Is The Government Doing Enough Research Paper

We need to start questioning how the government is allocating funds to help those unemployed return to work. In the editorial written by the Editorial Board, titled “Desperate Times, Creative Measures” we learn about what the coronavirus has done economically, specifically to the job market. The authors use literary devices such as logos, diction, and bias to support their common idea that the government should begin doing more to create better job opportunities for those who are unemployed. 

“Millions of Americans are approaching a grim anniversary” Here, the authors use diction. Diction is used in this article to make the reader sympathize with the unemployed. By using grim instead of just saying sad, the sentence has more impact and feeling. Then in paragraph 5 “Sideline workers begin to lose their Networks. Their unused skills atrophy.”. The author uses a dictionary on the word Atrophy. Atrophy means wasting away or diminution, consequently by using this word, we empathize with the struggles of the unemployed. Furthermore, the authors use diction they deepen The impact of their sentences. The author's tone towards the unemployed is elegiac and constantly compares it to the crisis of 2008. In addition to using diction, the severity was not lost. Understanding the impacts of not having a job conveys the importance for jobs moreover the need for government funds towards creating more job opportunities.

Unemployment checks and training programs are short-sighted in that they are not a solution but a temporary fix to a much bigger problem. By using logic with supporting reasoning the authors use logos to argue a consistent theme that the government is not doing enough. “Even effective training programs, however, don't create jobs - they create qualified workers they only will benefit if the government gets the big picture right. By bringing the coronavirus under control, pumping gas into the economy and keeping interest rates low.” In this excerpt from the article, the author's counterargument strengthens their argument. By saying, yes, training is great and makes great workers, the authors acknowledge that the training can do great for creating strong workers; never the fewer jobs are what is needed. Great workers mean nothing if they cannot work. The authors acknowledge the other side they strengthen their point. The authors say that unless the world becomes ideal for economic profit, without an increased job market even great workers won't work.  This is pure logic and reasoning, that backs up in addition to supporting the claim.

The Editorial Board is a group of opinion journalists. From the get-go we know this article has a bias, opinions stem from personal experiences and therefore possible prejudice. The authors use this to their advantage by incorporating it into the text to strengthen their points. One example is, “The Biden Administration did not include funding for retraining programs in its 1.9 trillion coronavirus package. That is a mistake Congress can correct.”. Here the authors imply that the Biden administration did not do what was right; that is the author's opinion. Due to the fact that the authors have previously mentioned the effects of unemployment, we understand there is a need for funds towards temporary solutions in addition to the big picture solutions as the ultimate goal is getting people back to work; not just putting on a temporary Band-Aid. In this case of bias the author does take a look at both sides but ultimately wants what's best for those unemployed. Bias does is not inherently a negative rhetorical device. The authors use bias in this article to try to convince the reader to understand the side of those who have lost their job and are struggling, using this they strengthen their stance.

What do the authors want the takeaway from this article to be? The authors wanted you to understand the severity of what it means to have 8 million fewer Americans unemployed than before covid. The author wants people to consider a more holistic approach to the unemployment problem, they want you to not only consider the short-term needs met by unemployment insurance but also the long-term and the more economically profitable issue of getting folks back to work. The authors wrote an article criticizing the government’s approach to solve an unemployment issue. Using diction, bias, and logos the authors support a strong claim that the government needs to do more to help the unemployment crisis due in fact right now the government can and should but they are not doing enough.