Argument143 【已自改】

紫陌纤尘o0UID: 2745492

TOPIC: ARGUMENT143 - The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper.

"Your recent article on corporate downsizing* in the United States is misleading. The article gives the mistaken impression that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment. But this impression is contradicted by a recent report on the United States economy, which found that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. The report also demonstrates that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. 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."

*Downsizing is the process in which corporations deliberately reduce the number of their employees.
WORDS: 327
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/2/22 10:12:20

Grounding on a recent report on the United States economy which includes the increase sort of jobs and the conditions of unemployment people, the speaker claims that the article in national newspaper has made a misleading report about the situation of competent workers who lost their jobs. That seems to be cogent, however, the speaker neglects some necessary analysis of the report and maybe that is where the rub is.


Firstly, the corporate downsizing is most likely relevant to the newly created jobs, to our general knowledge, these jobs are always equipped with high-tech facilities, and well-qualified workers are needed. The corporate downsizing may by reason of two aspects: the first one is that with the use of high-tech equipments, the productive efficiency increase significantly, that mean less workers could make more profits, thus they do not need so much workers. The second one is that the former workers could not performance well with the new facilities. Thus, the increased new job would less likely to accept the laid-off workers. Even though the number of jobs has increased, it may have litter help to unemployed workers.

Secondly, the speaker cites the fact that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment to disprove the claim that many competitive workers suffered with serious financial problems often for years before they find other suitable jobs. However, the speaker neglects some important details match among the two claims. The kind of job should be different, for the article said that it is hard for competitive workers to find suitable jobs while the speaker dose not provide whether the laid-off workers have found appropriate jobs. For instance, a unemployed man who initially worked in a big company maybe work in a restaurant to wash dishes after lost his job, however that would not to be a suitable job. And also the newspaper said that the conditions are for competent workers which indicts that the workers have ability to compete with their counterparts. In this case, they may not merely find inferior works which not suit them for survival.

Finally, the speaker uses this statistics that the large part of newly created jobs which are mostly full-time jobs and pays much higher than average wages to refute the claim that laid-off workers have serious economic hardship. However, it is not to say that the laid-off people could get the jobs. As I proof above the laid-off workers have difficulty in involving these newly created enterprises and industries, so the higher wages have litter matter with them.

To be clear, the speaker have not deliberately consider the difference between some details, and lack of the carefully analysis of the fundamental cause of corporate downsizing. The conclusion is made so hastily and further study should be taken to come out a cogent suggestion.