Are Increases in Society Doing Just The Opposite?

Think about it… you have less of an opportunity for your life than your mother and father did, and your children have less of an opportunity than you. That’s not how it is supposed to work… right? Improvements in society and technology occur each and every day, every year, and every generation; the growth is beginning to do just the opposite of what is intended. I believe we all can agree that such developments that we are aiming for are to increase production, and produce a better and cheaper product. However, although technological advancements are useful in today’s society, they limit business opportunities, educational peaks, and the quality of social skills. Business opportunities are decreasing due to mechanical standards, which are becoming unreachable to the human ability. The widespread use of computer generated machines have eliminated hundreds of jobs, mainly because of business expenses; including budget cuts and outsourcing. In some cases, the switch to a machine was to generate a cheaper product in the first place (Technology and Job Loss). Let’s not fool ourselves; everyone is after the almighty dollar. In turn, it may have created a good which seemed ‘better’ for people to use and buy. Maybe the product could be held to a standard, that every single output was the same as the one before it and the one after it. Some people like consistency, that way, one consumer would never feel cheated in a deal for getting less of a product than the next person. As wonderful as this sounds on paper, it possibly worked for the company at first, but we are seeing a downslide in the quality of products, due to the cheaper resources used to make the product; cheaper resources = cheaper final product. This is good for the business, then that way, people will just feel the need to buy the same product. Nevertheless, this is bad for the consumer, because most of us want to buy what we need and be happy with it the first time, even if it means paying a little more to include the manual labor put behind it. As I have just explained, this elimination of jobs not only affects the people directly, but many thousands of people and consumers indirectly (Pielke). With the removal of jobs, those people must find new employment. This limits other re-entrants to the work force, as well as new-entrants. As for re-entrants and further upcoming generations, they seem to struggle in finding the same education that their elders received, due to technology. Statistics are showing a decrease in education that mirrors the success in older generations. Small business, years ago, were generally more successful than the small businesses today (Sternberg). We even see it in presidential debates as a rather large focal point, because that’s where many people have turned to for employment; and if small business can’t stand on their own feet in the first place, how could they possibly expand? Near-monopoly organizations, such as Apple, Ford, and Google are the spin-offs of dreams thought of many years ago. Each one had started small, but back then, there was room to dream of those things. There was room to find the success, and now, there’s almost no air where each of these companies subside. Apple, and Google, would not be here without the advancements in the last 20 years in society. But, there is a way to use their products without jeopardizing yourself and your potential for the rest of the world; including your gamble at success. Which, at this point, focuses on the younger generations (Sternberg). Such conclusion can be drawn by simply looking at the advertisements. The advertisements are intended for the younger generations because that is what people these days know to be comfortable; and in turn, are only promoting the same thing for the future. For example, the high-tech cell phones and music devices are typically seen in the