Questões de Inglês

Texto

WHY A GLOBAL THREE-DAY WORKWEEK WOULD BE GOOD FOR INNOVATION

The world’s second-richest man, Carlos Slim of Mexico, recently proposed the concept of a global three-day workweek at a business conference in Paraguay, arguing that working three days a week for a longer period of our lives — potentially up to age 75 — would better reflect the underlying economic and demographic reality of the modern world.

He’s got a good point.

Nobody seriously expects to retire by the age of 50 these days, so working until 70 or 75 no longer sounds as outrageous as it might have sounded a decade or two ago. We’re living longer and, therefore, requiring more savings for retirement. Moreover, there’s a strong argument to be made for the three-day workweek on economic productivity grounds. The OECD has produced a number of very compelling charts showing that worker productivity starts to decrease when you work too many hours a week. This intuitively makes sense: Companies don’t want to hire more workers than they have to, so they try to squeeze more hours out of workers, and that leads to further productivity trade-offs.

But the real argument for the three-day workweek comes when you think of its ability to boost the innovation potential of individuals, companies and even nations. Working fewer hours a week frees up time to take on personal creativity and passion projects. That was the original logic of Google’s 20 percent time, which stipulated loosely that workers should dedicate 20 percent of their workweek to dreaming up new projects and tinkering. Other companies also have experimented with giving workers more time to dream up innovative new products or developing side projects. You can think of corporate hackathons as another way that companies are trying to give workers more time to come up with innovative ideas. Giving workers four days off a week basically eliminates any excuse for not launching that new business or product you’ve been talking about for years.

And, as Slim pointed out, “Having four days [off] would be very important to generate new entertainment activities and other ways of being occupied.” That almost sounds like a throwaway line – isn’t it obvious that if people are only working three days a week, that they will have to fill their time with other activities? On one hand, you can imagine people heading to the beach for a never-ending series of four-day weekends, or using those four days to binge-watch the latest season of “Game of Thrones.” On the other hand, you can imagine people actually creating those new entertainment activities and ways of being occupied.

(BASULTO, Dominic Basulto. Why a global three-day workweek would be good for innovation. The Whashington Post, Whashington, July 30 2014. Disponível em: <At:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/07 /30/why-a-global-3-day-workweek-would-be-good-for-innovation/>. Acesso em: 10 fev. 2015)

Texto

WHY A GLOBAL THREE-DAY WORKWEEK WOULD BE GOOD FOR INNOVATION

The world’s second-richest man, Carlos Slim of Mexico, recently proposed the concept of a global three-day workweek at a business conference in Paraguay, arguing that working three days a week for a longer period of our lives — potentially up to age 75 — would better reflect the underlying economic and demographic reality of the modern world.

He’s got a good point.

Nobody seriously expects to retire by the age of 50 these days, so working until 70 or 75 no longer sounds as outrageous as it might have sounded a decade or two ago. We’re living longer and, therefore, requiring more savings for retirement. Moreover, there’s a strong argument to be made for the three-day workweek on economic productivity grounds. The OECD has produced a number of very compelling charts showing that worker productivity starts to decrease when you work too many hours a week. This intuitively makes sense: Companies don’t want to hire more workers than they have to, so they try to squeeze more hours out of workers, and that leads to further productivity trade-offs.

But the real argument for the three-day workweek comes when you think of its ability to boost the innovation potential of individuals, companies and even nations. Working fewer hours a week frees up time to take on personal creativity and passion projects. That was the original logic of Google’s 20 percent time, which stipulated loosely that workers should dedicate 20 percent of their workweek to dreaming up new projects and tinkering. Other companies also have experimented with giving workers more time to dream up innovative new products or developing side projects. You can think of corporate hackathons as another way that companies are trying to give workers more time to come up with innovative ideas. Giving workers four days off a week basically eliminates any excuse for not launching that new business or product you’ve been talking about for years.

And, as Slim pointed out, “Having four days [off] would be very important to generate new entertainment activities and other ways of being occupied.” That almost sounds like a throwaway line – isn’t it obvious that if people are only working three days a week, that they will have to fill their time with other activities? On one hand, you can imagine people heading to the beach for a never-ending series of four-day weekends, or using those four days to binge-watch the latest season of “Game of Thrones.” On the other hand, you can imagine people actually creating those new entertainment activities and ways of being occupied.

(BASULTO, Dominic Basulto. Why a global three-day workweek would be good for innovation. The Whashington Post, Whashington, July 30 2014. Disponível em: <At:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/07 /30/why-a-global-3-day-workweek-would-be-good-for-innovation/>. Acesso em: 10 fev. 2015)

Texto

WHY A GLOBAL THREE-DAY WORKWEEK WOULD BE GOOD FOR INNOVATION

The world’s second-richest man, Carlos Slim of Mexico, recently proposed the concept of a global three-day workweek at a business conference in Paraguay, arguing that working three days a week for a longer period of our lives — potentially up to age 75 — would better reflect the underlying economic and demographic reality of the modern world.

He’s got a good point.

Nobody seriously expects to retire by the age of 50 these days, so working until 70 or 75 no longer sounds as outrageous as it might have sounded a decade or two ago. We’re living longer and, therefore, requiring more savings for retirement. Moreover, there’s a strong argument to be made for the three-day workweek on economic productivity grounds. The OECD has produced a number of very compelling charts showing that worker productivity starts to decrease when you work too many hours a week. This intuitively makes sense: Companies don’t want to hire more workers than they have to, so they try to squeeze more hours out of workers, and that leads to further productivity trade-offs.

But the real argument for the three-day workweek comes when you think of its ability to boost the innovation potential of individuals, companies and even nations. Working fewer hours a week frees up time to take on personal creativity and passion projects. That was the original logic of Google’s 20 percent time, which stipulated loosely that workers should dedicate 20 percent of their workweek to dreaming up new projects and tinkering. Other companies also have experimented with giving workers more time to dream up innovative new products or developing side projects. You can think of corporate hackathons as another way that companies are trying to give workers more time to come up with innovative ideas. Giving workers four days off a week basically eliminates any excuse for not launching that new business or product you’ve been talking about for years.

And, as Slim pointed out, “Having four days [off] would be very important to generate new entertainment activities and other ways of being occupied.” That almost sounds like a throwaway line – isn’t it obvious that if people are only working three days a week, that they will have to fill their time with other activities? On one hand, you can imagine people heading to the beach for a never-ending series of four-day weekends, or using those four days to binge-watch the latest season of “Game of Thrones.” On the other hand, you can imagine people actually creating those new entertainment activities and ways of being occupied.

(BASULTO, Dominic Basulto. Why a global three-day workweek would be good for innovation. The Whashington Post, Whashington, July 30 2014. Disponível em: <At:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/07 /30/why-a-global-3-day-workweek-would-be-good-for-innovation/>. Acesso em: 10 fev. 2015)

Texto

WHY A GLOBAL THREE-DAY WORKWEEK WOULD BE GOOD FOR INNOVATION

The world’s second-richest man, Carlos Slim of Mexico, recently proposed the concept of a global three-day workweek at a business conference in Paraguay, arguing that working three days a week for a longer period of our lives — potentially up to age 75 — would better reflect the underlying economic and demographic reality of the modern world.

He’s got a good point.

Nobody seriously expects to retire by the age of 50 these days, so working until 70 or 75 no longer sounds as outrageous as it might have sounded a decade or two ago. We’re living longer and, therefore, requiring more savings for retirement. Moreover, there’s a strong argument to be made for the three-day workweek on economic productivity grounds. The OECD has produced a number of very compelling charts showing that worker productivity starts to decrease when you work too many hours a week. This intuitively makes sense: Companies don’t want to hire more workers than they have to, so they try to squeeze more hours out of workers, and that leads to further productivity trade-offs.

But the real argument for the three-day workweek comes when you think of its ability to boost the innovation potential of individuals, companies and even nations. Working fewer hours a week frees up time to take on personal creativity and passion projects. That was the original logic of Google’s 20 percent time, which stipulated loosely that workers should dedicate 20 percent of their workweek to dreaming up new projects and tinkering. Other companies also have experimented with giving workers more time to dream up innovative new products or developing side projects. You can think of corporate hackathons as another way that companies are trying to give workers more time to come up with innovative ideas. Giving workers four days off a week basically eliminates any excuse for not launching that new business or product you’ve been talking about for years.

And, as Slim pointed out, “Having four days [off] would be very important to generate new entertainment activities and other ways of being occupied.” That almost sounds like a throwaway line – isn’t it obvious that if people are only working three days a week, that they will have to fill their time with other activities? On one hand, you can imagine people heading to the beach for a never-ending series of four-day weekends, or using those four days to binge-watch the latest season of “Game of Thrones.” On the other hand, you can imagine people actually creating those new entertainment activities and ways of being occupied.

(BASULTO, Dominic Basulto. Why a global three-day workweek would be good for innovation. The Whashington Post, Whashington, July 30 2014. Disponível em: <At:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/07 /30/why-a-global-3-day-workweek-would-be-good-for-innovation/>. Acesso em: 10 fev. 2015)

THE GUARDIAN VIEW ON RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE: THE BURDEN OF THE CROSS

The hideous convulsions that followed the invasion in Iraq (2003) have been dreadful for everyo e in the region,  but nobody has suffered more than the Christians, persecuted alike in Sunni and Shia states. In  he nations that are not at war, they are tolerated but oppressed; in the Gulf, most Christians are servants, abom nably treated. Their religion must be practised in secret, with converts threatened with death. In Iran, a missionary or a pastor is hanged from time to time as an exercise in public morality.

In the states where war rages, every man’s hand is against them. The Christian population of Iraq was more than a million in 2003. Now it is less than a third of that size, with perhaps half that number in Ku distan, which is functionally independent of the Shia government anyway. They are not coming back. Nor can th y feel safe in Kurdistan. It was Sunni Kurds who did much of the killing in  Turkey’s attempted genocide  of the Armenian Christians 100 years ago, and both sides remember this.

In Syria, a brutal sectarian insurgency drives some Christians to support the ruthless Assad regi e. In Egypt, the already vulnerable Coptic Christians, who lived there for 600 years before the Muslims arrived,  ad a dreadful Arab spring under the Islamist regime of President Mohamed Morsi and, after the counter revolutionary coup, continue to be persecuted, both inside and outside the law. Even Israel, which presents itself as   beacon of religious liberty, is a dreadful place to live for Christian Arabs, caught between an occupying arm  in the West Bank and Muslim fundamentalism in Gaza. Further east, in Pakistan, a corrupt government fails  o challenge deep prejudice that leaves Christians vulnerable to judicial murder under the blasphemy laws, as well as to the lynchings and pogroms to which the authorities turn an understanding eye. Those rare politicians brave enough to speak up for toleration can be assassinated, sometimes by their own bodyguards.

Across a wide belt of sub Saharan Africa, but especially in Nigeria, northern Kenya and the Central African Republic,   there   are  simmering   wars   between   Muslim  and   Christian   ethnic   groups.   In  some   cases,   in   the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in South Sudan, Christian armies fight merciless civil war  against each other and civilian populations. It isn’t just a simple story of Muslims persecuting Christians. In Ch na and in North Korea, atheist governments are persecuting Christians; in Russia, an Orthodox Christian regime  reats Catholics with suspicion and Protestants with brutality. In India, state governments have indulged the pers cution of Christians under the ludicrous pretext that they are stamping out proselytism.

Nonetheless, the problem of Christian persecution is most pronounced in Islamic societies, and  specially in places where  oil riches are  inflaming prejudice.  Of  course, Muslims  in Europe  or North  America  confront intolerance too, but it would be silly to deny that the situation of Christians in the Middle East is  ery much worse.

The   answer´s   not   to   inflame  matching   animosity   against  Islam.  A   clearer  understanding   of  that   faith’s complexities would be a help, both to praise the visions of peace it contains and to condemn the way that certain Muslim ideas are turned into aggression by some adherents. But this is best done in terms that  uslims themselves can embrace, through a discussion involving people of all faiths as well as those of none.

Just as important is a resolute stand for the principle of religious freedom everywhere. Religious belief is fundamental to many human identities. Freedom of faith must be defended, irrespective of whet er the attacks come from totalitarian atheist regimes or theocracies. For the faithful, what they believe about G d is inseparable from what they understand about human beings. But God’s rights must never be allowed to tram le on human rights.

Adapted from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/25/guardian­view­religious­intoleranceburden­cross. Accessed on: 03/18/2015

THE GUARDIAN VIEW ON RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE: THE BURDEN OF THE CROSS

The hideous convulsions that followed the invasion in Iraq (2003) have been dreadful for everyo e in the region,  but nobody has suffered more than the Christians, persecuted alike in Sunni and Shia states. In  he nations that are not at war, they are tolerated but oppressed; in the Gulf, most Christians are servants, abom nably treated. Their religion must be practised in secret, with converts threatened with death. In Iran, a missionary or a pastor is hanged from time to time as an exercise in public morality.

In the states where war rages, every man’s hand is against them. The Christian population of Iraq was more than a million in 2003. Now it is less than a third of that size, with perhaps half that number in Ku distan, which is functionally independent of the Shia government anyway. They are not coming back. Nor can th y feel safe in Kurdistan. It was Sunni Kurds who did much of the killing in  Turkey’s attempted genocide  of the Armenian Christians 100 years ago, and both sides remember this.

In Syria, a brutal sectarian insurgency drives some Christians to support the ruthless Assad regi e. In Egypt, the already vulnerable Coptic Christians, who lived there for 600 years before the Muslims arrived,  ad a dreadful Arab spring under the Islamist regime of President Mohamed Morsi and, after the counter revolutionary coup, continue to be persecuted, both inside and outside the law. Even Israel, which presents itself as   beacon of religious liberty, is a dreadful place to live for Christian Arabs, caught between an occupying arm  in the West Bank and Muslim fundamentalism in Gaza. Further east, in Pakistan, a corrupt government fails  o challenge deep prejudice that leaves Christians vulnerable to judicial murder under the blasphemy laws, as well as to the lynchings and pogroms to which the authorities turn an understanding eye. Those rare politicians brave enough to speak up for toleration can be assassinated, sometimes by their own bodyguards.

Across a wide belt of sub Saharan Africa, but especially in Nigeria, northern Kenya and the Central African Republic,   there   are  simmering   wars   between   Muslim  and   Christian   ethnic   groups.   In  some   cases,   in   the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in South Sudan, Christian armies fight merciless civil war  against each other and civilian populations. It isn’t just a simple story of Muslims persecuting Christians. In Ch na and in North Korea, atheist governments are persecuting Christians; in Russia, an Orthodox Christian regime  reats Catholics with suspicion and Protestants with brutality. In India, state governments have indulged the pers cution of Christians under the ludicrous pretext that they are stamping out proselytism.

Nonetheless, the problem of Christian persecution is most pronounced in Islamic societies, and  specially in places where  oil riches are  inflaming prejudice.  Of  course, Muslims  in Europe  or North  America  confront intolerance too, but it would be silly to deny that the situation of Christians in the Middle East is  ery much worse.

The   answer´s   not   to   inflame  matching   animosity   against  Islam.  A   clearer  understanding   of  that   faith’s complexities would be a help, both to praise the visions of peace it contains and to condemn the way that certain Muslim ideas are turned into aggression by some adherents. But this is best done in terms that  uslims themselves can embrace, through a discussion involving people of all faiths as well as those of none.

Just as important is a resolute stand for the principle of religious freedom everywhere. Religious belief is fundamental to many human identities. Freedom of faith must be defended, irrespective of whet er the attacks come from totalitarian atheist regimes or theocracies. For the faithful, what they believe about G d is inseparable from what they understand about human beings. But God’s rights must never be allowed to tram le on human rights.

Adapted from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/25/guardian­view­religious­intoleranceburden­cross. Accessed on: 03/18/2015