物質財富與人類幸福與人類幸福

Economic growth is the religion of the modern world, the elixir that eases the pain of conflicts, the promise of indefinite progress. It is the solution to our perennial worries about not getting what we don’t have. And yet, at least in the West, the growth model is now as fleeting as Proust’s Albertine Simonet: Coming and going, with busts following booms and booms following busts, while an ideal world of steady, inclusive, long-lasting growth fades away.

經濟增長是當代世界的最高信條，緩解衝突之痛的靈丹妙藥，是對無限進步的美好承諾。我們總是擔心無法得償所願，而它就是解決這種擔心的答案。不過，至少在西方，增長模式如今就像普魯斯特筆下的阿爾貝蒂娜·西莫內(Albertine Simonet)那樣捉摸不定：來了又去，蕭條過後是繁榮，繁榮過後又是蕭條，而那種穩定、包容而持久增長的理想世界卻漸行漸遠。

In the United States, 80 percent of the population has seen no growth in purchasing power over the last 30 years. In France, annual per capita growth has dropped steadily from 3 percent in the 1970s to less than zero in 2013. In the interim, the political class has been flummoxed by stagnation, a hesitation that has opened the doors to populists of various stripes. But in its desperate search for scapegoats, the West skirts the key question: What would happen if our quest for never-ending economic growth has become a mirage? Would we find a suitable replacement for the system, or sink into despair and violence?

在美國，80%的人口在過去30年裏沒有享受到購買力的提高。在法國，人均年增長從上世紀70年代的3%逐年下滑到2013年的負數。在此期間，政界被經濟停滯搞得狼狽不堪，而這樣的躑躅不前又爲形形色色的民粹分子大開方便之門。在瘋狂尋找替罪羊的過程中，西方卻迴避了最關鍵的問題：假如我們對永無止境的經濟增長的追求已成爲夸父逐日之舉，又該怎麼辦？我們能找到替代這一體系的合適東西嗎？還是會跌入絕望的深淵，暴力纏身？

John Maynard Keynes, writing at the outset of the economic crisis of the 1930s, warned against misdiagnosing the situation. In his famous article “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren,” he declared that a period of exceptional prosperity was at hand and that the world’s “economic problem” would soon be resolved — just as, in the preceding century, strong growth and food safety arrived on a wave of technical innovation. To wring all we can out of the economic growth model, he said, the world must set aside greed and fear, outdated characteristics of a bygone era of misery. Instead, we must learn to enjoy ourselves — and above all to consume, without restraint and without worrying about tomorrow. Ultimately, Keynes believed that we would end up working only three hours a day and after turn to the truly important tasks of art, culture and religion.

在上世紀30年代的經濟危機之初，約翰·梅納德·凱恩斯(John Maynard Keynes)就曾撰文警告對時局的誤判。在他的著名文章《我們後代的經濟前景》(Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren)中，他宣稱，空前繁榮的時代指日可待，世界的“經濟問題”將不日得到解決——就像，在頭一個世紀裏，技術革新的浪潮帶來了強勁增長與糧食安全。他認爲，爲了充分挖掘經濟增長模型的潛力，全世界必須擯棄代表着之前悲慘世代的那種已然過時的貪婪與恐懼。取而代之的是，我們必須學會享受生活——最重要是學會消費，無拘無束，不懼明天。到最後，凱恩斯相信，我們可以把精力放在真正重要的藝術、文化與宗教活動中，然後每天僅僅工作三小時。

Sadly, such metaphysical pursuits have not come to be the world’s priority at this point in history; instead, we still live in fear of poverty, inequality and joblessness. The perpetual quest for material wealth remains our primary goal, despite the fact that we in the West are six times richer than we were in the 1930s. Thus it must be said that Keynes, an intellectual giant of economics, erred: The vast accumulation of wealth hasn’t at all satisfied or moderated the appetites of our materialist society.

遺憾的是，在今天這個歷史節點上，這類形而上的追求尚未成爲全世界的取向；我們仍然活在對貧困、不公與失業的恐懼之中。對物質財富的不懈追求依舊是我們的首要目標，儘管我們西方人實際上已比上世紀30年代富裕六倍。於是，我們不得不說，經濟學巨匠凱恩斯出了錯：財富的大規模累積，完全未能滿足或馴服我們對物質社會的渴求。

The so-called Easterlin paradox helps explain Keynes’s mistake. According to the economist Richard Easterlin, wealth does not correlate to happiness. A higher salary is obviously always desirable, yet once we’ve reached that target it is never enough: We fall victim to a process of habituation of which we are largely unaware. Similarly, as we each set goals for ourselves driven by our current desires, we fail to take into account how our desires change over time and in new circumstances. This explains why economic growth, more than pure wealth, is the key to the functioning of our society: It provides each of us with the hope that we can rise above our present condition, even though this dream remains ever elusive.

名爲“伊斯特林悖論”的理論一定程度上解釋了凱恩斯的這個錯誤。根據經濟學家理查德·伊斯特林(Richard Easterlin)的研究，財富與幸福並無關聯。漲薪當然總是好事，但一旦我們達到了目標，就會永遠不夠：我們陷入了一個基本不能察覺的循環而不能自拔。與之類似的是，當我們每個人受到當前慾望驅使而設定目標時，我們不會考慮到自己的慾望會隨着時間與新環境而變遷。這解釋了，爲何經濟增長而非純粹的財富，是我們社會正常運行的關鍵：它爲我們每個人創造了一種希望，也就是我們能夠超越眼前，儘管這樣的夢想總是那麼虛無縹緲。

Which brings us to the fundamental question: Will economic growth return, and if it doesn’t, what then? Experts are sharply divided. The pessimists, led by the economist Robert Gordon, believe that the potential for economic growth is now much lower than in the last century. The new industrial revolution may have given us the smartphone, but that hardly compares, in his thinking, to the great advances of the 20th century: electricity, the automobile, the airplane, movies, television, antibiotics. On the other hand, optimists like Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee tell us in their book “The Second Machine Age” that Moore’s Law is going to allow “the digitization of just about everything.” Already, Google is experimenting with driverless cars, and robots are caring for the elderly in Japan: Another burst of growth appears to be at hand.

於是最根本的問題擺在了眼前：經濟增長會重現嗎？如若不能，又將如何？在這方面，專家的意見南轅北轍。以經濟學家羅伯特·戈登(Robert Gordon)爲首的悲觀派認爲，今時今日的經濟增長潛力遠不及上個世紀。新工業革命縱然給我們送上了智能手機，但在他看來，這與20世紀的那些偉大進步——電力、汽車、飛機、電影、電視、抗生素等等——比起來，不可同日而語。另一方面，埃裏克·布林約爾鬆(Erik Brynjolfsson)與安德魯·麥卡菲(Andrew McAfee)這樣的樂觀派，在他們的著作《第二次機器時代》(The Second Machine Age)中告訴讀者，摩爾定律將令“幾乎所有東西的數碼化”成爲可能。谷歌(Google)已經在測試無人駕駛的車輛，而機器人照顧老人的事情在日本成爲了現實：又一輪的爆發性增長似乎近在眼前。

To decide who is right, one must first recognize that the two camps aren’t focusing on the same things: For the pessimists, it’s the consumer who counts; for the optimists, it’s the machines. Yes, computers have in some cases replaced humans, but the essential question then becomes: What happens to the workers who are replaced by machines? This is not a clash between those who believe in technology and those who don’t. New technologies are destined to produce marvels. What matters is whether they will substitute for human labor or whether they will complement it, allowing us to be even more productive.

爲了搞清哪一方有理，大家必須首先認識到，這兩大陣營關注點並不一致：在悲觀派看來，重要的是消費者；而在樂觀派看來，則是機器。的確，計算機在某些領域代替了人類，但隨之而來的核心問題是：被機器代替的勞動力該怎麼辦？這並不是相不相信技術的兩方在發生衝突。新技術註定會創造出奇觀。關鍵的地方在於，它們到底是會替代勞動力，還是會助力我們提高效率？

It’s useful to compare this situation with the 20th century when American farmers, comprising 38 percent of the labor force in 1900, moved to the cities and became highly productive workers in new industries. Economic growth quickly doubled. The fact that the purchasing power of the American middle class has grown so little over the last 30 years reflects another major change: Workers have left the factories — but their productivity in their new jobs (if they find them) is stagnant, meaning that economic growth is petering out. The logical conclusion, then, is that both sides in this debate are right: We’re living an industrial revolution without economic growth. Powerful software is doing the work of humans, but the humans thus replaced are unable to find productive jobs.

我們可以把目前的狀況與20世紀進行一番比較。1900年的時候，務農者佔到美國勞動人口的38%。此後，他們紛紛遷移到城市，在新的產業裏成爲生產力極高的勞動者。經濟增長迅速翻倍。而美國中產階級的購買力過去30年幾乎沒有增長的事實，則反映了另一項重大變遷：勞動力在離工廠而去——但他們在新工作（如果能找到的話）中的生產力並未得到提升。這意味着經濟增長正在停止。所以，符合邏輯的結論是，討論的雙方都是對的：我們正在經歷一場沒有經濟增長的產業革命。強大的軟件正在做人類的工作，但被取代的人類卻無法找到有價值的工作。

So how do we deal with a world without economic growth — if that were to come to pass? How do we motivate people if we can’t fulfill their hopes for rising living standards? One recalls the radical move by Henry Ford to double salaries in his factories to cut back on absenteeism and to reinvigorate his employees’ desire to work. In growing economies you can reward diligent workers with rising wages. Today’s companies do give bonuses to workers based on merit, but that carrot comes with a stick: layoffs if goals aren’t met.

那麼，我們該怎樣面對一個失去了經濟增長的世界呢——如果說它將註定到來的話？倘若不能滿足人們不斷提高生活水平的願望，我們又該怎樣激勵他們？有人想起了亨利·福特(Henry Ford)的激進做法，爲杜絕曠工現象並提高工作的積極性，把員工的薪酬加倍。在經濟持續增長時，你可以用更高的工資來回報勤奮的員工。如今的公司也的確會根據績效爲員工提供獎勵，但胡蘿蔔和大棒是同時祭出的：要是沒達到目標，員工就會被解僱。

Work hard or get laid off, as opposed to work hard and get higher wages: This management-by-stress technique is a major cause of suffering in our modern societies. The economists David Blanchflower and Andrew Oswald have shown that mental stress in the workplace has only grown worse over the years. Unfortunately, unhappy workers are less productive; on the other hand, content workers are more cooperative and creative. The point is this: If workers are to be productive again, then we must come up with new motivation schemes. No longer able to promise their employees higher earnings over time, companies will now have to adjust, compensate, and make work more inspiring.

不是努力工作就能漲工資，而是不努力工作就會被辭退：這種壓力管理的策略，是我們當代社會令人痛苦的主要原因。經濟學家戴維·布蘭奇福勞(David Blanchflower)和安德魯·奧斯瓦爾德(Andrew Oswald)已經告訴我們，職場的精神壓力愈來愈嚴重。遺憾的是，不快樂的員工的工作效率也更低；另一方面，心滿意足的員工則更具團隊精神和創造力。歸根結底：如果想讓員工重新變得高效起來，我們必須拿出新的激勵辦法。由於無法再向員工承諾未來會提供更高的薪酬，企業現在需要做出調整和補償，讓工作更加鼓舞人心。

The Danish economic model, much discussed in Europe, shows that it is indeed possible to motivate workers by something other than fear. Denmark ranks highest in “job quality in Europe,” namely because the level of autonomy granted to workers is so extensive. The country’s ample safety net protecting laid-off workers and providing job retraining encourages mobility in the workplace and eases fears about losing one’s job. It’s no wonder then that in 2013 Denmark was declared the happiest country in the world.

丹麥的經濟模式已經在歐洲得到了大量討論。它顯示出，通過恐懼之外的東西來激勵員工的確是有可能的。在“歐洲就業質量”的排名中，丹麥高居榜首。這完全是因爲，丹麥的勞動者享有非常大的自由度。這個國家完善的福利體系能夠保護失業的勞動者，提供再就業培訓，從而促進了職場的流動性，減輕了對失業的恐懼。難怪丹麥在2013年被評爲世界上最快樂的國家。

It would be absurd to argue that the ills of Western societies all arise from the stagnation of individuals’ purchasing power. But to ignore the problem and go on pretending that growth will surely return, just as it did after World War II, will only blind us to the reasons weak economic growth produces a morose society. We must now imagine a world in which happiness and satisfaction with one’s life and work replaces the futile quest to always earn more.

認爲西方社會的弊病都源於個人購買力的停滯不前，這是很可笑的。但如果忽視這個問題，繼續假裝增長肯定會像二戰後那樣自動重新到來，我們就會看不到疲軟的經濟增長導致整個社會悶悶不樂的真正原因。我們現在應該希望的是，人們對生活和工作的快樂與滿足，可以取代對掙更多錢的徒勞追求。