Telecommuting: will it change the world? Telecommuting will have major effects in the worlds of work

Chia sẻ: Pham Ba Nhat | Ngày: | Loại File: PDF | Số trang:9

Thêm vào BST

Báo xấu

70
lượt xem 10
download

Telecommuting: will it change the world? Telecommuting will have major effects in the worlds of work

Mô tả tài liệu

Download Vui lòng tải xuống để xem tài liệu đầy đủ

Telecommuting: will it change the world? Telecommuting will have major effects in the worlds of work and family life. However, its biggest effect will be in the area of individual freedom, responsibility, and time management. Work and workplaces will alter dramatically. Offices may become smaller, as fewer desks are needed. There will be greater need for highbandwidth connections to link the office and the home, and even homes to other homes, as other employees and supervisors also begin working at home. Hours spent commuting, traffic jams, and fights for parking should diminish, as workers make fewer journeys or work staggered...

Chủ đề:

Bình luận(0) Đăng nhập để gửi bình luận!

Lưu

Nội dung Text: Telecommuting: will it change the world? Telecommuting will have major effects in the worlds of work

Telecommuting: will it change the world? Telecommuting will have major effects in the worlds of work and family life. However, its biggest effect will be in the area of individual freedom, responsibility, and time management. Work and workplaces will alter dramatically. Offices may become smaller, as fewer desks are needed. There will be greater need for high- bandwidth connections to link the office and the home, and even homes to other homes, as other employees and supervisors also begin working at home. Hours spent commuting, traffic jams, and fights for parking should diminish, as workers make fewer journeys or work staggered hours. Family life will also change. Workers, both husbands and wives, can arrange their work around family commitments such as taking children to school, cooking, leisure activities, etc. However, households will also have to set aside areas for work - particularly if both spouses are telecommuting. However, although the ideas of more time at home and less time traveling are attractive, there are some drawbacks to telecommuting. People may feel unable to escape their work, and may even work longer or more unsocial hours. The quality of work may suffer because of the reduced face- to-face interaction with other employees. There may be delays if other workers are not immediately available. Telecommuters may feel isolated or unmotivated, or insecure about decisions. A major change will be in the way people think about work as a place or an institution. Instead, they will focus
on the task or product. Workers may feel less loyal to a company and more inclined to change jobs or work part-time or on contract. In conclusion, the effects are difficult to predict because they depend on the extent to which telecommuting becomes popular. However, telecommuting could be the start of a major societal shift, possibly as big as the Industrial Revolution which created our present ideas of work. Should rich countries help poorer ones? Today, the world is becoming more and more closely linked. Trade has increased and the movement of people between countries is greater than ever before. However, billions of people still live in poverty, and in many places, the gap between rich and poor is widening. This essay will look at the arguments for and against helping poor countries. There are many reasons for helping poor countries. First of all, there are humanitarian reasons. Like individuals who give to charity, many countries feel it is their religious, social, or moral duty to help people in other countries who are suffering from famine, drought, war, or disease. However, many rich countries also donate money for political or diplomatic reasons. They want to maintain a relationship of dependency with the recipient, or simply to influence the government and direction of the country. A further reason why many countries help poorer ones is for economic reasons. The donors may want to control the supply of commodities such as oil, water, or
wheat. Alternatively, the richer country may want to ensure markets for their own products, whether these are planes, computers or shoes. However, aid is not necessarily the best way to help a country. For one thing, billions of dollars of aid often goes missing, into corrupt governments or inefficient administration. A second point is that many foreign aid projects are unsuitable for the target country. Many agencies build huge dams or industrial projects that fail after a few years or that do not involve the local people. Furthermore, much aid returns to the donor. This can be in the form of expensive specialized equipment and experts from the donor country. There are many other ways we can help poor countries. Opening up trade barriers, so that poor countries can sell their goods is one way. Another is to remove subsidies so that imported goods from poorer countries can compete fairly. A third method is to forgive debts. Many poor countries have huge interest repayments on old loans. The needs of the poorer countries may seem obvious. However, although our humanity makes us want to help eliminate poverty and suffering, we must examine the real needs of poor countries and implement solutions that will benefit both them and us. Who learns faster - children or adults? Small children seem to learn very quickly, while adults sometimes appear to lose the ability to pick up new subject such as languages, music,
games, or computer programs. In this essay, I will discuss whether children or adults make the best learners. It is undoubtedly true that children seem to learn very quickly. In just a few years, they can learn how to play a musical instrument, speak one or even two new languages, and deal with many subjects at school. They even have time for sports and hobbies, and become experts in their favorite pastimes. However, how much of this is social pressure and how much is genetic? I am convinced that while children's brains have a natural ability to absorb new information as part of their developmental growth, much of their achievement is because of social pressure. Schools force them to take many subjects. Parents force them to practice new sports or to learn music. Even their playmates force them to become better at computer games or to read Harry Potter novels faster. In summary, children may enjoy learning, but their environment also is a big motivating factor. Adults on the other hand are supposed to be poor learners. However, I disagree with people who say that adults cannot learn quickly. Adults have many skills that compensate for the decline in the ability of the brain to grasp and remember new material. They can organize their learning by setting times for reading or practice. They can build on skills and experiences they know already. Adults usually cannot learn to do ballet or to play the violin, but even despite these physical challenges, their motivation can often be higher than a child's. Unfortunately, society does not encourage many adults to learn. People are busy with families and work, and some adults may feel that further learning is pointless, since they have already achieved many goals at work or in their personal life.
In conclusion, I feel that we cannot generalize about children or adults being better learners. It depends on the situation and the motivation of the person, and the level of enthusiasm he or she has for learning. Should children be educated at home or in school? Home Schooling: The Right Choice? Are parents really helping their children by teaching them at home? In most countries in the world, governments require children to attend schools in which trained teachers are responsible for educating the children using an approved curriculum. However a significant number of parents believe that it is much better for their children to be educated at home by the people who know them and their needs best. This essay will examine the question of home schooling and discuss which the best option for the child is An increasing number of parents are deciding that home schooling is the best option for their children. They are unhappy with the quality or depth of education offered in the schools, or have other reasons why they feel that traditional schools are not suitable for their children. One reason is social factors. Parents worry that their children will suffer from bullying or will be forced into antisocial behavior by peer pressure. They believe that the good behavior they have taught the child will be lost in school. Another reason is concern over the quality of schooling available. Schools frequently have large
classes. They are often under-funded, and staffed by teachers without sufficient knowledge of their subjects. Subjects such as the family’s religion or language may not even be available in the school. Other parents may disagree with the aims of the school curriculum, preferring for academic, social or cultural reasons to keep their children separate. Finally, some children with special needs may need particular parental care. However, there are many arguments in favor of sending children to conventional schools. The first is that the children will be exposed to other children. These children may represent either a cross-section of society or a narrow group, but in either case the children will interact with each other and develop social skills. A second point is that the children will learn to function outside the family. They will not be dependent on their parents for their educational, emotional and social needs. A third point is that the children will find it easier to integrate when they finish school, as they eventually will, when they start work or college. Overall, while many parents work hard to teach their children at home, conventional schools are still the right choice for most children. Schools are not perfect, but they seem to be a proven way of preparing our children for the real world. Animal Testing Animal testing may be necessary, but we need to be be merciful Every year, millions of animals undergo painful suffering or death as a result of scientific research into the effects of drugs, food additives, cosmetics and other chemical products. While most people think animal testing is
necessary, others are upset by what they see as needless suffering. This essay looks at some of the positive and negative aspects of animal testing. Many medical treatments and procedures have been developed from experiments on animals. Since animals share many features with humans, scientists use animals to test the safety and effectiveness of newly developed drugs before pilot testing on small groups of patients. Medical teams practice new operating techniques such as transplants on animals. Without animal testing, many procedures or new drugs would be extremely unsafe. However, many people are concerned that animals are suffering unnecessarily and cruelly. They do not believe that every new drug needs to be tested on animals, especially with the huge database of knowledge and modern computer models. They also are worried that many animal tests are ineffective, pointing out that any drugs have had to be withdrawn from the market despite extensive testing. They particularly feel that animal testing should not be used for non-essential products such as cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, and cleaning products. Furthermore, some campaigners would like to see certain tests replaced and more humane methods used. We need to make sure that the millions of animals who are used for testing new products are treated with the minimum of suffering. Although some animal testing may be unavoidable at present, treating our fellow creatures as mercifully as possible will demonstrate our humanity.
Spending on Art Art is a basic human need. Governments have a responsibility to spend money on art for their citizens. (Shorter version: 260 words) Many people's lives are richer because of art - music, paintings, calligraphy, pictures, sculpture, poems and dance. However, some people feel that governments should be spending money on housing, medical care, or defence, instead of on art. This essay will discuss whether governments should or should not spend money on the arts. There are several reasons why governments should not finance artists. First of all, artists should have to follow the same rules as the rest of the market. If there is a demand for their music or sculpture, then they will be rich. Secondly, politicians generally do not have good taste. They will waste public money on popular art or on their own preferences. But the main reason why governments should minimize spending on the art world is that there are more important areas like housing, roads, hospitals, and factories which need the money first. However, it would be wrong to say that governments should not spend any money at all on art. Everybody needs some beauty in their life, but not everyone can afford a Picasso or a piece of music. Governments should provide money for museums or concert halls for everyone. Another point is that art allows people to express themselves and this is good for society,
culture and thought. Thirdly, artists can be good for the economy by producing music, films, and attracting tourists. All in all, governments should prioritize their spending carefully, but they should also allocate some of their budget for art. It is part of their duty to society and to future generations.

CÓ THỂ BẠN MUỐN DOWNLOAD