I would also greatly appreciate constructive feedback. Thanks!
Prompt
The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business news magazine:
"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."
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.
My Answer
This argument states that employees working in dangerous conditions must be paid more, and consequently employers can save money by creating safer conditions. This argument, however, relies on two fault assumptions: that safer work places result in lower pay and that wage savings would exceed safety improvement costs.
Safety improvements rarely allow corporations to cut pay. Employees are generally hostile to wage drops. Safer working conditions in many cases would not convince workers to take pay cuts. When hiring new works, lower wage demands are also unlikely. While more dangerous environments have in some cases such as coal miners resulted in higher compensation than that of similar laborers, many highly paid positions (CEOs, lawyers, etc) include little danger. When danger does drive wages it often does so in industries such as coal mining rather than for specific companies which potential workers know less about. As a result of these factors, wages are often sticky.
Even if the safety improvements resulted in lower wage costs, these cost reductions may not exceed the cost of said improvements. A chemical company may find that replacing old laboratories with new equipment costs $500,000 a lab but only results in a wage decrease of $10,000.
Improving working conditions can in cases offers benefits such as wage reduction, increased employee satisfaction and performance, decreased litigation, or increased consumer demand due to increased public perception. This argument, however, is flawed by generalizations. To determine if safety increases make financial sense for an employer one would need to measure all current and future costs of action against potential savings to determine the net profit effect.
Prompt
The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business news magazine:
"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."
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.
My Answer
This argument states that employees working in dangerous conditions must be paid more, and consequently employers can save money by creating safer conditions. This argument, however, relies on two fault assumptions: that safer work places result in lower pay and that wage savings would exceed safety improvement costs.
Safety improvements rarely allow corporations to cut pay. Employees are generally hostile to wage drops. Safer working conditions in many cases would not convince workers to take pay cuts. When hiring new works, lower wage demands are also unlikely. While more dangerous environments have in some cases such as coal miners resulted in higher compensation than that of similar laborers, many highly paid positions (CEOs, lawyers, etc) include little danger. When danger does drive wages it often does so in industries such as coal mining rather than for specific companies which potential workers know less about. As a result of these factors, wages are often sticky.
Even if the safety improvements resulted in lower wage costs, these cost reductions may not exceed the cost of said improvements. A chemical company may find that replacing old laboratories with new equipment costs $500,000 a lab but only results in a wage decrease of $10,000.
Improving working conditions can in cases offers benefits such as wage reduction, increased employee satisfaction and performance, decreased litigation, or increased consumer demand due to increased public perception. This argument, however, is flawed by generalizations. To determine if safety increases make financial sense for an employer one would need to measure all current and future costs of action against potential savings to determine the net profit effect.
