FROM Marshall Brain
Should We Blame Technology for High Unemployment? When two researchers at MIT started a book to be called The Digital Frontier, they were optimistic that technological innovation would increase productivity, and that would mean new jobs. But their inquiries led in a very different direction. From farms to factories, and now to the service economy, human workers are losing their jobs to machines. The "creative destruction" that used to increase employment is working the other way around: productivity is on the rise, but it's not creating many new jobs. As computers become more sophisticated, how can humans learn to compete? Segment Image: A traveler undergoes a full body scan performed by Transportation Security Administration agents at the Denver International Airport. Photo by John Moore/Getty Images
Is a Robot Waiting for your Job? When two researchers at MIT started a book to be called The Digital Frontier, they were optimistic that technological innovation would increase productivity, and that would mean new jobs. Historically speaking, that has been the case. But their inquiries led in a very different direction. In the current recession it's the other way around: more productivity but fewer jobs. "Technological unemployment" has gone from the factory floor to America's service economy, once called "the last repository" of jobs. This time, the old jobs aren't being replaced by new ones. From banks to gas stations to grocery stores, information technology is taking a heavy toll. Google has shown that a computer can drive a car. What can we do to protect our species from losing the race with machines?
Trump's new look at civil rights and global warming President Trump is reportedly ready to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. We look at the possible consequences. On the second half of the program, we hear about cuts in Obama-Era civil rights programs called for by the Trump Administration's first budget plan.
The longest US war: Will Trump send more troops to Afghanistan? The Trump White House is divided over the Pentagon's request for more troops in Afghanistan—where the US has been fighting for the past 16 years. Is there a formula -- either for "victory" or a political settlement? Is there an end in sight for America's longest war?
Trump plays scolder-in-chief with NATO allies At the opening of NATO’s dramatic new headquarters in Brussels today, President Trump acknowledged that Article 5 — promising that “an attack on one nation is an attack on all” -- has only been invoked one time: in the aftermath of September 11. But the President failed to provide what 27 other Alliance members have been waiting for: a re-commitment by America’s new leader to Article 5. Instead, they got a scolding.