The following appeared as part of an editorial in a campus newspaper:
“With an increasing demand for highly skilled workers, this nation will soon face a serious labor shortage. New positions in technical and professional occupations are increasing rapidly, while at the same time the total labor force is growing slowly. Moreover, the government is proposing to cut funds for aid to education in the near future.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
With an increasing demand for highly skilled workers, this nation will soon face a serious labor shortage. New positions in technical and professional occupations are increasing rapidly, while at the same time the total labor force is growing slowly. Moreover, the government is proposing to cut funds for aid to education in the near future.’This is the second sentence of an editorial in the campus newspaper. The editorial claims that the nation will soon face a crisis in labor shortages, but it fails to provide any evidence or reasoning to back this claim
Furthermore, the editorial cites the labor shortage as a problem, yet it fails to offer any solutions. The editorial seems to be suggesting that the demand for labor will not be met, a problem that presumably will be exacerbated by the cuts to education. However, the editorial fails to mention that this problem has been debated by economists for many years and is still unsolved. The ‘demand’ for labor is a concept used to describe the level of employment in the economy. It is a number, not a quantity. It is made up of the number of jobs available and the number of people working in those jobs. For example, if the labor force is growing at a steady rate, then the demand for labor will also increase. If, on the other hand, the labor force is stagnant or declining, then the demand for labor will decrease. The demand for labor may or may not increase as a result of the growth in the number of jobs in technical and professional occupations. The demand for labor depends, in large part, on the nature of the jobs being created. If most of the newly created jobs are in low-wage, low-skill, or low-paying industries, then the demand for labor may actually decrease, as the population may opt to enter the less-skilled fields due to increased employment opportunities. Furthermore, the editorial fails to mention that there is a shortage of labor, not only in the United States, but worldwide. This shortage has led many nations, including China, India, and South Korea, to develop large workforces through mass education. If these nations choose to cut back on education, then the effects on other nations could be severe, as the demand for labor in those countries could decrease
The editorial also fails to mention that the cuts to education are likely to be less severe than anticipated. Many jobs will move offshore in the coming years, and this will cause the demand for labor to decline even further. The nation may be able to weather the storm, but any long-term damage to the economy is certain. Moreover, the editorial fails to mention that the development of education often creates new industries, which employ many people. For example, the invention of computers has spawned thousands of high-tech jobs. As another example, the automobile industry has created an enormous number of jobs, while the information industry has created many new service sector jobs. Cutting funding for education will reduce the number of workers in these fields. Thus, overall, the nation will benefit from education, not less
The editorial concludes with a rhetorical question, asking the reader if cutting funds for education will cause society to deteriorate. This question does not carry much weight, because the reader is not being asked to form a belief based on evidence. Instead, the editorial is asking the reader to accept a conclusion that may not be logical. For example, one might believe that cutting funding for education will cause the nation to deteriorate, but evidence might indicate that cutting funds for education will not have any long-term effects.