单选题
The world economy has been growing at its fastest for a generation. Money, goods and ideas move around the globe more freely. So why all the complaints? The problem is that workers in rich countries are not getting a fair share. Their share of income has been shrinking for the past quarter of a century. The new order may be just great for capitalists, but not for those who toil by hand or brain.
In its semi-annual World Economic Outlook, the IMF examines how trade, technology and immigration have stitched the world"s labor markets together at an astonishing rate, leaving rich-country workers unsure of where they stand. Globalization is not the only possible reason why labor"s share has shrunk. New technologies have probably taken a few degrees off the workers" slice too. Several countries have also fiddled with labor-market regulation, pushing the wage share one way or the other.
The IMF has made perhaps the bravest attempt so far to weigh these competing explanations. It finds that both technological change and the globalization of labor markets have depressed labor"s share. Technological change had the biggest effect in Europe and Japan. In Anglo-Saxon countries (America, Australia, Britain and Canada) it was much smaller. In America, indeed, technology seems to have raised labor"s share. The fund thinks this may reflect America"s lead in using information technology. When a country first exploits IT, labor"s share of the national cake goes down. As time goes by, though, workers adjust and learn. Once their skills match the technology better, their productivity and their share go up.
The effects of labor globalization were most evident in Anglo-Saxon and small European countries. However, it has touched different places in different ways. In Europe the effects of offshoring (shifting production, especially of intermediate goods and some services, abroad) and immigration have been more marked than in the Anglo-Saxon world; in Japan they have scarcely registered. The labor-intensive goods that rich countries import have fallen in price, pressing down on the workers" share. But this has been broadly offset by price falls in the capital-intensive goods they export. In Japan these prices fell by enough to yield an overall net gain in the labor share.
Although globalization has reduced labor"s share of the pie, it has made the whole pie bigger, raising output and productivity and lowering the prices of traded goods and services. Concludes the fund trade has helped, largely by making imports cheaper.
Labor is getting some of the extra growth due to globalization. However, that is unlikely to silence the complaints. Many people believe that most workers have not gained much from globalization at all. The perception remains, especially in the United States, that people who already have plenty have enjoyed the bulk of the extra prosperity.
单选题
According to the first paragraph, rich-country workers ______.
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】[解析] 本题考查事实细节。第一段一、二句指出：经济在极速增长。第三到第五句说明：富裕国家的工人却没有从中得到公平的份额，对此工人颇有微词。由此可知，工人希望能从经济增长中获得更大的份额。C为正确选项。A的错误在于对工人抱怨的对象理解错误：工人不满的是经济增长的分配，而非经济全球化。B混淆了income和share of income：文中只是说明工人的收入份额缩小，并不是收入没有增加。D的干扰来自于本段最后一句。但该句只是指出，从经济全球化中获利匪浅的是资本家，而非工人。并没有提及资本家和工人之间的剥削与被剥削的关系。单从资本家和工人收益的不均无法得出D的结论。
单选题
IMF"s survey shows that ______.
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】[解析] 本题考查推理引申。第三段第二句指出，技术变革是导致劳动力份额下降的原因之一。第五句指出，技术变革对美国的影响却似乎有悖常规，反而提高了劳动力份额。接下来对此结果进行了分析：技术变革对劳动力份额的影响是阶段性的——技术变革初期会导致劳动力份额的下降，随着劳动力对其逐渐适应并掌握，他们的生产率会提高，从而份额上升。美国正是因为最早利用IT技术(lead in using)而率先进入了份额上升阶段。所以，尽管IT技术对美国工人份额的总体影响是使其上升，但肯定曾经经历导致其下降的阶段。B为正确选项。文中并没有对比技术变革对不同行业劳动力影响的大小，所以A错误。第二段最后一句说明：国家对于劳动力市场规则的利用是双向的：或提高工人收入的份额或降低(pushing the ware share one way or the other)。所以，C错误。该段只论述了“利用新技术”对劳动力收入份额的影响，国家是否受益不得而知，故排除D。
单选题
Which of the following is TRUE according to Paragraph 4?