 |
ESSAY OF THE WEEK |
|
|
|
Question
The following appeared in a regional business newspaper:
The Eagle Study Group reported that state-managed economic incentives often hurt the largest cities. The study examined areas of the state where jobs were created and where they were lost. The study showed that 30% of the state's incentives focused on job creation in more affluent outlying areas, which accounted for only 10% of the layoff notices during the study. In contrast, only 10% of the state incentives were focused on the major cities, which accounted for 45% of the layoff notices issued during the study period. The report concluded that money spent on job creation in the outlying areas would have been better spent on keeping jobs in the urban centers."
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Ashish: 6/1/2009 |
 |
The study done by Eagle group, is clearly pointing that state's incentives has focused attention to job creation in outlying areas with 30% investment while almost neglecting major cities with incentive of 10% investment. But this can not lead to conclusion drawn by eagle group that this amount would have been better spent on urban centers.
Report by Eagle Study Group, only concentrate on layoffs in different areas as presented 10% in outlying areas and 45% in major cities. But report has not given details of unemployment levels in these areas. It does not count for how government incentives has been helpful for these areas. For example if only 10% investment in urban area has created a lot of jobs than 30% in outlying areas. Report also not discuss about government criteria for incentives.
So, in my point of view, while report has taken only one issue to justify argument, argument can not be said reasonable. But the facts given in argument can be treated as one of the factors for such conclusion. |
| |
|
|
|
|
| vishnu: 6/5/2009 |
|
The article points out that the state incentives are city phobic and more outlying area friendly.While it may be true on the face of it,the actual fact most probably might be something else which should be pondered over.
While its a known fact that the urban cities provide a plethora of job opportunities due to larger concentration of business and commerce available in it, the same is not true for the later.The possibilities of getting employed in the outlying areas are quite slim, more so because of the simple fact that there aren't too many opportunities of employment available out there.so probably the methodology for providing the incentive might be justified.
What I infer from the study is that it does not provide the enough data on parameters like employment rate and job opportunities in both these places to come to a definite conclusion.The fact provided might be a valid factor but definitely not the only one. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
Reference Essay |
|
The authors of the report assume that it is always desirable to create new jobs in the same place existing jobs were lost. This assumption ignores the possibility that the state may have a valid interest in creating new jobs outside of the major cities. The small number of layoff notices in the outlying areas may be an indicator that these places are economically viable. The state may wish to foster this success by supporting new growth in these areas. Alternately, the urban centers may have other mechanisms to counteract job losses. The urban areas may be better equipped to create new jobs when losses occur and may not need the state's assistance.
The authors of the report assume that a layoff notice indicates a permanent job loss. Layoffs may come as the result of temporary conditions, or the layoffs may be expected. For example, retailers hire additional help during the holiday season and terminate the added workers after the holidays. These layoffs are anticipated, but the report does not distinguish between permanent and temporary reductions in the workforce. The report would be stronger if it included information about the nature of the layoffs in the study.
The authors of the report assume that there is a direct relationship between the state's expenditures and the creation of jobs, yet they offer no evidence to suggest that the state's efforts are successful. According to the report, the state is not trying to prevent job losses; it is trying to create jobs. Therefore, the correct analysis of the state's efforts will focus on the number of jobs created. The report would be stronger if it included information about the number of jobs created or the overall unemployment rates in the urban areas versus the outlying areas.
Overall, the report's conclusions appear to be based on faulty assumptions about the state's motives for spending money on suburban economic development; weak information about the nature of the layoffs in the study; and a misinterpretation of the relationship between job losses and the state's expenditures. |
| |
|
|
|
|
