The "if people prefer to work in a no-smoker bar, then there will be fewer jobs available in the non-smoking compared to the smoking bars, so some people will have little choice but to work in the smoking bars" argument is invalid.
If smoking-bars don't have employees to hire because nobody wants to work there, there will be fewer smoking bars. Conversely, more non-smoking bars, and appropriately more jobs in non-smoking bars available than smoking-bars.
You didn't justify your logic for calling that argument invalid, even though I had never MADE that argument. You simply proposed it. However, it is quite easy to invalidate your comment.
As to your second comment - some employers DO ask their employees to work in an environment filled with hazardous chemicals, and even more dangerous environments. There are some jobs that require deep-sea diving (oil rig repair), toxic chemical exposure (sewage treatment plants/chemical processing companies), and various other extremely dangerous environments. NOBODY is forced into those jobs (at least, not in the US) - they are voluntary. The pay scales with the danger, generally. People are compensated for putting their life at risk, however - they make that choice.
You cannot simply call an argument (one which I never made) invalid simply because you "feel" it is. You need to back up your statements in order to be convincing. You only made an assertion based on a false assumption. This won't work. There are already plenty of examples of exactly what you described in the world, and some people do choose to work in those jobs - but nobody is there without choice. Show me one deep-sea diver doing oil rig repair who is there involuntarily because he/she couldn't find a different job. |
