Critical Thinking

I could not identify vague, ambiguous, or rhetorical devices in this article. Can you tell me if I am missing something?


John Kerry is making the outsourcing of jobs by American companies a centerpiece of his campaign, telling audiences that ''because of George Bush's wrong choices, this country is continuing to ship good jobs overseas.'' President Bush's team has in turn accused the senator of hypocrisy, noting that many of Mr. Kerry's supporters in the business world run companies that are sending jobs offshore. Yet as each side angles for votes, neither is addressing the real issue: is the outsourcing of jobs a problem? The answer, surprisingly, is no.

For about a year now, Americans have become fixated on the idea that the Internet had enabled firms to easily subcontract business services -- including call centers and software development -- overseas. I've read countless newspaper articles with anecdotes about American computer programmers who trained their Indian replacements and were then let go. The phenomenon landed simultaneously on the covers of Time, The Economist and BusinessWeek.

Politicians have been equally interested. On this page in January, Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, suggested that outsourcing rendered the law of comparative advantage null and void. When I.B.M. announced plans that month to fire up to 5,000 American workers and ''offshore'' their jobs to low-wage countries, politicians and pundits fell all over each other to denounce the company. When N. Gregory Mankiw, the chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, said that outsourcing was simply another form of trade, Republicans and Democrats alike blasted him for his naivete.

Not surprisingly, all this coverage had an effect on public opinion. This month a poll by Zogby International for the Foreign Policy Association found that 71 percent of Americans believed outsourcing was hurting the economy. It also found that 62 percent of American workers believed the federal government should penalize companies that send work offshore.

Now, however, we can add some actual figures to the overheated debate. The Government Accountability Office has issued its first review of the data, and one undeniable conclusion to be drawn from it is that outsourcing is not quite the job-destroying tsunami it's been made out to be. Of the 1.5 million jobs lost last year in ''mass layoffs'' -- that is, when 50 or more workers are let go at once -- less than 1 percent were attributed to overseas relocation; that was a decline from the previous year. In 2002, only about 4 percent of the money directly invested by American companies overseas went to the developing countries that are most likely to account for outsourced jobs -- and most of that money was concentrated in manufacturing.

The data did show that from 1997 to 2002, annual imports of business, technical and professional services increased by $16.3 billion. However, during that same half-decade, exports of those services increased by $20.5 billion a year. In 2002 alone, the United States ran a $27 billion trade surplus in business services, the sector in which jobs are most likely to be outsourced. The G.A.O. correctly stressed that it is impossible to compute exactly how many jobs are lost because of outsourcing, but unless its figures are off by several orders of magnitude, there's no crisis here.

Many companies moving jobs overseas have also received a bum rap. Lost in all the clamor about I.B.M.'s outsourcing plan was the company's simultaneous announcement that it would add 5,000 American jobs to its payroll. For the second quarter of this year, the company reported a 17 percent increase in earnings, allowing it to trim its outsourcing plan by a third and raise its overall hiring plans by 20 percent. The conclusion is obvious: I.B.M.'s outsourcing of some jobs helped it reduce costs, increase earnings and hire more American-based workers.

None of this is to dismiss the pain endured by those who lose their jobs to lower-paid workers abroad. But the magnitude of these job losses must be placed in the proper perspective. Technological innovation is responsible for a far greater number of lost jobs than outsourcing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that in the first quarter of this year 4,633 workers were laid off because of offshoring. In the same period Kodak, for example, announced layoffs of 15,000 workers because the growth of digital photography reduced demand for film. Few Americans suggest technological innovation be stifled for the sake of preserving old jobs. Yet during election years, restrictions on outsourcing are considered fair game.

This is not to say there aren't steps we can take to help those who lose their jobs. For example, Trade Adjustment Assistance, a federal program to compensate and retrain workers displaced by import competition, at present covers only those in manufacturing. It should be expanded to include service employees.

The American economy has some formidable challenges in the coming decades -- rising health care costs, a ballooning federal budget deficit, failing schools and the need for greater investment in new technology and innovation. The voters should concentrate on the candidates' plans to overcome those obstacles, not on needless hoopla over outsourcing.

  1. πŸ‘ 0
  2. πŸ‘Ž 0
  3. πŸ‘ 80
asked by robert
  1. Here are some sentences or parts of sentences you might want to think about:

    ... neither is addressing the real issue: is the outsourcing of jobs a problem? The answer, surprisingly, is no.

    ... politicians and pundits fell all over each other to denounce the company.

    ... It should be expanded to include service employees.


    And there are others. Just look for phrasing where generalizations are made, for one thing. Few, many, some -- these are some of the words that indicate generalizations rather than specifics such as actual numbers or percentages.

    The word "should" is usually another indication of vagueness!

    1. πŸ‘ 0
    2. πŸ‘Ž 0
    posted by Writeacher

Respond to this Question

First Name

Your Response

Similar Questions

  1. CRT 205

    ON Abortion 1 Identify the principal issue presented by the source. 2 Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. 3 Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none

    asked by Anonymous on November 1, 2009
  2. Critical Thinking

    What steps can a person take to avoid being mislead by rhetorical devices? Think critically. Do your homework -- research the facts behind rhetoric. Identify the rhetorical devices used. Ask yourself the purpose behind the use of

    asked by lisa on July 14, 2006
  3. critical thinking

    1 Identify the principal issue presented by the source. 2 Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. 3 Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist,

    asked by debra on September 14, 2008
  4. CREATIVE WRITING

    How can readers distinguish between prejudicial and non-prejudicial use of rhetorical devices? This question has been asked and answered here several times in the last few weeks. Rhetorical devices are designed to evoke certain

    asked by RUSS on June 27, 2006
  5. crithical thinking

    Critical Analysis Forms Fill out one form for each source. Source 1 Title and Citation: 1 Identify the principal issue presented by the source. 2 Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how

    asked by monica on May 25, 2009
  6. critical thinking

    Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. Identify and name

    asked by J_S_10 on March 21, 2010
  7. CRT/205

    I have to identify the rhetorical devices in this article race, class, and real estate by Sheryll D. Cashin august (2004)

    asked by brenda on June 2, 2013
  8. critical thinking

    When using rhetorical devices, how can you restate your position twice, each time using a different rhetorical device. Thank you for using the Jiskha Homework Help Forum. First of all you need to select the rhetorical devices that

    asked by GIGI on March 30, 2007
  9. crt

    Can someone check these answers for me? I have to identify which examples are vague and ambuiguity. Areas that were vague was the following : β€œFor instance, in 1998, medical expenses due to obesity accounted for 9.1 percent of

    asked by Kim on July 16, 2009
  10. ct

    Consider the following prejudicial rhetorical devices: o SUVs are apartment homes on wheels (a rhetorical definition). o Said by a student who is new to honors classes and struggling with them: €‒I would have aced that test if

    asked by f on December 2, 2009
  11. English

    How can readers distinguish between prejudicial and non-prejudicial use of rhetorical devices? Here's a previous answer to this question. Posted by Ms. Sue on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 at 6:03pm in response to CREATIVE WRITING. This

    asked by Jamie on April 16, 2007

More Similar Questions