题目内容

A Mess on the Ladder of Success A. Throughout American history there has almost always been at least one central economic narrative that gave the ambitious or unsatisfied reason to pack up and seek their fortune elsewhere. For the first 300 or so years of European settlement, the story was about moving outward: getting immigrants to the continent and then to the frontier to clear the prairies (大草原), drain the wetlands and build new cities. B. By the end of the 19th century, as the frontier vanished, the US had a mild panic attack. What would this energetic, enterprising country be without new lands to conquer Some people, such as Teddy Roosevelt, decided to keep on conquering (Cuba, the Philippines, etc.), but eventually, in industrialization, the US found a new narrative of economic mobility at home. From the 1890s to the 1960s, people moved from farm to city, first in the North and then in the South. In fact, by the 1950s, there was enough prosperity and white-collar work that many began to move to the suburbs. As the population aged, there was also a shift from the cold Rust Belt to the comforts of the Sun Belt. We think of this as an old person’s migration, but it created many jobs for the young in construction and health care, not to mention tourism, retail and restaurants. C. For the last 20 years—from the end of the cold war through two burst bubbles in a single decade—the US has been casting about for its next economic narrative. And now it is experiencing another period of panic, which is bad news for much of the workforce but particularly for its youngest members. D. The US has always been a remarkably mobile country, but new data from the Census Bureau indicate that mobility has reached its lowest level in recorded history. Sure, some people are stuck in homes valued at less than their mortgages (抵押贷款), but many young people—who don’t own homes and don’t yet have families—are staying put, too. This suggests, among other things, that people aren’t packing up for new economic opportunities the way they used to. Rather than dividing the country into the 1 percentres versus (与……相对) everyone else, the split in our economy is really between two other classes: the mobile and immobile. E. Part of the problem is that the country’s largest industries are in decline. In the past, it was perfectly clear where young people should go for work (Chicago in the 1870s, Detroit in the 1910s, Houston in the 1970s) and, more or less, what they’d be doing when they got there (killing cattle, building cars, selling oil). And these industries were large enough to offer jobs to each class of worker, from unskilled laborer to manager or engineer. Today, the few bright spots in our economy are relatively small (though some promise future growth) and decentralized. There are great jobs in Silicon Valley, in the biotech research capitals of Boston and Raleigh-Durham and in advanced manufacturing plants along the southern I-85 corridor. These companies recruit all over the country and the globe for workers with specific abilities. (You don’t need to be the next Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, to get a job in one of the microhubs (微中心), by the way. But you will almost certainly need at least a B.A. in computer science or a year or two at a technical school.) This newer, select job market is national, and it offers members of the mobile class competitive salaries and higher bargaining power. F. Many members of the immobile class, on the other hand, live in the America of the gloomy headlines. If you have no specialized skills, there’s little reason to uproot to another state and be the last in line for a low-paying job at a new auto plant or a green-energy startup. The surprise in the census (普查) data, however, is that the immobile workforce is not limited to unskilled workers. In fact, many have a college degree. G. Until now, a B.A. in any subject was a near-guarantee of at least middle-class wages. But today, a quarter of college graduates make less than the typical worker without a bachelor’s degree. David Autor, a prominent labor economist at M.I.T., recently told me that a college degree alone is no longer a guarantor of a good job. While graduates from top universities are still likely to get a good job no matter what their major is, he said, graduates from less-famous schools are going to be judged on what they know. To compete for jobs on a national level, they should be armed with the skills that emerging industries need whether technical or not. H. Those without such specialized skills—like poetry, or even history, majors—are already competing with their neighbours for the same sorts of second-rate, poorer-paying local jobs like low-level management or big-box retail sales. And with the low-skilled labor market atomized into thousands of microeconomies, immobile workers are less able to demand better wages or conditions or to acquire valuable skills. I. So what, exactly, should the ambitious young worker of today be learning Unfortunately, it’s hard to say, since the US doesn’t have one clear national project. There are plenty of emerging, smaller industries, but which ones are the most promising (Nanotechnology’s (纳米技术) moment of remarkable growth seems to have been 5 years into the future for something like 20 years now.) It’s not clear exactly what skills are most needed or if they will even be valuable in a decade. J. What is clear is that all sorts of government issues—education, health-insurance portability, worker retraining—are no longer just bonuses to already prosperous lives but existential requirements. It’s in all of our interests to make sure that as many people as possible are able to move toward opportunity, and America’s ability to invest people and money in exciting new ideas is still greater than that of most other wealthy countries. (As recently as five years ago, US migration was twice the rate of European Union states.) That, at least, is some comfort at a time when our national economy seems to be searching for its next story line. Unlike in the past, a college degree alone does not guarantee a good job for its holder.

查看答案
更多问题

Modern liberal opinion is sensitive to problems of restriction of freedom and abuse of power. Indeed, many hold that a man can be injured only by violating his will, but this view is much too narrow. It fails to recognize the great dangers we shall face in the uses of biomedical technology that stems from an excess of freedom, from the unrestrained exercise of will. In my view, our greatest problems will be voluntary self-degradation, or willing dehumanization, as the unintended yet often inescapable consequence of sternly and successfully pursuing our humanization goals. Certain desires and perfected medical technologies have already had some dehumanizing consequences. Improved methods of resuscitation have made possible heroic efforts to "save" the severely ill and injured. Yet these efforts are sometimes only partly successful; they succeed in rescuing individuals but these individuals may have severe brain damage and be capable of only a less-than-human, vegetating existence. Such patients found with increasing frequency in the intensive care units of university hospitals, have been denied a death with dignity. Families are forced to suffer seeing their loved ones so reduced and are made to bear the burden of a prolonged "death watch." Even the ordinary methods of treating disease and prolonging life have changed the context in which men die. Fewer and fewer people die in the familiar surroundings of home or in the company of family and friends. At that time of life when there is perhaps the greatest need for human warmth and comfort, the dying patient is kept company by cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators, respirators, aspirators, oxygenators, catheters and his intravenous drip. Ties to the community of men are replaced by attachments to an assemblage of machines. This loneliness, however, is not confined to the dying patient in the hospital bed. Consider the increasing number of old people still alive thanks to medical progress; as a group, the elderly are the most alienated members of our society, not yet ready for the world of the dead, not deemed fit for the world of the living, they are shunted aside. More and more of them spend the extra years, medicine has given them in "homes for senior citizens," in hospitals for chronic diseases, and in nursing homes waiting for the end. We have learned how to increase their years, but we have not learned how to help them enjoy their days; yet we continue to bravely and sternly push back the frontiers against death. What is implied in the first sentence

A. Doctors take a vain pride in extending the life expectancy of human beings.
B. Unrestrained exercise of will is an indispensable part of medical technology.
C. Survival is much better than death as far as humanization goals are concerned.
D. Biomedical technology might cause negative consequences in its application.

I have had just about enough of being treated like a second-class citizen, simply because I happen to be that put-upon member of society—a customer. The more I go into shops and hotels, banks and post offices, railway stations, airports and the like, the more I am convinced the things are being run solely to suit the firm, the system, or the union. There seems to be a deceptive new motto for so-called "service" organizations—Staff Before Service. How often, for example, have you queued for what seems like hours at the post office or the supermarket because there were not enough staff on duty to man all the service grilles or checkout counters Sure In these days of high unemployment it must be possible to hire cashiers and counter staff. Yet supermarkets, hinting darkly at higher prices, claim that uncovering all their cash registers at any one time would increase overheads. And the post office says we cannot expect all their service grilles to be occupied "at times when demand is low." It is the same with hotels. Because waiters and kitchen staff must finish when it suits them, dining rooms close earlier or menu choice is cut short. As for us guests, we just have to put up with it. There is also the nonsense of so many friendly hotel night porters having been thrown out of their jobs in the interests of "efficiency" (i.e. profits) and replaced by coin-eating machines which offer everything from lager to laxatives. Not to mention the creeping threat of the tea-making kit in your room: a kettle with a mixed collection of tea bags, plastic milk cartons and lump sugar. Who wants to wake up to a raw teabag I do not, especially when I am paying for "service." Can it be stopped, this worsening of service, this growing attitude that the customer is always a nuisance I angrily hope so because it is happening, sadly, in all walks of life. Our only hope is to hammer home our anger whenever and wherever we can and, if all else fails, bring back into practice that other, older slogan—Take Our Custom Elsewhere. The writer feels that nowadays a customer ______.

A. deserves the lowest status in society
B. is unworthy of proper consideration
C. receives unexpected quality service
D. is the victim of some public services

Modern liberal opinion is sensitive to problems of restriction of freedom and abuse of power. Indeed, many hold that a man can be injured only by violating his will, but this view is much too narrow. It fails to recognize the great dangers we shall face in the uses of biomedical technology that stems from an excess of freedom, from the unrestrained exercise of will. In my view, our greatest problems will be voluntary self-degradation, or willing dehumanization, as the unintended yet often inescapable consequence of sternly and successfully pursuing our humanization goals. Certain desires and perfected medical technologies have already had some dehumanizing consequences. Improved methods of resuscitation have made possible heroic efforts to "save" the severely ill and injured. Yet these efforts are sometimes only partly successful; they succeed in rescuing individuals but these individuals may have severe brain damage and be capable of only a less-than-human, vegetating existence. Such patients found with increasing frequency in the intensive care units of university hospitals, have been denied a death with dignity. Families are forced to suffer seeing their loved ones so reduced and are made to bear the burden of a prolonged "death watch." Even the ordinary methods of treating disease and prolonging life have changed the context in which men die. Fewer and fewer people die in the familiar surroundings of home or in the company of family and friends. At that time of life when there is perhaps the greatest need for human warmth and comfort, the dying patient is kept company by cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators, respirators, aspirators, oxygenators, catheters and his intravenous drip. Ties to the community of men are replaced by attachments to an assemblage of machines. This loneliness, however, is not confined to the dying patient in the hospital bed. Consider the increasing number of old people still alive thanks to medical progress; as a group, the elderly are the most alienated members of our society, not yet ready for the world of the dead, not deemed fit for the world of the living, they are shunted aside. More and more of them spend the extra years, medicine has given them in "homes for senior citizens," in hospitals for chronic diseases, and in nursing homes waiting for the end. We have learned how to increase their years, but we have not learned how to help them enjoy their days; yet we continue to bravely and sternly push back the frontiers against death. When mentioning "attachments to an assemblage of machines" (Line 6, Para. 3), the author intends to illustrate a dying patient’s ______.

A. reluctance to part with his family
B. fear prior to humiliated death
C. preference for human company
D. distaste for medical apparatus

NetWatr系统容错技术主要包括三级容错机制、事务跟踪系统和______。

答案查题题库