Questions 102-106refer to the following passage.
Rising wages -- together with currency fluctuations and high fuel costs -- are eating away the once-formidable"China price" advantage, prompting thousands of factory owners to flee the Pearl River Delta. Much has been written about the more than doubling of wages at the Shenzhen factory of Foxconn, the world's largest electronics contract manufacturer, which produces Apple iPhones and iPads and employs 920,000 people in China alone. "One can talk about a world pre-and post-Foxconn," says Victor Fung, chairman of Li & Fung, the world's biggest sourcing company and a supplier of Wal-Mart. "Foxconn is as important as that."
Foxconn's wage increases are only the most dramatic. Our analysis suggests that, since February, minimum wages have climbed more than 20 percent in 20 Chinese regions and up to 30percent in some, including Sichuan. At a Guangdong Province factory supplying Honda, wages have risen an astonishing 47 percent. All this is bad news for companies operating in the world's manufacturing hub, and chief executives should assume that double-digit annual rises -- if not on the scale witnessed this year -- are here to stay.
Looked at another way, however, wage inflation provides companies with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rethink radically the way they approach global production -- and they should do so sooner rather than later.
Why the urgency? After all, wage hikes in China are nothing new. Since 1990, they have risen by an average of 13 percent a year in U.S. dollar terms and 19 percent annually in the past five years.
There are two big reasons and the situation is different now. The first has to do with productivity. Over the past 20 years, productivity increases have broadly matched wage increase,negating their impact. The pay rises came from a very low base, so while average wages grew 19 percent a year from 2005 to 2010, this amounted to only ~260 a month per employee, a sum that could be offset by more efficient production or switching to cheaper sources zf parts and materials.
If labor costs continue, however, to increase at 19 percent a year for another five years,monthly wages would grew ~623 per month, according to BCG estimates. Such an increase would ripple through the economy in the form of higher prices for components, business services, cargo-handling and office staff.
The second reason relates to societal change. Until now, it has been easy to lure a seemingly unlimited number of young, low-wage workers to the richer coastal regions and house them cheaply in dormitories until they saved enough to return home to their families in the interior provinces. In the future, though, young workers will be harder to recruit. This is partly because there will be few-er of them: Largely because of the country's one-child policy, the number of Chinese aged 15 to 29 will start declining in 2011. Moreover, with living standards rising across China, fewer of today's rural youth will want to go to coastal regions to toil for 60 hours a week on an assembly line and live in a cramped dormitory.
So what can CEOs do in this fast-changing environment? An instinctive reaction is to search for cheaper labor elsewhere. But this is short-sighted and would provide -- at best -- a short-term fix. Another option is to stay in China and try to squeeze out greater productivity gains.

Which of the following would be the best title for text（）

A:Rising Cost, A Pain in the Neck B:The Irreversible Wage inflation C:To Rethink Global Production Plans D:As Wages Rise, Time to Leave China?

Do you live in a happy country Chances are strong that you do. Results of a recent study have shown that many people around the world are happier now than in the past. The study is called the World Values Survey. Researchers responsible for the study are based at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research in the United States.
The researchers gathered information from opinion studies done in more than ninety countries or territories. Those studies were completed between nineteen eighty-one and two thousand seven. University of Michigan political scientist Ronald Inglehart directed the World Values Survey. Mister Inglehart says the results surprised him. He said it is widely believed that it is nearly impossible for happiness levels for a whole country to improve. He said many earlier studies have suggested that happiness levels do not really change.
Denmark was found to be the world’s happiest country. Mister Inglehart notes that Denmark’s health care is good and few Danes are hungry. Zimbabwe was rated as the least happy country. Zimbabweans have suffered from political and social unrest.
Other nations in the top ten for happiness include Iceland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada and Colombia. Colombia suffers from violence in some areas. But Mister Inglehart says Colombians share strong family, friendship and religious ties. He says those qualities are common in areas along the Caribbean Sea. And he says they help balance economic and political weakness.
The researchers compared the most recent World Values Survey with information from a study completed in nineteen forty-six. Several areas showed rising happiness levels. They include India, Mexico, Northern Ireland, Puerto Rico and South Korea.
Over the years, India’s economy has grown. An improved financial situation is an important sign of happiness, the political scientist says. But living in a country that is becoming more democratic may be more important. So may acceptance of minorities. Mister Inglehart says the study shows a strong link between happiness and freedom to choose how life is lived. It shows that equality between men anti women is another reason.
Mister Inglehart says Northern Ireland is doing well financially and moving toward sexual equality. He also says the area has the traditional bases of friendship, family ties and religion. Northern Ireland has suffered violence in the past. But he says most people there live a normal life today.
Some places showed less happiness than in the past. They were Austria, Belgium, Britain and the former West Germany. However, Mister Inglehart says these areas were still in the top twenty-five percent for happiness last year. And, he says that rating still shows a good level of satisfaction.
Why is Colombia taken as one of the top ten happiness nations according to Mister Inglehart

A:Colombians share strong family, friendship and religious ties. B:Economic rising. C:Political stable. D:No violenc

The differences in living standards around the world are vast. In 1993, the average American had an income of about $25,000. In the same year, the average Mexican earned $7,000, and the average Nigerian earned $1,500. Not surprisingly, this large variation in average income is reflected in various measures of the quality of life. Changes in living standards over time are also large. In the United States, incomes have historically grown about 2 percent per year (after adjusting for changes in the cost of living). At this rate, average income doubles every 35 years. In some countries, economic growth has been even more rapid. In Japan, for instance, average income has doubled in the past 20 years, and in South Korea it has doubled in the past 10 years.
What explains these large differences in living standards among countries and over time The answer is surprisingly simple. Almost all variation in living standards is attributable to differences in countries’ productivity—that is, the amount of goods and services produced from each hour of a worker’s time. In nations where workers can produce a large quantity of goods and services per unit of time, most people enjoy a high standard of living; in nations where workers are less productive, most people must endure a more meager existence. Similarly, the growth rate of a nation’s productivity determines the growth rate of its average income.
The fundamental relationship between productivity and living standards is simple, but its implications are far-reaching. If productivity is the primary determinant of living standards, other explanations must be of secondary importance. For example, people might think that labor unions or minimum-wage laws contributed to the rise in living standards of American workers over the past century. Yet the real hero of American workers is their rising productivity.
The relationship between productivity and living standards also has great implications for public policy. When thinking about how any policy will affect living standards, the key question is how it will affect our ability to produce goods and services. To improve living standards, policymakers need to raise productivity by ensuring that workers are well educated, have the tools needed to produce goods and services, and have access to the best available technology.
What is the most important factor that leads to the rise in living standards of average people

A:Labor unions. B:Minimum-wage laws. C:Rising productivity. D:Favorable public policy.

The differences in living standards around the world are vast. In 1993, the average American had an income of about $25,000. In the same year, the average Mexican earned $7,000, and the average Nigerian earned $1,500. Not surprisingly, this large variation in average income is reflected in various measures of the quality of life. Changes in living standards over time are also large. In the United States, incomes have historically grown about 2 percent per year (after adjusting for changes in the cost of living). At this rate, average income doubles every 35 years. In some countries, economic growth has been even more rapid. In Japan, for instance, average income has doubled in the past 20 years, and in South Korea it has doubled in the past 10 years.
What explains these large differences in living standards among countries and over time The answer is surprisingly simple. Almost all variation in living standards is attributable to differences in countries’ productivity--that is, the amount of goods and services produced from each hour of a worker’s time. In nations where workers can produce a large quantity of goods and services per unit of time, most people enjoy a high standard of living; in nations where workers are less productive, most people must endure a more meager existence. Similarly, the growth rate of a nation’s productivity determines the growth rate of its average income.
The fundamental relationship between productivity and living standards is simple, but its implications are far-reaching. If productivity is the primary determinant of living standards, other explanations must be of secondary importance. For example, people might think that labor unions or minimum-wage laws contributed to the rise in living standards of American workers over the past century. Yet the real hero of American workers is their rising productivity.
The relationship between productivity and living standards also has great implications for public policy. When thinking about how any policy will affect living standards, the key question is how it will affect our ability to produce goods and services. To improve living standards, policymakers need to raise productivity by ensuring that workers are well educated, have the tools needed to produce goods and services, and have access to the best available technology.
What is the most important factor that leads to the rise in living standards of average people

A:Labor unions. B:Minimum-wage laws. C:Rising productivity. D:Favorable public policy.

The differences in living standards around the world are vast. In 1993, the average American had an income of about $25,000. In the same year, the average Mexican earned $7,000, and the average Nigerian earned $1,500. Not surprisingly, this large variation in average income is reflected in various measures of the quality of life. Changes in living standards over time are also large. In the United States, incomes have historically grown about 2 percent per year (after adjusting for changes in the cost of living). At this rate, average income doubles every 35 years. In some countries, economic growth has been even more rapid. In Japan, for instance, average income has doubled in the past 20 years, and in South Korea it has doubled in the past 10 years.
What explains these large differences in living standards among countries and over time The answer is surprisingly simple. Almost all variation in living standards is attributable to differences in countries’ productivity--that is, the amount of goods and services produced from each hour of a worker’s time. In nations where workers can produce a large quantity of goods and services per unit of time, most people enjoy a high standard of living; in nations where workers are less productive, most people must endure a more meager existence. Similarly, the growth rate of a nation’s productivity determines the growth rate of its average income.
The fundamental relationship between productivity and living standards is simple, but its implications are far-reaching. If productivity is the primary determinant of living standards, other explanations must be of secondary importance. For example, people might think that labor unions or minimum-wage laws contributed to the rise in living standards of American workers over the past century. Yet the real hero of American workers is their rising productivity.
The relationship between productivity and living standards also has great implications for public policy. When thinking about how any policy will affect living standards, the key question is how it will affect our ability to produce goods and services. To improve living standards, policymakers need to raise productivity by ensuring that workers are well educated, have the tools needed to produce goods and services, and have access to the best available technology.
What is the most important factor that leads to the rise in living standards of average people

A:Labor unions. B:Minimum-wage laws. C:Rising productivity. D:Favorable public policy.