This is about a hidden corner of the labor market. It's the world of people who need to work ultra-flexibly, if they're to work at all. So think, for instance, of someone who has a recurring but unpredictable medical condition, or somebody who's caring for a dependent adult, or a parent with complex child care needs. Their availability for work can be such that it's, "A few hours today. Maybe I can work tomorrow, but I don't know if and when yet." And it's extraordinarily difficult for these people to find the work that they so often need very badly. Which is a tragedy because there are employers who can use pools of very flexible local people booked completely ad hoc around when that person wants to work.
今天要講的是人力市場中鮮為人知的族群。 這個族群的人需要極為彈性的上班時間, 前提是有班能上。 試想一下,比方說, 罹患慢性病、病情反覆不定的病患, 或者照顧失能成年人的看護, 或者照顧罹患多重障礙的兒女的家長。 他們留給工作的時間可能是: 「今天幾小時。 明天或許可以上班, 但是之後我就不知道了。」 這些人很難找得到工作, 而他們往往迫切需要一份工作。 可惜的是,其實有不少僱主 可以僱用一大群彈性上班的當地人, 根據員工能上班的時段, 量身打造他們的班表。
Imagine that you run a cafe. It's mid-morning, the place is filling up. You're going to have a busy lunchtime rush. If you could get two extra workers for 90 minutes to start in an hour's time, you'd do it, but they'd have to be reliable, inducted in how your cafe works. They'd have to be available at very competitive rates. They'd have to be bookable in about the next minute. In reality, no recruitment agency wants to handle that sort of business, so you are going to muddle by, understaffed. And it's not just caterers, it's hoteliers, it's retailers, it's anyone who provides services to the public or businesses. There's all sorts of organizations that can use these pools of very flexible people, possibly already once they've been inducted.
好比說你開了一間咖啡店, 日上三竿,店內人潮湧現。 你準備應付繁忙的午餐時間。 如果午餐時段能多兩個員工幫忙一個半小時 並可以在一小時內上工 你當然願意,但這些人一定要可靠, 熟悉咖啡店的運作。 他們的工資一定也要符合行情。 這些人手一定要能隨傳隨到。 實際上,沒有一間人力公司想接這種生意, 所以你會因為缺員而捉襟見肘。 不只有餐飲業,還有飯店業和零售業, 只要是提供服務給社會大眾的行業都 會遇到這種狀況。 許多機關組織其實都用得上 這些彈性上班的員工, 說不定早在有人引薦前就開始雇用了。
At this level of the labor market, what you need is a marketplace for spare hours. They do exist. Here's how they work. So in this example, a distribution company has said, we've got a rush order that we've got to get out of the warehouse tomorrow morning. Show us everyone who's available. It's found 31 workers. Everybody on this screen is genuinely available at those specific hours tomorrow. They're all contactable in time for this booking. They've all defined the terms on which they will accept bookings. And this booking is within all the parameters for each individual. And they would all be legally compliant by doing this booking. Of course, they're all trained to work in warehouses. You can select as many of them as you want. They're from multiple agencies. It's calculated the charge rate for each person for this specific booking. And it's monitoring their reliability. The people on the top row are the provenly reliable ones. They're likely to be more expensive. In an alternative view of this pool of local, very flexible people, here's a market research company, and it's inducted maybe 25 local people in how to do street interviewing. And they've got a new campaign. They want to run it next week. And they're looking at how many of the people they've inducted are available each hour next week. And they'll then decide when to do their street interviews.
從這個層面來看人力市場, 你需要的是一個仲介閒暇勞力的平台。 真的有這地方。其運作方式如下: 舉個例子,有間物流公司說: 我們收到急單,明早之前必須從倉庫出貨。 告訴我們有哪些人可用。 結果找到 31 名工人。 螢幕上的人都能在 明天的特定時段提供勞力。 每個人都聯絡得到, 都能在預定時間準時上工。 他們都列出了接受預約的條件。 而每個應徵者的條件都符合這次預約。 他們也都俱有履行本次預約的合法條件。 當然,他們全都受過倉儲工作的相關訓練。 你想選幾個人都行。 他們來自多間仲介公司。 每一次預約時, 個人工作時薪會重新計算。 並持續評估這些應徵者的可靠程度。 名單頂端的人選,都有可靠的工作紀錄。 他們的工資通常比較高。 換個角度看這個族群, 這些工時非常彈性的人, 這是一家市場調查公司, 該公司培訓了約 25 名當地人, 要他們進行街頭訪問。 這公司有個新活動,打算下星期開始執行。 他們想知道等到下星期,每個鐘點 能找到幾個培訓員工上班。 然後他們就會決定何時進行街頭訪問。
But is there more that could be done for this corner of the labor market? Because right now there are so many people who need whatever economic opportunity they can get. Let's make it personal. Imagine that a young woman -- base of the economic pyramid, very little prospect of getting a job -- what economic activity could she theoretically engage in? Well, she might be willing to work odd hours in a call center, in a reception area, in a mail room. She may be interested in providing local services to her community: babysitting, local deliveries, pet care. She may have possessions that she would like to trade at times she doesn't need them. So she might have a sofa bed in her front room that she would like to let out. She might have a bike, a video games console she only uses occasionally. And you're probably thinking -- because you're all very web-aware -- yes, and we're in the era of collaborative consumption, so she can go online and do all this. She can go to Airbnb to list her sofa bed, she can go to TaskRabbit.com and say, "I want to do local deliveries," and so on.
而我們是否還能為勞動市場中的 這個族群做些甚麼? 因為就在此刻, 很多人為求改善經濟狀況, 不願放過任何一份工作機會。 看看一個貼身的例子。 如果說,有位年輕女子, 金字塔底部的經濟弱勢族群, 找到工作的機會渺茫, 理論上,她能參與何種經濟活動? 或許她願意打打零工, 到客服中心、接待處,或郵務室工作。 或許她有興趣加入當地的社區服務: 做保姆、本地郵遞,或是照顧寵物。 或許她手邊有一些物品,等到用不到時 想拿出來變賣。 說不定她的客廳有張沙發床想出讓。 或許她有一輛單車、 一台偶爾玩玩的電視遊戲機。 而你們可能認為, 因為各位的網路消息都很靈通, 沒錯,我們現在身在一個合作消費的世代, 所以她可以上網完成所有步驟。 她可以上 Airbnb 標示她有張沙發床, 她可以上 TaskRabbit.com 說: 「我想應徵本地快遞」之類的。
These are good sites, but I believe we can go a step further. And the key to that is a philosophy that we call modern markets for all. Markets have changed beyond recognition in the last 20 years, but only for organizations at the top of the economy. If you're a Wall Street trader, you now take it for granted that you sell your financial assets in a system of markets that identifies the most profitable opportunities for you in real time, executes on that in microseconds within the boundaries you've set. It analyzes supply and demand and pricing and tells you where your next wave of opportunities are coming from. It manages counterparty risk in incredibly sophisticated ways. It's all extremely low overhead. What have we gained at the bottom of the economy in terms of markets in the last 20 years? Basically classified adverts with a search facility.
那些網站都不錯, 但我相信我們能更進一步。 箇中訣竅是我們稱之為 「各適其所的現代市場」哲學。 過去二十年來, 市場起了翻天覆地的變化, 但這些變化都只對 經濟金字塔頂層的組織有利。 如果你是華爾街交易員, 你視為理所當然的事, 就是在市場系統中 買賣自己的金融資產, 這種市場能即時為你 找出最有機會獲利的交易, 用你預設的停損點執行交易,花不到一秒鐘。 會幫你分析供應和需求和定價, 然後告訴你下一波機會從哪裡出現。 它以非常複雜的方式管理交易對手風險。 這種方式的成本極低。 藉由市場經濟的名義,過去 20 年來我們 從金字塔底部掠奪了多少資源? 基本上我是以搜索工具來分類這些廣告。
So why do we have this disparity between these incredibly sophisticated markets at the top of the economy that are increasingly sucking more and more activity and resource out of the main economy into this rarefied level of trading, and what the rest of us have? A modern market is more than a website; it's a web of interoperable marketplaces, back office mechanisms, regulatory regimes, settlement mechanisms, liquidity sources and so on. And when a Wall Street trader comes into work in the morning, she does not write a listing for every financial derivative she wants to sell today and then post that listing on multiple websites and wait for potential buyers to get in touch and start negotiating the terms on which she might trade.
所以為什麼金字塔頂端那些 極為複雜的市場之間會有差異, 這些市場從經濟主體汲取出 越來越多的活力和資源, 然後將其投注在 某種考究複雜的高階交易, 那我們其他人還剩甚麼? 現代化市場不是單純的網站; 這樣的網站是互助互用的交易場所, 擁有後台作業機制、市場監管制度、 解決紛爭機制、 流動性來源等等。 當我們這位華爾街交易員開始一早的工作, 她不用把今天想賣的 每一種衍生性金融商品寫成清單, 然後把清單貼在好幾個網站上, 然後等待潛在買家上門聯繫, 然後開始就可能的交易來協商期限。
In the early days of this modern markets technology, the financial institutions worked out how they could leverage their buying power, their back office processes, their relationships, their networks to shape these new markets that would create all this new activity. They asked governments for supporting regulatory regimes, and in a lot of cases they got it.
這種早期的現代行銷技術, 是金融機構想出來的, 如何槓桿操作他們的購買力、 後臺作業的流程、 業界的關係、網路, 來塑造這些新興市場, 進而創造這種新型態的活動。 他們要求政府提供 市場監管制度的支援, 很多交易都得到了幫助。
But throughout the economy, there are facilities that could likewise leverage a new generation of markets for the benefit of all of us. And those facilities -- I'm talking about things like the mechanisms that prove our identity, the licensing authorities that know what each of us is allowed to do legally at any given time, the processes by which we resolve disputes through official channels. These mechanisms, these facilities are not in the gift of Craigslist or Gumtree or Yahoo, they're controlled by the state. And the policymakers who sit on top of them are, I suggest, simply not thinking about how those facilities could be used to underpin a whole new era of markets.
但就整體經濟而言, 有功能相同的工具 能槓桿操作新一代的市場, 以我們所有人的利益為前提。 和那些工具...... 我說的是一種機制, 能辨識我們的身份, 能核准證照的機關, 知道我們每個人何時擁有哪些合法的執行許可, 掌握我們透過官方管道 解決紛爭的過程。 這些機制和這些工具, 不是 Craigslist 或 Gumtree 或雅虎提供的免費服務, 而是由國家控制。 而這些高層的政策制定者, 我在猜,並沒有思考過如何善用這些設施 來鞏固這一代截然不同的市場。
Like everyone else, those policymakers are taking it for granted that modern markets are the preserve of organizations powerful enough to create them for themselves. Suppose we stopped taking that for granted. Suppose tomorrow morning the prime minister of Britain or the president of the U.S., or the leader of any other developed nation, woke up and said, "I'm never going to be able to create all the jobs I need in the current climate. I have got to focus on whatever economic opportunity I can get to my citizens. And for that they have to be able to access state-of-the-art markets. How do I make that happen?"
這些政策制定者認為, 他們那有力的機關 將現代市場視為己物是理所當然的事, 不須外力介入,就能獨自創造這些市場。 假設我們不再視其為理所當然。 假設明天早上英國首相或美國總統, 或其他任何一個已開發國家的領導人, 起床後說:"我永遠創造不出 目前這種景氣所需的工作機會。 我必須專心為我的選民 留意任何經濟機會。 為此,他們必須有接觸 這些先進市場的管道。 我該怎麼做?"
And I think I can see a few eyes rolling. Politicians in a big, complex, sophisticated I.T. project? Oh, that's going to be a disaster waiting to happen. Not necessarily. There is a precedent for technology-enabled service that has been initiated by politicians in multiple countries and has been hugely successful: national lotteries.
我想我看到幾個人在思考了。 找幾個政客負責一個 龐大、複雜、精緻的 I.T.專案嗎? 那會是一場伺機而動的災難。 其實未必。 這裡有個科技輔助服務的先例, 由好幾個國家的政治家都推動過, 結果極為成功: 國家彩票。
Let's take Britain as an example. Our government didn't design the national lottery, it didn't fund the national lottery, it doesn't operate the national lottery. It simply passed the National Lottery Act and this is what followed. This act defines what a national lottery will look like. It specifies certain benefits that the state can uniquely bestow on the operators. And it puts some obligations on those operators. In terms of spreading gambling activity to the masses, this was an unqualified success.
我們以英國為例。 國家彩票不是我們的政府設計的, 我們的政府沒有挹注國家彩票,也沒有經營國家彩票。 我們只是通過國家彩票法, 接下來就變成這樣。 這個法案規定了國家彩票的模式。 法案明訂,政府有權決定 將某部分的盈餘分配給經營者, 因此這些營運者必須尊行某些義務。 若是以推廣全民賭博活動來說, 這是無庸置疑的成功。
But let's suppose that our aim is to bring new economic activity to the base of the pyramid. Could we use the same model? I believe we could. So imagine that policymakers outlined a facility. Let's call it national e-markets, NEMs for short. Think of it as a regulated public utility. So it's on a par with the water supply or the road network. And it's a series of markets for low-level trade that can be fulfilled by a person or a small company. And government has certain benefits it can uniquely bestow on these markets. It's about public spending going through these markets to buy public services at the local level. It's about interfacing these markets direct into the highest official channels in the land. It's about enshrining government's role as a publicist for these markets. It's about deregulating some sectors so that local people can enter them.
但是,如果假設我們的目標, 是讓新的經濟動力投入金字塔的底部族群。 我們能使用相同模式嗎? 我認為可以。 想像一下,這些政策制定者提出了一個草案。 讓我們稱之為全國電子市場,簡稱 NEMs。 把它當做一種受管制的公共事業, 所以和自來水供應 或交通網路是一樣的。 那是一系列的低階交易市場, 個人或小型公司就能進行交易。 政府擁有特定比例的營收, 能當做津貼,專門補助這些市場。 藉由這些市場,公共支出的資金 能購買地區性的公共服務。 這是一種介面,將這些市場 直接連結到全國最高層的官方管道。 這樣是把政府扮演的 市場公關角色奉為神明。 解除某些法令限制, 讓當地人民得以參與其中。
So, taxi journeys might be one example. And there are certain obligations that should go with those benefits to be placed on the operators, and the key one is, of course, that the operators pay for everything, including all the interfacing into the public sector. So imagine that the operators make their return by building a percentage markup into each transaction. Imagine that there's a concession period defined of maybe 15 years in which they can take all these benefits and run with them. And imagine that the consortia who bid to run it are told, whoever comes in at the lowest percentage markup on each transaction to fund the whole thing will get the deal.
計程車遊覽就是個例子。 這些經營者要享受特定福利, 就要遵從特定義務, 首要關鍵,當然是 經營者支付一切開銷, 包括所有連結公共部門的介面。 想像一下,經營者將加價率 加入每筆交易中,藉此賺取利潤。 想像一下,這是專營期, 期限算是 15 年好了 這段期間他們可以 拿走所有利潤並以此投入營運。 想像一下,有人告訴那些 想要經營這種市場的財團, 只要有誰能以最低加價率的交易來 提供整個體系的資金, 就能拿到生意。
So government then exits the frame. This is now in the hands of the consortium. Either they are going to unlock an awful lot of economic opportunity and make a percentage on all of it or it's all going to crash and burn, which is tough on their shareholders. It doesn't bother the taxpayer necessarily. And there would be no constraints on alternative markets. So this would just be one more choice among millions of Internet forums. But it could be very different, because having access to those state-backed facilities could incentivize this consortium to seriously invest in the service. Because they would have to get a lot of these small transactions going to start making their return.
然後政府會功成身退。 現在這是在財團的手中。 要嘛他們就釋出驚人數量的經濟機會, 從中賺取百分之一的利潤, 否則一切將會崩潰殆盡, 他們的股東不會接受這點的。 這件事未必會困擾納稅人。 而其他的替代市場也不會有限制。 所以,數以百萬的網路論壇中 就多了一個選擇。 但結果可能截然不同, 因為有機會利用國家支援的這些工具, 財團也受到鼓舞 而認真地投資該項服務。 因為他們要讓很多這樣子的小型交易進行, 才能開始賺取利潤。
So we're talking about sectors like home hair care, the hire of toys, farm work, hire of clothes even, meals delivered to your door, services for tourists, home care. This would be a world of very small trades, but very well-informed, because national e-markets will deliver data.
所以我們說的是家庭理髮、 玩具出租、 農場工作、 衣服出租,甚至是飯菜外送到府這種行業, 遊客服務,家庭照護。 這是個小型行業當道的世界,而且消息非常流通, 因為國家電子市場會提供資料。
So this is a local person potentially deciding whether to enter the babysitting market. And they might be aware that they would have to fund vetting and training if they wanted to go into that market. They'd have to do assessment interviews with local parents who wanted a pool of babysitters. Is it worth their while? Should they be looking at other sectors? Should they be moving to another part of the country where there's a shortage of babysitters? This kind of data can become routine. And this data can be used by investors. So if there's a problem with a shortage of babysitters in some parts of the country and the problem is nobody can afford the vetting and training, an investor can pay for it and the system will tithe back the enhanced earnings of the individuals for maybe the next two years.
這是位本地人, 正在考慮要不要投身保姆市場。 他知道自己若要進入市場, 可能需要投入審查和訓練的資金。 他可能會拜訪當地的父母進行評估, 有想願意加入保姆行列。 這值得他們花時間嗎? 他們應該找其他行業嗎? 他們應該搬到國內其他 保姆短缺的地方嗎? 提供這種資料可以成為例行程序。 這種資料可以讓投資者使用。 所以如果國內某處有保姆短缺, 但問題是沒人負擔得起 審查和培訓所需的費用, 這可以由投資者支付, 而這個機制會將十分之一 回饋給收入越來越高的個人, 也許能持續兩年。
This is a world of atomized capitalism. So it's small trades by small people, but it's very informed, safe, convenient, low-overhead and immediate. Some rough research suggests this could unlock around 100 million pounds' worth a day of new economic activity in a country the size of the U.K.
這是個原子化的資本主義世界。 所以少數人做小型生意, 而這是非常明智、 安全、 方便、 低成本和直接的做法。 某些研究的初步結果表示, 這種新經濟活動 每天可以創造的產值大約一億英鎊, 在英國這種規模的國家。
Does that sound improbable to you? That's what a lot of people said about turbo trading in financial exchanges 20 years ago. Do not underestimate the transformative power of truly modern markets.
你們覺得不大可能嗎? 20 年前,很多人對 金融交易所的渦輪增壓交易 也有這種看法。 不要低估真正的現代市場的 變革力量。
Thank you.
謝謝大家。
(Applause)
(掌聲)