|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
13 Sep 2018, 22:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Prompt:
"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."
Answer:
To definitively conclude that companies could "reduce their payroll expenses and save money" by "making the workplace safer" is unwarranted, and grounded in flawed assumptions. The argument from the business news magazine needs to be scrutinized before any sort of conclusion can be reasonably drawn. Primarily, this argument consists of fallacious assumptions, and a lack of clarity in the detail.
The argument proposes that "as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase." While this may seem logical at first, a deeper assessment reveals that it is not. This assertion assumes that the motivating force for wages is the employees' risk for physical injury. While this may be true for some jobs, like mining or stunt performing, this is not true for most jobs - especially those that occur in corporate offices. In most corporate office jobs, employees are not compensated for their risk-tolerance to physical injury. They are compensated for their skills that they provide to the business--most likely the ideas or services they provide to the organization. Hence, if the risk of physical injury increases, the wages need not necessarily increase, as well, because the wages are not intended compensate for risk of physical injury.
Even if employers did indeed compensate employees for risk of physical injury, by what proportion should wages increase in respect to the increase in the amount of risk of physical injury. If the air-conditioner breaks down, and the employees must deal with high temperatures on a hot summer's day, should each employee have a salary increase of 5%, 10%, or 50%? Without such a clear relationship in the detail, it is difficult to asses if, and by how much, employee wages should increase if the risk of physical injury increases.
Additionally, it is ungrounded to boldly claim that businesses will save money if they make their workplace safer and reduce their payroll expenses. As mentioned previously, the monetary relationship between the risk of physical injury, and employee compensation is unclear. It could well be likely that the cost of making the workplace safer costs more than savings of reducing employee expenses. Imagine the case where it costs 12% of revenue, in the long-term, to install new safety equipment in the office, whereas it saves only 10% of revenue, in the long-term, by reducing employee wages. Thus, businesses will not save money.
In sum, the argument is weak because it assumes that wages are compensation for physical injury, and that making the workplace safer will cost less reducing employee wages. In fact, most employees are compensated for their services that they provide to the business, and measures to increase employee safety can be more expensive than reducing payroll expenses. Thus, for such an argument to have merit, these flawed assumptions would need to be addressed and strengthened before any reasonable conclusion can be drawn.
"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."
Answer:
To definitively conclude that companies could "reduce their payroll expenses and save money" by "making the workplace safer" is unwarranted, and grounded in flawed assumptions. The argument from the business news magazine needs to be scrutinized before any sort of conclusion can be reasonably drawn. Primarily, this argument consists of fallacious assumptions, and a lack of clarity in the detail.
The argument proposes that "as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase." While this may seem logical at first, a deeper assessment reveals that it is not. This assertion assumes that the motivating force for wages is the employees' risk for physical injury. While this may be true for some jobs, like mining or stunt performing, this is not true for most jobs - especially those that occur in corporate offices. In most corporate office jobs, employees are not compensated for their risk-tolerance to physical injury. They are compensated for their skills that they provide to the business--most likely the ideas or services they provide to the organization. Hence, if the risk of physical injury increases, the wages need not necessarily increase, as well, because the wages are not intended compensate for risk of physical injury.
Even if employers did indeed compensate employees for risk of physical injury, by what proportion should wages increase in respect to the increase in the amount of risk of physical injury. If the air-conditioner breaks down, and the employees must deal with high temperatures on a hot summer's day, should each employee have a salary increase of 5%, 10%, or 50%? Without such a clear relationship in the detail, it is difficult to asses if, and by how much, employee wages should increase if the risk of physical injury increases.
Additionally, it is ungrounded to boldly claim that businesses will save money if they make their workplace safer and reduce their payroll expenses. As mentioned previously, the monetary relationship between the risk of physical injury, and employee compensation is unclear. It could well be likely that the cost of making the workplace safer costs more than savings of reducing employee expenses. Imagine the case where it costs 12% of revenue, in the long-term, to install new safety equipment in the office, whereas it saves only 10% of revenue, in the long-term, by reducing employee wages. Thus, businesses will not save money.
In sum, the argument is weak because it assumes that wages are compensation for physical injury, and that making the workplace safer will cost less reducing employee wages. In fact, most employees are compensated for their services that they provide to the business, and measures to increase employee safety can be more expensive than reducing payroll expenses. Thus, for such an argument to have merit, these flawed assumptions would need to be addressed and strengthened before any reasonable conclusion can be drawn.
Moderators:
188 posts
