Many managers are influenced by dangerous myths about pay that lead to counterproductive decisions about how their companies compensate employees. One such myth is that labor rates, the rate per hour paid to workers, are identical with labor costs, the money spent on labor in relation to the productivity of the labor force. This myth leads to the assumption that a company can simply lower its labor costs by cutting wages. But labor costs and labor rates are not in fact the same: one company could pay its workers considerably more than another and yet have lower labor costs if that company's productivity were higher due to the talent of its workforce, the efficiency of its work processes, or other factors. The confusion of costs with rates persists partly because labor rates are a convenient target for managers who want to make an impact on their company's budgets. Because labor rates are highly visible, managers can easily compare their company's rates with those of competitors. Furthermore, labor rates often appear to be a company's most malleable financial variable: cutting wages appears an easier way to control costs than such options as reconfiguring work processes or altering product design.
The myth that labor rates and labor costs are equivalent is supported by business journalists, who frequently confound the two. For example, prominent business journals often remark on the "high" cost of German labor, citing as evidence the average amount paid to German workers. The myth is also perpetuated by the compensation consulting industry, which has its own incentive to keep such myths alive. First, although some of these consulting firms have recently broadened their practices beyond the area of compensation, their mainstay continues to be advising companies on changing their compensation practices. Suggesting that a company's performance can be improved in some other way than by altering its pay system may be empirically correct but contrary to the consultants' interests. Furthermore, changes to the compensation system may appear to be simpler to implement than changes to other aspects of an organization, so managers are more likely to find such advice from consultants palatable. Finally, to the extent that changes in compensation create new problems, the consultants will continue to have work solving the problems that result from their advice.
The author of the passage mentions business journals (see highlighted text) primarily in order to
demonstrate how a particular kind of evidence can be used to support two different conclusions
cast doubt on a particular view about the average amount paid to German workers
suggest that business journalists may have a vested interest in perpetuating a particular view
identify one source of support for a view common among business managers
indicate a way in which a particular myth could be dispelled
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 C。作者在文章中提到了商业杂志,主要是为了暗示商业记者可能有一种私自的利益在维持特定的观点。文章建议,尽管他们有时候会将劳动成本和劳动工资混为一谈,但他们可能有动机去承认这种错误的观点。因此,选项C更突出地反映了作者的看法。其他的选项都不能清楚地反映作者的观点。
business journal并不会从中得到什么实质性的利益
纯纯的眼神不好看错了,D确认一个支持在管理者中间普遍存在的观点的来源!!!
E.表明一个可以让一个特定的myth小时的方式途径。themyth that labor rates and labor costs are equivalent is supported by business journalists,who frequently confound the two.
The myth that labor rates and labor costs are equivalent is supported by business journalists, who frequently confound the two.
The myth that labor rates and labor costs are equivalent is supported by business journalists, who frequently confound the two-> 说明了这个myth的来源
D选项的a view指第一段的myth的内容,解释myth的来源(business journalist和consulting industry都说,就形成了这个myth)
C选项的既得利益vested interest是咨询公司的as its own incentive to keep such myths alive,不是记者的
错选c
dispelled 驱散,消散,myth神话,一个神话可以被解除(类似意思),所以不对这里的business journals是support上面的“The myth that labor rates and labor costs are equivalent is supported by business journalists, who frequently confound the two”,所以它support了business manager经常会搞错 labor rates 和 labor cost这件事
我曹好开心这次skim第一次那么快的做题。。希望以后保持。。。