快，点击上方
蓝字
关注并置顶
这
个公众号，一起涨姿势～
读外刊不仅可以提高阅读能力，如果多做笔记、注重积累，还可以提高写作能力，比如曾多次在推送中出现的短语：in the wake of，应该很眼熟了吧？可以用它替换简单词汇after，让写作句升级。像这样的例子很多很多，学习要做
有心人，共勉～
上期段落匹配答案公布：
EBDAC，你做对了吗？
If it’s not possible to build skills /
with your current employer / or with a side job, you may want to think about / going back to school / for an advanced degree — but affordability remains an important consideration.
如果在现在的雇主或兼职无法培养你的职业技能，你可能需要考虑是否要重返学校攻读一个更高的学位——但经济承受能力仍然是一个重要的考虑因素。
affordability，accessibility和accountability都是常提到的词，大家可以了解一下。
无论是富裕国家还是落后国家，基础设施投资仍主要集中在实体资产上。现在是时候认识到，21世纪，人力资本可能是比任何其他形式都更值得投资的基础设施。
Does caring for humans count as infrastructure? It’s a big debate in the US right now,
in the wake of
President Joe Biden’s $2.3tn American Jobs plan, which aims to repair the country’s
crumbling
roads and bridges and
bolster
its
supply chains
, but also to improve the health and childcare systems — if you can call the US’s
paltry
patchwork
of coverage a “system”.
人文关怀算基础设施吗？在美国总统乔•拜登提出2.3万亿美元的“美国就业计划”之后，该话题目前在美国引起了巨大争议。就业计划旨在修复美国破损的道路和桥梁，强化供应链，同时也要改善医疗和儿童保障体系——如果美国微不足道的零星覆盖的保障也可以称为“体系”的话。
Under Biden’s plan, $400bn would be spent on home healthcare, mostly for the elderly. Another $25bn would go to support childcare. Nearly all Republicans, and some
centrist
Democrats, are worried about this expanded definition of infrastructure. Should “building back better” involve bolstering such services? I’d argue yes, and then some.
根据拜登的计划，将有4000亿美元用于主要针对老年人的家庭医疗保健。有250亿美元将用于支持儿童保障。几乎所有共和党人，以及一些中间派民主党人，都对这种扩大基础设施定义的做法感到担忧。“重建美国”应该包括促进这些方面吗?我认为是的，而且还应该包含其他内容。
For starters, healthcare is where the jobs of the future are. Over the next decade, home health and personal care is predicted to grow faster than other job categories, according to the labour department. That’s due in part to ageing demographics, but also because so many other jobs are being automated.
首先，医疗保健是未来就业的发展方向。美国劳工部表示，预计未来10年，家庭健康和个人护理行业的增长速度将快于其它行业。这在一定程度上是因为人口老龄化，但还有一部分原因在于许多其他工作正在实现自动化。
Such tech-led job disruption will be painful for some, but it’s not inherently bad. Over the long term, based on historic experience, technology is a net job creator.
But even in the short term, as economists Charles Goodhart and Manoj Pradhan argue in their book The Great Demographic Reversal, rich countries “will need all the automation that we can get in the rest of the economy in order to raise productivity adequately . . . [and] to compensate for that which will be lost to caring for the ageing population”.
这种因技术主导的就业影响（失业）对一些人来说是痛苦的，但它本身并不是坏事。根据历史经验，从长期来看，科技总体上创造了更多的就业岗位。
翻译划线句，长按文末小程序码打卡，答案下期公布~
Care jobs will be what’s left at the bottom end of the socio-economic spectrum. But, done well, they can release more productivity at the top. The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that better health outcomes could add $12tn to global GDP in 2040 — much of that from improving the productivity of existing workers who suffer from health issues or have care responsibilities.
尽管护理工作是社会经济体系当中最底层的工作。但是，如果做得好，他们可以释放（经济体系）顶端更多的生产力。麦肯锡全球研究所估计，到2040年，更好的医疗保障可能会给全球GDP增加12万亿美元——其中很大一部分来自于提高了那些患有健康问题或肩负看护责任的工人的生产力。
本文节选自：Financial Times（金融时报）
发布时间：2021.04.18
作者：RANA FOROOHAR
原文标题：The US infrastructure most in need of investment is human
