- UID
- 569600
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2010-9-28
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
楼主 辛苦啦 月毒的考古对吗?
1.1.6考古: V1 有一篇是对一个学者(暂且称之为A)对于美国历史上收入mobility的变化的研究结果的evaluation。 引用了另一个人(称之为B)的观点来质疑A的研究,说是因为A的在研究中包括了很多关于年轻人的收入的数据,而年轻人的收入在他们工作几年之后会有较大的 提高,相比之下普通家庭的收入就没有这么大的变化,因此A所得出的关于income mobility的数据是有问题的 V2 Income mobility in the U.S. is only moderate. Most people see their incomes rise with age, but at some point they usually hit a plateau in the income distribution, where they fluctuate mildly for the rest of their careers. The Hubbard study of income mobility, commonly cited by conservatives, used an extremely biased sample of unusually successful American families. Its results are therefore invalid. Allowing a society of extreme income inequality, even with high mobility, would raise child poverty, because most parents are young and incomes are lowest during young adulthood Many conservatives admit that incomes in the U.S. are highly unequal, but claim they are highly mobile as well. That is, people tend to rise and fall considerably on the income scale throughout the course of their lives, producing a lifetime average which is much closer to everyone else. Furthermore, this mobility tends to be upward; incomes generally rise with age. Hence, inequality is not as unfair as liberals claim V3 study of income mobility. The study found that after 5 years, 5% lowest income people will not stay at the bottom. As a result, the income of mobility is healthy. However, the study commits mistakes because it include teenage part-time workers, after 5 years, they are more likely to get full-time job and higher salary. V4 工资mobility篇(短,也没有硅谷的例子),出题都在第二段,有一个问举大学生业余工作的例子说明什么,答案是和family的情况对比,是第二个人用来反驳开始那个人的说法(大学生业余工作工资低,毕业挣钱立马高了;family变化小) V5 Cox 这个学者指出美国在做收入统计的时候,忽略了一个家庭的潜在收入。接着介绍他的研究:通过跟踪若干人十几年内的收入情况,cox发现最初排名落后的人在若 干年后收入都有明显的增长,甚至有些人最后收入水平名列前茅,只有极少数最初排名最后的人在若干年后收入水平仍然位居末尾。接着有一学者指出,该统计有缺 陷,因为它包括相当一部分在最初做兼职的学生,这些学生在毕业后,全职工作的收入自然会有明显增长,而那些在最初就做全职工作的人的收入实际收入并不明 显。 |
|