Minimum Wage: Is it too low?

Posted on by ck93169n

Minimum wage is the lowest hourly wage an employer can legally pay an employee. Congress made minimum wage a law under the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour. The minimum wage for employees who receive tips is $2.13 per hour. Federal minimum has not changed since 2009. Many states have their own set wage rates, including New York which is currently $16.50. Experts report that if the minimum wage kept pace with workers’ productivity since 1968, the inflation adjusted minimum wage would be $24 per hour.

         Many people feel that the minimum wage should not be increased due to potential drawbacks. One potential drawback is a decrease in jobs, with lay-offs, slower hiring, and humans being replaced by technology all very likely with a higher minimum wage. A higher minimum wage could also be harder on small businesses, causing them to go out of business. This could also result in increased prices so that businesses are able to afford to pay their employees a higher wage. 

         However, many argue that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. They argue that a higher minimum wage will lift many above the poverty line, reducing reliance on government assistance programs. With a higher pay, minimum wage workers are more likely to spend additional income, which can stimulate the economy. Additionally, better pay can lead to higher job satisfaction, motivation, and lower employee turnover. 

          With the many pros and cons of increasing the federal minimum wage, the topic has become highly debated. Do you believe we should increase the federal minimum wage or leave it at $7.25?

AI Enters the Classroom: Tool for the Future of Threat to Education?

Posted on by pacejournalism

By Camille Turner

TThe use of artificial intelligence in the classrooms has sparked ongoing debate following its surge in popularity in 2023. Since then, there has been a significant shift in the landscape of classrooms and campuses throughout the U.S. Some supporters believe that the use of AI can make a positive impact; personalizing learning, helping to tailor lessons for each individual student and acting as a tool for teachers. But as the use of AI continues to expand across the nation, concerns are growing over the loss of human connection in the classroom, threats to teaching jobs, and the ethics surrounding how the next generations learn.

Some educators have begun treating AI as a tool to free up time to focus on more interactive teaching. They are using it to help students stay engaged, and introduce new ideas to lessons. In fact, a new study shows that 84% of New York teachers saying they have used AI in the classroom, and 70% saying it has actually increased their passion for teaching (Stanford).

Other teachers fear that their jobs are at stake, worried that AI will progress past the need for teachers in the classroom. The risk here is losing the irreplaceable role teachers have in cognitive, emotional and social development for the students. The question is, are we capable of balancing AI with the need to preserve teacher’s human abilities?

Critics worry that AI will halt students’ ability to think critically, express themselves creatively, and to develop problem-solving skills. If the students are relying on AI for quick answers, will they lose the drive to answer questions themselves?

There is also a question of emotional intelligence that is needed for students’ cognitive development. Sure, AI can match students’ learning pace and help with the academic side of things, but it cannot understand the relational, social or emotional needs of a student the way a teacher can. And in education, especially in K-12 schools, emotional intelligence between students and teachers is not only helpful, but crucial for the child’s development.

Technology access is another big issue surrounding the AI debate. Many low in-come schools don’t have the means to provide basic technology in the classroom–with about 50% of low-income families and 42% of families of color not having the technology required for online education (Education Trust). Let alone additional AI tools for students. So, the question is, how do we incorporate these students and make sure underfunded districts are not left behind as advancements are being made so rapidly?

The main theme surrounding this issue are the ethical implications. In response to this, experts are calling for AI ethics codes in schools, similarly to the pre-existing honor codes students must agree to before entering school. Many argue that this will help guide the inevitable use of AI responsibly. Education is not just about textbooks and data, but about emotional intelligence, creativity and cognitive development.


Finally, as AI becomes increasingly common, it is crucial that we decide on who is responsible for setting these limits within our school districts. Is it the teachers, the higher-ups at universities and K-12 schools, the AI developers, the government? Deciphering who is in charge to make ethical and responsible choices is incredibly important as the usage of AI continues to evolve and expand.

The rise of AI has been a rapid and concerning one, with many critics saying that it is doing more harm than good. With the increasing use of AI, it is important to understand that it is very difficult to completely erase it in classrooms. Instead, experts are calling on people in power to make decisions about how humans can work simultaneously with such advanced technology. Who is making the decisions? At what point is it excessive? And when does it begin affecting students’ development? All of these questions are crucial to take into consideration while we navigate this unprecedented, digitally-driven era of education.

The Veneer of Health: Dental Debate in the West 

Posted on by gm54806p

In recent years, veneers have surged in popularity across America and other Western nations, becoming a symbol of beauty, success, and social capital. While often viewed through the lens of fashion or self-care, this trend is deeply entwined with broader systemic forces including capitalism, healthcare disparities, and the commercialization of health itself. 

At its core, the rise of veneers reflects the commodification of oral health under capitalist structures. In the United States, where dental care is largely privatized and excluded from standard health insurance coverage, oral health has long been a marker of socioeconomic status. White, straight, and uniform teeth are portrayed in media as the ideal, creating social pressure that links dental aesthetics with personal virtue, professionalism, and even moral worth. In this context, veneers, a cosmetic solution often costing thousands of dollars are less of a medical intervention and more of a consumer good, available primarily to those with the financial means to access them. Especially when we factor in the cost of the procedure being done domestically or abroad. 

This commodification is not coincidental but is reinforced by a healthcare system that does not prioritize dental care as a component of overall health. Despite well-documented links between oral health and systemic health outcomes such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and maternal health dental care remains separated from primary care in much of the Western world. This divide perpetuates a two-tier system in which cosmetic dental procedures are glamorized and normalized for the affluent, while basic dental needs go unmet for the economically disadvantaged. We can make the argument that cosmetic dental procedures are luxuries, but basic, restorative, and preventative dental care shouldn’t be considered a luxury but for many that is not the case.  

Social media and celebrity culture have further fueled the veneer trend. Influencers and public figures routinely showcase dramatic “before and after” transformations, equating veneers with self-improvement and upward mobility. These portrayals obscure the reality that veneers often involve irreversible procedures, like enamel removal, and can require long-term maintenance or replacement. Like any other procedure there are risks and the probability of errors. An example is the veneers not being placed correctly leaving space for bacteria to grow leading to “veneer breath” which can only be fixed by replacing the effected veneers all over again. A few public figures have likely addressed this risk by now that it has been brought up more frequently, but the fact remains that having the procedure done correctly means paying more money to professionals. They also reinforce a narrow beauty standard that does not consider natural variation in tooth shape and color.  

Ultimately, the popularity of veneers is not simply about beauty it is a reflection of how capitalist systems market health, conflate appearance with worth, and deepen health inequalities. If dental care remains a luxury rather than a right, veneers will continue to represent more than a smile, they will signify the growing divide between those who can afford to embody the ideal and those who can’t. 

Should the U.S. Implement a Four-Day Workweek?

Posted on by Ivan Koreshkov

The current image has no alternative text. The file name is: images.jpeg

By Ivan Koreshkov

The traditional 5-day workweek has been the norm in the United States for a long time (ever since the early 20th century). But as technology advances, workplace cultures become more advance as well, and burnout becomes more common. Now the four-day workweek (usually 32 hours) is gaining attention around the world. But is it realistic in the U.S.?

The four-day workweek is a 32-hour schedule with no reduction in pay or benefits. Countries like Iceland and the United Kingdom have already conducted successful trials, with companies that participated reporting improved productivity levels, etc. Employees shared overwhelmingly positive feedback, reporting that they felt less stressed, slept better, and had more time to care for themselves and their families. Advocates of the idea argue that when workers are well rested, they perform better, collaborate more effectively, and stay with their companies for longer. Some studies even suggest environmental benefits, such as lower emissions due to fewer commuting days.

However, critics say that this model might not be practical or sustainable for every industry out there. For example, sectors that rely on shift work like healthcare, retail, food service, and public safety could be difficult to compress into just 4 days. Skeptics also argue that squeezing five days worth of work into four could actually increase employee pressure and stress rather than reduce it. Some business owners fear that less workdays may lead to lower output or higher costs if additional staff is needed to maintain coverage. There are also concerns about fairness: will this benefit only white-collar workers, leaving behind essential employees or those in hourly positions?

Additionally, while some businesses and employees are experimenting with the model, there is no clear consensus on how it will work across the economy. Will the flexibility of a four-day workweek be beneficial in some areas but impractical in others?

Technology as a Tool
Technology is yet another important driver that makes the four-day workweek increasingly viable. Thanks to automation, AI, and productivity tools that improve each year, a number of tasks now take less time than they did in the past. This kind of efficiency can allow staff to achieve their goals in shorter hours. But it also raises a question: is technology meant to free us from long work hours, or simply make us do more work in the same time?

Global Trends and Competitiveness
If other countries continue to adopt shorter workweeks, the U.S. will feel pressure to follow suit to remain competitive in the global competition for talent. Companies that provide workers with a more desirable work-life balance will be able to attract more talent from around the world, making them more competitive when skilled workers are hard to find.

The four-day workweek is not just an issue of cutting hours — it’s an issue of transforming how we work, why we work that way, and what kind of future we’re trying to build. Proponents argue shorter workweeks can boost productivity, improve mental health and allow for better work-life balance. Critics raise legitimate questions about feasibility, particularly for professions that must be constantly covered, and warn of potential unintended consequences.

Questions for consideration:

How do you think the four-day workweek would affect productivity in industries that require constant attention, like healthcare or public safety?

Do you believe working fewer days would actually make people more productive in the long run?

How do you think the cultural shift toward a four-day workweek might affect the U.S. economy and its global competitiveness?

In your opinion, what industries would benefit most from a four-day workweek, and which ones would struggle the most?

How might the four-day workweek influence the American economy, particularly in terms of consumer spending and overall economic growth?

Do you think different industries need different workweek models, or should a uniform approach be applied to all? Why or why not?

What is Legacy? A Quick Overview

Posted on by mm91872n

By Miya Morrison

So, when you hear the term “legacy market”, what do you think of?

As we are in the journalism sphere, the big news organizations from the 1970s. For those who read my article on the cannabis market, you would reflect on that as a standard definition. (It’s alright if you haven’t read it. Take the opportunity once you’re done with this one :))

 I would like to point out that not all alternative markets are illegal or come from illegal origins. The issue is what it doesn’t do,… benefit capitalism. Or at the very least, the greed/materialism that comes with capitalism can’t profit from these markets. 

During our deliberation, I’ll provide images of alternative markets by looking at their capitalist counterparts, but for this brief paper, I’ll just say that many “cult-following” events/projects like indie film festivals or game modders are part of alternative markets, as companies can’t completely profit out of these practices. It doesn’t benefit the shareholders, aka those at the top of the exec board. Please enjoy the memes below, I want this to be a lively setting for all of us.

Cancel Culture: Accountability or Censorship?

Posted on by ka91333n

In early 2022, Joe Rogan — the host behind The Joe Rogan Experience, one of the most popular podcasts in the world — found himself at the center of controversy. Including Spotify, which had signed an exclusive deal with Rogan for his podcast. In which these old podcast clips began resurfacing of moments where Rogan could be seen to spread misinformation about COVID-19 and use of racial slurs. The backlash was seen to be immediate to both parties. Artists like Neil Young and Joni Mitchell pulled their music from the platform in protest, and the hashtag #CancelSpotify started trending across social media.

The controversy quickly evolved into a broader cultural narrative. Critics saw Rogan as reckless, saying his words carried real-world consequences, especially during a public health crisis. Supporters, meanwhile, viewed the backlash as an overreaction — a sign of an increasingly intolerant climate where even difficult conversations are under fire. In his response, Rogan acknowledged his mistakes and apologized for the offensive language, but also emphasized that he brings on guests with a wide range of perspectives. To him, his platform for his podcast was all part of having honest, unfiltered discussions.

But the situation sparked a much bigger debate: where do we draw the line between holding someone accountable and censoring them? Is it fair to call for someone to be removed from a platform because of the harm they may cause — or is that a slippery slope that puts free speech at risk? In Rogan’s case, he didn’t exactly get “canceled.” Spotify stuck by him, and his podcast still pulls in millions of listeners. But the firestorm around him revealed just how complicated cancel culture can be — and how there’s often more gray than black-and-white.

While debates over cancel culture have been going on for years, public opinion remains split. In a 2022 Pew Research Center survey, most Americans said calling out others on social media can be a way to hold people accountable — but a sizable portion also felt it can go too far and unfairly punish people. Joe Rogan’s case sits right at the intersection of those perspectives. His platform is massive, and while some argue he should’ve been removed for spreading harmful content, others believe silencing him would only shut down important (if messy) conversations, rather than encouraging open debate.

As students navigating the internet daily, we see cancel culture unfold in real time — sometimes on a celebrity scale, sometimes in our own circles. What should the response be when someone says or shares something harmful? Are we aiming for punishment or progress?

Cancel culture doesn’t always have a clean beginning or end. It forces us to think about who gets held accountable, who gets forgiven, and who gets left out of the conversation. In the case of Joe Rogan, the question remains: Did we cancel him, or did we just start paying closer attention? And what should the goal of calling someone out be — cancellation, or change?

The Internet’s Latest Obsession: NYC Transplants -A Community Discussion

Posted on by ew81144n

By Elizabeth Whelan and Nalina Rodriguez April 11, 2025

Are NYC transplants creating an issue? This week, a TikToker sparked up heat on the app after posting a video asking fellow New Yorkers if “we are buying fruit from those fruit stands on the side of the road?” She later stated in the video that “it doesn’t seem very sanitary.” Since posting her video a week ago, it has been hit with hate as New Yorkers blew it up, criticizing the TikToker before she took her post down. Despite the deletion, the video is still being circulated on the Internet. 

This woman and recent conversations about whether NYC influencers are boring earlier in March have ignited debate on the app regarding transplants and how much they contribute to the city. TikTok user Wanderslut received 200k likes after stitching the NYC fruit stand post, saying how the woman’s statement is a microaggression as people of color typically own these local stands. Alongside this user, many people have found the ignorance of some transplants online to be disrespectful. 

Gentrification and displacement in NYC neighborhoods are rapidly occurring as rental costs have increased 36% since the pandemic. This is kicking out poor local citizens out of the neighborhoods they grew up in, as they can no longer afford housing. 314 neighborhoods in the city are super-gentrified, excluding minorities and low-income citizens from these areas and creating bubbles of white privilege. These communities include Williamsburg, Bushwick, Bed-Stuy, Harlem, and Greenpoint, which were once mainly home to diverse, minority communities.

The popularity of discussing NYC transplants directly correlates to gentrification. It is a media representation of the whitewashing of NYC’s diverse culture. All transplants are not at fault, but what can they do to be the best possible version of a transplant?

The Statue of Liberty on Ellis Island has always been a symbol for those seeking a new home. People will forever be moving to New York City, and this cannot be stopped. As college students in New York, many of us are transplants ourselves. But should transplants not be more than just residents? Should they not actively contribute to and enrich New York City culture? This is not just a question for those thinking of moving here but a call to action for all of us.

Legal Weed vs. the Legacy Market: Who Really Profits from Cannabis Capitalism?

Posted on by mm91872n

By Miya Morrison

March 16th, 2025; Last Updated April 7th, 2025

As New Jersey cracks down on unlicensed cannabis sellers, a growing divide emerges between the legacy market and the legal industry. While the state’s cannabis market surpasses $1 billion in sales, high taxes, and regulatory hurdles keep the black market thriving—raising questions about who truly benefits from legalization and whether capitalism is erasing or evolving the underground cannabis economy.

Under the guidance of Steven Fulop, mayor of Jersey City, and other state agencies, the Jersey City Quality of Life Task Force conducted a targeted enforcement operation on Saturday, March 9th. This operation led to four arrests, 14 summonses issued, multiple city code violations, and the confiscation of over 13 pounds of marijuana and thousands of untaxed tobacco products. As most of you reading are mainly known to New York and their policies regarding the selling of cannabis, it shouldn’t surprise you that the same crackdown operations have been happening in the “Big Apple” for a while now. Just as recently as March 21st, U.S. District Court Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled that NYC’s crackdown on illicit marijuana operators was constitutional. However, it can be stated that the ways of getting a license for selling marijuana are easier to complete or understand in New York while Healy NJ LLC has a different sentiment to New Jersey’s licensed cannabis policy. 

“Jersey City recently raided smoke shops they called illegal while their licensed cannabis policy is unclear.” Further into the independent media company’s article, they state, “While raiding smoke shops, Jersey City does not have a functioning Cannabis Control Board (CCB), clear policies on distance between dispensaries, or a cap on dispensaries. Key members of the CCB recently resigned from their volunteer positions. So, Cannabis Board meetings have not been occurring. Sources told Heady NJ there were issues with personnel and policies with City Hall favoring certain applicants. The owner of a recently opened dispensary said they were told by the City’s Department of Commerce they could open and come back for when they meet next at an unknown date.”

Seeing this, allow me to summarize the licensed cannabis policy and the process of application. The Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC) is the overarching body that sets the guidelines that licensed sellers must follow. Established by the CREAMM Act and launched on April 21st, 2021, they are responsible for regulating both the Medicinal Cannabis Program and the recreational cannabis program for adults 21 years and older. They are responsible for writing and enforcing the regulations that direct the sales, purchases, and business activities related to cannabis in NJ. However, the organization has had many backlashes over the years. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – NJ published a statement in December of 2024 explaining that they are highly disappointed with the CRC on how it couldn’t live up to its promise to reinvest cannabis revenue into communities targeted by decades of marijuana criminalization, especially as the state before legalization, spent more than $143 million per year to enforce the criminalization of marijuana. 

Historically, New Jersey has been in & out regarding the legalization of weed. A noticeable moment was throughout Chris Christie’s administration as governor of the state, the continued stigma with the fear of punishment for non-medicinal marijuana. Back in 2012, he vetoed a bill that would have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Even with the legalization of medicinal marijuana, Christie’s administration was adamantly against it. He stated in 2015 that, “Every bit of objective data tells us that it’s a gateway drug to other drugs. And it is not an excuse in our society to say that alcohol is legal so why not make marijuana legal. … Well … why not make heroin legal? Why not make cocaine legal? You know, their argument is a slippery slope.” Further doubling down that it’s blood money. 

“As long as I’m governor of New Jersey, there won’t be legalized marijuana in this state,” Chris Christie, 2015. Well, guess who ain’t the governor of New Jersey anymore? As Governor Phil Murphy took office, he allowed the process of legalizing marijuana immediately. Recently, programs such as the Cannabis Training Academy, a free educational program that supports cannabis entrepreneurs interested in the NJ cannabis industry and applying for a license or joining the workforce. However, most question that factor of the legalization of home-grown marijuana in the state. So far, the act is illegal in New Jersey, but who knows?

So the market is explicitly with the recreational use for adults 21 and over. According to 2024 data from the NJ CRC, recreational cannabis sales hit historical highs during the 4/20 and Green Wednesday cannabis holidays. The biggest single day of statewide sales, and the busiest cannabis shopping day, was on Green Wednesday – the day before Thanksgiving Day. Sales on that day totaled $6,003,300, slightly surpassing 4/20 sales of $5,811,632. As of the end of the last official quarterly report in September, recreational cannabis sales had totaled $789,848,253, generating tax revenue of $43,290,543.

So who is profiting? Well, the answer is a bit more complex than that and this is where I credit most of the found information to Forbes. Whitney Economics owned by Bean Whitney stated multiplefactors in how the cannabis industry itself is rarely profitable to begin with. As the industry has a “minefield of risks”, many fails wouldn’t just be business failures, its personal wealth destruction. 

From Forbes’ interviewer: “Operators cannot make money, regardless of how much (money) they actually generate,” Whitney says. “And it’s evidenced by the fact that 27.3% are profitable, meaning 70% are either breaking even, or they’re losing money. About a third of them are losing money. That’s not a sustainable marketplace.”

A survey created by the Minority Cannabis Business Association (MCBA) showed results indicating that an average of 33.7% of white operators in cannabis are profitable, and just 17.5% of their non-white counterparts are profitable in 2024. Due to the legal, social, and familial consequences caused by the prohibition of cannabis, especially concerning the War on Drugs and the actions of targeting and marginalizing communities of color. The effects end up dividing the communities further through rapid expansions of the cannabis markets, these markets prioritizing privileged elite which side-lines minorities, even those who are well-qualified for the career. 

Pace University Art Gallery Honors Retiring Faculty

Posted on by pacejournalism

By Olivia Vella Feb. 28, 2025

The Pace University Art Gallery opened an exhibition featuring artworks from three retiring faculty members.

The exhibition,  “Flux” , runs from Feb. 7 to Mar. 22. It pays tribute to longtime Pace professors and artists Barbara Friedman, Linda Herritt and Will Pappenheimer as they prepare to retire at the end of the spring semester.

Located at 41 Park Row in Lower Manhattan, the exhibition showcases a diverse range of works, reflecting on each of the artists’ journeys as both professionals and professors. From the studio to the classroom, their influence on the students and art department at the university will be missed.

‘Peripheral Vision’, 2024-2025, oil on linen, 80” x 67”

Art gallery director Sarah Cunningham discussed the significance of the exhibition. “While we will certainly miss them as cherished colleagues,” Cunningham said. “We’re also extremely excited to see the incredible new art they’ll create with more time in the studio. This show is just a glimpse of the amazing work to come.”

Lindsay Askin, a junior art student at Pace, shared her experience studying under one of the featured artists. “Barbara Friedman is an incredible professor who takes the time to learn about her students individually,” she said. Askin noted that Friedman’s mentorship helped her develop confidence in her work, calling her “a truly inspiring artist and teacher.”

“Barbara’s art within the exhibition was ethereal and humorous,” Askin said said. “Her personality shines through.”

The gallery is open from 12:30 to 4:30 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday and until 7 p.m. on Thursdays. Admission is free and open to the public. For additional details, visit the Pace University Art Gallery’s official website.

Protests against Mayor Adams in Motion

Posted on by pacejournalism

By Stevin Kamwendo Feb. 28, 2025

A few dozen protesters gathered at Foley Square on Thursday, Feb. 27 calling for the
removal of Mayor Eric Adams, over concerns of corruption allegations and his support for
the Trump Administration’s deportation policies. The demonstrators, organized by New York
Communities for Change, marched to City Hall chanting slogans and calling on Gov. Kathy
Hochul to take action towards his removal.


The protest—organized by advocacy organization NYCC in collaboration with Food and Water Watch and The Black Institute (TBI)— was scheduled to begin at noon at Foley Square. Participants arrived at the rally with placards reading “Adams Resign!”, “Adams Out!”, “Spineless Kathy!” and several other protest slogans. After a sizable group gathered, several speakers addressed their opposition to Kathy Hochul’s established plan to increase oversight in city hall instead of removing Adams from office. Among these speakers was community activist and New York City Council member Alexa Aviles. “Our Mayor is compromised,” Avilés said, “He has not been looking after our interests since day one.”

After the speakers’ address, the protest moved up Centre St and in front of city hall, where
protestors picketed Adams’ immediate resignation before dispersing peacefully.


The Foley Square rally is yet another protest in a series of recent community advocacy events aimed at combating Mayor Adams’ decision to support the Trump Administration’s efforts in enforcing deportation of undocumented migrants in the city. Last week, the NYCC as well as several other advocacy groups held several similar protests, all calling for action from Gov. Hochul. At a press conference held Feb. 20, Gov. Hochul expressed that only voters could decide if Adams would serve another term and that a forced removal could cause operations to break down. Despite her statements, resistance has continued on the
part of community organizers and concerned citizens, who view Adams as unwilling to fulfill important commitments to the well-being of New Yorkers and their families. One of these New Yorkers is Matthew Larkin. Larkin learned about the rally through the app Blue Sky and joined the march to show his support. “I have not been a fan of Eric Adams for a very long time,” he said to reporters towards the end of the picketing session, “He, like Elon Musk, and Donald Trump and Kathy Hochul and a lot of people running the government, seem to only care about themselves, and furthering their own personal interests.” Many other interviewed participants shared the same sentiment and claimed that if Adams doesn’t resign it could worsen New Yorkers’ quality of life. “Right now, our biggest obstacle is Mayor Adams,” said Julio Herrera, Director of Operations at TBI and a co-organizer of the march. “The longer we delay, the more harm this man causes our city. . . We need a leader who can stand up to the Trump administration.”

Adams’ office has not yet given a direct statement in regards to Thursday’s protest, however, in a previous press release on Feb. 13, he has maintained that he will continue to work with the Trump Administration. “Immigrants have been crucial in building our city and will continue to be key to our future success,” Adams stated, “but we must fix our long-broken immigration system. . . That is why I have been clear that I want to work with the new federal administration.”