下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
了不起的盖茨比曲线 (The Great Gatsby Curve)指出，社会代际流动性较大的国家，居民收入差距较小，拼爹程度越高的国家，收入差距越大。那么，哪些发达国家贫富差距较大？近些年来，这些国家的“1%与99%”的差距加大的原因是什么？这有哪些危害？
测试中可能遇到的词汇和知识：
symposium [sɪm'pəʊzɪəm] n.讨论会，专题论文集
Journal of Economic Perspectives JEP，美国经济学会的《经济展望杂志》，是世界上顶尖的经济学期刊
old-boy network 校友会，校友关系网
largesse [lɑː'(d)ʒes] n.慷慨的赠与
file one's boots （吃的喝的）请随意
governance arrangement 制度安排
plutocrat ['pluːtəkræts] n.富豪，财阀政治
also-ran 落选者，失败者，备胎
let the matter drop 听任事务发展
阅读马上开始，建议您计算一下阅读整篇文章所用的时间，对照下方的参考值就可以评估出您的英文阅读水平。
When the world’s richest countries were booming, few people worried overmuch that the top 1 per cent were enjoying an ever-growing share of that prosperity. In the wake of a depression in the US, a fiscal chasm in the UK and an existential crisis in the eurozone – and the shaming of the world’s bankers – worrying about inequality is no longer the preserve of the far left.
There should be no doubt about the facts: the income share of the top 1 per cent has roughly doubled in the US since the early 1970s, and is now about 20 per cent. Much the same trend can be seen in Australia, Canada and the UK – although in each case the income share of the top 1 per cent is smaller. In France, Germany and Japan there seems to be no such trend. (The source is the World Top Incomes Database, summarised in the opening paper of a superb symposium in this summer’s Journal of Economic Perspectives.)
But should we care? There are two reasons we might: process and outcome. We might worry that the gains of the rich are ill-gotten: the result of the old-boy network, or fraud, or exploiting the largesse of the taxpayer. Or we might worry that the results are noxious: misery and envy, or ill-health, or dysfunctional democracy, or slow growth as the rich sit on their cash, or excessive debt and thus financial instability.
Following the crisis, it might be unfashionable to suggest that the rich actually earned their money. But knee-jerk banker-bashers should take a look at research by Steven Kaplan and Joshua Rauh, again in the JEP symposium. They simply compare the fate of the top earners across different lines of business. Worried that chief executives are filling their boots thanks to the weak governance of publicly listed companies? So am I, but partners in law firms are also doing very nicely, as are the bosses of privately owned companies, as are the managers of hedge funds, as are top sports stars. Governance arrangements in each case are different.
Perhaps, then, some broad social norm has shifted, allowing higher pay across the board? If so, we would expect publicly scrutinised salaries to be catching up with those who have more privacy – for instance, managers of privately held corporations. The reverse is the case.
The uncomfortable truth is that market forces – that is, the result of freely agreed contracts – are probably behind much of the rise in inequality. Globalisation and technological change favour the highly skilled. In the middle of the income distribution, a strong pair of arms, a willingness to work hard and a bit of common sense used to provide a comfortable income. No longer. Meanwhile at the very top, winner-take-all markets are emerging, where the best or luckiest entrepreneurs, fund managers, authors or athletes hoover up most of the gains. The idea that the fat cats simply stole everyone else’s cream is emotionally powerful; it is not entirely convincing.
In a well-functioning market, people only earn high incomes if they create enough economic value to justify those incomes. But even if we could be convinced that this was true, we do not have to let the matter drop.
This is partly because the sums involved are immense. Between 1993 and 2011, in the US, average incomes grew a modest 13.1 per cent in total. But the average income of the poorest 99 per cent – that is everyone up to families making about $370,000 a year – grew just 5.8 per cent. That gap is a measure of just how much the top 1 per cent are making. The stakes are high.
I set out two reasons why we might care about inequality: an unfair process or a harmful outcome. But what really should concern us is that the two reasons are not actually distinct after all. The harmful outcome and the unfair process feed each other. The more unequal a society becomes, the greater the incentive for the rich to pull up the ladder behind them.
At the very top of the scale, plutocrats can shape the conversation by buying up newspapers and television channels or funding political campaigns. The merely prosperous scramble desperately to get their children into the right neighbourhood, nursery, school, university and internship – we know how big the gap has grown between winners and also-rans.
Miles Corak, another contributor to the JEP debate, is an expert on intergenerational income mobility, the question of whether rich parents have rich children. The painful truth is that in the most unequal developed nations – the UK and the US – the intergenerational transmission of income is stronger. In more equal societies such as Denmark, the tendency of privilege to breed privilege is much lower.
This is what sticks in the throat about the rise in inequality: the knowledge that the more unequal our societies become, the more we all become prisoners of that inequality. The well-off feel that they must strain to prevent their children from slipping down the income ladder. The poor see the best schools, colleges, even art clubs and ballet classes, disappearing behind a wall of fees or unaffordable housing.
The idea of a free, market-based society is that everyone can reach his or her potential. Somewhere, we lost our way.
请根据你所读到的文章内容，完成以下自测题目：
A. UK.
B. Canada.
C. Australia.
D. Germany.
答案 (1)
A. It implies that the gains of the rich are ill-gotten.
B. It means the old-boy network is too strong a vested interest.
C. It might result in envy or dysfunctional democracy.
D. It is a result of slow growth as the rich sit on their cash.
答案 (2)
A. Chief executives of large companies are being paid too much.
B. Technological changes favor the highly skilled.
C. Winner-take-all markets are emerging.
D. Globalisation.
答案 (3)
A. Income gap is small in France, Germany and Japan.
B. Intergenerational income mobility has something to do with income equality.
C. Intergenerational transmission of income is higher in developed countries.
D. A free, market-based society is the best system to reduce the gap.
答案 (4)
(1) 答案：D.Germany.解释：文中第二段说美国、澳大利亚、加拿大和英国都有“1%”的收入增速快于其他人的现象，而法国德国和日本则没有了不起的盖茨比曲线。
(2) 答案：C.It might result in envy or dysfunctional democracy.解释：为什么我们要担忧呢？There are two reasons we might: process and outcome. 也就是说贫富差距加大的过程和结果让人忧虑。AB如此确信是不严谨的，原文准确说法是We might worry that the gains of the rich are ill-gotten:；D是颠倒了因果，贫富差距加大可能导致增长缓慢，因为富人的整体边际消费倾向低于穷人。
(3) 答案：A.Chief executives of large companies are being paid too much.解释：作者用了不少笔墨来讲自己也怀疑大公司首席执行官总是千方百计给自己提高收入，但他们比小公司、未上市公司经理人的收入增幅要小（监督大公司的经理人更困难）。这说明前面的假设是不成立的。 BCD是正确的，全球化和技术进步让高技能者收入大涨，而低技能者就没这么好运了：发达国家大量把劳动密集型产业转移到发展中国家。“赢者通吃市场”不难理解，facebook和微信都是一家公司统治一个行业的。
(4) 答案：B.Intergenerational income mobility has something to do with income equality.解释： C是偷换概念，原文意思是说，在发达国家中，代际流动性较小的国家，收入差距较大。事实上发达国家的整体收入差距远远小于发展中国家。B说法是准确的。D也是错误的，如之前的解释，全球化和技术变革倾向于增大收入差距。A为什么会痛苦呢？