Affiliate Marketing Secrets

can you check and see if my answers are right?
the questions will pertain to this paragraph….
The Knights of Labor
The Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor (KOL) was formed in 1869 in Philadelphia. Uriah S. Stephens and a handful of tailors created this union to organize skilled and unskilled workers in the same union. The Knights of Labor offered membership to workers regardless of gender or race. In the early years, it was a secret organization because many workers who were openly in unions were fired. They created elaborate secret rituals drawn from the Freemasons. By the early 1880s, they were a national force powerful enough to drop their secrecy.
The KOL had ambitious goals. Among these goals:
an eight-hour work day
end child labor
end the use of prison labor, which deprived other workers of jobs
equal pay for women
government ownership of railroads and telegraph lines
land policy that benefited settlers instead of speculators
a graduated income tax
Although the KOL initially opposed using strikes, they were common by the mid-1880s. The Knights won strikes against the Union Pacific Railroad in 1884 and the Wabash Railroad in 1885. But they failed to win the Missouri Pacific strike in 1886. That was the same year of the Haymarket Square Riot, during which a bomb exploded, killing several policemen. Soon the Knights’ demands appeared to go against the American system of government and economy. Opponents of the Knights became more vocal. Poor management, internal bickering, and feuds between skilled and unskilled workers eroded its support. By 1900, the Knights of Labor were virtually powerless, and other less radical unions became more popular.
The American Federation of Labor
Samuel Gompers had observed the Knights of Labor struggling. He knew that what workers wanted most were higher wages and improved working conditions. In 1886, Gompers met with leaders from the masons’ union, the hatmakers’ union, and other craft unions to form the American Federation of Labor (AFL). Unlike the Knights of Labor, the American Federation of Labor did not seek to include unskilled workers. Gompers believed the union would have more power if it represented only skilled workers. It also used strikes to force improvements for workers.
Gompers recognized that support for the Knights of Labor had suffered because of the organization’s radical ideas. As a result, the American Federation of Labor pursued a more moderate course. It provided strike relief, or support, to striking workers so they could continue to provide for their families. Successful strikes helped improve workers’ wages and reduced the length of their workweek.
By 1900, as the Knights were declining, Gompers’ union had over 500,000 skilled tradespeople in its ranks. He was seen as the leader of labor, and until the Great Depression, the AFL was seen as the nation’s most important labor organization. The AFL benefitted from Gompers’ leadership and the realistic goals he set.
Now select the correct responses to the following questions about the case study.
Which of the following was used against unions?
the right to strike
–>Sherman Anti-Trust Act
Fourteenth Amendment
the right to collectively bargain
Question 2 (Multiple Choice Worth 5 points)
Which type of economy is practiced in the United States today?
supply economy
–>mixed economy
market economy
planned economy
Question 3 (Multiple Choice Worth 5 points)
What was the main goal of labor unions by the end of the 19th century?
protection for immigrant workers and ending child labor
a return to the days before factories
–>higher wages and better working conditions
direction of the economy by the government
Question 4 (Multiple Choice Worth 5 points)
Which type of economic system was favored by small business owners?
controlled market
mixed economy
–>free market
planned economy
Question 5 (Multiple Choice Worth 5 points)
Which factor most greatly limited union growth at the end of the 19th century?
–>higher wages for all workers
popularity of Social Darwinism
hostility of business towards unions
improved working conditions
Question 6 (Multiple Choice Worth 5 points)
How did the American Federation of Labor and the Knights of Labor view membership?
Both allowed unskilled workers to be members.
–>Neither allowed unskilled workers to be members.
Only the Knights of Labor allowed unskilled workers to be members.
Only the American Federation of Labor allowed unskilled work

After all, mustn’t one know what the market value for their labor is in order to negotiate?http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/…

Job Corps,the program affiliated with the department of labor,has a security and protective services training course.They also help you get a job,could this training help me in the future become a Police Officer?

Hi,
I am writing an essay and English is not my native language. Please, check my text for mistakes, thanks:
“The State also promoted the reduction of the levels of negotiation by activity branch, favoring the companies where the union power was less. Other norms promoted by the State were: a strike hyper-regulatory mechanism that leaded to declare them illegal most of the times, the instability of the collective agreements as to the time of the agreed benefits and the integral revision of the existing ones, and the possibility of receiving just one compensation before an arbitrary dismissal, becoming difficult to reach the reinsertion to the job, among other measures.
What effects did these changes have in the labor organizations? According to the report of Smith, in terms of its relation with the environment, the DGTB was unable to avoid the disaffiliation and reach that new sectors affiliate to company labor unions.”
Rachel

An example in the life of Matthew D:
Conservative: “Obamacare will price unskilled labor out of the market!”
Matthew D: “That’s not true! Employers can simply pay a small fine and not have to offer them insurance. And the fine they’ll pay then is much less than they pay now for insurance.”
Conservative: “Ok, so that was BS. But you’re an idiot Matthew D. You just don’t get it.”
Matthew D: “And what is it that I am not getting?”
………..?
…………?
…………….?

Before you begin, I want to let you know this is a serious topic. This is for some trivia for economic majors. Please keep in mind you should have some economic background before you read this. If you want to give it a try then read everything slowly and thoroughly. PLEASE don’t leave any response as “too long I didn’t read everything blablabla”, sorry about my grammar.
I know the saying that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and it caught my attention that I know how the rich can’t spend all their savings amassed from corporation business, even if they are taxed certain percentage of their earnings to help poor people get by.
I know simple economic models help demonstrate the problem. Let me know if I am wrong. For simplicity we will start without a government.
Example 1.
Let’s say in the economy there is only 2 dollars, and there are 2 people and each have 1 dollar.
Person A has the secret trade to grow apples but needs land. Person B has the land and housing acquired through inherency. Thus person A pays 1 dollar for the use of his land to grow unlimited apple as well sleep in it shared by person B. Person B in return pays 1 dollar to eat his apple. Thus the money velocity is 1. No one is in debt. No wealth is gained.
Example 2.
Let’s say there are 3 people now. And there is 3 dollar in the economy and each have 1 dollar. Person C is a low IQ laborer, and because he has 1 dollar to spend he will always be broke (in debt) after spending that 1 dollar on either housing or food. Either way Person C is screwed.
Example 3.
Let’s say there are 4 people now, and each have 25 dollar. So there is (25×4) 100 dollar in the economy. Person A still pays 1 dollar for land and sells apple at 1 dollar each, and Person B still charges 1 dollar per person for housing. However Person C and D are willing to work to provide for food and housing, and also demands higher wages. Even If Person C and D work for labor at 1 dollar, they can only pay for either food or shelter. Because of Market theory that as there is more demand, price will rise, therefore there’s an incentive for “A” to sell apple at a higher price let’s say 2 dollar. Because of our desire to survive, C and D will demand higher wages, and then “A” demands even higher prices to compensate for the labor. Person B is fine as long as he can feed himself. This vicious cycle continues. Therefore Person A and B will always amass wealth while Person C and D therefore be spending from their savings until they are broke, meaning they will always be poor.
Example 4.
Let’s say there are 5 people now. Each have 20 dollar. So there is (20×5) 100 dollar in the economy. Because Person C and D are broke. There is an incentive for them to steal. ONLY when the stealing starts, Person A hires person E to work as a police man to safeguard the asset paying him 2 dollar, minimum sustainment. Thus Person A and B will always accumulate wealth, Person C and D will suffer the same faith of poverty. Person E will neither go up or down the wealth ladder.
Example 5.
Let’s say there are is still 6 primary people and 100 other people who are Low IQ laborer, who will still suffer the same faith of Person C and D, just in the matter of moment. The money supply is a lot more now, almost uncountable Person F sees that the world is unjustified and therefore revolt and later a government is form. Person F is a government official and requires the merchant to pay taxes to compensate for the housing, therefore Laborers are only working for food 1 dollar labor for 1 dollar apple, while Person B is also taxed from housing to supply better jobs at better wage to build railroad, sewers, buildings, schools. Keep in mind that not government cannot compensate everyone, therefore some will always be unemployment and broke. While some Low IQ laborers are lucky to acquire free education to get the better paying jobs. Person F is in the safe zone of being a government official.
For now keep in mind there is no bank for money multiplier, bank ratio, money printing, etc. Even if there is, it does not affect the poor people, even if they have savings, the interest is miniscule. Person A will still have more interest base on his large Capital acquired from all the people who used up their savings. There is no longer equality.