74. In this argument the author predicts a nationwide labor shortage in the near future. 1 V9 Z$ J* `1 i. a. R, S
The basis for this prediction is an increasing demand for highly skilled workers, 0 x h9 h, [- a8 ?
especially in technical and professional fields, coupled with a slow-growing labor force
+ w. {) |; F. ^ ]* i7 s4 wand a government proposal to cut funds for aid to education. At first glance, the author's & G, @; U; s4 @ f( p, {1 _+ `% w
argument appears to be somewhat convincing: but further reflection reveals that it is
; U( W' i" L. J4 d. a5 `0 ~based on some dubious assumptions.
* n0 H7 r- K, t' Y& s9 s" R9 W( f$ I% O In the first place the author assumes that the present labor force is immobile and
. F2 D8 Z, G& T2 Q3 [0 Mthat the demand "for highly skilled workers will have to be met by workers who are
! w! O' G" B+ W& U! ?& r4 u! q; [entering the labor market for the first time. Recent American history, however, shows
/ ]: P% A4 Z6 o$ a S$ g& H* R3 Fthat this assumption is entirely unfounded. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution 9 n; T8 @9 v; A- Z1 h
most Americans were farm workers, but by the end of that revolution most had become
h5 [- ?+ b( h7 X% @; w/ |; s! Gfactory workers. Thus, even though the labor pool remained relatively constant during
* s# J" t' ^& F2 J4 c+ I2 ~0 l$ }0 sthis period, the number of farm workers decreased and the number of factory workers 0 v5 C* F2 N/ J0 u- j$ M7 [
increased. This example clearly demonstrates the mobility of the labor force.2 ?/ N5 T/ S2 j H8 B2 T
In the second place, the author assumes that the government proposal to cut funds
% v, u, w+ d; v4 b A1 gfor aid to education will have a significant negative impact on the ability to train
S$ g5 U- D: B$ ~( rworkers in technical and professional fields. The fact is, however, that the percentage of
, q# K# O+ S8 g0 G$ rstudents who rely on government aid for their education is relatively small, so the effect
8 z! ~& T- R @, Z5 q! c) {! ^- Iof such cuts would be negligible.5 g, p; J8 O" y$ @$ E5 G u
In conclusion, this argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the " c9 `/ T# J- m0 e* M
author would have to show that the present work force was relatively static and that the
! g' _; A! H! U) G3 Tproposed ours i educational aid would have a deleterious effect on the numbers of high # L2 [) \4 r/ O
skilled workers available to enter the work force in the future. |