They believe that technology increases productivity and makes societies wealthier, but it became clear to them that the same technologies making many jobs safer, easier, and more productive were also reducing the demand for many types of human workers. Technologies like the Web, artificial intelligence, and big data are automating many routine tasks. Countless traditional white-collar jobs, such as many in the post office and in customer service, have disappeared.

As evidence, Brynjolfsson and McAfee point to a chart on which separate lines represent productivity and total employment in the United States. For years after World War II, the two lines closely tracked each other, with increases in jobs corresponding to increases in productivity. Then, beginning in 2000, the lines diverge; productivity continues to rise steadily, but employment suddenly shrinks. By 2011, a significant gap appears between the two lines, showing economic growth with no parallel increase in job creation.

United States Productivity and Employment

But are these new technologies really responsible for a decade of lackluster (无生气) job growth? David Autor, an economist at MIT who has studied the connections between jobs and technology, doubts that technology could account for such a sudden change in total employment. Moreover, he also doubts that productivity has, in fact, risen steadily in the United States in the past decade. If he’s right, it raises the possibility that poor job growth could be simply a result of a depressed economy. The sudden slowdown in job creation “is a big puzzle,” he says, “but there’s not a lot of evidence that it’s linked to computers.” “To be sure, computer technologies are changing the types of jobs available, but that is very different from saying technology is affecting the total number of jobs,” he adds. “Jobs can change a lot without there being huge changes in employment rates.”

Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist, says that while technological changes can be painful for workers whose skills no longer match the needs of employers, no historical pattern shows these shifts leading to a net decrease in jobs over an extended period. Still, Katz doesn’t dismiss the notion that there is something different about today’s digital technologies. Though he expects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinely a question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough, who knows what will happen?”

【1】Which period on the chart strongly supports McAfee’s claim?

A. 1947—1967. B. 1985—1987.

C. 1997—2000. D. 2011—2013.

【2】According to David Autor, the change in job growth ________.

A. is not necessarily caused by technology

B. results from a weakening economy

C. has no connection with productivity

D. affects the current types of jobs

【3】What is Lawrence Katz’s attitude towards the topic?

A. Optimistic. B. Defensive.

C. Objective. D. Disapproving.

【4】The main purpose of the passage is to ________.

A. show the relation between productivity and job creation

B. discuss the effect of technological advances on employment

C. argue against the wide use of artificial intelligence

D. explain the impact of technologies on productivity

【答案】

【1】D

【2】A

【3】C

【4】B

【解析】这是一篇议论文。本文讨论了技术进步对就业的影响。

【1】推理判断题。根据第三段中By 2011, a significant gap appears between the two lines, showing economic growth with no parallel increase in job creation.可知，图表上2011—2013强烈支持McAfee的主张。故答案为D。

【2】推理判断题。根据第四段中it raises the possibility that poor job growth could be simply a result of a depressed economy.可知，根据David Autor的说法，就业增长的变化并不一定是由技术造成的，而可能是由萧条的经济造成的。故答案为A。

【3】推理判断题。根据最后一段中Though he expects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinely a question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough, who knows what will happen?”可知，Lawrence Katz对这个话题的态度是客观的。故答案为C。

【4】推理判断题。根据第四段中who has studied the connections between jobs and technology, doubts that technology could account for such a sudden change in total employment. Moreover, he also doubts that productivity has, in fact, risen steadily in the United States in the past decade.可知，这篇文章的主要目的是讨论技术进步对就业的影响。故答案为B。