argument22,11,酒香,nofeelings

nofeelings811UID: 2388638

22The following appeared in a memo from the president of a company that builds and sells new homes in Steel City.
"Over the past five years, the population of Steel City has increased by more than 20 percent, and family incomes in Steel City have risen much faster than the national average. Nationwide, sales of houses priced above $150,000 have increased more than have sales of lower-priced houses. Such data indicate that we should make changes in our business to increase company profits. First, we should build fewer low-priced houses than we did last year and focus instead on building houses designed to sell at above $150,000. Second, we should hire additional workers so that we can build a larger total number of houses than we did last year."

There are some reasons to let more houses on the city and let more workers in the company, but they are not as strong as they seem to be. So I do not agree with the argument.

The residuals do not have really to be able to buy more houses, according to the ambiguous number provided. Firstly, we do not know the former living condition of the city. Do all people have their own place to live, or some people, or a few people do not have the house to live? Secondly, 20 percent is not a real number, from which we can know the exact details. Population's increasing may be a little if the total number of the city is little. If a little number increased, living condition will not changed either next year. Thirdly, past five years' increasing may lead people have already bought more houses, and this condition may cause them not needing houses anymore. If they do not need houses, they will not buy them. So they will buy some house, and the house may not be needed in the next year. What's more, the increasing of people's incomes will not let them be more able to buy more houses, considering the currency's value. If one dollar 5 years ago can buy one thing, but 5 years later this thing will cost 2, then what is the meaning of incomes' growing? What's more, only the increasing of the people who do not have the house and want to buy house is meaningful. Besides, people who do not have houses and be able to buy them may like to rent instead of buying. Think it over, people may not need the houses and may not buy them.

Even if there are needs of houses, the evidence in the memo can not lead to the conclusion of sparing the low-priced ones and bothering the other parts. Firstly, condition of nation is different from and can not equal to local city, because all the parts of the nation will not be the same. So high priced houses may not sell well, even if the nationwide sell condition is good. Secondly, when there are more people, these more people's wealth are unknown, so the trend of houses, wether high-priced will sell good or the other ones sell good, is unknown. If the additional people are rich, they have the possibility of buying high-priced houses, verse visa. But they are just possibilities. Thirdly, building more high-priced houses, that's may cause large side effect: when they are not sold, the cost may be untenable. Thus we should not push to build more high priced houses and low-priced ones.

Last but not the least, workers have not to be employed more. When considering employing more workers, there are a lot things need to be thought over. Firstly, considering the profits we need to make, the employment of additional workers need to be thought over and over. More works, more salaries, may be not more money we get, may be less profits, and then may be useless. Secondly, if more workers are employed, there are some problems such as can they work as a team? The old workers have been familiar with each other. So, we can not hurry to employ more people.

In sum, all the things author proposed to do are not strongly reasonable and have some risks, we should spare them and find other ways such as build more houses toward both the rich and the poor, without more employment.