Criticism #2: Millions of Men Are Missing From the Job Market

         Economists have long struggled to explain why a growing proportion of men in the prime of their lives are not employed or looking for work. In a recent, The New York Times article by the Editorial Board entitled "Millions of Men Are Missing From the Job Market" published on October 16, 2016, discuss the connection between joblessness and painkiller dependency. The article shows a new study that has found nearly half of unemployed men who are not even seeking for the job depends on painkillers and many of them are disabled. The article makes the logical appeal to the readers by showing statistics about men who are not working and not looking for jobs. It shows that as of last month, 11.4 percent of men between the ages of 25 and 54 or about seven million people were not in the labor force, which means that they were not employed and were not seeking a job. This percentage has been rising for decades as it was less than 4 percent in the 1950s, but the trend accelerated in the last 20 years.
                The article provides information about the result of the survey, which was taken between 2010 and this year. It shows that 40 percent of prime working age men who are not in the labor force report having pain that prevents them from taking jobs for which they are qualified. More than a third of the men not in the labor force said that they had difficulty walking or climbing stairs or had another disability. Forty-four percent said that they took painkillers daily and two-thirds of that subset were on prescription medicines. The article also shows report of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reported that these drugs are less effective and much more addictive than previously thought.
               The article adds some view of experts on the connection between chronic joblessness and painkiller dependency. Some experts suspect that frequent use of painkillers is a result of being out of work because people who have no job prospects are more likely to be depressed, become addicted to drugs and alcohol and have other mental health problems. At last, an article says that more research is clearly needed. In the meantime, some things could be done to help workers who've given up. Congress could appropriate money for the opioid addiction treatment and prevention programs they authorized in July.  The article shows the solution for this problem by providing the way of targeted investments in infrastructure and education that could create jobs and bolster the skills of local workers. I totally agree with the article's discussion about the connection between chronic joblessness and painkiller dependency as because of unemployment people get addicted to drugs and suffer from several mental problems. As millions of Americans are struggling with pain and missing from the labor market, a crisis that damage families and communities.

Criticism #1: How Trump would stimulate the U.S. economy

          As we all know that the United States is the world's largest national economy in nominal terms. In a recent, the Washington Post article by Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross entitled "How Trump would stimulate the U.S. economy" published on September 23, 2016,shows how Trump's plan would be growth-inducing for U.S. economy. Authors describe different strategies of Trump which would stimulate U.S. economy. They make the argument that how Hillary Clinton's economic plan would not improve economic ills over Trump's plan which would generate millions of traditional jobs and trillions of dollars in additional income and tax revenue.
         Peter Navarro is a business professor at UC-Irvine. Wilbur Ross is an international private equity investor. Both are senior policy advisors to the Trump campaign. They make a logical appeal in the article by showing statistics of GDP growth since from 1947. The article also shows that 43 million Americans suffer in poverty whereas 4.9 percent unemployment rate in the US leads to nearly 1 in 6 men ages 18 to 34 in jail or out of work. Authors claim that Trump's plan would realign corporate incentives so that it would be more profitable to invest in the United States by describing four component's which would drive every nation's GDP and as the United States structural economic problems are primarily focused on the investment and net exports growth drivers. Authors also claim that Trump's plan of cutting the high corporate tax rate, reducing unnecessary regulation and cracking down on trade cheating would make U.S. corporation competitive on domestic soil whereas Clinton's economic plan would not improve that anemic growth but would raise taxes, increase regulation, and impose further restrictions on fossil fuels that would significantly raise energy and electricity costs. Trump plan would also eliminate "trade deficit drag" not just by cracking down on currency  manipulation, intellectual theft but would also negotiate new deals and renegotiate bad deals whereas as a poster child of how not to negotiate, there is Clinton's 2012 Korean deal, she promised us 70,000 new jobs. Instead, we have lost 75,000 jobs, and our Korean trade deficit has nearly doubled.
               I personally feel that authors have very well explained their point in the article but, I do not totally agree with them claiming that only Trump would stimulate U.S. economy. It might be possible that Clinton would also increase the economic growth of U.S. It might also be possible that media is used to manipulate public opinion over the selection of a president. But, if Trump uses and applies all the strategies listed in the article then it could be said that the United States have rapid economic growth and millions of Americans can go back to work.