加载中…
个人资料
Yellow
Yellow
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:0
  • 博客访问:2,785,463
  • 关注人气:11,944
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
相关博文
推荐博文
谁看过这篇博文
加载中…
正文 字体大小:

2017考研英语最新时文阅读(Text 1)

(2016-09-01 09:51:27)
标签:

黄涛

考研

分类: 阅读篇

 这是一篇摘选自美国《华盛顿邮报》网站817日的一篇文章,作者是Robert J. Samuelson,难度是五级水平,亲爱的黄桃们,你们读懂这篇文章的主题了吗?大家可就此讨论或提问!

We are such an anxiety-ridden society that we worry about problems that haven’t happened, and, almost certainly, won’t. Robots are an apt example. Even McKinsey and Co., the high-powered management consulting firm, professes to be concerned. We imagine hordes of robots destroying jobs, leaving millions of middle-class families without work and income. Relax. Unless we adopt self-destructive policies, this is one dooms-day we’ll avoid.

【精品译文】

我们正处在一个如此充满焦虑的社会里,以至于我们担心那些尚未发生且几乎必然不会发生的问题。机器人就是一个恰当的例子。甚至连强大的管理咨询公司麦肯锡都坦诚对机器人的担忧。我们想象成批的机器人正在毁掉工作,让数以百万计的中产阶级家庭失去工作和收入。请放心吧。如果我们不采取自杀式的方式,这是一个我们能避免的世界末日。

One thing that the U. S. economy excels at is creating jobs. You might doubt this listening to Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton, who promise personally to create millions of high-paying jobs. This is misleading. The overwhelming shares of jobs are created by the private market, not government or politicians.

【精品译文】

       美国经济所擅长的一件事情就是创造就业。你听唐纳德·特朗普和希拉里·克林顿演讲时可能会质疑这一点,两人亲口承诺要创造数百万个高薪工作。这是误导人的,因为绝大多数就业是私人市场而不是政府或政客所创造的。

   Yes, there are recessions. Two of them in the post-World War II era were quite severe (those of 1981-82 and 2007-09). We had scary levels of unemployment. But eventually the job creation machine reasserts itself. In 2015, employment totaled 149 million, up from 99 million in 1980 and 137 million in 2000.

【精品译文】

        是的,美国经历过经济衰退。发生在二战后的两次(1981年至1982年,2007年到2009)都非常严重。当时的失业率非常吓人。但最终创造就业的机器重显神威2015年,美国的就业人数达到1.49亿,高于1980年的9900万和2000年的1.37亿。

   What about the robots? In truth, they are not a new problem. There have always been new technologies and products that eliminate entire industries and occupations. But lost jobs and destroyed industries give way, over time, to new industries and jobs. Cars replaced buggies, smart-phones are replacing landlines.

【精品译文】

那么机器人呢?事实上,它们并不是一个新问题。新技术和新产品淘汰整个行业和职业的情况总是存在。但是失去的工作和毁掉的行业会逐渐新的行业和工作所取代。汽车取代了轻便马车,智能电话正在取代固网电信。

   Robots are simply the latest chapter in this narrative. Sure, some jobs will vanish. But others will materialize. Often, increases occur so silently and slowly that they’re only noticed when they’ve become a major part of the labor force.

【精品译文】

        机器人只不过是这个故事的最新章节。的确,有些岗位将会消失。但另外一些岗位将会出现。通常,就业岗位的增加会如此悄然和缓慢,以至于它们成为劳动力的一个重要组成部分时才会引起人们的注意。

Just the other day, the Census Bureau released a report on “information technology ” workers, a job category that didn’t exist until 1970. Since then, their numbers have increased tenfold, growing from 450,000 to 4.6 million. These are well-paying jobs; median earnings in 2014 were $ 80, 665.

【精品译文】

就在几天前,美国人口普查局公布了一份有关“信息技术”从业人员的报告,这类职业直到1970年才出现。从那以后,其从业者人数增长了九倍,从45万人增加到了今天的460万人。这些都是高薪就业岗位,2014年的中位数年薪是8665美元。

The same logic applies to robots. Someone has to design the robots, program them, sell them, service them and fix them. These people buy homes, send their kids to college, take vacations and have health-care costs. The economy is a circular process, where one person’s costs are another person’s income. If robots cut costs, the savings have to go somewhere—lower prices, higher wages, higher profits or more business investment. All potentially augment demand.

【精品译文】

      同样的逻辑适用于机器人。机器人需要有人设计,有人编程,有人销售,有人检修。这些人需要买房,要送孩子上大学,要度假,还要支付医疗费用。经济是一个循环过程,一个人的支出就是另一个人的收入。如果机器人节省下来的成本,其省下的成本必有去向即带来更低的价格、更高的薪水,更高的利润或更多的商业投资。所有这些都有可能扩大需求。

     None of this demeans the hardships—sometimes tragedies—of workers who lose their jobs to new technologies and competitors. Workers whose skills and contacts become obsolete face a difficult time. But this is a long-standing problem that has defied many efforts to solve it.

【精品译文】

       这一切都不能减轻那些因新的技术和竞争对手而失业的工人所遇到的困难,有时是悲剧。技能过时、与时代脱节的工人会面临艰难的处境。但这是一个长期存在的问题,许多旨在解决这一问题的努力都失败了。

There are two dangers for the future. One is that the new jobs created by new technologies will require knowledge and skills that are in short supply, leaving unskilled workers without income and the economy with skill scarcities.

【精品译文】

      未来我们面临两种危险。首先,新技术创造的新就业岗位所需的知识和技能会出现短缺,从而让缺乏技术的工人没有收入而经济面临技能短缺的局面。

The second danger is that government will damage or destroy the job creation process. We live in a profit-making economic system. Government’s main role is to maintain the conditions that make hiring profitable. If we make it too costly for private firms to hire(through high minimum wages, mandated costs and expensive regulations)—or too difficult to fire —guess what? They won’t hire. That’s what ought to worry us, not the specter of more robots.

【精品译文】

第二个危险就是,政府将会破坏或毁掉创造就业的过程。我们生活在一个创造利润的经济体系中。政府的主要职责就是维持这些条件,让雇佣有利可图。如果我们(通过高标准最低工资、强制性支出和昂贵的管制)使私人企业的雇佣成本过高或解雇员工的难度太大,你猜会怎么着?他们就不会雇佣员工了。我们要担忧的应该是这个,不是对机器人愈来愈多的恐惧。

  Every yellow peach, any question is welcome!

 

0

阅读 评论 收藏 转载 喜欢 打印举报/Report
  • 评论加载中,请稍候...
发评论

    发评论

    以上网友发言只代表其个人观点,不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

      

    新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 电话:4000520066 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

    新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

    新浪公司 版权所有