Prof. Sapozhnikov
Response Essay
July 23, 2009
The Negative Outcome of Outsourcing
As I stroll around my residence, I hear words like “globalization” and “outsourcing”, while whiteness the diversity of the population within my community. It is difficult not to see products that weren’t manufactured in China, Thailand, Japan, and other countries around the world. During Early America, outsourcing of jobs for production was once not a problem and not as prevalent as it is today. As early as the American Industrial Revolution and the shift to a capitalistic society, American workers had to sell their labor in order to make a wage for their survival. As time progressed, many rules and regulations were required for the operation of the factories in order to ensure a safe working environment and conditions for the employees. Although the government came up with labor laws, deceitful employers found alternative ways to exploit their workers to make a profit. It is possible to explore a variety of different sources and see that employers in the 21st century still use tactics by which exploit American employees by using outsourcing as a means to increase their profits. In the article “New Threat to Skilled U.S. Workers”, Froma Harrop raises awareness of the problematic issue concerning the outsourcing of American jobs to other countries. To begin the article, Harrop makes references to Princeton economist Alan Blinder and Ron Hira, a professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology. The main reason for the outsourcing of American jobs, as stated in Harrop’s article, is the problematic H-1b Visa program issued by the government allowing educated foreigners to work in the United States. As a result of the H-1b program, unpatriotic US companies increase their profits by paying less for workers out of the country. According to Harrop, since U.S. companies are paying less for foreign workers, native workers had to suffer the consequence of being required to train H-1b workers who then replaced them at a lower wage; lowered wages consequently led to a decline of young Americans studying science and technology. To conclude the article, Harrop states that U.S. workers need to look out for themselves or they will be exploited. Although Harrop’s argument may be seen as biased, she establishes her credibility by: making references to reputable sources, connecting to the reader’s emotions by using a critical tone, and implementing legitimate, logical examples through out her article.
The only problem I found very apparent in Harrop’s article was how she didn’t explore the positive effects of outsourcing. She creates a biased argument resulting in her seeming ignorant and lacking necessary knowledge of the total overview of globalization and its effects. Harrop’s inability to explain the pros of outsourcing and only focusing on the con, to some extent, distorts her message to the audience reading her article. From her writing style, it is possible to distinguish the audience that she is writing to in her article. With a bias argument, I believe professionals would not see her paper as a justifiable reason for change, but as a paper of illegitimate reasons to banish competition within our society. Therefore, I feel that she is specifically writing to people who have been effected by the H1-B program that was implemented in the past. Although Harrop’s argument maybe seen as biased, she effectively validates her argument about the negative effects of the H1-b visa program by reassuring the audience of her credibility by making references to professional sources. Harrop makes a reference to Ron Hira, a professor of public policy at Rochester Institute of Technology. With Hira as a reference, it is difficult to pinpoint a rebuttle against Harrop since she vividly quotes someone that is understood to have a vast amount of knowledge on the subject. Harrop also introduces Alan Blinder, a Princeton economist, to her article by stating his opinions after her own statements. Having Blinder and Hira both as references increases Harrop’s credibility. If she hadn’t added her references, I don’t think a majority of her statements would be necessarily valid and would be more subjective and not as strong.
Harrops article also effectively appeals to her audience by using a critical tone within her writing. Harrop states, “Companies ask their U.S. employees to train H-1B workers who then replace them at a lower pay.” In response, Hira states, “this is emphatically called, “knowledge transfer. I call it knowledge extraction” (Harrop 148). Although to some, Harrop’s statement can be seen as a normaility of our capitalistic society, I personally believe that by allowing companies to use Ameicans to train H-1B workers to replace them shows a fallacy within our nation. People training foreigners in order to take their own jobs may also be viewed as obscure and degrading. Furthermore, Harrop states,” Another rap against the program is that it’s used to depress the wages of American workers” (Harrop 148). Depressing American wages would have a negative effect on our society. As a result of depressed wages, the American standard of living would have to be minimized in order for people to survive in the global market. If wages continue decline, it is likely that more Americans would claim bankruptcy and could possibly lead to an increase in the homeless rate.
Harrop’s article also conveys her opinion about the negative effects of outsourcing by using a variety of examples. Harrpp states, “ The law of supply and demand states that a shortage of something causes its price to raise” (148) while making reference to the decline of Americans being trained to do work. With Harrop’s reference to the supply and demand curve, I believe it is easier for more people to relate and get a better understanding of her argument. Harrop also states, “They don’t have to train their domestic workforce. They don’t have to raise pay to American standards” (Harrop 149), while supporting her claim about companies being patriotic. Her statement appeals to me because it’s the truth. Without Americans taking the initiative, companies will force American’s to accept jobs for a lower rate of pay. With American’s having to accept jobs for a lower rate of pay, living expenses will have to decrease and it will be much difficult for people to survive. From Harrop’s article, one can conclude that the greed of employers and the fear of workers have led to the current problematic issue involving outsourcing in America. I personally agree with Harrop’s argument and feel that we should do something about outsourcing. At the end of her article, Harrop makes reference to the immigration bill requiring employers to search for U.S. workers first, however the bill isn’t strictly enforced. Harrop claims that it is the American people’s responsibility to do whatever they can to diminish the employers ability to outsource work to other countries. In contrast to common belief that outsourcing may bring efficiency to the work force by creating competition, it is also allowing greedy employers to take advantage of both Americans and H1-B workers.

Work Cited
Harrop, Froma. “New Threat to Skilled U.S Workers”. The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing. Ed. John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, & June Johnson. New York: Pearson Education, 2009. 148-149.