The first is (3) the collapse of loyalty.

Companies happily chopped out layers of managers

during the 1990s: now people are likely to repay them by moving to the highest bidder. The
second is (4) the mismatch between what schools are producing and what companies need. In
most Western countries schools are churning out too few scientists and engineers – and far too
many people who lack the skills to work in a modern economy (that’s why there are talent
shortages at the top alongside structural unemployment for the low-skilled).

Solution:

(1) Nobody really disputes the idea that the demand for talent-intensive skills is rising, but
(2) two things are making it much harder for companies to adjust, including (3) the collapse of
loyalty, and (4) the mismatch between what schools are producing and what companies need.
(42 words)

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING - SWT07

Consider the current situation: Like their counterparts in the United States, engineers and
technicians in India have the capacity to provide both computer programming and innovative
new technologies. Indian programmers and high-tech engineers earn one- quarter of what their
counterparts earn in the United States. Consequently, (1) India is able to do both jobs at a lower
dollar cost than the United States: India has an absolute advantage in both. In other words, it
can produce a unit of programming for fewer dollars than the United States, and it can also
produce a unit of technology innovation for fewer dollars. Does that mean that the United States
will lose not only programming jobs but innovative technology jobs, too? Does that mean that
our standard of living will fall if the United States and India engage in international trade?
(Detailed explanation of India’s advantages)

David Ricardo would have answered no to both questions—as we do today. While India
may have an absolute advantage in both activities, that fact is irrelevant in determining what
India or the United States will produce. (2) India has a comparative advantage in doing
programming in part because such activity requires little physical capital. The flip side is that (3)
the United States has a comparative advantage in technology innovation partly because it is