Why College Athletes Should Be Paid

The NCAA is a “nonprofit organization” that rakes in billions of dollars every year. This organization is cruel and mistreating their employees to an extreme extent. A video titled The NCAA by John Oliver of the talk show last week tonight, which gives credible evidence on all 100s of political and economic issues explains this topic well.

John Olivers video clearly explains that NCAA athletes should be paid because the NCAA can more than easily afford to pay them and has extremely strict regulations to prevent this, and these athletes live a harsh and cruel life.

Source:nocoastbias.com/ncaa-athletes-paid/

When you officially choose to become a college athlete the NCAA makes sure they own you from the start. The first thing these athletes have to do is sign a 440 page manual of rules. And if you chose not to sign it then you don’t get to play. Once you are forced to sign this handbook you are officially owned by the NCAA, If you break any of the thousands of rules in this handbook you could risk losing your scholarship. One of the reasons they do this is to make sure athletes have no say in anything that they do, especially when it comes to money. The NCAA is one of the richest organizations in America. “ On average March Madness brings in over a billion dollars in revenue every year.” This is simply one month's worth of profit, not to mention the other 11 months of football, basketball and other sports. You might say well if this is true where does all the money go? The fact is many colleges intentionally spend there money wastefully to make it look like they aren’t wealthy. Have you ever wondered why college stadiums are often bigger than NFL stadiums? Because they can afford it due to not having to pay their players. Also many college coaches are paid more than NFL coaches.  “The average NFL coach makes $4.9 million while Alabama's Nick Saban makes $7 million.”Clearly the NCAA can afford to pay these players but chooses not to.

It is not only that the NCAA can play there players, it is also that there are serious reasons to why they should pay their athletes. When you are a college athlete many times it is because you cannot afford your own college, so when you become an athlete your sport is your job that is paying for your education. This means that these athletes cannot have a job that pays them money, there job pays them an education. These athletes are broke, “Sometimes there are hungry nights where i'm not able to eat, where i go to bed and i'm starving” -Shabazz Napier. This is absolutely unacceptable for a player for a player that is working harder than anybody to have to suffer from hunger. Many may argue that it will all be worth it once they go pro and make millions all there hard work will pay off. Well according to Ncaa statistics,“1.6% of NCAA football players go pro, and 1.2% of NCAA basketball players go pro.” So for the remaining 99% of college athletes their career stops after college. In the end these college athletes work harder than anyone else only to get completely ripped off by the NCAA and suffer all for an education that is often very bad.

Future Question: Should athletes of more and less popular college sports be compensated differently?

Why We Tell Their Story

http://67.media.tumblr.com

Alexander Hamilton, before becoming a musical sensation, was simply known as the man on the ten dollar bill.  He was someone students learned about in history class and then forgot once the semester ended. I argue that Hamilton was able to become such a success on Broadway because Lin Manuel Miranda was able to bring to life a relatively dull topic and reteach the subject in a fun way.  

According to “Alexander Hamilton’s Biography”, published by Biography, a reputable source of the biographies of hundreds of people, states that Hamilton was born in the British West Indies; his father left him and his mother passed away.  Hamilton was able to travel to America and make a name for himself by becoming a lawyer in New York City.  He fought in the American Revolution and became George Washington’s Right-hand man.  When Washington was elected president, Hamilton was appointed Secretary of Treasury.  

Hamilton was a federalist who believed in a more loose view of the constitution while his biggest political rival, Thomas Jefferson, was a Democratic-Republican who believed in a strict interpretation of the constitution.  As time progress and George Washington stepped down from Office, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton’s political differences created the first two party system in America.  George Washington had warned about having different political parties in his farewell address, but the split was inevitable.  

After John Adams became the second President and left Office, the election of 1800 became a huge debate.  The two candidates were Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.  Even though the Federalists were losing power and Hamilton was no longer Secretary of Treasury, he still had great control on who would win the election.  Hamilton was able to persuade people to vote for Jefferson over Burr because in Hamilton’s eyes Burr had no strong morals.  This resulted in Jefferson becoming President and Aaron Burr becoming Vice President.  Aaron Burr was extremely upset with the outcome of the election, and, after a couple of years, asked Hamilton to duel, shot, and killed him.  

Hamilton was able to encompass this story and make it enjoyable for the audience to relearn about their founding fathers.  Lin Manuel Miranda is not just casting a positive light on Hamilton, though.  Hamilton also focuses on Alexander’s affair on his wife, Eliza, the Reynolds Pamphlet, and the many downfalls Hamilton faced like losing his son.  

I know that when learning about this Era in APUSH Hamilton made it a lot easier to learn the material and actually enjoy it.  Hamilton has been able to stay so popular because there are many people like myself who have used this genius musical to advance their own knowledge.  

What are the Incentives Already Offered for Preserving the Environment?

     The natural incentives should be enough of a reason to help recycle and save energy. By being wasteful and harmful to the environment we basically are ruining it for future generations and ourselves. However, as I found in my last post, most people don't see the effects in their daily lives, so therefore they don't see it as a big problem in their lives. The incentives  that are in place set by the government and recycling companies do not seem to be working. Incentives at all levels from government to individual small recycling plants are available to everyone.

Source: http://www.greenerpackage.com

      There are a variety of incentives for preserving the environment that people can take advantage of from large government programs to small recycling companies.  In a USA Today article from 2010 called "Getting paid to save energy, recycle? Incentives expand," author Wendy Koch writes," A growing number of private and public programs are offering cash, gift cards and other rewards such as cupcakes and massages for eco-friendly behavior." The article goes on to list some possible incentives that are available. CVS for example gives customers $1 to use in the store when they skip using a plastic bag four times. The Company Earth Aid has registered people in all fifty states who have the ability to earn points that can be used in certain stores when these people save on their utility bills. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has a list of Energy incentive programs both public and private in every state. In Illinois, one possible incentive for businesses and companies is the New Construction program, which gives grants to buildings that go beyond code requirements in energy efficiency. 
     People need to understand the possible consequences of not helping to preserve the environment. Although many people may not be directly affected by immediate consequences like pollution, they still should understand what could happen to the next generation. There are so many incentives to preserve the environment both substantial and non-substantial, but somehow most people just do not seem to care.


UP NEXT:  What new incentives could or should be implemented in the U.S.? Can the United States use incentives that other countries around the world have put into place?

Warner Bros & The Profit Margin

(upload.wikimedia.org)

One must understand that Warner Bros. is a company and will always seek out profit. It isn't always pretty but corporate is completely necessary and important in film and the arts in general. In order to profit and thus continue producing films, Warner Bros. must weigh their allowed budget and the expected profit.

IMDB, a reputable source for information spanning from movies to actors, provided information on the recent box office hit, Suicide Squad. According to the details of this movie on the website, Suicide Squad had an estimated budget of $175m. The movie has currently grossed to an impressive $324m. The production company obviously played its cards right and had a sizable profit margin for this movie. This isn't just a stroke of luck, though. Warner Bros. knows exactly where to put their money to make the most profit.

The difference between the amount spent on the film and the profit proves that the system currently in place is profitable. The current model seems to be leaning towards producing sequels or really anything other than something new. Though many complain about this current trend, it is the consumers who really decide what movies are made as wherever the dollar is spent, that decides the types of movies made.

Another instance of this model working is with the Dark Night series. The Dark Night Rises has a budget of around 230 million according to Wikipedia and sold just over a billion in the box office. So while original movies and stories are fresh, exciting and fun to watch when they're done well, the safe route for WB lies in making sequals and such. This isn't to say that these movies aren't good,, though. The reason for such a large profit margin is often because these movies are good. It isn't all bad but in the world of business one must have a cynical eye.

Virtual Reality Usage in the Military

Post #4

Virtual Reality Usage in the Military

Source: www.vrs.org

Virtual reality is even beginning to become implemented into the military for training purposes. VR headsets are able to effectively train members of the Army, Navy, and Air Force by safely putting them in situations similar to what they might encounter in the future.

Virtual Reality Society (VRS) has a website that shares the latest news regarding virtual reality and how it continues to be implemented into different industries. According to the VRS article “Virtual Reality in the Military,” flight simulating, battlefield combat training, medical training, and vehicle training are starting to be accomplished using VR technology. Flight and vehicle simulations through VR are not only safer, but more cost-efficient than training via actual aircrafts and vehicles. Soldiers are able to participate in parachuting simulations, combat or medical training, war simulations, and even virtual boot camp. Not only this, but VR is used as a method to treat PTSD in former members of the military by providing them with coping strategies to adjust to normal life. I think that the military will continue to implement virtual reality due to its realistic feel, safety, practicality, and effectiveness. VR has the potential to revolutionize military training while saving time and money at the same time.

Future research question:

How will virtual reality be utilized in the medical field?

Player salaries based on a teams income

How a teams income affect player salaries

The players are the reason the game of baseball even exists.  In its entirety, teams salaries are the basis for how much a player is paid, but it can be fluctuated based on the player itself, and their personal skills. I looked at commercial appeal,  which is reliable, because it uses statistics and is very updated based on what is happening in the MLB today.  This can be seen through how much an overall team’s income is, in relation to how much they pays each player.

cdn1.thecomeback.com

The statement that the more money a team has overall, they can pay their players more and they can get better players all around can be supported by a lot of teams, such as Los Angeles Dodgers, who are highest paid team with a $277 million payroll, and they pay Clayton Kershaw one of the highest salaries in MLB, with $31 million per year. So it goes to show that a team with more money is able to pick up better players, as well as keep them with very high salaries, which can lead them into the postseason, to be more successful as a team.  Just like the New York Yankees, with the biggest net worth in the MLB, $32 billion.  They can pick up more big name players which keeps their revenue up, keeping them at the highest net worth for years.  This goes to show how teams who have much more money are able to put that money into finding more players, without making a huge dent in their annual income, which can lead them to better teams overall.

On the other hand, teams who don’t make as much, or even the lowest net worth/overall salary can still afford to pay players and pick up talented players that bring more wins for their team.  Looking at the Miami Marlins for example, they have the lowest payroll of only $61 million, it’s difficult to understand why Giancarlo Stanton of the Miami Marlins, who signed in November 2014 for $325 million over 13 years, can be paid and promised so much money from a team who has such a little amount of money to pay their players.  The Los Angeles Angels, with a salary that doesn’t exceed the top 10 in all of salaries,  it’s hand to grasp the concept that they can pick up such highly paid players, like Mike Trout, Albert Pujols, and Josh Hamilton, along with Jered Weaver and CJ Nelson, all with annual salaries over over $20 million.  This goes to show where a team puts their money, and what they believe will be giving them the biggest profit, as well as more wins over losses to advance them in the MLB.

Next Blog post: if teams aren’t winning, what do they do to gain profits?

How do Military benefits compare to civilian benefits

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com

Benefits given by the military differ highly compared to benefits civilians receive from their job. Military.com is a reliable source because they give you real information one should know about joining the military. A large portion of the site is also run by veterans so they as well have great first hand knowledge about topics regarding the military. The government provides a great number of incentives to greatly influence on'es decision to join the military.

One of the major differences between the military life and civilian life is that there is always pressure being put on you. “On the other hand, the military lifestyle carries much more responsibility. There is always threat of heading to a combat zone, risking your life. You must be on time to work - there are no "getting stuck in traffic" excuses - or face punishment. You must consistently be well-groomed, live up to working and presentation standards, and talk to others according to specific rules. You usually do not have the option of saying "no" and just quitting when you feel like it.” While in the military your life is run on a specific routine and it is a lot more strict in terms of everyday life than as a civilian. It is important to remember that you signed a commitment and there is no walking away from it once you sign up. You are no longer a civilian, the government owns you and you do as they say.

Generally speaking, you receive a lot more benefits from the military than a civilian job. Pay is generally higher in civilian life, however in the military there is basic pay as well as special pay, also the military has tax advantages. Health care is a major benefit in the military. The Military offers several options including fully paid for health care. For a civilian it depends on the employer, often you pay your own or partial amounts. Housing is another big benefit in the service. Housing is provided by the military. If you live off base the military provides a basic allowance for housing with no fee. Another major one is travel. While in the military you have the opportunity to travel all around the world on deployments for free.

The military has its pros and cons, and this is just a small portion of comparing military life to civilian life. The determining factor in someone’s decision to join the military isn’t always a driving force inside of them to go and fight for their country. Some do it for the experience, or the ability to see the world. There are many reasons why one would join the military and it’s important to inform people on not only the pros, but the cons as well before signing up.

Future research question: What should people know before joining the Military?

Are Zoos Beneficial to Us?

Question I'm addressing:

Is visiting animals in captivity really benefiting us?

Source: Alpenof Petting Zoo

Did you ever go to the zoo as a kid? If you did you probably enjoyed it. Imagine your kids never being able to enjoy a trip to the zoo. With recent incidents in zoos, it’s hard for regulations to justify keeping zoos open. Zoos make the argument that they are beneficial to humans, but there are others that also have strong points in opposition to zoos. Zoos provide us with an appreciation and wonder for animals that you can’t obtain without seeing them. With regards to the knowledge zoos provide, I think there is lots of room for improvement. However, I do recognize that there are bad zoos and bad individual exhibits, that I want to exclude from my support for keeping zoos open.

Marc Bekoff, professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, one of the world's pioneering cognitive ethologists, informed me well on this topic in the article, "Do Zoos Really Teach Visitors Anything?" 

STATEMENT: Zoos are an educational, fun, family activity that should remain open despite recent incidents because they indeed do outweigh in benefits rather than costs.

DISAGREE

People who oppose zoos mainly focus on the lack of knowledge people obtain and how biodiversity conservation is not well taught. There were “More than 6,000 visitors to over 30 zoos and aquariums across the world took part in this landmark study. Participants filled out pre- and post-visit surveys to evaluate their biodiversity understanding and knowledge of how to help protect biodiversity. The study found there was an increase from pre-visit (69.8%) to post-visit (75.1%) in respondents demonstrating some positive evidence of biodiversity understanding." Critics of this study take away that only a small 5.3% increase is not worth all the harm animals are put through mentally and physically by being locked up in large cages. They attest that it’s not worth it unless people are learning about biodiversity conservation. However, learning about some about the lives of the animals who are locked up in cages, without learning about the "need for biodiversity conservation," doesn't convince me that zoos are really doing much good. They believe that there needs to be an increase in education about what not to do or what to do to conserve energy, biodiversity, and for animals. Without that increase, they believe zoos are pointless, and the negative effects override the positive majorly. Could zoo visitors gain the same knowledge in others ways rather than at the expense of the animals who are kept in zoos?  Probably, but I believe if the zoos were able to afford the new educational signs or possibly interactive games then it would be a win-win for both sides.

AGREE

My family & I were frequent zoo visitors, we even had an annual membership. As a kid, my favorite animal to see at the zoo was the polar bears. I loved to watch them and would always ask my mom to read the informational sign about them aloud to me. After my first visit to the zoo I would do lemonade stands on the busy corner outside my house and donate the money I raised to World Wildlife Funds which would help the polar bears because they are an endangered species. Sure, I wasn’t making or donating much money but over time and as I visited the zoo more, I brought people and made them aware of the beauty of these bears and told them how if we don’t do something they might not always be here. This is an example of what a zoo did for me. It made me appreciate and care about the lives of these animals. As many critics state that they aren’t teaching things such as biodiversity conservation, but they are, indirectly. When you go to the zoo you see these animals and appreciate their beauty and find new respect for nature, which makes you less likely to drive your car into grassy meadows, with fear of running over a rodents habitat or ruining the peaceful grass. You’ll be less likely to throw your cans in the ocean thinking of the dolphins you saw at the zoo. You will indirectly be aiding conservation of biodiversity.

Many people see zoos for only the bad exhibits and only the freak accidents that happen. People need to take a closer look on how zoos effect the visitors. The visitors are gaining an appreciation and love for animals and nature, which will indirectly allow them to treat the earth and animals with more respect. Opposition argues that it’s not worth it unless they teach conservation of biodiversity, which I agree with. Zoos do teach basics of biodiversity conservation, not necessarily the term, but they could do a better job of informing more specific ways to help the environment. That’s something that they need to work on but for the most part good zoos should stay open because of all the benefits they provide for animals and humans. I say “good zoos,” because I’m completely aware that there are bad zoos that need to be shut down.

Next blog post: I have many great ideas on how to better zoos in every way. I would like to look into the costs and actual work going into to carry out these ideas.

Broadway Post 4: Advertising and All That Jazz

As the Broadway hit, Chicago, boldly asserted

“There is not bad publicity”

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/7e/42/f8/7e42f88c1a82436a8cfed44cfe34ab42.jpg

On the Great White Way, it is often debated about whether or not this rings true. However, due to the cut-throat nature of this business, the marketing side of producing Broadway hits is equally as competitive. People obviously cannot trade money for tickets without having heard of the show, so a show’s success or lack of success can be very dependent on what company represents the show, how the advertising is executed, and what methods of advertising are used.

The main companies for this competitive business include Serino Coyne, SpotCo, and Eliran Murphy Group, each with their own specialties as far as types of shows and methods of campaigning.Serino Co has allowed hits such as Spamalot, and Mamma Mia, and Wicked soar to new heights, as well as getting Disney hits, such as Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King to the New York stage. They have the creative priorities of an independent organization to assist with the artistic aspects, as well as the financial backing to achieve these goals.

http://www.discount-ticket-store.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/mamma-mia.jpeg and
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/21/Spamalot.jpg/220px-Spamalot.jpg

https://criticallydramatic.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/6a013481198b41970c0163037c4c55970d-500wi.jpeg

SpotCo, known best for its campaigns with Rent and Chicago are renown for their sleek, fresh perspectives, helping to jazz up (literally) shows that have been gracing Broadway for decades, allowing them to continue to dazzle audiences with new and striking presentations and advertisements. Both of these companies use a wide variety of methods to advertise, as they are targeting both regular theatre goers and tourists.

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/rentmusical/images/e/eb/Rent-theater-poster.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130211153009

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b4/76/02/b476022aacd842b87632f32b4a6e1097.jpg

The smallest of the three is Eliran Murphy Group, which is best known for backing smaller shows or shows with limited engagements. Their more well known clients include Little Women, Follies, and Our Town.This group often advertises more to the “regulars” the people who live in, or near New York, as they are the target audience for smaller shows.  All three of these companies claim to represent all of their clients equally to ensure each of them will have their best chance possible.

http://wagnerhightheater.org/wp-content/uploads/LTG_Little_Women.jpg

There are a variety of ways to get the word out, many of which have been mastered and perfected by these companies. Traditional methods of advertising include billboards and newspaper articles, and these are still used often. However,in our increasingly media driven world has opened the door for many companies to attract more tourists, to begin taking full advantage of social media, creating hype via websites such as BroadwayWorld and Broadway.com as well as Facebook and Twitter. iTunes allows the soundtracks for these shows to be accessed by millions who would otherwise never hear about the show or become emotionally invested, as seen in the overnight success of Hamilton following the iTunes release of the soundtrack.. For attracting “regulars” companies often employ tactics such as mailing teaser albums directly to them or getting them to buy season passes to the theatre. Sometimes, especially during exceptionally competitive seasons, these advertising companies have to get a little more creative. A very unique example of another form of marketing was Avenue Q covering an entire taxicab in puppet fur, which generated interest and created buzz, drawing people to the show.T

https://standinginnovation.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/avenue-q-taxi.jpg

http://visitmuskegon.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AvenueQ.jpg

This very successful marketing strategy allowed them to overtake Wicked for the 2004 Tony for Best Musical, a feat no one believed to be possible, further proving the power of smart advertising and the importance of getting it right.

https://67.media.tumblr.com/8f49037ce0be2bac15241d3268e8253a/tumblr_n02xr1qt4z1sj1jz9o1_500.jpg

An underestimated method of advertising, creating stage-to-screen adaptations, literally brings the show from New York to movie theaters and living rooms across the world. As the quote above from Chicago boldly stated, any publicity helps. This show, which was met with rave Broadway success, as well as a critically acclaimed movie. This brings about the question of whether movie adaptations of musicals do more harm than good. In this case, the movie adaptation of Chicago did significantly help the musical, which closed initially after two years on Broadway, in the 1970s. The movie breathed new life into the story, as many people were first familiar with the movie, falling in love with the scandal and excitement of the Jazz Age, creating buzz for the show when it reopened in the 90s, as tourists who enjoyed the movie were more likely to go watch the musical if given the chance. This absolutely helped give Chicago the stamina to become the second longest-running show in history, at 18 years, and is what has allowed it to continue to still be going strong.

In contrast with this, less-than-faithful adaptations, for instance, the Sondheim hit: Sweeney Todd, which stars Johnny Depp, was slammed by the musical theatre community for casting weak vocal leads and changing some of the story. This gives an often negative connotation to those initially unfamiliar with the musical, as some people only familiar with the movie were not impressed, which hurt the reputation of the Broadway musical as it was judged mainly on the poor performances in the movie.

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/56/5660/23DUG00Z/posters/sweeney-todd-the-demon-barber-of-fleet-street.jpg

Overall though, as musical theatre is often not in the limelight of pop culture any attention, whether it be from a movie or television adaptation or a Broadway star making a name for himself in the film industry, does help make more people aware of musical theatre and create interest.

Question for Next Post: What are the specific components of the shows that are most attractive to audiences?

Author's Note: Best Stage-Screen Adaptations (only shows that were Broadway musicals first)

Into the Woods

Les Miserables

My Fair Lady

Fiddler on the Roof

Chicago

Guys and Dolls

The Music Man

The Sound of Music

West Side Story

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Into_the_Woods_poster.jpg

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55030381e4b0145cffc809a0/551d885be4b04e2cba26f26f/5766d54f197aea49f7996140/1466357426080/Les-Miserables.jpg?format=1000w

http://concordplayers.org/00productions/WestSideStory/graphics/WestSideStoryLogo.gif

http://d2npu017ljjude.cloudfront.net/images/custom/w606/17908-0.jpg

Why don't people want to preserve the environment?

      How often do you not take the extra few steps towards the recycling bin? The answer for most people is fairly often. Are most people just lazy? Do they not care at all? Are they not able to? You probably have some kind of seemingly valid excuse, but in reality it's not valid at all. People can recycle but often don't because they either don't see it as important or are just lazy.

SOURCE: http://answerangels.com.au

     In the article from Huffington Post, "The Psychology Behind Why People Don’t Recycle," Erin Schumaker, the Senior Healthy Living Editor who has a Masters from the school of Journalism at Northwestern University, delves into the reasoning behind people not recycling. She found that the excuse people mostly use is that it is not accessible to them. It is stated that about 25% of people in the U.S. don't have curbside recycling, but that just means that people must take it to a local recycling drop off center. These people obviously don't care enough to drop it off at the recycling center or don't know that they have a local recycling center and hadn't cared to look up to that point.

     About 26% of people in this article's poll said that it either takes up too much time, they always forget to recycle, or that they are uneducated about recycling. All of these excuses boil down to one factor: people are lazy. People who say it takes too much time obviously believe it is not worth it and don't understand the importance of recycling. People who say they always forget needs to learn the importance of recycling so that they take more of an effort to remember to recycle. People who say they are uneducated about recycling would take an effort to learn if they really cared. The tricky part is getting these people to really care.

Up next: I will research the incentives that have been implemented to preserve the environment in the past and why they haven't worked. 

The Benefits of Hiring Someone with Disabilities

source: http://ken-cdn.com/

Imagine you just finished shopping at Jewel and are in the checkout line. The lady in front of you is getting frustrating with the cashier because he accidentally typed the wrong amount for her bunch of bananas. After the situation gets settled, the bananas travel down the conveyor belt to the bagger. You smile when you realize that the bagger is clearly someone with special needs, but the lady in front of you does not even notice as she rips the bag out the bagger’s hand and storms out of the store.

Whether it was the cashier or the bagger, it does not matter the abilities either of them obtain because there will still be angry customers, so how could hiring people with special needs benefit the companies? An article from Huffington Post will answer this with support from big name companies.

Companies are not only looking to make extra money, but they truly believe that the abilities that people with special needs have can be very beneficial to their company.

The Executive Vice President and Chief Partner Resources Officer of Starbucks says that, “we challenge ourselves to look beyond traditional sources and typical profiles, to bring in people that share our values and our passion for service and community.”

Starbucks is not the only company who have the want from a stronger community. Back years and years ago when women were beginning to be hired by companies, there were companies that wanted women for their specific benefits. Young people who may have low-functioning autism will get discriminated because of the disorder the have.

Companies like Starbucks look past a disability and strictly focus on the abilities and talents they do have that will ultimately benefit the success of their company. It is said that “people with disabilities often have well-honed problem solving skills and a degree of adaptability that are especially valuable in today’s fast changing business environment.”

But what is it exactly that these special people have that provide benefits to the company?

“Employees with disabilities have higher retention rates, so for many businesses, there can be a real cost savings through reduced turnover.” Companies are saving money while hiring the people with disabilities being able to spend this money on new technology and products for their stores.

Not only are they saving money, but they are also making money because they are creating a better environment for the consumers. “Organizations employing people with disabilities have higher morale and employee engagement, which we know drives profitability.”

The incentive that companies have for hiring disabled people is not only driven by money, but also the type of environment that they are able create.

Future Research Questions: What kind of organizations are helping those with disability get equal opportunity in the workforce?

Does the government under-ride companies hiring people with special needs?

What does the future look like as we continue to improve the educational techniques for students with special needs?