Outsourcing At Clarendon

INTRODUCTION

Clarendon Street Consultants (CSC) is a long-standing consulting firm based in Chicago. With a history of operations spanning more than forty years, our firm has established a faithful client base, which it serves through five privately-owned offices. The firm has recently been confronted with the controversial issue of outsourcing American jobs.

Proponents of the measures claim that the outsourcing of labor is beneficial for Americans in terms of cost savings for corporations and the creation of better-paying jobs for workers. Those that oppose these measures point out the loss of American jobs at the expense of low income households, as well as a greater dependence on other countries.

CSC has decided to examine the issues of outsourcing American labor from a bilateral perspective--the firm will analyze the issue based on its positive impact on profitability and American society. The firm wishes to form its own conclusion based on available information. This conclusion will help CSC in its own future outsourcing-related issues, and will guide the advice given to clients on the subject. A recent article on the subject of outsourcing from Business Today proved useful in our analysis.

In the article, author Max P. Michaels heavily favors outsourcing. Michaels, who is a member of the India Business Council, gave a few valid arguments supporting the use of outsourcing in the U.S. However, in order to get a clearer picture of these arguments, I found it useful to analyze the article itself and the arguments in favor of such a position.

ARGUMENT

In his article, Max P. Michaels concludes that "Offshoring is Good for America" (96). In order to determine why Michaels believes this is so, we must first take a closer look at his argument. He has provided the following reasons to support his conclusion that offshoring is good for America:

* Cross border outsourcing of American labor results in U.S. wealth creation

* Cross border outsourcing is good for shareholders, consumers, and workers in America

ANALYSIS

Cross-border Outsourcing Creates Wealth

Michaels provides his first reason for his argument by stating that "America is going through a wave of wealth creation, this time triggered by cross-border outsourcing" (96). Restated, the reason simply states that cross-border outsourcing causes wealth creation. This is a good reason to support the author's conclusion, but there are a few impediments to his argument in the article.

First, the author uses ambiguous wording to describe his presentation of the facts. The phrase "disruptive creation" is used twice in this section, without leaving the reader with any clue as to the author's meaning (96). "Disruptive creation" is a term not commonly used in the business world--the ambiguity of the term lends itself to individual interpretation, and therefore does not support the author's argument.

If the author instead uses more specific wording, the audience would be more in tune with his argument. This phrase needs to point more specifically to an idea that the audience can visualize or understand. The term "disruptive creation" could be defined by the author within this section by mentioning that it represents the short declines in the American economy caused by a loss of outsourced American jobs. In addition, the author should change the heading to be more specific as well. It currently reads "Disrupting to Create" (96). If the heading instead read "Disruption of the American Economy Creates New Jobs," the audience would have a clearer picture of what they are about to read. The point of headings is to allow for faster finding of information, and to inform the reader of the content located below the heading. The current heading serves neither purpose.

In addition, the author's reason assumes that his audience believes that wealth creation is a good thing, regardless of its origin. This descriptive assumption is quite false when you consider that billions of people and many companies around the globe choose personally fulfilling goals rather than financially fulfilling ones. If this assumption were true, well-known organizations such as Green Peace would simply not exist. The author assumes that the reader would believe that wealth for America would be a good thing, even if it comes from other countries. If this were true, the author would not have admitted in his opening statement that this issue is a "hot button." Because the author's reason for his conclusion is a descriptive assumption, the reason does not lead to the conclusion (Browne and Keeley 82).

In order to fix this passage, I would suggest that the author use more specific phrases that won't cause discord with American readers. The author can replace his current topic sentence with one that reads "America is going through a slump in its economy. This slump is being cause by the relocation of manufacturing jobs to other countries. The occurrence of factory layoffs will lead to better paying American jobs to manage the new source of labor." This reason states virtually the same idea, but doesn't necessarily leave the same bitter taste for the American reader. Right away, the reader can see how the outsourcing affects American labor in a positive manner. This illustration also removes the ambiguity of the phrase "disruptive creation."

The author gives statistical numbers to back up his reason as evidence. An example of this is seen when the author reveals that "In the early 80s, the US was losing jobs at the rate of 200,000 jobs per year...Over 20 million new jobs were created in the 80s, mostly in services and advanced manufacturing"(96). Unfortunately, the sources for this evidence are not cited, which weakens the author's argument. I would suggest that Michaels remedy this lack of credibility by citing his sources, either directly in the text or via a reference section at the end. By providing his sources, the author provides more reliability to his facts, which will strengthen his argument. Without supplying references, the author's evidence is unverifiable and therefore cannot be trusted by the reader as support for the reasons.

The author places a great deal of his evidence for this reason near the end of the article, where he discusses "The Macroeconomic Perpectives." He cites relevant quotes by famous financial experts, which strengthens his argument as well. These appeals to authority should be placed within the same