问答题Education has long been embraced as one of the best ways to combat inequality. Yet, this faith in the power of education has begun to falter. There is mounting evidence that improving our education system won’t do much to fix inequality. Modern inequality isn’t driven by the gap between college-educated workers and high school grads. All the action is at the top of the income ladder, where the extremely rich have pulled away from everyone else. Since 1979, wages for the top 1 percent in the United States have grown nine times faster than wages for the bottom 90 percent. That’s not a tale of the well-educated doing better than the less-well-educated. It’s about the super-rich out－earning everyone else—including college graduates, who haven’t gotten a raise in over a decade. So what doesn’t seem to work is a focus on improving education. Even if we could dramatically increase the number of college graduates, or greatly expand access to high-quality education, the United States would likely remain an extremely unequal place, a country where even college grads are being left behind.

问答题Misinterpretation in Cross-cultural Communication In cross-cultural communication the danger of misinterpretation is greatest among people who speak different native tongues or come from different cultural backgrounds, because cultural difference necessarily implies different assumptions about natural and obvious ways to be polite. Anthropologist Thomas Kochman gives the example of a white office worker who appeared with a bandaged arm and felt rejected because her black fellow worker didn"t mention it. The doubly wounded worker assumed that her silent colleague didn"t notice or didn"t care. But the co-worker was purposely not calling attention to something her colleague might not want to talk about. She let her decide whether or not to mention it, being considerate by not imposing. Kochman says, based on his research, that these differences reflect recognizable black and white styles. An American woman visiting England was repeatedly offended when the British ignored her in a setting in which she thought they should pay attention. For example, she was sitting at a booth in a railway—station cafeteria. A couple began to settle into the opposite seat in the same booth. They unloaded their luggage; they laid their coats on the seat; he asked what she would like to eat and went off to get it; she slid into the booth facing the American. And throughout all this, they showed no sign of having noticed that someone was already sitting in the booth. When the British woman lit up a cigarette, the American began ostentatiously looking around for another table to move to. Of course there was none; that"s why the British couple had sat in her booth in the first place. The smoker immediately crushed out her cigarette and apologized. This showed that she had noticed that someone else was sitting in the booth, and that she was not inclined to disturb her. To the American, politeness requires talk between strangers forced to share a booth in a cafeteria, if only a fleeting "Do you mind if I sit down?" or a conventional "is anyone sitting here?" even if it"s obvious no one is. The omission of such talk seemed to her like dreadful rudeness. The American couldn"t see that another system of politeness was at work. By not acknowledging her presence, the British couple freed her from the obligation to acknowledge theirs. The American expected a show of involvement; they were being polite by not imposing. An American man who had lived for years in Japan explained a similar politeness ethic. He lived, as many Japanese do, in extremely close quarters—a tiny room separated from neighboring rooms by paper-thin walls. In order to preserve privacy in this most unprivate situation, his Japanese neighbor with the door open, they steadfastly glued their gaze ahead as if they were alone in a desert. The American confessed to feeling what I believe most Americans would feel if a next-door neighbor passed within a few feet without acknowledging their presence—snubbed. But he realized that the intention was not rudeness by omitting to show involvement, but politeness by not imposing.

问答题

问答题Unemployment in the state hit an all-time low of 2.1 percent this summer, the lowest in the nation. Though it has edged up a little since, it is still among the tightest labour markets in the US. And Connecticut is only the most extreme manifestation of the conditions that now prevail across America. Unemployment nationally is 4.1 percent, the lowest since 1970. The performance of the US labour market in the late 1990s is as much a feature of the puzzlingly benign so-called New Economy. For the past four years the US has enjoyed an average annual growth rate of 4 percent— up from an average of about 3 percent in the previous decade. Productivity improvements account for about two-thirds of that elevated output, as workers have increased their output per hour. The rest has come from a rapid increase in the total number of workers, what economists call labour inputs. There has been a surge in new jobs—7m in the last three years—that has pushed the unemployment rate down into the uncharted territory of barely 4 percent. Recent economic history suggests that, whenever unemployment has gone this low, the scramble for workers becomes so difficult that wages are rapidly bid up, and an inflationary spiral follows. But in the US in the past five years, wage growth has been muted. In the last year, total employee compensation in the private sector rose by just 3.3 percent, almost unchanged on the figure three years ago, when the unemployment rate was 5.4 percent. "In some ways it"s a bigger puzzle than the productivity puzzle," says Paul Krugman, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "How can we have such a low unemployment rate without an explosion of wages?" A number of factors appear to have contributed. In their search for workers to fill positions, companies have reached out to places they have not looked at in the past. As a result, more people are working than ever. The proportion of the population in employment reached a record high this year of more than 64 percent. This expanded labour supply helps explain why companies have kept the lid on pay over the last few years. The availability of new sources of labour—women, retirees, college students among them—means companies may not have to give big pay rises to hire new workers. It also helps explain why the benefits of the New Economy are not always widely felt—more people seem to be working longer hours than ever. But an expanded labour supply can only explain part of what has changed in the US in recent years. After all, unemployment—the proportion of the labour force out of work—has still declined, indicating that companies have drawn new workers not just from the pool of those not previously in the labour force, but also from the unemployed. And yet still wage costs have remained muted. One possible explanation is that companies have become more flexible in how they pay. "At Newfield, we use a much broader variety of means to reward workers, including performance related pay, year-end bonuses, and extended contracts," says Mr. Ostop.

问答题What is "the Sensenbrenner Bill"? What reactions has it prompted?

问答题The task of writing a history of our nation from Rome's earliest days flus me, I confess, with some misgivings, and even were I confident in the value of my work, I should hesitate to say so. I am aware that for historians to make extravagant claims is, and always has been, all too common: every writer on history tends to look down his nose at his less cultivated predecessors, happily persuaded that he will better them in point of style, or bring new facts to light. Countless others have written on this theme and it may be that I shall pass unnoticed amongst them; if so, I must comfort myself with the greatness and splendor of my rivals, whose work will rob my own of recognition. My task, moreover, is an immensely laborious one. I shall have to go back more than 700 years, and trace my story from its small beginnings up to these recent times when its ramifications are so vast that any adequate treatment is hardly possible. I shall find antiquity a rewarding study, if only because, while I am absorbed in it, I shall be able to turn my eyes from the troubles which for so long have tormented the modern world, and to write without any of that over-anxious consideration which may well plague a writer on contemporary life, even if it does not lead him to conceal the truth.

问答题Middle-class teenagers are less intelligent than a generation ago due to the dumbing down of youth culture and school tests, a new study suggests. IQ tests show that scores for the average 14- year-old have dropped by more than two points between 1980 and 2008. For those in the upper half of the intelligence scale--a group typically dominated by the children of middle-class families-- average IQ scores were six points down on 28 years ago. It is the first time IQ scores have fallen for any age group during the past century. Leisure time is increasingly taken up with playing computer games and watching TV instead of reading and holding conversations. Education experts said a growing tendency in schools to "teach to the test" was affecting youngsters" ability to think laterally. Other studies have shown how pervasive teenage youth culture is, and what we see is parents" influence on IQ slowly diminishing with age. Previous studies have claimed that using text messages and email can temporarily reduce IQ by causing concentration to drop, while smoking marijuana has also been linked with a decline in IQ.

问答题

问答题

问答题If there were an Oscar for most consistently profitable Hollywood studio, it probably would go to 20th Century Fox. Hollywood is a hit-driven business, and most studios bounce from box-office hit to dud with depressing regularity. But for the past seven years, Fox has scored with both blockbusters (Alvin and the Chipmunks) and indie hits (Juno) that have generated the kind of double-digit return on investment you might expect from a business making widget' s, not films. Tom Pollick, a former Universal Pictures chairman who produces movies for Fox and other studios, says. "Fox is simply the best-run studio in town. " You were expecting anything less from Rupert Murdoch's guys? At Fox, the mantra is "to be creatively driven but fiscally astute," says James N. Gianopulos, who co-chairs the studio with Thomas Rothman of Fox Filmed Entertainment. Translation. to be almost pathologically obsessed with costs. Not that the co-chairs run from risk. They outbid most of Hollywood in 2004 for the script to the apocalyptic The Day After Tomorrow, but made it for $100 million, relatively cheap for a special-effects picture. It grossed more than half a billion dollars worldwide. Double-digit profits are rare in Hollywood. Yet for the past six years, Fox has delivered 12% to 18% operating margins. Halfway through its fiscal year, it earned operating income of $ 765 million on nearly $ 3.6 billion in revenues—a 21.5% operating margin. And that doesn't include Horton Hears a Who!, which grossed a hefty $ 45 million on its Mar. 14 opening weekend and was made for just over $ 85 million, nearly half what an animated Pixar Animation Studios film costs. "No one in Hollywood negotiates tougher than these guys," says producer John Davis, who made I, Robot and Carfield: A Tale of Two Kitties for Fox. The hardballing starts with development, which Davis says typically costs Fox 10% to 15% less than usual because it holds the line on costly rewrites. On top of that, Fox rarely gives anyone but the biggies— Steven Spielberg, say—a piece of the profits. It also sets tough budgets and sticks with them. For his Lord of the Rings-esque Eragon, Davis had a $100 million budget, which forced him to cut some special effects and limit stars such as John Malkovich to cameos. It earned just $ 75 million domestically but did well globally. Special effects often eat up an action film's budget. Not at Fox. The studio learned its lesson 10 yeas ago with Titanic, which cost Fox and Paramount Pictures a then-unthinkable $ 200 million to make. After Titanic, Fox hired an in-house effects czar, whose main job is riding herd on special effects houses, often playing them against each other to get the best price. "They beat you over the head," says X-Men producer Avi Arad. "If it costs $ 30 million, they'll ask why it can't cost $ 20 million. " To keep downtime to a minimum, Arad used several shops on Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer. Fox's biggest hits are its smallest films. Peter Rice runs the studio's independent unit, Fox Searchlight Pictures, which is in the business of finding tiny films, like Little Miss Sunshine, that were made on a shoestring. Rice's limit: $15 million. His latest triumph: Juno. It cost $ 7. 5 million to produce and pulled in $135 million-plus in the U. S. alone. Which brings us to marketing, an expense that has been known to account for one-third of a film's overall budget. While executives say they pay full freight for ads on Foxe’s farflung global properties, their stars pop up all over. Samudl L. Jackson, who starred in the flick Jumper, walked the carpet at the Super Bowl on the Fox Network. And wasn't that Jim Carrey, who provided Horton's voice, recently grinning insanely in the audience of Fox's megahit American Idol? Fox has stumbled before. Its 2005 picture Kingdom of Heaven bombed in the U. S and cost a very unFoxlike $130 million to make. But even then, Fox turned things around. It had loaded the film with international stars, including Orlando Bloom, so it made enough outside the U.S. to break even.

问答题 Flight attendants, who start as low as $ 12,000 per year, are paid meagerly. No question. But for all the rhetoric stirred by last month's strike against American Airlines, few have dared to breathe perhaps the key question—a 60-year-old question. Are flight attendants indispensable guardians of passengers' safety and well-being? Or, are they flying waitresses (85% are women) and waiters who are becoming less important to passengers willing to sacrifice frills for cheap fares? Fright attendants find the second suggestion repugnant. "We're very highly trained in first aid and CPR," says Wendy Palmer, an American Air fines flight attendant based in Nashville, "Our goal is to evacuate an airplane in a minute or less. That's what we're there for. In the meantime, we do serve drinks and food. " "But maybe the time has come to let the free market determine if passengers value flight attendants enough to pay for them," says Thomas Moore, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Customers willing, there's no reason airlines can't hand out sandwiches and soft drinks as passengers board. Then they could be on their way with, perhaps, one safety expert on board. "I'd suspect some people would be willing to pay dirt-cheap fares," says Bill Winter, spokesman for the Libertarian Party, an opponent of government regulation, "Other (airlines) would go in the opposite direction and there would be three attendants for each flier. " Already millions of passengers have shown an eagerness to sacrifice service for lower fares. Southwest Airlines, which doesn't offer meals or assigned seating, has been the fastest-growing and most profitable airline in the industry. Southwest never staffs a jet with more attendants than the Federal Aviation Administration requires. The FAA requires at least one flight attendant for every 50 seats. A 122-seat Boeing 737 must have three flight attendants even if it's flying only a few passengers. Union contracts often require more. Among its demands, American Airlines wants the option of staffing its jets at the FAA minimum. No other form of transportation falls under such rigid government control. Passengers aboard Amtrak and Greyhound aren't even required to wear seat belts. But climb aboard a Boeing 757, and you not only have to be strapped in, but four specialists are there to supervise a rare evacuation. The National Safety Council estimates that 1 in 2.2 million people are killed in airline crashes each year. There are about 90,000 airline flight attendants employed by U. S. carriers. They cost the airlines $ 2.7 billion a year, assuming they average $ 30,000 per year in salary and benefits. If they save 100 lives per year, each life costs $ 27 million. Dee Maki, National president of the Association of Flight Attendants, says 100 saved lives is a gross underestimate. No one tracks the actual number, but Maki says more than 100 heart-attack victims are saved each year by attendants. Maybe one on-board attendant is all that's needed for safety, says Moore, an opponent of government regulation. "I don't know. But the FAA undoubtedly makes the wrong decision. Government always makes the wrong decision because they don't have the right information. John Adams, former vice president of human resources for Continental Airlines, doubts that deaths would increase much if the number of flight attendants were cut in half. "Flying is very safe. It's much safer than riding a bus or a train," he says. No one doubts that flight attendants have a tough job. They make about 20% what pilots make and often less than baggage handlers. Stuck in a metal tube for hours with cramped passengers battling nicotine fits, they are constantly being driven to go the extra mile for customer service. They have to worry about policies concerning theft weight, height and eyesight. And when a jet does crash, even heroic flight attendants say they face agonizing depression as they rehash what more they might have done. A 1992 FAA study of airline accidents did find examples where flight attendants performed heroically. But the FAA also found cases in which they were unable to locate and operate emergency equipment because of rusty skills. American flight attendant Todd Peters says he's never had to evacuate a jet, but once had to tackle a deranged passenger who tried to open an exit door as a flight from Newark, N. J. , to Miami was taking off. "The public thinks we're up there serving Cokes and Sprites," Peters says. "But if there was an emergency, passengers would be seeking us out, waiting for our instruction. " Safety is the repeated theme. But airlines say that when they hire attendants, they don't look for backgrounds in nursing or safety. They want outgoing applicants with experience in customer relations. The history of flight attendants is rooted in safety, but safety usually has taken a back seat to promotion. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, attendants were required to be registered nurses because of fears about the health consequences of flying at high speed and altitude. But by hiring young women instead of men in the 1930s, they were signaling to the public that planes were safe. When flying caught on in the 1960s, airlines staffed their male-laden planes with pretty single women who were forced to retire at 32. It was titillation, says John Nance, author and airline-safety analyst. Braniff even promoted an "air strip", its stewardesses disappearing for a few minutes before returning in a different uniform. One commercial asked: "Does your wife know you're flying Braniff?" No one knows how many flight attendants airlines would use if FAA minimums were eliminated, says Winter of the Libertarian Party. But he trusts a market free of government interference. Union president Maki says an end to FAA minimums probably would mean fewer flight attendants on short flights. However, for safety reasons, getting rid of FAA minimums is "crazy", she says.

问答题News report: 17 campers who were rescued last autumn after having become trapped in the Changtanhe Nature Reserve in Guangxi have been fined 1,000yuan each for entering the reserve without permission. In the rescue operation, 100 policemen and firefighters, 200 government workers and civilians, more than 40 doctors and nurses and 300 logistics personnel were dispatched and more than 80 vehicles in addition to steamboats were mobilized. Some netizens have demanded that the campers involved should also pay compensation for the expenses incurred in the rescue. Topic: Should the public pay for tourists" recklessness?? Questions for Reference: 1. Some people hold that in life-and-death situations, public rescue authorities should not calculate costs and gains. What do you think of this opinion? 2. The other view holds that rights and obligations should go hand in hand, so the adventure tourists should pay for the cost of rescue missions, if any. What is your comment over this view? 3. What is your opinion of those adventure tourists? Do you agree that the spirit of bravery they have displayed should be admired and praised?

问答题

问答题Some critics believe that the very concept of intellectual property is mistaken. Unlike physical property, ideas are non-rivalrous goods that can be used by many people at the same time without making them any less useful. The term "intellectual property" was widely adopted only in the 1960s, as a way to bundle trademarks, copyrights and patents. Those critics argue that today's rights are too strict and make the sharing of knowledge too expensive. The paradox about intellectual property in IT and telecommunications is that it eases the exchange of technology and acts as a bottleneck for innovation at the same time. The whole system is in a stage of transformation. "Markets require institutions, and institutions take a long time to develop. Today, the institutions for a 'market for technology' are not well developed, and it is costly to use this market," says a specialist. Ideas are to the information age what the physical environment was to the industrial one: the raw material of economic progress. Just as pollution or an irresponsible use of property rights threatens land and climate, so an overly stringent system of intellectual-property rights risks holding back technological progress. Disruptive innovation that threatens the existing order must be encouraged, but the need to protect ideas must not be used as an excuse for greed. Finding the fight balance will test the industry, policymakers and the public in the years ahead.

问答题

问答题Topic. Should the National Museum hold trademark shows? Questions for Reference： 1. What do you think should be the major mission of the National Museum of China? 2. Do you agree with the view that showing a commercial brand in our national museum is a humiliation to Chinese culture? Why or why not? 3. Some people hold that the showing of a luxury brand can be a perfect combination of art and business, and it will make the museum more lively, modern and inclusive. What is your comment?

问答题A friend of mine, who"s a little over 50, met with a big firm about a job recently. The good news was that they loved his ideas. But they said he would have to get someone else to present all his great ideas to clients. In other words, someone who can wear a hoodie to work without irony. Like a business body double. A millennial beard. That way, the company could keep looking young while still benefiting from his deep knowledge of the business and, well, human nature. The concept isn"t as unfair as it sounds. As a late boomer, I have high hopes for this arrangement. We are increasingly codependent generations. Millennials need boomers and older Gen X-ers so they know what to improve on. And we need millennials to get our ideas across. Just ask anyone who"s tried pitching a startup to investors without a 20-something on her team. Even middle-aged people don"t trust anyone over 30. That"s why 40-and 50-somethings fall all over themselves in meetings to show who can most enthusiastically agree with a millennial"s idea. It"s a little desperate, our bid for relevance by association. But we oldsters feel insecure without a 20-something as backup, especially when it comes to anything involving the word content. Or Snapchat. Or any kind of sharing that doesn"t involve food or money. More important, millennials are now the largest, hardest-working sector of the workforce and the most desirable market for most businesses, and we don"t want them to turn on us. At Google, where the median employee age is about 29, the company has a support group for people over 40 called Greyglers. In the blurb about Greyglers, the company notes that they hope to promote "age diversity awareness" at Google and foster the success of their "elders." Yes, middle age is now a special-interest group. This is perhaps why 28-year-old tech gurus fret about losing their jobs to college interns who are cheaper and more current. It"s also why Botox is booming in the Valley among some older engineers. Closely related is a new corporate trend called "reverse mentorship." That"s when millennials take older employees under their wing to teach them how most corporate revenue problems can be solved with a few social-media tricks, and why you shouldn"t ever leave voice mails for anyone. Nonetheless, I"m all for millennial mentors. (And I agree about voice mail.) I used to run TIME"s editorial technology department, back when people used dial-up modems. Since then I"ve learned to make deals in advance with a millennial to ensure support before I suggest anything vaguely technical in a meeting. You need a millennial front person for an idea to succeed. Partly because when they believe in something, they will put in 7,000 thankless hours to make it happen. Plus, life is so much better when it"s infused with the energy of people who aren"t hobbled by the memory of what didn"t work "the last time we tried that." Turns out, tech knowledge is a lot like online celebrity. It"s highly perishable. And that"s where we boomers can come in handy for millennials. We"ve already done all that reckoning. We learned a long time ago that there is always someone younger, thinner and more digital waiting right behind you. Remember, back in the 20th century, we were the smartest kids in the room. But then we had kids ourselves, and the stakes got higher when it came to careers and relationships. We couldn"t just keep trading up or moving on; we had to learn to hold on instead. And work started bleeding into our nights and weekends, thanks to the very technology that everyone still struggles to keep ahead of now. Time was no longer limitless, and it stretched thin faster than we expected. This new generation will face all that soon enough. Even Mark Zuckerberg, who famously said that "young people are just smarter," might not feel so smart now that his first child has arrived. Babies can do that. Family is the one variable you can"t control for. You can"t scrap them for a new version. There"s no A/B testing or product road map, and the people in your life will be unfailingly unpredictable. You"ll often decide to choose their happiness over your ambitions. And they will get sick or die when you don"t expect it. Life is inherently disruptive. You just have to adapt. There"s no secret hack, no work-around, no pro tip for that. Except maybe this: to manage the personal hurricanes that will blow your way, you"ll need aid and comfort from the people where you work. And that"s when a little intergenerational codependence can be a very good thing.