|
下面是这个月的JJ题,我逐句做了翻译,可是还是搞不懂一些逻辑关系:
下面是我自己的翻译:
当美国经济生产力从1945年到1965年以3%的年率增长时，从70年代初期起美国经济生产力增长年率仅为1%。什么阻止了更高的生产力提高？明显地，经济的制造业不可能被责备。从1980年，制造业生产力的改进使美国从严重衰落的位置移动到世界上突起的国家之一。然而，制造业只构成相关经济的很小比例。 1992年，生产型企业只雇用了美国工作者的19.1%，而服务生产企业雇用了美国工作者的70%。虽然服务业从70年代后期开始增长，但服务业的生产力增长下降了。提供以下一些原因来解释这种下降和制造业与服务业间的差异。第一，因为服务业的改进集中于改进服务质量，传统的测量经济增长的措施不能反应服务业生产力的提高。而传统的测量措施尽管也测量了制造业的质量，但同时可以测量出制造业的生产力显示了一个重大的增加，而此时服务生产力继续停滞。第二，其他争论从70年代起，制造的工作者面对激烈的外国竞争，在美国要学会更加高效率地工作以便可以保留他们的工作，而服务业的工作者，典型地是较少的在全球性竞争压力下工作，所以不需要这样做。然而，美国的制造业工作者在压力下更加高效率地工作，一般来说经常会因为政治原因被夸大。
另外的解释要责备联邦预算赤字：如果预算赤字低，利率也会相应的低，从而增加了在可以刺激服务业增长的新技术的发展上的投资。然而，技术资源的缺乏，实际上是服务业的经理们没有广泛利用可利用的技能和机器。优秀的服务业获得的高的生产力提高水平表明，明智地实施可利用的技术并且选择纯熟工作者的服务业的经理们能极大改进他们公司的生产力。服务业生产力停滞的阻碍是这样一股力量：比如公司接管、多余政府章程，这些力量分散经理使用最理想的可用资源。 问题: 1.既然是70年后经济走下坡路,为什么提1980年和1992年的例子呢? 2.第一段最后的第二点,觉得是说制造业和服务业一样不会高效工作,那不是间接在说,因为这两个行业的人都懒散所以阻碍了美国经济的发展吗? 3.最后一名总结的SUCH AS里"takeovers "是指什么?前文有提吗? 我的阅读好差,请各位NN指点,万分感谢
下面是原文: Whereas United States eco- nomic productivity grew at an annual rate of 3 percent from 1945 to 1965, Line it has grown at an annual rate of (5) only about 1 percent since the early 1970’s. What might be preventing higher productivity growth? Clearly, the manufacturing sector of the economy cannot be blamed. Since (10) 1980, productivity improvements in manufacturing have moved the United States from a position of acute decline in manufacturing to one of world prominence. (15) Manufacturing, however, consti- tutes a relatively small proportion of the economy. In 1992, goods- producing businesses employed only 19.1 percent of American (20) workers, whereas service-producing businesses employed 70 percent. Although the service sector has grown since the late 1970’s, its productivity growth has declined. (25) Several explanations
have been Offered for this declined and for the discrepancy in productivity growth between the manufacturing and service sectors. One is that tra- (30)
ditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because it has been concentrated in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manu- (35) facturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the undermeasurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate. Others argue (40) that since the 1970’s, manufacturing workers, faced with strong foreign competition, have learned to work more efficiently in order to keep their jobs in the United States, but service
(45) workers, who are typically under less global competitive pressure, have not. However, the pressure on manufacturing workers in the United States to work more efficiently has (50) generally been overstated, often for political reasons. In fact, while some manufacturing jobs have been lost due to foreign competition, many more have been lost simply because (55) of slow growth in demand for manu- factured goods. Yet
another explanation blames the federal budget deficit: if it were lower, interest rate would be lower (55) too, thereby increasing investment in the development of new technol- ogies, which would spur productivity growth in the service sector. There is, however, no dearth of techno- (60) logical resources, rather, managers in the service sector fail to take advantage of widely available skills and machines. High productivity growth levels attained by leading- (65) edge service companies indicate that service sector managers
who wisely implement available technology and choose skillful workers can significantly improve (70) their companies’ productivity. The culprits for service-sector productivity stagnation are the forces－such as corporate takeovers and unnecessary (75) governmental regulation－that distract managers from the task of making optimal use of available resources.
[此贴子已经被作者于2007-5-29 19:31:52编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2007-5-29 19:31:00
楼主