Argument143【0806G desperado小组】第十四次作业by坐照

wangyu0920UID: 199396

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: 424        DATE: 2007-12-28 16:47:00

1.         报告没有提供任何数据和研究背景，结果未必可信
2.         即使新工作增加了，也未必能满足失业工人的需求
3.         失业的工人未必适合新工作，也许因为年龄或知识、技能的问题无法从事那些高收入的工作
4.         还有三分之一的工作收入低，另外有一部分不是全职，这些工人即使找到工作也依然可能面临严重的经济困难

In this letter, the author disagrees with a recent article's conclusion that many competent workers lost their jobs as a result of corporate downsizing and face economic hardship before finding new suitable employment for years. To support the disagreement with this conclusion, the author cites a report which found that (1) More jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1992 (2) many workers who lost their jobs have found new employment (3) most of the new jobs have been in industries and are full-time positions which tend to pay high salaries. However, I find the evidence is insufficient and hence does not lend solid support to what the author assumes.

First of all, the disagreement is totally based on the report which does not provide any specific numbers or reliable statistical result and therefore is not convincing. Without more information about the research method, sample amount and the background of respondents, whether the result of the report can be accepted is questionable.

In addition, even if the result of the report is convincing, the author fails to take into account that the job supply might be still insufficient although there have been a net increase of new jobs. As we all know, thousands of people enter the market to find a job and it is entirely possible that the new jobs are not enough to ensure the workers who lost their jobs to find suitable employment.

Moreover, even though the job supply is sufficient, the workers still probably fail to find a job because the author does not provide any information to prove that they can be qualified to get the high wages positions. Perhaps the workers are too old to do the heavy jobs, or they are not able to operate the new machines due to their outdate knowledge and skills. Meanwhile, there are still one-third of the new jobs are not well paid as well as many of the workers have to do part-time jobs and therefore they would still face serious economic hardship even they can get jobs.

In conclusion, the letter is not well supported as it stands. To make the disagreement more convincing, the author would have to provide more evidence to prove that: (1) the report is based scientific research and is representative as well as statistically reliable (2) the net increase numbers of new jobs would large enough to make sure that the workers can find jobs (3) the workers are suitable to do the newly created jobs which are full-time and highly paid positions