Here's a startling fact: in the 45 years since the introduction of the automated teller machine, those vending machines that dispense cash, the number of human bank tellers employed in the United States has roughly doubled, from about a quarter of a million to a half a million. A quarter of a million in 1970 to about a half a million today, with 100,000 added since the year 2000.
有一個驚人的事實: 45 年前,自從引進自動提款機, 就是那些會吐鈔票的販賣機, 美國銀行櫃台的從業人數 增加了將近一倍, 從 25 萬人增加到 50 萬人。 從 1970 年的 25 萬人 成長到今日的 50 萬人, 其中 10 萬人, 是 2000 年以後增加出來的。
These facts, revealed in a recent book by Boston University economist James Bessen, raise an intriguing question: what are all those tellers doing, and why hasn't automation eliminated their employment by now? If you think about it, many of the great inventions of the last 200 years were designed to replace human labor. Tractors were developed to substitute mechanical power for human physical toil. Assembly lines were engineered to replace inconsistent human handiwork with machine perfection. Computers were programmed to swap out error-prone, inconsistent human calculation with digital perfection. These inventions have worked. We no longer dig ditches by hand, pound tools out of wrought iron or do bookkeeping using actual books. And yet, the fraction of US adults employed in the labor market is higher now in 2016 than it was 125 years ago, in 1890, and it's risen in just about every decade in the intervening 125 years.
這些事實,都詳細記載在 最近的一本書上, 作者是波斯頓大學的 經濟學家,詹姆士貝森, 他提出了一個有趣的問題: 那麼多的銀行櫃台人員都在做什麼, 為什麼自動化服務 到現在還沒有讓他們失業? 回想一下, 過去 200 年來的偉大發明, 很多都是為了取代人力的。 拖拉機的發明, 就是為了利用機械的動力 取代辛苦的人工勞力。 工廠的組裝線, 就是為了利用機械的穩定性, 取代手工的不穩定性。 電腦程式化就是為了 以完美無缺的數位計算能力 取代人力計算時易出錯、 不一致的現象。 這些發明都發揮了作用。 我們再也不用徒手挖溝渠, 不用手工鍛鐵製作工具, 甚至記帳都不用實體帳本了。 但美國成年人的勞工市場就業率 在現在 2016 年 竟比 125 年前的 1890 年還要高。 而且在這 125 年間, 每 10 年都有成長。
This poses a paradox. Our machines increasingly do our work for us. Why doesn't this make our labor redundant and our skills obsolete? Why are there still so many jobs?
這產生了一個矛盾現象。 機械不斷地取代掉我們的工作, 但為什麼我們的勞工沒有過剩 且技術沒有被淘汰呢? 為什麼還是有那麼多的工作岡位?
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
I'm going to try to answer that question tonight, and along the way, I'm going to tell you what this means for the future of work and the challenges that automation does and does not pose for our society.
今晚,我會試著回答這些問題, 並說明這對我們未來的工作 有甚麼意義, 以及自動化對我們社會 所帶來的衝擊和無法撼動的地方。
Why are there so many jobs? There are actually two fundamental economic principles at stake. One has to do with human genius and creativity. The other has to do with human insatiability, or greed, if you like. I'm going to call the first of these the O-ring principle, and it determines the type of work that we do. The second principle is the never-get-enough principle, and it determines how many jobs there actually are.
為什麼有這麼多的工作崗位? 這實際上涉及到兩個 經濟學的基本原則。 一個是與人類的聰明才智 及創造力有關。 另一個與人類貪得無厭的天性有關, 或者你可以叫它做「貪婪」。 我先從 O 型環原則談起, 這個原則決定了我們工作的類型。 第二個原則是 「永不知足 」原則, 它決定了會有多少個 實際存在的工作崗位。
Let's start with the O-ring. ATMs, automated teller machines, had two countervailing effects on bank teller employment. As you would expect, they replaced a lot of teller tasks. The number of tellers per branch fell by about a third. But banks quickly discovered that it also was cheaper to open new branches, and the number of bank branches increased by about 40 percent in the same time period. The net result was more branches and more tellers. But those tellers were doing somewhat different work. As their routine, cash-handling tasks receded, they became less like checkout clerks and more like salespeople, forging relationships with customers, solving problems and introducing them to new products like credit cards, loans and investments: more tellers doing a more cognitively demanding job. There's a general principle here. Most of the work that we do requires a multiplicity of skills, and brains and brawn, technical expertise and intuitive mastery, perspiration and inspiration in the words of Thomas Edison. In general, automating some subset of those tasks doesn't make the other ones unnecessary. In fact, it makes them more important. It increases their economic value.
我們先從 O 型環開始。 ATM,自動提款機, 它給銀行櫃台人員的就業機會 帶來了兩種不同的作用。 各位都知道,ATM 取代了很多 櫃台人員的工作。 每家分行的櫃台人員 數量大約減少了三分之一。 但很快銀行就發現 設置新分行的成本變便宜了。 同期內,分行的數量 成長了將近 40% 。 結果就是,分行越多, 櫃台人員越多。 但這些銀行職員做的工作 與之前有點不同。 隨著他們常規的現金業務減少, 他們變得不太像出納人員 反而更像是個推銷人員, 需要與客戶培養感情, 幫他們解決問題, 並推銷他們新產品, 像是信用卡、貸款、投資型產品: 更多的銀行職員從事著 對腦力認知需求很高的工作。 一個普遍的原則就是, 我們從事的工作, 大都需要多樣化的技能, 既要腦力又要體力, 既要求專業素養又要敏銳的直覺, 用愛迪生的話來說, 就是天才加勤奮。 總的來說,其中一些工作自動化了, 但不代表其它的工作就不必要。 事實上,反而變得更重要, 自動化反而增加了他們的經濟價值。
Let me give you a stark example. In 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded and crashed back down to Earth less than two minutes after takeoff. The cause of that crash, it turned out, was an inexpensive rubber O-ring in the booster rocket that had frozen on the launchpad the night before and failed catastrophically moments after takeoff. In this multibillion dollar enterprise that simple rubber O-ring made the difference between mission success and the calamitous death of seven astronauts. An ingenious metaphor for this tragic setting is the O-ring production function, named by Harvard economist Michael Kremer after the Challenger disaster. The O-ring production function conceives of the work as a series of interlocking steps, links in a chain. Every one of those links must hold for the mission to succeed. If any of them fails, the mission, or the product or the service, comes crashing down. This precarious situation has a surprisingly positive implication, which is that improvements in the reliability of any one link in the chain increases the value of improving any of the other links. Concretely, if most of the links are brittle and prone to breakage, the fact that your link is not that reliable is not that important. Probably something else will break anyway. But as all the other links become robust and reliable, the importance of your link becomes more essential. In the limit, everything depends upon it. The reason the O-ring was critical to space shuttle Challenger is because everything else worked perfectly. If the Challenger were kind of the space era equivalent of Microsoft Windows 2000 --
我來舉一個明顯的例子。 1986 年,挑戰者號太空船 在起飛不到兩分鐘, 失事爆炸,墜毀在地表上。 事後發現,肇事的原因, 原來是推進火箭上 一個不起眼的 O 型環, 前一天晚上在發射台上凍僵了, 在發射不久後失效,引發了悲劇。 這個耗資十幾億美金的巨大工程, 結果是一個不起眼的 O 型環, 決定了是發射成功, 還是失敗造成 七位太空人的死亡悲劇。 這場悲劇催生了一個巧妙的比喻── 《O 型環經濟理論》, 由哈佛經濟學家麥可克雷姆 在挑戰者號失事後所命名。 《O型環經濟理論》指出, 一項工作的誕生 是由一系列互相連結的步驟 所組成的鏈, 每一處連結都必須牢固 才能保證任務的成功。 一旦有任何環節出問題, 該任務、產品或服務 就會失敗。 這種不確定的緊張情況, 有著一種令人驚嘆的積極影響, 因為它可以改善 過程中任一環節的可靠性, 並對其它環節的改善, 起了價值增加的作用。 具體來說,如果大多數的連結 都很脆弱且很容易壞, 那麼每個環節的可靠與否, 就顯得不那麼重要了。 反正很有可能其它的東西也會壞掉。 但一旦其它的環節 變得相形穩固可靠時, 每一個環節就變得很重要了。 到了一個極限, 每一個環節都是勝敗的關鍵。 O 型環對挑戰者號很重要的原因, 是因為其它環節都運作地很完美。 如果挑戰者號的太空設備 類似 Widows 2000 作業系統──
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
the reliability of the O-ring wouldn't have mattered because the machine would have crashed.
O 型環的可靠性就不那麼重要了, 因為機械會直接當機。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Here's the broader point. In much of the work that we do, we are the O-rings. Yes, ATMs could do certain cash-handling tasks faster and better than tellers, but that didn't make tellers superfluous. It increased the importance of their problem-solving skills and their relationships with customers. The same principle applies if we're building a building, if we're diagnosing and caring for a patient, or if we are teaching a class to a roomful of high schoolers. As our tools improve, technology magnifies our leverage and increases the importance of our expertise and our judgment and our creativity.
這裡有個更宏觀的觀點, 人類所扮演的角色就像 O 型環。 沒錯,ATM 是可以 作一些現金交易的任務, 速度也比櫃台人員快, 但卻無法完全取代櫃台人員。 因為他們的問題解決能力, 及他們維持客戶關係的能力, 增加了他們的重要性。 同樣的原則也適用於蓋房子、 診斷及照顧病人、 或者在教室裡 向一整間的高中生教課。 一旦我們的工具改進了, 科技反而放大了我們的引響力, 提高了我們專業度、 判斷力及創造力的重要性。
And that brings me to the second principle: never get enough. You may be thinking, OK, O-ring, got it, that says the jobs that people do will be important. They can't be done by machines, but they still need to be done. But that doesn't tell me how many jobs there will need to be. If you think about it, isn't it kind of self-evident that once we get sufficiently productive at something, we've basically worked our way out of a job? In 1900, 40 percent of all US employment was on farms. Today, it's less than two percent. Why are there so few farmers today? It's not because we're eating less.
講到這,帶出了第二原則: 永不知足。 你可能會想,好, O 型環理論,我懂了, 人類所從事的工作將會很重要。 這些任務無法由機械完成, 但又不能不做。 但這無法說明我們還需要多少工作。 如果你仔細想想, 這有點無法自圓其說, 一旦我們對某樣東西 有了足夠的生產力, 我們基本上不就會自動失業了嗎? 1900 年,40% 的美國就業人口, 從事的工作都是農業。 如今,農業人口比例已經少於 2%。 為什麼農夫會變得這麼少? 不是因為我們吃得少。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
A century of productivity growth in farming means that now, a couple of million farmers can feed a nation of 320 million. That's amazing progress, but it also means there are only so many O-ring jobs left in farming. So clearly, technology can eliminate jobs. Farming is only one example. There are many others like it. But what's true about a single product or service or industry has never been true about the economy as a whole. Many of the industries in which we now work -- health and medicine, finance and insurance, electronics and computing -- were tiny or barely existent a century ago. Many of the products that we spend a lot of our money on -- air conditioners, sport utility vehicles, computers and mobile devices -- were unattainably expensive, or just hadn't been invented a century ago. As automation frees our time, increases the scope of what is possible, we invent new products, new ideas, new services that command our attention, occupy our time and spur consumption. You may think some of these things are frivolous -- extreme yoga, adventure tourism, Pokémon GO -- and I might agree with you. But people desire these things, and they're willing to work hard for them. The average worker in 2015 wanting to attain the average living standard in 1915 could do so by working just 17 weeks a year, one third of the time. But most people don't choose to do that. They are willing to work hard to harvest the technological bounty that is available to them. Material abundance has never eliminated perceived scarcity. In the words of economist Thorstein Veblen, invention is the mother of necessity.
百年來農業生產力的成長, 讓我們現在只需數百萬個農夫, 就能養活全國的 3.2 億人口。 這真的是個很大的進步, 但這也意味著農產業中, 也只剩這麼多類似 O 型環的工作。 所以很明顯地, 科技會消彌掉工作機會。 農業只是其中一個案例。 還有很多類似的案例。 但事實是,一個單一產品、 服務或產業的表現, 不能代表總體經濟的實質表現。 很多我們現在從事的產業── 健康、醫療、 理財、保險、 電子、電腦── 在上一世紀僅有少數人在從業 或根本還不存在。 很多我們花很多錢消費的產品── 空調、休旅車、 電腦、手機設備── 這些在上一世紀,不是貴得要死, 不然就是還沒有被發明出來。 當自動化騰出了我們的空閒時間, 增進了各個領域的可能性, 我們就會發明新產品、 新想法、產生新的服務, 來控制我們的注意力、 占據我們的時間, 並刺激消費。 你可能會想有些東西 真的是多餘的── 極限瑜珈、冒險旅遊、 口袋怪獸── 我都同意。 但人們就是喜歡這些東西, 而且很願意在它們身上付出心力。 2015 年的一般勞動階層, 如果想獲得 1915 年的 一般生活水準, 只要每年工作 17 周就可達到, 只要三分之一的時間。 但大部分的人不會那樣做。 他們寧願選擇努力工作 來賺取科技所帶給他們的精神食糧。 豐富的物質永遠 消除不了內心的空虛。 套一句經濟學家 托斯丹范伯倫說的話: 「發明是需求之母。 」
Now ... So if you accept these two principles, the O-ring principle and the never-get-enough principle, then you agree with me. There will be jobs. Does that mean there's nothing to worry about? Automation, employment, robots and jobs -- it'll all take care of itself? No. That is not my argument. Automation creates wealth by allowing us to do more work in less time. There is no economic law that says that we will use that wealth well, and that is worth worrying about. Consider two countries, Norway and Saudi Arabia. Both oil-rich nations, it's like they have money spurting out of a hole in the ground.
現在…… 如果你同意上述的兩個觀點, O 型環原則以及永不知足原則, 那你就會認同我說的, 一定會有工作岡位產生。 那是否意味著都不用煩惱了呢? 自動化、就業機會、 機器人和工作── 它們自己會自動幫我們安排好? 不。 這不是我的論點。 自動化為我們帶來了財富, 讓我們可以用 更少的時間做更多的事。 沒有經濟規則說, 我們會好好地善用 自動化所帶來的財富, 這的確值得我們擔心。 想想這兩個國家, 挪威和沙烏地阿拉伯。 兩個國家都有豐盛的石油, 他們的錢好像是直接從 地底下的洞口噴上來的。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
But they haven't used that wealth equally well to foster human prosperity, human prospering. Norway is a thriving democracy. By and large, its citizens work and play well together. It's typically numbered between first and fourth in rankings of national happiness. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy in which many citizens lack a path for personal advancement. It's typically ranked 35th among nations in happiness, which is low for such a wealthy nation. Just by way of comparison, the US is typically ranked around 12th or 13th. The difference between these two countries is not their wealth and it's not their technology. It's their institutions. Norway has invested to build a society with opportunity and economic mobility. Saudi Arabia has raised living standards while frustrating many other human strivings. Two countries, both wealthy, not equally well off.
但兩個國家利用這筆財富 幫助人民繁榮、 幫助人民成功的方式卻不相同。 挪威是個欣欣向榮的民主國家。 總體而言,它的人民都過很舒服。 國家人民的幸福指數排名, 基本上都在第一到第四之間徘徊。 而沙烏地阿拉伯卻是個 君主專制的國家, 很多人民的生活水平, 都沒有機會可以獲得改善。 國家人民的幸福指數, 全球排名基本上都落在 35 名左右, 這麼有錢的國家,排名竟這麼落後。 只是讓大家比較一下, 美國大都排在第 12 到第 13 之間。 這兩個國家的差別 不在他們有錢與否, 也不在科技是否發達。 而是他們的制度。 挪威長期來致力於 建立一個充滿機會 與經濟活躍的社會。 雖然沙烏地阿拉伯的 生活水平已經有提升, 但人民仍飽受壓抑。 兩個國家都很有錢, 但人民卻有著不同的幸福。
And this brings me to the challenge that we face today, the challenge that automation poses for us. The challenge is not that we're running out of work. The US has added 14 million jobs since the depths of the Great Recession. The challenge is that many of those jobs are not good jobs, and many citizens cannot qualify for the good jobs that are being created. Employment growth in the United States and in much of the developed world looks something like a barbell with increasing poundage on either end of the bar. On the one hand, you have high-education, high-wage jobs like doctors and nurses, programmers and engineers, marketing and sales managers. Employment is robust in these jobs, employment growth. Similarly, employment growth is robust in many low-skill, low-education jobs like food service, cleaning, security, home health aids. Simultaneously, employment is shrinking in many middle-education, middle-wage, middle-class jobs, like blue-collar production and operative positions and white-collar clerical and sales positions. The reasons behind this contracting middle are not mysterious. Many of those middle-skill jobs use well-understood rules and procedures that can increasingly be codified in software and executed by computers. The challenge that this phenomenon creates, what economists call employment polarization, is that it knocks out rungs in the economic ladder, shrinks the size of the middle class and threatens to make us a more stratified society. On the one hand, a set of highly paid, highly educated professionals doing interesting work, on the other, a large number of citizens in low-paid jobs whose primary responsibility is to see to the comfort and health of the affluent. That is not my vision of progress, and I doubt that it is yours.
接下來,我要來談談 我們目前所面臨的挑戰, 自動化給我們所帶來的挑戰。 這挑戰不是因為我們會沒有工作。 美國自金融海嘯以來, 已經增加了 1400 萬個就業機會。 我們的挑戰是,這些工作 都不是好工作, 因為很多人都不適任 目前已經創造出來的工作。 美國以及其它 已開發國家的就業環境, 現在看起來像是個啞鈴, 兩端都特別重。 其中一端, 這群人受高等教育、有高薪工作, 像是醫生、護士、 程式設計師、工程師, 市場及銷售經理。 這些工作的就業機會相當穩固, 就業機會會持續成長。 同樣地,低技術工作的 就業機會成長也很穩固, 低學歷工作像是餐廳服務生、 清潔、保全人員、 居家健康照顧。 同時,有些就業機會也會萎縮: 中等教育、中等收入、 中產階級的工作, 像是藍領階級的 生產工人及操作人員, 白領階級的文書及銷售人員。 這當中的背後原因 也不是甚麼多深奧的道理。 很多這種中等技術的工作、 只要充分了解規則及步驟流程 漸漸地都會被軟體 及電腦所取代。 這樣的挑戰造就了一些現象, 也就是經濟學家所稱的 「就業兩極化」, 中間層的工作機會 以及中產階級都會逐漸消失, 並造成我們的社會更階級化。 一邊是高薪、 受高等教育的專業人士, 做的是有趣的工作, 而另一邊,大部分的公民 從事低薪的工作, 他們只盼望舒適、 健康富裕的日子能趕緊到來。 這不是我希望的進步, 我認為這也不是你們希望的。
But here is some encouraging news. We have faced equally momentous economic transformations in the past, and we have come through them successfully. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, when automation was eliminating vast numbers of agricultural jobs -- remember that tractor? -- the farm states faced a threat of mass unemployment, a generation of youth no longer needed on the farm but not prepared for industry. Rising to this challenge, they took the radical step of requiring that their entire youth population remain in school and continue their education to the ripe old age of 16. This was called the high school movement, and it was a radically expensive thing to do. Not only did they have to invest in the schools, but those kids couldn't work at their jobs. It also turned out to be one of the best investments the US made in the 20th century. It gave us the most skilled, the most flexible and the most productive workforce in the world. To see how well this worked, imagine taking the labor force of 1899 and bringing them into the present. Despite their strong backs and good characters, many of them would lack the basic literacy and numeracy skills to do all but the most mundane jobs. Many of them would be unemployable.
但還是有一些令人振奮的好消息。 我們過去面臨相當大的經濟轉型, 而且我們都成功克服過來了。 在 19 世紀末,20 世紀初, 當自動化取代掉 大部分的農場工作── 還記得拖拉機嗎? 以農業為主的州 面臨了大量的失業威脅, 農場不再需要年輕世代的人, 但這些年輕人還沒準備好 工業化即將帶來的衝擊。 為了克服挑戰, 政府做了一個重大的改革, 要求這些年輕人 在 16 歲長大成人後 繼續留在學校接受教育。 這就是美國的高中教育改革運動, 這的確很花錢。 因為這些孩子不僅要投入學校, 而且還不能工作。 但最後證明,這是美國在 20 世紀 做得最好的投資政策之一。 它讓我們學習到全世界 最新、最靈活、 最有生產力的技術。 如果要看這些變革所帶來的好處, 我們可以想像一下, 把 1899 年的勞工運動 帶回到目前的現實世界。 儘管這些人背部強壯,品格也很好, 但他們缺乏基本的識字與算數能力, 只能做最平凡的工作。 很多人都不夠格上工。
What this example highlights is the primacy of our institutions, most especially our schools, in allowing us to reap the harvest of our technological prosperity.
這個案例是要說明我們卓越的機構, 特別是我們的學校, 讓我們獲取了 科技繁榮所帶來的成果。
It's foolish to say there's nothing to worry about. Clearly we can get this wrong. If the US had not invested in its schools and in its skills a century ago with the high school movement, we would be a less prosperous, a less mobile and probably a lot less happy society. But it's equally foolish to say that our fates are sealed. That's not decided by the machines. It's not even decided by the market. It's decided by us and by our institutions.
所以說不用擔心是騙人的。 我們千萬別誤會了。 如果美國政府在一世紀前的 高中教育改革運動中, 沒有投資學校、沒有投資技術, 我們可能不會這麼繁榮、便利, 社會的幸福感可能也會大大地減少。 但說我們就是命中注定, 這樣說的人也沒多聰明, 我們的命運並不是由機械決定, 也不是由市場決定。 這取決於我們自己及我們的機構。
Now, I started this talk with a paradox. Our machines increasingly do our work for us. Why doesn't that make our labor superfluous, our skills redundant? Isn't it obvious that the road to our economic and social hell is paved with our own great inventions?
我一開始就提到一個矛盾的現象。 機械不斷地取代掉我們的工作, 但為什麼我們的勞工沒有過剩, 技術沒有被淘汰掉? 這很明顯啊!我們偉大的發明, 不就是害我們的經濟與 社會進入地獄之路的元兇嗎?
History has repeatedly offered an answer to that paradox. The first part of the answer is that technology magnifies our leverage, increases the importance, the added value of our expertise, our judgment and our creativity. That's the O-ring. The second part of the answer is our endless inventiveness and bottomless desires means that we never get enough, never get enough. There's always new work to do. Adjusting to the rapid pace of technological change creates real challenges, seen most clearly in our polarized labor market and the threat that it poses to economic mobility. Rising to this challenge is not automatic. It's not costless. It's not easy. But it is feasible. And here is some encouraging news. Because of our amazing productivity, we're rich. Of course we can afford to invest in ourselves and in our children as America did a hundred years ago with the high school movement. Arguably, we can't afford not to.
歷史已經重複地為我們解答 這個矛盾現象好幾次了。 答案的第一個部分就是: 科技放大了我們存在的重要性, 增進了我們的價值, 使我們的專業、判斷與 創造力更佳地提升。 這是 O 型環法則。 答案的第二部分就是: 我們永無止境的發明 以及無窮的慾望。 意思就是我們 永遠不知足、永不知足。 總是有新事物要做。 適應快速的科技變化 創造出了真實的挑戰, 最明顯地就是我們勞動市場的兩極化, 以及它為經濟活躍度所帶來的威脅。 這些挑戰不會自動地被克服。 它不便宜, 也不容易。 但,是可以預見的。 這裡有一些好消息, 因為我們驚人的生產力, 我們變富有了。 當然我們已經負擔的起 投資我們自己、我們孩子的費用, 就像美國一百年前的 高中教育改革運動一樣。 嚴格來講,我們付不起不做的代價。
Now, you may be thinking, Professor Autor has told us a heartwarming tale about the distant past, the recent past, maybe the present, but probably not the future. Because everybody knows that this time is different. Right? Is this time different? Of course this time is different. Every time is different. On numerous occasions in the last 200 years, scholars and activists have raised the alarm that we are running out of work and making ourselves obsolete: for example, the Luddites in the early 1800s; US Secretary of Labor James Davis in the mid-1920s; Nobel Prize-winning economist Wassily Leontief in 1982; and of course, many scholars, pundits, technologists and media figures today.
你可能在想, 奧圖教授已經告訴了我們一個 有關於好幾年前、 最近幾年, 可能是現在, 但不是未來的動人故事。 因為大家都知道這次不一樣了。 對吧?這次會不一樣嗎? 當然不一樣。 每次都不一樣。 過去 200 年,在無數場合中, 學者與社會運動者不斷地警告我們, 工作要消失了, 我們會被我們自己給淘汰掉: 例如,19 世紀初的盧德份子 (英國參加搗毀機器的人); 1920 年代中期的美國勞工部長 詹姆士戴維斯; 1982 年諾貝爾經濟學家, 瓦西里·列昂季耶夫; 當然,還有很多學者、 評論員、科學家 還有今日的媒體名嘴。
These predictions strike me as arrogant. These self-proclaimed oracles are in effect saying, "If I can't think of what people will do for work in the future, then you, me and our kids aren't going to think of it either." I don't have the guts to take that bet against human ingenuity. Look, I can't tell you what people are going to do for work a hundred years from now. But the future doesn't hinge on my imagination. If I were a farmer in Iowa in the year 1900, and an economist from the 21st century teleported down to my field and said, "Hey, guess what, farmer Autor, in the next hundred years, agricultural employment is going to fall from 40 percent of all jobs to two percent purely due to rising productivity. What do you think the other 38 percent of workers are going to do?" I would not have said, "Oh, we got this. We'll do app development, radiological medicine, yoga instruction, Bitmoji."
這些人的預測 在我看來似乎都很狂妄。 這些自稱聖賢的人, 像是在告訴我們, 「如果我都想像不到 人們未來可以做什麼工作, 那麼,你、我、我們的小孩 也都不會想像到。」 我沒膽在公眾面前 對人類的聰明才智 提出太多的質疑。 聽著,我無法告訴你一百年後 人們要做什麼工作。 因為未來不是我說了算。 如果我是 1900 年 愛荷華州的農夫, 如果有一位 21 世紀的經濟學家 瞬間移動來到我的農場, 跟我說:「嘿, 奧圖農夫,你知道嗎? 接下來的 100 年, 農業的從業人員 將從 40% 減少到剩 2%, 只因為生產力提升了。 你覺得剩下 38% 的人 將來會做什麼工作? 」 我不可能會說: 「喔,我們早就知道了, 我們會開發 app 軟體、 放射性藥物、 瑜珈課程、手機表情符號 Bitmoji。」
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
I wouldn't have had a clue. But I hope I would have had the wisdom to say, "Wow, a 95 percent reduction in farm employment with no shortage of food. That's an amazing amount of progress. I hope that humanity finds something remarkable to do with all of that prosperity."
我根本不會知道的。 但我希望我可以智慧地說出, 「哇,少了 95% 的農場工人, 卻沒有造成食物短缺, 真的是一大進步啊! 我希望人類繁榮富有後, 能找到更有意義的事來做。」
And by and large, I would say that it has.
總體而言,我會說那是一定要的。
Thank you very much.
非常感謝各位。
(Applause)
(掌聲)