题目内容
The "standard of living" of any country means the average person’s share of the goods and services which the country produces. A country’s standard of living, therefore, depends first and foremost on its capacity to produce wealth. "Wealth" in this sense is not money, for we do not live on money but on things that money can buy- "goods "such as food and clothing, and "services" such as transport and entertainment.A country’s capacity to produce wealth depends upon many factors, most of which have an effect on one another. Wealth depends to a great extent upon a country’s natural resources, such as coal, gold, and other minerals, water supply and so on. Some regions of the world are well supplied with coal and minerals, and have a fertile soil and a favourable climate; other regions possess none of them. The USA is one of the wealthiest regions of the world because she has vast natural resources within her borders, her soil is fertile, and her climate is varied. The Sahara Desert, on the other hand, is one of the least wealthy.Next to natural resources comes the ability to turn them to use. Sound and stable political conditions, and freedom from foreign invasion, enable a country to develop its natural resources peacefully and steadily, and to produce more wealth than another country equally well served by nature but less well ordered. Another important factor is the technical efficiency of a country’s people. Old countries that have, through many centuries, trained up numerous skilled craftsmen and technicians are better placed to produce wealth than countries whose workers are largely unskilled. Wealth also produces wealth. As a country becomes wealthier, its people have a large margin for saving, and can put their savings into factories and machines which will help workers to produce more goods in their working day.A country’s standard of living does not only depend upon the wealth that is produced and consumed within its own borders, but also upon what is indirectly produced through international trade. For example, Britain’s wealth in foodstuffs and other agricultural products would be much less if she had to depend only on those grown at home. Trade makes it possible for her surplus manufactured goods to be traded abroad for the agricultural product that would other wise be lacking. A country’s wealth is, therefore, much influenced by its manufacturing capacity, provided that other countries can be found ready to accept its manufactures. The best title for the passage would be ().
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
How do we measure the economic return to higher education Typically it is calculated as the difference between average wages of college graduates and those who have not graduated from college. In 1997, for example, college graduates earned an average of ＄ 40, 508 versus just ＄ 23, 970 for non-college graduates. Based on these income levels, the economic return to a college education is approximately 69 percent, the difference between the two income levels. But this simple calculation ignores the fact that college graduates tend to come from higher socioeconomic levels, are more highly motivated, and probably have higher IQs than non graduations. Although these factors influence inc0mes, they are not the result of college attendance. Therefore the result of the study is an overstatement of the returns to higher education.More sophisticated analyses adjust for these extraneous influences. For instance economists Orley Ashenfelter and Alan Krueger, estimate that each year of post-high school education results in a wage premium of between 15 and 16 percent. Their study is particularly relevant because they examined the earnings differences for identical twins with different education levels, allowing them to control for genetic and socioeconomic factors. Other research puts the wage premium for college graduates at nearly 50 per cent.Unfortunately, you can’t spend a college wage premium. Income levels for the average college graduate have stagnated. After adjusting for inflation, the average income of college graduates holding full-time jobs rose by only 4. 4 per cent between 1979 and 1997, or at a minuscule annual rate of 0.2 percent. At the same time, workers with only high-school degrees saw their real income plummet by 15 percent. Bottom line: the much-ballyhooed college wage "premium" is due primarily to the fall in inflation-adjusted salaries of workers who haven’t been to college.In fact, if you don’t go on to graduate school or are not among the top graduates at one of the nation’s elite colleges, chances are your sky-high tuition is buying you no economic advantage whatsoever. In recent decades the flood of graduates has been so great that an increasing proportion have found themselves, within a few years, working as sales clerks, cab drivers, and in other jobs that do not, require a college degree.In 1995, approximately 40 percent of people with some college education--and 10 percent of those with a college degree—worked at jobs requiring only high-school skills. That’s up from 30 percent and 6 percent, respectively, in 1971. The traditional calculation of the economic return to higher education is inaccurate because().
Questions 1 to 3 are based on the following conversation. At the end of the conversation, you will be given 15 seconds to answer the questions. Now, listen to the conversation. How long will the woman have to stay away from work
The "standard of living" of any country means the average person’s share of the goods and services which the country produces. A country’s standard of living, therefore, depends first and foremost on its capacity to produce wealth. "Wealth" in this sense is not money, for we do not live on money but on things that money can buy- "goods "such as food and clothing, and "services" such as transport and entertainment.A country’s capacity to produce wealth depends upon many factors, most of which have an effect on one another. Wealth depends to a great extent upon a country’s natural resources, such as coal, gold, and other minerals, water supply and so on. Some regions of the world are well supplied with coal and minerals, and have a fertile soil and a favourable climate; other regions possess none of them. The USA is one of the wealthiest regions of the world because she has vast natural resources within her borders, her soil is fertile, and her climate is varied. The Sahara Desert, on the other hand, is one of the least wealthy.Next to natural resources comes the ability to turn them to use. Sound and stable political conditions, and freedom from foreign invasion, enable a country to develop its natural resources peacefully and steadily, and to produce more wealth than another country equally well served by nature but less well ordered. Another important factor is the technical efficiency of a country’s people. Old countries that have, through many centuries, trained up numerous skilled craftsmen and technicians are better placed to produce wealth than countries whose workers are largely unskilled. Wealth also produces wealth. As a country becomes wealthier, its people have a large margin for saving, and can put their savings into factories and machines which will help workers to produce more goods in their working day.A country’s standard of living does not only depend upon the wealth that is produced and consumed within its own borders, but also upon what is indirectly produced through international trade. For example, Britain’s wealth in foodstuffs and other agricultural products would be much less if she had to depend only on those grown at home. Trade makes it possible for her surplus manufactured goods to be traded abroad for the agricultural product that would other wise be lacking. A country’s wealth is, therefore, much influenced by its manufacturing capacity, provided that other countries can be found ready to accept its manufactures. According to the author, a nation’s wealth depends upon ().
Wal-Mart presented little new information in its first major report on efforts to become greener, but it was enough to encourage some environmental groups to say that the world’s largest retailer is trying. The report released Thursday details dozens of sustainability programs ranging from environmental to economic development, employee health care and ethics in overseas factories where it buys goods.Most have been disclosed previously, but the 64-page report is the first comprehensive catalog of dozens of programs--from organic cotton clothes to low-energy freezer cases--adopted since Chief Executive Lee Scott set three green goals in October 2005. Those goals are to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy, to create zero waste and to sell products that help sustain resources and the environment. Scott did not set any timelines, although there are deadlines for some of the steps along the way. Scott said in a foreword that the report shows Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is making progress, but still has work to do. He reiterated Wal-Mart’s stated theory of two years ago that reducing its environmental impact is a smart business move because it saves money and produces better products.Environmental Defense, which works with large companies including Wal-Mart to help them design and implement green plans, welcomed the report. "The company is moving in the right direction, and learning as it goes," the group said in a statement. Environmental Defense is the only green group to open an office, with two staff members, in Wal-Mart’s headquarters town of Bentonville, Arkansas, to coordinate the effort.Environmental Defense said, however, that Wal-Mart must provide more data and context in the sustainability report. For example, it said, the report lists new low-flow sinks that cut water use in some store bathrooms, but does not specify how many stores use the technology and what water use was before the installations."Our takeaway is that over the last two years, Wal-Mart has built the foundation for a robust environmental program with many innovative and potentially transformational projects," Environmental Defense said. Why is it a clever move to reduce environmental impact().
微信支付 
支付宝支付