Critical Response to Martin and Milway’s Editorial Essay

In A Productive Labour The except Limit to Productivity Growth is Human Ingenuity, authors Martin and Mil way of life return an origin for change magnitude productivity as a means of raising Canadas stintingal health and spiritedness standards. Although Martin and Milways editorial on productivity present a piece that is rational and easily understood, its effort to convince that readers of its principal(prenominal) inclination is encumbered by weaknesses in the authors approach and conclude that fit to more questions being raised(a) than answered in the course of ones reading.The editorial underlines the importance of improving Canadas productivity in roost of rising prices of manufactured goods and services that accompanied the streng indeeding of the Canadian sawbuck in 2001. The main(prenominal) argument put forth is that enhancing productivity is comminuted in ensuring improvements on the countrys living standards.The authors proceed to assume their arguments b y presenting two ways by which living standards can be raised, the first by increasing the number of operative hours or development up more natural and physical resources for sustained wealth earthly concern, and the second by improving productivity or raising the value created per working hour. After illustrating that the first way is not a viable alternative, the authors then concentrate on convincing the reader why the second way is better by define the concept of productivity based on talent and innovation.The strength of Martin and Milways editorial lies in its ability to woo to the rational side of its readers and their ability to tackle an early(a)wise complicated playing ara in simple footing. The authors attempt to defend their arguments by stating facts and carefully defining their subject, that is, productivity. As a result, the readers are compelled to view their argument in circumstance of the definition that they present. Unfortunately, several weaknesses i n Martin and Milways editorial in terms of their approach and in their reasoning reduce the effectivity of their argument.The biggest errors that exist in the editorial are faulty reasoning and the inability of the authors to substantiate their claim. As a consequence, the authors fail to persuade readers that productivity is the surest way to raise our living standards. (par. 4) The editorial was clearly written to convince readers that Canada needs to raise its productivity if it is to continue its economic egression and if it is to raise living standards.On the other hand, the authors fail to present establish to substantiate this claim aside from the argument that it is the most cost-effective alternative in terms of labour, time, and natural resources. The authors automatically assumed that the readers of the editorial would readily accept that an increase in economic proceeds mentions from an increase in productivity. Likewise, this argument raises several implications f irst, that economic growth is not possible without an increased productivity second, that productivity growth evermore leads to a raise in the living standards.It is here that the informed auditory modality becomes wary as the authors bias shows through in their failure to contain countries with high productivity growth but low living standards. This shows a lack of forethought of the authors in answering the questions that would be inevitably raised by their argument. The main weakness of the editorial is that the authors commit fallacies in reasoning. For one, they are begging the question wherein the reader must already accept the finish in order to accept the evidence forwarded (Boyne, et. al. , 69).For instance, the authors enumerate the ways by which productivity can be improved to support their main contention. They evoke that productivity increases in one of two ways greater efficiency in how we employ labour and capital, or greater value creation per unit of these inpu ts. (par. 8) This flow of the discussion reflects an assumption on the part of the authors that their main argument has already been accepted by the readers since discussing the ways by which productivity can be improved does not necessarily support the argument that productivity will improve the countrys economy.This circular reasoning makes the reader feel like the authors are trying to sound licit but cannot support their argument beyond the definition of the subject. Another open error in reasoning in the Martin and Milways editorial is bigotry (Boyne, et. al. , 70) or hasty generalization. The authors attempt to prove the argument that Productivity growth also benefits workers and consumers (par. 14) by stating that countries and regions with higher productivity pay higher wages (par. 14) which assumes that higher wages automatically result from higher productivity.If one is to follow this argument, then it would imply that countries and regions that pay lower wages are not productive or low in productivity. In sum, a captious analysis of the piece reveals that the weaknesses outweigh the positive aspects in Martin and Milways editorial. Shortcomings in substantiating the editorials central argument with credible evidence as well as the inability to defend their argument in a logical manner renders the entire editorial ineffective in convincing the reader of the importance of improving productivity to improve their lives.