Since the early 1970’s, historians have begun to devote serious attention to the working class in the United States. Yet while we now have studies of working-class communities and culture, we know remarkably little of worklessness. When historians have paid any attention at all to unemployment, they have focused on the Great Depression of the 1930’s. The narrowness of this perspective ignores the pervasive recessions and joblessness of the previous decades, as Alexander Keyssar shows in his recent book. Examining the period 1870-1920, Keyssar concentrates on Massachusetts, where the historical materials are particularly rich, and the findings applicable to other industrial areas.
The unemployment rates that Keyssar calculates appear to be relatively modest, at least by Great Depression standards: during the worst years, in the 1870’s and 1890’s, unemployment was around 15 percent. Yet Keyssar rightly understands that a better way to measure the impact of unemployment is to calculate unemployment frequencies—measuring the percentage of workers who experience any unemployment in the course of a year. Given this perspective, joblessness looms much larger.
Keyssar also scrutinizes unemployment patterns according to skill level, ethnicity, race, age, class, and gender. He finds that rates of joblessness differed primarily according to class: those in middle-class and white-collar occupations were far less likely to be unemployed. Yet the impact of unemployment on a specific class was not always the same. Even when dependent on the same trade, adjoining communities could have dramatically different unemployment rates. Keyssar uses these differential rates to help explain a phenomenon that has puzzled historians—the startlingly high rate of geographical mobility in the nineteenth-century United States. But mobility was not the dominant working-class strategy for coping with unemployment, nor was assistance from private charities or state agencies. Self-help and the help of kin got most workers through jobless spells .
While Keyssar might have spent more time developing the implications of his findings on joblessness for contemporary public policy, his study, in its thorough research and creative use of quantitative and qualitative evidence, is a model of historical analysis.
4.According to the passage, which of the following is true of the unemployment rates mentioned in line 15?
(A) They hovered, on average, around 15 percent during the period 1870-1920.
(B) They give less than a full sense of the impact of unemployment on working-class people.
(C) They overestimate the importance of middle class and white-collar unemployment.
(D) They have been considered by many historians to underestimate the extent of working-class unemployment.
(E) They are more open to question when calculated for years other than those of peak recession.
4.According to the passage, which of the following is true of the unemployment rates mentioned in line 15? 这个题是个坑爹的题，They give less than a full sense of the impact of unemployment on working-class people.肯定没有问题。你的定位本身也没有错。是说unemployment讲的不够全面。你标黄色的就体现这个意思。(D) They have been considered by many historians to underestimate the extent of working-class unemployment.的问题就在 many historians 。文中challenge Keyssar的是作者，并不是很多historians。
7.The author views Keyssar’s study with (E) qualified admiration。skepticism是什么意思？如果选skepticism是说作者对这个Keyssar是怀疑的，认为它不可靠。你看Keyssar also scrutinizes unemployment patterns according （第三段），这个就是表扬，第四段更明显。scrutinize：褒义词。一般来说作者总会态度鲜明，一般选有保留的支持或反对，怀疑的态度一般都是不确选项。
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-1-29 11:37:57
收藏
收藏
楼主
