GRE Argument Essay 224
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.
In a letter to the editor of a national newspaper, the author claims to have been misled by an article of corporate downsizing in the United States. According to the letter, the article gives a wrong impression of competent workers facing economic hardship by losing their jobs. The letter finds support in a recent report on the United States economy which demonstrates that since 1992, more jobs have been created than eliminated. The report also suggests that majority of the newly created jobs are full- time and two-thirds of them are paying above average wages.
However, the claims made by the newspaper article and recent report on the United States economy, do not seem to be contradictory to each other. It is possible that the downsizing in United States led to people losing their jobs and the competent ones faced economic hardships. As far as the report on more jobs created is concerned, it is about the situation since 1992. There is every possibility of jobless employees facing a tough time, till 1992.
Maybe, 1992 onwards, more jobs were created by other newly launched companies. Due to growing technology and growing international business, it is possible that many more jobs were available after 1992, especially when compared to the jobs eliminated earlier. There are also chances that after the downsizing, workers had a tough time without jobs but later on they started drawing enough salaries in the new job. This could further be attributed to the improving economy of the nation or due to rise in the global economy standards.
Though, the report of the survey conducted states that those who had lost their jobs had found new employment and were drawing above average wages, no comparison in the financial status of the employees can be made. It is not mentioned whether the employees were drawing much more or less before the corporate downsizing. Moreover, in the new jobs created, wages are mentioned instead of salaries and it is not clear if the workers were drawing monthly salaries or daily wages earlier. Thus, it is likely that even after re-employment the competent workers faced economic hardships and this further nullifies any contradiction in the article on corporate downsizing and economic survey conducted in 1992.
Further, one cannot compare the nature of earlier jobs with the new ones. While the new jobs were majorly full time jobs, nothing is known about the old jobs. Even though in most of the industries above average wages are given, maybe the working hours are much more than the previous jobs.
Since, the detailed finding of the recent report on the United States’ economy are not mentioned, one cannot assume that it points out at a good economic state of the workers. In the absence of any such conclusion, there seems to be no contradiction with the facts given in the article on corporate downsizing in United States.
In summary, the article on corporate downsizing can be misleading only if it is contradicted by the economic survey, as referred in the letter. Since, the letter has not provided enough details to arrive at any such conclusion; the argument given in the letter to the editor is not valid.