UC知道谁帮忙翻译下下感激万分
来源：百度知道 编辑：UC知道 时间：2024/05/19 09:25:44
Lending useful support to this first error is a second—the idea that there is only so much work to go round. If new technologies render some jobs obsolete, or if an increase in the supply of cheap imports makes other jobs uneconomic, the result must be a permanent rise in unemployment. Again, on a moment's reflection, this is wrong; otherwise, technological progress this century would have pushed unemployment rates in the industrial countries to something in excess of 95%.
At the core of both fallacies is blindness to the adaptive power of a market economy. When today's rich economies were predominantly agricultural, it seemed certain that rapidly rising farm productivity (thank to new technology) would create a permanent army of unemployed, in the days of labor-intensive manufacturing, the same fears were expressed about labor –saving technology in the factory. Farm employment in the industrial countries has dwindled to nearly nothing; manufacturing employment in America
At the core of both fallacies is blindness to the adaptive power of a market economy. When today's rich economies were predominantly agricultural, it seemed certain that rapidly rising farm productivity (thank to new technology) would create a permanent army of unemployed, in the days of labor-intensive manufacturing, the same fears were expressed about labor –saving technology in the factory. Farm employment in the industrial countries has dwindled to nearly nothing; manufacturing employment in America
对这一个第一个错误的借贷有用的支持是第二—主意以只有如此很多的工作变圆。 如果新的技术提出一些工作废语, 或廉宜的进口货的补给增加使其他的工作不经济,结果一定是在失业方面的长备提高。 再一次，在片刻的反映上，这是错误的；以别的方式，科技的进步这世纪会推动对某物的在工业的国家中的失业率超过 95%.
在两个谬见的核心是对市场经济的适合力量的盲目。 当今天的富有经济是居多农业的时候, 它确定快速地上升农场生产力 (对新的技术谢谢) 会产生一队长备的军队失业的，这几天劳力密集产业制造业,相同的恐惧被表达有关劳动–储蓄工厂的技术事。 工业的国家农场雇用已经减少到几乎毫不;制造业美国的雇用以一个小湖 15% 的劳动–力量现在站。 但是其他的工作已经取代他们。 结果，这些变化已经的确靠发生–, 他们已经是部份和–的包裹非常迅速, 固执的而且广泛地分享 liming 标准的进步。