Question: How much money did the bill require?

Answer: $447 billion

President Barack Obama proposed the American Jobs Act in September 2011, which included a variety of tax cuts and spending programs to stimulate job creation. <hl> The White House provided a fact sheet which summarized the key provisions of the $447 billion bill. <hl> However, neither the House nor the Senate has passed the legislation as of December 2012. President Obama stated in October 2011: "In the coming days, members of Congress will have to take a stand on whether they believe we should put teachers, construction workers, police officers and firefighters back on the job...They'll get a vote on whether they believe we should protect tax breaks for small business owners and middle-class Americans, or whether we should protect tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires."

President Barack Obama proposed the American Jobs Act in September 2011, which included a variety of tax cuts and spending programs to stimulate job creation. The White House provided a fact sheet which summarized the key provisions of the <hl> $447 billion <hl> bill. However, neither the House nor the Senate has passed the legislation as of December 2012. President Obama stated in October 2011: "In the coming days, members of Congress will have to take a stand on whether they believe we should put teachers, construction workers, police officers and firefighters back on the job...They'll get a vote on whether they believe we should protect tax breaks for small business owners and middle-class Americans, or whether we should protect tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires."


Question: Referring to CBO estimates, how much money would create between 100,00 and 600,000 jobs?

CBO estimated in November 2011 that increased investment in infrastructure would create between 1-6 jobs per $1 million invested; in other words, a $100 billion investment would generate between 100,000 and 600,000 additional jobs. However, other options, such as reducing employers' payroll taxes (especially if limited to firms that increase their payroll), increasing aid to the unemployed, and providing additional refundable tax credits to lower-income households, would generate more jobs per dollar of investment than infrastructure.

Answer: $100 billion

<hl> CBO estimated in November 2011 that increased investment in infrastructure would create between 1-6 jobs per $1 million invested; in other words, a $100 billion investment would generate between 100,000 and 600,000 additional jobs. <hl> However, other options, such as reducing employers' payroll taxes (especially if limited to firms that increase their payroll), increasing aid to the unemployed, and providing additional refundable tax credits to lower-income households, would generate more jobs per dollar of investment than infrastructure.

CBO estimated in November 2011 that increased investment in infrastructure would create between 1-6 jobs per $1 million invested; in other words, a <hl> $100 billion <hl> investment would generate between 100,000 and 600,000 additional jobs. However, other options, such as reducing employers' payroll taxes (especially if limited to firms that increase their payroll), increasing aid to the unemployed, and providing additional refundable tax credits to lower-income households, would generate more jobs per dollar of investment than infrastructure.


Question: What year did the CBO make an estimate on investments in infrastructure?

Answer: 2011

<hl> CBO estimated in November 2011 that increased investment in infrastructure would create between 1-6 jobs per $1 million invested; in other words, a $100 billion investment would generate between 100,000 and 600,000 additional jobs. <hl> However, other options, such as reducing employers' payroll taxes (especially if limited to firms that increase their payroll), increasing aid to the unemployed, and providing additional refundable tax credits to lower-income households, would generate more jobs per dollar of investment than infrastructure.

CBO estimated in November <hl> 2011 <hl> that increased investment in infrastructure would create between 1-6 jobs per $1 million invested; in other words, a $100 billion investment would generate between 100,000 and 600,000 additional jobs. However, other options, such as reducing employers' payroll taxes (especially if limited to firms that increase their payroll), increasing aid to the unemployed, and providing additional refundable tax credits to lower-income households, would generate more jobs per dollar of investment than infrastructure.


Question: Providing additional tax credits to lower income households would accomplish what better than investing in infrastructure?

Answer: generate more jobs

CBO estimated in November 2011 that increased investment in infrastructure would create between 1-6 jobs per $1 million invested; in other words, a $100 billion investment would generate between 100,000 and 600,000 additional jobs. <hl> However, other options, such as reducing employers' payroll taxes (especially if limited to firms that increase their payroll), increasing aid to the unemployed, and providing additional refundable tax credits to lower-income households, would generate more jobs per dollar of investment than infrastructure. <hl>

CBO estimated in November 2011 that increased investment in infrastructure would create between 1-6 jobs per $1 million invested; in other words, a $100 billion investment would generate between 100,000 and 600,000 additional jobs. However, other options, such as reducing employers' payroll taxes (especially if limited to firms that increase their payroll), increasing aid to the unemployed, and providing additional refundable tax credits to lower-income households, would <hl> generate more jobs <hl> per dollar of investment than infrastructure.


Question: How many jobs per million dollars are created?

Answer: 1-6

<hl> CBO estimated in November 2011 that increased investment in infrastructure would create between 1-6 jobs per $1 million invested; in other words, a $100 billion investment would generate between 100,000 and 600,000 additional jobs. <hl> However, other options, such as reducing employers' payroll taxes (especially if limited to firms that increase their payroll), increasing aid to the unemployed, and providing additional refundable tax credits to lower-income households, would generate more jobs per dollar of investment than infrastructure.

CBO estimated in November 2011 that increased investment in infrastructure would create between <hl> 1-6 <hl> jobs per $1 million invested; in other words, a $100 billion investment would generate between 100,000 and 600,000 additional jobs. However, other options, such as reducing employers' payroll taxes (especially if limited to firms that increase their payroll), increasing aid to the unemployed, and providing additional refundable tax credits to lower-income households, would generate more jobs per dollar of investment than infrastructure.


Question: Alternatives to infrastructure investment includes: reduced payroll taxes, providing tax credits to low income households, and what else?

Answer: aid to the unemployed

CBO estimated in November 2011 that increased investment in infrastructure would create between 1-6 jobs per $1 million invested; in other words, a $100 billion investment would generate between 100,000 and 600,000 additional jobs. <hl> However, other options, such as reducing employers' payroll taxes (especially if limited to firms that increase their payroll), increasing aid to the unemployed , and providing additional refundable tax credits to lower-income households, would generate more jobs per dollar of investment than infrastructure. <hl>

CBO estimated in November 2011 that increased investment in infrastructure would create between 1-6 jobs per $1 million invested; in other words, a $100 billion investment would generate between 100,000 and 600,000 additional jobs. However, other options, such as reducing employers' payroll taxes (especially if limited to firms that increase their payroll), increasing <hl> aid to the unemployed <hl>, and providing additional refundable tax credits to lower-income households, would generate more jobs per dollar of investment than infrastructure.

However, other options, such as reducing employers' payroll taxes (especially if limited to firms that increase their payroll), increasing <hl> aid to the unemployed <hl> , and providing additional refundable tax credits to lower-income households, would generate more jobs per dollar of investment than infrastructure.


Question: In 2012, which act reduced taxes in relation to the expiration of Bush tax cuts?

Removing the threat of higher taxes embodied in the fiscal cliff may encourage consumers to spend and employers to expand their business and add jobs. The risk is higher national debt, which can slow the economy in the long-run. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 significantly reduced taxes relative to the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Lowering the costs of workers also encourages employers to hire more. This can be done via reducing existing Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes or by specific tax incentives for hiring additional workers. President Obama reduced the Social Security payroll tax on workers during the 2011-2012 period, which added an estimated $100 billion to the deficit while leaving these funds with consumers to spend. The U.S. corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, although U.S. corporations pay among the lowest amount relative to GDP due to loopholes. Reducing the rate and eliminating loopholes may make U.S. businesses more competitive, but may also add to the deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimated during 2012 that reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% would add $1 trillion to the debt over a decade, for example.

Answer: American Taxpayer Relief Act

Removing the threat of higher taxes embodied in the fiscal cliff may encourage consumers to spend and employers to expand their business and add jobs. The risk is higher national debt, which can slow the economy in the long-run. <hl> The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 significantly reduced taxes relative to the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts. <hl> Lowering the costs of workers also encourages employers to hire more. This can be done via reducing existing Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes or by specific tax incentives for hiring additional workers. President Obama reduced the Social Security payroll tax on workers during the 2011-2012 period, which added an estimated $100 billion to the deficit while leaving these funds with consumers to spend. The U.S. corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, although U.S. corporations pay among the lowest amount relative to GDP due to loopholes. Reducing the rate and eliminating loopholes may make U.S. businesses more competitive, but may also add to the deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimated during 2012 that reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% would add $1 trillion to the debt over a decade, for example.

Removing the threat of higher taxes embodied in the fiscal cliff may encourage consumers to spend and employers to expand their business and add jobs. The risk is higher national debt, which can slow the economy in the long-run. The <hl> American Taxpayer Relief Act <hl> of 2012 significantly reduced taxes relative to the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Lowering the costs of workers also encourages employers to hire more. This can be done via reducing existing Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes or by specific tax incentives for hiring additional workers. President Obama reduced the Social Security payroll tax on workers during the 2011-2012 period, which added an estimated $100 billion to the deficit while leaving these funds with consumers to spend. The U.S. corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, although U.S. corporations pay among the lowest amount relative to GDP due to loopholes. Reducing the rate and eliminating loopholes may make U.S. businesses more competitive, but may also add to the deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimated during 2012 that reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% would add $1 trillion to the debt over a decade, for example.


Question: Preventing higher taxes would encourage consumers to do what?

Answer: spend

<hl> Removing the threat of higher taxes embodied in the fiscal cliff may encourage consumers to spend and employers to expand their business and add jobs. <hl> The risk is higher national debt, which can slow the economy in the long-run. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 significantly reduced taxes relative to the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Lowering the costs of workers also encourages employers to hire more. This can be done via reducing existing Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes or by specific tax incentives for hiring additional workers. President Obama reduced the Social Security payroll tax on workers during the 2011-2012 period, which added an estimated $100 billion to the deficit while leaving these funds with consumers to spend. The U.S. corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, although U.S. corporations pay among the lowest amount relative to GDP due to loopholes. Reducing the rate and eliminating loopholes may make U.S. businesses more competitive, but may also add to the deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimated during 2012 that reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% would add $1 trillion to the debt over a decade, for example.

Removing the threat of higher taxes embodied in the fiscal cliff may encourage consumers to <hl> spend <hl> and employers to expand their business and add jobs. The risk is higher national debt, which can slow the economy in the long-run. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 significantly reduced taxes relative to the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Lowering the costs of workers also encourages employers to hire more. This can be done via reducing existing Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes or by specific tax incentives for hiring additional workers. President Obama reduced the Social Security payroll tax on workers during the 2011-2012 period, which added an estimated $100 billion to the deficit while leaving these funds with consumers to spend. The U.S. corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, although U.S. corporations pay among the lowest amount relative to GDP due to loopholes. Reducing the rate and eliminating loopholes may make U.S. businesses more competitive, but may also add to the deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimated during 2012 that reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% would add $1 trillion to the debt over a decade, for example.


Question: By lowering the cost of workers, employers are encouraged to do what more?

Answer: hire

Removing the threat of higher taxes embodied in the fiscal cliff may encourage consumers to spend and employers to expand their business and add jobs. The risk is higher national debt, which can slow the economy in the long-run. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 significantly reduced taxes relative to the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts. <hl> Lowering the costs of workers also encourages employers to hire more. <hl> This can be done via reducing existing Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes or by specific tax incentives for hiring additional workers. President Obama reduced the Social Security payroll tax on workers during the 2011-2012 period, which added an estimated $100 billion to the deficit while leaving these funds with consumers to spend. The U.S. corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, although U.S. corporations pay among the lowest amount relative to GDP due to loopholes. Reducing the rate and eliminating loopholes may make U.S. businesses more competitive, but may also add to the deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimated during 2012 that reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% would add $1 trillion to the debt over a decade, for example.

Removing the threat of higher taxes embodied in the fiscal cliff may encourage consumers to spend and employers to expand their business and add jobs. The risk is higher national debt, which can slow the economy in the long-run. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 significantly reduced taxes relative to the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Lowering the costs of workers also encourages employers to <hl> hire <hl> more. This can be done via reducing existing Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes or by specific tax incentives for hiring additional workers. President Obama reduced the Social Security payroll tax on workers during the 2011-2012 period, which added an estimated $100 billion to the deficit while leaving these funds with consumers to spend. The U.S. corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, although U.S. corporations pay among the lowest amount relative to GDP due to loopholes. Reducing the rate and eliminating loopholes may make U.S. businesses more competitive, but may also add to the deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimated during 2012 that reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% would add $1 trillion to the debt over a decade, for example.


Question: Which president added $100 billion to the deficit by reducing Social Security payroll tax?

Answer: Obama

Removing the threat of higher taxes embodied in the fiscal cliff may encourage consumers to spend and employers to expand their business and add jobs. The risk is higher national debt, which can slow the economy in the long-run. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 significantly reduced taxes relative to the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Lowering the costs of workers also encourages employers to hire more. This can be done via reducing existing Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes or by specific tax incentives for hiring additional workers. <hl> President Obama reduced the Social Security payroll tax on workers during the 2011-2012 period, which added an estimated $100 billion to the deficit while leaving these funds with consumers to spend. <hl> The U.S. corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, although U.S. corporations pay among the lowest amount relative to GDP due to loopholes. Reducing the rate and eliminating loopholes may make U.S. businesses more competitive, but may also add to the deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimated during 2012 that reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% would add $1 trillion to the debt over a decade, for example.

Removing the threat of higher taxes embodied in the fiscal cliff may encourage consumers to spend and employers to expand their business and add jobs. The risk is higher national debt, which can slow the economy in the long-run. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 significantly reduced taxes relative to the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Lowering the costs of workers also encourages employers to hire more. This can be done via reducing existing Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes or by specific tax incentives for hiring additional workers. President <hl> Obama <hl> reduced the Social Security payroll tax on workers during the 2011-2012 period, which added an estimated $100 billion to the deficit while leaving these funds with consumers to spend. The U.S. corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, although U.S. corporations pay among the lowest amount relative to GDP due to loopholes. Reducing the rate and eliminating loopholes may make U.S. businesses more competitive, but may also add to the deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimated during 2012 that reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% would add $1 trillion to the debt over a decade, for example.


Question: Reducing corporate tax rate down from 35% to 20% is estimated to add how much debt over the course of a decade?

Answer: $1 trillion

Removing the threat of higher taxes embodied in the fiscal cliff may encourage consumers to spend and employers to expand their business and add jobs. The risk is higher national debt, which can slow the economy in the long-run. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 significantly reduced taxes relative to the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Lowering the costs of workers also encourages employers to hire more. This can be done via reducing existing Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes or by specific tax incentives for hiring additional workers. President Obama reduced the Social Security payroll tax on workers during the 2011-2012 period, which added an estimated $100 billion to the deficit while leaving these funds with consumers to spend. The U.S. corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, although U.S. corporations pay among the lowest amount relative to GDP due to loopholes. Reducing the rate and eliminating loopholes may make U.S. businesses more competitive, but may also add to the deficit. <hl> The Tax Policy Center estimated during 2012 that reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% would add $1 trillion to the debt over a decade, for example. <hl>

Removing the threat of higher taxes embodied in the fiscal cliff may encourage consumers to spend and employers to expand their business and add jobs. The risk is higher national debt, which can slow the economy in the long-run. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 significantly reduced taxes relative to the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Lowering the costs of workers also encourages employers to hire more. This can be done via reducing existing Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes or by specific tax incentives for hiring additional workers. President Obama reduced the Social Security payroll tax on workers during the 2011-2012 period, which added an estimated $100 billion to the deficit while leaving these funds with consumers to spend. The U.S. corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, although U.S. corporations pay among the lowest amount relative to GDP due to loopholes. Reducing the rate and eliminating loopholes may make U.S. businesses more competitive, but may also add to the deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimated during 2012 that reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% would add <hl> $1 trillion <hl> to the debt over a decade, for example.


Question: Raising what would allow households to spend more?

Raising the minimum wage would provide households with more money to spend, in an era with record corporate profits and a reluctance of corporations to invest. Critics argue raising employment costs deters hiring. During 2009, the minimum wage was $7.25 per hour, or $15,000 per year, below poverty level for some families. The New York Times editorial board wrote in August 2013: "As measured by the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, low-paid work in America is lower paid today than at any time in modern memory. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation or average wages over the past nearly 50 years, it would be about $10 an hour; if it had kept pace with the growth in average labor productivity, it would be about $17 an hour."

Answer: minimum wage

<hl> Raising the minimum wage would provide households with more money to spend, in an era with record corporate profits and a reluctance of corporations to invest. <hl> Critics argue raising employment costs deters hiring. During 2009, the minimum wage was $7.25 per hour, or $15,000 per year, below poverty level for some families. The New York Times editorial board wrote in August 2013: "As measured by the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, low-paid work in America is lower paid today than at any time in modern memory. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation or average wages over the past nearly 50 years, it would be about $10 an hour; if it had kept pace with the growth in average labor productivity, it would be about $17 an hour."

Raising the <hl> minimum wage <hl> would provide households with more money to spend, in an era with record corporate profits and a reluctance of corporations to invest. Critics argue raising employment costs deters hiring. During 2009, the minimum wage was $7.25 per hour, or $15,000 per year, below poverty level for some families. The New York Times editorial board wrote in August 2013: "As measured by the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, low-paid work in America is lower paid today than at any time in modern memory. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation or average wages over the past nearly 50 years, it would be about $10 an hour; if it had kept pace with the growth in average labor productivity, it would be about $17 an hour."


Question: It's argued that increasing employment costs would decrease what?

Answer: hiring

Raising the minimum wage would provide households with more money to spend, in an era with record corporate profits and a reluctance of corporations to invest. <hl> Critics argue raising employment costs deters hiring . <hl> During 2009, the minimum wage was $7.25 per hour, or $15,000 per year, below poverty level for some families. The New York Times editorial board wrote in August 2013: "As measured by the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, low-paid work in America is lower paid today than at any time in modern memory. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation or average wages over the past nearly 50 years, it would be about $10 an hour; if it had kept pace with the growth in average labor productivity, it would be about $17 an hour."

Raising the minimum wage would provide households with more money to spend, in an era with record corporate profits and a reluctance of corporations to invest. Critics argue raising employment costs deters <hl> hiring <hl>. During 2009, the minimum wage was $7.25 per hour, or $15,000 per year, below poverty level for some families. The New York Times editorial board wrote in August 2013: "As measured by the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, low-paid work in America is lower paid today than at any time in modern memory. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation or average wages over the past nearly 50 years, it would be about $10 an hour; if it had kept pace with the growth in average labor productivity, it would be about $17 an hour."

Critics argue raising employment costs deters <hl> hiring <hl> .


Question: What was the minimum wage per hour in 2009?

Answer: $7.25

Raising the minimum wage would provide households with more money to spend, in an era with record corporate profits and a reluctance of corporations to invest. Critics argue raising employment costs deters hiring. <hl> During 2009, the minimum wage was $7.25 per hour, or $15,000 per year, below poverty level for some families. <hl> The New York Times editorial board wrote in August 2013: "As measured by the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, low-paid work in America is lower paid today than at any time in modern memory. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation or average wages over the past nearly 50 years, it would be about $10 an hour; if it had kept pace with the growth in average labor productivity, it would be about $17 an hour."

Raising the minimum wage would provide households with more money to spend, in an era with record corporate profits and a reluctance of corporations to invest. Critics argue raising employment costs deters hiring. During 2009, the minimum wage was <hl> $7.25 <hl> per hour, or $15,000 per year, below poverty level for some families. The New York Times editorial board wrote in August 2013: "As measured by the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, low-paid work in America is lower paid today than at any time in modern memory. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation or average wages over the past nearly 50 years, it would be about $10 an hour; if it had kept pace with the growth in average labor productivity, it would be about $17 an hour."


Question: What metric of wealth was the yearly minimum wage less than?

Answer: poverty level

Raising the minimum wage would provide households with more money to spend, in an era with record corporate profits and a reluctance of corporations to invest. Critics argue raising employment costs deters hiring. <hl> During 2009, the minimum wage was $7.25 per hour, or $15,000 per year, below poverty level for some families. <hl> The New York Times editorial board wrote in August 2013: "As measured by the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, low-paid work in America is lower paid today than at any time in modern memory. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation or average wages over the past nearly 50 years, it would be about $10 an hour; if it had kept pace with the growth in average labor productivity, it would be about $17 an hour."

Raising the minimum wage would provide households with more money to spend, in an era with record corporate profits and a reluctance of corporations to invest. Critics argue raising employment costs deters hiring. During 2009, the minimum wage was $7.25 per hour, or $15,000 per year, below <hl> poverty level <hl> for some families. The New York Times editorial board wrote in August 2013: "As measured by the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, low-paid work in America is lower paid today than at any time in modern memory. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation or average wages over the past nearly 50 years, it would be about $10 an hour; if it had kept pace with the growth in average labor productivity, it would be about $17 an hour."


Question: What did the New York Times say should have be the hourly wage if it had kept up with the growth in average labor productivity?

Answer: $17

Raising the minimum wage would provide households with more money to spend, in an era with record corporate profits and a reluctance of corporations to invest. Critics argue raising employment costs deters hiring. During 2009, the minimum wage was $7.25 per hour, or $15,000 per year, below poverty level for some families. The New York Times editorial board wrote in August 2013: "As measured by the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, low-paid work in America is lower paid today than at any time in modern memory. <hl> If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation or average wages over the past nearly 50 years, it would be about $10 an hour; if it had kept pace with the growth in average labor productivity, it would be about $17 an hour." <hl>

Raising the minimum wage would provide households with more money to spend, in an era with record corporate profits and a reluctance of corporations to invest. Critics argue raising employment costs deters hiring. During 2009, the minimum wage was $7.25 per hour, or $15,000 per year, below poverty level for some families. The New York Times editorial board wrote in August 2013: "As measured by the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, low-paid work in America is lower paid today than at any time in modern memory. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation or average wages over the past nearly 50 years, it would be about $10 an hour; if it had kept pace with the growth in average labor productivity, it would be about <hl> $17 <hl> an hour."


Question: What did President Obama advocate raising in February of 2013?

President Obama advocated raising the minimum wage during February 2013: "The President is calling on Congress to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 in stages by the end of 2015 and index it to inflation thereafter, which would directly boost wages for 15 million workers and reduce poverty and inequality...A range of economic studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without jeopardizing employment. In fact, leading economists like Lawrence Katz, Richard Freeman, and Laura Tyson and businesses like Costco, Wal-Mart, and Stride Rite have supported past increases to the minimum wage, in part because increasing worker productivity and purchasing power for consumers will also help the overall economy."

Answer: minimum wage

<hl> President Obama advocated raising the minimum wage during February 2013: "The President is calling on Congress to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 in stages by the end of 2015 and index it to inflation thereafter, which would directly boost wages for 15 million workers and reduce poverty and inequality...A range of economic studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without jeopardizing employment. <hl> In fact, leading economists like Lawrence Katz, Richard Freeman, and Laura Tyson and businesses like Costco, Wal-Mart, and Stride Rite have supported past increases to the minimum wage, in part because increasing worker productivity and purchasing power for consumers will also help the overall economy."

President Obama advocated raising the <hl> minimum wage <hl> during February 2013: "The President is calling on Congress to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 in stages by the end of 2015 and index it to inflation thereafter, which would directly boost wages for 15 million workers and reduce poverty and inequality...A range of economic studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without jeopardizing employment. In fact, leading economists like Lawrence Katz, Richard Freeman, and Laura Tyson and businesses like Costco, Wal-Mart, and Stride Rite have supported past increases to the minimum wage, in part because increasing worker productivity and purchasing power for consumers will also help the overall economy."


Question: What hourly wage was Congress encouraged to meet by the end of 2015?

Answer: $9

<hl> President Obama advocated raising the minimum wage during February 2013: "The President is calling on Congress to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 in stages by the end of 2015 and index it to inflation thereafter, which would directly boost wages for 15 million workers and reduce poverty and inequality... <hl> A range of economic studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without jeopardizing employment. In fact, leading economists like Lawrence Katz, Richard Freeman, and Laura Tyson and businesses like Costco, Wal-Mart, and Stride Rite have supported past increases to the minimum wage, in part because increasing worker productivity and purchasing power for consumers will also help the overall economy."

President Obama advocated raising the minimum wage during February 2013: "The President is calling on Congress to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to <hl> $9 <hl> in stages by the end of 2015 and index it to inflation thereafter, which would directly boost wages for 15 million workers and reduce poverty and inequality...A range of economic studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without jeopardizing employment. In fact, leading economists like Lawrence Katz, Richard Freeman, and Laura Tyson and businesses like Costco, Wal-Mart, and Stride Rite have supported past increases to the minimum wage, in part because increasing worker productivity and purchasing power for consumers will also help the overall economy."


Question: What other business besides Costco and Stride Rite support increases to minimum wage?

Answer: Wal-Mart

President Obama advocated raising the minimum wage during February 2013: "The President is calling on Congress to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 in stages by the end of 2015 and index it to inflation thereafter, which would directly boost wages for 15 million workers and reduce poverty and inequality... A range of economic studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without jeopardizing employment. <hl> In fact, leading economists like Lawrence Katz, Richard Freeman, and Laura Tyson and businesses like Costco, Wal-Mart , and Stride Rite have supported past increases to the minimum wage, in part because increasing worker productivity and purchasing power for consumers will also help the overall economy." <hl>

President Obama advocated raising the minimum wage during February 2013: "The President is calling on Congress to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 in stages by the end of 2015 and index it to inflation thereafter, which would directly boost wages for 15 million workers and reduce poverty and inequality...A range of economic studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without jeopardizing employment. In fact, leading economists like Lawrence Katz, Richard Freeman, and Laura Tyson and businesses like Costco, <hl> Wal-Mart <hl>, and Stride Rite have supported past increases to the minimum wage, in part because increasing worker productivity and purchasing power for consumers will also help the overall economy."

In fact, leading economists like Lawrence Katz, Richard Freeman, and Laura Tyson and businesses like Costco, <hl> Wal-Mart <hl> , and Stride Rite have supported past increases to the minimum wage, in part because increasing worker productivity and purchasing power for consumers will also help the overall economy."


Question: How many workers are estimated to benefit directly from increased wage?

Answer: 15 million

<hl> President Obama advocated raising the minimum wage during February 2013: "The President is calling on Congress to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 in stages by the end of 2015 and index it to inflation thereafter, which would directly boost wages for 15 million workers and reduce poverty and inequality... <hl> A range of economic studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without jeopardizing employment. In fact, leading economists like Lawrence Katz, Richard Freeman, and Laura Tyson and businesses like Costco, Wal-Mart, and Stride Rite have supported past increases to the minimum wage, in part because increasing worker productivity and purchasing power for consumers will also help the overall economy."

President Obama advocated raising the minimum wage during February 2013: "The President is calling on Congress to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 in stages by the end of 2015 and index it to inflation thereafter, which would directly boost wages for <hl> 15 million <hl> workers and reduce poverty and inequality...A range of economic studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without jeopardizing employment. In fact, leading economists like Lawrence Katz, Richard Freeman, and Laura Tyson and businesses like Costco, Wal-Mart, and Stride Rite have supported past increases to the minimum wage, in part because increasing worker productivity and purchasing power for consumers will also help the overall economy."


Question: Studies show that raising the wage leads to more earnings and decreases what, without compromising employment?

Answer: poverty

<hl> President Obama advocated raising the minimum wage during February 2013: "The President is calling on Congress to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 in stages by the end of 2015 and index it to inflation thereafter, which would directly boost wages for 15 million workers and reduce poverty and inequality... <hl> A range of economic studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without jeopardizing employment. In fact, leading economists like Lawrence Katz, Richard Freeman, and Laura Tyson and businesses like Costco, Wal-Mart, and Stride Rite have supported past increases to the minimum wage, in part because increasing worker productivity and purchasing power for consumers will also help the overall economy."

President Obama advocated raising the minimum wage during February 2013: "The President is calling on Congress to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 in stages by the end of 2015 and index it to inflation thereafter, which would directly boost wages for 15 million workers and reduce <hl> poverty <hl> and inequality...A range of economic studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without jeopardizing employment. In fact, leading economists like Lawrence Katz, Richard Freeman, and Laura Tyson and businesses like Costco, Wal-Mart, and Stride Rite have supported past increases to the minimum wage, in part because increasing worker productivity and purchasing power for consumers will also help the overall economy."


Question: What are end-dates for laws referred to as?

Regulatory costs on business start-ups and going concerns are significant. Requiring laws to have sunset provisions (end-dates) would help ensure only worthwhile regulations are renewed. New businesses account for about one-fifth of new jobs added. However, the number of new businesses starting each year dropped by 17% after the recession. Inc. magazine published 16 ideas to encourage new startups, including cutting red tape, approving micro-loans, allowing more immigration, and addressing tax uncertainty.

Answer: sunset provisions

Regulatory costs on business start-ups and going concerns are significant. <hl> Requiring laws to have sunset provisions (end-dates) would help ensure only worthwhile regulations are renewed. <hl> New businesses account for about one-fifth of new jobs added. However, the number of new businesses starting each year dropped by 17% after the recession. Inc. magazine published 16 ideas to encourage new startups, including cutting red tape, approving micro-loans, allowing more immigration, and addressing tax uncertainty.

Regulatory costs on business start-ups and going concerns are significant. Requiring laws to have <hl> sunset provisions <hl> (end-dates) would help ensure only worthwhile regulations are renewed. New businesses account for about one-fifth of new jobs added. However, the number of new businesses starting each year dropped by 17% after the recession. Inc. magazine published 16 ideas to encourage new startups, including cutting red tape, approving micro-loans, allowing more immigration, and addressing tax uncertainty.


Question: Of the new jobs added, how many of them due to new businesses?

Answer: one-fifth

Regulatory costs on business start-ups and going concerns are significant. Requiring laws to have sunset provisions (end-dates) would help ensure only worthwhile regulations are renewed. <hl> New businesses account for about one-fifth of new jobs added. <hl> However, the number of new businesses starting each year dropped by 17% after the recession. Inc. magazine published 16 ideas to encourage new startups, including cutting red tape, approving micro-loans, allowing more immigration, and addressing tax uncertainty.

Regulatory costs on business start-ups and going concerns are significant. Requiring laws to have sunset provisions (end-dates) would help ensure only worthwhile regulations are renewed. New businesses account for about <hl> one-fifth <hl> of new jobs added. However, the number of new businesses starting each year dropped by 17% after the recession. Inc. magazine published 16 ideas to encourage new startups, including cutting red tape, approving micro-loans, allowing more immigration, and addressing tax uncertainty.


Question: After the recession hit, how much did new start-ups go down by?

Answer: 17%

Regulatory costs on business start-ups and going concerns are significant. Requiring laws to have sunset provisions (end-dates) would help ensure only worthwhile regulations are renewed. New businesses account for about one-fifth of new jobs added. <hl> However, the number of new businesses starting each year dropped by 17% after the recession. <hl> Inc. magazine published 16 ideas to encourage new startups, including cutting red tape, approving micro-loans, allowing more immigration, and addressing tax uncertainty.

Regulatory costs on business start-ups and going concerns are significant. Requiring laws to have sunset provisions (end-dates) would help ensure only worthwhile regulations are renewed. New businesses account for about one-fifth of new jobs added. However, the number of new businesses starting each year dropped by <hl> 17% <hl> after the recession. Inc. magazine published 16 ideas to encourage new startups, including cutting red tape, approving micro-loans, allowing more immigration, and addressing tax uncertainty.


Question: How many ideas did Inc. magazine publish to help the economy?

Answer: 16

Regulatory costs on business start-ups and going concerns are significant. Requiring laws to have sunset provisions (end-dates) would help ensure only worthwhile regulations are renewed. New businesses account for about one-fifth of new jobs added. However, the number of new businesses starting each year dropped by 17% after the recession. <hl> Inc. magazine published 16 ideas to encourage new startups, including cutting red tape, approving micro-loans, allowing more immigration, and addressing tax uncertainty. <hl>

Regulatory costs on business start-ups and going concerns are significant. Requiring laws to have sunset provisions (end-dates) would help ensure only worthwhile regulations are renewed. New businesses account for about one-fifth of new jobs added. However, the number of new businesses starting each year dropped by 17% after the recession. Inc. magazine published <hl> 16 <hl> ideas to encourage new startups, including cutting red tape, approving micro-loans, allowing more immigration, and addressing tax uncertainty.


Question: Which magazine promoted immigration in their suggestions to encourage new businesses?

Answer: Inc.

Regulatory costs on business start-ups and going concerns are significant. Requiring laws to have sunset provisions (end-dates) would help ensure only worthwhile regulations are renewed. New businesses account for about one-fifth of new jobs added. However, the number of new businesses starting each year dropped by 17% after the recession. <hl> Inc. magazine published 16 ideas to encourage new startups, including cutting red tape, approving micro-loans, allowing more immigration, and addressing tax uncertainty. <hl>

Regulatory costs on business start-ups and going concerns are significant. Requiring laws to have sunset provisions (end-dates) would help ensure only worthwhile regulations are renewed. New businesses account for about one-fifth of new jobs added. However, the number of new businesses starting each year dropped by 17% after the recession. <hl> Inc. <hl> magazine published 16 ideas to encourage new startups, including cutting red tape, approving micro-loans, allowing more immigration, and addressing tax uncertainty.


Question: which crises resulted int the 2007-2009 recession?

The U.S. economy was severely impacted by the subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting 2007-2009 recession. The U.S. unemployment rate rose steadily from 5% in January 2008 to a peak of 10% in October 2009. It has since fallen to 5.0% in December 2015. The number unemployed rose from 7.6 million in January 2008 to a peak of 15.4 million in October 2009. It has since fallen to 7.9 million in December 2015. Monthly job losses began in February 2008 and peaked in January 2009, with over 800,000 jobs lost that month. Employment fell from 138.0 million at peak employment in January 2008 to the trough of 129.2 million in February 2010, a decline of 8.8 million jobs or 6.4% of the workforce.  In 2009, there were six unemployed people, on average, for each available job. Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948. Approximately 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009. As of 2009, Detroit's unemployment rate was 27%, but the Detroit News suggests that nearly half of the city's working-age population was unemployed. An estimated 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2009.

Answer: subprime mortgage crisis

<hl> The U.S. economy was severely impacted by the subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting 2007-2009 recession. <hl> The U.S. unemployment rate rose steadily from 5% in January 2008 to a peak of 10% in October 2009. It has since fallen to 5.0% in December 2015. The number unemployed rose from 7.6 million in January 2008 to a peak of 15.4 million in October 2009. It has since fallen to 7.9 million in December 2015. Monthly job losses began in February 2008 and peaked in January 2009, with over 800,000 jobs lost that month. Employment fell from 138.0 million at peak employment in January 2008 to the trough of 129.2 million in February 2010, a decline of 8.8 million jobs or 6.4% of the workforce. In 2009, there were six unemployed people, on average, for each available job. Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948. Approximately 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009. As of 2009, Detroit's unemployment rate was 27%, but the Detroit News suggests that nearly half of the city's working-age population was unemployed. An estimated 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2009.

The U.S. economy was severely impacted by the <hl> subprime mortgage crisis <hl> and the resulting 2007-2009 recession. The U.S. unemployment rate rose steadily from 5% in January 2008 to a peak of 10% in October 2009. It has since fallen to 5.0% in December 2015. The number unemployed rose from 7.6 million in January 2008 to a peak of 15.4 million in October 2009. It has since fallen to 7.9 million in December 2015. Monthly job losses began in February 2008 and peaked in January 2009, with over 800,000 jobs lost that month. Employment fell from 138.0 million at peak employment in January 2008 to the trough of 129.2 million in February 2010, a decline of 8.8 million jobs or 6.4% of the workforce. In 2009, there were six unemployed people, on average, for each available job. Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948. Approximately 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009. As of 2009, Detroit's unemployment rate was 27%, but the Detroit News suggests that nearly half of the city's working-age population was unemployed. An estimated 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2009.


Question: What was the unemployment rate in the U.S. in October of 2009?

Answer: 10%

The U.S. economy was severely impacted by the subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting 2007-2009 recession. <hl> The U.S. unemployment rate rose steadily from 5% in January 2008 to a peak of 10% in October 2009. <hl> It has since fallen to 5.0% in December 2015. The number unemployed rose from 7.6 million in January 2008 to a peak of 15.4 million in October 2009. It has since fallen to 7.9 million in December 2015. Monthly job losses began in February 2008 and peaked in January 2009, with over 800,000 jobs lost that month. Employment fell from 138.0 million at peak employment in January 2008 to the trough of 129.2 million in February 2010, a decline of 8.8 million jobs or 6.4% of the workforce. In 2009, there were six unemployed people, on average, for each available job. Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948. Approximately 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009. As of 2009, Detroit's unemployment rate was 27%, but the Detroit News suggests that nearly half of the city's working-age population was unemployed. An estimated 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2009.

The U.S. economy was severely impacted by the subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting 2007-2009 recession. The U.S. unemployment rate rose steadily from 5% in January 2008 to a peak of <hl> 10% <hl> in October 2009. It has since fallen to 5.0% in December 2015. The number unemployed rose from 7.6 million in January 2008 to a peak of 15.4 million in October 2009. It has since fallen to 7.9 million in December 2015. Monthly job losses began in February 2008 and peaked in January 2009, with over 800,000 jobs lost that month. Employment fell from 138.0 million at peak employment in January 2008 to the trough of 129.2 million in February 2010, a decline of 8.8 million jobs or 6.4% of the workforce. In 2009, there were six unemployed people, on average, for each available job. Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948. Approximately 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009. As of 2009, Detroit's unemployment rate was 27%, but the Detroit News suggests that nearly half of the city's working-age population was unemployed. An estimated 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2009.


Question: What was the unemployment rate in December of 2015?

Answer: 5.0%

The U.S. economy was severely impacted by the subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting 2007-2009 recession. The U.S. unemployment rate rose steadily from 5% in January 2008 to a peak of 10% in October 2009. <hl> It has since fallen to 5.0% in December 2015. <hl> The number unemployed rose from 7.6 million in January 2008 to a peak of 15.4 million in October 2009. It has since fallen to 7.9 million in December 2015. Monthly job losses began in February 2008 and peaked in January 2009, with over 800,000 jobs lost that month. Employment fell from 138.0 million at peak employment in January 2008 to the trough of 129.2 million in February 2010, a decline of 8.8 million jobs or 6.4% of the workforce. In 2009, there were six unemployed people, on average, for each available job. Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948. Approximately 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009. As of 2009, Detroit's unemployment rate was 27%, but the Detroit News suggests that nearly half of the city's working-age population was unemployed. An estimated 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2009.

The U.S. economy was severely impacted by the subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting 2007-2009 recession. The U.S. unemployment rate rose steadily from 5% in January 2008 to a peak of 10% in October 2009. It has since fallen to <hl> 5.0% <hl> in December 2015. The number unemployed rose from 7.6 million in January 2008 to a peak of 15.4 million in October 2009. It has since fallen to 7.9 million in December 2015. Monthly job losses began in February 2008 and peaked in January 2009, with over 800,000 jobs lost that month. Employment fell from 138.0 million at peak employment in January 2008 to the trough of 129.2 million in February 2010, a decline of 8.8 million jobs or 6.4% of the workforce. In 2009, there were six unemployed people, on average, for each available job. Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948. Approximately 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009. As of 2009, Detroit's unemployment rate was 27%, but the Detroit News suggests that nearly half of the city's working-age population was unemployed. An estimated 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2009.


Question: What was the "trough" of employment in 2009, (How many people were actually employed in Feb. of 2010?

Answer: 129.2 million

The U.S. economy was severely impacted by the subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting 2007-2009 recession. The U.S. unemployment rate rose steadily from 5% in January 2008 to a peak of 10% in October 2009. It has since fallen to 5.0% in December 2015. The number unemployed rose from 7.6 million in January 2008 to a peak of 15.4 million in October 2009. It has since fallen to 7.9 million in December 2015. Monthly job losses began in February 2008 and peaked in January 2009, with over 800,000 jobs lost that month. <hl> Employment fell from 138.0 million at peak employment in January 2008 to the trough of 129.2 million in February 2010, a decline of 8.8 million jobs or 6.4% of the workforce. <hl> In 2009, there were six unemployed people, on average, for each available job. Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948. Approximately 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009. As of 2009, Detroit's unemployment rate was 27%, but the Detroit News suggests that nearly half of the city's working-age population was unemployed. An estimated 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2009.

The U.S. economy was severely impacted by the subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting 2007-2009 recession. The U.S. unemployment rate rose steadily from 5% in January 2008 to a peak of 10% in October 2009. It has since fallen to 5.0% in December 2015. The number unemployed rose from 7.6 million in January 2008 to a peak of 15.4 million in October 2009. It has since fallen to 7.9 million in December 2015. Monthly job losses began in February 2008 and peaked in January 2009, with over 800,000 jobs lost that month. Employment fell from 138.0 million at peak employment in January 2008 to the trough of <hl> 129.2 million <hl> in February 2010, a decline of 8.8 million jobs or 6.4% of the workforce. In 2009, there were six unemployed people, on average, for each available job. Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948. Approximately 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009. As of 2009, Detroit's unemployment rate was 27%, but the Detroit News suggests that nearly half of the city's working-age population was unemployed. An estimated 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2009.


Question: What was the official unemployment rate in Detroit in 2009, even though the Detroit news claims nearly half of the working age population was unemployed?

Answer: 27%

The U.S. economy was severely impacted by the subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting 2007-2009 recession. The U.S. unemployment rate rose steadily from 5% in January 2008 to a peak of 10% in October 2009. It has since fallen to 5.0% in December 2015. The number unemployed rose from 7.6 million in January 2008 to a peak of 15.4 million in October 2009. It has since fallen to 7.9 million in December 2015. Monthly job losses began in February 2008 and peaked in January 2009, with over 800,000 jobs lost that month. Employment fell from 138.0 million at peak employment in January 2008 to the trough of 129.2 million in February 2010, a decline of 8.8 million jobs or 6.4% of the workforce. In 2009, there were six unemployed people, on average, for each available job. Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948. Approximately 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009. <hl> As of 2009, Detroit's unemployment rate was 27% , but the Detroit News suggests that nearly half of the city's working-age population was unemployed. <hl> An estimated 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2009.

The U.S. economy was severely impacted by the subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting 2007-2009 recession. The U.S. unemployment rate rose steadily from 5% in January 2008 to a peak of 10% in October 2009. It has since fallen to 5.0% in December 2015. The number unemployed rose from 7.6 million in January 2008 to a peak of 15.4 million in October 2009. It has since fallen to 7.9 million in December 2015. Monthly job losses began in February 2008 and peaked in January 2009, with over 800,000 jobs lost that month. Employment fell from 138.0 million at peak employment in January 2008 to the trough of 129.2 million in February 2010, a decline of 8.8 million jobs or 6.4% of the workforce. In 2009, there were six unemployed people, on average, for each available job. Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948. Approximately 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009. As of 2009, Detroit's unemployment rate was <hl> 27% <hl>, but the Detroit News suggests that nearly half of the city's working-age population was unemployed. An estimated 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2009.

As of 2009, Detroit's unemployment rate was <hl> 27% <hl> , but the Detroit News suggests that nearly half of the city's working-age population was unemployed.


Question: What was Obama's policy/program to reduce spending and cut taxes in 2009 called?

As part of the economic policy of Barack Obama, the United States Congress funded approximately $800 billion in spending and tax cuts via the February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to stimulate the economy. Monthly job losses began slowing shortly thereafter. By March 2010, employment again began to rise. From March 2010 to September 2012, over 4.3 million jobs were added, with consecutive months of employment increases from October 2010 to December 2015. As of December 2015, employment of 143.2 million was 4.9 million above the pre-crisis peak in January 2008 of 138.3 million.

Answer: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

<hl> As part of the economic policy of Barack Obama, the United States Congress funded approximately $800 billion in spending and tax cuts via the February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to stimulate the economy. <hl> Monthly job losses began slowing shortly thereafter. By March 2010, employment again began to rise. From March 2010 to September 2012, over 4.3 million jobs were added, with consecutive months of employment increases from October 2010 to December 2015. As of December 2015, employment of 143.2 million was 4.9 million above the pre-crisis peak in January 2008 of 138.3 million.

As part of the economic policy of Barack Obama, the United States Congress funded approximately $800 billion in spending and tax cuts via the February 2009 <hl> American Recovery and Reinvestment Act <hl> to stimulate the economy. Monthly job losses began slowing shortly thereafter. By March 2010, employment again began to rise. From March 2010 to September 2012, over 4.3 million jobs were added, with consecutive months of employment increases from October 2010 to December 2015. As of December 2015, employment of 143.2 million was 4.9 million above the pre-crisis peak in January 2008 of 138.3 million.


Question: When did employment rates begin to rise after Obama's policies took effect?

Answer: March 2010

As part of the economic policy of Barack Obama, the United States Congress funded approximately $800 billion in spending and tax cuts via the February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to stimulate the economy. Monthly job losses began slowing shortly thereafter. <hl> By March 2010 , employment again began to rise. <hl> From March 2010 to September 2012, over 4.3 million jobs were added, with consecutive months of employment increases from October 2010 to December 2015. As of December 2015, employment of 143.2 million was 4.9 million above the pre-crisis peak in January 2008 of 138.3 million.

As part of the economic policy of Barack Obama, the United States Congress funded approximately $800 billion in spending and tax cuts via the February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to stimulate the economy. Monthly job losses began slowing shortly thereafter. By <hl> March 2010 <hl>, employment again began to rise. From March 2010 to September 2012, over 4.3 million jobs were added, with consecutive months of employment increases from October 2010 to December 2015. As of December 2015, employment of 143.2 million was 4.9 million above the pre-crisis peak in January 2008 of 138.3 million.

By <hl> March 2010 <hl> , employment again began to rise.


Question: When congress funded the 2009 American recovery and Reinvestment Act how much did they appropriate?

Answer: $800 billion

<hl> As part of the economic policy of Barack Obama, the United States Congress funded approximately $800 billion in spending and tax cuts via the February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to stimulate the economy. <hl> Monthly job losses began slowing shortly thereafter. By March 2010, employment again began to rise. From March 2010 to September 2012, over 4.3 million jobs were added, with consecutive months of employment increases from October 2010 to December 2015. As of December 2015, employment of 143.2 million was 4.9 million above the pre-crisis peak in January 2008 of 138.3 million.

As part of the economic policy of Barack Obama, the United States Congress funded approximately <hl> $800 billion <hl> in spending and tax cuts via the February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to stimulate the economy. Monthly job losses began slowing shortly thereafter. By March 2010, employment again began to rise. From March 2010 to September 2012, over 4.3 million jobs were added, with consecutive months of employment increases from October 2010 to December 2015. As of December 2015, employment of 143.2 million was 4.9 million above the pre-crisis peak in January 2008 of 138.3 million.


Question: How many jobs were added to the marked from March 2010 until September 2012?

Answer: over 4.3 million

As part of the economic policy of Barack Obama, the United States Congress funded approximately $800 billion in spending and tax cuts via the February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to stimulate the economy. Monthly job losses began slowing shortly thereafter. By March 2010, employment again began to rise. <hl> From March 2010 to September 2012, over 4.3 million jobs were added, with consecutive months of employment increases from October 2010 to December 2015. <hl> As of December 2015, employment of 143.2 million was 4.9 million above the pre-crisis peak in January 2008 of 138.3 million.

As part of the economic policy of Barack Obama, the United States Congress funded approximately $800 billion in spending and tax cuts via the February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to stimulate the economy. Monthly job losses began slowing shortly thereafter. By March 2010, employment again began to rise. From March 2010 to September 2012, <hl> over 4.3 million <hl> jobs were added, with consecutive months of employment increases from October 2010 to December 2015. As of December 2015, employment of 143.2 million was 4.9 million above the pre-crisis peak in January 2008 of 138.3 million.


Question: In December of 2015 how many U.S. workers were emloyed?

Answer: 143.2 million

As part of the economic policy of Barack Obama, the United States Congress funded approximately $800 billion in spending and tax cuts via the February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to stimulate the economy. Monthly job losses began slowing shortly thereafter. By March 2010, employment again began to rise. From March 2010 to September 2012, over 4.3 million jobs were added, with consecutive months of employment increases from October 2010 to December 2015. <hl> As of December 2015, employment of 143.2 million was 4.9 million above the pre-crisis peak in January 2008 of 138.3 million. <hl>

As part of the economic policy of Barack Obama, the United States Congress funded approximately $800 billion in spending and tax cuts via the February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to stimulate the economy. Monthly job losses began slowing shortly thereafter. By March 2010, employment again began to rise. From March 2010 to September 2012, over 4.3 million jobs were added, with consecutive months of employment increases from October 2010 to December 2015. As of December 2015, employment of <hl> 143.2 million <hl> was 4.9 million above the pre-crisis peak in January 2008 of 138.3 million.


Question: According to the Brookings institute what rate of unemployment was documented for teens (16 - 19 yrs.) in 2011?

A study by the Brookings Institution determined that the 2011 employment rate for teens (ages 16–19) in the United States was 25%. Comparing employment rates in 2000 vs. 2011, the Brookings Institution found that younger workers had much lower rates of employment (higher unemployment) while older workers had higher rates of employment (lower unemployment). Between 2000 and 2011, the employment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds fell from 44 to 24 percent, while the employment rate for those over 55 rose moderately. For those aged 20–54, the rate of employment fell.

Answer: 25%

<hl> A study by the Brookings Institution determined that the 2011 employment rate for teens (ages 16–19) in the United States was 25% . <hl> Comparing employment rates in 2000 vs. 2011, the Brookings Institution found that younger workers had much lower rates of employment (higher unemployment) while older workers had higher rates of employment (lower unemployment). Between 2000 and 2011, the employment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds fell from 44 to 24 percent, while the employment rate for those over 55 rose moderately. For those aged 20–54, the rate of employment fell.

A study by the Brookings Institution determined that the 2011 employment rate for teens (ages 16–19) in the United States was <hl> 25% <hl>. Comparing employment rates in 2000 vs. 2011, the Brookings Institution found that younger workers had much lower rates of employment (higher unemployment) while older workers had higher rates of employment (lower unemployment). Between 2000 and 2011, the employment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds fell from 44 to 24 percent, while the employment rate for those over 55 rose moderately. For those aged 20–54, the rate of employment fell.

A study by the Brookings Institution determined that the 2011 employment rate for teens (ages 16–19) in the United States was <hl> 25% <hl> .


Question: Which age group did Brookings find had lower rates of employment overall in 2011?

Answer: younger workers

A study by the Brookings Institution determined that the 2011 employment rate for teens (ages 16–19) in the United States was 25%. <hl> Comparing employment rates in 2000 vs. 2011, the Brookings Institution found that younger workers had much lower rates of employment (higher unemployment) while older workers had higher rates of employment (lower unemployment). <hl> Between 2000 and 2011, the employment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds fell from 44 to 24 percent, while the employment rate for those over 55 rose moderately. For those aged 20–54, the rate of employment fell.

A study by the Brookings Institution determined that the 2011 employment rate for teens (ages 16–19) in the United States was 25%. Comparing employment rates in 2000 vs. 2011, the Brookings Institution found that <hl> younger workers <hl> had much lower rates of employment (higher unemployment) while older workers had higher rates of employment (lower unemployment). Between 2000 and 2011, the employment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds fell from 44 to 24 percent, while the employment rate for those over 55 rose moderately. For those aged 20–54, the rate of employment fell.


Question: What was the percentage rate of unemployment for 16 to 19 year olds in 2000?

Answer: 44

A study by the Brookings Institution determined that the 2011 employment rate for teens (ages 16–19) in the United States was 25%. Comparing employment rates in 2000 vs. 2011, the Brookings Institution found that younger workers had much lower rates of employment (higher unemployment) while older workers had higher rates of employment (lower unemployment). <hl> Between 2000 and 2011, the employment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds fell from 44 to 24 percent, while the employment rate for those over 55 rose moderately. <hl> For those aged 20–54, the rate of employment fell.

A study by the Brookings Institution determined that the 2011 employment rate for teens (ages 16–19) in the United States was 25%. Comparing employment rates in 2000 vs. 2011, the Brookings Institution found that younger workers had much lower rates of employment (higher unemployment) while older workers had higher rates of employment (lower unemployment). Between 2000 and 2011, the employment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds fell from <hl> 44 <hl> to 24 percent, while the employment rate for those over 55 rose moderately. For those aged 20–54, the rate of employment fell.


Question: Between 2000 and 2011 what happened to the rate of employment for those who were over 55?

Answer: rate of employment fell

A study by the Brookings Institution determined that the 2011 employment rate for teens (ages 16–19) in the United States was 25%. Comparing employment rates in 2000 vs. 2011, the Brookings Institution found that younger workers had much lower rates of employment (higher unemployment) while older workers had higher rates of employment (lower unemployment). Between 2000 and 2011, the employment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds fell from 44 to 24 percent, while the employment rate for those over 55 rose moderately. <hl> For those aged 20–54, the rate of employment fell . <hl>

A study by the Brookings Institution determined that the 2011 employment rate for teens (ages 16–19) in the United States was 25%. Comparing employment rates in 2000 vs. 2011, the Brookings Institution found that younger workers had much lower rates of employment (higher unemployment) while older workers had higher rates of employment (lower unemployment). Between 2000 and 2011, the employment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds fell from 44 to 24 percent, while the employment rate for those over 55 rose moderately. For those aged 20–54, the <hl> rate of employment fell <hl>.

For those aged 20–54, the <hl> rate of employment fell <hl> .


Question: What happened during the time between 2000 and 2011 for all workers ages 20 to 54?

Answer: rate of employment fell

A study by the Brookings Institution determined that the 2011 employment rate for teens (ages 16–19) in the United States was 25%. Comparing employment rates in 2000 vs. 2011, the Brookings Institution found that younger workers had much lower rates of employment (higher unemployment) while older workers had higher rates of employment (lower unemployment). Between 2000 and 2011, the employment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds fell from 44 to 24 percent, while the employment rate for those over 55 rose moderately. <hl> For those aged 20–54, the rate of employment fell . <hl>

A study by the Brookings Institution determined that the 2011 employment rate for teens (ages 16–19) in the United States was 25%. Comparing employment rates in 2000 vs. 2011, the Brookings Institution found that younger workers had much lower rates of employment (higher unemployment) while older workers had higher rates of employment (lower unemployment). Between 2000 and 2011, the employment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds fell from 44 to 24 percent, while the employment rate for those over 55 rose moderately. For those aged 20–54, the <hl> rate of employment fell <hl>.

For those aged 20–54, the <hl> rate of employment fell <hl> .


Question: What is relief as it relates to art?

Relief is a sculptural technique where the sculpted elements remain attached to a solid background of the same material. The term relief is from the Latin verb relevo, to raise. To create a sculpture in relief is to give the impression that the sculpted material has been raised above the background plane. What is actually performed when a relief is cut in from a flat surface of stone (relief sculpture) or wood (relief carving) is a lowering of the field, leaving the unsculpted parts seemingly raised. The technique involves considerable chiselling away of the background, which is a time-consuming exercise. On the other hand, a relief saves forming the rear of a subject, and is less fragile and more securely fixed than a sculpture in the round, especially one of a standing figure where the ankles are a potential weak point, especially in stone.  In other materials such as metal, clay, plaster stucco, ceramics or papier-mache the form can be just added to or raised up from the background, and monumental bronze reliefs are made by casting.

Answer: Relief is a sculptural technique where the sculpted elements remain attached to a solid background of the same material.

<hl> Relief is a sculptural technique where the sculpted elements remain attached to a solid background of the same material. The term relief is from the Latin verb relevo, to raise. <hl> To create a sculpture in relief is to give the impression that the sculpted material has been raised above the background plane. What is actually performed when a relief is cut in from a flat surface of stone (relief sculpture) or wood (relief carving) is a lowering of the field, leaving the unsculpted parts seemingly raised. The technique involves considerable chiselling away of the background, which is a time-consuming exercise. On the other hand, a relief saves forming the rear of a subject, and is less fragile and more securely fixed than a sculpture in the round, especially one of a standing figure where the ankles are a potential weak point, especially in stone. In other materials such as metal, clay, plaster stucco, ceramics or papier-mache the form can be just added to or raised up from the background, and monumental bronze reliefs are made by casting.

<hl> Relief is a sculptural technique where the sculpted elements remain attached to a solid background of the same material. <hl> The term relief is from the Latin verb relevo, to raise. To create a sculpture in relief is to give the impression that the sculpted material has been raised above the background plane. What is actually performed when a relief is cut in from a flat surface of stone (relief sculpture) or wood (relief carving) is a lowering of the field, leaving the unsculpted parts seemingly raised. The technique involves considerable chiselling away of the background, which is a time-consuming exercise. On the other hand, a relief saves forming the rear of a subject, and is less fragile and more securely fixed than a sculpture in the round, especially one of a standing figure where the ankles are a potential weak point, especially in stone. In other materials such as metal, clay, plaster stucco, ceramics or papier-mache the form can be just added to or raised up from the background, and monumental bronze reliefs are made by casting.


Question: What is the Latin origin and meaning of relief?

Answer: The term relief is from the Latin verb relevo, to raise

Relief is a sculptural technique where the sculpted elements remain attached to a solid background of the same material. <hl> The term relief is from the Latin verb relevo, to raise . <hl> To create a sculpture in relief is to give the impression that the sculpted material has been raised above the background plane. What is actually performed when a relief is cut in from a flat surface of stone (relief sculpture) or wood (relief carving) is a lowering of the field, leaving the unsculpted parts seemingly raised. The technique involves considerable chiselling away of the background, which is a time-consuming exercise. On the other hand, a relief saves forming the rear of a subject, and is less fragile and more securely fixed than a sculpture in the round, especially one of a standing figure where the ankles are a potential weak point, especially in stone. In other materials such as metal, clay, plaster stucco, ceramics or papier-mache the form can be just added to or raised up from the background, and monumental bronze reliefs are made by casting.

Relief is a sculptural technique where the sculpted elements remain attached to a solid background of the same material. <hl> The term relief is from the Latin verb relevo, to raise <hl>. To create a sculpture in relief is to give the impression that the sculpted material has been raised above the background plane. What is actually performed when a relief is cut in from a flat surface of stone (relief sculpture) or wood (relief carving) is a lowering of the field, leaving the unsculpted parts seemingly raised. The technique involves considerable chiselling away of the background, which is a time-consuming exercise. On the other hand, a relief saves forming the rear of a subject, and is less fragile and more securely fixed than a sculpture in the round, especially one of a standing figure where the ankles are a potential weak point, especially in stone. In other materials such as metal, clay, plaster stucco, ceramics or papier-mache the form can be just added to or raised up from the background, and monumental bronze reliefs are made by casting.

<hl> The term relief is from the Latin verb relevo, to raise <hl> .


Question: Is chiseling a quick process?

Answer: The technique involves considerable chiselling away of the background, which is a time-consuming exercise.

Relief is a sculptural technique where the sculpted elements remain attached to a solid background of the same material. The term relief is from the Latin verb relevo, to raise. To create a sculpture in relief is to give the impression that the sculpted material has been raised above the background plane. What is actually performed when a relief is cut in from a flat surface of stone (relief sculpture) or wood (relief carving) is a lowering of the field, leaving the unsculpted parts seemingly raised. <hl> The technique involves considerable chiselling away of the background, which is a time-consuming exercise. On the other hand, a relief saves forming the rear of a subject, and is less fragile and more securely fixed than a sculpture in the round, especially one of a standing figure where the ankles are a potential weak point, especially in stone. <hl> In other materials such as metal, clay, plaster stucco, ceramics or papier-mache the form can be just added to or raised up from the background, and monumental bronze reliefs are made by casting.

Relief is a sculptural technique where the sculpted elements remain attached to a solid background of the same material. The term relief is from the Latin verb relevo, to raise. To create a sculpture in relief is to give the impression that the sculpted material has been raised above the background plane. What is actually performed when a relief is cut in from a flat surface of stone (relief sculpture) or wood (relief carving) is a lowering of the field, leaving the unsculpted parts seemingly raised. <hl> The technique involves considerable chiselling away of the background, which is a time-consuming exercise. <hl> On the other hand, a relief saves forming the rear of a subject, and is less fragile and more securely fixed than a sculpture in the round, especially one of a standing figure where the ankles are a potential weak point, especially in stone. In other materials such as metal, clay, plaster stucco, ceramics or papier-mache the form can be just added to or raised up from the background, and monumental bronze reliefs are made by casting.


Question: Does relief provide fragility to the piece?

Answer: a relief saves forming the rear of a subject, and is less fragile and more securely fixed than a sculpture in the round

Relief is a sculptural technique where the sculpted elements remain attached to a solid background of the same material. The term relief is from the Latin verb relevo, to raise. To create a sculpture in relief is to give the impression that the sculpted material has been raised above the background plane. What is actually performed when a relief is cut in from a flat surface of stone (relief sculpture) or wood (relief carving) is a lowering of the field, leaving the unsculpted parts seemingly raised. The technique involves considerable chiselling away of the background, which is a time-consuming exercise. <hl> On the other hand, a relief saves forming the rear of a subject, and is less fragile and more securely fixed than a sculpture in the round , especially one of a standing figure where the ankles are a potential weak point, especially in stone. <hl> In other materials such as metal, clay, plaster stucco, ceramics or papier-mache the form can be just added to or raised up from the background, and monumental bronze reliefs are made by casting.

Relief is a sculptural technique where the sculpted elements remain attached to a solid background of the same material. The term relief is from the Latin verb relevo, to raise. To create a sculpture in relief is to give the impression that the sculpted material has been raised above the background plane. What is actually performed when a relief is cut in from a flat surface of stone (relief sculpture) or wood (relief carving) is a lowering of the field, leaving the unsculpted parts seemingly raised. The technique involves considerable chiselling away of the background, which is a time-consuming exercise. On the other hand, <hl> a relief saves forming the rear of a subject, and is less fragile and more securely fixed than a sculpture in the round <hl>, especially one of a standing figure where the ankles are a potential weak point, especially in stone. In other materials such as metal, clay, plaster stucco, ceramics or papier-mache the form can be just added to or raised up from the background, and monumental bronze reliefs are made by casting.

On the other hand, <hl> a relief saves forming the rear of a subject, and is less fragile and more securely fixed than a sculpture in the round <hl> , especially one of a standing figure where the ankles are a potential weak point, especially in stone.


Question: What are bronze reliefs made with?

Answer: bronze reliefs are made by casting

Relief is a sculptural technique where the sculpted elements remain attached to a solid background of the same material. The term relief is from the Latin verb relevo, to raise. To create a sculpture in relief is to give the impression that the sculpted material has been raised above the background plane. What is actually performed when a relief is cut in from a flat surface of stone (relief sculpture) or wood (relief carving) is a lowering of the field, leaving the unsculpted parts seemingly raised. The technique involves considerable chiselling away of the background, which is a time-consuming exercise. On the other hand, a relief saves forming the rear of a subject, and is less fragile and more securely fixed than a sculpture in the round, especially one of a standing figure where the ankles are a potential weak point, especially in stone. <hl> In other materials such as metal, clay, plaster stucco, ceramics or papier-mache the form can be just added to or raised up from the background, and monumental bronze reliefs are made by casting . <hl>

Relief is a sculptural technique where the sculpted elements remain attached to a solid background of the same material. The term relief is from the Latin verb relevo, to raise. To create a sculpture in relief is to give the impression that the sculpted material has been raised above the background plane. What is actually performed when a relief is cut in from a flat surface of stone (relief sculpture) or wood (relief carving) is a lowering of the field, leaving the unsculpted parts seemingly raised. The technique involves considerable chiselling away of the background, which is a time-consuming exercise. On the other hand, a relief saves forming the rear of a subject, and is less fragile and more securely fixed than a sculpture in the round, especially one of a standing figure where the ankles are a potential weak point, especially in stone. In other materials such as metal, clay, plaster stucco, ceramics or papier-mache the form can be just added to or raised up from the background, and monumental <hl> bronze reliefs are made by casting <hl>.

In other materials such as metal, clay, plaster stucco, ceramics or papier-mache the form can be just added to or raised up from the background, and monumental <hl> bronze reliefs are made by casting <hl> .


Question: Are reliefs made only in one style?

There are different degrees of relief depending on the degree of projection of the sculpted form from the field, for which the Italian appellations are still sometimes used.  The full range includes high relief (alto-rilievo), where more than 50% of the depth is shown and there may be undercut areas, mid-relief (mezzo-rilievo), low-relief (basso-rilievo, or French: bas-relief /ˌbɑːrɪˈliːf/), and shallow-relief or rilievo schiacciato, where the plane is only very slightly lower than the sculpted elements.  There is also sunk relief, which was mainly restricted to Ancient Egypt (see below).  However the distinction between high relief and low relief is the clearest and most important, and these two are generally the only terms used to discuss most work.

Answer: There are different degrees of relief depending on the degree of projection of the sculpted form from the field

<hl> There are different degrees of relief depending on the degree of projection of the sculpted form from the field , for which the Italian appellations are still sometimes used. <hl> The full range includes high relief (alto-rilievo), where more than 50% of the depth is shown and there may be undercut areas, mid-relief (mezzo-rilievo), low-relief (basso-rilievo, or French: bas-relief /ˌbɑːrɪˈliːf/), and shallow-relief or rilievo schiacciato, where the plane is only very slightly lower than the sculpted elements. There is also sunk relief, which was mainly restricted to Ancient Egypt (see below). However the distinction between high relief and low relief is the clearest and most important, and these two are generally the only terms used to discuss most work.

<hl> There are different degrees of relief depending on the degree of projection of the sculpted form from the field <hl>, for which the Italian appellations are still sometimes used. The full range includes high relief (alto-rilievo), where more than 50% of the depth is shown and there may be undercut areas, mid-relief (mezzo-rilievo), low-relief (basso-rilievo, or French: bas-relief /ˌbɑːrɪˈliːf/), and shallow-relief or rilievo schiacciato, where the plane is only very slightly lower than the sculpted elements. There is also sunk relief, which was mainly restricted to Ancient Egypt (see below). However the distinction between high relief and low relief is the clearest and most important, and these two are generally the only terms used to discuss most work.

<hl> There are different degrees of relief depending on the degree of projection of the sculpted form from the field <hl> , for which the Italian appellations are still sometimes used.


Question: What does a high relief imply?

Answer: more than 50% of the depth is shown and there may be undercut areas

There are different degrees of relief depending on the degree of projection of the sculpted form from the field, for which the Italian appellations are still sometimes used. <hl> The full range includes high relief (alto-rilievo), where more than 50% of the depth is shown and there may be undercut areas , mid-relief (mezzo-rilievo), low-relief (basso-rilievo, or French: bas-relief /ˌbɑːrɪˈliːf/), and shallow-relief or rilievo schiacciato, where the plane is only very slightly lower than the sculpted elements. <hl> There is also sunk relief, which was mainly restricted to Ancient Egypt (see below). However the distinction between high relief and low relief is the clearest and most important, and these two are generally the only terms used to discuss most work.

There are different degrees of relief depending on the degree of projection of the sculpted form from the field, for which the Italian appellations are still sometimes used. The full range includes high relief (alto-rilievo), where <hl> more than 50% of the depth is shown and there may be undercut areas <hl>, mid-relief (mezzo-rilievo), low-relief (basso-rilievo, or French: bas-relief /ˌbɑːrɪˈliːf/), and shallow-relief or rilievo schiacciato, where the plane is only very slightly lower than the sculpted elements. There is also sunk relief, which was mainly restricted to Ancient Egypt (see below). However the distinction between high relief and low relief is the clearest and most important, and these two are generally the only terms used to discuss most work.

The full range includes high relief (alto-rilievo), where <hl> more than 50% of the depth is shown and there may be undercut areas <hl> , mid-relief (mezzo-rilievo), low-relief (basso-rilievo, or French: bas-relief /ˌbɑːrɪˈliːf/), and shallow-relief or rilievo schiacciato, where the plane is only very slightly lower than the sculpted elements.


Question: What does shallow-relief imply?

Answer: where the plane is only very slightly lower than the sculpted elements

There are different degrees of relief depending on the degree of projection of the sculpted form from the field, for which the Italian appellations are still sometimes used. <hl> The full range includes high relief (alto-rilievo), where more than 50% of the depth is shown and there may be undercut areas, mid-relief (mezzo-rilievo), low-relief (basso-rilievo, or French: bas-relief /ˌbɑːrɪˈliːf/), and shallow-relief or rilievo schiacciato, where the plane is only very slightly lower than the sculpted elements . <hl> There is also sunk relief, which was mainly restricted to Ancient Egypt (see below). However the distinction between high relief and low relief is the clearest and most important, and these two are generally the only terms used to discuss most work.

There are different degrees of relief depending on the degree of projection of the sculpted form from the field, for which the Italian appellations are still sometimes used. The full range includes high relief (alto-rilievo), where more than 50% of the depth is shown and there may be undercut areas, mid-relief (mezzo-rilievo), low-relief (basso-rilievo, or French: bas-relief /ˌbɑːrɪˈliːf/), and shallow-relief or rilievo schiacciato, <hl> where the plane is only very slightly lower than the sculpted elements <hl>. There is also sunk relief, which was mainly restricted to Ancient Egypt (see below). However the distinction between high relief and low relief is the clearest and most important, and these two are generally the only terms used to discuss most work.

The full range includes high relief (alto-rilievo), where more than 50% of the depth is shown and there may be undercut areas, mid-relief (mezzo-rilievo), low-relief (basso-rilievo, or French: bas-relief /ˌbɑːrɪˈliːf/), and shallow-relief or rilievo schiacciato, <hl> where the plane is only very slightly lower than the sculpted elements <hl> .


Question: Where does sunk relief originate from?

Answer: Ancient Egypt

There are different degrees of relief depending on the degree of projection of the sculpted form from the field, for which the Italian appellations are still sometimes used. The full range includes high relief (alto-rilievo), where more than 50% of the depth is shown and there may be undercut areas, mid-relief (mezzo-rilievo), low-relief (basso-rilievo, or French: bas-relief /ˌbɑːrɪˈliːf/), and shallow-relief or rilievo schiacciato, where the plane is only very slightly lower than the sculpted elements. <hl> There is also sunk relief, which was mainly restricted to Ancient Egypt (see below). <hl> However the distinction between high relief and low relief is the clearest and most important, and these two are generally the only terms used to discuss most work.

There are different degrees of relief depending on the degree of projection of the sculpted form from the field, for which the Italian appellations are still sometimes used. The full range includes high relief (alto-rilievo), where more than 50% of the depth is shown and there may be undercut areas, mid-relief (mezzo-rilievo), low-relief (basso-rilievo, or French: bas-relief /ˌbɑːrɪˈliːf/), and shallow-relief or rilievo schiacciato, where the plane is only very slightly lower than the sculpted elements. There is also sunk relief, which was mainly restricted to <hl> Ancient Egypt <hl> (see below). However the distinction between high relief and low relief is the clearest and most important, and these two are generally the only terms used to discuss most work.


Question: What is the opposite of relief sculpture

The definition of these terms is somewhat variable, and many works combine areas in more than one of them, sometimes sliding between them in a single figure; accordingly some writers prefer to avoid all distinctions.  The opposite of relief sculpture is counter-relief, intaglio, or cavo-rilievo, where the form is cut into the field or background rather than rising from it; this is very rare in monumental sculpture. Hyphens may or may not be used in all these terms, though they are rarely seen in "sunk relief" and are usual in "bas-relief" and "counter-relief". Works in the technique are described as "in relief", and, especially in monumental sculpture, the work itself is "a relief".

Answer: The opposite of relief sculpture is counter-relief, intaglio

The definition of these terms is somewhat variable, and many works combine areas in more than one of them, sometimes sliding between them in a single figure; accordingly some writers prefer to avoid all distinctions. <hl> The opposite of relief sculpture is counter-relief, intaglio , or cavo-rilievo, where the form is cut into the field or background rather than rising from it; this is very rare in monumental sculpture. <hl> Hyphens may or may not be used in all these terms, though they are rarely seen in "sunk relief" and are usual in "bas-relief" and "counter-relief". Works in the technique are described as "in relief", and, especially in monumental sculpture, the work itself is "a relief".

The definition of these terms is somewhat variable, and many works combine areas in more than one of them, sometimes sliding between them in a single figure; accordingly some writers prefer to avoid all distinctions. <hl> The opposite of relief sculpture is counter-relief, intaglio <hl>, or cavo-rilievo, where the form is cut into the field or background rather than rising from it; this is very rare in monumental sculpture. Hyphens may or may not be used in all these terms, though they are rarely seen in "sunk relief" and are usual in "bas-relief" and "counter-relief". Works in the technique are described as "in relief", and, especially in monumental sculpture, the work itself is "a relief".

<hl> The opposite of relief sculpture is counter-relief, intaglio <hl> , or cavo-rilievo, where the form is cut into the field or background rather than rising from it; this is very rare in monumental sculpture.