sometimes rise up against these actions to commit violence themselves, a retaliatory response would not occur in society if the impression from ethnocentric views was not present in the first place.

7. This philosophy can create isolation.
As Psychology Today notes, humans are hardwired to interact with other people. We seek out social connections whenever we go through a stressful incident in life. Trying to cope with a stressful incident on our own can increase anxiety levels and hinder our ability to manage emotions. Some people like to be by themselves for personal reasons, but ethnocentrism can cause social isolation simply because someone feels different (and superior) to everyone else. Even small groups of like-minded people who do not experience diversity in thought or opinion can experience this disadvantage together.

People who experience ethnocentrism in small groups will eventually find themselves experiencing appetite changes, different sleeping patterns, and some may even lose track of time or their ability to concentrate and focus. There is boredom when you are around the same people all of the time with limited sources of entertainment.

8. Ethnocentrism limits the choices that people can make.
How do you feel about products which are made in China? Do you feel like they are made of a high-quality, or is there an underlying reason why there might be a distaste for imported products? When you have two items of equal quality and price available for purchase, having a consistent preference for something produced in a manner of which you approve is an ethnocentric viewpoint. Even in a free-market economy where people are free to choose whatever they want, the judgment of someone buying foreign instead of domestic sets the foundation for all of the other disadvantages listed here.

9. It hinders the work of cultural assimilation.
Cultural assimilation is a process where the individuals of one culture fuse themselves with a different one as a way to fit in with in the context of ethnocentrism. Individuals and groups will work to acquire the same cultural patterns, ideas, and attitudes of the majority in their new community. When the existing people see this activity, it feels like an attempt to copy their belief structures. This process then can lead to criticism and a hindrance of the work of fitting in if you are moving from a place outside of the “normal” culture.

That is why ethnocentrism is one of the most significant societal problems in the developed world today. Instead of creating unity through diversity, this approach requires people to change who they are if the majority of people in a community deem the difference to be something that makes a person unfit for inclusion.

Verdict on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism is a dangerous philosophy to follow because it requires each person to make assumptions of the other without taking their perspective into account. It is more than a lack of empathy; it is a complete disregard of the understanding needed to see through a different set of circumstances. We can find this issue in the significant subjects that we debate as well as our individual choices in some matters.

Each person decides to live their life based on the ethics and values which are found in that individual’s local society. These decisions do not translate to other cultures because there are a different set of perspectives involved. The diversity that we have in humanity demands that we have a willingness to except the experiences that everyone else contributes because that is how we all become better at the individual level.

The advantages and disadvantages of ethnocentrism show us that when we embrace the uniqueness of each identity, then we can find moments of inspiration and innovation. When we are unwilling to accept a different perspective on life, then there is no way for any of us to maximize the potential of who we are.

A zoological garden, which is sometimes referred to as an animal park or a menagerie, is a facility which houses animals within an enclosure and displays them to the public in a manner that is safe for everyone involved. Most of us referred to these parks as a zoo. The first modern one was opened in 1828 for scientific study in London, and then eventually became open to the public about 30 years later.

Over 180 million people visit zoos in the United States each year. There are thousands of them around the world, with every continent except Antarctica hosting at least one.

Not only can we benefit from the experience of learning about new animals and their habitats by visiting a zoo, but it also gives families an opportunity to spend time together while enjoying the outdoors. This advantage comes at the expense of the animals which are forced to spend their lives in an enclosure. Although there are efforts to replicate a wild habitat, a small display area is hardly the same as being free to roam.

There are additional pros and cons of zoos that are essential to consider as well.

List of the Pros of Zoos

1. Zoos have a significant financial benefit for their communities.
A report out of George Mason University found that zoos associated with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums employed almost 40,000 people. For every $1 million spent by zoos on their operational outlays, there were nearly 30 jobs supported. Another 23 jobs were supported for every $1 million that zoos spent on construction projects. That created a total economic output in the United States of more than $17 billion per year, with $2.4 billion in spending and $5.4 billion in personal earnings on top of that figure.

The indirect spending that zoos provide for their communities are significant as well, adding another 62,000 jobs across the United States to support visitors.

2. A zoo can provide a protected environment for rare and endangered species.
Animal products like elephant tusks or shark fins create a financial market where the health and welfare of a species is secondary to the profits which are possible. Some species have been poached to near extinction because of this market. By having these animals in zoos, there is another layer of protection given to these hunted species so that their survival chances are greater.

That hasn’t stopped some poachers from breaking into zoos to harvest what they want, but it is preventing the levels of harm that we have seen in the past. Because poaching activities qualify as criminal conduct, most attempts are thwarted.

3. These facilities can provide an educational resource to their community.
Most zoos got their start because local scientists wanted to get to know wild and exotic species better. Although the initial methods of retrieval were brutal, sometimes killing the parents to take the young one back for study, the overall goal was to extend human knowledge. This emphasis is still present today, with many facilities offering educational programs, behind-the-scenes tours, and various activities which encourage visitors to learn more about the animals which live there.

You will also see the staff members from local zoos making presentations at local schools and businesses to raise awareness for what they do. Specific programs at the zoological grounds encourage visitors to interact with the animals in unique ways. Although not everyone can afford a visit to their local zoo, there are still plenty of ways to learn more about the various animals who share this planet with us.

4. We can protect some of the rarest animals in the world in zoos.
If you visit the Audubon Nature Institute in New Orleans, then you can see a rare white alligator. About 15 out of the 5 million animals currently alive are believed to have this rare condition that changes the color of their skin. When you visit the Memphis Zoo, then you can see an Okapi. The Red Panda can be found in St. Louis, and there are fewer than 10,000 of them in the world today.

Additional rare animals which receive protection in U.S. zoos include the Addax, Amur tiger, Borneo elephant, and the Pacific walrus.

5. Animals receive care from specialized trainers in zoos.
Zoos provide specialized care for the animals that are kept on the grounds. Instead of keeping them in small cages, there is an effort to replicate the natural habitat to accommodate the natural instincts of each animal. Each person in a caretaker role is highly educated, trained to know the mannerisms, health needs, and characteristics of the animal to ensure the highest levels of safety. These efforts have created a significant reduction in the number of attacks and accidents that occur.

The animals are given special activities and nutrition that works with their instincts as well to give them the most natural existence possible. Although these efforts do not entirely replicate migration or hunting, it does reduce the amount of boredom that occurs during their stay in the zoo. These efforts have helped to reduce the risks of premature death in many species as well.

6. Zoos are regularly inspected and accredited for the services they provide.
Zoos receive regular inspections on multiple levels to ensure they are in compliance with care and safety regulations. Careful supervision of policies and procedures allows for trainers, visitors, and the animals to maintain a higher level of safety in every facet of care. If zoos are unable to maintain standards of cleanliness, animal engagement, and habitat structure, then the facility can lose its accreditation and ability to operate.

The animals would then be transferred to zoos where the proper care would be given to them. Because there isn’t a monetary transaction that occurs, there is no way for the non-profit organization providing supports for the zoo to recoup their losses. If they don’t follow the rules, they essentially go out of business.

7. Most zoos use veterinarians and work with professionals from degree programs.
The Smithsonian Zoo is one example of many that works with local institutions to build programs at every post-graduate level to ensure the future safety of animals. There are residency programs, veterinarian internships, and a variety of other educational opportunities which allow for a high level of treatment for the conditions which may development.

You can find animal treatment teams including specialists, pathologies, and trainers to ensure that every care plan is followed to the letter. Quarantine procedures are part of the zoo’s overall structure as well. The overall goal always remains the same; to ensure the best possible care for every animal in care.

List of the Cons of Zoos

1. Zoos are often used to exploit people, animals, and even communities.
Did you know that one of the first zoological gardens in the Western Hemisphere featured humans instead of animals? This first effort displayed people who had different physical traits that were unusual – something similar to the “freak shows” of the traveling circuses in the 19th and early 20th century. Even the Catholic Church got involved with this effort at displaying people in cages, maintaining facilities deep into the 16th century.

Humans as part of zoological exhibitions did not fully stop until the early 20th century. Ota Benga was part of an exhibit in the Bronx and in St. Louis, purchased by a Christian missionary who wanted to put African people into an exhibition. Now some would argue we do the same thing with animals or try to hold communities hostage because of the potential financial gains that a well-run zoo can provide.

2. It changes the lifespan of the animals held in captivity.
Even when you take into consideration the educational benefits that come with a zoo, the fact is that most wild animals do not adapt well to confined circumstances. It places enormous pressure on the mental health of many species, causing them to live much shorter lives than they would in the wild. The difference can be as much as 50% when comparing the lifespan of a wild species compared to one kept in a zoo.

Orcas can live for more than a century on their own, but when you keep them in captivity, the average lifespan for a male is less than 20 years. National Geographic notes that elephants can live for up to 70 years when they live in protected areas of the wild in Africa or Asia, while those kept in zoos is just 17 years for African elephants born into captivity.

3. Zoos are losing their influence on the educational industry.
When the first modern zoo was established in London in the 19th century, the purpose was purely scientific. Even when these facilities began to open to the general public, the purpose was still to provide an educational resource to the community. Although there are some around the world which continue to place their primary emphasis on teaching, research, and saving endangered species, more facilities are focused on the entertainment experience instead.

Visiting the zoo requires people to have respect for the fences, borders, and safety enclosures that separate the animals from their trainers, keepers, and families. When an incident causes an individual to fall into the enclosure of a wild animal, the facility will usually save the person by killing the animal.

4. It changes the behavior of the animal.
The behavior of animals will change when they encounter long periods of captivity. This disadvantage occurs because there is no longer a need to hunt for their survival. Even injured animals can encounter this problem if their recovery time is lengthy. Being stuck in the same enclosure every day also disrupts the natural migratory patterns of the species, which can have a dramatic impact on their mental health.

Elephants become more aggressive when they are unable to travel and explore, which is caused zookeepers to euthanize almost 100 individuals in the past decade because of the danger they caused to others. Predatory animals encounter a similar problem when they are kept in a zoo as well, even if there is no way to safely introduce them back into the wild.

5. Animals can become dependent on the facilities.
Animals which are born in captivity can often adapt to their circumstances if given enough time, but they will still encounter the lifespan issues of their parents. That problem will not go away no matter how many generations remain in captivity. What we see is a process that eventually leads towards domestication, which is why it is a struggle for injured or wild animals to finish out their lives in a zoo.

When dealing with a predator species in particular, any children born in captivity cannot be released into the wild because they have no hunting or survival instincts. That means a cycle of dependency begins that requires ongoing resources to maintain because that animal has no ability to live on its own.

6. Zoos are ultimately a business that needs to make money.
Przewalski’s horse is a success story for zoos because this species was believed to be extinct in the wild. Only a dozen individuals were left in one facility by the 1940s, but their numbers are now in the thousands today because of the conservation programs that were initiated to save them. There are now wild herds in Europe and Mongolia, closely monitored by scientists, which are thriving.

Zoos can do an excellent job at conservation if they make the effort, but far too often profit is the primary motivation. When animals move from zoo to zoo, trading money or other resources in exchange for another display opportunity to the local population, then it is our welfare we are concerned about instead of theirs.

7. The best natural habitat enclosures are a poor substitute for the real thing.
Some animals travel more than 50 miles per day as they wander about their wild habitat. The actual territory of some individuals and packs may be over 300 miles in width. When you keep the animal in a zoo instead, then they might have 1,500 square feet to roam, and sometimes even less. Even the Greater Vancouver Zoo, which seeks to replicate the natural environment for their animals, cannot supply a large enough space to accommodate these natural behaviors.

Some elephant herds in the wild can grow to become 40 members strong. When we look at zoo management, it is not unusual to take calves away from their mothers before they fully mature simply because there is a new marketing opportunity available somewhere else.

8. Some zoos are unable to care for their animals.
If you wanted to visit the San Diego Zoo in 2019, then a one-day pass for an adult will set you back $50. Kids 12 and up qualify for the adult rate. A child’s ticket is going to cost you $46. If you have four kids that you want to take there for the day, then you could be out $300 before you take your first step onto the grounds. Even those prices are not enough to keep the zoo financially solid.

The San Diego Zoo offers an annual Gala fundraiser were tickets begin at $450 each, while preferred seating options are priced at $900. You will find employer matching, tribute gifts, exhibition sponsorship, and financial wildlife adoptions are all part of their financial picture each year as well. Most zoos struggle to survive, which means the animals kept in those facilities are also at risk.

9. Even the best zoos can have animals develop severe health problems.
Animals need to be kept in temperate zones which are similar to their natural habitat if they have any hope of being successful in the zoo. Elephants don’t do well when they are kept in locations that are cold and snowy. Polar bears don’t do well in tropical locations, even when they receive ice as a coping mechanism for the climate. Their health degrades rapidly when conditions are not favorable to them, sometimes even incapacitating the animal under extreme circumstances.

Verdict on the Pros and Cons of Zoos

There are times when a zoo is absolutely necessary to the survival of the animal. Then there are the circumstances where we try to profit off of their circumstances. We might be talking about animals who may not have the same level of conscious thought as humans, but how we treat other species says more about who we are than it does about the animals we keep.

Zoos can excel when they have the proper funding to meet the needs of their animal population. They must have staff present at all times who understand what it takes to have a safe experience. Even highly trained people miss an open lock or find themselves in dangerous circumstances with predatory animals, so there is always some level of risk involved.

The pros and cons of zoos are often dependent on whether you view an animal as property or an independent individual. There are times when wild animals should stay that way. When that possibility is no longer a choice, then this option might be the next best thing.

Extrinsic motivation is any behavior that is driven by an external reward. If you are motivated by a good paycheck, fame, praise from family or friends, or even the grades you earn at school, then this process applies to you. It is any type of motivation which arises from the external aspects of life for an individual. That is the opposite of intrinsic motivation, which originates from inside each person.

Every action that we take in life has either extrinsic or intrinsic motivation to it. Even the act of reading this content right now comes from a motivational factor in either category. Are you trying to learn the advantages and disadvantages of extrinsic motivation so that you can get a better grade in your class? Or are you studying this resource because of your interest in learning more about how humans behave?

When there is extrinsic motivation involved in an action, then people will stay motivated to continue performing it even though the task itself may offer no reward.

List of the Advantages of Extrinsic Motivation

1. This motivation can influence individuals or groups and their productivity levels.
When there are extrinsic incentives in place for individuals or teams, then everyone can receive motivation through the same process to increase their productivity. Any element of existence can improve when there are rewards in place for specific behaviors. You can create a better learning environment for the classroom, improve skill-based vocations, and instill a need for consistency in the completed tasks.

“Extrinsic motivation can exert a powerful influence on human behavior,” writes Kendra Cherry for Verywell Mind, “but as research on the overjustification effect shows, it has its limits. [It] is not a bad thing. External rewards can be [a] useful and effective tool for getting people to stay motivated and on task.”

2. Extrinsic motivation can lead to individual benefits.
When there are specific motivational factors that apply at the individual level, then it can inspire people to behave in specific ways. This change or improvement in specific processes would not occur if the presence of an external reward were not available.

Someone might not want to find employment, but the external factor of earning a paycheck to have a home, vehicle, and food on the table can motivate that person to work harder to ensure that their needs can continue to be met.

“Extrinsic value is the value objects, empirical things, have to the measure that they meet the demands of belonging to a case as determined by the intension of an analytic concept,” wrote John William Davis.

3. It creates a desire to chase after goals or dreams.
Having goals is a healthy part of the human experience. When there is something you can work toward, then your efforts have meaning. Life is ultimately a series of choices that we make every day, even if we don’t consciously ask ourselves specific questions that guide our lives all of the time.

If you wake up in the morning and decide not to file for divorce, then your decision offers extrinsic rewards which outweigh what would happen otherwise. When you make it into work each morning even if you hate your job, then the value of what you earn outweighs the contempt you feel. Following a path that leads you to a final goal or dream creates a journey through life that is meaningful, even if there are a few regrets that you might experience along the way.

4. Extrinsic motivation creates the foundation for survival.
We are always working for extrinsic rewards in our own way each day. We need to have these external benefits for our very survival. There are three core needs that people must have in life: food, water, and shelter. Clothing is nice to have as well. The reasons why we pursue them and how we do it might vary, but the desire to survive is the core driving factor in the choices that we make.

Even if you decide to stay away from formal employment, tending a garden every day creates an extrinsic reward that provides food. You can build a shelter out in the woods through your labor because of extrinsic motivation. We often look at this concept for the small rewards in life, like feeling great about our job or being more productive, but it also applies to the very basics of life.

5. The rewards can be tangible or psychological and still be beneficial.
Extrinsic motivation is defined as our choice to engage in a specific activity so that a gain is experienced somehow in life. Money and trophies are important tangible rewards that can serve as motivation factors, but praise and public acclaim can serve as a reward too. Parents aren’t going to give a child a trophy every time they decide to clean their room, might they might offer positive praise that could create motivation. Even an actor might take on a role not because it pays a lot, but because it could help them to receive more attention to the work that they’re doing.

Even if the rewards only provide a short burst of activity, they feelings they provide can turn an external reward into an internal one. When someone offers praise for a job well done, the pride that this can inspire can lead to similar outcomes in the future for similar tasks.

6. It is a highly effective method of increasing motivation.
This type of motivation is highly effective at producing results. We often use multiple layers of extrinsic motivation every day, whether that means shopping at a specific store to collect loyalty points or a credit card to collect miles so that you can take a vacation later in the year. Any time we choose a specific behavior to collect an external reward, then this is the process that we follow.

As long as the individual or group continues to see value in the work, then this motivation will continue to be present. If there are different rewards available after each project, there can be ongoing interest in the processes because different needs are being met at each conclusion point.

7. Extrinsic rewards can help people to save money.
Saving money is just as motivational for people to consider as earning it when making choices throughout the day. If you clip coupons or search for promo codes online before making a purchase, then you are taking advantage of this specific benefit. You are also using extrinsic value when you shop the clearance rack at a store, complete tasks to avoid judgment, or earn a degree so that you can have a bigger paycheck to stash some cash in the bank. Whenever your motivation comes from the outside to complete a task, then you are experiencing this process in some way.

List of the Disadvantages of Extrinsic Motivation

1. External rewards are the ones that typically don’t last for a lifetime.
When people start reflecting on the choices that they made in life, those who spent their time chasing after external rewards often regret many of the decisions they made. If you are striving for things that involve money or possessions, then these items are fleeting. It is the memories that you make with your families and friends that become the most-prized elements of life as the years go by, which is something that you can’t always find when pursuing the next great opportunity.

If you experience this disadvantage of extrinsic rewards, then it could interfere with your happiness in the future – even if you are satisfied with where you are currently at in life right now. As W. Edwards Deming, author of The New Economics for Industry, Government, and Education once said, “Monetary rewards are not a substitute for intrinsic motivation.”

2. It can work to repress the intrinsic motivations people have in life.
There are some extrinsic rewards that can reduce or remove the internal motivations that people have for doing what they do each day. If your focus is on earning a paycheck, then you might report each day to a job that you hate because you feel like the ongoing rewards are worth the sacrifice. When you compare that perspective with one where an individual gets to work in a field in which they are consistently passionate and they get a paycheck, then both sets of rewards become possible in their life.

“Intrinsic motivation is conducive to creativity,” writes Daniel H. Pink, author of Drive. “Controlling extrinsic motivation is detrimental to creativity. For artists, inventors, scientists, and children, intrinsic motivation (the drive to do something) because it is interesting, challenging, or absorbing is essential for high levels of creativity.”

3. Extrinsic motivation is often a finite process.
If someone knows that they will receive a reward no matter what they do, then there is zero motivation to work harder. Knowing that benefits are present can make it so that some individuals stop caring about what they do. Even taking a reward away may not be enough motivation to continue pressing forward if the value of it is less than the benefits of not working in the first place.

That’s why extrinsic motivation is rarely sustainable over long periods of time. Although you always need food and water access and will work for it, there are some jobs where no one could pay you enough money to take on that responsibility. Those who provide this motivational factor must ensure that the value proposition can increase to continue encouraging productivity. That’s one of the reasons why raises are offered by companies.

4. It follows a course of diminishing returns.
If you continue to receive the same reward without variation, then the extrinsic motivational factors will begin to lose their influence in a person’s life. People will only start to work harder, with better quality, or more consistency when they continue to see increases in the rewards which are available.

When there are larger rewards available for people to enjoy, then there is more motivation to work harder for it. How much of a difference would it make if your boss decided to give you a $1 million raise to meet a specific quota instead of a $1,000 increase to your salary? You must keep scaling the extrinsic rewards upward to continue having the same levels of success. If you continue to offer the same benefit each time, then every repetition of the cycle will create a lesser outcome.

Teresa Amabile, who is a Baker Foundation Professor at Harvard Business School, puts it this way. “Most people aren’t anywhere near to realizing their creative potential, in part because they’re laboring in environments that impede intrinsic motivation.”

5. Rewards can make the activities less enjoyable for some individuals.
When there are no internal motivations that can provide rewards for the work being done, then the extrinsic motivational factors will eventually lose their influence in a person’s life. People will lose their desire to keep working when the continuous provision of a reward occurs. The only exception to this disadvantage occurs when the activities help to supply survival needs. If a person’s perspectives, desires, or intrinsic rewards change, then anything that could come from the external world will no longer hold the same amount of value.

6. There is no passion created through extrinsic value.
When you must rely on extrinsic value to ensure that workers are being productive consistently, then you are not creating passion. You’re guaranteeing that the individuals or teams involved are going to do the bare minimum to succeed so that the reward will appear. That is why this process becomes ineffective over time. The work will become boring over time, which means people will start to abandon the process because the intrinsic rewards of leaving to a different task outweigh the current external benefits being offered.

Alfie Kohn, author of Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes, describes this disadvantage in a unique way. “Rewards usually improve performance only at extremely simple – indeed, mindless – tasks, and even then, they improve only quantitative performance.”

7. It can cause people and teams to have unrealistic expectations of the future.
When you must begin to rely on extrinsic motivation as a way to get people or teams to work for you, then you’re setting a dangerous precedent with your efforts. If someone starts expecting to receive a reward for everything that they do, then they will refuse to be involved with a project until you promise something of value to them. It is a process which causes people to actively avoid tasks, even if it could help them to develop their career or personal life, because they do not see an immediate benefit to the possible sacrifices they would make.

8. You can offer someone too much extrinsic value at times.
There are times when offering a reward can increase a person’s motivation. Researchers have also discovered that providing an excessive reward can decrease a person’s passion or desire to be active. It creates an environment of suspicion because the offer seems too good to be true. The person or team will then look for reasons why others might not want to take on the task instead of getting to work on what needs to get done.

The rewards must apply directly to the performance of a specific behavior for them to be effective. This process can then introduce internal motivators to be active, especially if it works to establish essential skills. It is even possible to remove extrinsic rewards over time if intrinsic ones can take over. That’s why the best offers tend to be smaller benefits that create an immediate and positive impact.

Verdict on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Extrinsic Value

The external rewards that happen in life make us feel good, especially if they come from an unexpected source. You can motivate people to achieve excellence with encouraging words, money, celebrity status, and much more. Even something as small as a trophy for personal recognition can inspire someone to continue moving on to bigger and better things.

“Motivation is a fire from within,” Stephen R. Covey once advised. “If someone tries to light that fire for you, the chances are it will burn very briefly.”

Extrinsic value can only provide consistency or increases in productivity when people experience a desire to have those rewards. If that passion for “compensation” disappears, then it no longer becomes a motivational tool. That is why the providers of these rewards must always be adapting to perspective changes to continue support those who enjoy the presence of this tool.

The advantages and disadvantages of extrinsic value can motivate people to new heights, but they can also miss the mark and stop individuals from performing at all. That is why it is essential to personalize this process to each person or group so that they can receive rewards that are reflective of the work that they are doing.