abject
韩语发音器Divergent Voices about Technology
kay parker-- A short review of How Technology is Destroying Jobs
David Rotman is an editor of MIT Technology Review. As a technology rearcher, he pays attention to the dark side of technology in a really tolerant way in the paper “How Technology is Destroying Jobs”. Let’s review this article today.jay z好听的歌
bitch怎么读
The paper tries to probe into the relation between technology innovation and unemployment. Instead of directly analyzing and arching for the inner mechanism of technology jeopardizing people’s working opportunities, the author choos to thoroughly quote different opinions from scholars in various kinds, making the paper a prudent and dialectical one. Firstly, David introduces Mr. Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s view to us –“rapid technological change has been destroying jobs faster than it is creating them, contributing to the stagnation of median income and the growth of inequality in the United States”– and simultaneously prents to us why so –“technology is advancing so fast and our skills and organizations aren’t keeping up”. Then, in order to add credence to the claim that technology is responsible for the ascending unemployment rate, the writer prents some related examples like Rethink Robotics’ Baxter and Google’s driverless car. Thereafter, David quotes W. Brian Arthur’s view (
米歇尔北大演讲apparently a more reasonable one) that technology is “enabling us to do many things with fewer people and making yet other human jobs obsolete”. Meanwhile, the author gives attention to another kind of view –“it’s very difficult to ‘extricate’the effects of technology from other macroeconomic effects”, so currently it is not sufficiently evident that technology is responsible for unemployment ri. In addition, the writer also refers to some optimistic ideas put forward by David Autor, an economist in MIT. According to Mr. Autor, many rvice works are impossible to automate. In the end of the paper, the author reflects the historical experience of relation between technology innovation and job creation – the technical progress is “most likely a temporary, albeit painful, shock”to the job market. Other scholars quoted later also hold affirmative opinions toward technology. With regard to the possible way to relieve the agony that technology brings to working citizens, Mr. Rotman suggests that we depend on “recognizing the problem and taking steps such as investing more in the training and education of workers”, which is definitely reasonable. However, the paper ends oddly with a negative comment to the tech-driven economics.
Given that many claims are quoted rather than originally written, I’m less impresd by the author this time. However, it is true of Mr. Brynjolfsson to say that by “recognizing the problem and taking steps such as investing more in the training and education of workers” are we likely to recover from unemployment that technology exerts on us.
保密协议英文>俞洪敏演讲The paper is good at universally quoting but lacks eloquent conclusion and consistency between the title and the content.
In short, I generally appreciate the author’s prudent attitude toward the problem studied, but his unlimited compromis between different views are annoying. How much responsibility on earth should technology shoulder for the increasing unemployment rate? I would like to suggest that Mr. Rotman continue his study and give us a clear answer.
Andy Zhou
between的英语怎么读啊
No. 030130023
October 13, 2013
心灵成长
