[译文]丹麦童话 vs 美国梦

The Atlantic: Denmark Isn’t Magic
《大西洋月刊》:丹麦并不神奇

作者:DEREK THOMPSON @ 2016-08-02
译者:明珠(@老茄爱天一爱亨亨更爱楚楚)
校对:Drunkplane(@Drunkplane-zny)
来源:The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/the-american-dream-isnt-alive-in-denmark/494141/

New research suggests that the American dream isn’t alive in Scandinavia—but generous redistribution of wealth isn’t a terrible consolation prize.

新的研究表明,美国梦在斯堪的纳维亚没市场,但慷慨大方的财富再分配并非糟糕的安慰奖。

Danophilia is alive and well in America. Bernie Sanders and other liberals have lauded Denmark’s social democratic dream state, with its free college tuition, nearly universal pre-K, and plentiful child care.

倒是丹麦迷在美国大受欢迎且很滋润。伯尼·桑德斯和其他自由派盛赞丹麦是社会民主主义的梦想国度,因其免费的大学教育,几乎无所不包的学前教育和对孩童的充分关照。

While Republicans and Democrats both praise the virtues of what economists call “intergenerational mobility”—the chance for a poor young child to become at least a middle-class adult—America doesn’t lead the world in the pursuit of the American Dream.

共和党和民主党都赞美经济学家所谓的“代际流动性”——一个贫穷孩子长大至少成为中产阶级的机会——的优点,而在这一点上,美国并未在对美国梦的追求中身先士卒。

The standard social mobility statistic measures how much each generation’s income is determined by its parents’ income. By that measure, northern Europe and Scandinavia have the highest social mobility in the advanced world, and Denmark tops the list.

标准的社会流动性统计衡量一代人的收入多大程度上由其父母收入所决定。按照这种衡量方式,欧洲北部和斯堪的纳维亚的社会流动性在发达世界排名最高,其中丹麦名列第一。

But this Danish Dream is a “Scandinavian Fantasy,” according to a new paper by Rasmus Landersø at the Rockwool Foundation Research Unit in Copenhagen and James J. Heckman at the University of Chicago. Low-income Danish kids are not much more likely to earn a middle-class wage than their American counterparts. What’s more, the children of non-college graduates in Denmark are about as unlikely to attend college as their American counterparts.

但是,哥本哈根的Rockwool基金会研究部Rasmus Landersø和芝加哥大学James J. Heckman的一项新研究指出,丹麦梦是一个“斯堪的纳维亚空想”。相较于美国的低收入家庭的孩子,丹麦低收入家庭的孩子不会更有可能挣到中产阶级的工资。甚至相较于美国的情况,丹麦无大学文凭者的孩子上大学的希望同样渺茫。

If that’s true, how does Denmark rank number-one among all rich countries in social mobility? It’s all about what happens after wages: The country’s high taxes on the rich and income transfers to the poor “compress” economic inequality within each generation: When the rungs on the economic ladder are closer together, it’s easier to move a little bit up (or down) over the course of a generation.

如果真是这样,为何丹麦的社会流动性在所有富裕国家排名第一?这都源于工资背后的事:国家把从富人和收入里征收的高额税款转移给穷人的做法,“压缩”了代际之间的经济不平等:当社会上升阶梯的横档靠得更近时,代际之间向上(或下)移动就更容易一点。

“The Scandinavian Fantasy” is a rich, complex paper that is already making waves in the newly popular subject of intergenerational mobility. It makes three major points.

“斯堪的纳维亚空想”是一篇丰富而复杂的论文,它推波助澜了代际流动性这一新近的流行主题。论文提出三个主要观点。

The first big idea is that Denmark is not a nation of Horatio Algersens. Its high social mobility is not the result of an economy that is uniquely good at helping poor children earn middle-class salaries. Instead, it is a country much like the U.S., where the children of poor parents who don’t go to college are also unlikely to attend college or earn a high wage. Social mobility in Denmark and the U.S. seem to be remarkably similar when looking exclusively at wages—that is, before including taxes and transfers.

第一个是,丹麦不是Horatio Algersens的国家。其高社会流动性并非来自利于贫穷孩子挣到中产薪水的经济。相反它很像美国,在那里没上大学的穷父母的孩子也不大可能上大学或赚取高薪。只看工资——在不考虑税收和财富转移时——丹麦和美国的社会流动性非常相似。【译注:Horatio Alger,1832年1月13日出生,是19世纪一位多产的美国作家,以少年小说而闻名。阿尔杰小说的风格大多一致,均描述一个贫穷少年如何通过其正直、努力、少许运气以及坚持不懈最终取得成功。历史学家认为,阿尔杰的作品绝不仅局限于其有趣的故事本身,小说中描述的通过自身努力获得成功的主人公,给予了大量当时美国穷人力量、信心及动力,更加刻苦工作换取成功。

It is only after accounting for Denmark’s high taxes on the rich and large transfers to the poor that its social mobility looks so much better than the U.S.’s. America’s (relatively conservative) economic philosophy is that, with low taxes and little regulation, the market is an open savannah where the most talent will win out. But Denmark’s economic philosophy seems to be that the market is an unfortunate socioeconomic lottery system, and so the country compensates the poor with generous transfers paid by high taxes on the rich.

只有平衡了丹麦对富人征高税收和向穷人大量转移财富的因素以后,其社会流动性看上去比美国好很多。美国(相对保守的)的经济哲学是低税收和少管制,市场如同一片开放的大草原,大多数天才自然脱颖而出。而丹麦的经济理念则是,市场是一个不怎么靠谱的社会经济彩票投注系统,所以需要政府通过多征富人税并以慷慨的转移支付补偿穷人。

The second big idea in the paper is that Denmark’s large investment in public education pays off in higher cognitive skills among low-income children, but not in higher-education mobility—i.e., the odds that a child of a non-college grad will go on to finish college.

论文第二个重要观点是,丹麦公共教育的大量投资,在提高低收入家庭孩子的认知技能方面有所斩获,但未增加高等教育的流动性,比如,非大学毕业生子女完成大学学业的几率并未提高。

Overall, Denmark spends much more than the U.S. on all levels of education. In particular, a much higher share of its poor young children is enrolled in daycare and preschool than the United States. This large public investment in kids seems to increase cognitive skills among poor Danish children compared to their American peers. In international math and reading scores, for example, the poorest quartile in Denmark far outperforms their counterparts in the U.S.

总体而言,丹麦在各级教育上的花费比美国多得多。特别是贫困孩子上幼儿园和学前班的比例远高于美国。比起美国的同龄孩子,丹麦对孩子的大量公共投资提高了贫困儿童的认知能力。以国际数学和阅读考试为例,丹麦的最低四分位数的成绩值远优于美国。

But despite this far greater investment in young children and public colleges, Danish children of high-school graduates are still extremely unlikely to go onto college. Put slightly differently, a tiny share of Denmark’s college graduate population comes from homes where neither parent finished high school. The children of college-grads almost always go to college; the children of non-grads often don’t—even in Denmark.

但是,尽管在儿童和公立大学的投资大了很多,丹麦高中毕业生进入大学的可能性仍然非常低。稍有一点不同,极小一部分丹麦大学毕业生来自父母都没读完高中的家庭。大学生的孩子上大学;没上大学的父母,孩子往往也不上大学——即使在丹麦也是这样。

The third big idea is that Denmark’s welfare policies might reduce its citizens’ incentives to go to college. In the early 1990s, when Denmark raised the minimum age of eligibility for social assistance, college enrollment among Danish twenty somethings fell below its trajectory. Based on this finding, the researchers conclude that welfare policies may reduce college enrollment. Denmark makes it more comfortable to be poor and less lucrative to be rich, so many young people decide to end their education after high school.

第三个重要观点是,丹麦的福利政策可能降低了公民上大学的激励。1990年代初,丹麦提高了获得社会援助资格的最低年龄,大学在二十多岁青年人中的招生数随即跌入下行轨迹。基于这项发现,研究人员得出结论,福利政策会减少高校招生。丹麦让穷人更舒适,富人更无利可图,故而很多年轻人决定高中毕业后不再接受教育。

This final idea may be the most controversial. After all, it’s not clear how to frame this finding. Democrats can say: Despite conservative arguments that a welfare state could destroy poor young people’s ambition, Denmark’s educational mobility is no worse than the U.S. But Republicans can say: Despite liberal arguments that Denmark is so much better than the U.S. at social mobility, its poor kids are no more likely to go to college. “There is something here for the Republicans and for the Democrats,” Heckman told me.

最后这个观点可能最具争议。毕竟,目前还不清楚如何解释这个发现。民主党人可以说:尽管保守派观点认为福利国家可能毁掉贫穷年轻人的雄心壮志,可是丹麦的教育流动性并不比美国差。而共和党人可以说:尽管自由派认为丹麦的社会流动性比美国更好,可是其贫穷孩子们同样不太可能进入大学。“这些就是共和党和民主党的说辞”,Heckman告诉我。

The most significant implication of this paper is not a happy one: Equality of opportunity is a fantasy. It does not exist in the U.S., it does not exist in Denmark, and it probably doesn’t exist anywhere. The children of rich college graduates are far more likely to grow up to become rich college graduates, even in the world’s social-democratic fantasyland. That is because, everywhere, parents matter.

本文最有意义的推论并不让人开心:机会平等是一种幻想。它在美国不存在,在丹麦不存在,可能在任何地方都不存在。富有的大学毕业生的孩子更有可能成长为富有的大学毕业生,即使在这世界的社会民主乐园——丹麦也是这样。这是因为,任何地方,父母都很重要。

And it’s probably a good thing that parents matter. For the government to make equality of opportunity its singular and absolute policy goal would probably mean breaking up neighborhoods, forcing arranged marriages, enrolling all children in a unified curriculum, and having them all taught by a mass-produced robot; that would eliminate neighborhood effects, assortative mating, peer effects, curricular differences, and the problem of unequal teaching quality. It is unclear that there is a constituency for this policy, even among the most radical of Bernie bros.

当然,父母很重要可能是件好事。对想要实现机会平等的政府来说,其单一而绝对的政策目标,将可能意味着打破邻里关系,强行安排婚姻,统一所有孩子的学习课程,让大批量生产的机器人教授所有孩子;那样将消除邻里影响、选择性的婚配关系【编注:即人们从与自己地位、收入、教育等方面背景相似的人群中选择配偶的倾向】、同侪效应、课程差异和不同教学质量的问题。不知道是否有选区支持这种政策,即使是最激进的桑德斯支持者。

But just as Denmark’s policy may have its own unintended consequences, the American philosophy of opportunity has its own dark side. For example, high income inequality in the U.S. makes a college degree more valuable in America than in similar countries. This may encourage more poor Americans to enroll in college.

但是,正如丹麦政策有自己意想不到的后果,美国式的自我奋斗争取机会的哲学也有自己的暗面。例如,美国显著的收入不平等使美国大学学位比在同类国家更值钱。这会鼓励更多美国穷人上大学。

For many, college pays off. But the recent rise in college attainment in the U.S. has come at a terrible cost for some. Student debt has exploded, particularly at for-profit colleges serving older, poorer students, the majority of whom drop out with student loans that aren’t dischargeable in bankruptcy.

对于很多人来说,上大学是值得的。但是对于一些人,近期大学费用已经上涨到了糟糕的程度。学生债务激增,特别是上营利性院校的年纪较大的穷学生,他们中的大多数辍学时仍带着就算破产也必须偿还的学生贷款。

So the social siren of American inequality—join the rich! go to college!—lures many first-generation students to put tens of thousands of dollars toward a degree that they never get. If they default on their student loans, they won’t be able to get a loan to buy a house. Which means the housing market is constrained by student debt defaults. Which means other industries that rely on a healthy housing market—furniture, cars, plants, kitchen appliances, apparel—are also affected.

因此,美国社会不公平的刺耳警报——成为富人!考上大学!——诱使许多第一代学生花费上万美元以期获得一张他们得不到的文凭。如果他们拖欠学生贷款,将无法获得贷款买房子。这意味着学生债务违约限制了房地产市场发展。也意味着依赖良好运行的房地产市场的其他工业,如家具、汽车、种植、厨房电器和服装都会受到影响。

Denmark doesn’t have all the answers, and apparently its leaders know it—that’s why they have such a strong public assistance system in the first place. But the U.S. mythology of social mobility is also self-defeating, in ways that are exceptionally American.

丹麦没有给出所有的答案,显然其领导人知道这一点,这就是为什么他们首先建立了一套强有力的公共援助制度。但是,美国社会流动性的神话,以非常美国的方式,也打了自己的脸。

(编辑:辉格@whigzhou)

*注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

相关文章

标签: |
7428
The Atlantic: Denmark Isn't Magic 《大西洋月刊》:丹麦并不神奇 作者:DEREK THOMPSON @ 2016-08-02 译者:明珠(@老茄爱天一爱亨亨更爱楚楚) 校对:Drunkplane(@Drunkplane-zny) 来源:The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/the-american-dream-isnt-alive-in-denmark/494141/ New research suggests that the American dream isn’t alive in Scandinavia—but generous redistribution of wealth isn’t a terrible consolation prize. 新的研究表明,美国梦在斯堪的纳维亚没市场,但慷慨大方的财富再分配并非糟糕的安慰奖。 Danophilia is alive and well in America. Bernie Sanders and other liberals have lauded Denmark’s social democratic dream state, with its free college tuition, nearly universal pre-K, and plentiful child care. 倒是丹麦迷在美国大受欢迎且很滋润。伯尼·桑德斯和其他自由派盛赞丹麦是社会民主主义的梦想国度,因其免费的大学教育,几乎无所不包的学前教育和对孩童的充分关照。 While Republicans and Democrats both praise the virtues of what economists call “intergenerational mobility”—the chance for a poor young child to become at least a middle-class adult—America doesn’t lead the world in the pursuit of the American Dream. 共和党和民主党都赞美经济学家所谓的“代际流动性”——一个贫穷孩子长大至少成为中产阶级的机会——的优点,而在这一点上,美国并未在对美国梦的追求中身先士卒。 The standard social mobility statistic measures how much each generation's income is determined by its parents' income. By that measure, northern Europe and Scandinavia have the highest social mobility in the advanced world, and Denmark tops the list. 标准的社会流动性统计衡量一代人的收入多大程度上由其父母收入所决定。按照这种衡量方式,欧洲北部和斯堪的纳维亚的社会流动性在发达世界排名最高,其中丹麦名列第一。 But this Danish Dream is a “Scandinavian Fantasy,” according to a new paper by Rasmus Landersø at the Rockwool Foundation Research Unit in Copenhagen and James J. Heckman at the University of Chicago. Low-income Danish kids are not much more likely to earn a middle-class wage than their American counterparts. What’s more, the children of non-college graduates in Denmark are about as unlikely to attend college as their American counterparts. 但是,哥本哈根的Rockwool基金会研究部Rasmus Landersø和芝加哥大学James J. Heckman的一项新研究指出,丹麦梦是一个“斯堪的纳维亚空想”。相较于美国的低收入家庭的孩子,丹麦低收入家庭的孩子不会更有可能挣到中产阶级的工资。甚至相较于美国的情况,丹麦无大学文凭者的孩子上大学的希望同样渺茫。 If that’s true, how does Denmark rank number-one among all rich countries in social mobility? It’s all about what happens after wages: The country’s high taxes on the rich and income transfers to the poor “compress” economic inequality within each generation: When the rungs on the economic ladder are closer together, it’s easier to move a little bit up (or down) over the course of a generation. 如果真是这样,为何丹麦的社会流动性在所有富裕国家排名第一?这都源于工资背后的事:国家把从富人和收入里征收的高额税款转移给穷人的做法,“压缩”了代际之间的经济不平等:当社会上升阶梯的横档靠得更近时,代际之间向上(或下)移动就更容易一点。 “The Scandinavian Fantasy” is a rich, complex paper that is already making waves in the newly popular subject of intergenerational mobility. It makes three major points. “斯堪的纳维亚空想”是一篇丰富而复杂的论文,它推波助澜了代际流动性这一新近的流行主题。论文提出三个主要观点。 The first big idea is that Denmark is not a nation of Horatio Algersens. Its high social mobility is not the result of an economy that is uniquely good at helping poor children earn middle-class salaries. Instead, it is a country much like the U.S., where the children of poor parents who don’t go to college are also unlikely to attend college or earn a high wage. Social mobility in Denmark and the U.S. seem to be remarkably similar when looking exclusively at wages—that is, before including taxes and transfers. 第一个是,丹麦不是Horatio Algersens的国家。其高社会流动性并非来自利于贫穷孩子挣到中产薪水的经济。相反它很像美国,在那里没上大学的穷父母的孩子也不大可能上大学或赚取高薪。只看工资——在不考虑税收和财富转移时——丹麦和美国的社会流动性非常相似。【译注:Horatio Alger,1832年1月13日出生,是19世纪一位多产的美国作家,以少年小说而闻名。阿尔杰小说的风格大多一致,均描述一个贫穷少年如何通过其正直、努力、少许运气以及坚持不懈最终取得成功。历史学家认为,阿尔杰的作品绝不仅局限于其有趣的故事本身,小说中描述的通过自身努力获得成功的主人公,给予了大量当时美国穷人力量、信心及动力,更加刻苦工作换取成功。】 It is only after accounting for Denmark’s high taxes on the rich and large transfers to the poor that its social mobility looks so much better than the U.S.’s. America’s (relatively conservative) economic philosophy is that, with low taxes and little regulation, the market is an open savannah where the most talent will win out. But Denmark’s economic philosophy seems to be that the market is an unfortunate socioeconomic lottery system, and so the country compensates the poor with generous transfers paid by high taxes on the rich. 只有平衡了丹麦对富人征高税收和向穷人大量转移财富的因素以后,其社会流动性看上去比美国好很多。美国(相对保守的)的经济哲学是低税收和少管制,市场如同一片开放的大草原,大多数天才自然脱颖而出。而丹麦的经济理念则是,市场是一个不怎么靠谱的社会经济彩票投注系统,所以需要政府通过多征富人税并以慷慨的转移支付补偿穷人。 The second big idea in the paper is that Denmark’s large investment in public education pays off in higher cognitive skills among low-income children, but not in higher-education mobility—i.e., the odds that a child of a non-college grad will go on to finish college. 论文第二个重要观点是,丹麦公共教育的大量投资,在提高低收入家庭孩子的认知技能方面有所斩获,但未增加高等教育的流动性,比如,非大学毕业生子女完成大学学业的几率并未提高。 Overall, Denmark spends much more than the U.S. on all levels of education. In particular, a much higher share of its poor young children is enrolled in daycare and preschool than the United States. This large public investment in kids seems to increase cognitive skills among poor Danish children compared to their American peers. In international math and reading scores, for example, the poorest quartile in Denmark far outperforms their counterparts in the U.S. 总体而言,丹麦在各级教育上的花费比美国多得多。特别是贫困孩子上幼儿园和学前班的比例远高于美国。比起美国的同龄孩子,丹麦对孩子的大量公共投资提高了贫困儿童的认知能力。以国际数学和阅读考试为例,丹麦的最低四分位数的成绩值远优于美国。 But despite this far greater investment in young children and public colleges, Danish children of high-school graduates are still extremely unlikely to go onto college. Put slightly differently, a tiny share of Denmark’s college graduate population comes from homes where neither parent finished high school. The children of college-grads almost always go to college; the children of non-grads often don’t—even in Denmark. 但是,尽管在儿童和公立大学的投资大了很多,丹麦高中毕业生进入大学的可能性仍然非常低。稍有一点不同,极小一部分丹麦大学毕业生来自父母都没读完高中的家庭。大学生的孩子上大学;没上大学的父母,孩子往往也不上大学——即使在丹麦也是这样。 The third big idea is that Denmark’s welfare policies might reduce its citizens’ incentives to go to college. In the early 1990s, when Denmark raised the minimum age of eligibility for social assistance, college enrollment among Danish twenty somethings fell below its trajectory. Based on this finding, the researchers conclude that welfare policies may reduce college enrollment. Denmark makes it more comfortable to be poor and less lucrative to be rich, so many young people decide to end their education after high school. 第三个重要观点是,丹麦的福利政策可能降低了公民上大学的激励。1990年代初,丹麦提高了获得社会援助资格的最低年龄,大学在二十多岁青年人中的招生数随即跌入下行轨迹。基于这项发现,研究人员得出结论,福利政策会减少高校招生。丹麦让穷人更舒适,富人更无利可图,故而很多年轻人决定高中毕业后不再接受教育。 This final idea may be the most controversial. After all, it’s not clear how to frame this finding. Democrats can say: Despite conservative arguments that a welfare state could destroy poor young people’s ambition, Denmark’s educational mobility is no worse than the U.S. But Republicans can say: Despite liberal arguments that Denmark is so much better than the U.S. at social mobility, its poor kids are no more likely to go to college. “There is something here for the Republicans and for the Democrats,” Heckman told me. 最后这个观点可能最具争议。毕竟,目前还不清楚如何解释这个发现。民主党人可以说:尽管保守派观点认为福利国家可能毁掉贫穷年轻人的雄心壮志,可是丹麦的教育流动性并不比美国差。而共和党人可以说:尽管自由派认为丹麦的社会流动性比美国更好,可是其贫穷孩子们同样不太可能进入大学。“这些就是共和党和民主党的说辞”,Heckman告诉我。 The most significant implication of this paper is not a happy one: Equality of opportunity is a fantasy. It does not exist in the U.S., it does not exist in Denmark, and it probably doesn’t exist anywhere. The children of rich college graduates are far more likely to grow up to become rich college graduates, even in the world's social-democratic fantasyland. That is because, everywhere, parents matter. 本文最有意义的推论并不让人开心:机会平等是一种幻想。它在美国不存在,在丹麦不存在,可能在任何地方都不存在。富有的大学毕业生的孩子更有可能成长为富有的大学毕业生,即使在这世界的社会民主乐园——丹麦也是这样。这是因为,任何地方,父母都很重要。 And it’s probably a good thing that parents matter. For the government to make equality of opportunity its singular and absolute policy goal would probably mean breaking up neighborhoods, forcing arranged marriages, enrolling all children in a unified curriculum, and having them all taught by a mass-produced robot; that would eliminate neighborhood effects, assortative mating, peer effects, curricular differences, and the problem of unequal teaching quality. It is unclear that there is a constituency for this policy, even among the most radical of Bernie bros. 当然,父母很重要可能是件好事。对想要实现机会平等的政府来说,其单一而绝对的政策目标,将可能意味着打破邻里关系,强行安排婚姻,统一所有孩子的学习课程,让大批量生产的机器人教授所有孩子;那样将消除邻里影响、选择性的婚配关系【编注:即人们从与自己地位、收入、教育等方面背景相似的人群中选择配偶的倾向】、同侪效应、课程差异和不同教学质量的问题。不知道是否有选区支持这种政策,即使是最激进的桑德斯支持者。 But just as Denmark’s policy may have its own unintended consequences, the American philosophy of opportunity has its own dark side. For example, high income inequality in the U.S. makes a college degree more valuable in America than in similar countries. This may encourage more poor Americans to enroll in college. 但是,正如丹麦政策有自己意想不到的后果,美国式的自我奋斗争取机会的哲学也有自己的暗面。例如,美国显著的收入不平等使美国大学学位比在同类国家更值钱。这会鼓励更多美国穷人上大学。 For many, college pays off. But the recent rise in college attainment in the U.S. has come at a terrible cost for some. Student debt has exploded, particularly at for-profit colleges serving older, poorer students, the majority of whom drop out with student loans that aren’t dischargeable in bankruptcy. 对于很多人来说,上大学是值得的。但是对于一些人,近期大学费用已经上涨到了糟糕的程度。学生债务激增,特别是上营利性院校的年纪较大的穷学生,他们中的大多数辍学时仍带着就算破产也必须偿还的学生贷款。 So the social siren of American inequality—join the rich! go to college!—lures many first-generation students to put tens of thousands of dollars toward a degree that they never get. If they default on their student loans, they won’t be able to get a loan to buy a house. Which means the housing market is constrained by student debt defaults. Which means other industries that rely on a healthy housing market—furniture, cars, plants, kitchen appliances, apparel—are also affected. 因此,美国社会不公平的刺耳警报——成为富人!考上大学!——诱使许多第一代学生花费上万美元以期获得一张他们得不到的文凭。如果他们拖欠学生贷款,将无法获得贷款买房子。这意味着学生债务违约限制了房地产市场发展。也意味着依赖良好运行的房地产市场的其他工业,如家具、汽车、种植、厨房电器和服装都会受到影响。 Denmark doesn’t have all the answers, and apparently its leaders know it—that’s why they have such a strong public assistance system in the first place. But the U.S. mythology of social mobility is also self-defeating, in ways that are exceptionally American. 丹麦没有给出所有的答案,显然其领导人知道这一点,这就是为什么他们首先建立了一套强有力的公共援助制度。但是,美国社会流动性的神话,以非常美国的方式,也打了自己的脸。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——



暂无评论

发表评论