# data[].attributes.body
1. Instagram and girls' health and well-being

2. beauty standards and the quest to end obsession with light skin
3. regulating social media to protect girls

# data[].attributes.body
1. Gender inequality in sports
2. Importance of sleep for teens and mental health

# data[].attributes.body
1. Misinformation on what happens with recycling
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/your-recycling-is-not-always-being-recycled-heres-why

2. Effects of alcoholism on families
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/alcoholism-treatment?family-marital-problems

# data[].attributes.body
1. importance of sleep for teens and mental health
2. college tuition and loan reform
3. reporting military abuse reform

# data[].attributes.headline
Gavin Strom                                                            should college student athletes get paid.

# data[].attributes.subject
Gavin Strom                                                            should college student athletes get paid.

# data[].attributes.body
removing carbon from the atmosphere could save peoples liveshttps://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/11/27/carbon-dioxide-removal-climate-change/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tables of Contents

1. Why are college athletes not getting paid by their schools?

2. How do student athlete scholarships work?

3. What are the pros and cons of compensation for college athletes?

4. Keeping education at the center of college sports

Since its inception in 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has governed intercollegiate sports and enforced a rule prohibiting college athletes to be paid. Football, basketball, and a handful of other college sports began to generate tremendous revenue for many schools in the mid-20th century, yet the NCAA continued to prohibit payments to athletes. The NCAA justified the restriction by claiming it was necessary to protect amateurism and distinguish "student athletes" from professionals.

The question of whether college athletes should be paid was answered in part by the Supreme Court's June 21, 2021, ruling in National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, et. al. The decision affirmed a lower court's ruling that blocked the NCAA from enforcing its rules restricting the compensation that college athletes may receive.

As a result of the NCAA v. Alston ruling, college athletes now have the right to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) while retaining the right to participate in their sport at the college level. (The prohibition against schools paying athletes directly remains in effect.)

Several states have passed laws that allow such compensation. Colleges and universities in those states must abide by these new laws when devising and implementing their own policies toward NIL compensation for college athletes.

Participating in sports benefits students in many ways: It helps them focus, provides motivation, builds resilience, and develops other skills that serve students in their careers and in their lives. The vast majority of college athletes will never become professional athletes and are happy to receive a full or partial scholarship that covers tuition and education expenses as their only compensation for playing sports.

Athletes playing Division I football, basketball, baseball, and other sports generate revenue for their schools and for third parties such as video game manufacturers and media companies. Many of these athletes believe it's unfair for schools and businesses to profit from their hard work and talent without sharing the profits with them. They also point out that playing sports entails physical risk in addition to a considerable investment in time and effort.

This guide considers the reasons for and against paying college athletes, and the implications of recent court rulings and legislation on college athletes, their schools, their sports, and the role of the NCAA in the modern sports environment.

Why are college athletes not getting paid by their schools?

The reasons why college athletes aren't paid go back to the first organized sports competitions between colleges and universities in the late 19th century. Amateurism in college sports reflects the " aristocratic amateurism " of sports played in Europe at the time, even though most of the athletes at U.S. colleges had working-class backgrounds.

By the early 20th century, college football had gained a reputation for rowdiness and violence, much of which was attributed to the teams' use of professional athletes. This led to the creation of the NCAA, which prohibited professionalism in college sports and enforced rules restricting compensation for college athletes. The rules are intended to preserve the amateurism of student participants. The NCAA justified the rules on two grounds:

Fans would lose interest in the games if the players were professional athletes.

Limiting compensation to capped scholarships ensures that college athletes remain part of the college community.

NCAA rules also prohibited college athletes from receiving payment to " advertise, recommend, or promote " any commercial product or service. Athletes were barred from participating in sports if they signed a contract to be represented by an agent as well. As a result of the NIL court decision, the NCAA will no longer enforce its rule relating to compensation for NIL activities and will allow athletes to sign contracts with agents.

Major college sports now generate billions in revenue for their schools each year

For decades, colleges and universities have operated under the assumption that scholarships are sufficient compensation for college athletes. Nearly all college sports cost more for the schools to operate than they generate in revenue for the institution, and scholarships are all that participants expect.

But while most sports don't generate revenue, a handful, notably football and men's and women's basketball, stand out as significant exceptions to the rule:

Many major colleges and universities generate a considerable amount of money from their athletic teams:

The Power Five college sports conferences - the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12, and Southeastern Conference (SEC) - generated more than $2.9 billion in revenue from sports in fiscal 2020, according to federal tax records reported by USA Today.

This figure represents an increase of $11 million from 2019, a total that was reduced because of restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the six years prior to 2020, the conferences recorded collective annual revenue increases averaging about $252 million.

What are name, image, likeness agreements for student athletes?

In recent years some college athletes at schools that field teams in the NCAA's highest divisions have protested the restrictions placed on their ability to be compensated for third parties' use of their name, image, and likeness. During the 2021 NCAA Division I basketball tournament known familiarly as March Madness, several players wore shirts bearing the hashtag "#NotNCAAProperty " to call attention to their objections.

Following the decision in NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA enacted a temporary policy allowing college athletes to enter into NIL agreements and other endorsements. The interim policy will be in place until federal legislation is enacted or new NCAA rules are created governing NIL contracts for college athletes.

Student athletes are now able to sign endorsement deals, profit from their use of social media, and receive compensation for personal appearances and signing autographs.

If they attend a school located in a state that has enacted NIL legislation, they are subject to any restrictions present in those state laws. As of mid-August 2021, 40 states had enacted laws governing NIL contracts for college athletes.

If their school is in a state without such a law, the college or university will determine its own NIL policies, although the NCAA prohibits pay-for-play and improper recruiting inducements.

Student athletes are allowed to sign with sports agents and enter into agreements with school boosters so long as the deals abide by state laws and school policies.

Within weeks of the NCAA policy change, premier college athletes began signing NIL agreements with the potential to earn them hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Bryce Young, a sophomore quarterback for the University of Alabama, has nearly $1 million in endorsement deals.

Quarterback Quinn Ewers decided to skip his last year of high school and enroll early at Ohio State University so he could make money from endorsements.

A booster for the University of Miami pledged to pay each member of the school's football team $500 for endorsing his business.

How will the change affect college athletes and their schools?

The repercussions of court decisions and state laws that allow college athletes to sign NIL agreements continue to be felt at campuses across the country, even though schools and athletes have received little guidance on how to manage the process.

The top high school athletes in football, basketball, and other revenue-generating college sports will consider their potential for endorsement earnings while being recruited by various schools.

The first NIL agreements highlight the disparity between what elite college athletes can expect to earn and what other athletes may realize. On one NIL platform, the average amount earned by Division I athletes was $471, yet one athlete made $210,000 in July alone.

Most NIL deals at present are for small amounts, typically about $100 in free apparel, in exchange for endorsing a product on social media.

The presidents and other leaders of colleges and universities that field Division I sports have not yet responded to the changes in college athlete compensation other than to reiterate that they do not operate for-profit sports franchises. However, the NCAA requires that Division I sports programs be self-supporting, in contrast to sports programs at Division II and III institutions, which receive funding directly from their schools.

Many members of the Power 5 sports conferences have reported shortfalls in their operations, leading analysts to anticipate major structural reforms in the governing of college sports in the near future. The recent changes have also caused some people to believe the NCAA is no longer relevant or necessary.

How do student athlete scholarships work?

The primary financial compensation student athletes receive is a scholarship that pays all or part of their tuition and other college-related expenses. Other forms of financial assistance available to student athletes include grants, loans, and merit aid.

Grants are also called "gift aid," because students are not expected to pay them back (with some exceptions, such as failing to complete the course of study for which the grant was awarded).
Grants are awarded based on a student's financial need. Thefour types of grants awarded by the U.S. Department of Education are Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants, and Teacher Education Assistance for College or Higher Education (TEACH) Grants.

Loans are available to cover education expenses from government agencies and private banks. Students must pay the loans back over a specified period after graduating from or leaving school, including interest charges. EducationData.org estimates that as of 2020, the average amount of school-related debt owed by college graduates was $37,693.

Merit aid is awarded based on the student's academic, athletic, artistic, and other achievements. Athletic scholarships are a form of merit aid that typically cover one academic year at a time and are renewable each year, although some are awarded for up to four years.

Full athletic scholarships vs. partial scholarships

When most people think of a student athlete scholarship, they have in mind a full-ride scholarship that covers nearly all college-related expenses. However, most student athletes receive partial scholarships that may pay tuition but not college fees and living expenses, for example.

A student athlete scholarship is a nonguaranteed financial agreement between the school and the student. The NCAA refers to full-ride scholarships awarded to student athletes entering certain Division I sports programs as head count scholarships because they are awarded per athlete. Conversely, equivalency sports divide scholarships among multiple athletes, some of whom may receive a full scholarship and some a partial scholarship. Equivalency awards are divided among a team's athletes at the discretion of the coaches, as long as they do not exceed the allowed scholarships for their sport.

These Division I sports distribute scholarships per head count:

Men's football

Men's basketball

Women's basketball

Women's volleyball

Women's gymnastics

Women's tennis

These are among the Division I equivalency sports for men:

These are the Division I equivalency sports for women:

All Division II and National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) sports programs distribute scholarships on an equivalency basis. Division III sports programs do not award sports scholarships, although other forms of financial aid are available to student athletes at these schools.

How college athletic scholarships are awarded

In most cases, the coaching staff of a team determines which students will receive scholarships after spending time scouting and recruiting. The NCAA imposes strict rules for recruiting student athletes and provides a guide to help students determine their eligibility to play college sports.

Once a student has received a scholarship offer from a college or university, the person may sign a national letter of intent (NLI), which is a voluntary, legally binding contract between an athlete and the school committing the student to enroll and play the designated sport for that school only. The school agrees to provide financial aid for one academic year as long as the student is admitted and eligible to receive the aid.

After the student signs an NLI, other schools are prohibited from recruiting them. Students who have signed an NLI may ask the school to release them from the commitment; if a student attends a school other than the one with which they have an NLI agreement, they lose one full year of eligibility and must complete a full academic year at the new school before they can compete in their sport.

Very few student athletes are awarded a full scholarship, and even a "full" scholarship may not pay for all of a student's college and living expenses. The average Division I sports scholarship in the 2019-20 fiscal year was about $18,000, according to figures compiled by ScholarshipStats.com, although some private universities had average scholarship awards that were more than twice that amount. However, EducationData.org estimates that the average cost of one year of college in the U.S. is $35,720. They estimate the following costs by type of school.

The average annual cost for an in-state student attending a public four-year college or university is $25,615.

Average in-state tuition for one year is $9,580, and out-of-state tuition costs an average of $27,437.

The average cost at a private university is $53,949 per academic year, about $37,200 of which is tuition and fees.

Student athlete scholarship resources

What are the pros and cons of compensation for college athletes?

There are many reasons why student athletes should be paid, but there are also valid reasons why student athletes should not be paid in certain circumstances. The lifting of NCAA restrictions on NIL agreements for college athletes has altered the landscape of major college sports but will likely have little or no impact on the majority of student athletes, who will continue to compete as true amateurs.

Reasons why student athletes should be paid

The argument raised most often in favor of allowing college athletes to receive compensation is that colleges and universities profit from the sports they play but do not share the proceeds with the athletes who are the ultimate source of that profit.

In 2017 (the most recent year for which figures are available), the NCAA recorded $1.07 billion in revenue. The organization's president earned $2.7 million in 2018, and nine other NCAA executives had salaries greater than $500,000 that year.

Elite college coaches earn millions of dollars a year in salary, topped by University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban's $9.3 million annual salary.

Many of the athletes at leading football and basketball programs are from low-income families, and the majority will not become professional athletes.

College athletes take great physical risks to play their sports and put their future earning potential at risk. In school they may be directed toward nonchallenging courses, which denies them the education their fellow students receive.

Reasons why student athletes should not be paid

Opponents to paying college athletes rebut these arguments by pointing to the primary role of colleges and universities: to provide students with a rewarding educational experience that prepares them for their professional careers. These are among the reasons they give for not paying student athletes.

Scholarships are the fairest form of compensation for student athletes considering the financial strain that college athletic departments are under. Most schools in Division I, II, and III spend more money on athletics than they receive in revenue from the sports.

College athletes who receive scholarships are presented with an opportunity to earn a valuable education that will increase their earning power throughout their career outside of sports. A Gallup survey of NCAA athletes found that 70% graduate in four years or fewer, compared to 65% of all undergraduate students.

Paying college athletes will "diminish the spirit of amateurism" that distinguishes college sports from their professional counterparts. Limiting compensation for playing a sport to the cost of attending school avoids creating a separate class of students who are profiting from their time in school.

How do college athlete endorsements work?

Soon after the Supreme Court released its decision in NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA issued guidelines for schools that allow college athletes to make money from product endorsements, social media accounts, autographs, and other uses of their name, image, or likeness. This counters the NCAA's longstanding opposition to student athletes profiting from endorsements. At present, implementation of the guidelines varies from school to school and state to state, which means athletes at some institutions may benefit more from NIL agreements than those attending other schools.

Several NIL consultancy firms are actively soliciting endorsements from college athletes in the aftermath of the rule change.

Highly touted 19-year-old basketball recruit Hercy Miller, who joined the Tennessee State University basketball team in 2021, signed a $2 million endorsement deal with Web Apps America.

University of Michigan quarterback Cade McNamara has entered into an endorsement deal with cryptocurrency company More Management that will pay him in cryptocurrency.

Twin sisters Haley and Hanna Cavinder of the Fresno State University basketball team have marketing agreements to promote Boost Mobile and Six Star Pro Nutrition to the 3.3 million followers of their TikTok account.

Gable Steveson, a wrestler for the University of Minnesota, entered into an endorsement deal with the delivery service Gopuff; Steveson has 245,000 followers on Instagram and 30,000 on Twitter.

Despite the rush of high-profile college athletes signing endorsement deals, some educators and analysts express concern about the impact of the endorsements on schools, athletes, and college sports.

Schools with more favorable endorsement rules may entice student athletes away from the schools they are currently attending.

Likewise, states that have enacted endorsement laws that provide more earning potential for college athletes may see more top recruits choosing to attend schools in those states.

The time college athletes spend meeting the requirements of their endorsement contracts could detract from study and practice time. This can have an adverse effect on their education and athletic careers - if they are unable to maintain grade requirements, for example, they may be disqualified from playing.

If a college athlete's performance in the sport declines, they may be less likely to attract and retain endorsement deals. While the NCAA has banned NIL agreements based on the athlete meeting specific performance criteria, the group acknowledges that a student's athletic performance may enhance their NIL value.

Because of complicated contracts and tax laws, student athletes will have to rely on agents, advisers, and managers, which may leave them vulnerable to exploitation.

Keeping education at the center of college sports

From the onset of intercollegiate sports, students have benefited from their participation by learning dedication to their sport, building relationships, and being part of a team. Sports allow students to acquire many important values, such as fair competition and physical and mental health. Education should remain at the forefront of all aspects of college, including sports, whether or not collegiate athletes are paid.
Infographic Source Best Colleges, "Should College Athletes Be Paid?" College Strategic, "Why College Athletes Should Be Paid" CollegeVine, "Should College Athletes Be Paid? Pros and Cons" Fansided, "64 Reasons College Athletes Need to Be Paid" Future of Working, "17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Paying College Athletes" NCAA, "Scholarships" Next College Student Athlete, "What Are the Different Types of Offers I Could Get?" Salarship, "Should College Athletes Be Paid: Pros and Cons"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Athletes Be Paid? Reasons Why or Why Not

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even though college athletes can now be paid for use of their name, image, or likeness, the debate continues: Should college athletes be paid or stay amateurs?

# data[].attributes.body
1. School affect on mental health.
2. Drugs affect on teens.
3. Peer pressure on teens.

# data[].attributes.body
Unemployment
https://www.spssi.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=1457

Government spending
https://www.pewresearch.org/topic/economy-work/economic-policy/government-spending-the-deficit-1/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SPSSI Policy Statement:

The Psychological Consequences of Unemployment.

Authors: Deborah Belle and Heather E. Bullock
It is crucial that federal, state, and local governments increase support to unemployed and underemployed individuals and their families. In October 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate rose above 10 percent, its highest rate since 1983, and in hard hit states unemployment topped 15 percent (BLS, 2009a). Unemployment rates are higher among Latinos/as (13.1 percent) and Blacks (15.7 percent) than Whites (9.5 percent; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, 2009a). Immigrants (Kochhar, 2009) and people with disabilities (Shapiro, 2009) are also especially vulnerable as are those without college degrees - workers in construction, hospitality, and retail are among those bearing the brunt of layoffs (Leonhardt, 2009). High rates of joblessness are also found among youth between the ages of 16 and 24, a group now experiencing a level of unemployment not seen since record keeping began in 1948. In July 2009 unemployment rates stood at 16.4 percent for White youth, 21.7 percent for Hispanic youth, and 31.2 percent for Black youth.

Alternative government estimates, which include people who have become discouraged and no longer actively seek work, as well as those who are underemployed (e.g., people working part time because they cannot find full-time employment), measure a 17.0 percent national unemployment rate (BLS, 2009a). Like unemployment, underemployment is unequally distributed across the U.S. population, with women, younger workers, and Blacks reporting higher rates of involuntary part-time employment and low pay, as well as higher proportions of "discouraged" workers who have given up on searching for a job (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005).

Limited benefits deepen the hardships associated with unemployment. Low-wage workers, particularly those in minimum wage jobs are often ineligible for benefits because they do not meet state criteria for earnings and/or work participation thresholds (Institute for Women's Policy Research, 2008; U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO, 2007). A GAO study found that low-wage workers were almost two-and-one-half times as likely to be unemployed as higher-wage workers but about half as likely to receive unemployment benefits. Although the length of time that federal unemployment benefits can be received has been extended, the United States still lags behind European countries in terms of the time period during which benefits are provided (Rampell, 2009). The temporary nature of benefit extensions further jeopardizes unemployed workers. Phasing out unemployment programs before a full economic recovery is realized threatens to leave many workers without much needed benefits (National Employment Law Project, 2009).

For many Americans health insurance is tied directly to employment, and losing a job means forfeiting that health insurance, often for one's family as well as oneself. Unemployment is a major barrier to adequate health care. A New York Times survey found that 54 percent of 708 unemployed respondents had cut back on visits to doctors or medical treatments, and 47 percent of respondents reported being without health care (Luo & Thee-Brenan, 2009).

Psychological Effects of Unemployment and Underemployment

Individual and family consequences. Job loss is associated with elevated rates of mental and physical health problems, increases in mortality rates, and detrimental changes in family relationships and in the psychological well-being of spouses and children. Compared to stably employed workers, those who have lost their jobs have significantly poorer mental health, lower life satisfaction, less marital or family satisfaction, and poorer subjective physical health (McKee-Ryan, Song, Wanberg, & Kinicki, 2005). A meta-analysis by Paul and Moser (2009) reinforces these findings - unemployment was associated with depression, anxiety, psychosomatic symptoms, low subjective well-being, and poor self-esteem. Unemployed workers were twice as likely as their employed counterparts to experience psychological problems (Paul & Moser, 2009).

Unemployment can contribute to reduced life expectancy. In a longitudinal study in which the employment, earnings, and work histories of high-seniority male workers were tracked during the 1970s and 1980s, mortality rates in the year after job displacement were 50 to 100 percent higher than would otherwise have been expected. The effect on mortality risk declined sharply over time, but even 20 years after these men had lost jobs, elevated risk of death was found among those who had lost jobs earlier, in comparison to the stably employed (Sullivan & von Wachter, 2009). Even after controlling for baseline health and other demographic characteristics, unemployed workers report significantly poorer health and more depressive symptoms than those who remain stably employed (Burgard, Brand, & House, 2007). Low paying jobs typically offer minimal opportunities to utilize one's skills and come with a host of negative outcomes (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005). Underemployment is associated with decreased self-esteem, increased alcohol use, and elevated rates of depression, as well as low birthweight among babies born to underemployed women (Dooley & Prause, 2004).

The stress of unemployment can lead to declines in the well-being of spouses (Rook, Dooley, & Catalano, 1991) and to changes in family relationships and in outcomes for children. Research dating back to the Great Depression found that men who experienced substantial financial loss became more irritable, tense, and explosive. Children often suffered as these fathers became more punitive and arbitrary in their parenting. Such paternal behavior, in turn, predicted temper tantrums, irritability, and negativism in children, especially boys, and moodiness, hypersensitivity, feelings of inadequacy and lowered aspirations in adolescent girls (Elder, 1974; Elder, Caspi, & Nguyen, 1986). Subsequent studies have continued to find such a pathway from economic loss to father's behavior to child's well-being (e.g., Galambos & Silbereisen, 1987).

Elevated depressive symptomatology has also been found among unemployed single mothers, and mothers who were more depressed more frequently punished their adolescent children (McLoyd et al., 1994). Frequently punished adolescent children, in turn, experienced increased distress and increased depressive symptoms of their own.
Unemployment may even impact decisions about marriage and divorce. Unemployed or poor men are less likely to marry and more likely to divorce than men who are employed or who are more economically secure (McLoyd, 1990).

Community effects. The impact of unemployment extends beyond individuals and families to communities and neighborhoods. High unemployment and poverty go hand in hand, and the characteristics of poor neighborhoods amplify the impact of unemployment (Wilson, 1996). Inadequate and low-quality housing, underfunded schools, few recreational activities, restricted access to services and public transportation, limited opportunities for employment - all characteristics of poor neighborhoods - contribute to the social, economic, and political exclusion of individuals and communities, making it more difficult for people to return to work. In a six country study, increased risk of mortality was associated with higher neighborhood unemployment rates (van Lenthe, Borrell, Costa, Diez, Roux, Kauppinen, et al., 2005). Unemployed workers also report less neighborhood belonging than their employed counterparts, a finding with implications for neighborhood safety and community well-being (Steward, Makwarimba, Reutter, Veenstra, Raphael, & Love, 2009).

Occupational networks are also impacted. Coworkers who have not lost their jobs may suffer from anxiety that they, too, will soon be fired, and from a heavier work load, as they must now take on the work once done by their former colleagues. Those who retain their jobs in the midst of downsizing may experience comparable physical and emotional effects to workers who lose their jobs (Kivimaki, Vahtera, Elovainio, Pentti, & Virtanen, 2003).

Protective Factors

Countries with stronger systems of protection for the unemployed have lower rates of mental health problems among the unemployed than countries such as the United States, with its relatively weaker supports (Paul & Moser, 2009; Murphy & Athanasou, 1999). Poorer outcomes for the unemployed are also found in countries with high rates of income inequality and low levels of economic development. For these reasons, comparative analyses find that U.S. workers fare less well than their Dutch counterparts in terms of mental health (Schaufeli & Van Yperen, 1992). An economic and cultural climate that is more accepting of collective responsibility for its citizens coupled with the availability of generous unemployment benefits may make job loss less psychologically distressing.

The broader economic and political climate including unemployment rates also influences the level of distress experienced. Workers who lose jobs when unemployment is high may engage in less self-blame and consequently experience less psychological distress (Dooley & Prause, 2004). Conversely, unemployment may be more stressful when general unemployment levels are high because the competition for remaining jobs is more intense and the chances for re-employment lower. However, other studies find no evidence that unemployment rates impact the level of personal distress associated with losing a job (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005).

The effects of unemployment may be especially harsh for workers of color and their families. Even in good economic times, African Americans and Latino/as face higher unemployment rates than do European Americans, and do so with fewer family economic resources to fall back on. Racial and ethnic disparities in household wealth are even more extreme than disparities in annual income. People of Color own 8 cents of wealth for every dollar owned by Whites, and nearly 30 percent of African Americans have zero or negative worth compared to 15 percent of Whites (United for a Fair Economy, 2009). Many African Americans and Latinos/as face unemployment without the security of a family home, as African American and Latino/a communities were targeted for predatory subprime lending (e.g., adjustable rate mortgages that move from low to extraordinarily high, unpayable interest rates; Bajaj & Fessenden, 2007). As the housing market crashed, foreclosures and evictions were concentrated in many communities of Color.

Early research on the impact of unemployment focused almost exclusively on men, although today women are equally likely to be included. In a study by Kessler, House, and Turner (1987), women were part of a subgroup of respondents who appeared to experience no adverse health effects despite being unemployed for considerable periods of time. In particular, single mothers of young children and women married to men who were the chief family breadwinners seemed to be protected from the negative health effects of unemployment. Similarly, in Paul and Moser's (2009) meta-analysis of studies published between 1963 and 2004, men were more distressed than women by unemployment. However, McKee-Ryan et al.'s (2005) review of studies published between 1985 and 2002 found that unemployed women reported poorer mental health and lower life satisfaction than did unemployed men. With over 70% of U.S. women now employed outside the home and heterosexual married women earning 36% of the income in two-parent families, future researchers may find that women's responses to underemployment and unemployment are increasingly similar to those of men. This will likely be the case among female-headed households in which women are the sole or primary earners.

The impact of job loss and of inadequate employment is lessened for those who have economic, social, and personal resources to cushion the blow. Individuals who face unemployment with more financial resources, as well as those who report lower levels of subjective financial strain, report better mental health and more life satisfaction than those who experience unemployment with fewer economic resources and a greater sense of financial stress (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005). Such factors may account for a finding from Paul and Moser's meta-analysis that blue-collar workers were more distressed by unemployment than were white-collar employees.

Attributions for unemployment are also important in determining the extent of distress following job loss. Those who blame themselves by making internal attributions for their unemployment report lower life satisfaction and poorer physical health than those who externalize blame for their situation (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005).

Other factors, such as social support, can also mitigate the negative impacts of unemployment and underemployment. Being married is a protective factor during periods of unemployment and underemployment, although having more dependents is a risk factor for poorer mental health (Dooley & Prause, 2004; McKee-Ryan et al., 2005). In a longitudinal study of men experiencing job loss following plant closings, Gore (1978) found that laid-off men who reported a lower level of supportive connections with wives, friends, and relatives also had significantly worse health as evidenced by self-reported illness symptoms and by elevated cholesterol levels. Those few men in Gore's study who blamed themselves for their own unemployment were significantly more likely to report low levels of social support. Supportive social relationships, including those that provide instrumental and emotional support, have been found to be protective of mental health and life satisfaction among unemployed workers (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005). In contrast, "undermining" by members of the social network (i.e., directing anger, criticism, or dislike toward the unemployed individual) was found to be significantly associated with worse mental health among the unemployed (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005).

As the U.S. economy pushes record numbers of workers into the ranks of the unemployed and shifts others into poorly paid, part-time, and insecure jobs that fail to provide the economic and psychological benefits of adequate work, it is crucial to adopt practices and policies that protect workers.

Therefore, be it resolved that SPSSI:

1. Draw upon psychological evidence to support legislation aimed at reducing unemployment.
2. Advocate that federal and state governments strengthen unemployment programs and related support to families of unemployed people.
3. Encourage state governments to modernize unemployment insurance by allowing part- time workers to receive benefits.
4. Advocate that federal and state governments fund comprehensive job training programs and educational opportunities at all levels for underemployed and unemployed workers.

Be it further resolved that SPSSI encourage other social science associations to draw upon scientific evidence to:

1. Encourage and support research and advocacy related to underemployment and unemployment.

2. Develop guidelines for working with individuals, families, and communities struggling with the economic, social, and psychological impact of underemployment and unemployment. To be effective, these guidelines must attend to intersections of gender, socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and age.

3. Encourage the federal government to make the creation of full employment opportunities a priority.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the research assistance of Melike Eger,
Alice Gomez, and Shirley Truong. The authors also wish to thank Randy Albelda, Lisa
Dodson, Bernice Lott, Miranda Schirmer, and several anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments.

This statement is intended to represent the members of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Division 9 of the American Psychological Association. It does not necessarily represent the American Psychological Association as a whole or any of its other subsidiary groups.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Authors: Deborah Belle and Heather E. Bullock It is crucial that federal, state, and local governments increase support to unemployed and underemployed individuals and their families. In October 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate rose above 10 percent, its highest rate since 1983, and in hard hit states unemployment topped 15 percent (BLS, 2009a).

# data[].attributes.body
1. Plastic Pollution is harmful to marine https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/marine-plastic-pollution
2. beauty standards negatively affect teenage girls
https://hchsdevilsadvocate.org/972/opinions/western-unrealistic-beauty-standards-are-toxic-and-dangerous/

3. gender inequality
https://www.unicef.org/gender-equality

# data[].attributes.body
1. Voting age
Newsela - Are 16-year-olds grown up enough to vote?
2. Importance of sleep for teens and mental health
The Importance of Sleep for Teen Mental Health | For Better | US News

# data[].attributes.body
1. Political Polarization: Opinion | The Psychology of Political Polarization - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
2. Police Brutality: Police brutality and racism in America (nih.gov)
3. Fast Fashion and how it's effecting children and others: What is fast fashion and why is it a problem? | Ethical Consumer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our country is divided, but science suggests the rift is less severe than it seems.

Americans are far more aligned on many critical issues than you might think. Credit... Saul Martinez/Getty Images

Dr. Yudkin is a psychologist.

Many stories can be told about the 2018 midterm elections, but their mixed results make one thing clear: We are a country divided. Pundits have attributed our historically high levels of polarization to a variety of sources, including the isolating effects of social media, the corrupting influence of dark money and special interests, and news outlets that give more time to outraged rants than to reasoned debate.

But while each of these factors undoubtedly plays a role, a new report produced by me and my colleagues at More in Common, a nonprofit research organization devoted to bridging political divides, suggests there is more to the story. In the past few weeks, publications have highlighted findings from our study like the presence of an "exhausted majority" (the roughly two-thirds of Americans who do not identify with either political extreme) and the fact that both political extremes are less diverse and more affluent than the middle is.

Just as important, however, is that our report identifies a powerful explanation for political polarization. It shows how discrepancies in people's "core beliefs" (their moral values, parenting philosophy, feelings about personal responsibility and so on) explain differences in their political views.

We recruited a representative sample of 8,000 Americans and, through interviews and online surveys, asked them about both their core beliefs and their opinions on policy issues like gun control, abortion and immigration. We then identified groups of people with similar core beliefs and examined how these beliefs correlated with their political views.

Our analysis revealed seven groups in the American population, which we categorized as progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, politically disengaged, moderates, traditional conservatives and devoted conservatives. (Curious which group you belong to? Take our quiz to find out.) We found stark differences in attitudes across groups: For example, only 1 percent of progressive activists, but 97 percent of devoted conservatives, approve of Donald Trump's performance as president.

Furthermore, our results discovered a connection between core beliefs and political views. Consider the core belief of how safe or threatening you feel the world to be. Forty-seven percent of devoted conservatives strongly believed that the world was becoming an increasingly dangerous place. By contrast, only 19 percent of progressive activists held this view.

In turn, those who viewed the world as a dangerous place were three times more likely to strongly support the building of a border wall between the United States and Mexico, and twice as likely to view Islam as a national threat. By contrast, those who did not see the world as dangerous were 50 percent more likely to believe that people were too worried about terrorism and 50 percent more likely to believe that immigration was good for America.

Another significant finding concerned people's views on personal responsibility. It may come as no surprise that 86 percent of progressive activists believed that "people's outcomes in life are determined largely by forces outside of their control," whereas 98 percent of devoted conservatives believed "people are largely responsible for their own outcomes in life." But what is notable is that those who believe the former were twice as likely to favor increasing the government safety net, 25 percent more likely to believe that America had a moral obligation to accept refugees and about 35 percent more likely to believe that gender-based differences in pay were a result of sexism.

A third core belief dividing liberals and conservatives was parenting philosophy. We asked participants a series of questions on this topic, including whether they believed it was better for children to have "curiosity" versus "good manners" and "independence" versus "respect for elders." Once again, striking differences emerged: While 75 percent of devoted conservatives leaned toward the more strict values, 77 percent of progressive activists leaned toward the more permissive.

Responses on this issue were also strongly correlated with political views. For example, Americans who fully endorsed strict values were six times as likely to oppose gay marriage, twice as likely to believe that men and women have different roles in society and more than three times as likely to believe that a person's sex is fixed at birth.

Overall, these data offer a new perspective on a claim long made by social scientists: that differences in political belief are manifestations of deeply opposing visions - not just about what makes good policy, but also about what makes a good person.

Conservatives tend to see the world as a hostile place where personal success is realized through disciplined adherence to a strict set of ethical rules. In their view, humility is achieved by submitting one's preferences to the established wisdom of authority and tradition.

In contrast, liberals tend to view the world as a place where success is achieved by casting off the strictures of society and allowing individuals to achieve their true potential through self-expression. They believe that humility is achieved by acknowledging the degree to which success in life is a result of circumstances beyond one's control.

These differing notions of virtue shape the way people think and talk about social issues. Conservatives may frame political topics in the language of respect and discipline, while liberals may frame such topics in the language of values like compassion and equality.

This, in turn, may lead people to misunderstand others' motives, making political rifts appear deeper than they really are. Conservatives look at liberals' emphasis on self-expression and see weakness and self-indulgence. Liberals look at conservatives' emphasis on personal responsibility and see chauvinism and victim-blaming.

This distortion renders thoughtful dialogue difficult at a time when it is most necessary. Americans are far more aligned on many critical issues than you might think. For example, our data show that 75 percent of Americans support stricter gun laws, 82 percent believe that racism is at least a somewhat serious problem in America and 79 percent favor providing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants brought here as children. In addition, 77 percent of Americans agree that our differences are not so great that we cannot come together.

While core beliefs lead people to have different political opinions, they also obscure areas of agreement because they lead people to couch their arguments in different moral languages. Understanding how these beliefs shape our political views can improve our chances of achieving our shared goals.

Daniel Yudkin (@dyudkin) is an associate director of research at the nonprofit organization More in Common and a postdoctoral researcher in psychology at Yale.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | The Psychology of Political Polarization (Published 2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our country is divided, but science suggests the rift is less severe than it seems. Dr. Yudkin is a psychologist. Many stories can be told about the 2018 midterm elections, but their mixed results make one thing clear: We are a country divided.

# data[].attributes.body
The effect of tax cuts https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=High+school+sports+should+have+more+funding&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

High school sports should have more funding https://la84.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/FundingCrisisInHighSchoolAthletics.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The effect of income tax cuts on consumer spending, government borrowing, economic growth and inflation. Do tax cuts really increase the rate of economic growth and self-finance? or is is ‘Voodoo’ economics?

# data[].attributes.body
1. animal abuse in factory farming 2. air pollutions effect on countries around the world 3. importance of gun violence in America

# data[].attributes.body
1. hunger in the u.s.
2. unemployment in the u.s.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Gender inequalities in sports https://unfoundation.org/what-we-do/issues/girls-and-women/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_Kb7iebP9QIVR_DjBx08RwM3EAAYAiAAEgKAmvD_BwE
2. Importance of sleep for teens https://drugfree.org/article/school-stress-teen-needs-good-nights-sleep/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9f3nkJzQ9QIVOx-tBh0lNQEdEAAYASAAEgKRsfD_BwE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gender equality is fundamental to the achievement of human rights and is an aspiration that benefits all of society, including girls and women. The universal advantages of gender equality have been well-documented, and several international frameworks have affirmed its centrality to human rights and sustainable development. The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action , for example, unanimously adopted by 189 countries in 1995 and still the strongest global consensus for advancing and protecting girls' and women's equality and justice, recognizes that persistent inequalities pose "serious consequences for the well-being of all people."

Yet, despite the promise of equality, progress towards it has been slow, fragile, incremental, and reversible - and dramatically undermined by the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, in every region of the world, girls and women are still more likely to be poor, illiterate, hungry, unhealthy, underrepresented in leadership positions, legally constrained, politically marginalized, and endangered by violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gender equality is fundamental to the achievement of human rights and is an aspiration that benefits all of society, including girls and women. The universal advantages of gender equality have been well-documented, and several international frameworks have affirmed its centrality to human rights and sustainable development.

# data[].attributes.body
Importance of sleep for teens mental health:
https://drugfree.org/article/school-stress-teen-needs-good-nights-sleep/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA_8OPBhDtARIsAKQu0gZBSMdGs1-qVUaZDO2lZGwOdTvklyW4dCeKuTFoeXMeZ-KqFrh6VEYaAh-wEALw_wcB

homelessness and poverty in america: https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/countries/united-states/poverty-in-the-us/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School Stress: Why Your Teen Needs a Good Night’s Sleep

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teenagers are living life at full speed and need more sleep than adults to stay healthy and safe – and cope with stress.