2024年4月10日发(作者：)

2013-1

In an essay entitled “Making It in America”, the author Adam Davidson

relates a joke from cotton country about just how much a modern textile mill has

been automated: The average mill has only two employees today,” a man and a

dog. The man is there to feed the dog and the dog is there to keep the man away

from the machines.”

在一篇名为(entitled)《成功（make it）在美国》的文章中，作者亚当·戴维森讲述(relate)

了这样一个源自棉花出产国的笑话，笑话是关于现代纺织(textile)作坊(mill)已高度自动化

(automate)：现如今，一家普通作坊里只有两名员工，“一个人和一条狗，人在作坊里是

为了喂狗，狗在作坊里是为了使人远离(away from)机器。”

Davidson’s article is one of a number of pieces that have recently appeared

making the point that the reason we have such stubbornly high unemployment

and declining middle-class incomes today is also because of the advances in both

globalization and the information technology revolution, which are more rapidly

than ever replacing labor with machines or foreign workers.

最近出现了很多(a number of)类似戴维森所写的文章，它们都表明了这样一种看法

(make a point)：之所以失业人数(unemployment)居高难下(stubbornly high)和中产阶

级(middle-class)收入(income)持续下降，原因是全球化与信息技术革命已经取得了诸多

进步，它们使得机器和国外员工在取代(replace .. with)本国劳动力(labor)方面比以往任何

时候都要迅速。

In the past, workers with average skills, doing an average job, could earn an

average lifestyle. But, today, average is officially over. Being average just won’t

earn you what it used to. It can’t, when so many more employers have so much

more access to so much more above average cheap foreign labor, cheap robotics,

cheap software, cheap automation and cheap genius. Therefore, everyone needs

to find their extra — their unique value contribution that makes them stand out in

whatever is their field of employment.

以往，具有一般技术、从事一般工作的员工可以赚得(earn)普通的生活。但现如今，

普通人才正式地过时了(officially)。继续普通无法再让你过上以前的生活，其原因是当下更

多的雇主可以用(have access to)比普通还要低廉的价格，来雇佣国外员工，购买机器人

(robotics)和软件(software)，实现自动化(automation)，获得天才(genus)。因此，每个

人都需要挖掘身上额外的东西­来让他们做出独特的、有价值的贡献，这种贡献会让他们脱

颖而出(stand out), 不管他们身处什么工作领域(field of employment)。

Yes, new technology has been eating jobs forever, and always will. But there’s

been an acceleration. As Davidson notes, “In the 10 years ending in 2009, (U.S.)

factories shed workers so fast that they erased almost all the gains of the previous

70 years; roughly one out of every three manufacturing jobs — about 6 million in

total — disappeared.”

确实，新科技在过去、现在和将来都在“吞噬”工作岗位，但这种“吞噬”速度已经

提高了。正如戴维森所指出(note)：“（美国）工厂裁员(shed workers)速度是如此之快，

以至于从1999到2009十年间裁员人数超过了之前70年新增员工人数的总和；大约有

1/3的制造业工作岗位 —— 总约600万 —— 消失了。

There will always be changed — new jobs, new products, new services. But the

one thing we know for sure is that with each advance in globalization and the I.T.

revolution, the best jobs will require workers to have more and better education to

make themselves above average.

未来，改变会一直存在 —— 新工作、新产品和新服务。但我们肯定(know for sure)

的一件事情是：随着全球化和信息技术革命所取得的每一个进步，那些最好的工作都将需

要劳动者们接受更多、更好的教育，以使他们优于普通员工。

In a world where average is officially over, there are many things we need to do

to support employment, but nothing would be more important than passing some

kind of G.I. Bill for the 21st century that ensures that every American has access to

post-high school education.

生活在普通人才已正式过时的世界中，我们有很多的事情需要做来扶持就业

(employment)，但其中最重要的是为21世纪通过某种“士兵教育促就业法案（于1944

年通过）”，以确保每个美国人都有机会（have access to）接受“后高中”教育。

2013-2

A century ago, the immigrants from across the Atlantic include settlers and

sojourners. Along with the many folks looking to make a permanent home in the

United States came those who had no intention to stay. Between 1908 and 1915,

and 7 million people arrived while about 2 million departed. About a quarter of all

Italian immigrants, for example, eventually returned to Italy for good. They even

had an affectionate nickname, “uccelli di passaggio”, birds of passage.

一个世纪以前，横渡大西洋的移民(immigrant)既包括定居者(settler)，也包括旅居者

(sojourner)。在这些一道(along with)而来的同乡们(folks)当中，有很多人指望(look to)

在美国永久安家，但也有那些人无意(have no intention to)在美国定居。在1908到1915

年间，共有七百万人来到美国，但其中有两百万人没有留下来。举个例子，当时大约1/4

的意大利移民最终(eventually)永久性地 (for good)返回到了意大利。人们给他们起了一

个亲密的(affectionate)绰号，“uccelli di passaggio”，意为“候鸟”。

Today, we are much more rigid about immigrants. We divide newcomers into

two categories: legal or illegal, good or bad. We hail them as Americans in the

making, or brand them as aliens fit for deportation. That framework has

contributed mightily our broken immigration system and the long political

paralysis over how to fix it. We don’t need more categories, but we need to

change the way we think about categories. We need to look beyond strict

definitions of legal and illegal. To start, we can recognize the new birds of passage,

those living and thriving in the gray areas. We might then begin to solve our

immigration challenges.

相比过去，我们今天对待移民太过苛刻(be rigid about)。我们把新来的移民划分为两

类(category)：合法的(legal)或非法的(illegal)，好的或劣的。我们或是在他们搞建设

(making)时招呼(hail)他们为自己人，或是在他们足够被驱逐(deportation)时称他们为外

国人(alien)。这种政策框架(framework)在很大程度上致使我们的移民体制(system)千疮

百孔，并使得在改革(fix)移民体制方面陷入长期的政治瘫痪(paralysis)。我们不是需要更多

的移民类别，而是需要改变我们对移民类别的思考方式。我们也不需要着眼于对合法或非

法移民进行严格的界定(definition)。首先，我们可以承认新的“候鸟”，承认那些在灰色

地带生存并发展得不错(thrive)的那些人。到那时，我们才有可能着手解决诸多移民难题

(challenge)。

Crop pickers, violinists, construction workers, entrepreneurs, engineers, home

health-care aides and physicists are among today’s birds of passage. They are

energetic participants in a global economy driven by the flow of work, money and

ideas. They prefer to come and go as opportunity calls them. They can manage to

have a job in one place and a family in another.

现今的“候鸟”当中有庄家收获工们、小提琴家(violinist)们、建筑(construction)工

人们、企业家(entrepreneur)们、工程师们、家庭医疗保健(health-care)助理们、物理学

家(physicist)们。工作流动、追逐金钱和各种理念驱使着(drive)精力充沛的(energetic)他

们参与到全球经济。他们比较喜欢随着机会的召唤进行迁移，他们能够做到在一处工作，

在另一处安家。

With or without permission, they straddle laws, jurisdictions and identities

with ease. We need them to imagine the United States as a place where they can

be productive for a while without committing themselves to staying forever. We

need them to feel that home can be both here and there and that they can belong

to two nations honorably.

不管有没有得到许可，他们都已轻而易举地(at ease)跨越了(straddle)法律、审判

(juridiction)和身份(identity)的界限。我们需要他们把美国认作(imagine .. as )可以暂时

(for a while)进行生产和收获(productive)的地方，而不是让他们努力在此永久定居。我们

需要他们感觉到美国和他们的祖国都是他们的家，让他们觉得在两个国家都能够受到人们

的尊敬。

Accommodating this new world of people in motion will require new attitudes

on both sides of the immigration battle. Looking beyond the culture war logic of

right or wrong means opening up the middle ground and understanding that

managing immigration today requires multiple paths and multiple outcomes,

including some that are not easy to accomplish legally in the existing system.

为容纳(accommodate)这批新兴流动人群，这场移民战斗的双方都需要采用新的态度。

不着眼于文化战争的逻辑正确与否就意味着要开辟中间地带，并认识到处理当下的移民事

务需要采用多条途径，获得多种成果, 而其中的一些成果是现存(existing)体制难以合法实

现(accomplish)的。

2013-3

Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we

take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even

eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.

科学家已经发现：虽然我们易于(be prone to)快速地(snap)做出过度反应

(overreaction)，但是如果我们花点时间考虑一下我们可能做出的反应(react)，就可以减

少，甚至是消除(eliminate) 我们快速、本能的(hard-wired)反应所带来的消极影响。

Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging

whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very

quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To

accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a

minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality,

like neuroticism or open-mindedness.

快速决策可以是身体重要的防御(defense)机制(mechanism)；如果我们是在判断某人

是否是个危险人物，我们的大脑和身体会自发地在几毫秒钟内做出快速反应。但是，若要

评定(assess)其它因素，我们则需要更多的时间。研究表明：要准确地辨别(tell)某人是否

是好交际的(sociable)，我们至少需要一分钟的时间，五分钟会更好(preferable)。想要评

判复杂的(complex)性格(personality)方面(aspect)， 如或是神经过敏或是思想开阔等，

就更要花上一段时间了。

But snap decisions in reaction to rapid stimuli aren’t exclusive to the

interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing

a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster,

even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast

food with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else

we’re doing. Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical

piece lasts too long.

另外，以应对快速刺激(stimuli)而做出的快速决策并不专属于(exclusive)人际

(interpersonal)范畴(realm)。多伦多大学的心理学家们曾发现：即便阅读和吃东西没什么

关系，用短短几毫秒的时间看一家快餐店的标志(logo)还是会刺激(prime)人们提高20％

的阅读速度。我们一想到快餐，就无意识地(unconsciously)联想起快速和急躁，并把这些

一时产生的情绪(impulse)带到我们正在做的任何事情当中。接触(exposed to)一闪而过

(flash)快餐标志的受试者(subject)们也往往会认为一段音乐持续时间的太长了。

Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer

products or housing options when we see a happy face (one reason good sales

representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment

before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive

female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biases-or hire outside

screeners.

然而，我们可以完全改变(reverse)这些影响。如果我们知道看见笑脸相迎会让我在选

择消费产品或房屋时做出过度的反应(这是销售代理[representative]和房产中介[real

estate agent]总是面带笑容的一个很好的理由)，我们可以在购买之前等上一段时间。如果

我们知道女性招聘官们(job screener)更加有可能拒绝(reject)有魅力的女性求职者

(applicant)，我们就可以帮助招聘们认识到他们的偏见(bias)，—— 亦或是雇佣独立招聘

官们。

John Gottman, the marriage expert, explains that we quickly “thin slice”

information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in “thick sliced”

long-term study. When Dr. Gottman really wants to assess whether a couple will

stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a much longer evaluation;

two days, not two seconds.

婚姻专家约翰·戈特曼解释说：我们的快速反应只有基于(ground)对“大块”信息进行

长期的(long-term)研究之后，我们才能信赖我们快速汲取的“薄片”信息。在戈特曼非常

想要评定两个人将是否会共同生活，他会为了进行更长期的评价工作(evaluation)而邀请他

们去他岛上的修养之所(retreat)呆上是两天，而不是两秒。

Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates

us from animals: dogs can think about the future only intermittently or for a few

minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days

contemplating the longer term. Although technology might change the way we

react, it hasn’t changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise

above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.

我们具有通过暂停来减缓(mute)我们本能反应的能力，这使我们有别于

(differentiate .. from)动物: 狗智能断断续续地(intermittently)思考未来，思考时间只能

持续几分钟。但是，从个人历史的角度来看，我们每天花了12%的时间思索(contemplate)

更长远的事情。尽管科技可能了改变我们反应的方式，但科技还没有改变我们的天性。我

们仍然有富于想象的能力(capacity)，让我们不受诱惑(temptation)的影响(rise above: 克

服，不受..的影响)，并完全改变高速的发展趋势(trend)。

2013-4

Europe is not a gender-equality heaven. In particular, the corporate workplace

will never be completely family-friendly until women are part of senior

management decisions, and Europe’s top corporate-governance positions

remain overwhelmingly male. Indeed, women hold only 14 percent of positions on

Europe corporate boards.

欧洲并不是男女平等的天堂。企业的(corporate)职场(workplace)尤其如此，如果女

性不参与高层(senior management)决策，企业职场将永远不会彻底地为家庭着想，但是

绝大多数的欧洲顶级企业管理(corporate-governance)职位仍然是被男性所占据。实际上，

在欧企董事会中，女性董事所占比例仅为14％。

The Europe Union is now considering legislation to compel corporate boards

to maintain a certain proportion of women — up to 60 percent. This proposed

mandate was born of frustration. Last year, Europe Commission Vice President

Viviane Reding issued a call to voluntary action. Reding invited corporations to

sign up for gender balance goal of 40 percent female board membership. But her

appeal was considered a failure: only 24 companies took it up.

现在，欧盟正在考虑建立法律(legislation)来强制企业董事会维持一定的女性比例

(proportion)，这一比例会高达60％。提议(propose)这样的法令(mandate)实则是出于

(be born of)沮丧(frustration)之举。去年，欧委会副主席维维亚娜·雷丁发布(issue)了一

项自愿(voluntary)采取行动的号召。雷丁邀请各家企业报名参加(sign up for)性别平衡目

标 —— 董事会女性成员(membership) 比例达到40％。但是，她的呼吁(appeal)被认为

是失败之举：仅有24家公司接受(take up)了她的号召。

Do we need quotas to ensure that women can continue to climb the corporate

ladder fairly as they balance work and family?

在女性平衡工作和家庭的同时，我们还需要采用定额(quota)的方式来确保她们持续地、

公平地攀爬职场的阶梯么？

“Personally, I don’t like quotas,” Reding said recently. “But I like what the

quotas do.” Quotas get action: they “open the way to equality and they break

through the glass ceiling,” according to Reding, a result seen in France and other

countries with legally binding provisions on placing women in top business

positions.

最近，雷丁说到：“就个人而言(personally)，我不喜欢定额。但是，我喜欢定额达能

办到的事情。”定额让人们采取行动，按照雷丁的说法，它们“开辟了平等之路，突破(break

through)了玻璃天花板(玻璃天花板是指企业里下层员工的天花板和上层员工的地板，象征

企业里限制女性、少数民族等体群难以晋升到高级职位的障碍)”。法国和其他的一些国家

制定了具有法律约束力(binding)条款(provision)让女性进入企业高级职位，这些国家已经

看到了上面提到的结果。

I understand Reding’s reluctance — and her frustration. I don’t like quotas

either; they run counter to my belief in meritocracy, government by the capable.

But, when one considers the obstacles to achieving the meritocratic ideal, it does

look as if a fairer world must be temporarily ordered.

我理解雷丁的勉强(reluctance)和她的沮丧。我也不喜欢各种定额，它们其与我精英管

理(meritocracy)(能者管理)的理念背道而驰(run counter to)。但是，在人们考虑到实现完

美的(ideal)精英管理的制度会遇到诸多障碍(obstacles)时，就必须暂时通过法令来获得一

个更加公平的世界，确实看起来是这样的。

After all, four decades of evidence has now shown that corporations in Europe

as well as the US are evading the meritocratic hiring and promotion of women to

top position — no matter how much “soft pressure” is put upon them. When

women do break through to the summit of corporate power — as, for example,

Sheryl Sandberg recently did at Facebook — they attract massive attention

precisely because they remain the exception to the rule.

要知道，四十年的证据现在已经表明：不管受到多大“软压力”，欧洲和美国的企业一

直在避开(evade) 将女性招聘为精英或晋升(promotion)到高层。当女性确实有所突破，

站到了企业权利的制高点(summit) —— 比方说，正如脸谱公司的谢丽尔·桑德博格最近所

做到的，这时她们会引起非常大的(massive)关注，原因恰恰就是她们是不合规则的例外。

If appropriate pubic policies were in place to help all women---whether CEOs

or their children’s caregivers--and all families, Sandberg would be no more

newsworthy than any other highly capable person living in a more just society.

如果有合适的(appropriate)的公共政策可以来所有的女性(不管是首席执行官们，还是

她们孩子的看护人[caregiver]们)，也来帮助所有的家庭，Sandberg就会和其他生活在公

平社会那些有能力的人一样，不会成为有价值的新闻。