In South Africa, one of the most unequal countries in the world, the richest one-tenth of 1%, owns almost 30% of all the country’s wealth, more than double what the bottom 90% owns.
南非係全球最唔平等嘅國家之一 最有錢嗰十分一入面嘅一成人 坐擁全國財富大概三成 比起喺底層嘅九成人得到嘅多兩倍
Income and wealth inequality are not new. In fact, economists and historians who’ve charted economic inequality throughout history haven’t found a single society without it. Which raises a bleak question: is inequality inevitable?
財富分配不公一直都存在 事實上,有詳細紀錄歷年貧富懸殊嘅 經濟學家同歷史學家 發現呢種現象喺每個社會都有出現 咁就帶出一個令人沮喪嘅問題: 究竟財富不公係咪無法避免嘅呢?
One way to estimate inequality is with a number called the Gini index, which is calculated by comparing the income or wealth distribution of a perfectly equal society to the actual income or wealth distribution. The area of this shape multiplied by 2 is the Gini index.
其中一個用嚟估計貧富懸殊嘅方式, 係使用堅尼系數去量度 呢個數字係透過將實際財富分配 同財富分配絕對平均嘅社會做比較 呢個形狀嘅面積乘以2就會得出堅尼系數
A Gini of 1 indicates perfect inequality— one person has everything and everyone else has nothing. You’d never see this in real life because everyone except that one person would starve.
而堅尼系數數值係「1」 表示財富分配絕對唔平均— 即係當一個人擁有所有嘢, 而其他人乜嘢都冇 你唔會喺現實生活中見到呢個情況 因為咁即係話除咗嗰個人之外, 其他人都會餓死
A Gini index of 0 indicates perfect equality— everyone has exactly the same income or wealth. But you also never see this in real life, not even in communist countries, because for one thing, that would mean paying everyone— no matter how young, old, what job they’re in or where they work— the exact same wage.
至於堅尼系數數值係「0」 則表示絕對平均 所有人嘅財富分配都一樣 但你亦都唔會喺現實中見到呢個情況, 就算係共產國家都唔會 因為咁係意味著 無論你乜嘢年紀、做乜嘢工種、喺邊度返工 你都係逗緊一樣嘅人工
Typical after-tax Ginis in developed countries today are around 0.3, though there’s a wide range from pretty equal to pretty unequal.
現今,喺已發展國家, 典型稅後嘅堅尼系數數值係「0.3」 雖然由相對平均到唔平均 都有一個好闊嘅幅度
Before we go any further, you should know what the Gini index— or any other measure of economic inequality— doesn’t tell us: it gives no information about how income and wealth are distributed across genders, races, educational backgrounds or other demographics; it doesn’t tell us how easy or difficult it is to escape poverty. And it also gives no insight as to how a particular society arrived at its present level of inequality. Economic inequality is deeply entangled with other types of inequality: for example, generations of discrimination, imperialism, and colonialism created deeply rooted power and class inequalities that persist to this day.
喺深入講多啲之前, 你應該要知道堅尼系數 或者其他量度貧富懸殊嘅工具 冇話俾我哋知嘅事: 佢冇話俾我哋知財富係點樣 喺性別、種族、教育背景或 其他人口統計呢啲類別之間分配 佢唔會話你知要脫貧 係幾咁容易或幾咁艱難 佢亦都唔會就某個特定社會 係點樣去到目前貧富懸殊嘅狀態提出見解 貧富懸殊係同其他類型嘅不平等環環相扣 例如:跨代歧視、帝國主義 同殖民主義 都會造成根深蒂固嘅權力同階級之分 並且持續到今日
But we still need at least a rough measure of who gets how much in a country. That’s what the Gini index gives us.
但我哋至少要有一個粗略估計 究竟喺個國家嘅人得到幾多 呢個就係堅尼系數俾到我哋嘅資訊
Some countries are, economically, much more unequal than others. And that’s because a significant portion of economic inequality is the result of choices that governments make.
有啲國家嘅財富分配比其他國家更唔平等 因為造成明顯財富不公嘅部分 係取決於政府嘅政策上
Let's talk about some of these choices. First: what kind of economy to use.
不如我哋講下呢啲政策呀 首先,國家行緊邊種經濟體制
In the 20th century, some countries switched to socialism or communism for a variety of reasons, including reducing economic inequality. These changes did dramatically reduce economic inequality in the two largest non-capitalist economies, China and the Soviet Union— especially in the Soviet Union.
喺二十世紀,有啲國家轉咗去行 社會主義或者共產主義 基於多種原因 當中包括減少財富分配不公 呢啲改變的確大幅度減少咗財富不公 喺兩個最大嘅非資本主義經濟國家 中國同蘇聯—特別係蘇聯
But neither country prospered as much as the world's leading economies. So yes, people earned about as much as their neighbors did, but that wasn’t very much.
但佢哋都冇好似世界領先經濟體一樣咁繁盛 係嘅,人均收入的確差唔多 但亦都賺得唔多
This— and many other issues— contributed to the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. And China, to grow more quickly, shifted its economy towards capitalism starting in the late 1970s.
呢個原因—加上其他因素— 導致蘇聯喺1991年解體 而中國為咗要急速增長 喺1970尾開始轉咗去行資本主義
What about capitalist countries? Can they choose to reduce economic inequality? It’s tempting to think “no, because the whole point of capitalism is to hoard enough gold coins to be able to dive into them like Scrooge McDuck.” China seems to provide the textbook example of this: after it became more capitalist, its Gini index shot up from under 0.4 to over 0.55. Meanwhile, its per capita yearly income jumped from the rough equivalent of $1,500 to over $13,000.
咁資本主義國家呢? 佢哋可以選擇減少財富唔平等嗎? 大家會好容易認為 「唔得,因為資本主義嘅中重點 就係等我哋好似唐老鴨嘅守財奴叔叔, 史高治叔叔咁將金幣堆到可以跳入金幣池當中嘅程度」 中國似乎為大家示範咗個教科書式嘅做法: 當佢變成資本主義後 佢嘅堅尼系數由低過0.4上升到超過0.55 同時,中國嘅人均收入 由大約等於一千五百美金 躍升到超過一萬三千美金
But there are many counter-examples: capitalist countries in which inequality is actually holding steady or decreasing. France has kept its Gini index below 0.32 since 1979. Ireland's Gini has been trending mostly downward since 1995. The Netherlands and Denmark have kept theirs below 0.28 since the 1980s.
但都有好多相反嘅例子: 就係有啲資本主義國家嘅 財富唔平等係維持不變同下降緊 法國自1979年起一直保持 堅尼系數喺0.32以下 愛爾蘭自1995年大多數傾向下降趨勢 荷蘭同丹麥自1980年起 保持堅尼系數喺0.28以下
How do they do it?
呢啲國家究竟係點做到㗎呢?
One way is with taxes. Personal income taxes in most countries are progressive: the more money you make, the higher your tax rate. And the more progressive your tax system, the more it reduces inequality. So, for example, while pre-tax income inequality in France is roughly the same as it is in the US, post-tax inequality in France is roughly 20% lower.
其中一個方法係稅務 大多數國家嘅個人入息税 都係採用累進式稅率— 賺得越多,要交嘅税越多 當稅務系統越係累進, 越可以減少財富不公 所以,例如法國喺稅前嘅財富唔平等 係同美國嘅大概差唔多 法國稅後嘅財富唔平等 係比美國大概低兩成
Meanwhile, inheritance taxes can reduce the amount of wealth that a single family can amass over generations. Germany and many other European countries have inheritance or estate taxes that kick in at a few thousand to a few hundred thousand Euros, depending on who's inheriting. The US, on the other hand, lets you inherit $12 million without paying any federal tax.
同時,推出遺產稅亦可以減少 一個家庭世世代代可以繼承到嘅財富 德國同其他歐洲國家有遺產稅或者地產稅 金額由幾千至幾十萬歐羅 睇下係邊個繼承而有分別 另一方面,美國 可以俾你承繼一千二百萬美元 而無須交聯邦稅
Another way is with transfers— when the government takes tax revenues from one group of people and gives it to another. For example, Social Security programs tax people who work and use the revenue to support retirees. In Italy, about a quarter of Italians’ disposable household income comes from government transfers. That’s a lot, especially relative to the US, where the figure is just over 5%.
另一個方法,就係轉移 當政府將一班人交嘅稅 俾咗另一班人 例如,社保計劃係向在職人士徵稅 用稅收去支助退休人士 喺意大利, 意大利人嘅家庭可支配收入大約有四分之一 係嚟自政府嘅轉移 嗰個比例都幾多,尤其係相比起美國 個數目只係5%多啲
A third way is to ensure that everyone has access to things like education and healthcare. A highly educated, healthy workforce can command a higher salary on the market, thus reducing inequality. The fourth way is addressing the digital divide: the gap between those who have access to the Internet and those who do not.
第三種方法,確保所有人都有機會 接受教育同享有醫療福利 受過高等教育,健康嘅勞動人口 先可以喺市場上要求較高嘅薪金 因此減少唔平等 第四種方法,解決數碼領域上出現嘅分歧: 用唔用到互聯網嘅分別
A fifth way is dealing with extreme wealth. Multibillionaires can buy social media platforms, news outlets, policy think-tanks, perhaps even politicians, and bend them to their will, threatening the very fabric of democracy.
第五種方法,處理極端財富 億萬富翁可以買幾個社交媒體平台 新聞台、智庫、甚至乎政客 要聽佢哋嘅意願做嘢 徹徹底底咁威脅緊民主制度
We are just barely scratching the surface of inequality here. We haven’t touched on the drastic divides in who has wealth and who doesn’t; the power structures that prevent social and economic mobility; and the drastic inequality between countries— the fact that, for example, just three Americans have 90 billion more dollars than Egypt, a country of 100 million people.
我哋只係輕輕講到財富不公嘅表面 都重未講到邊個有錢邊個冇, 呢種咁極端嘅分別 阻礙社會同經濟流動嘅權力結構 以及各國之間形成嘅嚴重財富不公 事實上,譬如話淨係三個美國人擁有嘅財富 就比埃及全國多九百億美金 而埃及重係擁有一億人口嘅國家嚟添
And here’s one final thing to think about: power and wealth are self-reinforcing, which means that equality is not. Left to their own devices, societies tend toward inequality— unless we weaken the feedback loops of wealth and power concentration.
重有最後一樣嘢可以思考下: 權力同財富都係自我強化緊 即係話平等就唔係 若果任由各國社會自己發展, 社會就傾向財富唔平等 除非我哋減弱到財富同權力集中嘅輪迴