Critique:
The letter contends that the article, under concern here, is incorrect in saying that the hapless victims of corporate downsizing face serious economic hardships. Quoting a report on the U.S. economy, it says that, in fact, job oppurtunities have been increasing since 1992 and that these jobs come with above-wages plus, are full-time.
The author fails to account for the increase in population at a more dramatic rate than that of job creation. With increasing population, competition increases as a result of which job vacancies are limited. Also, the letter does not manage to prove that those who lose their jobs in this process do not suffer any economic hardship. So that fact cannot be denied on the basis of the arguments presented.
That the newly created jobs are well-paying is a fact, extraneous to the argument as the article only states that the victims of downsizing suffer only till they find sutable employment. So, even if their new-found job pays well, that can't do anything to change the suffering they underwent till they got the job. Even the information about the jobs being full-time is irrelevant to the argument.
The author, in order to put across his point, either must have cited first-person accounts of persons who have really been through the trauma of losing their job or must have quoted other reports that contain relevant information.
