argument237 meiyue

jessicamarineUID: 2595044

TOPIC: ARGUMENT237 - The following appeared as part of an article in a local Beauville newspaper.

"According to a government report, last year the city of Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent; at the same time, it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton. Within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton, where they employ a total of 300 people. Therefore, the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to relocate here."

WORDS: 521

In the article, the author suggested the government of Beauville (B) follow the example of Dillton (D)-provide tax incentives and other financial inducements to stimulate development and hence reduce unemployment. The suggestion seems reasonable at the first glance; however, further analysis reveals several critical logical problems.
Firstly, the arguer provided no evidence that the two companies moved to D mainly because of the financial inducements. When companies relocate, many factors have to be considered, among which government financial inducements are not usually determining. Maybe, the two companies moved to D mainly because they are in favor of the resources, human resources, the convenient transportation of D, but not the financial inducements. If so, the effects of financial inducements would not be that effective as the author assumed.
Moreover, the fact that two manufacturing companies moved to D and that 300 people were employed there does not necessarily imply that the economy of D improved and that the whole unemployment reduced. For a city, 2 new companies do not mean a lot; neither do 300 employed people. Perhaps, most of the 300 people hopped to the 2 companies from other companies in D. Or that the 2 new companies compel the bankruptcy of more competitive companies in B, forcing more than 300 people lose their jobs. In either of these cases, the whole unemployment situation did not improve at all.
Even assuming the financial inducements worked on D, it might not also work on B, let alone being the fastest way to stimulate economy. Firstly, how a city should develop depends on its special resources, population, transportation, and the current economy. Possible is it that in the eyes of companies, D is much more favorable than B for its sufficient resources, high quality working forces, convenient transportation, which is not owned by B. In this case, even if B provides financial inducements the effect might not be significant. Or perhaps, the tax in B is already much lower than that in D, and cannot be lower. If so, the arguer‘s suggestion would not be practical for B. Moreover, the arguer falsely asserted the financial inducements as the best way for B without providing comparison with other alternative options. Possible is it that B is a city with long history and splendid culture relics or with unspoiled attractive natural environment. If so, encouraging more companies to relocate to B may have damaging effect on B’s tourism resources. Instead of inducing more companies to B, strengthening its propaganda on tourism and developing as a historic tourism city or ecological tourism city would be more suitable for B.

In summary, the arguer provided little support to his assertion. To better justify it, the arguer has to provide more detailed information about the company moving in and moving out condition and the whole unemployment change in D. Information of both B and D about the resource, working force, transportation, tax and other factors that companies care about is also needed. To better assess it, we would also need to know whether other options is available and the detailed comparison between the financial inducement and other solutions.