
Letters are welcome via email to letters@economist.com Find out more about how we process your letter
欢迎通过电子邮件将信件发送至 letters@economist.com。了解更多关于我们如何处理您的来信的信息。
Housing stability
住房稳定性
As representatives of both social-housing residents and providers we were struck(使震惊;打动) by the way your recent article described people who live in social housing (“The rent is too damn low”, July 11th). Phrases such as “subsidises the wrong people”, references to residents who “cling” to their homes and examples chosen to illustrate perceived unfairness all contribute to a familiar narrative(叙述;说法): that social-housing residents on good incomes are recipients(接受者) of undeserved subsidies.
作为社会住房居民和提供者的代表,我们对贵刊近期文章描述社会住房居民的方式感到震惊(《租金实在太低了》,7月11日)。诸如“补贴了错误的人”、提及居民“紧抓”住房不放,以及为说明所谓不公平而选取的例子,都助长了一种熟悉的论调:收入不错的社会住房居民是不应得的补贴的接受者。
You imply(暗示;意味着) that residents who increase their earnings while remaining in social-housing represent a flaw in the system. We see something different. We see people who have been given a stable foundation from which to build their lives. That is something housing policy should aspire to(渴望;追求) for people from a range of incomes and jobs living in the same communities.
你们暗示,那些在保留社会住房的同时增加收入的居民代表了制度的一个缺陷。我们看到了不同的东西。我们看到的是被给予了稳定基础来构建生活的人们。这是住房政策应该追求的目标,让来自不同收入和职业的人们生活在同一个社区。
Have you seen the weather?
你看到天气了吗?
AI law
人工智能法律

I can’t come to work today…
我今天没法上班了……
Drones and flies alike
无人机与苍蝇无异
Question time
提问时间