ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by 敛寒影

敛寒影UID: 2613052

This argument concludes that the article concerning the workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship is misleading. The judgement comes from the follow three findings of a recent report: One is that there have been more jobs been created than been eliminated since 1992. The other is that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. Another is that Two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, and the vast majority of these jobs are full-time. I found this argument logically unconvincing in several aspects.

When it comes to the first finding, potentially, the author believed that there should be less unemployment as more created jobs have been supplied. It is doubtful, because he overlooks the possibility that the jobs been created since 1992 are not suitable for the people downsized by corporations. Are there many graduated students or workers master a special skill competent with the job seekers downsized by corporation? Perhaps the so-called far more jobs would not be only provided for someone who lost job, the other two kind of person could also share the same opportunity as the unemployed. Did there exist a phenomenon that the unemployed person have a higher presume upon the second job, but the newly created jobs since 1992 can not satisfy their needs? The argument lacks these information, so it is insufficient to support the conclusion.

Regarding the second finding, the author seems to consider that “many” present a large amount of unemployees, actually, we do not know the specific number. Do these downsized employees spend several years or less to find a new job in the recent report? The author also failed to supply these information. So it is impossible to access the validity of the result. If any factor of the survey changed, the results may varied from case to case. So, the author should give us a detailed account of the background of the survey.

As for the third finding, the author apparently supposed that the above-average paid and full-time jobs are suitable jobs for the downsized employees. It is possible that the downsized employees are highly educated and they do not consider these newly created jobs as suitable jobs, which are in those high-paying industries and requiring a low level of education and experience. Moreover, the full-time jobs is irrelevant with the suitable jobs, in my view, the suitable means I can feel self-fulfillment and feed myself in this job, if it is a part-time job, which means easy and free, that is still a good choice. Besides, the ratio of part-time jobs and the rest one-third situation deserves to take into consideration. Thus the author cannot rely on the survey bolstering this argument.

Furthermore, the author has not effectively refuted the article,s position that cooperate downsizing has worked economic hardship on the unemployees.

Overall, the author should provide clear evidence to support that the newly created jobs since 1992 are suitable for these downsized corporate employees, and they can full fill these new positions.