用户中心
考博英语复习:《时代周刊》小短文阅读——passage 3
When Michael Harrington's classic book, The Other America, called attention to America's general poverty rate of about 25% in 1962, Washington developed social programs that brought the rate down sharply. Valuable policies, including the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, have been enacted since then, but they are not enough: 1 in 3 children does not receive the full benefits of these programs because their parents do not earn enough to be eligible for them. Poor children have many needs, but research shows that money may matter most. For example, a 2013 review of dozens of studies by London School of Economics researchers found that "Poorer children have worse cognitive, social-behavioural and health outcomes in part because they are poorer, and not just because poverty is correlated with other household and parental characteristics." A family with two children receiving $300 to $400 a month per child could improve their standard of living immediately. Money can buy food, heat, coats, eyeglasses and regular doctors' visits, including transportation, and help pay for childcare. It can also help reduce family stress and help parents provide a psychologically nourishing environment in which learning and social development can germinate. Studies demonstrate improved cognitive and educational performance when families are simply given more money. An illustrative finding is what happened when a Cherokee tribe passed on thousands of dollars in casino profits to its children starting in the late 1990s. Follow-up analyses showed that these children dropped out of school far less, were incarcerated in lower numbers and had higher wages over time than similar groups with no access to cash.The historian Michael Katz correctly notes, "One of the odd aspects of the history of writing about poverty is the avoidance of the simple view that people are poor because they lack money," yet both the left and the right denigrate direct cash aid as a waste and an inducement to laziness and abuse. It is good that Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang has stressed the benefits of a universal basic income, citing studies that show such cash allowances do not induce the shirking of work, but his plan could cost $2.8 trillion a year and the poor would have to return welfare assistance like food stamps to receive the outlay. For far less money—about $100 billion— the number of children living in official poverty could be cut in half. Such a policy would be a humane, practical, efficient victory for a nation too willing to neglect its poor.
1962年，迈克尔·哈林顿的经典著作《另一个美国》唤起了人们对美国总体贫困率高达25%这一事实的关注后，华盛顿便推出了多个社会保障项目，将这一比例明显降了下来。从那以后，政府已经颁布了多道宝贵政策，例如所得税抵免政策(EITC)，儿童税收抵免（CTC）政策，然而，这些努力依然不够：有1/3的儿童并未充分享受到这些政策带来的红利，因为他们父母的收入并未达到获得那些红利的标准。贫困儿童有很多需求，但研究表明，钱或许是他们最大的需求。例如，伦敦政治经济学院的研究人员2013年综观了数十项研究发现，“贫困儿童的认知、社会-行为及健康状态都更糟糕，一定程度上是因为他们的经济状况更为落后，不仅仅是因为贫困与其他家庭因素、父母因素存在关联。”两个孩子的家庭若每个孩子每月都能领取300~400美元的补贴，他们的生活立即就能有所改观。有了（补贴的）钱就能买到食物、暖气、外套、眼镜，就能定期看病，包括支付交通费，帮助支付抚养费用。钱还能帮助缓解家庭压力，帮助家长为孩子们提供一个心理健康成长的环境，为他们的学习和社交能力的培养提供营养。研究发现，家庭只要有更多的钱，孩子在认知能力和学习上的表现就会有所提升。一个颇能说明问题的发现就是，从90年代末开始，一个切诺基部落持续将数千美元的赌场利润用到投资孩子的成长带来的效果。后续分析显示，相比没有钱的类似人群，这些孩子辍学的几率要低得多，进入监狱的也更少，且随着时间的推移，他们的收入也更高。
正如历史学家迈克尔·卡茨指出的那样，“综观描写贫困的作品，它们都有一个很奇怪的问题，那就是它们都避免讨论一个很简单的看法：人们之所以穷，就是因为他们没钱，”左右两翼的人士却都抹黑直接的现金援助是一种浪费，认为它们反而会滋生穷人的懒惰和恶习。好在民主党总统候选人杨安泽已经开始强调设置全民基本收入的好处，他为此援引的多项研究都表明，这样的现金补贴并不会带来逃避工作的现象，只是，他提出的计划一年就要耗资2.8万亿美元，而穷人要想享受这一补贴，就不得不以退还食品券等福利援助为条件。但只要拿出这笔钱的一个零头——大约1000亿美元——就能拯救一半生活在官方贫困线以下的儿童人数。对一个求之不得想要无视其穷人阶级的国家而言，这样的政策已经是十分人道，可行又高效的胜利了。
gt;华慧2020年考博复试（面试）指导1对1辅导班
