So the puzzle has taken a different shape. Ordinary people have been enjoying some measureof both the income gains and the leisure gains that Keynes predicted — but rather less of boththan we might have hoped.
因此,这个难解之谜呈现出了不同的形态。普通人像凯恩斯预测的那样享受着收入增长和空闲时间增加这两方面的好处,但程度都不及我们的预期。
The economic elites, meanwhile, continue to embody a paradox: all the income gains thatKeynes expected and more, but limited leisure.
与此同时,经济精英们继续体现出一个悖论:实现凯恩斯预测的全部收入增长、但空闲时间更有限。
The likely reason for that is that, in many careers, it’s hard to break through to the topechelons without putting in long hours. It is not easy to make it to the C-suite on a 20-hourweek, no matter how talented one is. And because the income distribution is highly skewed,the stakes are high: working 70 hours a week like it’s 1830 all over again may put you on trackfor a six-figure bonus, while working 35 hours a week may put you on track for thescrapheap.
可能的原因是,在很多职业中,我们很难在不投入长时间工作的情况下升至企业高层。你很难通过每周工作20小时就进入公司管理层,不管你有多么优秀。由于收入分配高度倾斜,这方面的选择事关重大:每周工作70小时(就像又回到1830年)可能会让你有望赚到6位数年薪,而每周工作35小时,可能会让你沦为没出息的人。
【The lost leisure time of our lives】相关文章:
★ 欧盟应包容异见
★ 怎样挖出违规员工
★ 海尔柯贝斯2
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15