(토요모임) [ 09. Feb. 2019 ] Saturday meeting topic

[Scarlet]

Howdy ! 

It's me Scarlett !   

This week we will talk about the ' Change Management, Social Justice Achievment & Technological Development '.  Second issue is about inequality problem & countermeasures in our society. And Third category is about technological development and related ethical issues.

For third section, the movie 'GATTACA' has been chosen. It has been one of my favorite movie ever. This movie shows us the futuristic and philosophical views on the human society based on the technological development. The thing makes human achieve their goals is not external conditions but inner desire and passion. In this perspective, this movie will makes you think in many aspects of your life.

Do not be obsessed with all the articles too much. Just pick some articles what you have interests and prepare your opinions related to those articles. :) 

Hope you enjoy the topics. 

◈ Change Management

---- Managing Complex Change
---- HOW TO DEAL WITH CHANGE - WHO MOVED MY CHEESE BY SPENCER JOHNSON | Animated Video Audio Book Summary
---- Today is the 20th anniversary of ‘Who Moved My Cheese?’ Why does it still move us?

◈ Social Justice Achievement 

---- Ocasio-Cortez's 70% tax plan gets fierce response, but even Warren Buffett says rich should pay more
---- Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
---- Wealth tax. 70 percent rates. Medicare-for-all. Let’s take a breath.
---- We have built an unequal world. Here’s how we can change it

◈ Technological Development 

---- 10 New Breakthrough Technologies 2014 | MIT Technology Review

---- Genetic engineering & Human society
---- Brain hi-jacking could become a reality soon, warn researchers
---- Jobs of the future

With luv 

Scarlett

-----------------------------------------------------------

Wall Street Weighs In On AOC's Proposed 70% Marginal Tax Hike | Davos 2019

One of the hottest topics at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland has been Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's proposed 70% marginal tax rate on all income above $10 million. There have been many headlines out of Davos with business leaders calling the proposed tax disastrous, scary, and saying it will have a huge impact on the economy. We sat down with three financial heavyweights to find out what they think everyone is missing about this discussion. The general consensus was that while such a hefty tax would hurt the economy, it simply doesn't effect enough people to be a major issue.

Moelis & Co. founder and CEO Ken Moelis says there isn’t a problem with a high tax on income above $10 million dollars because there isn't that much income to tax above that level. Marginal tax rates need to start around $250,000 in order to have an impact.  And a 70% tax rate at that level "would crush the economy."

Guggenheim Partners global CIO Scott Minerd agrees that the amount brought in by a 70% tax above the $10 million income level won’t make enough of a difference even if you assume people will pay it. But Minerd says historically when we have had high marginal tax rates wealthy people have sheltered their income.

Bob Prince, the co-CIO of Bridgewater — the largest hedge fund in the world — says this tax won't be good because it won't solve many problems.

Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs2mQxiZf_k

-----------------------------------------------------------

HOW TO DEAL WITH CHANGE - WHO MOVED MY CHEESE BY SPENCER JOHNSON | Animated Video Audio Book Summary

-----------------------------------------------------------

Managing Complex Change
2016년 4월 21일/ Stephanie Blackburn Freeth / Strategic planning consultant and executive coach partnering with purpose-driven leaders and organizations

Greek philosopher Heraclitus is credited with saying, “The only constant is change” around 500 BC. This idea rings true today. I get a close view of the complex change nonprofits face when we do strategic planning together. Managing complex change is inevitable, and it’s something we could all understand a little better.
Here is one framework I first saw during my Leadership Detroit experience. It’s now something I refer to repeatedly when I work on strategic planning and fundraising projects with clients. When you think from a systems perspective, the elements needed to manage complex change make sense. Change doesn’t happen just because someone declares a goal. Change requires:

VISION + SKILLS + INCENTIVES + RESOURCES + ACTION PLAN = CHANGE

Any good strategic planning process will address each of these, but implementing each one consistently over time is where things can get tricky. This framework was created and copyrighted by Dr. Mary Lippitt. It shows what it can feel like in an organization when any one of these 5 elements is missing.

Update: I learned in January 2019 that the Managing Complex Change model was created by Dr. Mary Lippitt (1987). The source I first credited in my original 2016 post was Knoster, Villa and Thousand (2000). It has been used in a variety of business and educational settings, and it’s widely applicable to any number of contexts.
What I love about Dr. Lippitt's model is that it distills some intertwined factors in a clear visual framework. Every group I have worked with who has seen this gets it. I like to use this framework at the beginning of a strategic planning process and then refer back to it at key points with questions like:

- Is the new vision statement compelling enough to inspire action from current and new partners and stakeholders?

- Skills: What skills need to be strengthened with staff and board to bring about change?

- Incentives: What incentives and measurements need to be in place to achieve each goal?

- Resources: What resources are missing? How can additional resources be raised or earned sustainably?

- Action Plan: Does the strategic plan we’re developing together give you a clear road map for the next 3-5 years? Will you be able to follow this action plan without getting distracted?

I hope Dr. Lippitt's framework can provide some clarity to a situation where you are in the midst of complex change. I’d love to hear your examples of how you’ve seen this play out in your organizations. Comments welcome here or at stephanie@adaptivealt.com!

Article source : https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/managing-complex-change-stephanie-blackburn-freeth/?fbclid=IwAR3zw4Mo46iafxdNbLvbG0VzP095FTLUsoio-D4GD3EKrQhvK_nvLIi4pgY

--------------------------------------------------------

Today is the 20th anniversary of ‘Who Moved My Cheese?’

Why does it still move us?

By Ron Charles/ Critic, Book World/ September 6, 2018

Two decades ago, only one man understood the transformative power of his parable about industrious mice. Now the world knows.

Sept. 8 marks the 20th anniversary of Spencer Johnson’s “Who Moved My Cheese?,” one of the most unlikely bestsellers in American publishing. Since 1998, when it first appeared in print, this brief self-help title has sold almost 30 million copies, and its sales are still Gouda. Johnson, a physician who turned to writing early in his career, required his American publisher to keep his masterpiece always in hardback — never paperback — so that readers would take it seriously. And they do.

In the world of business books, the “Cheese” stands alone.
Johnson’s big-print fable captured the imagination of a whole generation of managers, but the question of what moved “Who Moved My Cheese?” remains something of a mystery. Its phenomenal success exceeded the expectations of almost everyone involved at the beginning. After all, the title sounded silly, and years had passed since Johnson had co-written “The One Minute Manager” with Kenneth Blanchard. So when early sales of “Who Moved My Cheese?” languished, no one was particularly shocked. One former publishing executive recalls that the book looked all but dead.

But then, several months later, orders started pouring in — not just from bookstores but from businesses, too. Johnson was on the road, delivering motivational and management talks; word of mouth began to spread. Fortune magazine reported that executives at Procter & Gamble, General Electric and Hewlett-Packard were recommending the book. Southwest Airlines ordered copies for all its 27,000 employees.

Praised, imitated and satirized, “Who Moved My Cheese?” became a fixture on the bestseller list. Snobs claimed to be lactose intolerant to Johnson’s wisdom, but millions of fans kept recommending the book to others.

Why?
In fewer than 60 pages, Johnson tells the story of “four little characters who ran through a Maze looking for cheese to nourish them and make them happy.” Every day, they find their prize in a corridor called “Cheese Station C.” But then one morning the cheese isn’t there, and it isn’t ever coming back to that spot. The two mice, Sniff and Scurry, immediately head off to find more cheese elsewhere. But the two little people, Hem and Haw, are devastated. “Who moved my Cheese?” Hem hollers.

Their struggles are the essence of Johnson’s moral: Hem continues to whine that he can’t have his whey, but Haw eventually realizes that he’s got to change. If he hopes to survive, he must let go of the past and discover new cheese.
 
If newspaper publishers, travel agents and switchboard operators ignored that message, it wasn’t for lack of clarity. Johnson’s tale develops with leaden deliberateness, punctuated by full-page slogans printed over wedges of cheese, e.g. “If You Do Not Change, You Can Become Extinct.” Imagine Mister Rogers as a Scientologist who works in HR.

At the very end of the book, after the fable, we find a cheesy story about several old friends who have come to Chicago for a high school reunion. They gather in a hotel lounge and talk about how meaningful they find the story of the missing cheese, which is enough to keep me from ever attending another high school reunion. “Maybe that’s the whole point,” one of the friends says. “Change happens to all of us.”

This is not a particularly fresh observation. Long before Johnson’s harried mice, people referred to modern life as a “rat-race.” In 1900, Henry Adams stood transfixed before an enormous generator at the Paris Exposition and saw a vision of our manic future: “At the rate of progress since 1800, every American who lived into the year 2000,” he wrote, “would think in complexities unimaginable to an earlier mind. He would deal with problems altogether beyond the range of earlier society.”

Johnson is no Adams, but a lot more people are reading “Who Moved My Cheese?” than have ever read “The Education of Henry Adams,” which has everything to do with the elementary manner of Johnson’s presentation. Johnson, who died last year at the age of 78, writes in a style that’s the literary equivalent of plastic-wrapped slices of American cheese. He practiced that tone in the 1970s, when he published a children’s series of “Valuetale” biographies that celebrated, say, the courage of Jackie Robinson or the curiosity of Christopher Columbus. In Johnson’s work, the staples of modern literature — irony, ambiguity, complexity — are noticeable only in their absence, like the holes in a chunk of Swiss cheese.

That’s not a flaw; it’s what allowed Johnson’s fable to age so well.

Adrian Zackheim, the founder and publisher of Portfolio, a business book imprint at Penguin Random House, met Johnson in 1981 and worked with him right up until the time he died. “Spencer had this really absolutely unique talent for telling a story in a way that it stuck to people’s memories,” Zackheim says. “It was just uncanny, and he crossed national boundaries with apparent ease. Consider that ‘Who Moved My Cheese?’ was a huge bestseller . . . in China, where in most parts of China nobody even knows what cheese is exactly.”

But Mitch Horowitz, a historian of alternative spirituality, sees something essentially American in “Who Moved My Cheese?” He calls it “the consummate American self-help book.” “Many of the most popular self-help books in American history either have a religious inflection or are written, however subtly, from a perspective of faith,” Horowitz says. He places Johnson’s book in the ethereal realm of such bestsellers as “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” “The Power of Positive Thinking,” “A Purpose-Driven Life,” “How to Win Friends and Influence People” and even “The Secret.”

“Who Moved My Cheese?” has all the requisite qualities of these other self-help bestsellers: extravagant claims to universal application, great profundity nested in numbing simplicity, catchphrases designed for infinite repetition.

It’s a method that has impressed even the most hardcore academic business professors. John Kotter spent decades teaching at the Harvard Business School and knew Johnson for years. When Johnson showed him an early copy of “Who Moved My Cheese?,” Kotter didn’t think much of it, but he eventually came to appreciate the story’s message.

“I’m sure there are some people who put Spencer in a category and think very cynically about . . . motivational speakers and these writers of these trashed books that say, ‘Here are the three things that will make you rich or three things that will make you happy.’ But the Spencer that I knew was not a cynical guy. He derived much more personal satisfaction from knowing or hoping, at least, that his works were actually making a difference in people’s lives.”

For Kotter, Johnson’s essential message isn’t about learning to live with constant change but daring to live without crippling fear. The question, he says, that everyone remembers from “Who Moved My Cheese?” is “What Would You Do If You Weren’t Afraid?”

“It is very easy to mock,” Kotter admits. “But if you could get him in a reflective mood, Spencer would say something along the lines of, ‘If it helps a million, isn’t that a worthy endeavor?’ ”

Johnson died while editing “Out of the Maze,” a sequel to his most famous book. It will be published in a joint venture between Putnam and Portfolio on Nov. 13. Zackheim says, “It puts you under a spell in the same way that ‘Cheese’ does, and then it reveals an idea set that’s both simple and very challenging.”

Take that, cheese snobs.

Ron Charles writes about books for The Washington Post and hosts TotallyHipVideoBookReview.com.

Article source : https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/who-moved-my-cheese-became-a-monster-hit-twenty-years-later-were-still-wondering-why/2018/09/05/89a6e9aa-ac5e-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html?utm_term=.2f94d2b71871

--------------------------------------------------------

< Questions > 

Q1. When do you feel that you need to change something? 

Q2. When you want to change something what ingredients are required? Above article suggested below diagram represents structure of changes. Do you think this makes sense? 

Q3. What is the strategical planning? Do you apply strategical planning when you want changes? 

Q4. Have you ever read the book 'Who moved my cheese?' written by Spencer johnson? Did you get any lessons from this book? What was it?

Q5. In this book, there are 4 characters who are two mice named ‘Sniff’ and ‘Scurry’ and two Littlepeople named ‘Hem’ and ‘Haw.’ Johnson tells the story of “four little characters who ran through a Maze looking for cheese to nourish them and make them happy.” In terms of change management, which character do you resemble the most?

Q6. How do you deal with the risks? What kinds of risks do you find individually, organizaionally or socially?

Q7. Are you a risk taker or do you like to stay away from risks? Please share your specific experiences.

Q8. How do you recognize when you need to change? 

Q9. Do you have a change manager in your organization? Do you have a ability as a change manager for dealing with your own risk ?

--------------------------------------------------------

Ocasio-Cortez's 70% tax plan gets fierce response, but even Warren Buffett says rich should pay more

Catherine Clifford  5:33 PM ET Mon, 7 Jan 2019

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has had no shortage of attention since she became, at 29, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, one who is unafraid to push controversial progressive policies.

Sunday, she got a new surge of attention calling for a tax rate as high as 70 percent for the rich on the CBS's "60 Minutes" in an interview with Anderson Cooper.

While some see Ocasio-Cortez's plan as outrageous, or "a terrible idea," as former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan called it,she is not alone in calling for the wealthy to pay higher taxes. There is one very notable and wealthy financier who is an unabashed advocate of raising taxes on the wealthy: billionaire Warren Buffett.

In a 2011 piece Buffett penned in the New York Times titled "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich," he called for a raise on taxes for everyone making more than $1 million. He called for an even more severe tax hike on those making more than $10 million or more. (Buffett did not provide specific tax rates.)

"I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn't mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering," Buffett wrote in the Times. "My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."

Also, Buffett says he has not seen higher tax rates discourage investment. "People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off," Buffett writes in the Times.
The Oracle of Omaha, so named for his Midas Touch with investing and his hometown in Nebraska, is currently worth more than $81 billion, according to Forbes, is famous for his critique of the United States tax code by saying he pays a lower tax rate than does his own secretary.

Buffett does not begrudge the wealthy their success, nor does he blame the rich for others' struggles. "The poor are most definitely not poor because the rich are rich," he said in a 2015 op-ed he wrote for the Wall Street Journal. "Nor are the rich undeserving. Most of them have contributed brilliant innovations or managerial expertise to America's well-being. We all live far better because of Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton and the like."
But he does advocate for the well off to support the retraining of those left behind by the ever-modernizing economy.
And he does not have a problem with his inheritance being taxed.
"I don't think I need a tax cut. For example, the current proposal eliminates the estate tax," Buffett said to Becky Quick on "Squawk Box" in October 2017, in discussing reforms then under debate. "The truth is: if they passed the bill that they're talking about, I could leave $75 billion to a bunch of children and grandchildren and great grandchildren and if I left it to 35 of them, they would each have a couple of billion dollars. They could put it out at 5 percent and have $100 million. Is that a great way to allocate resources in the United States?"
Under that plan, Buffet's family would be set financially for life.
"If they were lucky enough to come out of the right room and have the right name, Buffett, they could build tombs for themselves like Egyptian pharaohs never dreamt of. They could do anything and capitalism was all about intelligent allocation of resources," Buffett told Quick, according to a transcript of the interview. "But if they blow it all, that means that they've done some dumb things with some important resources. That's not good for capitalism I don't think it's good for the children. I sure don't think it's good for a society where there's a ton of inequality to start with."
Buffett has also taken issue with, more broadly, accelerating wealth inequality in the United States.
"The real problem, in my view, is — this has been — the prosperity has been unbelievable for the extremely rich people," said Buffett on PBS Newshour in June. "If you go to 1982, when Forbes put on their first 400 list, those people had [a total of] $93 billion. They now have $2.4 trillion, [a multiple of] 25 for one," he says. "This has been a prosperity that's been disproportionately rewarding to the people on top."

Ocasio-Cortez's tax comment was made during a conversation policy: She has championed an ambitious environmental program, dubbed the "Green New Deal," which calls for the United States to operate entirely on renewable sources of energy in 12 years. She has also promised that all Americans will have a job with a "fair" wage, CBS "60 Minutes" says. To accomplish this would require higher taxes, Cooper says, according to a transcript of the segment.

Ocasio-Cortez didn't disagree. "There's an element where — yeah. [P]eople are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes."
She continued: "You know, it— you look at our tax rates back in the '60s and when you have a progressive tax rate system. Your tax rate, you know, let's say, from zero to $75,000 may be ten percent or 15 percent, et cetera. But once you get to, like, the tippy tops— on your 10 millionth dollar— sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent. That doesn't mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder you should be contributing more."
Cooper, on "60 Minutes," points out the ambition of her idea: "What you are talking about, just big picture, is a radical agenda — compared to the way politics is done right now."
The cohort of Americans earning more than $10 million a year currently pays the top marginal tax rate of 37 percent, CNBC.com says.

To her skeptics, Ocasio-Cortez is defiant.
"I think that it only has ever been radicals that have changed this country. Abraham Lincoln made the radical decision to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the radical decision to embark on establishing programs like Social Security," the young Congresswoman from New York t Cooper.
"Do you call yourself a radical?" Cooper asks.
"Yeah. You know, if that's what radical means, call me a radical," she says.

Article source : https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/07/ocasio-cortezs-70percent-tax-even-warren-buffett-says-rich-should-pay-more.html

--------------------------------------------------------

Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
Jul 8, 2018/ Jeffrey Dorfman

>> It is certainly true that Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark are notable economic successes. What is false is that these countries are particularly socialist.

>> Perhaps a better name for what the Nordic countries practice would be compassionate capitalism.

As the American left embraces a platform that continues to look more and more like a socialist’s dream, it is common for those on the right to counter with the example of Venezuela as the nightmare of socialism in reality. A common response from the left is that socialism (or democratic socialism) works just fine in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. It is certainly true that Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark are notable economic successes. What is false is that these countries are particularly socialist.

The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.

To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.

A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.

We can also confirm‎ these isolated facts by looking at a comprehensive measure of capitalism relative to socialism. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based, pro-free market, think tank, compiles a worldwide ranking of countries called the economic freedom index. Its website explains that its ranking “is an effort to identify how closely the institutions and policies of a country correspond with a limited government ideal, where the government protects property rights and arranges for the provision of a limited set of “public goods” such as national defense and access to money of sound value, but little beyond these core functions.” Clearly, a socialist country should perform poorly in any ranking based on these principles.

What we find, however, is the Nordic countries rank quite high on this index of economic freedom. In fact, while Hong Kong and Singapore top the list and the U.S. ranks 12th, we can find the Nordic countries in quite respectable rankings. Denmark ranks 15, Finland 17, Norway 25, and Sweden 27. In terms of numerical scores, Sweden is only 5% lower than the U.S. For further comparison, South Korea and Japan, both considered fairly pro-free market, rank 32 and 39, respectively.

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things. Yes, they offer government-paid healthcare, in some cases tuition-free university educations, and rather generous social safety nets, all financed with high taxes. However, it is possible to do these things without interfering in the private sector more than required. It is allowing businesses to be productive that produces the high corporate and personal incomes that support the tax collections making the government benefits feasible. The Nordic countries are smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

If the left insists on naming a system of generous government benefits combined with a free market democratic socialism, I cannot stop them. That seems unnecessarily confusing since the government is actually running no industries other than education (and meddling somewhat in healthcare). It certainly isn’t socialism. In fact, the only reason most such countries can afford those benefits is that their market economies are so productive they can cover the expense of the government’s generosity. Perhaps a better name for what the Nordic countries practice would be compassionate capitalism.

Jeffrey Dorfman is a professor of economics at The University of Georgia. His last popular press book is an e-book, Ending the Era of the Free Lunch. You can follow him on Twitter @DorfmanJeffrey

Article source : https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#2ff9afa274ad

--------------------------------------------------------

Wealth tax. 70 percent rates. Medicare-for-all. Let’s take a breath.
By Steven Pearlstein / Columnist

It’s still a year before the Iowa caucuses and already Democratic politicians are tripping over each other to frame the policy debate and demonstrate their progressive bona fides to party activists.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 29-year-old congresswoman from the Bronx and the media darling of the freshman class, opened the bidding by proposing a 70 percent tax rate on incomes above $10 million. In case anyone doubted her anti-capitalist leanings, her top policy adviser adopted a new Twitter handle, Every Billionaire Is A Policy Failure.

Not to be outflanked, presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) — who months before had already weighed in with a proposal requiring big corporations to set aside 40 percent of their board seats for workers — unveiled her plan for a 3 percent wealth tax on billionaires, or 2 percent on households with assets above $50 billion.

The chattering class was still chewing Warren’s wealth tax when Sen. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) announced her presidential ambitions by relaunching a proposal for a $3,000 per person refundable tax credit for working households at or below the median income.

Feeling left behind, the socialist senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, quickly weighed in with his plan to restore the inheritance tax to where it was in the 1970s: 45 percent for estates valued at $3.5 million and rising to 77 percent for billionaires.
Meanwhile, liberal backbenchers, flush from the Democratic takeover of the House, were busy dusting off ideas like debt-free college, Medicare-for-all and something called a Green New Deal, although nobody was quite sure yet exactly what that meant.

Centrists who dared to step forward to criticize these proposals were immediately shouted down as morally compromised sellouts — all the more so if they happened to be baby boomer billionaires with presidential ambitions. The campaign to dismiss and disqualify these discordant voices was reminiscent of a similar effort four years ago against anyone who dared to question the wisdom or the inevitability of Hillary Clinton’s presidency.

The outbreak of bold, fresh thinking and moral fervor on the Democratic left is certainly something to be celebrated. In the liberal mixture of outrage and idealism can be heard the echoes of Robert Kennedy’s presidential campaign of 50 years ago, when he memorably declared, “Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were, and ask why not.”

Today, Kennedy’s grandson, Rep. Joe Kennedy (Mass.), speaks eloquently of a new, more moral version of American capitalism, one that is “judged not by how much it produces but how widely it shares it, and how much good it does for how many.”
While we can applaud those who have launched this much needed public conversation about economic justice, however, that doesn’t excuse their bullying efforts to banish thoughtful criticism or competing ideas.

The more socialist countries of northern Europe abandoned tax rates above 70 percent because they spawned countless schemes for tax avoidance. More significantly that they sapped their economies of their vibrancy and their entrepreneurial spirit. The lesson to take from this failed experiment in confiscatory tax rates is not to punish the rich or unwind the injustices of the marketplace. Rather, the primary purpose of taxation must be to fund necessary government activities and worthwhile programs in a manner that least distorts economic behavior and impinges on economic growth.
Yes, up to a point, a tax and transfer system that modestly redistributes income to those who most need it can be consistent with good public finance. But if those modest efforts fail to achieve a level of income inequality that we find morally unacceptable, then the right way to deal with that is to change the rules and norms of the marketplace that generate such uneven outcomes — adjusting labor, antitrust and patent laws and the rules of corporation governance. It is possible to achieve both a fairer and an equally dynamic economy without having to resort to tax rates above 50 percent.

We can also learn from experience with the wealth tax, which many European countries abandoned because of the difficulties in calculating the tax and the ease with which it is avoided. Nearly the same amount of money could be raised from the same people by modestly increasing the income tax on investment profits and applying to unrealized gains at death. And rather than imposing a steep tax on estates, it would be simpler and politically more palatable to tax individuals on their inheritances, just as we do lottery winners.
No less flawed is Warren’s demand for worker representation on corporate boards. That may work well in Germany, where there is national wage setting, unions in every company and a culture of labor-management cooperation. But it would be folly to do here.
The fundamental problem with American corporate governance is not the makeup of boards but the imperative imposed on them by Wall Street to “maximize” profits and share price. Reining in the power of investors and giving companies the freedom to come up with their statements of corporate purpose — these would be more effective ways to get American companies to strike a better balance among the interest of all their stakeholders.

I am sympathetic with Harris’s plan for what amounts to a negative income tax that would put an income floor under all Americans — I recently proposed something similar myself. But to make such an idea affordable and attract conservative supporters of universal basic income would also require cutting back on existing support programs, particularly those that involve large bureaucracies and high compliance costs and demean low-income recipients. Unwilling to challenge liberal interest groups, Harris rejected that approach out of hand.

I will be the first to acknowledge that ideas like the wealth tax or putting workers on boards are easier to understand and more apt to energize the political base than changing the tax treatment for unrealized capital gains or adjusting the fiduciary duties of corporate directors. But the reason our government has become as dysfunctional as it has is because the process of running for office has become totally divorced from the process of governing — think Donald Trump and the border wall that Mexico is going to pay for.

These days, what animates the fringes of both parties is the fantasy that they can win elections by throwing out bold, ideologically divisive proposals and then, once in office, using the stick of party discipline to run over the opposition and foist these policies on a still skeptical and badly divided public. In an era of winner-take-all tribalism, building broad public consensus, accepting half a loaf, taking things one step at a time — these are dismissed out of hand.

Such the problem with making Medicare-for-all. Yes, if we were starting from scratch, of course we’d opt for a government-funded national health system, just like every other advanced country. But the reality is that for most Americans, our system of private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance is working pretty well. Despite the best efforts of Republicans to sabotage it, Obamacare has demonstrated that universal coverage can be achieved, and medical costs brought under control, which in the end is what we care about. Why take the very real political and policy risks of blowing everything up and starting again?
The problem with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is not that its ideas are too bold or too radical — it is that it is too wedded to specific, highly symbolic policy prescriptions, too apt to confuse compromise for capitulation, too ready to demonize those who disagree and turn off those who are undecided.

Wouldn’t it be more effective, for example, to talk about every American being able to buy decent health insurance at a cost they can afford, irrespective of income or health condition? Or promise that, within a decade, no working family would be living in poverty? Without specifying tax rates, why not just declare that those with annual incomes above a quarter of a million dollars shoulder a bigger share of the tax burden so that the government could make urgently needed public investments in infrastructure, education and child care? Or that every company share some of its profits with its front-line employees? Why not simply declare that increasing inequality, declining opportunity and great concentrations of wealth and power are the greatest threat to our democracy — and that government urgently needs to do something about it?
By framing the economic debate in terms of these widely supported aspirations, rather than a flawed set of policy litmus tests, Democrats could energize their base, unify their party and put Republicans on the defensive. Indeed, there is even model for such an approach: the 2008 Obama presidential campaign.
The problem with our political debates is that they have become too much about means and not enough about ends, too much about economic values and too little about moral ones, too much about individual rights and not enough about collective responsibility.
Rally Americans around a worthy national goal and they will find a practical way to achieve it.
But try to cram down their throats a hard-edge, anger-driven, now-its-our-turn policy and they will instinctively reject it.
Trump and the tea party Republicans have learned this lesson the hard way. It would be folly for Democrats to blow this golden opportunity by repeating their mistakes.

Article source : https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/wealth-tax-70-percent-rates-medicare-for-all-lets-take-a-breath/2019/02/05/b1373fe6-28a1-11e9-b2fc-721718903bfc_story.html?utm_term=.12563f40c971 

-----------------------------------------------------------

We have built an unequal world. Here’s how we can change it
22 Jan 2018/ Winnie Byanyima/ Executive Director, Oxfam International

Here’s something we’re rarely told growing up: our world rewards wealth, not hard work or talent.
It would pain me to tell our young girls and boys that they are already losing. The injustice of it would be too ugly and too hard to explain.
But that’s the world that we have built. A world where 82% of the wealth created last year went to the richest 1% of the population.

Meanwhile, the 3.7 billion people who make up the poorest half of the world saw no increase in their wealth last year. Nothing. Zero.

The world belongs to the wealthy and nowhere is this injustice more apparent than in the workplace.

Corporations are driving down wages and working conditions across the globe to maximize returns for their shareholders. They use their power and influence to ensure the rules align with their interests – no matter the cost.

Many of our governments don’t just let this happen, they actively facilitate it. In a frenzied drive for GDP growth, they slash corporate taxes and strip away the rights and protections of workers.

The result? Women in hot, overcrowded garment factories in Bangladesh paid poverty wages to stitch clothes for us to buy cheaply. Hotel housekeepers cleaning luxury rooms afraid to report sexual harassment for fear of losing their jobs. Poultry workers in the US - the richest country in the world – forced to wear nappies because they are denied toilet breaks.

But in boardrooms, far removed from this suffering and indignity, things are better than ever. Shareholders and corporate bosses are enjoying record profits.

The world’s political and business elites are meeting in Davos, Switzerland, for four days this week. In that span of time, the world’s billionaires will see their fortunes swell by an estimated $8 billion.

Breaking it down another way. While nine out of every 10 billionaires is a man, it is women who are most often found in the poorest paid and least secure jobs.

That’s the reality of “prosperity” in our world today. It’s built on the backs of workers around the world.

We don’t want to tell young girls and boys that the odds are stacked against them from the start. Instead, we could tell them that with passion, conviction, and determination we can build a better future.

This future is possible by redesigning our economy to truly reward hard work, rather than wealth.

The World Inequality Report published last month by the World Inequality Lab at the Paris School of Economics proves government action can significantly reduce inequality. Forward-thinking politicians around the globe are already showing what is possible.

Just a few weeks ago, Iceland introduced a law making it illegal for firms to pay women less than men as part of government plans to eradicate the gender wage gap by 2020.

In 2010 Ecuador introduced a minimum ‘dignity wage’ that covers the basic costs of living. This has benefited hundreds of thousands of workers and debunked the myth that there is a trade-off between decent wages and jobs. Ecuador has one of the lowest unemployment rates in Latin America.

Meanwhile, South Africa has introduced progressive tax policies to raise funds to expand public services such as healthcare and education.

In the UK, we have seen examples of how governments can ensure workers’ rights are protected in the technological revolution when a court ruled that drivers working for the taxi-hailing app Uber are employees – not self-employed – and must be entitled to holiday pay, paid rest breaks and the national minimum wage.

These examples, among others, show there is no shortage of solutions. What is lacking is political will to put these into action.

We also need business leaders who see the benefits of a well-paid workforce and a well-functioning society. Decades ago, Henry Ford recognized that the long-term health of his businesses was best served by paying his workers enough to afford the cars they built.

At the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2018, I will be urging political leaders to limit rewards to shareholders and senior executives, introduce a statutory living wage, build fairer tax systems, invest in healthcare and education, and shepherd in a technological revolution that works for all. I will be calling on business leaders to stop paying huge share dividends and awarding bumper pay packages to top executives until they can guarantee that all of their workers are getting a living wage and that their suppliers in their supply chains are being paid fair prices.

I’m sure every political and business leader I speak to in Davos will echo my concerns about the inequality crisis. But I, like hundreds of millions of people, am growing impatient waiting for them to act.

Oxfam's report, Reward Work, Not Wealth, is available here.

Article source : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/we-have-built-an-unequal-world-heres-how-we-can-change-it

-----------------------------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. What are the noticeable changes which are causing risks in your society? For instance. inequality issues, security issues, political instability or discrimination issues?

Q2. Above article suggests that wealth distribution system of society lead unbalance economic growth in our society. For instance, most corporations are driving down wages and working conditions across the globe to maximize returns for their shareholders. So they urge political leaders to limit rewards to shareholders and senior executives, introduce a statutory living wage. How do you think about this idea? Do you agree or disagree with above idea? 

Q3. So now, do you think capitalism is so perfect enough that we don't need to change it ? 

Q4. What would be the merits and demerits of "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's proposed 70% Marginal Tax Hike on all income above $10 million"? What is your opinion on this idea?

Q5. Do you think 'Wealth tax. 70 percent rates policy' can fix the economic inequality issue in our society? 

Q6. What is the democratic socialism?

*** Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy.

Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/

Q7. How would you define Nordic socialism or Nordic Countries(Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark)' economic system identity? What is the biggest differences of economic system of Nordic socialism from the one of capitalism or socialism?

Q8. What is social justice and how can we achieve it?

Q9. What is the definition of capitalism ? How about socialism?

*** Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.

*** Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.

Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/

Q10. Which economic system is better between capitalism and socialism?

Q11. What are the benefits and drawbacks of capitalism? Do you know any representative countries with those economic system?

Q12. What are the benefits and drawbacks of socialism? Do you know any representative countries with those economic system? 

Q13. Do you live in a society with social justice?

Q14. What is better option to be successful in our economic system between having wealth or having ability ?

-----------------------------------------------------------

10 New Breakthrough Technologies 2014 | MIT Technology Review

Technology news is full of incremental developments, but few of them are true milestones. Here we’re citing 10 that are. These advances from the past year all solve thorny problems or create powerful new ways of using technology. They are breakthroughs that will matter for years to come.

-The Editors-

< Agricultural Drones > Relatively cheap drones with advanced sensors and imaging capabilities are giving farmers new ways to increase yields and reduce crop damage.	< Ultraprivate Smartphones > New models built with security and privacy in mind reflect the Zeitgeist of the Snowden era.	< Brain Mapping > A new map, a decade in the works, shows structures of the brain in far greater detail than ever before, providing neuroscientists with a guide to its immense complexity.
< Neuromorphic Chips > Microprocessors configured more like brains than traditional chips could soon make computers far more astute about what’s going on around them.	< Genome Editing > The ability to create primates with intentional mutations could provide powerful new ways to study complex and genetically baffling brain disorders.	< Microscale 3-D Printing > Inks made from different types of materials, precisely applied, are greatly expanding the kinds of things that can be printed.
< Mobile Collaboration > The smartphone era is finally getting the productivity software it needs.	< Oculus RiftThirty > years after virtual-reality goggles and immersive virtual worlds made their debut, the technology finally seems poised for widespread use.	< Agile Robots > Computer scientists have created machines that have the balance and agility to walk and run across rough and uneven terrain, making them far more useful in navigating human environments.
< Smart Wind and Solar Power > Big data and artificial intelligence are producing ultra-accurate forecasts that will make it feasible to integrate much more renewable energy into the grid.

Article source : http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/526496/ultraprivate-smartphones/

-----------------------------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. [New Trends]_Have you ever heard about the 10 concepts above ?

Q2. [Describe the details]_What kinds of technology do you use the most these days? What is it?

       What is it used for? Plz tell me about it in as much detail as possible.  

Q3. [Share your experiences]_Plz tell me about the technology you've learned to use most recently.

       What kind of technology was it? How did you learn it? What did you do to be accustomed

       to the technology?

Q4. [Tell the trouble shooting process]_Problems always come up. Tell me about an experience you

       had when your technology was not working properly. What happened?

       How did you solve the problem? Tell me the story in detail.

-----------------------------------------------------------

GATTACA

What is genetic engineering, after all, but preemptive plastic surgery? Make the child perfect in the test tube, and save money later. Throw in perfect health, a high IQ and a long life-span, and you have the brave new world of “Gattaca,” in which the bioformed have inherited the earth, and babies who are born naturally get to be menial laborers.

This is one of the smartest and most provocative of science fiction films, a thriller with ideas. Its hero is a man who challenges the system. Vincent (Ethan Hawke) was born in the old-fashioned way, and his genetic tests show he has bad eyesight, heart problems and a life expectancy of about 30 years. He is an “In-Valid,” and works as a cleaner in a space center.

Vincent does not accept his fate. He never has. As a child, he had swimming contests with his brother Anton (Loren Dean), who has all the right scores but needs to be saved from drowning. Now Vincent dreams of becoming a crew member on an expedition to one of the moons of Saturn. Using an illegal DNA broker, he makes a deal with a man named Jerome (Jude Law), who has the right genes but was paralyzed in an accident. Jerome will provide him with blood, urine samples and an identity. In a sense, they'll both go into space. “Gattaca” is the remarkable debut of a writer-director from New Zealand, Andrew Niccol, whose film is intelligent and thrilling--a tricky combination--and also visually exciting. His most important set is a vast office where genetically superior computer programmers come to work every day, filing into their long rows of desks like the office slaves in King Vidor's “The Crowd” and Orson Welles' “The Trial.” (Why are “perfect” human societies so often depicted by ranks of automatons? Is it because human nature resides in our flaws?) Vincent, as “Jerome,” gets a job as a programmer, supplies false genetic samples and becomes a finalist for the space shot.

The tension comes in two ways. First, there's the danger that Vincent will be detected; the area is swept daily, and even an eyelash can betray him. Second, there's a murder; a director of the center, who questions the wisdom of the upcoming shot, is found dead, and a detective (Alan Arkin) starts combing the personnel for suspects. Will a computer search sooner or later put together Vincent, the former janitor, with “Jerome,” the new programmer? Vincent becomes friendly with Irene (Uma Thurman), who works in the center but has been passed over for a space shot because of low scores in some areas. They are attracted to one another, but romance in this world can be dangerous; after kissing a man, a woman is likely to have his saliva swabbed from her mouth so she can test his prospects. Other supporting characters include Gore Vidal, as a mission supervisor, and Tony Shalhoub as the broker (“You could go anywhere with this guy's helix under your arm”).

Hawke is a good choice for the lead, combining the restless dreams of a “Godchild” with the plausible exterior of a lab baby. The best scenes involve his relationship with the real Jerome, played by Law as smart, bitter, and delighted to be sticking it to the system that has grounded him. (He may be paralyzed from the waist down, but after all, as the movie observes, you don't need to walk in space.) His drama parallels Vincent's, because if either one is caught they'll both go down together.

Science fiction in the movies has recently specialized in alien invasions, but the best of the genre deals with ideas. At a time when we read about cloned sheep and tomatoes crossed with fish, the science in “Gattaca” is theoretically possible. When parents can order “perfect” babies, will they? Would you take your chances on a throw of the genetic dice, or order up the make and model you wanted? How many people are prepared to buy a car at random from the universe of all available cars? That's how many, I suspect, would opt to have natural children.

Everybody will live longer, look better and be healthier in the Gattacan world. But will it be as much fun? Will parents order children who are rebellious, ungainly, eccentric, creative, or a lot smarter than their parents are? There's a concert pianist in “Gattaca” who has 12 fingers. Don't you sometimes have the feeling you were born just in time?

Source : http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gattaca-1997

------------------------------------------------------------

<Questions> 

Q1. What do you know about genetic engineering? 

Q2. Can you tell the advantages and disadvantages of genetic engineering? 

Q3. What is the things that make your dreams come true? Your background? your appearance? 

      , your parents? or action based on your inner desire and passion? 

Q4. In the movie, Vincent (Ethan Hawke) is conceived and born without the aid of 

       genetic engineering of humans. But in this society, this technology is common and 

       DNA plays the primary role in determining social class. And Vincent takes 

       the detoured way to make his dreams come true. Do you think his resolution was right? 

Q5. Nowadays we face various discrimination in the society. And in the near future, 

       we might face the extreme genetic discrimination and prejudice as Vincent did

       in this movie. How do you think about it? 

Q6. In the movie, Vincent is suffering from the nearly eradicated physical dysfunctions of myopia 

       and a congenital heart defect, as well as being given a life expectancy of 30.2 years. 

       Conversely, his younger brother Anton has perfect genes and better performance. 

       And one day, Anton challenge his older brother Vincent to game of chicken. 

       As the two swim out in the dead of night, Anton is surprised at Vincent's stamina, 

       and Vincent told him some meaningful message.  

       "That's how I did it, Anton. I never saved anything for the swim back."

       And this sentence had been unforgettable in my memories. In spite of his genetically 

       deficient traits, he can win every game with his positive attitude and endless efforts. 

       That was the only secret of his success. How do you think about his attitude? 

Q7. If you can order "perfect" babies, will you take advantage of this technology? 

       Or will you throw the genetic dice? 

Q8. Thanks to the development of reproductive technology, if everyone can model and make 

       the babies who look better appearance, is healthier and smarter than their parents. 

       Then will it be as much fun? 

Q9. In the movie, there is a concert pianist in "GATTACA" who has 12 fingers.

       What do you think about it? 

------------------------------------------------------------

Brain hi-jacking could become a reality soon, warn researchers

A vulnerability of brain implants to cyber-security attacks could make "brainjacking" a reality, say researchers

By: IANS | Published:August 29, 2016 7:57 pm

A vulnerability of brain implants to cyber-security attacks could make “brainjacking”, which has been discussed in science fiction for decades, a reality, say researchers from the University of Oxford. Writing in The Conversation, an Australia-based non-profit media, Laurie Pycroft discussed brain implants as a new frontier of security threat.

The most common type of brain implant is the deep brain stimulation (DBS) system. It consists of implanted electrodes positioned deep inside the brain connected to wires running under the skin, which carry signals from an implanted stimulator.

The stimulator consists of a battery, a small processor, and a wireless communication antenna that allows doctors to programme it. In essence, it functions much like a cardiac pacemaker, with the main distinction being that it directly interfaces with the brain, Pycroft explained.

DBS is widely used to treat Parkinson’s disease, often with dramatic results, but it is also used to treat dystonia (muscle spasms), essential tremor and severe chronic pain.

Targeting different brain regions with different stimulation parameters gives neurosurgeons increasingly precise control over the human brain, allowing them to alleviate distressing symptoms.

However, this precise control of the brain, coupled with the wireless control of stimulators, also opens an opportunity for malicious attackers.

“In light of recent developments in information security, there is a reason to be concerned that medical implants are vulnerable to attack,” Pycroft and his colleagues wrote in a recent paper published in the journal World Neurosurgery.

Examples of possible attacks include altering stimulation settings so that patients with chronic pain are caused even greater pain than they would experience without stimulation.

Or a Parkinson’s patient could have their ability to move inhibited.

A sophisticated attacker could potentially even induce behavioural changes such as hypersexuality or pathological gambling, or even exert a limited form of control over the patient’s behaviour by stimulating parts of the brain involved with reward learning in order to reinforce certain actions.

Although these hacks would be difficult to achieve as they would require a high level of technological competence and the ability to monitor the victim, a sufficiently determined attacker could manage it, Pycroft said.

“Researchers, clinicians, manufacturers, and regulatory bodies should cooperate to minimize the risk posed by brainjacking,” the researchers wrote in the journal.

Article source : http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/brain-hi-jacking-could-become-a-reality-soon-warn-researchers-3002612/

------------------------------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. Have you ever heard about the "brainjacking"?

Q2. Did you know that brain implant tech. was applied in our brain to treat some disease such as Parkinson’s disease, dystonia (muscle spasms), essential tremor and severe chronic pain. If you have those diseases, in order to lessen your pain, would you apply this kinds of innovative medical implant tech. which could possibly cause cyber attacking to yourself ? Or will you take more conventional and safe but less effective way?

Q3. Have you ever faced any kinds of information security problem in reality or in cyber space? How did you deal with those tricky situations? Do you think we have any counter measures to treat those misdeed?

Q4. If someone try to manipulate your behavior by using this kinds of tech. how would you react to it? How to protect yourself from those people?

Q5. If you can develop your intellectual strength by those technologies, would you apply those tech. to yourself? 

------------------------------------------------------------

Topic 2: Jobs of the future

What will you be doing for a living in 10 years' time? The chances are it won't be what you're doing now,

and it may be something that doesn't yet exist. Ian Wylie looks ahead to 2020

<Some of the Promising jobs of the Future !~ >

Name of job	Definition of the job
Digital architect	Designs a selection of virtual buildings for advertisers and retailers to market their products
Home carer	Helps care for elderly people in their own homes
Elderly well-being consultant	Elderly well-being consultant
Body part maker	Creates living body parts for athletes and soldiers
Nano-medic	Creates very small implants for health monitoring and self-medication
Vertical farmer	Farms crops upwards rather than across flat fields to save space
Waste data handler	Disposes of your data waste in a responsible way
Climate controller	Manages and modifies weather patterns
Avatar manager	Designs and manages holograms of virtual people
Memory augmentation surgeon	Helps preserve and improve memory in an ageing population
Time broker	Handles time banked by customers in lieu of money for goods or services
Personal branding manager	Develops and manages your personal brand
Child designer	Designs offspring that fit parental requirements
Omnipotence delimiter	Reins in our belief that anything is possible and we are all-powerful
Personal medical apothecary	Provides a bespoke range alternative therapies.
Haptic programmer	Develops technology around the science of touch, such as gloves that make your hand feel warm, or wrapped in velvet.

<Best paid jobs, over paid jobs and under paid jobs of today>

Source: Office for National Statistics  

It's January 2020. You've commuted to the office in your titanium flying car, to be greeted by a robotic receptionist. You travelate to your 3D, virtual, interactive desk which pours you a tall decaf and scans the morning's to-do list on to your retina …

Or maybe not. Just as we're still waiting for the paperless office to arrive, the workplace of the foreseeable future will probably still be open-plan, beige and soulless. But according to futurists, trade unionists and human resource specialists, there's a strong chance that in 10 years' time, your job will be very, very different. So, what better time than the start of a new decade to figure out which sectors, industries and jobs are destined for growth?

By 2020, the UK economy will be even more globalised. The transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy will be in full swing. Rapid development in China, India and elsewhere will place huge strain on resources.

The gaming generation will be middle-aged – and virtual services will be the basis for many jobs. There will still be real jobs to be had – but you may have to switch careers to find one.

"Start from the assumption that 2020 will look nothing like now," says Stephanie Bird, director of HR capability at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

"We can't 'future-proof' careers," she says, "but we can 'future-adapt' them." So strap yourself in for our glimpse of the future.

1. Environmental Green jobs are arriving in two breeds: some focused on reducing human environmental impact, others to "greenwash" their organisation's image. But Ian Pearson, a futurist who established BT's futurology practice, recommends caution. "There are some key experiments taking place by organisations such as Nasa and Cern which could turn our thinking on the causes of climate change upside down." Job titles in 2020 Traceability manager Examines global supply chains and checks for suppliers that might be excessively pollutive or carbon-costly to buy from. Cloud controller Buys the planet time – maybe 25 years – in the fight against climate change, by increasing the ability of clouds to reflect solar radiation.	2. Renewable energy Alternative fuels – solar, wind, tidal, hydrogen – are going to be huge, although renewables might also see an influx of workers from the disappearing oil and gas industries. Nuclear too, will return, though a shortage of uranium might spoil that particular party. Job titles in 2020 Hydrogen fuel station manager Produces hydrogen on site, so will need science as well as retail skills. Uranium recycler Converts bomb-grade uranium from warheads into low-enriched uranium for use in nuclear power plants.
3. Advanced manufacturing The next decade will see the return of manufacturing in Britain, forecasts Tim Page, senior policy officer at the TUC. "The UK will identify niche sectors of manufacturing that are highly skilled and knowledge-intensive," he says, pointing to the government's recently announced strategy on composite materials as an example of the kind of state intervention needed to make it happen. Job titles in 2020 Mechatronical engineer Combines mechanical engineering, electronics, controls engineering and computers into the product design process. Metal skin consultant Manufactures self-healing composite materials for use on aircraft, ships and spacecraft.	4. Augmented reality When the internet, video gaming and 3D TV collide with the real world. "In just a few years' time, video visor extensions to your Bluetooth earpiece will give you a full 3D overlay of the high street you're walking down," says Pearson. "It will merge everything you can find on the web and all you can do on a computer game with everything you can do in the real world." Job titles in 2020 Digital architect Designs a range of virtual buildings for advertisers to market their products and services. Avatar design-security consultant Designs, creates and protects the virtual you.
5. Robots and artificial intelligence With search engines already guessing what we want almost before we ask, artificial intelligence will eliminate and transform many jobs by 2020. "We've just seen the NHS unveil a system that can predict the probability of a patient developing cancer," says Pearson. "Robots will take over the high-precision, high-value surgery, leaving surgeons redundant." Job titles in 2020 Personal bot mechanic Domestic assistants will work 24/7, but will still need the occasional tune-up. Powered exoskeleton engineer Designs wearable robots that assist and protect soldiers, construction and rescue workers or other people working in dangerous environments.	6. Business In the wake of the financial crisis, business will seek to build on more solid foundations, Page predicts. And "entrepreneurs" – an "overused word for a tired stratagem of creating a company, jumping through venture capital hoops and cashing out", says American futurist and author Faith Popcorn – will receive a long-overdue makeover. Job titles in 2020 Simplicity consultant Simplifies and streamlines processes, technologies and branding in an organisation. LocaPreneur Starts up a local bank, makes local cosmetics or soft drinks that are able to compete head-to-head with the big corporations that no one trusts any more.
7. Nanotech and biotech This could be the decade we witness an explosion of technological advances in nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science, collectively known as NBIC. As these fields expand and converge, opportunities will arise to reprogram our bodies' "software", extending life, reducing deaths and alleviating poverty. Job titles in 2020 Bioinformationist Scientist who marries genetic information with drug development and clinical techniques. Geomicrobiologist Pieces together bits of geology, environmental science and microbiology to figure how micro-organisms might help make new medicine or clean up pollution.	8. Social services Our ageing populations are already generating booms in home healthcare and nursing homes. But expect the growth to come at the sharp end of social services – nurses and carers – rather than in admin roles. Job titles in 2020 Experimental therapist Connects patients with new and emerging treatments and navigates them through the maze of patient services. Home companion-caretaker Enables people to stay in their homes and live with dignity.
9. Education As future-proof a sector as exists, with schools, universities and private providers expanding to keep pace with the accelerating need to train and retrain. Job titles in 2020 Online education broker Tailors a bespoke learning package for the client, dovetailing relevant modules from courses and syllabuses around the world. Space tour guide With Virgin Galactic planning commercial flights from 2011, space tourists will need cosmic enthusiasts to shed light on all that darkness.	10. Food The demand for organic, healthy, locally sourced food will continue to increase. But since sustainable agriculture is all about small-scale methods rather than big machines and fertilisers, the world will need more, not fewer agricultural workers – up to tens of millions of them, according to journalist and food guru Michael Pollan. Job titles in 2020 Farmer Agricultural entrepreneur as skilled in genetics as in marketing. Personal food shopper Enables clients to hit their recommended daily allowance targets for nutritional balance, food-miles and organic sourcing.

… and careers that could be at risk in 2020

If your current job relies purely on intellect and knowledge, assume that you won't be getting paid to do it by the end of this decade, warns Pearson. "It's the human side of your job – that's where you will still be able to add value."

• Hospital consultant Consultants can be replaced by a robot, but nurses can't, says Pearson. Nurses are making a huge mistake if they swap the most valuable part of their job, caring for the patient, in some misguided attempt to become more "professional", and effectively, cheap doctors.
• Shop assistant Will decline gradually as online shopping continues to grow and existing stores install self-service scanners and robotic shelf stackers.
• Union organiser Will become surplus to requirements unless unions arrest the trend of membership decline, and adapt to the needs of workers in knowledge, science and technology sectors.
• Construction worker "3D printing" techniques, in which solid objects can be constructed automatically from computer models, will enable buildings to be erected in a matter of hours.
• Soldier Why send men and women into combat when you can send a machine? The growing use of unmanned combat air vehicles suggest the job of fighter pilot may be the first to go.

But some jobs never go out of style …

• Lawyers While much of the knowledge side of the law can be automated, there will always be a need for lawyers with persuasive people skills to sway judges and juries, particularly in the growing areas of patent and intellectual property law.
• Politician OK, so some of them fiddle their expenses, but we'll never rid ourselves of the need to be governed and led.
• Writers The days of journalism (as we know it) may be numbered, but someone needs to write technical manuals for all these bots, rocket ships, prostheses and enhancements: all of these are new or evolving technologies, and none of them is exactly simple and self-explanatory. Someone needs to be there to write the manuals for these products, and that person could be you.
• Artists and entertainers The impact of CGI on actors presents some risk, but art will continue to change and evolve with technology, not disappear.
• Undertakers, prostitutes, tax collectors, religious leaders Because life, and death, go on.

Article Source : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/9892011/10-well-paid-jobs-of-the-future.html#source=refresh

-----------------------------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. What did you want to be when you were a child? Do you change your future job? 

      What do you want to be in the future? After reading this article, do you want to change your

      dicision for your job?

Q2.  From the article, It was said that "It's the human side of your job – that's where you will still

       be able to add value." Do you think your job is something to do with human side affairs?

       Or is it a just based on the knowled-oriented job that can be easily substituted by the machine?

Q3. Among the many job lists, plz rank the name of occupations according to your preperence.

Q4. From the  article, there will be not human being but machines in combat in the future like

       "IRONMAN 2". In the case of war between nations with machine and without machine,

        we can tell who the winner is. In this case, country with much wealth will be the winner. 

       Do you think what is better choice for our society?

       The War with machine soilder or human soilder?

Q5. Nowadays, we have just entered the aging society. And that's why we can find various

       health or personal care related to the old generations and each individual in the future job lists.

      For your old days, did you prepare any speacial plans such as a private pension system ?