The Worker Next Door
Abstract
The article is titled The Worker Next Door and is written by Barry R. Chiswick. He argues that the migration of low-skilled foreign workers into the U.S coupled with the America-born low-skilled workers has reduced the amount paid to such workers but if the immigration trend were to reverse, their American counterparts would benefit; and if such workers would be unavailable, employers would seek alternatives such as mechanization.
The author’s intended audience is the low-skilled American-born, the low-skilled immigrant workers, the society, and the high-income families. Originally, the author wrote this essay for the technocrats to edge out immigration as source of manpower and in turn raise the skills of the low-skilled workers so as to raise their wages. The author’s article has got sufficient argument to identify his intended audience. First of all, he addresses the employers of the both sets of the low-skilled workers. He does this by refuting the oft said claim that low-skilled immigrant workers are crucial to the American economy as they perform tasks that their American counterparts won’t perform. To refute that claim, he asks the employers in the diverse sectors lettuce and groceries (agriculture), hotel sheets (the hospitality industry), and lawns (employers of domestic workers) what they would do if the low-skilled immigrant workers were not available. Using these examples, he sears into the minds of the employers of the low-skilled workers that despite their over-reliance on such workers, there would always be other alternatives to perform the duties. He also points out the spread of the low-skilled immigrant workers in the U.S and his perspective is that the low-skilled foreign workers are in “’the big six’” which are “California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey and Texas…even in areas with few immigrants, grass is cut, groceries are bagged and hotel sheets are changed.” He tries to imply that the rest of the states with no low-skilled immigrant workers have alternatives to perform the tasks.
The next intended audience is the American-born low-skilled workers. He paints a stark picture of how if the level of the low-skilled immigrant workers would decrease there would be an increment on the wages and that the low-skilled American-born workers and their relatives “would benefit”. The society is addressed by his description of how decreasing low-skilled immigrant workers would benefit “a reduction in income inequality” (Barry). Also, decrease of low-skilled workers would lead to higher of the few available and in turn, increased importation of various items such as “table-quality fruits and vegetables, and lower-priced off-the-rack clothing.”
The other audience addressed is the employers. He describes that these employers should have a reason to thank the increasing number of the low-skilled workers. He states were there to be a reduction in the number of the low-skilled workers, the employers would have to dig deeper into their pockets for the cost of labor, “would raise their prices.” To prop up this argument, he cites an example of the Arizonian lettuce farmer interviewed on “Nightline”, an ABC program, who stated that it would be hard were it not for the low-skilled farm workers since an alternative would be mechanization and it would require more expenses for the services. Also, he states that in such a case, some employers of domestic workers would resort to other alternative such as slow-growing “grass species, alternative ground cover or flagstones”; in the hospitality industry, the rate of “changing sheets and towels” would decrease. The essay could have been written for more than one intended audience because the article is a wheels within wheels context. To describe how technocrats would become involved, the author, delves into the significance and implication of other parties. An example, is whereby the writer quips that it is not sensible for the importation of “people to produce goods in the United States for which we lack a comparative advantage— that is, goods that other countries can produce more efficiently.” Thereby, the writer albeit with an intention, enters other parties, “other countries” into the scene so as to emphasize his point.
The author uses three argumentative appeals namely logical, ethical and emotional. The author uses logical appeal to hammer his point home to his audience. There are two ways in which the authors uses logical appeal. One of them is where after he describes the significance of the low-skilled immigrant workers to the U.S., he asks “would lettuce not be picked, groceries not bagged, hotels sheets not changed, and lawns not mowed?” The other way is on his emphasis of what would happen if the low-skilled workers were to decline; he aptly puts it that “life would go on.” Obviously, his audience would find it hard to refute his logical appeal. The next argumentative appeal used by the author is ethical appeal. He uses this by showing that he is knowledgeable on his subject. He states that the low-skilled immigrant workers are more located in the “big six” which is implied by the California, New Jersey, Florida, New York, and Texas states. He also delves into and cites the 2000 census; and he reviews the data on the low-skilled immigrant workers for the past two decades. He writes sincerely and honestly, and this is reflected by where he writes, “few of us change our sheets and towels at home everyday.” The last argumentative appeal is the emotional appeal. He uses this by developing a bond with the audience in a humane method; this is reflected by where he asserts that lesser “lawn mowing and washing of hotel sheets and towels would reduce air, noise and water pollution in the bargain.”
These argumentative appeals will have an impact on the audience in that they will show the credibility of his article since it will be better supported with sufficient proof and reasoning. Also, the appeals are will convince the audience by making the article effective. The various appeals are effective in convincing the target audience. There are several reasons why the appeals are convincing. One of them is that his article has a strong evidence based on facts, statistics and an interview. In the article, he cites the ABC program’s “Nightline” interview with an Arizonian farmer; and cites the 2000 census data. This strong evidence can vouch for the audience’s reason to rely on the article as there are secondary sources where similar evidence is documented. His honesty and sincerity on his work, such as where he sincerely states how people don’t change their sheets and towels everyday; this is another reason to rely on the article as, ordinarily, many people would shy from publicly making such private comments, yet, he states them boldly. His intelligibility on the subject, and expanse citing is another reason to believe in it. Another reason why it is convincing to the audience is the fact that the author is a decorated scholar, that is, a distinguished professor at the economics department at University of Illinois, Chicago. Therefore, such a scholar must be careful on his publications and arguments, or else, his fellows in his scholarly circles would lose credibility on him. This can be a reliable reason to believe on the article. Lastly, is the fact that the article was first run on the New York Times newspaper . Before articles are published on renown media outlets such as the New York Times, extensive research is made on them.
Work cited
Chiswick, B. R. “The Worker Next Door” 3 June 2006. 24 April 2004 <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/03/opinion/03chiswick.html?_r=1>