The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper."Your recent article on corporate downsizing* in Elthyria maintains that the majority of competent workers who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship

It seems to be logical, at first glance, to agree with the idea that downsizing in the Elthyria improves employees’ economic status. However, the argument relies on a couple of less credible evidence or even doubtful assumption to consolidate its stance. In what follows, I will elaborate on them in details. The 1st problem with the argument is that it could not provide more information about jobs status before 1999. Maybe employee had more jobs opportunity before 1999 as compared with after these years. Therefore, maintain that rates of unemployment during one decade-after1999- without providing enough information before 1999 is a disingenuous issue. Furthermore, since 1999 the rates of jobs creating in each year is not elucidated by the argument. Maybe there were more jobs opportunities in some years as contrast with other years and vice versa. Although workers could find appropriates jobs during the years which had more jobs positions, they suffering economic crisis during unemployment years. Therefore, comparing workers’ status in terms of their jobs opportunity during one decade is a fallacious issue, and the argument had better provide details information about rates of job-creating every year during the cited decade. Even we assuming that the author gives additional information about rates of jobs creating, there are other unanswered questions. The author averts that since most of the jobs pertained to industrious ones, and these kinds of works tend to pay more salaries for their employees, so the economic status of the workers have been improving. Actually, without providing more information about the characteristics of jobs and employment, this conclusion is questionable. Maybe the location of the jobs company is not accessible for most of the employee, and they force to pay more money to take a taxi or van or another public vehicle to go their jobs. Maybe most of the workers are not eager to go industrious jobs, and they are keen to go in other fields such as Agriculture, free business, and educational positions. Without knowing employee traits and their tendency about jobs, it is difficult to predict that existing more opportunities in the fields of industrious leads to increase workers’ economic status. Even if we know employers and jobs positions’ traits and conditions, there are other flaws towards a correlation between career time and workers’ economic status. Human being has other parts of life such as family, emotion, social responsibilities, and he is not comparable with machines which could work for a long time without considering other fields of the lives. Maybe working for a full time have more profits, yet it also has other disadvantages. For instance, working for a full time makes people sensible and skittish. In this scenario, they do not have more eager to spend time with their family and be friendly with them. Maybe, some employee is not eager to works for full-time since they are careful about their health and other parts of their life. Maybe some employee has educational or other scientific classes, and they only could work for part-time. Therefore, citing full time of the job opportunities does not mean that it improves employee economic status. To evaluate this argument, we require to have additional information. The first pieces of information we need is the rates of jobs creating during the time. To better assessment, we also require to know more about jobs and employee conditions. Finally, to improve the argument as a whole, it is greatly recommended pay attention to human being needs including economic and noneconomic ones.