Nine months ago. he lost his occupation and now he is gaining $ 12 an hr in his occupation at his friend’s janitorial services company. Although the article itself is appealing plenty. it is besides interesting to observe the readers’ remarks about it. As of now. there are 300 remarks about the article and upon reexamining most of them. it can be surmised that each reader who commented had significantly different point of views and sentiments about the narrative told in the New York Times article.
Obviously. these readers adhere to different moral codifications which are seen through their responses. In general. the readers who commented on the article can be divided into two groups: one group lauded the brave act of Mark Cooper while the other criticized the manner of authorship and the elusive message that New York Times author used in the article. One of the reader’s who praised the article narrative admired the bravery of Mr.
Cooper as he was able to take down his pride and found ways to supply for his household even if it means that he has to scour lavatories and hold his salary dramatically reduced from five figures to an hourly pay without any benefits. In a sense. this group extremely regarded the value of difficult work and get downing all over once more in a dignified manner. Most of their remarks fundamentally indicated that Mr. Cooper is non entirely and that there are 100s of Americans who have similar “riches to rags” narratives.
These readers. based on their remarks. besides believed that there is no shame being hapless every bit long as 1 has a dignified and lawful occupation. On other manus. the other group of readers who commented on the article criticized the New York Times for insinuating that those who work blue-collar occupations are lower signifiers of human existences than those who work white-collar 1s. They see the article as know aparting to Americans who have been populating their lives below the poorness line for a long clip even before the current economic crisis.
For illustration. one reader lamented that article more or less showed that a $ 12-an-hour occupation is an indecorous manner of life. which is non true. In add-on. one reader did non experience sorry for Mr. Cooper and commented that he had a batch to be grateful for because he lives in an above norm house and was able to populate a rich life. To this reader. the economic crisis makes everyone in America equal because they are fighting to do ends meet. However. what’s common in all the readers’ responses is that they could all associate to the troubles experienced by the people depicted in the article.
In fact some of the readers. who are obviously from different walks of life. shared their ain narratives in their remarks. In other words. the individual factor that binds all the readers who commented is the adversity brought approximately by the fiscal crisis in America. In a manner. the article’s remarks show two things: one is that there are a batch of Americans who are so used to a good life that they are apparently caught off-guard when a lay waste toing fiscal crisis like this hits them and the other is that due to the crisis. most Americans would be willing to take on any occupation merely to last.
But the remarks besides indicated that Americans are more incorporate in accomplishing a common end which is to retrieve from the lay waste toing effects of the crisis and reconstruct their lives. Works Cited Luo. Mark. “Forced From Executive Pay to Hourly Wage. ” 28 February 2009. New York Times. 4 March 2009 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. nytimes. com/2009/03/01/us/01survival. hypertext markup language? pagewanted=1 & A ; _r=2 & A ; sq=executive % 20janitor & A ; st=cse & A ; scp=1 & gt ; .