Readers’ Blog

Living in big cities is so hard !

Popularity 5Viewed 1472 times 2015-3-26 16:41 |System category:News| cities

You may appreciate people having good jobs and high salary in big cities like Shanghai ,Beijing and Guangdong .And there are many you do not know behind it !
   The peopel living in first-tier cities face a huge pressure from high home price and consumption .Besides that mostly should spend more than 3 hours on the way betweent home and offices .In this condition Poelple  have few time to company with thwir childeren and their old parents .
      Though anynoe can easier to have a good chance and develpmen in first-tier cities .But in my opinion ,working is for life .
    So by the time of thinking high salary and better develope ,and please take consider of  giving more time to your family !

(Opinions of the writer in this blog don't represent those of China Daily.)




Shake hands


Friends who just made a statement (2 Person)

Like 0 Share


Comment Comment (5 comments)

Reply Report Dr.Bill.Shen 2015-3-26 21:08
it is a trade-off of life. but it seems somehow many people can have that balanced well. once you get used to it, your anxiety might abate.
Reply Report SEARU 2015-3-27 06:41
Logical thinking depends on basic facts that is reasonable!

(Is there any spelling error in your blog?)
Reply Report saver 2015-3-27 10:03
i also feel it is no advantage to live in big city
Reply Report PeterM 2015-3-28 10:44
I tend to agree, living is big cities has many disadvantages and only a few advantages. You failed to mention air pollution and the great chance of death or injury from recless drivers.

Don't work about SEARU, he loves to be cheeky. However he is right, your blog has many spelling and grammar errors.

I recommend you continue blogging but check your posts more  thoroughly before your click send.
Reply Report PeterM 2015-3-28 10:45
Silly me, I failed too. reckless has a k.

Maybe you are like me. I think much faster than I type and I often miss errors when checking.

facelist doodle Doodle board

You need to login to comment Login | register


Recent comments

  • Driveless car in furture 2016-2-8 11:05

    I do not think that many people will want a driverless car.

    And I do not think that they will be safe. The big question seems to be will the car save you the driver if it can or run into five innocent people on the road. What decision does it make if it has to make that choice. Will the car swerve and kill you the driver instead of a kid that has fallen on the road. In my opinion these cars will just plain make mistakes and kill people to start with so I think that ethical questions come after these things are proven to be safe and I do not think they will be.

    But if nobody is going to be actually driving their own vehicle then why not just design a central system that controls all vehicles like Tesla wanted to do with his tower.

    But with these ethical questions they are kind of stupid. Like 'The Trolley Problem'. Is a driverless vehicle really going to be rolling towards five people and then have to make a choice between killing five or swerving to kill one? How? Where are these people? In a parking lot? Have the five dashed out in front of the vehicle and the one person standing innocently to the side? That makes all the difference. If the five have dashed out and are at fault then the vehicle should run them over if it cannot safely brake in time. The five are at fault. You cant kill one person that is not at fault to save five people that are at fault. With Tunnel Problem the vehicle must run over the child because the child that has fallen on the road in front of you is at fault. The vehicle must attempt to break safely but if it cannot then it must run the child over. You cant have vehicles swerving unsafely to save the lives of pedestrians that have broken road rules. If a kangaroo jumps out in front of you then you try to break but if you cant then you just have to run into it because swerving to try to miss it is unsafe. If a cat runs out and the vehicle needs to decide if it will swerve off a cliff to save the cat or run over it - it runs the cat over of course. I really do not see what is so hard about all of this. There are road rules and all the vehicles need to do is follow them. The vehicle should not be able to break road rules to save the driver or a pedestrian. If driverless cars are really going to be safe then the vehicle should never be at fault and it will only be the pedestrian.  I think the biggest thing will be how the driverless vehicle responds to vehicles that are driven by humans that make human error. If a driverless car knows that it is about to be rear ended by a truck that has a driver and the only way to save the innocent driver is to drive off the lane and into five or even one pedestrian then the vehicle just need to take the hit and sacrifice the driver rather than an innocent on the side of the road.

    The best way to do things is pass a law that requires all vehicles to be controlled by a central program like Tesla wanted to do with his tower. Then you pass a law saying that all vehicles more than five years old are unsafe and illegal. Within five years you have phased out undriverless cars and all are controlled by the central program.

  • Driveless car in furture 2016-2-6 11:48

    That takes all the fun out of driving.

Star blogger










Most Viewed

Song of Love



My college life



Most commented

Song of Love



My college life



Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.