The women of the US Soccer Team have long called for fair pay, but it wasn't until some dared to speak out that a change was made to the jobs, according to Andrew Das of the New York Times (2016). Female footballers are experiencing a significant pay gap compared to their male counterparts. Despite this pay gap, the U.S. women's soccer team earned more revenue than its men's team in 2016. Although the media considers it an anomaly, the projected revenue for 2017 exceeds that of the US men's soccer team. Women are demanding equal pay for equal work, but what does “equal” mean for the world of football? The men's soccer team claims they have to work harder to qualify than the women's team. To qualify for the World Cup, the U.S. men's team must play a two-year tournament in Central America, South America and Europe. The women's team plays a five-match tournament lasting two weeks. There are some potential problems that arise from this debate. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay There are psychological issues at play with this pay disparity issue. Only the question of whether this is right or not has moral implications for society. Are we telling our girls that no matter how well you perform, you will never be as good as your male counterparts? Pay inequality also exists in the field of sport and has serious implications for the gender roles we are strengthening. However, society should avoid rewarding mediocrity. Statistically speaking, it's a tougher path to victory for the U.S. men's team, which is competing in a series of two-year tournaments to qualify rather than a tournament that lasts just two weeks. So far the courts have ruled in favor of the women, but deciding the level of compensation has been difficult due to the difference in tournament qualifications, income and tournaments played. Should their compensation be based on revenue or performance? While no formal decision has been reached, it would appear that a reassessment of women's pay is underway, but it may not be as much as that of their male colleagues. US bank Wells Fargo was fined $185 million for opening illegal bank accounts in an attempt to push sales, according to BBC News (2016). Bank employees illegally registered customers for more than two million accounts or credit cards. Items such as debit cards were issued without the customer's knowledge or consent. The bank employees involved went so far as to create fake email addresses to unknowingly sign up consumers for online banking services. After this was discovered, Wells Fargo was fined the equivalent of $185 million as a slap on the hand for dishonest business practices. The company, company-wide, did not ask its employees to be dishonest, and the executives and team managers involved in the illegal activity were fired. An external third party will investigate the company for further illegal activity, as well as to ensure that the company is implementing procedures to protect itself from further illegal activity. There are some serious implications for Wells Fargo and society. Some of the questions everyone is asking are: What else is Wells Fargo doing? Is my bank doing the same thing to me? Corporate dishonesty that appears in headlines causes people to fear and examinecarefully every company with which they have business relationships. Dishonesty breeds mistrust, which can lead people to withdraw money from one bank and transfer it to another, creating a failure or possible downfall of an American company. This causes job losses and a severe blow to the economy. Wells Fargo and others speculate that a constant focus on sales numbers has pushed managers, team managers and employees to engage in illegal activities in an attempt to gain bonuses, recognition, promotions and simply to meet quotas. The company said it is reviewing its values ​​with its company to make sure everyone understands what they stand for and that these types of practices will not be tolerated. Imposing unattainable or high quotas on people can cause desperation, which then leads people to seek desperate solutions like this. Society must be careful not to achieve impossible goals for people who would then do anything to survive. With the 2009 federal stimulus law, states waived work as a requirement for participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, for up to three months of unemployment. they were therefore permitted while using food stamps. According to Bob Bryan of Business Insider (2016), there has been an unprecedented decline in food stamp users since 2016. The waivers are expiring, are not being extended, or have not been revoked by state governors. New work rules were implemented in 22 states in 2016, along with 15 states that had previously reinstated work as a requirement for SNAP benefits. The rationale behind the change in state policy is that the unemployment rate in the United States has fallen below 5%. The psychological implication that Bryan describes is the sudden change in policy and its subsequent impact on families coming off food stamps, as well as businesses with significant SNAP sales. (Dollar General, Dollar Tree and Walmart). The question is this: Will unemployed people be able to adapt and acquire the resources to find work, especially if they had previously planned to qualify for food stamps? The concluding thought and overall tone of the article leaned towards empathy with those who might be negatively affected. The number of people on food stamps today, more than 43 million, is still double what it was when unemployment was 5 percent (fewer than 28 million people on food stamps in 2007). Bryan exaggerated the decline by omitting this information and misrepresenting the graph (y-axis starts at 43.0 million instead of 0.0) - these are warning signs of a false narrative. SNAP is intended to provide help to low-wage and unemployed individuals, and it is ultimately the job of other programs and agencies to assist the unemployed. Ten million private sector jobs have been created over the past four years, and these policy changes will motivate food stamp recipients to seek and fill these jobs. Instilling this motivation is a key implication from a social and psychological perspective. Thus, SNAP policy changes mean, in this situation, a government working as it should: being generous in economically difficult times, and then becoming more cautious when the economy improves. With more jobs and an ever-declining unemployment rate, states' decision to end the waiver creates a better balance between participant motivation, systemic equity with a return to a normalized unemployment rate, and government spending . Samsung and the Note 7—a recently released cross between a phone and a tablet—are facing offa big dilemma with exploding batteries, according to JD Biersdorfer of the New York Times (2016). This device was expected to outlast the iPhone 7, released on September 16, 2016. Samsung initially ceased sales and created an exchange program for customers who had already purchased the device to return it and receive a replacement in the coming weeks. A week later, Samsung released a statement asking all users to turn off their devices and change them as soon as possible. While necessary, the tone of this message was anxiety-inducing for anyone with a Samsung device. To make matters worse, the Federal Aviation Administration has begun advising passengers to turn off and not charge the Note 7 at any time on board a plane. New York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) issued a similar message to its passengers. Subsequently, on September 15, Samsung officially recalled Note 7 phones sold before that day, deciding that the exchange program alone was an insufficient bandage. As of that date, Samsung had received 92 reports from U.S. customers of overheating batteries, 26 reports of burns, and 55 reports of property damage. With the help of bad press, Samsung's bridges are burning along with their batteries. The psychological issue at stake for the company is trust, both internally and externally. The company is undoubtedly constantly looking for ways to reassure its employees about the company's future. Even more concerning is that the severity of this incident will not soon be forgotten by consumers who now associate exploding batteries with Samsung phones. Samsung must find a way to shape and shape the opinions circulating on the issue with concrete and credible evidence. Samsung UK began doing so by issuing a statement blaming it on a rare manufacturing process error. The effort to remove human error from the list of suspects should help lessen the severity of the allegations made by the media. Additionally, a thorough and transparent investigation of the error, followed by publication of the findings and implementation of new preventative policies, can help ensure Samsung employees and users that such an incident does not happen again. These will be the first steps to regain trust at all levels. CNN's Ivana Kottasova analyzed a study examining the gender pay gap observed in Australian and American workplaces (2016). The article suggests that, on average, women in the United States continue to earn 78 cents per dollar less than their male counterparts. Using these numbers, it will take 118 years to close the gender pay gap in America. The Australian study looked at data on when employees ask for raises. The numbers suggest that, when asked, men are 25% more likely to receive a raise than women. The difference doesn't simply stem from the fact that men are simply more ambitious and ask for raises more often. Women ask for, but do not receive, pay raises or promotions as frequently as men. The article dispels the myth that women are reluctant to cause conflict or are less motivated and, as a result, do not ask for a pay rise. The information in this article may have several psychological ramifications on the work environment. It could lead to a decreased sense of objectivity and fairness in the workplace. The issues identified can create a hostile work environment, especially between male and female colleagues. Furthermore, the information can potentially ruin the itemtrust, which is essential for a smooth boss-employee relationship. Additionally, female employees may be less motivated to work hard. Ultimately, employee engagement may decline because women may not feel they are bringing value to the company. However, the article downplays the impact this information could have on the workplace. The gender gap goes beyond just politics and the social environment. The psychological consequences could create severe disunity within a company, ultimately impacting every aspect of business efficiency. Earlier this year, Brock Turner, a Stanford student, sexually assaulted an unconscious woman at a party. The prosecutor served six years in prison, the jury found him guilty, and the judge sentenced him to just six months in prison. CNN's Emanuella Grinberg and Catherine E. Shoichet say Turner was released from prison on good behavior after serving just three months (2016). Furthermore, the article traces the letter written by the victim during the trial. Part of the article discusses the psychological damage the victim suffered as a result of the sexual assault and the trial. The issue identified in this article has many psychological effects on an individual's perspective on the justice system. Firstly, there is a high possibility that this could lead to a sense of distrust within the justice system. After a case like that of Brock Turner, victims may not feel comfortable reporting crimes to authorities. The case, as reported in the article, discredits the psychological damage caused by crimes, especially those of sexual violence. Ultimately, the Brock Turner case appears to shift the blame onto the victim rather than Brock Turner, who willingly committed the crime. The article adequately addresses the psychological effects victims face. However, it does not explicitly comment on the effects these types of cases have on the justice system and government, which is where the effects will likely have the most noticeable repercussions. After Tesla's pioneering introduction of the self-driving car, many companies are jumping in on the action, which according to Wolf Richter of Business Insider (2016) could have unforeseen consequences in a specific industry. Even though Tesla's self-driving car recently suffered its first casualty, when a long-haul truck careened into one of their vehicles, that hasn't quite quenched the thirst of consumers who want more of these cars, nor extinguished the fire of imagination that potential manufacturers have regarding the future of the technology. There has been talk of producing self-driving cars for services such as driving taxis or delivering goods, which could be a disaster for those who work in the industry. These types of cars will be more reliable and available to those who need their services, as they will not need vacation or sick days like their human counterparts. This would also greatly reduce costs, which is almost always desirable for a company, as they would make a larger profit and apply that excess elsewhere for the betterment of the company. Once the software is mastered, vehicle manufacturers hope these cars will be able to do the jobs of long-haul drivers, taxi/Uber drivers and more. If this were to happen, it would result in the loss of more than four million jobs, which could significantly cripple the economy if these recently unemployed individuals do not recover quickly. This will likely have a debilitating psychological effect on these now unemployed individuals, as their means of income have been completely wiped out.