Figure 5 contributes three nuances

Figure 5 contributes three nuances to the occupational polarization story above. First, the pace of employment gains in low-wage, manual task-intensive jobs has risen successively across periods, as shown at the left-hand side of the figure.
Second, the occupations that are losing employment share appear to be increasingly drawn from higher ranks of the occupational distribution. For example, the highest ranked occupation to lose employment share during the 1980s lay at approximately the 45th percentile of the skill distribution. In the final two subperiods, this rank rose still further to above the 75th percentile—suggesting that the locus of displaced middle-skill employment is moving into higher-skilled territories. Third, growth of high-skill, high-wage occupations (those associated with abstract work) decelerated markedly in the 2000s, with no relative growth in the top two deciles of the occupational skill distribution during 1999 through 2007, and only a modest recovery between 2007 and 2012. Stated plainly, the growth of occupational employment across skill levels looks U-shaped earlier in the period, with gains at low-skill and high-skill levels. By the 2000s, the pattern of occupational employment across skill levels began to resemble a downward ramp. In Autor (2015), I present a more detailed breakdown of these patterns, and in particular suggest that the set of abstract task-intensive jobs is not growing as rapidly as the potential supply of highly
educated workers.

結果 (繁體中文) 1:

Figure 5 contributes three nuances to the occupational polarization story above. First, the pace of employment gains in low-wage, manual task-intensive jobs has risen successively across periods, as shown at the left-hand side of the figure.Second, the occupations that are losing employment share appear to be increasingly drawn from higher ranks of the occupational distribution. For example, the highest ranked occupation to lose employment share during the 1980s lay at approximately the 45th percentile of the skill distribution. In the final two subperiods, this rank rose still further to above the 75th percentile—suggesting that the locus of displaced middle-skill employment is moving into higher-skilled territories. Third, growth of high-skill, high-wage occupations (those associated with abstract work) decelerated markedly in the 2000s, with no relative growth in the top two deciles of the occupational skill distribution during 1999 through 2007, and only a modest recovery between 2007 and 2012. Stated plainly, the growth of occupational employment across skill levels looks U-shaped earlier in the period, with gains at low-skill and high-skill levels. By the 2000s, the pattern of occupational employment across skill levels began to resemble a downward ramp. In Autor (2015), I present a more detailed breakdown of these patterns, and in particular suggest that the set of abstract task-intensive jobs is not growing as rapidly as the potential supply of highly受過良好教育的工人。

結果 (繁體中文) 2:

圖5貢獻3細微差別超過職業兩極分化的故事。首先，在低工資就業增長的步伐，手動任務密集的工作已陸續上漲跨越週期，如在圖的左側，
第二，正在失去就業份額的職業似乎越來越多地來自得出更高等級的職業分佈。例如，排名最高的職業失去就業的份額在20世紀80年代鋪設大約在技能分佈的第45百分位。在最後兩個子時期，這個排名仍進一步上升到高於75個百分點，這表明流離失所中等技能就業的軌跡移動到高技能的領土。第三，經濟增長的高技能，高工資的職業在1999年到2007年在2000年（那些抽象的工作相關的）減速明顯，在職業技能分佈的前兩名十分位數沒有相對增長，之間只有溫和復甦2007年和2012年地說白了，整個技能水平的職業就業的增長看起來在較早時期的U形，漲幅在低技能和高技能水平。到了2000年代，橫跨技能水平的職業就業的格局開始像一個向下的斜坡。在作者日期（2015年），我提出這些模式的更詳細的分類，特別表明，一套抽象的任務密集的工作並沒有增長那麼快的潛能高的供給
受過教育的工人。

結果 (繁體中文) 3:

圖5貢獻了三個細微差別，職業的兩極分化的故事。首先，低薪水的就業增長速度，體力勞動密集型的工作崗位已連續跨越時期，如圖所示的左手邊。例如，在20世紀80年代的最高排名職業失去了就業份額，奠定了約第四十五個百分點的技能分佈。在最後的兩個subperiods，這個排名進一步上升到第七十五以上百分比特表明流離失所的中等技能就業的軌跡移動到高技術領域。第三，高技能成長，高薪水的職業（那些抽象的工作相關）减速明顯在本世紀初，在1999到2007在職業技能分配前兩位數沒有相對增長，和2007和2012之間只有一個溫和的復蘇。明確地說，在這個時期，職業技能水准的增長看起來是U形的，在低技能和高技能水准的收益。到了21世紀，職業就業在技能水准的模式開始像一個向下的斜坡。奧特爾（2015），我提出了一個更詳細的這些模式，並特別建議的摘要任務密集型的工作不是為潜在供應高
受過教育的工人迅速增長。