View this page "GRE Argument"
Hamed
Click on http://groups.google.com/group/essaygre/web/gre-argument - or
copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't work.
Ali
about downsizing in United States was misleading, but it provide
several reasons with ambiguity and contradictions. It tries to show
that workers which lost their jobs, did not suffer form serious
problems such as hardship in economic situation and they could find
new job easily. The results are inconsistent with appropriate
reasons.
Firstly, the author said that according to report on United States
economy, since 1992, more jobs have been created than have been
eliminated and it can show that the workers which lost their jobs
easily find new suitable job and it did not take for years. This
report did not indicate the rate of increase in new job positions
created after 1992. It is important because this rate should be
compared to the rate of population increase and as a result increase
in the number of new young workers. if the rate of increase in
population is more than rate of new job positions, not only the
downsized workers did not find new job, but also the number of
unemployees are increased.
Secondly, the author, also, based on report, claim that many of those
who lost their jobs have found new employment. if this is the case,
the time that it takes for finding new position by lost job workers is
not determined, namely, they suffered from economic hardship for
several years before find new jobs.
Lastly, the letter mentioned that 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. This argument not only
could not support the employment of workers that lots their jobs, but
also shows that they could not put in these situations. Because they
lost their jobs in order to reduce in number of employee in
corporations and It means, they have not a high level position.
However, the jobs with salary above average can not be filled by
workers with down level position and as a result they still remain
unemployeed.
This letter has many inconsistence parts which is not as cogent as
which could be a reference to remove the probable misleading in the
previous published paper. It consist of several flaws and some reasons
which is not reasonable. It in not suitable for publishing as a
correction for original paper.