Corey Hajim: Today, our guest is Dan Schulman, CEO of PayPal. When most of us think of PayPal, we think of buying something online or paying a friend back for a drink using Venmo. But PayPal has also become a major financial services player, often acting as an alternative to a traditional bank. During this pandemic, PayPal has supported small businesses around the world by providing loans, waiving fees and increasing cash back programs. It has also worked with the US government on its Paycheck Protection Program, as well as distributing stimulus checks. It has enabled an outpouring of generosity online as well. The trend towards digital payments, or what we might now want to think of as "contactless payments," has massively accelerated, and it's changing forever how we think about commerce. So I'm really excited to have Dan here with us. Thank you so much, Dan.
柯莉哈錦:今天,我們的來賓 是 PayPal 的執行長丹舒爾曼。 大部分人聽到 PayPal 時 都會想到線上購物, 或用 Venmo 把酒錢還給朋友。 但 PayPal 也已經成為 金融服務業中重要的一員, 通常扮演著替代傳統銀行的角色。 在這次疫情期間, PayPal 以提供貸款、減免費用 以及增加現金回饋的方式 來支持世界各地的小型企業。 PayPal 也與美國政府合作, 策劃其薪資保護計畫, 以及分發振興支票。 PayPal 也被大量利用 在線上慷慨解囊。 數位支付, 現在可能常被稱為「無接觸支付」, 有急速發展的趨勢。 並永遠改變了我們對商業貿易的看法。 所以我好高興丹能夠 來參與我們的談話。 非常謝謝你,丹。
Dan Schulman: Thanks for having me, Corey. Pleasure to be here with you.
丹舒爾曼:謝謝邀請我, 柯莉,能來這裡是我的榮幸。
CH: Glad to see you. So let's dive right in. Within a few months of this pandemic's arrival, more than 30 million people have filed for unemployment in the United States alone. These are certainly unusual circumstances, but it seems clear we were running very close to the edge, and now so many businesses and their employees are facing huge financial challenges. How worried are you?
柯:很高興見到你。 我們就開始吧。 在疫情開始的幾個月內, 超過三千萬人登記失業, 這還只是美國的數據。 現在無疑是情況特殊, 但我們顯然已經在危機的邊緣, 許多企業及其員工 正在面臨龐大的財務困境。 你有多擔心?
DS: Well, I think the crisis has exposed three things. Obviously, it's a health crisis for so many people. Second thing is, that health crisis has ricocheted, and the world is now in an economic crisis. And the third crisis that we don't talk so much about but I think is impacting the way that we're going to live our lives going forward is: this is a psychological crisis as well. People are reexamining their place in the world, what's happening in the world, how they're going to live their lives, both in the pandemic and postpandemic. And so I think this is something that each of those phases will need to be dealt with.
丹:我認為這場危機揭露出三件事。 很顯然,對許多人而言, 這是場健康危機。 第二,這場健康危機的趨勢急遽上升, 世界因此陷入了經濟危機。 第三種危機我們很少提及, 但我認為它會衝擊 我們未來的生活方式, 那就是心理危機。 大家在重新審視自己在世界上的地位、 世界上正在發生什麼事、 他們要如何生活, 無論是在疫情期間或疫情結束後。 所以我認為面對這件事 我們需要步步為營。
But you said this, and I completely agree with you: there was an economic crisis happening well before the pandemic exposed this. It's kind of like the water level came down and exposed what was already there. You had, for instance, in the US, 185 million adults in the US struggling to make ends meet at the end of the month. You have over 70 million adults that are really outside of the financial system, spending over 140 billion dollars on high interest rates, unnecessary fees and struggling as well. And so I think what this has really done -- because you can't ignore 20, 25 percent unemployment rates -- it's exposed this crisis and forced a lot of people into, maybe, actions that they might not have taken without this crisis happening.
但我完全同意你剛才說的: 疫情所揭露的經濟危機 在疫情發生之前存在已久。 這有點像是水位下降之後 才看到本來就在水底的東西。 比如,在美國, 有一億八千五百萬名成年人 都要在月底掙扎,無法收支平衡。 有超過七千萬名 不在金融體系內的成年人 將超過一千四百億美金 花費在高利率及不必要的手續費上。 他們也過得很辛苦。 因為我們無法忽視 20~25% 的失業率, 所以我認為,疫情的作用 就是將危機暴露出來, 強迫許多在危機未顯露時無動於衷的人 不得不採取行動。
CH: Yeah, I think that's right. There are so many challenges and so many opportunities, and I think you've spoken of this opportunity of digital transactions being helpful to people, and obviously the trend, as you've said, has massively accelerated and pushed us into this world even further. So I'm curious: What does the world look like without cash? Or less cash? What are the advantages and what are the challenges of making that transition?
柯:是的,沒錯。 有好多挑戰,也有好多機會, 我想你已經談到了 這是數位交易協助大家的機會, 而且如你所言, 這個趨勢正在急速發展, 將我們進一步推進到數位交易的世界。 所以,我很好奇: 如果我們不再使用現金, 或只有少量現金流通, 世界會變成什麼樣子? 這樣的轉型又有什麼益處和挑戰?
DS: I think some of the trends that are emerging coming out of this pandemic or coming into it and as we look forward is, clearly, this has been a discontinuous change in the trend line as we move from physical to digital. I think we've accelerated many forms of digital capabilities by three to five years. And that can be from digital payments to telemedicine to really changing the face of retail and how we think about retailing, changing the face of entertainment, even changing the way governments think about managing and moving money and really thinking about digital currencies going forward. And so I think there are a tremendous number of changes that will occur during this pandemic and coming out of it. Digital payments is obviously one of the big ones that will happen. I mean, cash has been around for quite some time, thousands of years. I would not be so bold as to predict its full demise. Many people have been wrong doing that. But there is no question right now that you will see an acceleration of the demise of cash. Last year, you had over 18 trillion dollars of cash spent at retail. Eighty-five percent of the world's transactions today are done in cash still. But the really big change right now towards digital payments, and that's both the advent and the acceleration of commerce that's happening, as well as the shift to in-store contactless payments, as you said, and the real impetus for that is health reasons. People do not want to hand over money. They do not want to touch screens. They don't want to pick up a pen and sign at the point of sale. And so there is a demand for contactless payments and digital payments to keep social distancing requirements in place, to protect the health of cashiers, to protect the health of consumers. And I think we are going to see, we are already seeing in our business, a surge in digital payments across the world.
丹:我認為,有一部分趨勢 是隨著這次疫情而浮現的, 很顯然, 當我們從實體轉向數位時, 趨勢線的走向就變得不連慣了。 我認為各式功能的數位化 被我們加速了三到五年。 範圍從數位支付, 到遠距醫療, 到真正改變零售業的樣貌 及我們如何看待零售業, 改變娛樂業的樣貌, 甚至改變政府對於 資產管理及轉移的看法, 並真正考慮在將來採用數位貨幣。 所以我認為, 在這次疫情期間及疫情結束之後, 將會發生許多改變。 數位支付顯然是其中一項 將要發生的重大改變。 現金已經存在了相當長一段時間, 長達數千年。 我不敢去預測現金何時會完全消失。 許多人做過錯誤的預測。 但現在,毫無疑問, 我們能看見現金在加速消失。 去年,有超過十八兆美金的現金 花在零售業。 現今全世界有 85% 的交易 仍然透過現金進行。 但目前真正發生在 數位支付上的重大轉變, 不論是現在已經成形的商業活動, 還是正加速發展中的商業活動, 以及你剛剛提到的店內 轉向無接觸支付, 其中真正的推動力是基於健康考慮。 大家不想摸錢。 他們不想要觸碰螢幕。 他們不想在消費地點拿起筆來簽名。 所以產生了需求, 需要無接觸支付以及數位支付 來保持必要的社交距離, 保護出納員的健康, 保護消費者的健康。 我想我們將看到, 我們也已經能在工作中看到, 數位支付在全世界急速成長的趨勢。
CH: It seems like a great opportunity, but how do we make sure that this transition is inclusive? I mean, you've talked about how so many people are underserved by the traditional banking industry. How do we make sure that those people have that opportunity? And it feels like a smartphone becomes an essential item. How do we address that?
柯:這似乎是個大好機會, 但我們要如何確保人人 都能用到這種交易方式? 你剛才有談到許多人在傳統銀行業 無法取得完備的服務。 我們要如何確保那些人 都能有同樣的機會? 且,感覺起來, 智慧手機成了必備品。 我們要如何看待這一點?
DS: Yeah. I do think that a mobile is really a key to unlocking this. I've often said that, really, one of the big moon shots for the financial services industry is this idea of not just financial inclusion. Most people define financial inclusion by somebody having access to a bank account, but just having access to a bank account is not nearly enough. I think what we need to aim for is how do we think about financial health? How do we make sure that people have the ability to have some wherewithal to create savings to withstand some kind of financial shock to the system? I do think that mobile phones will be the way that this occurs and will be very inclusive going forward.
丹:對。我的確認為 手機是解鎖這一切的關鍵。 我常常說, 金融服務業的其中一項天大的挑戰 就是不要侷限於普惠金融這個概念。 大部分的人把普惠金融定義為 一個人能隨時使用自己的銀行帳戶, 但光是能隨時使用 銀行帳戶還遠不足夠。 我認為我們需要把目標放在 我們如何看待財務健康? 我們要如何確保大家有能力 用某種方式讓資本 創造出足夠的儲蓄來承受 金融系統所面對的衝擊? 我確實認為 這會透過手機實現, 且將來會非常普惠。
There are going to be something like six billion smartphones in the world over the next several years. The cost of a smartphone is plummeting. I think in India now you can buy a smartphone for under 25 dollars. So you're going to have ubiquity of smartphones across the world, and, in fact, what's very interesting is, in lower-income populations, there is a greater penetration of smartphones than in higher income because the smartphone is the only device that somebody has. Higher-income individuals may have desktops or iPads, that kind of thing, but lower income can afford one device, and they choose it to be a smartphone because they can get and live their life through that one device.
在接下來的數年間, 全世界會達到六十億支手機。 手機的成本會暴跌。 我想,你現在在印度就可以 用二十五美金買到一支智慧手機。 所以智慧手機將遍及全世界, 事實上,非常有意思的是, 在低收入人口中, 智慧手機的滲透率還勝過高收入人口, 因為智慧手機是他們僅有的裝置。 收入較高的人可能會有 桌上型電腦或 iPad 等等, 但收入較低的人 只負擔得起一個裝置, 他們選擇智慧手機, 因為只要用那一個裝置 他們就可以過生活。
And think about that one device. Really, you have all the power of a bank branch in the palm of your hands. And when you can start to create distribution of services, financial services, through a smartphone, you then are able to manage and move money in ways that we couldn't do traditionally.
想想看那一個裝置。 真的,銀行分行的所有能力 全都在你的掌心中。 當你開始能夠透過智慧手機 提供服務的分配, 如金融服務, 你就能用傳統服務所不能及的方式 來管理和轉移資產。
In the physical world, if you get a check, you need to then go to a cash checking place to cash it. You stand in line for 30 minutes. They then charge you anywhere between two and five percent to just change the format of currency from a check to cash. And then you have cash and you want to pay a bill. You need to stand in line again at a bill pay, and then you have to pay maybe 10 dollars for an individual bill as a fee. If you do that via a smartphone, I believe that not only do you save a tremendous amount of time, because if you're outside the financial system, managing and moving money is practically a part-time job to go and do that, so not only do you save time and return time to individuals, but you can cut the cost of transactions by anywhere between 50 and 75 percent. And remember that $140 billion number that I gave you? And that's just in the US. Imagine if you could cut that in half and return that to the most vulnerable populations that need it most. So I think there's tremendous promise in the use of technology to help provide both inclusion and make sure there aren't digital haves and have-nots, but also to start on this journey towards financial health.
在實體世界, 如果你收到支票, 你得去兌換支票的地方兌現它。 排隊要花三十分鐘。 接著他們還要收取 2~5% 的手續費, 只為了把貨幣的形式 從支票轉為現金。 接著,你有現金了,可以去繳帳單了, 你又得到帳單付款處再排一次隊, 接著,你可能要支付十美金 做為個人票據的費用。 如果你透過智慧手機來操做, 我相信你不但能省下大量時間, 因為,若你在金融體系之外, 管理和轉移資產 實際上算是兼差的工作, 你不但省下時間,將時間還給個人, 你還可以將交易成本 減少大約 50~75%。 還記得我剛才說的數字, 一千四百億美金嗎? 那只是美國的數字。 試想如果能將那數字減半, 將省下的錢還給最沒保障、 最需要這些錢的人。 我認為非常有可能 可以使用科技 來協助提供普惠, 確保在數位的層面上人人有份。 同時開始向金融健康邁進。
CH: Yeah, I think a lot of people don't realize that you don't need a bank account or even a credit card to open a PayPal account, which is super-interesting. I mean, do you see a time where traditional banks don't exist or at least play a much smaller role in the financial services industry?
柯:是的,我想,很多人沒意識到 你不需要銀行帳戶, 甚至不需要信用卡, 也可以申請 PayPal 帳戶, 這點非常有趣。 你是否預見一個時代, 那時的傳統銀行將不復存在, 或至少在金融服務業中 銀行重要性大大降低?
DS: Well, I think the entire financial services industry is evolving right now, and so I think banks will always play a role, or as far into the future as I can see, but it will evolve. I mean, think about basic credit cards. Today, you think about a credit card, and you think about it predominantly as a form factor, something that you pull out of your pocket. Sometimes there's status associated with what you're pulling out of your pocket, depending on the color of that credit card. But really I think those form factors start to go away and become embedded in digital wallets. So credit will always be an important element.
丹:我認為整個金融服務業 都在進化中, 所以我認為銀行永遠 都會佔有一席之地, 至少在我能預見的未來是如此, 但它會進化。 想想看基本的信用卡就知道。 現今,談到信用卡, 你會主要把它看作是一種形態因素, 一種從口袋中掏出來的東西。 有時,你能從口袋中掏出什麼, 與身分地位有關聯, 這取決於信用卡的顏色。 但我認為那些因素開始勢微, 並轉變成數位錢包中置入功能。 所以,「信用」永遠會是重要的因素。
You know, most people in the world, it isn't that their cash outlays exceed their cash intake. It's just that they're not evenly distributed. So there are times where your cash outflows exceed your cash intake, and there, you need some form of credit to make up that difference. And so I think forms of credit will always be an important element. But the way that you extend credit will change going forward, the way that you think about scoring people in terms of can they handle credit. You know, traditionally, in more developed countries, you use what's called FICO scores or bureau scores, but those ignore so many of the financial transactions that people who are outside the financial system do, like paying rent or paying their bills on time. And with the data and information and machine learning around that -- and we need to be careful that there aren't biases built into those algorithms -- we can start to do things that could never be done before.
知道嗎,世界上大部分人, 現金花費並沒有超過他們的現金收入。 只是他們沒有平均做分配。 所以有時你的現金花費 會超過你的現金收入, 那時,你就需要透過 某種形態的信用來補足差額。 所以我認為各種形態的信用 永遠都會是個重要的元素。 但擴大信用的方式會在今後發生改變, 如何以維持信用為標準 給持卡人評分。 傳統上,在開發程度較高的國家, 會使用 FICO 評分或機構評分, 但那些評分無視了許多 金融體系統以外的金融交易, 比如準時支付的房租或帳單。 使用這些數據、資訊, 以及相關的機器學習方法—— 我們需要小心謹慎, 不讓偏見置入演算法中—— 我們可以開始嘗試此前做不成的事。
I'll just give you one quick example. We're one of the largest providers of working capital to small businesses in the world. We're probably one of the top five in the United States. So we've done over 14, 15 billion dollars of lending of working capital to small businesses. Seventy percent of that goes to the 30 percent of counties where 10 or more banks have closed branches. And where do banks close branches? Banks close branches in neighborhoods where the median income is below the national average, which makes sense because for a branch to be profitable, they need a certain amount of deposits for that branch to actually be profitable. And so, in lower income neighborhoods, branches are starting to close. So why are 70 percent of our loans in those lower income neighborhoods? It's because we do machine learning. We don't even look at FICO scores or bureau scores. We look at a number of different data elements. And so we can lend into those lower income neighborhoods where nobody else can, and when we do that, the average sale of a small business goes up by 22 percent. And imagine the impact that has on communities and neighborhoods where they can finally get the working capital to expand those small businesses. And I think that's a perfect example of the promise of what technology and financial services married together can do.
讓我舉個小案例。 說到給小型企業提供營運資金, 我們的公司可列入世界之最。 在美國我們可能排名前五。 我們借給小企業的營運資金 已經超過一百四、五十億美金。 七成的資金分到了三成的郡手中, 那些郡各自關閉了至少十間銀行。 哪些地方會關閉銀行? 如果居民區的收入中位數 低於全國均值, 銀行就會關閉。 這是合理的, 因為若銀行要營利, 就需要一定量的存款 才能獲利。 所以,在收入較低的居民區, 銀行開始關門。 那我們為何把七成貸款 給了收入較低的居民區? 因為我們用的是機器學習。 我們甚至不去看 FICO 評分或機構評分。 我們看的數字來自另一套數據元素。 所以我們能把錢借給那些 不受别家機構理睬的 低收入居民區, 而當我們這樣做, 小企業的平均業績就上升了 22%。 想像一下那對社區及鄰里 會有怎樣的影響, 他們終於能夠取得營運資金 用來擴張那些小企業。 我認為那是個完美的例子 說明科技與金融服務的結合 能展現出什麼樣的前景。
CH: I think it's so interesting. I'm curious. The tech industry has been criticized for amassing power over society, not that the banking industry isn't criticized. But what do you say about people who might be worried about tech companies taking on even more influence and control over what's happening in their lives?
柯:那好有意思。 我很好奇。 有評論指責科技業凌駕在社會之上, 倒不是說銀行業就不受指責。 但你對大家所擔心的 科技公司在人們生活中 影響力與主導力日益劇增 有什麼說法?
DS: Yeah. Well, I think what's so important for any company and tech companies is to respect the boundaries in terms of what consumers expect from a company that serves them. I think the most important brand attribute that a company can have is trust, and trust comes from the understanding that a company respects your privacy and will not sell your data or information, that it can perform transactions in a secure manner so that your transactions are protected. And I think those are kind of foundational, and I think any company needs to respect that. They need to assure that consumers have the privacy that they desire and the safety and security that is required to serve them the right way.
丹:是的。 我認為對任何公司, 包括科技公司,來說 尊重界線是很重要的, 界線是指公司提供的服務 是否與消費者的期望相符。 我認為一家公司最重要的 品牌屬性就是信任, 而信任源於一項共識: 公司尊重你的隱私, 不會把你的資料或資訊賣掉, 能夠用安全的方式進行交易, 讓你的交易會受到保護。 我認為這些是很基本的, 我認為任何公司都應該尊重這一點。 它們得要確保消費者 能保有他們想要的隱私, 以及必要的安全性, 用恰當的方式來服務他們。
CH: And obviously, you've gained a lot of trust with the US government. Maybe we could talk a little bit about how you've been working with them to distribute some money through the Paycheck Protection Program. And I was curious, I've been reading about it, and it sounds like 30 million-ish small businesses in the United States are able to get those funds, but only six million have received the loans. What do you think's happened?
柯:很顯然,美國政府非常信任你。 也許我們能談談你是怎麼和他們合作 以薪資保護計畫來分發部分金額。 我還很好奇, 我讀過相關報導, 似乎美國有三千多萬家小企業 有資格領取資金, 但只有六百萬家 拿到了貸款。 你認為出了什麼問題?
DS: Yep. Well, I think initially, the government -- and I give them a lot of credit -- they responded quite quickly with a 3 trillion dollar stimulus package. These are massive numbers that were happening in very condensed time frames. We were working with various agencies, very closely with the Treasury Department, in terms of distribution of the stimulus. And they were working literally night and day on this. The Small Business Administration was working night and day. But these are volumes that have never been seen before running through these systems, and the first tranche of those loans was very difficult. There were a lot of technical difficulties in getting those out to small businesses. And that first tranche was not enough, and it was quickly used, and there are still a host of small businesses that needed money.
丹:好。 我認為,政府一開始 確實有很大的功勞; 他們的回應速度很快, 提出三兆美金的振興方案。 這麼龐大的數字竟能在 在如此緊湊的時程中籌得。 我們和各個機關合作, 和財政部在振興支票的分配上 有相當密切的合作。 他們真的是日以繼夜投入在此。 小型企業管理局日以繼夜地努力。 但這些機關系統 以前從來沒有處理過這麼大的量, 這些貸款中的第一批 很難處理。 要將貸款發給小企業 有很多技術上的困難。 且第一批的量並不夠, 很快就用光了, 還有相當多小企業 需要錢。
The second tranche that came out is still actually in effect. It has not been used up, and we are continuing to lend on that. We've been able to lend to some 50,000 small businesses. We've lent out about 1.7 billion dollars, and our loan size, which really I'm proud of, is about 31,000 dollars. The average that a bank does is between 100 and 125,000 dollars. So we are lending to these true small businesses on Main Street, and I'm proud that we've been able to go do that, and I think we should give credit to the US government and governments around the world that are taking this quite seriously and putting a tremendous amount, a percentage of their GDP, towards the rescue of small businesses and towards trying to take care of consumers that find themselves in really difficult straits right now.
推出的第二批貸款 仍然在實行中, 還沒有用光, 我們會持續提供貸款。 我們已經借給了五萬間小企業。 我們借出了十七億美金, 我對我們的貸款金額 感到很驕傲, 大約是三萬一千美金。 銀行的平均貸款金額是 十萬到十二萬五千美金。 我們把錢借貸給了位在商業中心的 真正的小型企業, 為此我感到很驕傲, 我認為這也要歸功於美國政府 及世界各地負責任的政府, 他們嚴陣以待, 拿出能影響其 GDP 的巨大金額, 投入拯救小企業 以及試圖保護那些 身處在困境中的消費者。
And we've been trying to, instead of people mailing out checks, which is ridiculous in today's world -- people aren't living where they think they're going to be living, they're with their parents or with friends or in a different location, and mailing a check and then having to take a check and go somewhere, which you can't even go if you're sheltered in place, to cash it, doing that electronically just makes a ton more sense -- and we've been working with the IRS and Treasury and other government agencies to distribute that electronically.
我們一直在嘗試, 不要用郵寄支票的方式, 說來可笑—— 人們現在並非都住在 他們本該在的地址, 而是與父母或朋友同住, 或是另有住址, 而郵寄支票, 然後拿著支票到其他地方兌現, 若你處於就地避難狀態 還根本去不成, 用電子化的做法合理多了—— 我們一直和國內稅務局、財政部, 及其他政府機關合作, 以電子的方式做分發。
CH: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. It's a massive, massive project for all of us. Whitney is here with some questions from our community.
柯:對,那合理多了。 對我們所有人而言, 這是個非常大的工程。 惠妮帶來了一些社群成員想問的問題。
DS: Hello, Whitney.
丹:哈囉,惠妮。
Whitney Pennington Rodgers: Hello Dan. How are you? So the community has some interesting questions following up on what you were talking about earlier about security. We have a question from Marc -- and I apologize in advance if I mispronounce your name, Marc -- Marc Vanlerberghe: "The move to digital cash could be one more step towards creating the perfect surveillance state. How do we avoid this from happening?"
惠妮潘尼頓羅傑斯: 哈囉,丹,你好嗎? 社群成員有一些有趣的問題, 和你先前談到的安全性有關。 馬克問了一個問題。 馬克,如果我唸錯你的 名字,先說聲抱歉。 馬克.范勒柏格: 「轉向數位現金可能讓國家 更接近完全監控狀態。 要如何避免這個狀況發生?」
DS: Yeah, well, this is what I was talking about, Marc, before. I mean, I think this idea of trust is incredibly important. I think the only companies that will be successful -- and I think we hold a lot of this in our own hands as consumers, by the way; we need to be aware of data and information that we're giving and to what companies we're doing that with -- but I think the companies that will be successful are those that have a high degree of trust, and trust happens by protecting your privacy but also very much assuring that your transactions in a digital world are safe and secure. I mean, the idea of cybersecurity has always been important, but is ever more important as we move from physical to digital, and that's where large data sets are important, because a consumer's identity is stolen every two seconds. Every two seconds, some consumer has their identity stolen. And so we have to be, for instance, we have to be sure that even when you sign in with your credentials, they're actually real credentials. We have to look at 30 to 100 different elements of that transaction to make sure it's really you before we let that money out of your account. And so there is a combination of making sure you have enough data to protect somebody but also assure that your privacy is held sacrosanct, and I think that is a balancing act and one that needs to happen in order for us to do this successfully.
丹:是的,馬克, 這就是我之前在談的。 我認為,關於信任的概念 極度重要。 我認為,公司若要成功…… 順便一提,我認為有很多事 是我們消費者自己能控制的, 我們要意識到自己提供的 數據和資訊是什麼, 以及提供給了什麼公司。 但我認為,公司若要成功, 必須要有高度的信任, 而信任源於保護你的隱私, 同時必須確保你在數位世界 進行的交易是安全的。 「網路安全」這個觀念 一直都很重要, 但隨著我們從實體轉到數位, 它的重要性又更高了, 此時大型數據集就很重要, 因為每兩秒鐘就有 一位消費者的身分被竊取。 每兩秒鐘,就有某個 消費者的身分被竊取。 我們必須,比如, 我們必須要確保, 即使你的登入已通過驗證, 也要確保驗證必須是真實有效。 我們必須要分析該交易的 三十到一百個不同元素, 才能確保登入的真的是你, 然後我們才會讓錢離開你的帳戶。 所以這是結合了兩件事: 一方面確保有足夠資料來保護某人, 此外也要確定不能侵犯到你的隱私, 我認為這是一個平衡點, 必須要找到這個點, 才有可能讓這一切成功。
WPR: Great, and actually sort of going from digital cash to digital currency, we have another question from Simone Ross in our community about the opportunity that exists for digital currency. She mentioned that PayPal pulled out of Libra. What would it take for a truly inclusive digital currency to take hold here?
惠:好極了,現在要從 數位現金談到數位貨幣, 社群成員席夢.羅斯 問了另一個問題, 和目前數位貨幣發展的機會有關。 她提到 PayPal 退出 加密貨幣計畫 Libra。 若要讓真正普惠的數位貨幣 能札穩腳跟,該怎麼做?
DS: Yeah. I think there is a tremendous amount of promise as we think about digital currencies. Our pulling out of Libra had nothing to do with our firm conviction that blockchain and other forms of maybe stable coin currencies are extremely important and can be very, very helpful, especially in different parts of the world. As we think about stability in different parts of the world where currencies can fluctuate up and down, to have a more stable currency where somebody can know, if they have that, that it's going to be worth x amount, and that they can transact, either with other individuals around the world or, importantly, at merchants around the world. And we are looking at all forms of digital currencies right now, working hand in hand with a number of different governments, and I think we should all think about how technology is going to evolve and how currencies will evolve as a result of that. And I think this crisis has really opened the eyes of many governments around the world as to the need for different tool sets to create stimulus and to efficiently and quickly and effectively distribute funds to their citizens.
丹:好。 我認為,談到數位貨幣, 它的前景相當不錯。 我們離開 Libra, 與我們堅定的信念無關, 我們的信念是,區塊鏈 及其他形式的穩定的錢幣式貨幣 是極度重要的, 且可能非常非常有幫助, 特別是在世界上不同的地區。 關於穩定性,想想看在世界上不同地區, 貨幣有可能會上下波動, 若能有一種為他人所知的 比較穩定的貨幣 如果人們持有 價值為 X 的該貨幣, 他們就可以進行交易, 既能和世界各地的個人交易, 另外,很重要地, 亦能在全世界的商家買東西。 我們正在研究各式數位貨幣, 與不同的政府攜手合作, 我認為我們都該思考 科技的進化方式, 進而思考貨幣的進化方式。 我認為這次危機真正讓世界上 許多政府都開了眼界, 發現他們需要不同的工具組 來振興國家, 有效率、快捷、有效地 將資金分配給公民。
WPR: Great. Well, I'll be back shortly with more questions, and I'd just love to remind the community that you can ask questions on the "Ask question" feature. Be sure to use the pull-down tab to select Episode 2, so those questions come. Thank you.
惠:我馬上會帶更多問題回來, 我想提醒一下社群成員, 可以用「問問題」功能來發問。 請務必在下拉頁籤選擇第二集, 問題來才會進來。 謝謝。
DS: Thanks, Whitney.
丹:謝謝,惠妮。
CH: Thanks, Whitney. Dan, I want to go back to something we touched on in the beginning about financial wellness. PayPal has done something unique in terms of calculating how much to pay people and how much you should spend on benefits. Traditionally, wages are set by the market, but you've found that paying as much or even more than other companies wasn't always enough. Can you tell us about that moment?
柯:謝謝,惠妮。 丹,我想回到我們 起初始談到的問題: 金融健全性。 PayPal 做了一件獨特的事: 計算出該給人們支付多少薪水, 以及該花多少錢在福利上。 傳統上,薪水是由市場來決定的, 但你發現,即便薪水 等於或高於其他公司, 也不見得足夠。 你能否跟我們談談這件事?
DS: Yeah. So I said, kind of, in our opening, in one of my opening statements, that two-thirds of Americans struggle to make ends meet at the end of the month. They are financially stressed, and it kind of wreaks havoc in their life. I did a study to look at PayPal employees. We did a research study, and I did it because I thought I was going to get back this great information that I was going to talk about at an employee meeting about how well we pay, because we pay, to your point, at or above market in every single location around the world. And what I found is, unfortunately, like the rest of the world, even though we paid at market or above market, 60 percent of our operations personnel, our entry-level employees, our hourly workers, face the same thing. They struggle to make ends meet. And that was simply unacceptable for me.
丹:好。 我在開場的陳述中有提到, 三分之二的美國人 在月底都很難做到收支平衡。 他們在財務上的壓力很大, 讓他們的生活一團亂。 針對 PayPal 的員工 我們做了一項研究, 我原以為我能研究出一些不錯的資訊, 可以拿到場員工會議上 做為談話的資料, 談談我們的薪水有多好, 因為就像你說的,我們付的薪水 相較於世界各地 只高不低。 不幸的是,我發現,和全世界一樣, 雖然我們給的薪水 等於或高於市場, 我們六成的營運人員、 初階員工、計時人員, 都面臨同樣的狀況: 很難讓收支平衡。 對我來說實在無法接受。
I think the world is changing in terms of the responsibility of corporations, the responsibility of CEOs. We have a lot of different stakeholders that we try to satisfy, from regulators to shareholders to customers to employees. But I think the number one responsibility that we have is the health -- financial health -- of our employees, because nothing could be more important to a company than to have financially secure, passionate employees working for you, because nobody is going to serve customers better than employees who feel a part of something and feel financially secure and glad to be a part of that company.
我認為世界在改變, 企業的責任在改變, 執行長的責任在改變。 我們試圖滿足許多 不同的利害關係人, 從管理機關,到股東, 到客戶,到員工。 但我認為我們的第一要任 就是我們員工的財務健康, 因為對公司來說, 最重要的莫過於 擁有一群有財務保障 且具有熱情的員工為你工作, 因為要讓客戶得到最優質的服務 員工必須要有歸屬感、 在財務上要有安全感、 並樂於成為公司的一份子。
And so then the real question becomes: How do you measure that? Because a lot of people think about living wages or a minimum wage. And we thought that was insufficient, and we came up with a measurement we called "net disposable income," which is, basically: After you pay taxes and your basically essential living expenses, how much money do you have left over for discretionary things or to save? And here's the really unfortunate thing -- and I'm not proud of this, but remember, we were paying at market or above, so I thought the market would take care of this, right, by doing that -- we found that for that population, they had four to six percent NDI, net disposable income, after paying taxes and essential living expenses. That is not enough. You are going to struggle to make ends meet. And by the way, NDI changes location to location to location around the globe, right? There's a different NDI in Manila, a different NDI in Omaha, Nebraska, than there is in New York City, etc. And so we basically said to ourselves, we need to take NDI to 20 percent. Because at 20 percent -- and that's a huge shift, from four to six to 20 percent -- but at 20 percent, you actually have the ability to save and to put money away and to take care of discretionary expenses.
所以,真正的問題就變成: 你要如何衡量它? 很多人會認為要以 工資或最低工資來衡量。 而我們認為那不夠全面, 於是我們提出了一項衡量標準: 「淨可支配收入」, 基本上就是: 在你繳完稅以及支付 基本生活必要花費之後, 你還剩下多少錢 可以任意買東西或存起來? 而真正不幸的事情是 ——我感到汗顏, 但別忘了,我們付的工資 等於或高於市場, 所以我以為市場就會處理這些—— 而我們發現了這樣的族群, 他們在繳稅和支付必要生活花費之後, 淨可支配收入只有 4~6% 。 那是不夠用的, 要讓收支平衡是很困難的。 此外,全球各地的 淨可支配收入都不一樣。 淨可支配收入在馬尼拉、 在內布拉斯加州的奧馬哈市, 與在紐約市相比都不相同。 所以,基本上,我們告訴自己, 要把淨可支配收入拉到 20%。 因為,若達到 20% —— 從 4~6% 提升到 20% 是個很大的轉變—— 但,若達到 20%, 你就會有能力做儲蓄, 同時把錢存起來,當作可支配開銷。
And so we did a pretty massive reorientation of our compensation systems. We lowered the cost of benefits by 58 percent, because benefits are like a regressive tax, you pay the same amount no matter what your salary is. And so we had a lot of employees who weren't taking health care benefits, because it cost too much to be able to do that. So we lowered it by 58 percent. We made every single employee of PayPal a shareholder and an owner of the business, and we gave them pretty big grants so that they could be a part of the success of PayPal going forward. We raised salaries where we needed to go and do that. And then we wrapped all of that into a financial education program, because people had never gotten equity before, they were trying to think through, "How do I save now that I've got incremental dollars to go and do that?" And that cost us quite a bit of money to go and do that, but I really feel, just like how we spend a lot of money to take care of customers, as you mentioned up front, in COVID-19, that companies need to stand for more than just making money, for more than just maximizing our profits next quarter. I firmly, firmly believe that the costs associated with taking care of our employees, taking care of our customers, will benefit us in the long run multiplefold over the costs associated with doing that. And we're already beginning to see some of the impact of that.
所以我們針對自己的補償制度 做了大規模的重新定位。 我們將福利的成本降低了 58%, 因為福利就像是累退稅, 不論你的薪水多高, 要支付的金額都一樣。 於是有許多員工 不領取健康照護福利, 因為領取的成本太高了。 所以我們將它降低了 58%。 我們讓 PayPal 的 每個員工都成為股東, 成為公司的所有人, 提供他們高額獎金, 讓他們未來能分享 PayPal 事業的成就。 在必要之處提高薪水。 然後我們把這一切囊括在 一項財務教育計畫中, 因為大家以前從來沒有拿過股權, 他們在試著想通: 「我現在有了會增值的錢, 要如何做儲蓄?」 我們花了不少錢來做這些, 但我真心覺得, 就像你先前提到的, 在新型冠狀病毒疫情時, 我們花了很多錢來保護我們的客戶, 公司不能只為賺錢, 不能只為追求 下個季度的利益最大化。 我堅定不移地相信, 保護我們的員工、我們的客戶 所花費的相關成本, 在長期會對我們有益, 賺回成本的許多倍。 我們已經能看到這個做法 帶來的一些影響了。
And so, I think every CEO, every company, needs to really now start to think about, especially maybe as a result of this crisis, but as I mentioned, we had a crisis before this, how do we put our employees first, take care of them? Because if you do that, you'll take care of customers, and if you take care of customers, you'll take care of shareholders, inevitably. And so this has been a huge part of it about for the last year or so.
我認為每位執行長,每家公司, 現在都需要開始做這方面的思考, 特別是因為這次危機, 但,我先前提過,以前也有過危機, 如何把員工放在第一,保護好他們? 因為員工受到保護, 客戶就收到了保護, 而客戶受到保護, 股東必然也就受到了保護。 大概去年, 我們就投入很多在這上面。
CH: It's so interesting, and it brings up so many questions, I think, for me and probably our community as well. I mean, PayPal is a hugely profitable tech business, huge free cash flow and big margins. Do you think this model is something that every company can do, whether it's a tech company, a manufacture, a meatpacking business? I mean, is this what everyone should be focused on?
柯:真有意思, 這也讓我有好多問題想問, 也許社群成員也一樣。 PayPal 是獲利非常好的科技公司, 大量的自由現金流以及高額利潤。 你認為這個模型 是每間公司都能用的嗎? 不論是科技公司、製造商、 肉類加工業都可以用嗎? 這是大家都應該專注的地方嗎?
DS: Well, I think that -- and I don't want to moralize or tell other companies what they should do -- but to me, I think everyone should understand the financial health of their employees. That's a baseline thing to go do. What you do post-that is up to maybe your financial strength as a company or where you put your order of priorities. But what I've found is, I thought the market could tell you that, and this is why I say, in many ways -- you know, I'm a big believer in capitalism. I think it's, in many ways, the best economic system that I know of. But, like everything, it needs an upgrade. It needs tuning, and at least for these vulnerable populations, just because you pay at market doesn't mean that they have financial health or financial wellness. And I think everyone should know whether or not their employees have the wherewithal to be able to save to withstand financial shocks, and then really understand, like, what can you do about it? I think this NDI measure is a really interesting one. It takes some time to go do it, because you have to be quite thorough and you have to really understand living expenses by location and what tax jurisdictions there are. But you need to create an NDI that's to a certain level where people aren't struggling to make ends meet. Because if people are struggling to make ends meet, they are not as productive at work. They're worried about, like, what am I going to do with my kids? My kid just got sick. I don't have health insurance. I think there's a spiral that occurs. You think you're actually saving money by paying less, but the reality is, at least in my belief system, you take care of your employees, and other things naturally flow from that. They are more productive. They love being a part of that company. They take care of customers better. And all of those things inevitably accrue to the benefit of a company in terms of how it's trying to serve its ultimate end market. But it starts with your employees.
丹:我認為——我不想要說教 或告訴其他公司他們該怎麼做—— 但,對我來說, 我認為大家都應該了解 自己員工的財務健康。 那是最基本該做到的。 在那之後要怎麼做, 也許就要看公司的財力之類的, 或者如何排定優先順序。 但,我發現, 我原以為市場能告訴你這些, 所以我說過,在許多層面上…… 我是資本主義的忠實信徒; 我認為,在許多層面上, 我所知道的經濟體制中最好的就是它。 但和所有東西一樣,它也需要升級。 它需要調整, 至少要為這些弱勢的族群做調整, 你按照市場的價格來給工資, 並不表示員工就能夠有健康的財務。 我認為所有人都應該了解 自己的員工是否有錢可以儲蓄, 能否承受財務衝擊, 從而真正了解,自己對此能做些什麼? 我認為「淨可支配收入」這種衡量方式 相當有意思。 要花些時間去實現, 因為你必須要夠徹底, 你必須要真正了解 每個地區的生活花費, 以及他們在稅務上所屬的轄區。 但你必須要讓「淨可支配收入」 達到某種程度, 讓大家不用很艱難地做到收支平衡。 因為如果連收支平衡都艱難, 大家的工作就不會很有生產力。 他們會擔心,比如, 我該拿我的孩子怎麼辦? 我的孩子病得很重,我沒有健康保險。 我認為這是一種螺旋現象。 你以為你錢花得少 就算是儲蓄了, 但事實是, 至少在我的信念體系中, 你要照顧你的員工, 其他的自然就會隨之而來。 他們會比較有生產力。 他們會樂於成為公司的一份子。 他們會把客戶照顧得更好。 所有這些, 必然都會累積起來,為公司帶來益處, 在公司要如何滿足 終端市場方面帶來助益。 但要從員工做起。
CH: So obviously you believe in this "capitalism needs an upgrade," and I think NDI is something so many companies should adopt. But do you think this happens through benevolent corporate activity? I'm channeling my inner Bernie Bro here, but I think a lot of people would be skeptical that we should trust companies to do better at this point. Should the government step in to raise minimum wages, do other things to protect workers in a more structured way?
柯:所以,很顯然你相信 「資本主義需要升級」, 我認為很多公司都應該採用 「淨可支配收入」。 但你是否會認為公司 要有仁慈之心才可能實現? 這是我內心的伯尼桑德斯 支持魂在說話, 但我認為很多人會懷疑, 認為我們是無法相信 公司此時能變得更好。 政府是否該介入,提高最低工資, 採取其他做法,以更有 結構性的方式來保護勞工?
DS: Look, I think the government clearly has a role to play, and I think the private and public sectors need to work closer together to address so many of the issues that we face in our societies across the world, whether that be income inequality, environmental issues, health, protections, that kind of thing, privacy. But the way that I think about this is, it's very difficult for governments to regulate around this, because there are so many different ways of thinking about it.
丹:我認為政府的角色很明確, 我認為私部門和公部門 需要做更密切的合作, 才能處理我們在全世界社會中 面臨的眾多議題, 不論是收入不平等、 環境議題、 健康、 保護之類的、 隱私。 但我對此的看法是, 政府很難在這方面做管理, 因為有好多不同的思考角度。
If I were another CEO, and this is like, it's actually in your best interest to go and do this because it's a competitive advantage. Like, we attract, I think, some of the best talent in the world to PayPal, because we have a mission that people believe in, that we actually are trying to make some sort of positive difference. I'm not saying we're the be-all and end-all, but I don't think people should shirk their responsibilities of at least making a small difference going forward. If enough companies did that, if enough governments did that, it would make a real difference in the world. And then the second thing is, you have to have values that support that. And those values are incredibly important. Those values should be all about inclusion. They should be about having a diverse workforce. They should be about financial wellness. And when you do that, and you attract the very best talent, then by definition, I think the single biggest competitive advantage for any company is their workforce. Strategies are great. A whole number of things are great. You have a great workforce that's passionate about what they're doing and is financially secure, and they will do amazing things. And I think it's that kind of competitive advantage that will spur companies. So there needs to be a set of CEOs and companies that start to move in this direction, and I believe you're beginning to see more do this. And once that happens, it starts to tip everything, and I think more and more need to do it to maintain their competitive positioning. And that may seem like a self-serving way why people are doing it, but honestly, I don't care whether they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart or they're doing it because it's competitively a disadvantage if they don't. Creating financial health for our employees is the goal, and we've got to get that done.
如果我是另一位執行長, 那就像是, 這樣做其實是 對你最有利的做法, 因為這和競爭優勢有關。 我想,我們吸引了 世界上一些最有才華的人 到 PayPal 來, 因為大家相信我們的使命, 我們真的在試圖做出正面的改變。 我並不是說我們是最好的, 但我認為大家不應該躲避責任, 至少在向前邁進時 可以做出小小的改變。 如果有夠多公司這麼做, 如果有夠多政府這麼做, 就能真正改變世界。 接著,第二點, 必須要有支持這種做法的價值觀。 那些價值觀非常重要。 那些價值觀能夠全面普惠。 能夠提倡全體員工多樣化。 能夠提倡財務健全。 如果做到這一點, 就能吸引最棒的人才, 接著,根據定義, 我認為對任何公司而言 最大的競爭優勢 就是其員工。 策略很棒。 很多東西都很棒。 如果你有很棒的員工, 他們對工作充滿熱情 且不必為財務擔憂, 他們會成就很了不起的事。 我認為這種競爭優勢 能帶動公司向前進。 所以,必須要有 一群執行長和公司 開始朝這個方向邁進, 而我相信你會開始看到 越來越多的人這樣做。 一旦這點實現了, 就會開始改變一切, 我認為有越來越多人需要這麼做, 以維持自己的具有競爭力的定位。 出於這種理由而做,似乎很自私, 但,坦白說, 我不在乎他們是出於心中的良善而做, 還是因為不做就會在競爭上居於劣勢, 因此才去做。 目標是為我們的員工 創造財務的健康, 我們必須要做到這一點。
CH: Yeah. I mean, it sounds like you think of this as a win-win, but it also sounds like you're willing to maybe think about your employees first and sell it to your shareholders later. Whitney is -- oh sorry, go ahead.
柯:是的。聽起來 你認為這是一種雙贏, 但聽起來也像是你也許 願意先考量你的員工, 之後再游說股東。 惠妮——喔,抱歉,請說。
DS: No, no, no -- I was just going to say, I actually do believe that, and I think the idea of a multistakeholder capitalism, that is a time for today, and we cannot just think that we have one stakeholder that we need to satisfy. We live in our communities, we live in this world. To have people struggling day in and day out is not good for any company, and ... We can only do x amount, but we can actually create financial health for our employees, and we should.
丹:不,不——我只是要說, 我確實如此相信, 我認為 多方利害關係人資本主義的這個概念 現今是個時機, 我們不能以為我們只需要 滿足一個利害關係人就好。 我們生活在我們的社區中, 我們生活在這個世界上。 有人日復一日在辛苦地掙扎 對任何公司都不是好事,且…… 我們只能做到 X 的量, 但我們其實能為我們的員工 創造出財務健康, 我們也應該這麼做。
WPR: Great. So we have so many questions coming in from the community. One here is from Lara Pearson, basically about whether PayPal would consider become a B Corporation. "Are you familiar with the B Corp movement, environmentally and socially responsible, multiple-bottom-line for profits? Presuming so, has PayPal considered or would it consider becoming a certified B Corporation?"
惠:好極了。我們有許多 來自社群的問題。 蘿拉皮爾森問了一個問題, 基本上是關於 PayPal 是否考慮成為 B 型企業。 「你是否清楚 B 型企業運動, 在環境上和社會上盡責任等 獲利的多重底線? 如果清楚,PayPal 是否曾經/將會考慮 成為認證的 B 型企業?」
DS: Yep. I'm familiar with B Corp. We have no intention to move to becoming a B Corporation. I think the values and what we are trying to do are very aligned with assuring a multistakeholder point of view, but what I really want is for this to be a movement across major corporations across the world. And you're not going to have major corporations around the world moving into B Corp. There's a lot of other side issues involved with being a B Corporation as opposed to just a publicly listed company, and so that's going to be a long way before that happens. And so what I'm really trying to do is encourage and demonstrate that being multistakeholder, that putting employees first, creates competitive advantage. And I think I'm not the only CEO who's feeling that, by the way. I think people like Satya Nadella from Microsoft are doing a great job, Marc Benioff from Salesforce. I could go through quite a list of names. But the list is not long enough yet, but I think there's some quite important names and individuals around the world who are now talking about multistakeholder capitalism, and I think that's an important element as we think about our economies and way of life looking forward.
丹:好,我很清楚 B 型企業。 我們沒有打算 要成為 B 型企業。 我認為 這些價值觀及我們試圖去做的事 和多方利害關係人的觀點高度一致, 但我真正想要的, 是要讓我們所做的 成為全世界大企業的運動。 不可能讓全世界各地的大企業 成為 B 型企業。 要成為 B 型企業 會牽涉到很多相關議題, 相對之下,公司只是 公開上市就單純得多, 還有很長的路要走,才可能實現。 我在努力做的是 鼓勵並示範 成為多方利害關係人, 將員工擺在第一, 創造競爭優勢。 順道一提,我認為 還有其他的執行長也有同感。 我認為比如微軟執行長 薩蒂亞納德拉就做得很棒。 Salesforce 的馬克貝尼奧夫也是。 我還可以列出很多人。 但這份名單還不夠長, 但我認為,有些世界各地 頗具重要性的人物現在都在 談論多方利害關係人資本主義, 我認為那是個很重要的元素, 會影響到我們的經濟 以及未來的生活方式。
WPR: And there was so much interest also in your net disposable income program and a lot of questions around that, and one which I think is along these same lines from Juan Enriquez asking about a rational way to address extreme income disparities. And perhaps you could expand beyond this program, just sort of ways that we might think about this in a smarter way moving forward.
很多人對你的淨可支配收入計畫 很感興趣,也提出許多相關問題, 我認為胡安恩里奎茲 問的問題就與這些十分相關, 他問到有什麼合理的方式 可以處理收入的極端兩極化。 也許你可以擴大談到這個計畫之外, 在這方面我們可以考慮 用什麼聰明的方式向前邁進?
DS: Yeah. Well, there's no easy solution, or it would have been done. So I think there are a couple things that I think about that may not fully address extreme income disparities. Again, I try to think pragmatically about these things, and, like, what can we really do to start to address this? And again, I think about, if we could take one step and then another step, then you're starting your journey, and without getting overwhelmed by how far away the end state is. So one, I think companies need to take care of their employees, and I think that will immediately help to address some of these income disparities. Number two, I do think that, ironically, if you have less money, it costs you more to manage and move it, which, think about that: the less money you have, if you're outside the financial system, the more you spend to manage and move your money.
丹:好。 並沒有簡單的解決方案, 要不然早就有人做了。 我會考量的點有幾個, 但可能無法完全解決 收入極端兩極化的問題。 同樣的, 我試著很務實地思考這些, 比如,若要開始處理這個議題, 我們真正能做的是什麼? 同樣的,我會想, 如果我們能先踏出一步, 接著再踏出一步, 接著你就開始這段旅程了, 且不會因為終點遙遠而感到無法招架。 所以,第一,我認為公司 必須要保護其員工, 那麼做就能馬上協助處理 一部分收入兩極化的問題。 第二,我真的認為, 很諷刺的是, 如果你擁有的錢比較少, 你要管理和轉移資產的成本會更高, 想想看: 你擁有的錢越少, 如果你在金融體系之外, 你就得花更多錢 去管理和移動你的那些錢。
And I think that technology is at least a foundational way for us to think about how do we cut the basic costs of managing and moving money by 50 to 70 percent, like [check-cashing], sending remittances, which are such a huge, important part of the world's economy. You know, you do it a traditional way, you go into a store and send the remittance to another store and somebody goes and picks it up. First of all, incredibly time-consuming, and it can cost between eight and 12 percent of that remittance amount that you're sending. So if you're sending a hundred dollars, the recipient who so desperately needs it is getting 88 to 90 dollars. If you do that electronically, digital wallet to digital wallet, that can be like three percent, so you can get 97 dollars from that. And so I think there are ways of addressing the costs. As I mentioned, there is so much money spent on unnecessary fees and high interest rates, and if we can drop that by 20 percent, 30 percent, the amount of money we can return to vulnerable populations is quite large and will start to make a difference.
我認為, 我們至少可以考慮 用科技作為基本的方法, 來思考如何把管理和移動金錢 所需要的基本成本縮減五到七成, 就像兌現支票、 匯款, 這些是世界經濟中 非常重大的一部分。 如果你用傳統的方式來做, 你要到一家店裡, 將錢匯給另一家店, 對方去那家店領取。 首先,非常耗時間, 成本可能達 你匯款金額的 8~12%。 如果你匯出一百美金, 急切需要錢的接收方 拿到的會是八十八到九十美金。 如果用電子的方式來做, 從數位錢包轉到數位錢包, 成本可能是 3%, 你能拿到九十七美金。 所以,我認為有方法 可以處理成本問題。 我先前提過, 有太多錢花在 不必要的費用及高利率上, 如果能把那些費用降低兩、三成, 我們能夠還給弱勢族群的金額 就相當可觀,且能開始改變世界。
WPR: That's great. We have a ton of questions from the audience, just one more before we turn things back over to Corey with her final questions. This one is from Anna Tunkel, which is just, I think, as we are rounding to the end of the interview here, "What are you most optimistic about, and what do you see as the biggest opportunities for 'Building Back Better' after COVID?"
惠:很棒,觀眾還有一大堆問題, 讓我們再問一個,再交還給 柯莉讓她問最後的問題。 這是安娜唐柯提的問題,我想, 既然已經到了訪談尾聲, 她的問題很適合: 「在新型冠狀病毒之後 要『重建得更好』, 你最樂觀的是什麼? 你認為最大的機會是什麼?」
DS: Well, I mean, one thing I'm actually optimistic about -- and I've always been a believer in the human spirit and the power of an individual to make a difference. I know that sounds very cliché, but I truly believe it, and I think every one of us can make a difference. But here's what I'm seeing. I'm beginning to see that at a much larger scale than I've ever seen before. You know, we have different platforms, either the PayPal platform or the Venmo platform, Venmo here in the US, PayPal across the world. The amount of giving that's happening through those platforms, whether it be to local businesses, to artists, to musicians, to bartenders, to places of worship, to schools, to NGOs, to charities has exploded on the platform, exploded. We have helped to raise on the PayPal platform since COVID-19 struck 2.8 billion dollars for NGOs and charities -- 2.8 billion. That's incredible, the amount of generosity that is pouring out from the global community around this. And we're just seeing people randomly pay it forward. Somebody gives 20 dollars to a bartender, and that bartender takes 10 dollars of that and gives it to somebody else. And we're watching that over our platform, and that gives me a sense of optimism.
丹:嗯,有件事其實 讓我感到很樂觀—— 且我向來都很相信人類精神, 以及個人具備改變世界的力量。 我知道這聽起來很老套, 但我是真心相信, 而我認為我們每個人都可以改變世界。 但我開始看到 規模越來越大, 超過我以前所看到的。 我們有不同的平台, 不論是 PayPal 平台或 Venmo 平台, 在美國是 Venno,全世界是 PayPal。 透過這些平台所給出的金額, 不論是給當地企業、 藝術家、音樂家、 酒保、 宗教場所、學校、 非政府組織、慈善機構, 在平台上爆增。 我們在 PayPal 平台上 協助募得的款項, 從新型冠狀病毒來襲之後, 已經有二十八億美金 募給非政府組織及慈善 機構——二十八億美金。 那很不簡單, 全球各地的人因為此事展現出的慷慨 十分驚人。 我們也看到大家會隨機 把這份心繼續傳出去。 有人會給酒保二十美金, 而酒保拿了其中的十美金, 把剩下的再拿給別人。 在我們的平台上看到這些現象, 帶給我樂觀。
I also feel like this period of time has exposed a number of things that were happening but were invisible, and I think when things become visible, that's when you can start to address them, and I think there's a lot of attention on some issues that should have had attention before, but vulnerable populations don't have as loud a voice as others, and now that voice is being heard, because you can't ignore it. And hopefully, that will create progress against some of these structural inequalities that have been there for a long time.
我也認為, 在這段時間, 有幾件本來就存在卻沒被發現的事情 也被揭露出來, 我認為當事情被攤在陽光下, 就可以開始處理它們, 我認為很多人注意到了 一些早就該被注意到的議題, 弱勢族群的聲音不容易被人們聽見, 現在,他們的聲音被聽見了, 因為無法再忽視它。 希望,那能夠帶來進步, 改善一些長久以來 在結構上的不平等。
WPR: That's wonderful. And there's so much interest online. You have some other questions to ask as well.
惠:很棒。 線上好多人感興趣。 你那邊也有一些問題要問。
CH: So I think we have one more from our community from Jacqueline Ashby. Anna sort of stole my last question, which was to restore our faith in humanity. But, there's so much interest coming in about NDI. Is there a way for people to learn more, for you to share your study and your methodology?
柯:我想我們就再聽一個 社群成員賈桂琳艾希比的問題。 安娜差不多把我要問的問完了, 我要問的是關於如何 恢復我們對人類的信心。 但,有好多人對 「淨可支配收入」 感興趣。 有沒有什麼方式可以讓大家了解更多, 你能否用什麼方式分享 你的研究及你的方法論?
DS: Happy to do so. There is nothing proprietary about it. We would love for this to be -- look, and this may not be the be-all and end-all measurement. It's the best one we could come up with, but if working within the community, we can evolve it and think about maybe things that it missed or maybe things that could be done better, that would be fantastic. I don't know the best way of doing that. I'll leave that to Corey and Whitney to help me think that through, but of course we'd be willing to share it. There is nothing about that that I don't want to share.
丹:樂意之至。 這完全不是私有的專利。 我們很希望這能夠—— 這可能不是最理想的措施。 這是我們能提出的方法中最好的, 但如果在社群內合作的話, 我們可以改善它, 想想也許我們漏了什麼, 或者也許有哪裡可以做得更好, 那就太棒了。 我不知道做這件事最好的方法是什麼。 這就留給柯莉和惠妮來幫我想想吧, 但我們當然是很樂意分享的。 這方面我可以毫無保留。
CH: Sounds like a good TED Talk. Thank you so much, Dan. This has been a super-interesting conversation. I think we could talk for another hour, but thank you so much for being here.
柯:聽起來可以辦 一場很棒的 TED 演講。 非常謝謝你,丹。 這段訪談非常有意思。 我想我們甚至還能再聊一小時, 非常謝謝你來參與。
DS: Thank you, Corey. Thank you, Whitney. Thank you, everybody.
丹:謝謝你,柯莉。 謝謝你,惠妮。謝謝大家。
WPR: Thank you, Dan. Thank you.
惠:謝謝你,丹。謝謝你。