- 最后登录
- 2010-8-16
- 在线时间
- 245 小时
- 寄托币
- 533
- 声望
- 58
- 注册时间
- 2009-7-10
- 阅读权限
- 20
- 帖子
- 8
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 478
- UID
- 2662770
 
- 声望
- 58
- 寄托币
- 533
- 注册时间
- 2009-7-10
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 8
|
本帖最后由 happy牧羊 于 2010-2-19 20:33 编辑
Clash of generations
Britain will be rent, not by class warfare阶级斗争, but by an age divide, a new book argues
The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took their Children’s Future—and Why They Should Give it Back. By David Willetts. Atlantic; 314 pages; £18.99. Buy fromAmazon.co.uk
WITH a general election大选 just a few months away, the class-war trumpets阶级斗争的号角 are sounding loud and clear in Britain. From the Labour工党 ranks come tired jibes about Conservative policies保守性政策 designed on the playing fields of Eton. 来自工人阶层的群众嘲弄起伊顿公学运动场上筹划的保守政策来。From the Conservative benches保守党席位 a more interesting proposition has appeared.
In the worry about the shift of resources from the increasingly workless working class to the increasingly unleisured leisure class something new and important is being missed, says David Willetts, a Tory MP and one of his party’s relatively few acknowledged Deep Thinkers. It is the massive and crippling严重损害身体的,极有害的 shift in resources to retiring baby-boomers from the slimmer generation coming after them. Britain is ever more divided by age.
Altogether British people are worth about £7 trillion ($10.9 trillion). This can be divided roughly into £1.6 trillion in personal financial assets (shares, savings), £3.7 trillion in housing (£2.5 trillion if you subtract mortgages) and £1.8 trillion in personal and company pension schemes退休金计划. It is logical that older people should have accumulated more wealth than younger ones. But the proportions seem to be shifting sharply in favour of the older cohorts同伴 追随者 助手, especially those aged 55 to 65.
Half the population are under 40 years old but they hold only about 15% of all financial assets.持有多少财产的表达 People under 44 own, again, just 15% of owner-occupied housing 房主自用住宅. Comparing the financial and housing wealth of different age groups in 1995 and 2005 the Bank of England found that those aged 25 to 34 had seen their wealth fall?不懂, whereas those aged 55 to 64 had seen theirs triple. It helped that inflation was galloping 奔驰 when the older group was borrowing to buy homes, but slowed thereafter此后 以后 而后.
If pensions are counted, the situation is even more skewed歪曲的. Lushly funded final- salary schemes are now broadly closed to new members, in the private sector私营机构 at least. Baby-boomers can chuck辞职 the day job at 60 or 65 and head off阻止 拦截 into the perma-tanned sunset? (they will probably prove freakishly反常地;怪异地 long-lived), borrowing against the inflated value of their houses as they do so. Their children must slog on towards an infinitely receding retirement age, squirrelling away money存款 for their meagre微薄的 defined-contribution pensions as a growing proportion of state spending is devoted to the needs of a massive generation of the elderly.
Young people have little chance of building up similar wealth. They are struggling to get on the housing ladder, though close to a fifth of people between 50 and 59 years old own a second home. Jobs for the young were getting scarcer 罕见 稀少 even before the crash. Yet more and more older people are working and earning more, relative to young workers, than before.
On top of this此外 , older baby-boomers have dodged 躲开 避开two speeding bullets, leaving their descendants squarely正对着地;径直地;不偏不倚地 in the line of fire火力线. The first is the bill for bailing out跳伞 保释 the financial sector; the second, the effect of climate change on the cost of energy, water, flood-prevention防洪 and the like. Other countries have ageing populations, but the problem in Britain is especially acute. British baby-boomers tended to believe their houses were all the piggy bank储蓄罐 they needed. They neglected to make other comparable savings or they borrowed against property to finance their old age. (One result of rock-bottom最低点 最低的 savings rates was that British banks, which did not have the same access to retail deposits小额零星存款 as banks in other, more provident精打细算的 未雨绸缪的 countries, got into trouble leaning heavily on the volatile wholesale markets批发市场 for their cash.)Mr Willetts is not the only writer to worry about baby-boomers crashing through society like a flash flood.这个比喻不错 Nor is this his first take on it. But two things distinguish this book from other offerings.
The first is the attempt to construct a logically compelling theory of self-interested altruism and reciprocity, enlisting anthropologists, Enlightenment philosophers and today’s game theorists to do so. There is an unvoiced contract that binds 约束 捆 绑 the generations. Parents look after their children, with a view to helping them do at least as well as they themselves have done, and grown-up children look after their parents, in the hope that their children will do the same for them one day. But there is now “a breakdown in the balance between the generations”, thanks to the colossal巨大的 庞大的 size of one of them. And it has brought social consequences as well as economic ones, including the disappearance of trust between unrelated adults and children and a long, messy凌乱的 拖泥带水的 transition to independence for young people today.
The second reason to read this well-written book is the wealth of social detail that Mr Willetts, with his wonderful magpie mind?, spreads before the reader. He looks, for example, to England’s historically smallish相当小的 微小的, nuclear families for an explanation of the country’s early adoption of markets and the rule of law. Weaving together使交织、组合在一起 birth rates and immigration policy, he has an ingenious巧妙 神奇 explanation for why workers from Lodz flock to London, where housing costs are higher than almost anywhere else in the world, whereas workers from Liverpool on the whole do not. As society becomes more segregated种族隔离的;实行种族隔离政策的 by age, he points out, some council estates now have ratios of adults to hormone-heavy adolescent males more typical of violent Yemen or Somalia than of developed Western countries. He turns up statistics showing that most women, employed or not, spend more time caring for their young children now than they used to, and suggests that most people have become better parents (doing more for their own children) but worse citizens (doing less for others). The end notes alone are a feast不懂.
This is not a party-political book. It is, however, a polemic争论 辩论. Mr Willetts places a big bet on demography, giving short shrift to other factors affecting behaviour, such as technology and religion. This allows him to touch plausibly貌似有理地 on many hot- button themes—the erosion of social capital, entrenched使处于牢固地位;牢固确立 inequality and social immobility—but it stops short of a full explanation of them. He is also a little hard on the boomers, who have, after all, presided over主持 负责 economic growth, cloned sheep, become gay-friendly, spent a lot of time and money looking after their children and grandchildren, and who will not escape the current financial storm unscathed安然无恙的.
In the end we are left with a question. Are the baby-boomers a lucky generation or a selfish one? Mr Willetts, born in 1956, is too prudent谨慎的;慎重的;精明的 to answer categorically明确地;直截了当地, but his arguments suggest that if nothing else they are certainly a careless one. Prolonged economic growth tends to make people assume that future generations too will grow richer, and hence to make less provision在这里应该翻译成“准备” for them.年轻人期望太高 但是准备太少 Yet the Victorians built railways and city halls for their descendants in what was one of Britain’s most optimistic eras. And the boomers’ descendants may have more cash but they are also likely to face far higher costs. Mr Willetts cites, approvingly赞许地 满意地 , the way some American Indian tribal councils部落会议 used to take decisions in the light of how they would affect the next seven generations. In Britain, alas(表示悲伤或遗憾)哎呀,唉, it is painfully hard to see beyond预见 the next election
http://bbs.ecocn.org/viewthread.php?tid=31127 全文翻译 from ECO中文论坛
这篇文章读的比较困难,可能是太多文化背景的东西。不过这样的文章也能学到更多外国的文化背景,很不错,要多多研读、学习。 |
|