The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine devoted to regional life:

Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. Even in the recent recession, Helios’s unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. It is the industrial center of the region, and historically it has provided more than its share of the region’s manufacturing jobs. In addition, Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies.

The conclusion that corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities is not substantiated by the report. Rather, the report makes no case for Helios and, even worse, the report uses evidence that runs counter to its own conclusion when making a case for the city of Helios. In this discussion, I will highlight the reports tenuous claims in favor of Helios, describe the counterintuitive claims that Helios makes, and I will conclude with a brief discussion of how the report could be made sounder.
Most glaringly, this report gives businesses a potential reason to avoid Helios rather than set up shop there. The report claims that the unemployment rate in Helios is lower than the regional average. For one, this statement does not mean that Helios’s unemployment rate is low, since the regional average may be much higher than the national average. But more importantly, a low unemployment rate is not good for a company that is looking for labor. In economics, a low unemployment rate means that demand for labor is relatively high, while the supply is relatively low. Therefore, a company would have to pay more to hire workers in Helios if the unemployment rate in the city is low, and therefore a low unemployment rate (in and of itself) is a disincentive rather than an incentive for a company to relocate to a town.
Another example of poor use of evidence in this article the statement that Helios has historically provided more than its share of the region’s manufacturing jobs. Even if Helios is the region’s manufacturing center, is not a reason for companies in other sectors to relocate there. Additionally, this statement also suffers from the same problem evident as the “low unemployment” claim. It may mean that manufacturers seeking lower cost labor may not necessarily see Helios as a good place to go unless they seek other advantages from having other manufacturers nearby, such as a highly trained workforce (which this article does not mention).
Finally, the article makes the vague claim that Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development (R&D), but does not mention how Helios attempts to do this. Nearly all cities want to expand their economic base and attract smart industries, but unless Helios is doing something to actually attract these companies, there is no reason why such companies should go to Helios.
In sum, this article is full of shortcomings and fails to actually make a case for relocating to Helios. If the author wants to woo companies to Helios, she should remove the comment about Helios’ unemployment rate, or at least explain how a low unemployment rate is beneficial to companies. She should also prove that having a high share of manufacturing jobs is a positive trait and exactly what Helios is doing to attract R&D companies.