In the first place the author assumes that the present labor force is immobile and that the demand �for highly skilled workers will have to be met by workers who are entering the labor market for the first time. Recent American history, however, shows that this assumption is entirely unfounded. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution most Americans were farm workers, but by the end of that revolution most had become factory workers. Thus, even though the labor pool remained relatively constant during this period, the number of farm workers decreased and the number of factory workers increased. This example clearly demonstrates the mobility of the labor force.

In the second place, the author assumes that the government proposal to cut funds for aid to education will have a significant negative impact on the ability to train workers in technical and professional fields. The fact is, however, that the percentage of students who rely on government aid for their education is relatively small, so the effect of such cuts would be negligible.

In conclusion, this argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to show that the present work force was relatively static and that the proposed cut in educational aid would have a deleterious effect on the numbers of high skilled workers available to enter the work force in the future.