The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
This argument states that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer then lower wages could be paid to employees. This conclusion is based on the premise that as the list of physical injury increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Howeveer, there are several assumptions that may not necessarily apply to this argument. For example, the costs associated with making the workplace safe must outweigh the increased payroll expenses due to hazardous conditions. Also, one must look at the plausability of improving the work environment. And finally, because most companies agree that as the risk of injury increases so will wages doesn\'t necessarily mean that the all companies which have hazardous work environments agree.
The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment. Clearly one could argue that if making the workplace safe would cost an exorbitant amount of money in comparison to leaving the workplace as is and paying slightly increased wages than it would not make sense to improve the work environment. For example, if making the workplace safe would cost $100 million versus additional payroll expenses of only $5,000 per year, it would make financial sense to simply pay the increased wages. No business or business owner with any sense would pay all that extra money just to save a couple dollars and improve employee health and relations. To consider this, a cost benefit analysis must be made. I also feel that although a cost benefit analysis should be the determining factor with regard to these decisions making financial sense, it may not be the determining factor with regard to making social, moral and ethical sense.
This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment. This is not the case. Companies look at other considerations such as the negative social ramifications of high on-job injuries. For example, Toyota spends large amounts of money improving its environment because while its goal is to be profitable, it also prides itself on high employee morale and an almost perfectly safe work environment. However, Toyota finds that it can do both, as by improving employee health and employee relations they are guaranteed a more motivated staff, and hence a more efficient staff; this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees.
Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer. For example, in the case of coal mining, a company only has limited ways of making the work environment safe. While companies may be able to ensure some safety precautions, they may not be able to provide all the safety measures necessary. In other words, a mining company has limited ability to control the air quality within a coal mine and therefore it cannot control the risk of employees getting blacklung. In other words, regardless of the intent of the company, some jobs are simply dangerous in nature.
In conclusion, while at first it may seem to make financial sense to improve the safety of the work environment sometimes it truly does not make financial sense. Furthermore, financial sense may not be the only issue a company faces. Other types of analyses must be made such as the social ramifications of an unsafe work environment and the overall ability of a company to improve that environment (i.e。， coal mine)。 Before any decision is made, all this things must be considered, not simply the reduction of payroll expenses.
下面是出现在报纸的一篇文章的一部分：
大多数公司都会同意，因为受伤的概率增加发生的工作，支付给员工的工资也要增加。因此，这使得金融意识的雇主让工作场所安全：它们可以降低他们的工资开支和省钱。
讨论了如何合理的你觉得这个说法。你们的讨论会分析推理和证据的论据中的使用。例如，您可能需要考虑什么可疑的假设是什么其他的解释或反例可能削弱结论。你也可以讨论什么样的证据会加强或反驳的论点，论据中的什么样的变化将使它更合乎逻辑的，和什么，如果有的话，会帮助你更好的评估它的结论。
这一论点使得金融意识的雇主保证工作场所的安全，通过提供安全的工作环境并可以支付给员工的工资较低。这个结论是基于一个前提，如物理伤害增加清单，支付给员工的工资也要增加。howeveer，有几个假设可能并不一定适用于这一论点。例如，在工作场所的安全相关的成本要大于增加的工资开支由于危险的条件。同时，我们必须看的改善工作环境的plausability。最后，因为多数企业都认为，作为损伤的风险增加，所以将工资并不一定意味着所有的公司都有危险的工作环境，同意。
第一个要解决的问题是劳动力成本的增加，证明大的资本支出，改善工作环境。显然人们可以辩称，如果工作场所的安全将在离开工作场所作为比较和支付略有增加工资会比不改善工作环境合理的资金量过高的成本。例如，如果在工作场所的安全，将耗资100000000美元，每年只有5000美元的额外工资费用，将只支付工资的增加使金融意识。没有任何意义上的企业所有者将支付所有的钱只是为了节省几美元，提高员工的健康和关系。考虑到这一成本效益分析，必须。我也觉得虽然成本效益分析应该是决定性的因素，对于这些决策的金融意识，它可能不是决定性的因素，对社会，道德和伦理意义。
这一论点也依赖的想法，公司对改善工作环境只使用金融意识。这是没有的情况下。公司希望在其他因素，如工伤高的负面社会影响。例如，丰田花大量的钱改善环境，而其目标是要赚钱的，它也以高员工士气，几乎是完全安全的工作环境。然而，丰田认为可以做，以改善他们的保证一个更积极进取的员工队伍，员工的健康和员工的关系，从而更高效的员工队伍;以保证给企业更多的钱以及为员工更安全。
最后一个必须明白，不是所有的工作环境可以更安全。例如，在煤炭开采的情况下，一个企业只有使工作环境的安全限制的方式。虽然公司可以保证一定的安全措施，他们可能无法提供所有必要的安全措施。换句话说，一个矿业公司控制空气质量在一个煤矿的能力，因此它不能对员工的矽肺的风险控制。换句话说，无论该公司的意图，自然中的一些工作是危险的。
总之，虽然起初它似乎使金融意识到有时提高安全的工作环境确实没有财务上的意义。此外，金融意识不可能是唯一的问题，公司面临。其他类型的分析必须如不安全的工作环境和公司的整体能力的提高，社会环境的影响(即，煤矿)。作出任何决定之前，所有这些都必须考虑的，不是简单的工资费用的减少。
以上就是关于“
