Question

Apply the "three-legged stool" method of moral reasoning to the problem of the UNC Athletics scandal. What went wrong? Does the method of moral reasoning work? What are the key considerations here? Why could each of the three systems have a problem coming to the right answer if viewed individually? Does this problem go away if viewed collectively? (hint: think about the definitions under what circumstances will the "three-legged stool" method fail?)

Answer 1

The ‘three legged stool model’ used by economists used to describe the three important sources of retirement income; Social security, employee pension and personal savings. This is a key concept of Human Resource management (HRM). Generating income after retirement is one of the parts of financial goal. Each of the legs in this stool is correlated. The retirees in UNC Athletic scandals, this three legged stool is no longer exist. There is rare plan offers for pensions and group insurance. The social security provides retirement only for the qualified workers, who signed the law in 1935. If the pension is less the social security will be very low. When calculating the retirement saving, every employee should consider about the other two parts of three legged stool. This model is still exists but the legs are not balanced.
If we are taking the individual benefits from this three legged stool, the social security is attain properly. The authorities implements plans on the basis of the condition of majority. Among that there are several minority groups exist. Even they did not get proper financial assistance during the retirement period. Most of the unorganized sector workers having low level of income. They also have a small level of saving. They are uncertain about the future. While considering this section of people, the social security or personal savings are meaningless. If there is a collective view this individual respects will gone away. Ensuring income after retirement for all employees is the responsibility of every monetary authority.