Has the pandemic changed you? What a silly question! Of course it has. Ahhh, but how deeply? In what ways? That question can’t be answered yet, and we may not be able to know for a very long time. In this October 2021 report, writer and journalist Greg Rosalsky, who covers a variety of financial topics for NPR’s Planet Money, investigates some of the reasons for the long arc of pandemic consequences, including the current phenomenon known as the Great Resignation.
Read it here.
EXPLORE, REFLECT, SPEAK UP.
1. Greg Rosalsky asserts that the Covid pandemic has “changed the way we view our lives and the world.” What evidence does he present to back up his assertion? Summarize it. Is the evidence persuasive to you? Why or why not? Explain your reasoning.
2. Rosalsky’s title promises to explain why so many US workers are quitting their jobs. Does the article live up to its promise? Explain your response. If you could give the article a different title for the same Planet Money webpage, what would it be? Suppose your school or community newspaper or website or community paper/webpage wanted to publish the article; what title would be suitable for that context? Why? Explain your choice.
3. LET’S TALK. Rosalsky cites research that demonstrates long-lasting effects—even “generational effects”—of large-scale economic events and conditions. For example, according to researchers Malmendier and Nagel, the generation of people who grew up during the Great Depression of the 1930s was “skittish” about investing in the stock market. How has your approach to finances been shaped by events that occurred and conditions that existed when you were very small or even before you were born? In other words, how have the experiences of your parents and grandparents influenced your attitudes toward money and financial wellbeing? Share ideas and experiences with a few classmates. How have your attitudes developed? In what ways are you and your classmates similar? In what ways different? Have you gained any new insights into the ways that your personal behavior might be shaped by large-scale historical events such as economic crashes?
4. AND NOW WRITE. As Rosalsky states, our new pandemic-driven behaviors and adaptations that we’ve had to learn “will continue to shape our choices long after the viral danger recedes.” How has your general approach to life changed since the beginning of the pandemic? What changes do you anticipate for the near future? How do you expect your life in five years to be different from the way you might have imagined it two years ago? Write an essay in which you address those questions and imagine yourself five years in the future. What decisions and paths have you taken that are influenced by the pandemic, perhaps by the “pandemic epiphanies” that Rosalsky mentions? Are there any ways in which a satisfying future might result from your new, pandemic-informed approach to life?
LetsTalkLibrary 
Rosalsky’s title promises to explain why so many US workers are quitting their jobs. Does the article live up to its promise? Explain your response. If you could give the article a different title for the same Planet Money webpage, what would it be? Suppose your school or community newspaper or website or community paper/webpage wanted to publish the article; what title would be suitable for that context? Why? Explain your choice.
Rosalsky’s title doesn’t live up to its promise. The reason behind that is because in the article by Rosalsky he talks about how people are affected by causes that don’t want them to do it again. An example from the article “They wanted to know whether those who grew up in the aftermath of the stock market crash of 1929 were less likely to invest in the stock market. They found the answer was a resounding yes ” (Rosalsky). It doesn’t explain thoroughly why people are quitting their jobs. The title I would give it that would be suitable is “Psychological Effects on Past Trauma” this would suit the article better. The reason is that Rosalsky doesn’t talk about much of why people are quitting he just talks about how people are not working because of past traumas and bad experiences. The title that I did would suit it more. A past article I read called “THE ‘GREAT RESIGNATION’ IS FINALLY GETTING COMPANIES TO TAKE BURNOUT SERIOUSLY. IS IT ENOUGH?” by Jamie Ducharme. This article by him made more sense on why people are quitting their jobs. An example from his article “For many, that means targeting burnout, a cocktail of work-related stress, exhaustion, cynicism and
negativity that is surging during the pandemic. Forty-two percent of U.S. women and 35% of U.S. men
said they feel burned out often or almost always in 2021″ (Ducharme). This explains even more why people are quitting because due to exhaustion and being overworked.
The author was being sarcastic but at the same time being serious, when in the beginning when starting off the paragraph and was using the appeal to ridicule. To prove my point, ” Goodbye. Farewell. Adios. Sayonara. Workers have been giving their bosses an earful of such words as of late. Last week, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 4.3 million Americans, or 2.9% of the entire workforce, quit their jobs in August. That was a record-breaking month, piggybacking on previous record months. “The Great Resignation” is real, and it can be seen across virtually all industries” ( Rosalsky).
My overall analysis of both articles is that Jamie Ducharme is a better article to read in terms of why people are quitting due to being overworked, short-staffed, and not being treated fairly. This shows more about why people are quitting in Ducharme’s article. On the other hand in Rosalsky’s article mostly talks about how people aren’t working because of past experiences or past traumas. Such as Rosalsky compared it to the Stock Market Crash and how people after the Stock Markey Crash nobody invested it. He doesn’t explain why people are quitting he is just explaining how people are not working because of bad experiences.
LikeLike
Hi Damian, I do agree with you on your response to the prompt by stating “Rosalsky’s title doesn’t live up to its promise. The reason behind that is because in the article by Rosalsky he talks about how people are affected by causes that don’t want them to do it again” (Lopez). I agree with your argument because the title is highly misleading, as it leads the readers to think that the article would overall state reasons as to why Americans are quitting their jobs, which doesn’t. For instance, in the article, it is stated, “They wanted to know whether those who grew up in the aftermath of the stock market crash of 1929 were less likely to invest in the stock market. They found the answer was a resounding yes” (Rosalsky). This section of the article by Rosalsky doesn’t fully explain why individuals are quitting their jobs either. Overall, I do agree with your argument as your claim is clear and concise. Good job!
LikeLike
Hello Damian!
The quote you used ” They wanted to know whether those who grew up in the aftermath of the stock market crash of 1929 were less likely to invest in the stock market. They found the answer was a resounding yes” I totally agree that it doesn’t explain thoroughly and it is very vague. In comparison, the article “Why are so many people quitting their jobs?” also states, “Last week, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 4.3 million Americans, or 2.9% of the entire workforce, quit their jobs in August. That was a record-breaking month, piggybacking on previous record months” (Rosalsky 1). This is another example of how there wasn’t enough sufficient evidence provided. How is it record breaking? What were the statistics for the previous months?
LikeLike
Hello Damien!
I completely agree with you with the claim that Rosalsky does not properly live up to its promise. I agree with you that the article should have another title that can show about what are we really gonna talk about, as you suggest “The title I would give it that would be suitable is “Psychological Effects on Past Trauma” this would suit the article better “(Lopez)
LikeLike
Hi Damian, I agree that Rosalsky didn’t present enough evidence on why US workers are quitting their jobs. Also I agree with the name that you give to the article which is “Psychological Effects on Past Trauma” (López). I think that the name you give to the article is more appropriate with what the article presents.
LikeLike
Hi Damian it’s Shakira. I agree with your analysis because I also agree that Ducharme’s article was better. I feel like the information she inputed helped with her point of the whole “burn out” concept that she was going for. I also definitely agree with you that Rosalsky’s title did not live up to its promise because he never actually talked about “why US workers are quitting their jobs” as that was his title. I did also notice that he used sarcasm in his article which also helps me realize more that this article is not reliable as you stated the words he started his article with.
LikeLike
Good evening Damian, I totally agree with you because as well I don’t believe the title doesn’t live up to the promise of telling us why Americans aren’t going back to work. When you said “The title I would give it that would be suitable is “Psychological Effects on Past Trauma”” that is something I would have never thought of because I wouldn’t have thought of that based on the article talking about bad experiences employees had with past jobs. But overall you did a great job of explaining and answering the prompt
LikeLike
2. Rosalsky’s title promises to explain why so many US workers are quitting their jobs. Does the article live up to its promise? Explain your response. If you could give the article a different title for the same Planet Money webpage, what would it be? Suppose your school or community newspaper or website or community paper/webpage wanted to publish the article; what title would be suitable for that context? Why? Explain your choice.
Response: Overall, Rosalsky’s article discusses the major issues on past trauma of individuals that affect their decisions in their present lives. The article title “Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” does not live up to its promise. For example, in the article it states, “As for the effects of the pandemic, Malmendier predicts that the legacy of forced teleworking, home schooling and other dramatic social and economic changes will continue to shape our choices long after the viral danger recedes. At the very least, there will certainly be many of us working new jobs” (Rosalsky). In this section of the article, the majority of the article was based on past traumas that may affect individuals decisions in our time today, but did not give many and factual statistics to prove this assertion. Also, the author is biased towards a certain movement which tries to persuade the reader to accept that past experiences do influence numerous Americans to quit their jobs. For instance, “They wanted to know whether those who grew up in the aftermath of the stock market crash of 1929 were less likely to invest in the stock market. They found the answer was a resounding yes. The Great Depression, they found, created an entire generation that was skittish about investing in stocks. Those who came of age in the roaring 1950s and 1960s, in contrast, were much more gung-ho about it” (Malmendier and Nagel). In this section of the article, the author uses another source to back up his information, but is biased because he puts much emphasis on this historic event which affected only some individuals, not the entire world. If I could give the article a different title for the same Planet Money webpage, I would name it “The Psychological Effects of Past Traumas and Events.” I would pick this title because it is what the article was mainly speaking about, rather than presenting various statistics and sources that prove the reason as to why Americans are quitting their jobs. At first glance of the article, one would expect to know the numerous major causes of why people are quitting their jobs, but it is misleading as the article takes another turn in direction of explanation. In comparison, a past article read titled “THE ‘GREAT RESIGNATION’ IS FINALLY GETTING COMPANIES TO TAKE BURNOUT SERIOUSLY. IS IT ENOUGH?” based on the same topic states, “But studies show that it can overlap with physical and mental health issues, including depression, insomnia, gastrointestinal problems, and headaches. It can even be a predictor of chronic diseases including heart disease and type 2 diabetes, research shows” (Ducharme). In this article, various companies are starting to pay more attention to job burnout due to health issues that are rising among their employees, which result in decreased supply and demand for businesses. These individuals that have developed health diseases from burnout and overwork from companies have quit their job due to this reason. In contrast, the article by Rosalsky mentions past experiences as the result of individuals quitting their job. In essence, the article by Jamie Ducharme is more logical as to the article that best discusses about the reasons why Americans are quitting their jobs. The authors tone of “Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” is serious as the information is stated in a clear manner that makes decent points. The rhetorical device used in the article is “appeal to ridicule” because the author starts the introduction with “Goodbye. Farewell. Adios. Sayonara. Workers have been giving their bosses an earful of such words as of late” (Rosalsky). This section is said in a sarcastic, funny manner which takes away some seriousness of the article. A bias that was illustrated in “Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” is when “Last week, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 4.3 million Americans, or 2.9% of the entire workforce, quit their jobs in August” (Rosalsky). This bias is evident because only one statistic was used for the overall population in the article. A bias in “THE ‘GREAT RESIGNATION’ IS FINALLY GETTING COMPANIES TO TAKE BURNOUT SERIOUSLY. IS IT ENOUGH?” is “But any person, in any profession, can experience burnout, and right now, people are reporting it in droves” (Ducharme). In this section of the author’s statement, her logic is biased because she is mentioning that everyone in the world right now is reporting burnout in droves, making the topic seem urgent. However, Ducharme is only accounting for those that are quitting their jobs due to burnout, not the entire population, making her assertion false and illogical.
LikeLike
Hello Victor!
I agree that the article “Why are so many Americans are quitting their jobs” stating ,”As for the effects of the pandemic, Malmendier predicts that the legacy of forced teleworking, home schooling and other dramatic social and economic changes will continue to shape our choices long after the viral danger recedes. At the very least, there will certainly be many of us working new jobs” does not provide sufficient evidence. The article also states, ” Research shows that this is especially true for kids” (Rosalsky 1). This is another perfect example of lack of evidence. What research are they referring to?
LikeLike
Hi victor,
I agree with you that “the majority of the article was based on past traumas that may affect individuals decisions in our time today, but did not give many and factual statistics to prove this assertion” (Paniagua). I also believe that most of the evidence presented in the article is based on what some people say, which it makes it not that credible.
LikeLike
Hello Victor!!!
I agree with you that “the majority of the article was based on past traumas that may affect individuals’ decisions in our time today, but did not give many and factual statistics to prove this assertion” (Paniagua). I agree with you because it mostly talked about past traumas and didn’t talk about why “Americans Are Quitting Their Jobs.” It seems like most of his evidence isn’t actually statistics it just seems what he heard from other people.
LikeLike
Response to #1
The evidence that Greg Rosalsky presents to back up that the pandemic “change the way we view our lives and the world” is by stating that “Texas A&M psychologist Anthony Klotz, who predicted and coined the term the “Great Resignation” back in May, credits “pandemic epiphanies” with motivating many workers to depart their jobs for greener pastures”. This evidence that Rosalsky is not that persuasive to me because the “Great Resignation” the evidence that Klotz presents is not that credible because most of the evidence is based on him and is not back up and this is presented in a serious tone and the exaggerate the situation using the words “pandemic epiphanies”. For example in “The Great Resignation” Jamie Durcharme states “So far, 2021 quit levels are about 10% to 15% higher than they were in record-setting 2019, by Klotz’s calculations”. I believe that both of the articles are not credible due to the lack of evidence. Also I believe that both articles are being bias towards the fact that the pandemic is making people quit their jobs.
LikeLike
Hello Vivian, I agree with you on your response to prompt #1 by stating “This evidence that Rosalsky is not that persuasive to me because the ‘Great Resignation’ the evidence that Klotz presents is not that credible because most of the evidence is based on him and is not back up and this is presented in a serious tone and the exaggerate the situation using the words ‘pandemic epiphanies'” (Perez). It is also evident that the evidence presented in the article “Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” is false and not credible. For instance, the article states “Texas A&M psychologist Anthony Klotz, who predicted and coined the term the ‘Great Resignation’ back in May, credits ‘pandemic epiphanies’ with motivating many workers to depart their jobs for greener pastures” (Rosalsky). In this section of the article, the source presented to argue why Americans are quitting their jobs is not reliable because it is only coming from one “credible” individual. Thus, making the article non-credible in terms of sources and explanations used for the argument because there aren’t many credible sources to trust. Overall, I do agree with your argument as your claim is clear and concise. Good job!
LikeLike
Response 2
Hello Vivian!!
I can agree with you when you said “the evidence that Klotz presents is not that credible because most of the evidence is based on him and is not back up and this is presented in a serious tone and the exaggerate” (Perez). I can agree with you because his sources don’t seem credible and most of his information doesn’t add up and I can’t really focus when reading. I can’t really wrap my head around it, which is very infuriating.
LikeLike
Hello Vivian!
I agree that both articles are not credible due to the lack of evidence! The quote you use “So far, 2021 quit levels are about 10% to 15% higher than they were in record-setting 2019, by Klotz’s calculations” is a perfect example because there is no sufficient evidence in the 10% to 15%. In the article “Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” it states, ” Are generous government benefits encouraging people to quit? Maybe, but some evidence suggests not” (Rosalsky 1). This is also a perfect example of how the author doesn’t provide sufficient evidence because they are using words such as “maybe” to “support” their argument.
LikeLike
Hi Vivian it’s Shakira. I agree with your point that Rosalsky is not persuasive at all in his article. I feel like his article is too all over the place and I really cannot wrap my head around why he just threw Klotz’ article in like that because it does not help his own point as to “why so many US workers are quitting their jobs”. I actually do not agree with you when you say both articles are being “biased” because there is nothing to be biased about, but I do feel like both articles especially Rosalsky’s definitely needs more information on the actual topic they are introducing because I feel like both are missing the actual point.
LikeLike
Hello Vivian! I completely agree with you, without a doubt the evidence presented by Klotz is not at all logical, it does not handle credibility in any part of the article. “The evidence presented by Klotz is not so credible because most of the evidence is based on him and is not supported and this is presented in a serious and exaggerated tone.” (Perez) I think it is good to clarify that if there is no sustainable evidence the argument will not be credible and more so if the writers use sarcasm as you said “in a serious and exaggerated tone.”
LikeLike
Good evening Vivian, i agree with you that the evidence that is shown by the author Klotz isn’t credible because of what you said “he evidence that Klotz presents is not that credible because most of the evidence is based on him and is not back up” this was a great explanation because you go back and explain how there isn’t any credible sources and the author is only going based on Klotz examples. Overall I believe you did a exlencet job on expanding your information and response to the prompt.
LikeLike
2.) After reading, ” Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?”, I can easily say that it is an extremely interesting article to read, but it is also an article that contains numerous fallacies. This article is not reliable, even though it does provide some facts, it uses words such as “probably” and “Maybe”. In the article “Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” it states, ” Are generous government benefits encouraging people to quit? Maybe, but some evidence suggests not” (Rosalsky 1). This proves how this article is not giving us all the evidence and information we need to understand. Saying “some evidence suggests not” is not reliable, like what evidence? Where’s your proof? For example, if somebody were to just tell you ” pizza is the best thing to eat at dinner because there’s some evidence that proves it”, that is a weak argument.This shows that this article is not stating all the facts, instead it is using words such as those because they aren’t certain on the facts they are providing. If I could give the article a different title, I would name it ” Maybe this is why Americans are quitting their jobs” because overall they aren’t sure why this issue isn happening. If my school wanted to publish this article, a title that would be suitable for the context would be ” Maybe this is why some Americans are quitting, but who can be certain.” I would change it to that title because this article does not provide a reliable argument because throughout the article they show that they are unsure and question different issues in their argument. Which proves that they aren’t providing facts and evidence of why Americans are quitting their jobs. According to the article “The Great Resignation is Finally Getting Companies To Take Burnout Seriously. Is It Enough?”, it states ” As of September 2020, 76% of U.S health care workers reported exhaustion and burnout […]” ( Ducharme 2). This proves how the article did indeed provide the percentage of health care workers, but they didn’t provide how many exactly they asked. For all we know they could have asked 10 employees, which makes this evidence unreliable. For instance, if somebody were to do the test in front of you with 10 individuals, would you consider them reliable? I don’t think anyone would.
Analysis:
Overall, both the articles, ” Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” and “The Great Resignation is Finally Getting Companies To Take Burnout Seriously. Is It Enough?” are completely biased. Both articles have a tendency to provide facts that they cannot back up. They don’t provide strong evidence to support there argument, which proves to the audience like myself that their argument is weak. Rosalsky and Ducharme clearly show how they both are leaning more towards how employees are being burned out and treated unfairly. They make it a point to use facts to prove their point, but with no sufficient evidence.
LikeLike
Hi Abbie, I definitely agree with your response to the prompt as you mention “This article is not reliable, even though it does provide some facts, it uses words such as ‘probably’ and ‘Maybe’ (Castro). I completely agree with your statement because the author used those words that make the article appear nonreliable and makes the article appear contradictable. If the author Greg Rosalsky truly believed that his work was factual, such words would not have been used. Another example of how the article, “Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?,” is nonfactual is when it states, “Are generous government benefits encouraging people to quit? Maybe, but some evidence suggests not” (Rosalsky). In this section of the article, it is evident to conclude that the article is not providing all of the evidence and information needed to understand the true argument that is being made by Greg Rosalsky when he even states “some evidence suggests not” (Rosalsky). Moreover, Rosalsky does not make his point clear and does not use various factual evidence that can support his claim of why Americans are leaving their jobs. Overall, I enjoyed reading your responses!
LikeLike
** ‘Maybe’”
LikeLike
Hi Abbie,
I totally agree with you that the article it doesn’t seem reliable. For instance you stated that the article “uses words such as “probably” and “Maybe” (Castro). In which I agree that it makes the argument that they are presenting seem weak.
LikeLike
Hi Abbi! I agree with you with what you say about the article “Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” it is not reliable at all, I think it is very good that you have emphasized that the article does not show enough information “This shows how this article does not provide us with all the evidence and information we need to understand.” (Castro) I also show that it is not reliable information that is shown in the article that is information that has no support.
LikeLike
Hi Abbie! I agree with you with what you say about the article “Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” it is not reliable at all, I think it is very good that you have emphasized that the article does not show enough information “This shows how this article does not provide us with all the evidence and information we need to understand.” (Castro) I also show that it is not reliable information that is shown in the article that is information that has no support.
LikeLike
Response 3
Hello Abbie!!
I can agree with you when you stated “This article is not reliable, even though it does provide some facts, it uses words such as “probably” and “Maybe” (Castro). I can agree with you when he said maybe or probably it doesn’t seem like his sources are reliable or credible. It makes his work seem weak and useless. Nobody wont belive him if he uses that kind of wording.
LikeLike
Hello Abbie!!! I completely agree with you when you say, “Both articles have a tendency to provide facts that they cannot back up” (Castro). There were also some moments where Ducharme would say one thing then contradict the idea later on in the article. In Rosalsky’s article I feel like the title was somewhat used as clickbait to attract people when in reality the contents of the article has almost nothing pertaining as to why people are quitting.
LikeLike
Hi Abbie, this article was definitely an interesting read that gets you thinking. I lie how you said, “[T]his article does not provide a reliable argument because throughout the article they show that they are unsure and question different issues in their argument” (Castro). The article talks about everything, except the main question that it aims to answer. People will click on this article in hopes to learn why Americans are quitting their job, but instead, will be met with how hyperinflation impacted Germany’s economy and how childhood trauma can affect adults. My ideas on the article are very similar to yours and I think that Rosalsky’s credibility was thrown out the window from the first sentence where he starts off his article with sarcasm.
LikeLike
1. Greg Rosalsky asserts that the Covid pandemic has “changed the way we view our lives and the world.” What evidence does he present to back up his assertion? Summarize it. Is the evidence persuasive to you? Why or why not? Explain your reasoning.
After reading the article “Why Are so many Americans quitting their jobs” by the author Greg Rosalsky, I can notice that it is not a credible article, it has a lack of information, it barely addresses the main topic and is full of fallacies. However, the author asserts that the Covid pandemic has changed the way we view our lives in the world. In the article “Why are so many American quitting their jobs?” the author Greg Rosalsky claims that “Research shows that this is especially true for kids. Childhood trauma, for instance, can profoundly affect people’s outcomes as adults. This includes putting them at great risk of substance abuse, criminal and antisocial behavior, depression, dropping out of school and chronic health problems” ( Rosalsky 11). This quote is perfect to support his claims because it gives examples of what type of consequences a radical change such as a pandemic can affect children, not only this, he also provides the actual articles and studies that confirm this information, as a result this gives him a lot of credibility. This evidence completely persuades me as a reader, because as mentioned before, it gives reliable information that I can go, read about and judge if it is credible or not. But, again the trauma that the pandemic causes on children has nothing to do with the unemployment of the US which is supposed to be the main topic. To me, the tone of this article is sarcastic and its purpose is to inform why Americans are quitting their job recently, even though he did not answer it.
The relation between the article “Why Are so many Americans quitting their jobs” and the previous one “The ‘Great Resignation’ Is Finally Getting Companies to Take Burnout Seriously. Is It Enough?” is that both articles are completely biased by the claim that the global pandemic is the reason why American people are quitting their jobs.
LikeLike
Hi Anna it is Shakira. I disagree with your point only because I feel like Rosalsky is not reliable as you say at all. Yeah that whole point of trauma and what it does to kids and their future is a good point, just not for this article that is supposedly talking about why “so many US workers are quitting their jobs”. That information was also placed in here to agree with the UC Berkley economists Malmendier’s point of brain development and how to affects our abilities with our economic decisions and our “financial strains” as she calls it. Rosalsky has put information in here for a whole other topic and never answered the title itself of why workers are quitting their jobs therefore going way off topic.
LikeLike
Hey Anna, I agree with your statement that “the tone of this article is sarcastic and its purpose is to inform why Americans are quitting their job recently, even though he did not answer it” (Seballos). I agree that the article is sarcastic and I feel as if this article was not taken seriously because he provides various phrases that seem unprofessional such as the first paragraph when Rosalsky says “Goodbye. Farewell. Adios. Sayonara. Workers have been giving their bosses an earful of such words” I feel as if this was very unnecessary and he could have started the paragraph with the second sentence he included (Rosalsky).
LikeLike
Hey Anna, I had a bit of a problem trying to see where you were coming from. Although Rosalsky’s facts were true, saying things like, “This quote is perfect to support his claims because it gives examples of what type of consequences a radical change such as a pandemic can affect children, not only this, he also provides the actual articles and studies that confirm this information, as a result this gives him a lot of credibility” was not exactly what I thought upon reading this section (Seballos). His facts may be true, but they have nothing to do with the point of the article or what the author is trying to prove. People don’t come to this article to learn about childhood, rather to get an answer as to why Americans are quitting their jobs.
LikeLike
Hi Anna,
I also agree with how the credibility on the title and information is clearly faulty and how the there is a noticeable lack of information. I do like how you use the use of the pandemic causing a change of life and it is true. Yet I feel as if stating childhood trauma and correlating it on how people are quitting, does no go together.
LikeLike
Good evening Anna, I agree with your reasoning on how the article title doesn’t relate to what the author is telling us at all. The part I agree with is being, the author isn’t a credible article. Like you said “ it has a lack of information, it barely addresses the main topic and is full of fallacies.” Which I believe is 100% true because the author directly doesn’t tell us why so many Americans are quitting their jobs.
LikeLike
2. Rosalsky’s title promises to explain why so many US workers are quitting their jobs. Does the article live up to its promise? Explain your response. If you could give the article a different title for the same Planet Money webpage, what would it be? Suppose your school or community newspaper or website or community paper/webpage wanted to publish the article; what title would be suitable for that context? Why? Explain your choice.
Rosalsky’s article does not live up to the title’s promise as to why so many US workers are quitting their jobs. In his article, Rosalsky goes back and forth on many different topics like the UC Berkley economist he chose home country Germany and how they it was devastated and broke after WW1, inflation and the economy in general, and how sometimes life affects us humans and how we deal with finances and the economy. It’s only in his introduction paragraph that Rosalsky actually talks about why so many “US workers are quitting their jobs”, but he only states the following “…the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 4.3 million Americans, or 2.9% of the entire workforce, quit their jobs in August. That was a record-breaking month, piggybacking on previous record months. “The Great Resignation” is real, and it can be seen across virtually all industries.” (Rosalsky). After that introduction he literally only talks about the economy, and at one point reasons for poverty in one paragraph. At the end he uses UC Berkley Malmendier the economists prediction that “…other dramatic social and economic changes will continue to shape our choices long after the viral danger recedes.” (Malmendier) , referring to life after the pandemic of 2020 but once again nothing as to why so many US workers are quitting their jobs. When comparing bth articles I do not find anything really similar because Ducharme’s article is more on like polls and statistics and how people really are quitting their jobs more than ever before, but it also misses information’s to why. Ducharme’s article does give tips on how to not be s stressed or “burnt out” as she calls it but her title also does not really live up to the article although it is a good overview of what you’re going to red about. If I was to give this article a title it would be something along the lines of “Effects of an Economy and how it affects Life After” possibly only because I know some of the topics this article covered are not in there because it is just so all over the place. I wouldn’t want a school or another place to publish this article but I feel like my title would be a good choice or an idea at least.
LikeLike
Overall analysis of both articles:
Personally I liked reading Jaime Ducharme’s article more because I felt like her article and her topic at least made sense even though her article is also not really reliable. Ducharme did a great job at including polls and statistics and clickable links so that we can do our own research. I feel like her article was also written more professionally than Mr.Rosalsky’s. Rosalsky’s article was just too all over the place and disorganized, personally I would not have published it because his title and his topics do not correlate what so ever.
LikeLike
Hey Shakira, I agree with your statement that “It’s only in his introduction paragraph that Rosalsky actually talks about why so many “US workers are quitting their jobs”’ (Ramirez). I too noticed this when reading the article. Overall, Rosalsky just fails to talk about why workers are quitting their jobs and he also tries to redeem himself towards the end of his article when he mentions “At the very least, there will certainly be many of us working new jobs” which has nothing to do with what he talked about in the article, making it seem as if it is out of place (Rosalsky).
LikeLike
Hi Shakira,
I completely agree with your claim supporting that theres more statistics stated throughout the article and theres no real focus towards the titles claim, “but he only states the following “…the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 4.3 million Americans, or 2.9% of the entire workforce, quit their jobs in August” And how he goes off topic which was never included in the title.
LikeLike
2. Rosalsky’s title promises to explain why so many US workers are quitting their jobs. Does the article live up to its promise? Explain your response. If you could give the article a different title for the same Planet Money webpage, what would it be? Suppose your school or community newspaper or website or community paper/webpage wanted to publish the article; what title would be suitable for that context? Why? Explain your choice.
After reading the article “Why Are So Many Americans Quitting Their Jobs?” I realized that it was not very credible since the way the author expressed himself did not have much logic which is why I think that author is committing fallacies in his writing. the author does not provide credible evidence that could be essential to support an argument. the author shows as a piece of evidence “Economists and pollsters are still investigating what is going on.”(Rosalsky). that’s evidence that he’s not sure what he’s talking about in this article and that’s why he doesn’t deliver on his promise to explain why so many American workers are quitting their jobs. That title does not seem the most correct to me. I consider that a good title could be “some workers suffer from exhaustion in their jobs”, I consider that the issue of exhaustion is the problem that is declared in the article for which people want to leave their jobs. That’s why I think that would be a better title and thus it is not being implied that a detailed explanation will be given with evidence on the subject.
LikeLike
Hey Mitzy, I agree with your statement that the article “was not very credible since the way the author expressed himself did not have much logic which is why I think that author is committing fallacies in his writing” (Sandoval). I agree with you because while reading the article I too noticed that Rosalsky used many fallacies and rhetorical devices. In the article Rosalsky uses sarcasm such as “Are generous government benefits encouraging people to quit? Maybe, but some evidence suggests not. Are people angling for a raise after decades of stagnant pay? Probably, yeah” which I think the use of sarcasm makes his logic not seem reliable and he also uses the term “maybe” often which makes him seem unsure of what he is saying (Rosalsky).
LikeLike
Hello Mitzy, I totally agree with your points, especially where you said, “[T]he author does not provide credible evidence that could be essential to support an argument” (Sandoval).” I also through that his article was all over the place and the evidence that Rosalsky provided had little to do with what he was actually trying to prove. His article was also full of rhetorical devices which were used to try and sway us, but as you said, there was not much logic to his points.
LikeLike
Hello Mitzy!!! I agree with your point, “[…] that’s why he doesn’t deliver on his promise to explain why so many American workers are quitting their jobs” (Sandoval). The author does not live up to the title expectations and gives us information about Germany and how past trauma affects people’s economic thinking today. I also agree with you saying that probably a lot of people are quitting due to being exhausted from work.
LikeLike
2) Rosalsky’s title promises to explain why so many US workers are quitting their jobs, but the article does not live up to its promise. Rosalsky’s title “Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” has nothing to do with the article and we can simply see this by analyzing the subheadings that Rosalsky provides such as “Experiences that shape our economic lives” and “And those experiences almost literally rewire our brains” (Rosalsky). By analyzing the small details such as subheadings the reader can easily know what might be talked about in the paragraph. Rosalsky uses these subheadings yet they have nothing to do with people quitting their jobs. If I could give the article a different title for the same Plant Money webpage, I would give it the title “Could Past Experiences Affect Our Work Mentality?” I feel as if this title fits the article more since Rosalsky goes on and talks about how economist Ulrike Malmendier’s thoughts have changed since he started considering past events such as World War I, the Treaty of Versailles, the stock market crash of 1929, etc. and Rosalsky seems to go on about Malmendier and how “past experiences can influence people’s economic behavior and attitudes” (Rosalsky). If my school or community newspaper or website or community paper/webpage wanted to publish the article, the title that would be suitable for the context would have to be possibly the one I mentioned earlier, “Could Past Experiences Affect Our Work Mentality?” since it makes more sense than the original one. Rosalsky failed in naming his article because the title has nothing to do with what was mentioned in the article. The first two paragraphs do talk about “4.3 million Americans, or 2.9% of the entire workforce, [quitting] their jobs” but Rosalsky fails to stay on the topic and sidetracks to other things (Rosalsky). The article “The ‘Great Resignation’ Is Finally Getting Companies To Take Burnout Seriously. Is It Enough?” written by Jamie Ducharme is a great example of an author whose title follows what the article talks about. Although Ducharme uses many fallacies and rhetorical devices in his article he still makes his point across such as “For many, that means targeting burnout, a cocktail of work-related stress, exhaustion, cynicism and negativity that is surging during the pandemic” (Ducharme). This explains how burnout and other issues are affecting workers and why workers are quitting their jobs, making companies consider these issues that were not considered before.
Analysis) Overall my analysis of both of the articles “ Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” and “The Great Resignation is Finally Getting Companies To Take Burnout Seriously. Is It Enough?” is that they are both biased. I would say that they are both biased in terms of why people are quitting their jobs, both say that they are due to the pandemic in the first couple of paragraphs and overall they lack to provide the opposite side of the argument they are trying to make.
LikeLike
Hi Jennifer, I must say that you are quite right that the title does not have much to do with the subject since the subtitles “have nothing to do with the article and we can see it simply by analyzing the subtitles that Rosalsky offers” (Escudero), I think you used a very good point to show that the article does not contain very good detailed information. I consider that your suggestions are good since it could drastically change the perspective of the essay.
LikeLike
Hey Jennifer,
I too noticed how misleading and incredible the author is with the given information. As well as how they are both biased towards one side, when a good journalists should state a clear unbiased opinion and state information to back it up.
LikeLike
Hello Jennifer!!! I loved your own title for the Rosalsky article and your reasoning for choosing it. I agree with your reasoning as to why you chose that as your unique title, “I feel as if this title fits the article more since Rosalsky goes on and talks about how economist Ulrike Malmendier’s thoughts have changed since he started considering past events such as World War I […]” (Escudero). In the article Rosalsky mostly states how our past trauma affects our life, so I think your title “Could Past Experiences Affect Our Work Mentality?” (Escudero).
LikeLike
Hi Jennifer, I can agree with you since the title is not explained throughout the text and brings up statistics instead of stating and backing up the title like you said, has nothing to do with the article and we can simply see this by analyzing the subheadings that Rosalsky provides such as “Experiences that shape our economic lives. I
LikeLike
2.) The article “Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” by Greg Rosalsky absolutely does not live up to its name. I’m assuming his intentions with the article were to answer that leading question, but he never actually gets to that. Instead we are left with more questions, like: “What does Germany after World War I have to do with Americans quitting their jobs?” and “How is that related to childhood trauma, depression, etc.?” The article seems promising in the beginning when Rosalsky says things like, “And Malmendier isn’t alone among scholars in suggesting that soul-searching during the pandemic helps explain the surge in quitting” (Rosalsky). He seems to begin giving an explanation, but never follows up on what he meant. Instead, the next section goes on to talk about the German culture and government, as well as problems of inflation that the country has experienced. Rosalsky also uses a lot of sarcasm like starting off the article by saying, “Goodbye. Farewell. Adios. Sayonara. Workers have been giving their bosses an earful of such words as of late” and later when he argues, “Are generous government benefits encouraging people to quit? Maybe, but some evidence suggests not. Are people angling for a raise after decades of stagnant pay? Probably, yeah” (Rosalsky). I also noticed that the article is not cohesive at all. The author goes from one topic to the next and there seems to be no relation amongst them. If I could choose an alternate title for the article, it would be “What Would Happen if Americans Continue to Quit Their Jobs”. The article seems to talk a lot more about this topic than answer the literal name of the article. The section about Germany could be taken as a warning as to the hyperinflation and economical issues that the U.S. would face if the quitting rate continues to remain high. I think I would use that same title if this article were to be published in my community, maybe make it more specific to the region and instead of Americans say Californians, or go as far as to say people of the Imperial Valley.
Analysis: The articles “Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” by Greg Rosalsky and “The ‘Great Resignation’ is Finally Getting Companies to Take Burnout Seriously. Is it Enough?” by Jaime Ducharme are definitely showing bias. We can see this through their use of rhetorical devices. The first article using sarcasm and strange metaphors, while the latter uses emotions such as guilt to try and side with them.
LikeLike
After reading the article “ Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” I don’t believe it lives up to what the title promises because in the article it doesn’t talk about any direct reasons. It just states about the different things that happened and gives statistics of how many people quit their jobs. Such as where it says in “ Why are so many Americans quitting their jobs?” by Greg Rosalsky it states “ It’s common to see a surge in quitting when the job market is tight and there’s a cornucopia of open positions. But what’s happening now is unlike anything we’ve seen before. Economists and pollsters are still investigating what’s going on.” This was one of the only quotes in the article that I found that explained in some way what was going on and how the market was affecting the way people wanted to work. Because since the market was going down people started to quit their jobs due to the parket going down. While in the article “ The Great Resignation is finally getting companions to take burnout seriously. Is it enough?” by Jamie Ducharme it states “For example: tech companies including Bumble, LinkedIn and Hootsuite closed for a week this year to give people a break and combat burnout. Fidelity Investments is piloting a program in which some employees work 30 hours a week, taking a small pay cut but keeping their full benefits.” While in this case the title does live up to what the article talks about because it shows us how some companies are starting to take burnout seriously in some sort and they are giving employees the time off they need. If i could give the article a different title than what Planet Money webpage has the title i would change to The New Ways of Life, because of the different topics that are talked about in the article such as what the market has done to people’s will to work. I feel like this would have been a better fit for the article because the article does not directly talk about why so many Americans are quitting their jobs.
Overall with the both articles we read i would say The Great Resignation is a better article than Why American are Quitting because in The Great Resignation there are more details that actually involve what the title is talking about and it gives us way more detail on what different companies are doing to help their employees with the burnouts they are facing.
LikeLike
Hi Camilo, I agree with you that the title is misleading since Rosalsky uses mostly statistics to prove her point and never talks about the reasons why workers are quitting and how the article cant be reliable without talking about the title.
LikeLike
2. Rosalsky’s title promises to explain why so many US workers are quitting their jobs. Does the article live up to its promise? Explain your response. If you could give the article a different title for the same Planet Money webpage, what would it be? Suppose your school or community newspaper or website or community paper/webpage wanted to publish the article; what title would be suitable for that context? Why? Explain your choice.
Rosalsky’s title does not live up to its promise. For example, Rosalsky first mentions “experiences that shape our economic lives” and under that subheading Malemendier writes about Germany and inflation (Rosalsky). My question is how does this Germany information help Rosalsky’s article about why U.S. workers are turning in their resignation letters? Rosalsy also mentions how the pandemic is affecting people’s “economic behavior” (Rosalsky). This does not explain why people in the U.S. are quitting their jobs, it only explains the trauma that the pandemic brought. The title that I would give the article is “How Past Trauma Affects People During a Pandemic.” I would pick my title because it is explaining how past trauma affects others now when times are rough.
In another article titled “THE GREAT RESIGNATION’ IS FINALLY GETTING COMPANIES TO TAKE BURNOUT SERIOUSLY. IS IT ENOUGH?” by Jamie Ducharme, he uses a little better approach to answer why people are quitting their jobs. He explains that a lot of people quit their job because of the stress and the workers experiencing burnouts. A fallacy that i found comes from this quote, “Importantly, burnout is not a medical diagnosis [but an] ‘occupational phenomenon'” (Ducharme). To add on to the quote, he later states, “But studies show that it can overlap with physical and mental health issues, including depression, insomnia, gastrointestinal problems and headaches. It can even be a predictor of chronic diseases including heart disease and type 2 diabetes, research shows” (Ducharme). Right before this quote he states that burnouts are not a medical diagnosis, but then continue to list different medical related things that could happen from a burnout or cause a burnout. In the article titled “Why are so Many Americans quitting their jobs” Rosalsky uses a bit of sarcasm in the first few words, “Goodbye. Farewell. Adios. Sayonara” (Rosalsky). Starting an article with these words to me seems like he is mocking the people who quit their jobs. In the article titled, “THE GREAT RESIGNATION’ IS FINALLY GETTING COMPANIES TO TAKE BURNOUT SERIOUSLY. IS IT ENOUGH?” Ducharme uses a hyperbole, “But any person, in any profession, can experience burnout, and right now, people are reporting it in droves” (Ducharme). The meaning of the word droves relates to animals, so he is saying that people are storming the offices in herds giving their letters of resignations to their bosses.
LikeLike
Hi Charisma,
I also agree on how much of the information stated is misleading. Such as how he uses details that affect the German economy and tying it up with an American based article. Also, how is it proven that so many people are turning in resignation letters, this to me seems like a fallacy that is trying to manipulate something that is small, into a major crisis.
LikeLike
After reading the article “Why Are so many Americans quitting their jobs” by Greg Rosalsky, it is noticeable that there is a clear use of fallacies as well as lack credibility. The title seems misleading as an abundance of the information given does not reflect the criteria and leads into contrasting information. In the article it states,“[T]hat as for the effects of the pandemic, Malmendier predicts that the legacy of forced teleworking, home schooling and other dramatic social and economic changes will continue to shape our choices long after the viral danger recedes. At the very least, there will certainly be many of us working new jobs.” (Rosalsky). Off of first glance the author clearly has a bias towards the past experiences mot are facing/faced and tying that into the modern day situation. This does not correlate with his whole point of why so many people are quitting, but instead bringing up past traumas and how that they are not working and lack motivation. Another pice of evidence would be how he explains the effect of the crash of the 1920’s
LikeLike
2. Rosalsky’s title promises to explain why so many US workers are quitting their jobs. Does the article live up to its promise? Explain your response. If you could give the article a different title for the same Planet Money webpage, what would it be? Suppose your school or community newspaper or website or community paper/webpage wanted to publish the article; what title would be suitable for that context? Why? Explain your choice.
The article by Rosalsky does not live up to the titles promise on explaining “ Why so many US workers are quitting their jobs” In Rosalsky’s article he kept repeating statistics of the number of Americans quitting their jobs as stated “…the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 4.3 million Americans, or 2.9% of the entire workforce, quit their jobs in August. That was a record-breaking month, piggybacking on previous record months. “The Great Resignation” is real, and it can be seen across virtually all industries.”and he talks about the predictions of Texas A&M and only talked about some of the reasons why he thought they quit and never came back to it. I think a better title would something in the likes of “ Numbers increasing of workers quitting during pandemic” I think that if it was published in my community it should targeted to the audience living here and should be titled “ Workers quitting at the highest number in the Imperial Valley” This is a good title since it points out the numbers is the most important and its targeted to be the highest amount ever which can proved by the statistics given.
LikeLike
After reading both of the articles I can say that The Great Resignation is a better article than Why American are Quitting since it actually talks and gives a explanation on the title and supports it with credible sources that don’t go off topic and maintains the topic based on the title.
LikeLike