政治学与国际关系论坛

 找回密码
 注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

扫一扫,访问微社区

查看: 779|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

美国模式未必好

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
1#
发表于 2011-3-22 09:40:04 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
Americans returning from visits to western Europe or Japan cannot help but notice they are coming back to a land with less worker protection, more expensive healthcare, spottier transport and a weaker educational system. The consolation has long been America’s higher material wealth, commonly believed to stem from generations of increases in productivity.
从西欧或日本归来的美国人无奈地注意到,他们回到的这片土地劳工保护更少、医疗成本更高、交通质量更差、教育体系更为薄弱。长期以来一直让美国人感到宽慰的是美国较高的物质财富。人们普遍相信,这种财富来源于数代人生产率的不断增长。

Not exactly. Since the second world war, a big rise in labour force participation (the proportion of the population in paid employment) has done as much for prosperity as higher productivity. Participation is declining. A study from McKinsey Global Institute concludes that, if America maintains the same level of productivity growth as in the past half century, growth in output per capita for children born 10 years ago will be slower than in any generation in the past half century. Over the next decade, real output would only grow at an average annual rate of 2.2 per cent, versus 4.1 per cent in the baby boomer-fuelled 1960s.
事实并非完全如此。自二战以来,劳动力参与率(受雇人数占总劳动人口的比例)大幅提高对经济繁荣的贡献,不亚于生产率的增长。如今劳动力参与率正在下降。麦肯锡全球研究所(McKinsey Global Institute)的一项研究认为,如果美国保持过去50年的生产率增长水平,那么对于过去10年出生的人,其人均产出增长将比过去50年的任何一代人都慢。未来十年,实际产出将仅以年均2.2%的速度增长,远低于上世纪60年代婴儿潮推动的4.1%。
分享到:  QQ好友和群QQ好友和群 QQ空间QQ空间 腾讯微博腾讯微博 腾讯朋友腾讯朋友 微信微信
收藏收藏 转播转播 分享分享 分享淘帖
2#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-3-22 09:40:46 | 只看该作者
The government, and bond investors, should be concerned. The slower growth rate, two-thirds of what White House economists assume in their budget projections, will make it harder to handle rising interest and entitlement payments. Luckily, there is plenty of room for improvement in productivity. The US ranks low in measures such as energy efficiency and relative quality of infrastructure, and much labour is used inefficiently.
政府及债券投资者应该感到担忧。麦肯锡预测的增长率比白宫经济学家在预算案中假定的增长率低了三分之一。增长率放缓将加大处理利率上升与补助事宜的难度。幸运的是,生产率仍有很大的提升空间。美国在节能措施与基础设施相对质量方面的排名较低,对大量劳动力的利用也没有效率。

McKinsey reckons US productivity growth must be a third higher to maintain the historical rise in output per capita. The need is greater elsewhere; the more demographically challenged European Union and Japan need 59 and 81 per cent boosts, respectively. But Americans should not make the error of attributing their relative good fortune to poor schools, crumbling bridges or stressful workplaces.
麦肯锡估计,美国生产率必须提高三分之一,才能维持人均产出的历史增长水平。其它地方需要的生产率更高;面临更大人口结构挑战的欧盟(EU)与日本分别需要将生产率提高59%与81%。但美国人不应犯下错误,将他们的相对好运,归功于差劲的学校、残破的桥梁与充满压力的工作场所。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

3#
发表于 2011-3-23 08:47:46 | 只看该作者
为什么斑竹发的帖上都会有广告啊~
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

4#
发表于 2011-3-23 08:48:26 | 只看该作者
真是好奇怪的说~
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

Archiver|小黑屋|中国海外利益研究网|政治学与国际关系论坛 ( 京ICP备12023743号  

GMT+8, 2025-4-3 13:23 , Processed in 0.093750 second(s), 28 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表