题目内容

The decline in American manufacturing is a common refrain, particularly from Donald Trump. "We don’t make anything anymore," he told Fox News, while defending his own made-in-Mexico clothing line. Without question, manufacturing has taken a significant hit during recent decades, and further trade deals raise questions about whether new shocks could hit manufacturing. But there is also a different way to look at the data. Across the country, factory owners are now grappling with a new challenge: instead of having too many workers, they may end up with too few. Despite trade competition and outsourcing, American manufacturing still needs to replace tens of thousands of retiring boomers every years. Millennials may not be that interested in taking their place, other industries are recruiting them with similar or better pay. For factory owners, it all adds up to stiff competition for workers-and upward pressure on wages. "They’re harder to find and they have job offers," says Jay Dunwell, president of Wolverine Coil Spring, a family-owned firm, "They may be coming [into the workforce], but they’ve been plucked by other industries that are also doing an well as manufacturing," Mr. Dunwell has begun bringing high school juniors to the factory so they can get exposed to its culture. At RoMan Manufacturing, a maker of electrical transformers and welding equipment that his father cofounded in 1980, Robert Roth keep a close eye on the age of his nearly 200 workers, five are retiring this year. Mr. Roth has three community-college students enrolled in a work-placement program, with a starting wage of $13 an hour that rises to $17 after two years. At a worktable inside the transformer plant, young Jason Stenquist looks flustered by the copper coils he’s trying to assemble and the arrival of two visitors. It’s his first week on the job. Asked about his choice of career, he says at high school he considered medical school before switching to electrical engineering. "I love working with tools. I love creating." he says. But to win over these young workers, manufacturers have to clear another major hurdle: parents, who lived through the worst US economic downturn since the Great Depression, telling them to avoid the factory. Millennials "remember their father and mother both were laid off. They blame it on the manufacturing recession," says Birgit Klohs, chief executive of The Right Place, a business development agency for western Michigan. These concerns aren’t misplaced: Employment in manufacturing has fallen from 17 million in 1970 to 12 million in 2013. When the recovery began, worker shortages first appeared in the high-skilled trades. Now shortages are appearing at the mid-skill levels. "The gap is between the jobs that take to skills and those that require a lot of skill," says Rob Spohr, a business professor at Montcalm Community College. "There’re enough people to fill the jobs at McDonalds and other places where you don’t need to have much skill. It’s that gap in between, and that’s where the problem is." Julie Parks of Grand Rapids Community points to another key to luring Millennials into manufacturing: a work/life balance. While their parents were content to work long hours, young people value flexibility. "Overtime is not attractive to this generation. They really want to live their lives," she says. Julie Parks_____

A. says that he switched to electrical engineering because he loves working with tools.
B. points out that there are enough people to fill the jobs that don’t need much skill.
C. points out that the US doesn’t manufacture anything anymore.
D. believes that it is important to keep a close eye on the age of his workers.
E. says that for factory owners, workers are harder to find because of stiff competition.
F. points out that a work/life balance can attract young people into manufacturing.
G. says that the manufacturing recession is to blame for the lay-off the young people’s parents.

查看答案
更多问题

My dream has always been to work somewhere in an area between fashion and publishing. Two years before graduating from secondary school, I took a sewing and design course thinking that I would move on to a fashion design course. However, during that course I realised that I was not good enough in this area to compete with other creative personalities in the future, so I decided that it was not the right path for me. Before applying for university I told everyone that I would study journalism, because writing was, and still is, one of my favourite activities. But, to be absolutely honest, I said it, because I thought that fashion and me together was just a dream-I knew that no one, apart from myself, could imagine me in the fashion industry at all!

Text 3 Today, widespread social pressure to immediately go to college in conjunction with increasingly high expectations in a fast-moving world often causes students to completely overlook the possibility of taking a gap year. After all, if everyone you know is going to college in the fall, it seems silly to stay back a year, doesn’t it And after going to school for 12 years, it doesn’t feel natural to spend a year doing something that isn’t academic. But while this may be true, it’s not a good enough reason to condemn gap years. There’s always a constant fear of falling behind everyone else on the socially perpetuated "race to the finish line," whether that be toward graduate school, medical school or lucrative career. But despite common misconceptions, a gap year does not hinder the success of academic pursuits-in fact, it probably enhances it. Studies from the United States and Australia show that students who take a gap year are generally better prepared for and perform better in college than those who do not. Rather than pulling students back, a gap year pushes them ahead by preparing them for independence, new responsibilities and environmental changes-all things that first-year students often struggle with the most. Gap year experiences can lessen the blow when it comes to adjusting to college and being thrown into a brand new environment, making it easier to focus on academics and activities rather than acclimation blunders. If you’re not convinced of the inherent value in taking a year off to explore interests, then consider its financial impact on future academic choices. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly 80 percent of college students end up changing their majors at least once. This isn’t surprising, considering the basic mandatory high school curriculum leaves students with a poor understanding of themselves listing one major on their college applications, but switching to another after taking college classes. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but depending on the school, it can be costly to make up credits after switching too late in the game. At Boston College, for example, you would have to complete an extra year were you to switch to the nursing school from another department. Taking a gap year to figure things out initially can help prevent stress and save money later on. One of the reasons for high-school graduates not taking a gap year is that_____.

A. they think it academically misleading
B. they have a lot of fun to expect in college
C. it feels strange to do differently from others
D. it seems worthless to take off-campus courses

Text 2 With so much focus on children’s use of screens, it’s easy for parents to forget about their own screen use. "Tech is designed to really suck on you in," says Jenny Radesky in her study of digital play, "and digital products are there to promote maximal engagement. It makes it hard to disengage, and leads to a lot of bleed-over into the family routine." Radesky has studied the use of mobile phones and tablets at mealtimes by giving mother-child pairs a food-testing exercise. She found that mothers who sued devices during the exercise started 20 percent fewer verbal and 39 percent fewer nonverbal interactions with their children. During a separate observation, she saw that phones became a source of tension in the family. Parents would be looking at their emails while the children would be making excited bids for their attention. Infants are wired to look at parents’ faces to try to understand their world, and if those faces are blank and unresponsive—as they often are when absorbed in a device-it can be extremely disconcerting foe the children. Radesky cites the "still face experiment" devised by developmental psychologist Ed Tronick in the 1970s. In it, a mother is asked to interact with her child in a normal way before putting on a blank expression and not giving them any visual social feedback; The child becomes increasingly distressed as she tries to capture her mother’s attention. "Parents don’t have to be exquisitely parents at all times, but there needs to be a balance and parents need to be responsive and sensitive to a child’s verbal or nonverbal expressions of an emotional need," says Radesky. On the other hand, Tronick himself is concerned that the worries about kids’ use of screens are born out of an "oppressive ideology that demands that parents should always be interacting" with their children: "It’s based on a somewhat fantasized, very white, very upper-middle-class ideology that says if you’re failing to expose your child to 30,000 words you are neglecting them." Tronick believes that just because a child isn’t learning from the screen doesn’t mean there’s no value to it-particularly if it gives parents time to have a shower, do housework or simply have a break from their child. Parents, he says, can get a lot out of using their devices to speak to a friend or get some work out of the way. This can make them feel happier, which lets then be more available to their child the rest of the time. The oppressive ideology mentioned by Tronick requires parents to_______.

A. protect kids from exposure to wild fantasies
B. teach their kids at least 30,000 words a year
C. ensure constant interaction with their children
D. remain concerned about kid’s use of screens

Text 2 With so much focus on children’s use of screens, it’s easy for parents to forget about their own screen use. "Tech is designed to really suck on you in," says Jenny Radesky in her study of digital play, "and digital products are there to promote maximal engagement. It makes it hard to disengage, and leads to a lot of bleed-over into the family routine." Radesky has studied the use of mobile phones and tablets at mealtimes by giving mother-child pairs a food-testing exercise. She found that mothers who sued devices during the exercise started 20 percent fewer verbal and 39 percent fewer nonverbal interactions with their children. During a separate observation, she saw that phones became a source of tension in the family. Parents would be looking at their emails while the children would be making excited bids for their attention. Infants are wired to look at parents’ faces to try to understand their world, and if those faces are blank and unresponsive—as they often are when absorbed in a device-it can be extremely disconcerting foe the children. Radesky cites the "still face experiment" devised by developmental psychologist Ed Tronick in the 1970s. In it, a mother is asked to interact with her child in a normal way before putting on a blank expression and not giving them any visual social feedback; The child becomes increasingly distressed as she tries to capture her mother’s attention. "Parents don’t have to be exquisitely parents at all times, but there needs to be a balance and parents need to be responsive and sensitive to a child’s verbal or nonverbal expressions of an emotional need," says Radesky. On the other hand, Tronick himself is concerned that the worries about kids’ use of screens are born out of an "oppressive ideology that demands that parents should always be interacting" with their children: "It’s based on a somewhat fantasized, very white, very upper-middle-class ideology that says if you’re failing to expose your child to 30,000 words you are neglecting them." Tronick believes that just because a child isn’t learning from the screen doesn’t mean there’s no value to it-particularly if it gives parents time to have a shower, do housework or simply have a break from their child. Parents, he says, can get a lot out of using their devices to speak to a friend or get some work out of the way. This can make them feel happier, which lets then be more available to their child the rest of the time. According to Tronick, kid’s use of screens may_______.

A. give their parents some free time
B. make their parents more creative
C. help them with their homework
D. help them become more attentive

答案查题题库