The reading passage argues that working for a company has many negative aspects and it's better to have your own business. However, the speaker in the lecture casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He mentions that starting a business is a road filled with trouble since most businesses ultimately fail and it's preferrable to be an employee.
First and foremost, the author contends that employees have to deal with multiple levels of bureaucracy in a corporation and it's hard to get in contact with the upper echelon, meaning their ideas are never listened to or acted upon. In addition, senior management always take credit for the hard work done by their staff. The lecturer, on the other hand, indicates that establishing a new business is also a bureaucratic nightmare since the owner has to satisfy the requirements of state and federal laws by obtaining the necessary permits and licenses. Moreover, even if one had a great idea, this idea might have already been patented by someone else.
Secondly, the writer holds that job security is a thing of the past as most corporations that were once believed secure crumbled under the weight of financial miscalculations, leading many people to lose their employment. According to the excerpt, operating a business offers greater degree of financial security. Nevertheless, the lecturer refutes this argument by declaring that employers have to pay taxes, rent and employee wages, which put them under financial pressure. What's more, the lecturer further elaborates that new businesses that do not become profitable after six months are unlikely to succeed leaving the owners with all the accrued debt that they would have to repay.
Lastly, the article asserts that when corporations go bankrupt, workers lose their pension plans and benefits. Nonetheless, the listening maintains that running a business is even riskier since the employer has to provide insurance for the property, inventory and the employees as well. Furthermore, in case the pension plans fall apart, workers could sue the firm for their lost compensation.
The reading passage argues that working for a
company
has
many
negative
aspects and it's better to have your
own
business
.
However
, the speaker in the lecture casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He mentions that starting a
business
is a road filled with trouble since most
businesses
ultimately
fail and it's
preferrable
to be an employee.
First
and foremost, the author contends that employees
have to
deal with multiple levels of bureaucracy in a corporation and it's
hard
to
get
in contact with the upper echelon, meaning their
ideas
are never listened to or acted upon.
In addition
, senior management always take credit for the
hard
work done by their staff. The lecturer,
on the other hand
, indicates that establishing a new
business
is
also
a bureaucratic nightmare since the owner
has to
satisfy the requirements of state and federal laws by obtaining the necessary permits and licenses.
Moreover
, even if one had a great
idea
, this
idea
might have already
been patented
by someone else.
Secondly
, the writer holds that job security is a thing of the past as most corporations that were once believed secure crumbled under the weight of financial miscalculations, leading
many
people
to lose their employment. According to the excerpt, operating a
business
offers greater degree of financial security.
Nevertheless
, the lecturer refutes this argument by declaring that employers
have to
pay taxes, rent and employee wages, which put them under financial pressure. What's more, the lecturer
further
elaborates that new
businesses
that do not become profitable after six months are unlikely to succeed leaving the owners with all the accrued debt that they would
have to
repay.
Lastly
, the article asserts that when corporations go bankrupt, workers lose their pension plans and benefits. Nonetheless, the listening maintains that running a
business
is even riskier since the employer
has to
provide insurance for the property, inventory and the employees
as well
.
Furthermore
, in case the pension plans fall apart, workers could sue the firm for their lost compensation.