Questões de Inglês

Finding a New Boom Amid the Bust

Jun. 02, 2009

By Dan Kadlec

When it comes to what makes us happy at work, job-satisfaction surveys have been showing for years that the size of our paycheck is losing ground to intangibles like autonomy, mobility, low stress, flexible hours, job security, health coverage, paid time off and other benefits. Does pay matter? Of course it does. But as China and other emerging markets have gained ground on the U.S. economically, American workers have begun to come to grips with what that means: in many cases, finding a standard of living that is slipping relative to other nations, and saying zai jian (bye-bye, for those not yet into basic Mandarin) to generous and automatic pay raises across industries. The recession has only deepened this trend. 

Workers who are elated to simply have a job aren’t squawking about money, and according to a Randstad survey, they now name job security and benefits among the top factors in their happiness. Competitive pay is moving down the scale. Another expediter is demographics. The massive boomer generation is entering its retirement years undersaved and in need of continued employment. Yet boomers are determined to scale back hours and stress, and some at least are happy to trade a big salary for work with meaning and which allows for a better work/life balance, so long as the bills still get paid. America remains a land of opportunity and will continue to reward go-getters chasing dreams of wealth. But increasingly, our job market will also reward those who place a higher value on intangibles, and it will do so without relegating those people to a life of need. Certainly, jobs are scarce. Our economy has been shedding more than half a million positions a month. Yet even now there are pockets of employment, both for new grads and midlifers reinventing themselves, that offer decent pay with great benefits and security. 

Where are these jobs? Think green technologies, which may be at the root of the next economic boom. Think government, which under President Obama is getting bigger. Think education, which is in more demand than ever thanks to the arrival of boomer grandchildren and millions of workers in need of retraining. Think infrastructure, where much of the President’s nearly $800 billion stimulus effort will be focused. Think about risk assessment and controls in a chastened financial system. Think health care, which is booming as boomers grow fitfully into old age. Many such fields present opportunity now, and because they pay well above the median annual U.S. salary of $32,390, they are good to be a part of, even in a recovery.  

(www.time.com Adaptado.) 

Finding a New Boom Amid the Bust

Jun. 02, 2009

By Dan Kadlec

When it comes to what makes us happy at work, job-satisfaction surveys have been showing for years that the size of our paycheck is losing ground to intangibles like autonomy, mobility, low stress, flexible hours, job security, health coverage, paid time off and other benefits. Does pay matter? Of course it does. But as China and other emerging markets have gained ground on the U.S. economically, American workers have begun to come to grips with what that means: in many cases, finding a standard of living that is slipping relative to other nations, and saying zai jian (bye-bye, for those not yet into basic Mandarin) to generous and automatic pay raises across industries. The recession has only deepened this trend. 

Workers who are elated to simply have a job aren’t squawking about money, and according to a Randstad survey, they now name job security and benefits among the top factors in their happiness. Competitive pay is moving down the scale. Another expediter is demographics. The massive boomer generation is entering its retirement years undersaved and in need of continued employment. Yet boomers are determined to scale back hours and stress, and some at least are happy to trade a big salary for work with meaning and which allows for a better work/life balance, so long as the bills still get paid. America remains a land of opportunity and will continue to reward go-getters chasing dreams of wealth. But increasingly, our job market will also reward those who place a higher value on intangibles, and it will do so without relegating those people to a life of need. Certainly, jobs are scarce. Our economy has been shedding more than half a million positions a month. Yet even now there are pockets of employment, both for new grads and midlifers reinventing themselves, that offer decent pay with great benefits and security. 

Where are these jobs? Think green technologies, which may be at the root of the next economic boom. Think government, which under President Obama is getting bigger. Think education, which is in more demand than ever thanks to the arrival of boomer grandchildren and millions of workers in need of retraining. Think infrastructure, where much of the President’s nearly $800 billion stimulus effort will be focused. Think about risk assessment and controls in a chastened financial system. Think health care, which is booming as boomers grow fitfully into old age. Many such fields present opportunity now, and because they pay well above the median annual U.S. salary of $32,390, they are good to be a part of, even in a recovery.  

(www.time.com Adaptado.) 

A world of Methuselahs

June 25th 2009 

Angus Maddison, an economic historian, has estimated that life expectancy during the first millennium AD averaged about 25 years (which in practice meant that lots of children died very young and many of the rest survived to middle age). The big turnaround came with the industrial revolution, mainly because many more children survived into adulthood, thanks to better sanitation, more control over epidemics, improved nutrition and higher living standards. 

By the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy in America and the better-off parts of Europe was close to 50, and kept on rising. By mid-century the gains from lower child mortality had mainly run their course. The extra years were coming from higher survival rates among older people. The UN thinks that life expectancy at birth worldwide will go up from 68 years at present to 76 by 2050 and in rich countries from 77 to 83. (These are averages for both sexes; women generally live five or six years longer than men, for reasons yet to be fathomed). Most experts now agree that there will be further rises, but disagree about their extent. 

Some of them argue that the human lifespan is finite because bodies, in effect, wear out; that most of the easy gains have been made; and that the rate of increase is bound to slow down because people now die mostly of chronic diseases – cancer, heart problems, diabetes – which are harder to fix. They also point to newer health threats, such as HIV/AIDS, SARS, bird flu and swine flu, as well as rising obesity in rich countries – to say nothing of the possibility of fresh pandemics, social and political unrest and natural disasters. 

Nearly 30 years ago James Fries at Stanford University School of Medicine put a ceiling of 85 years on the average potential human life span. More recently a team led by Jay Olshansky at the University of Illinois at Chicago said it would remain stuck there unless the ageing process itself can be brought under control. Because infant mortality in rich countries is already low, they argued, further increases in overall life expectancy will require much larger reductions in mortality at older ages. In Mr. Olshansky’s view, none of the life-prolonging techniques available today – be they lifestyle changes, medication, surgery or genetic engineering – will cut older people’s mortality by enough to replicate the gains in life expectancy achieved in the 20th century. 

That may sound reasonable, but the evidence points the other way. Jim Oeppen at Cambridge University and James Vaupel at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock have charted life expectancy since 1840, joining up the figures for whatever country was holding the longevity record at the time, and found that the resulting trend line has been moving relentlessly upward by about three months a year. They think that by 2050 average life expectancy in the best-performing country could easily reach the mid-90s. 

(www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13888102 Adaptado.)

A world of Methuselahs

June 25th 2009 

Angus Maddison, an economic historian, has estimated that life expectancy during the first millennium AD averaged about 25 years (which in practice meant that lots of children died very young and many of the rest survived to middle age). The big turnaround came with the industrial revolution, mainly because many more children survived into adulthood, thanks to better sanitation, more control over epidemics, improved nutrition and higher living standards. 

By the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy in America and the better-off parts of Europe was close to 50, and kept on rising. By mid-century the gains from lower child mortality had mainly run their course. The extra years were coming from higher survival rates among older people. The UN thinks that life expectancy at birth worldwide will go up from 68 years at present to 76 by 2050 and in rich countries from 77 to 83. (These are averages for both sexes; women generally live five or six years longer than men, for reasons yet to be fathomed). Most experts now agree that there will be further rises, but disagree about their extent. 

Some of them argue that the human lifespan is finite because bodies, in effect, wear out; that most of the easy gains have been made; and that the rate of increase is bound to slow down because people now die mostly of chronic diseases – cancer, heart problems, diabetes – which are harder to fix. They also point to newer health threats, such as HIV/AIDS, SARS, bird flu and swine flu, as well as rising obesity in rich countries – to say nothing of the possibility of fresh pandemics, social and political unrest and natural disasters. 

Nearly 30 years ago James Fries at Stanford University School of Medicine put a ceiling of 85 years on the average potential human life span. More recently a team led by Jay Olshansky at the University of Illinois at Chicago said it would remain stuck there unless the ageing process itself can be brought under control. Because infant mortality in rich countries is already low, they argued, further increases in overall life expectancy will require much larger reductions in mortality at older ages. In Mr. Olshansky’s view, none of the life-prolonging techniques available today – be they lifestyle changes, medication, surgery or genetic engineering – will cut older people’s mortality by enough to replicate the gains in life expectancy achieved in the 20th century. 

That may sound reasonable, but the evidence points the other way. Jim Oeppen at Cambridge University and James Vaupel at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock have charted life expectancy since 1840, joining up the figures for whatever country was holding the longevity record at the time, and found that the resulting trend line has been moving relentlessly upward by about three months a year. They think that by 2050 average life expectancy in the best-performing country could easily reach the mid-90s. 

(www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13888102 Adaptado.)

A world of Methuselahs

June 25th 2009 

Angus Maddison, an economic historian, has estimated that life expectancy during the first millennium AD averaged about 25 years (which in practice meant that lots of children died very young and many of the rest survived to middle age). The big turnaround came with the industrial revolution, mainly because many more children survived into adulthood, thanks to better sanitation, more control over epidemics, improved nutrition and higher living standards. 

By the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy in America and the better-off parts of Europe was close to 50, and kept on rising. By mid-century the gains from lower child mortality had mainly run their course. The extra years were coming from higher survival rates among older people. The UN thinks that life expectancy at birth worldwide will go up from 68 years at present to 76 by 2050 and in rich countries from 77 to 83. (These are averages for both sexes; women generally live five or six years longer than men, for reasons yet to be fathomed). Most experts now agree that there will be further rises, but disagree about their extent. 

Some of them argue that the human lifespan is finite because bodies, in effect, wear out; that most of the easy gains have been made; and that the rate of increase is bound to slow down because people now die mostly of chronic diseases – cancer, heart problems, diabetes – which are harder to fix. They also point to newer health threats, such as HIV/AIDS, SARS, bird flu and swine flu, as well as rising obesity in rich countries – to say nothing of the possibility of fresh pandemics, social and political unrest and natural disasters. 

Nearly 30 years ago James Fries at Stanford University School of Medicine put a ceiling of 85 years on the average potential human life span. More recently a team led by Jay Olshansky at the University of Illinois at Chicago said it would remain stuck there unless the ageing process itself can be brought under control. Because infant mortality in rich countries is already low, they argued, further increases in overall life expectancy will require much larger reductions in mortality at older ages. In Mr. Olshansky’s view, none of the life-prolonging techniques available today – be they lifestyle changes, medication, surgery or genetic engineering – will cut older people’s mortality by enough to replicate the gains in life expectancy achieved in the 20th century. 

That may sound reasonable, but the evidence points the other way. Jim Oeppen at Cambridge University and James Vaupel at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock have charted life expectancy since 1840, joining up the figures for whatever country was holding the longevity record at the time, and found that the resulting trend line has been moving relentlessly upward by about three months a year. They think that by 2050 average life expectancy in the best-performing country could easily reach the mid-90s. 

(www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13888102 Adaptado.)

A world of Methuselahs

June 25th 2009 

Angus Maddison, an economic historian, has estimated that life expectancy during the first millennium AD averaged about 25 years (which in practice meant that lots of children died very young and many of the rest survived to middle age). The big turnaround came with the industrial revolution, mainly because many more children survived into adulthood, thanks to better sanitation, more control over epidemics, improved nutrition and higher living standards. 

By the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy in America and the better-off parts of Europe was close to 50, and kept on rising. By mid-century the gains from lower child mortality had mainly run their course. The extra years were coming from higher survival rates among older people. The UN thinks that life expectancy at birth worldwide will go up from 68 years at present to 76 by 2050 and in rich countries from 77 to 83. (These are averages for both sexes; women generally live five or six years longer than men, for reasons yet to be fathomed). Most experts now agree that there will be further rises, but disagree about their extent. 

Some of them argue that the human lifespan is finite because bodies, in effect, wear out; that most of the easy gains have been made; and that the rate of increase is bound to slow down because people now die mostly of chronic diseases – cancer, heart problems, diabetes – which are harder to fix. They also point to newer health threats, such as HIV/AIDS, SARS, bird flu and swine flu, as well as rising obesity in rich countries – to say nothing of the possibility of fresh pandemics, social and political unrest and natural disasters. 

Nearly 30 years ago James Fries at Stanford University School of Medicine put a ceiling of 85 years on the average potential human life span. More recently a team led by Jay Olshansky at the University of Illinois at Chicago said it would remain stuck there unless the ageing process itself can be brought under control. Because infant mortality in rich countries is already low, they argued, further increases in overall life expectancy will require much larger reductions in mortality at older ages. In Mr. Olshansky’s view, none of the life-prolonging techniques available today – be they lifestyle changes, medication, surgery or genetic engineering – will cut older people’s mortality by enough to replicate the gains in life expectancy achieved in the 20th century. 

That may sound reasonable, but the evidence points the other way. Jim Oeppen at Cambridge University and James Vaupel at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock have charted life expectancy since 1840, joining up the figures for whatever country was holding the longevity record at the time, and found that the resulting trend line has been moving relentlessly upward by about three months a year. They think that by 2050 average life expectancy in the best-performing country could easily reach the mid-90s. 

(www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13888102 Adaptado.)