Carney goes on to state “I don't believe in laying someone off, in taking away some one's livelihood just so other people can make more money.. Why would I want to destroy that person? Why would I want to destroy lives?” Clearly Mr. Carney is distressed and confused as to why a business would take away his job and give it to another. He seems unsure as to whether it is for purely economic gain, or some sort of moral decision being acted upon. Computers have also contributed to the loss of jobs. Automation is the intent to reproduce a action typically accomplished by a human, and replace such with a process that ideally would run efficiently and inexpensively by machinery and …show more content…
Stating “I think what we've learned is that U.S. labor markets aren't as flexible and self-correcting as I think we had presumed.. The uneasiness I have about the way we've handled globalization is not so much globalization itself. It's that if you don't have the right safety net, you're going to impose an enormous amount of hardship.” This mind frame goes along with the notion in opposite of the traditional economic theory of the more trade the better. Namely that trade has to be conducted with some sort of moral guise. Lenses that can see the effects of global trade for instance in the southwest region of the country will bring to great of hardship to communities, despite the raw economic advantage gained. This is advanced by the article as it states “There is also mounting evidence that the benefits of globalization have accrued disproportionately to upper-income households, while the costs have fallen heavily on the less affluent, contributing to the rise of economic