Analysis of Comments on a New York Times Article Essay

The name, Forced From Executive invent to Hourly Wage, which was written by Michael Luo and was published in the New York Times last February 28, 2009, basically told the tommyrot of people who used to earn five or six-figure amounts per year, atomic number 18 direct being paid hourly minimum wages. One example in the expression was the case of Mark Cooper, who used to earn $70,000 as a security manager for Fortune 500 Comp all in the linked States and who oversees a budget of $1. 2 million.Nine months ago, he lost his railway business sector and now he is earning $12 an hour in his job at his friends janitorial services company. Although the article itself is appealing enough, it is also kindle to note the contributors comments active it. As of now, at that place are 300 comments about the article and upon reviewing most of them, it can be surmised that each reader who commented had importantly diametric viewpoints and opinions about the story told in the New York Ti mes article.Evidently, these readers follow to different moral codes 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 survive act of Mark Cooper while the otherwise criticized the style of indite and the subtle message that New York Times writer used in the article. One of the readers who praised the article story admired the braveness of Mr.Cooper as he was able to lower his pride and prove ways to provide for his family even if it means that he has to scrub toilets and nominate his salary dramatically reduced from five figures to an hourly wage without any benefits. In a sense, this group highly regarded the value of hard mildew and starting all over again in a honour way. Most of their comments basically indicated that Mr. Cooper is not alone and that there are hundreds of the Statesns who have similar riches to rags stories.These readers, based on their comments, also believe d that there is no shame being poor as long as one has a dignified and lawful job. On other hand, the other group of readers who commented on the article criticized the New York Times for insinuating that those who work unskilled jobs are lower forms of human beings than those who work white-collar ones. They see the article as discriminating to Americans who have been living their lives below the poverty line for a long time even before the current frugal crisis.For example, one reader lamented that article more or less showed that a $12-an-hour job is an indecent way of living, which is not true. In addition, one reader did not feel sorry for Mr. Cooper and commented that he had a heap to be thankful for because he lives in an above average augury and was able to live a rich life. To this reader, the economic crisis makes everyone in America equal because they are struggling to make ends meet. However, whats common in all the readers responses is that they could all relate to the difficulties experienced by the people show in the article.In fact some of the readers, who are evidently from different walks of life, shared their own stories in their comments. In other words, the single promoter that binds all the readers who commented is the hardship brought about by the fiscal crisis in America. In a way, the articles comments show two things one is that there are a lot of Americans who are so used to a good life that they are seemingly caught off-guard when a devastating financial crisis like this hits them and the other is that due to the crisis, most Americans would be willing to withstand on any job just to survive.But the comments also indicated that Americans are more unified in achieving a common goal which is to repossess from the devastating effects of the crisis and rebuild their lives. Works Cited Luo, Mark. Forced From Executive Pay to Hourly Wage. 28 February 2009. New York Times. 4 March 2009 http//www. nytimes. com/2009/03/01/us/01surv ival. hypertext markup language? pagewanted=1&_r=2&sq=executive%20janitor&st=cse&scp=1.