Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that a low unemployment rate is bad for business?
The argument that low unemployment will be bad for business is advanced by Shelly when she states that "Workers are certainly happy to have jobs, but many businesses are negatively affected by a low unemployment rate because they have fewer applicants for jobs, and to expand their workforce, they have to hire workers they would not usually hire."
The question asks us which statement below would most weaken this position. The inverse of this, is "what is the strongest argument that it is in fact good for businesses".
(A) Businesses must pay skilled or experienced workers higher salaries when the unemployment rate is low. -
Higher salaries is bad for business as it increases expenditure on labour.(B) The states don’t have to pay unemployment compensation to as many workers when unemployment is low. - This may benefit government, but makes no connection to how this could benefit business.
(C) Higher unemployment generally means higher enrollment levels in college and graduate school.
- There is nothing in this statement that makes a logical connection between higher levels of college nd grad school enrollement, and a benefit to businesses. Be careful not to bring outside reasoning into this answer.(D) Inflation can increase with low unemployment, making capital more expensive for any business seeking to expand.
- capital being more expensive is bad for business.(E) Low unemployment rates generally mean that Americans have more money to spend on the goods and services created by American businesses.
Ding ding ding. More disposable income could drive more revenue. This would be good for business and therefore weaken the argument that low unemployment is bad for business.