In Foroohar’s essay, she talks about why she thinks productivity is at an all-time low. Foroohar claims that productivity is plummeting and that as a society we are working harder yet we are not being as productive. She emphasizes her argument with the productivity rate now, the PC boom, to the productivity rate during the industrial revolution. By showing the difference in the productivity rate increase between the industrial revolution era to the PC boom era, it shows that the new technology in the industrial revolution had made the productivity level of the people of that era increase and the new technology in the PC boom has made the productivity level of the people in that era decrease. Foroohar claims that the resolution to the productivity…show more content… Foroohar explains that the economy is being controlled by the head of the businesses and investors. She says that they are hoarding the money instead of investing the money in new technology and research. Foroohar believes that the way to increase the productivity rate of the people is to use the economy to invest in making newer technology to make the working system more efficient. But Foroohar also has said that the newer technology has made us less productive which is a contradicting statement. This contradicting statement has opened a flaw in her argument, which is caused by her bias.
Foroohar works for TIME magazine which is a well-established, older institution and TIME is geared more towards an older audience. With the older audience Foroohar has a bias against newer technology. The bias is caused by Foroohar wanting to be able to relate to her audience. With the older audience, it causes room for contradicting statements. With the two different points that Foroohar brings up to support her argument, the difference in era productivity and the economy, they cancel each other essentially which weakens her argument by showing the flaws of the research and the point that she is trying to
