题目内容
Opinion polls are now beginning to show that, whoever is to blame and whatever happens from now on, high unemployment is probably here to stay. This means we shall have to find ways of sharing the available employment more widely. But we need to go further. We must ask some fundamental questions about the future work. Should we continue to treat employment as the norm Should we not rather encourage many ways for self-respecting people to work Should we not create conditions in which many of us can work for ourselves, rather than for an employer Should we not aim to revive the household and the neighborhood, as well as the factory and the office, as centers of production and work The industrial age has been the only period of human history in which most people’s work has taken the form of jobs. The industrial age may now be coming to an end, and some of the changes in work patterns which it brought may have to be reversed. This seems a daunting thought. But, in fact, it could offer the prospect of a better future for work. Universal employment, as its history shows, has not meant economic freedom. Employment became widespread when the enclosures of the 17th and 18th centuries made many people dependent on paid work by depriving them of the use of the land and thus of the means to provide a living for themselves. Then the factory system destroyed the cottage industries and removed work from people’s homes. Later, as transport improved, first by rail and then by road, people commuted longer distances to their places of employment until, eventually, many people’s work lost all connection with their home lives and the places in which they live. Meanwhile, employment put women at a disadvantage. In pre-industrial times, men and women had shared the productive work of the household and village community. Now it became customary for the husband to go out to paid employment, leaving the unpaid work of the home and families to his wife. Tax and benefit regulations still assume this norm today, and restrict more flexible sharing of work roles between the sexes. It was not only women whose work status suffered. As employment became the dominant form of work, young people and old people were excluded--a problem now, as more teenagers become frustrated at school and more retired people want to live active lives. All this may now have to change. The time has certainly come to switch some effort and resources away from the idealist goal of creating jobs for all, to the urgent practical task of helping many people to manage without full-time jobs. What does the word "daunting" (Line 4, Par
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
就给定资料所反映的主要问题，用1000字左右的篇幅，自拟标题进行论述。要求中心明确，内容充实，论述深刻，有说服力。
Women’s rights establish the same social, economic and political status for women as for men. Women’s rights guarantee that women will not face discrimination on the basis of their sex. Until the second half of the 20th century, women in most societies were denied some of the legal and political rights accorded to men. Although women in much of the world have gained significant legal rights, many people believe that women still do not have complete political, economic, and social equality with men. Throughout much of the history of Western civilization, deep-seated cultural beliefs allowed women only limited roles in society. Many people believed that women’s natural roles were as mothers and wives. These people considered women to be better suited for childbearing and homemaking rather than for involvement in the public life of business or politics. Widespread belief that women were intellectually inferior to men led most societies to limit women’s education to learning domestic skills. Well educated, upper-class men controlled most positions of employment and power in society. Until the 19th century, the denial of equal rights to women met with only occasional protest and drew little attention from most people. Because most women lacked the educational and economic resources that would enable them to challenge the prevailing social order, women generally accepted their inferior status as their only option. At this time, women shared these disadvantages with the majority of working class men, as many social, economic, and political rights were restricted to the wealthy elite. In the late 18th century in an attempt to remedy these inequalities among men, political theorists and philosophers asserted that all men were created equal and therefore were entitled to equal treatment under the law. In the 19th century, as governments in Europe and North America began to draft new laws guaranteeing equality among men, significant numbers of women--and some men--began to demand that women be accorded equal rights as well. At the same time, the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America further divided the roles of men and women. Before the Industrial Revolution most people worked in fanning or crofts-making, both of which took place in or near the home. Men and women usually divided the numerous tasks among themselves and their children. Industrialization led male workers to seek employment outside of the home in factories and other large-scale enterprises. The growing split between home and work reinforced the idea that women’s rightful place was in the home, while men belonged in the public world of employment and politics. Which of the following statements is TRUE about the situation in the 19th century
Opinion polls are now beginning to show that, whoever is to blame and whatever happens from now on, high unemployment is probably here to stay. This means we shall have to find ways of sharing the available employment more widely. But we need to go further. We must ask some fundamental questions about the future work. Should we continue to treat employment as the norm Should we not rather encourage many ways for self-respecting people to work Should we not create conditions in which many of us can work for ourselves, rather than for an employer Should we not aim to revive the household and the neighborhood, as well as the factory and the office, as centers of production and work The industrial age has been the only period of human history in which most people’s work has taken the form of jobs. The industrial age may now be coming to an end, and some of the changes in work patterns which it brought may have to be reversed. This seems a daunting thought. But, in fact, it could offer the prospect of a better future for work. Universal employment, as its history shows, has not meant economic freedom. Employment became widespread when the enclosures of the 17th and 18th centuries made many people dependent on paid work by depriving them of the use of the land and thus of the means to provide a living for themselves. Then the factory system destroyed the cottage industries and removed work from people’s homes. Later, as transport improved, first by rail and then by road, people commuted longer distances to their places of employment until, eventually, many people’s work lost all connection with their home lives and the places in which they live. Meanwhile, employment put women at a disadvantage. In pre-industrial times, men and women had shared the productive work of the household and village community. Now it became customary for the husband to go out to paid employment, leaving the unpaid work of the home and families to his wife. Tax and benefit regulations still assume this norm today, and restrict more flexible sharing of work roles between the sexes. It was not only women whose work status suffered. As employment became the dominant form of work, young people and old people were excluded--a problem now, as more teenagers become frustrated at school and more retired people want to live active lives. All this may now have to change. The time has certainly come to switch some effort and resources away from the idealist goal of creating jobs for all, to the urgent practical task of helping many people to manage without full-time jobs. What is the main idea of the passage
The Nobel Prize in economics had a difficult birth. It was created in 1969 to mimic the five prizes initiated under Alfred Nobel’s will. These had already been around for 68 years, and purists fought hard to stop the newcomer. Some members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences still dismiss economics as unscientific, and its prize as not a proper Nobel. Early winners were among the prize’s fiercest critics. Gunnar Myrdal, who shared the award in 1974, said the prize ought to be abolished (but he did not return the money). Milton Friedman, winner in 1976, doubted the ability of a few people in Stockholm to make decisions respected around the world. By the 1990s, the Nobel committee had gained a reputation for intransigence. Gary Becker won only after a flood of nominations forced the cabal in Stockholm to act. The fathers of game theory won only after Mr. Nash’s sudden recovery from paranoid schizophrenia, though the disease had no bearing on the quality of his work, the best of which was done before he became ill. Robert Lucas received a prize that many economists believed he should have had much earlier. In 1998, the prize became the subject of countless jokes after the collapse of Long-term Capital Management, a hedge fund firm whose founders included Robert Merton and Myron Scholes, the 1997 Nobel laureates. The Merton Scholes’ choice also highlighted another enduring problem with the prize: untimely deaths. Fischer Black, co-originator of the options pricing model for which Messrs Merton and Scholes were recognized, died a year too soon to join his collaborators on the podium. Last year, many economists hoped that Zvi Griliches, a noted econometrician who was unquestionably deserving of the prize, and was suffering from a long illness, would win. He did not, and died soon afterwards. Because the prize came into being so late, there are still elderly luminaries waiting to be recognized. Paul Samuelson, one of the younger winners, and Mr. Becker, who was a friend of Griliches, want the committee to take old age explicitly into account. The committee could also cast its net more widely across the profession. ①Almost ail, the laureates(戴桂冠的人)are also the theoreticians; advances in empirical work and applications in the past two decades have yet to be paid due respect," a fact bemoaned by Mr. Becker. ②Mr. Samuelson adds that the economics committee’s selection methods have. excessively mimicked those used for the prizes in natural sciences: It" the right apple fell on your head, and you saw it, then you got the prize. But if you had a lifetime of excellence in all branches of physics, you didn’t get it.\ From the first paragraph, we learn that ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付