but I am one of those .01 percenters

我就是你們聽過，或者讀過的，

that you hear about and read about,

那百分之零點一的族群之一。

and I am by any reasonable definition a plutocrat.

不管用任何標準來看， 我都是個超級富豪。

And tonight, what I would like to do is speak directly

而今晚，我要與其他像我這樣的超級富豪，

to other plutocrats, to my people,

直接對話。

because it feels like it's time for us all

因為我真的覺得，

to have a chat.

該是我們好好聊一聊的時候了。

Like most plutocrats, I too am a proud

就像大多數的超級富豪，我也是個驕傲、

and unapologetic capitalist.

並且理直氣壯的資本主義者。

I have founded, cofounded or funded

我創立、與人合資或者投入資助的公司，

over 30 companies across a range of industries.

超過三十個以上，並且橫跨各種產業。

I was the first non-family investor in Amazon.com.

我是亞馬遜網站的第一個非家族投資人，

I cofounded a company called aQuantive

我投資成立了一家公司叫 aQuantive，

that we sold to Microsoft for 6.4 billion dollars.

以64億美金被微軟收購。

My friends and I, we own a bank.

我和我的朋友們還擁有一個銀行，

I tell you this — (Laughter) —

我之所以告訴你這些，（笑聲）

unbelievable, right?

不可思議，對吧？

I tell you this to show

我之所以告訴你這些，

that my life is like most plutocrats.

是為了表達，我的生活 就跟大多超級富豪一樣。

I have a broad perspective on capitalism

對於資本主要和商業行為，

and business,

我有深廣的看法，

and I have been rewarded obscenely for that

也因此我在財務上有巨大的收穫。

with a life that most of you all

過著你們無法想像的、

can't even imagine:

奢華的生活。

multiple homes, a yacht, my own plane,

我擁有多棟房產、一台遊艇、私人飛機，

etc., etc., etc.

等等等等。

But let's be honest: I am not the smartest person you've ever met.

但是老實說，我不是你見過最聰明的人，

I am certainly not the hardest working.

也絕對不是最努力的人。

I was a mediocre student.

學生時代我的成績中等；

I'm not technical at all.

關於技術方面我不是專家；

I can't write a word of code.

我也不會寫程式；

Truly, my success is the consequence

說真的，我的成功來自於

of spectacular luck,

天大的運氣，

of birth, of circumstance and of timing.

在天時、地利、人合上的運氣。

But I am actually pretty good at a couple of things.

不過有幾件事情我的確挺在行的。

One, I have an unusually high tolerance for risk,

第一，對於風險我有異於常人的容忍度。

and the other is I have a good sense,

第二就是我很有“sense”。

a good intuition about what will happen in the future,

這是一種對於未來的直覺。

and I think that that intuition about the future

而且我認為這種對於未來的直覺，

is the essence of good entrepreneurship.

是成功創業的精隨。

So what do I see in our future today,

所以，對於現今的未來，你問：

you ask?

我看見甚麼？

I see pitchforks,

我看見了鐵耙子，

as in angry mobs with pitchforks,

暴怒的群眾手中的鐵耙子。

because while people like us plutocrats

因為正當我們這些超級富豪，

are living beyond the dreams of avarice,

過著超越想像的奢華生活的同時，

the other 99 percent of our fellow citizens

其他 99% 的同胞們，

are falling farther and farther behind.

生活品質不斷、不斷的在衰落。

In 1980, the top one percent of Americans

在一九八零年，最頂層1%的美國人，

shared about eight percent of national [income],

擁有全美國8%的總收入。

while the bottom 50 percent of Americans

在這同時，最基層的50%的美國人，

shared 18 percent.

擁有國家總收入的18%。

Thirty years later, today, the top one percent

三十年後的今天，最頂層的 1%，

shares over 20 percent of national [income],

擁有國家總收入的20%。

while the bottom 50 percent of Americans

同時美國底層的50%國民，

share 12 or 13.

擁有12~13%。

If the trend continues,

假設這樣的趨勢持續下去，

the top one percent will share

那頂層的1%，

over 30 percent of national [income]

在另一個三十年後將會擁有

in another 30 years,

國家總收入的30%。

while the bottom 50 percent of Americans

而美國底層的50%國民，

will share just six.

僅有6%。

You see, the problem isn't that we have

其實，我們面對的問題，

some inequality.

不僅僅是這些不平等；

Some inequality is necessary

為了維持資本民主高度作用，

for a high-functioning capitalist democracy.

某種程度的不平等是必要的。

The problem is that inequality

問題在於這些不平等，

is at historic highs today

正在處於歷史新高，

and it's getting worse every day.

而且日漸惡化。

And if wealth, power, and income

若是財富、勢力，和收入

continue to concentrate

都繼續集中

at the very tippy top,

在最頂層人的手中，

our society will change

我們的社會將會開始起變化。

from a capitalist democracy

從一個以資本主義為主的民主社會，

to a neo-feudalist rentier society

變成一個新封建、唯利主義的社會。

like 18th-century France.

就像18世紀的法國。

That was France

那是法國，

before the revolution

與手中拿著鐵耙子的暴民，

and the mobs with the pitchforks.

等著革命的樣子。

So I have a message for my fellow plutocrats

在此對其他的超級富豪

and zillionaires

其他的兆億富翁、

and for anyone who lives

以及其他所有

in a gated bubble world:

住在高級的泡泡世界的人， 我有話對你們說：

Wake up.

醒醒吧！

Wake up. It cannot last.

醒醒吧！ 這樣的好景不會持續下去的。

Because if we do not do something

如果我們袖手旁觀，

to fix the glaring economic inequities in our society,

讓我們社會中的 經濟失衡繼續惡化，

the pitchforks will come for us,

這些鐵耙，有一天將會向我們刺來。

for no free and open society can long sustain

因為沒有任何自由開放的社會，可以容忍

this kind of rising economic inequality.

這種經濟上的不平等無限成長。

It has never happened. There are no examples.

歷史上從未發生過，沒有任何前例。

You show me a highly unequal society,

你提出任何一個極度不平等的社會，

and I will show you a police state

我就可以找到武裝起義，

or an uprising.

或者人民暴動的例子。

The pitchforks will come for us

鐵耙子遲早會向我們刺來，

if we do not address this.

若是我們不想辦法解決問題。

It's not a matter of if, it's when.

這不是“會不會發生” 而是“什麼時候發生”的問題。

And it will be terrible when they come

當鐵耙子真的刺來的時候，

for everyone,

大家都會遭殃。

but particularly for people like us plutocrats.

由是我們這些超級富豪。

I know I must sound like some liberal do-gooder.

我知道我聽起來很像個左派的熱心分子，

I'm not. I'm not making a moral argument

但我並不是。 我無意討論

that economic inequality is wrong.

經濟不平等在道德層面上的是非。

What I am arguing is that rising economic inequality

我認為經濟不平等的增長

is stupid and ultimately self-defeating.

是愚昧的，並且最終會導致自我毀滅。

Rising inequality doesn't just increase our risks

經濟不平等的增長，不單單只是

from pitchforks,

增加我們淪於鐵耙子之下的風險，

but it's also terrible for business too.

對於商業也毫無利益可言。

So the model for us rich guys should be Henry Ford.

我們這些有錢人， 應該以亨利．福特為榜樣。

When Ford famously introduced the $5 day,

福特成功推出“一天工資五美元”方案，

which was twice the prevailing wage at the time,

也就是那個年代普通工資的兩倍。

he didn't just increase the productivity

他不僅僅增加了

of his factories,

工廠的生產力，

he converted exploited autoworkers who were poor

他將飽受欺凌又貧窮的汽車廠工人，

into a thriving middle class who could now afford

搖身一變，成為了有實力的中產階級，

to buy the products that they made.

終於能夠購買他們親手製作的產品。

Ford intuited what we now know is true,

當年福特的直覺，成了今天的真理。

that an economy is best understood as an ecosystem

要理解經濟體， 可以把它想像成一個生態體系。

and characterized by the same kinds

並且跟大自然裡的生態體系，

of feedback loops you find

有著一樣的回饋環路。

in a natural ecosystem,

一種存在在買主與賣主之間的回饋環路。

a feedback loop between customers and businesses.

工資成長會帶動需求的成長，

Raising wages increases demand,

需求成長會增加就業機會，

which increases hiring,

進而更加刺激工資、

which in turn increases wages

需求、 以及利潤的成長。

and demand and profits,

而這樣子增進繁榮的良性循環，

and that virtuous cycle of increasing prosperity

正是我們現今

is precisely what is missing

正慢慢復原的經濟裡所缺乏的。

from today's economic recovery.

這就是為什麼我們務必拋棄

And this is why we need to put behind us

深深影響雙方政治黨派的

the trickle-down policies that so dominate

“下滲經濟”政策，

both political parties

並且實行我所謂的“middle-out經濟”。

and embrace something I call middle-out economics.

Middle-out經濟學不認同

Middle-out economics rejects

新古典主義經濟學的主張，

the neoclassical economic idea

認定經濟體是高效、 線性，並且機制化的，

that economies are efficient, linear, mechanistic,

認定經濟體會自動趨向平衡與公正。

that they tend towards equilibrium and fairness,

反之, ，此主義提昌符合21世紀的思維，

and instead embraces the 21st-century idea

認為經濟體是複雜，有矯正能力，

that economies are complex, adaptive,

像生態系統那樣，

ecosystemic,

不趨向平衡，反而趨向不平等。

that they tend away from equilibrium and toward inequality,

並且一點也不有效率。

that they're not efficient at all

但是，在妥當的管理之下可以非常有效。

but are effective if well managed.

這個21世紀的新看法，

This 21st-century perspective

讓我們清楚的見識到資本主義

allows you to clearly see that capitalism

作用的方式，

does not work by [efficiently] allocating

並不是靠者有效分配資源。

existing resources.

它的作用方式是經由

It works by [efficiently] creating new solutions

提供有效的新方式解決人類的問題。

to human problems.

資本主義巧妙的地方在於，

The genius of capitalism

它本身是一個可以自我演化 而不斷找尋新方法的系統。

is that it is an evolutionary solution-finding system.

它鼓勵人們 去解決別人的問題。

It rewards people for solving other people's problems.

貧窮與富有的社會，

The difference between a poor society

有一個最大的差別，

and a rich society, obviously,

在於社會本身，透過生產的產品，

is the degree to which that society

來解決民眾的民生問題的能力高低。

has generated solutions in the form

社會中存在的這些，

of products for its citizens.

解決方案的總體所奠定的，

The sum of the solutions

是這個社會繁榮與否的基礎。這就是為什麼

that we have in our society

像谷歌，或者Amazon、

really is our prosperity, and this explains

微軟、蘋果這類的公司，

why companies like Google and Amazon

和成立這些公司的創業家

and Microsoft and Apple

對於我們國家的繁榮

and the entrepreneurs who created those companies

有了這麼大的貢獻。

have contributed so much

這個21世紀的思維，

to our nation's prosperity.

同時也闡明，

This 21st-century perspective

我們處理民生問題的效率，

also makes clear

跟經濟上的成長

that what we think of as economic growth

是成正比的。

is best understood as

但這種效率，

the rate at which we solve problems.

完全取決於有多少人才、多元化、

But that rate is totally dependent upon

有能力的人才，來解決這些問題。

how many problem solvers —

並且有多少平均市民，

diverse, able problem solvers — we have,

能同時以提供解決的人的姿態

and thus how many of our fellow citizens

主動參與 ，並且扮演

actively participate,

消費者的角色。

both as entrepreneurs who can offer solutions,

但是提高這樣的參與度，

and as customers who consume them.

並不會偶然的發生，

But this maximizing participation thing

它不會說發生就發生的，

doesn't happen by accident.

我們需要積極正視，並且投入資金。

It doesn't happen by itself.

這就是為甚麼

It requires effort and investment,

所有高度繁榮的資本主義民主國家

which is why all

都有這個特點。那就是

highly prosperous capitalist democracies

都有大規模的投資， 專門針對中產階級的需要，

are characterized by massive investments

以及其需要的基本設施。

in the middle class and the infrastructure

我們這些超級富豪，

that they depend on.

實在應該拋棄所謂“下滲經濟”，

We plutocrats need to get this

這種，只要我們受惠，

trickle-down economics thing behind us,

其他人遲早也會受惠的心態。

this idea that the better we do,

這怎麼可能呢？這是完全錯誤的。

the better everyone else will do.

我的薪水相當於最低工資的一千倍，

It's not true. How could it be?

但我並沒有多消費一千倍。

I earn 1,000 times the median wage,

是吧？

but I do not buy 1,000 times as much stuff,

我是買了兩條這樣的褲子沒錯，

do I?

我的合夥人 Mike 戲稱它為

I actually bought two pairs of these pants,

“經理褲”。

what my partner Mike calls

事實上，這樣的褲子我可以買兩千條。

my manager pants.

但我買兩千條褲子來，要幹嘛？（笑聲）

I could have bought 2,000 pairs,

我能剪幾次頭髮，

but what would I do with them? (Laughter)

能去餐廳吃幾次飯？

How many haircuts can I get?

無論多有錢，我們這些 畢竟是少數的超級富豪。

How often can I go out to dinner?

不可能光靠我們 來推動一個國家的經濟。

No matter how wealthy a few plutocrats get,

只有一個國家蓬勃發展的 中產階級能為之。

we can never drive a great national economy.

我的富豪朋友們可能會說，

Only a thriving middle class can do that.

我們又能怎樣？

There's nothing to be done,

亨利．福特存在另一個時空，

my plutocrat friends might say.

也許有些事情，我們是做不到。

Henry Ford was in a different time.

但也有些事，也許我們可以。

Maybe we can't do some things.

2013年6月19號，

Maybe we can do some things.

彭博刊出了我寫的一篇文章，題為

June 19, 2013,

“資本主義企業家對於$15最低時薪的研究報告”

Bloomberg published an article I wrote called

富比士雜誌的好朋友們，

"The Capitalist’s Case for a $15 Minimum Wage."

我最大的粉絲之一，

The good people at Forbes magazine,

稱之為“尼克．漢豪爾幾近瘋狂的提議”。

among my biggest admirers,

可是，在這文章

called it "Nick Hanauer's near-insane proposal."

刊登後的350天之後，

And yet, just 350 days

西雅圖市市長 Ed Murray 卻立法定案，

after that article was published,

將西雅圖的最低薪資

Seattle's Mayor Ed Murray signed into law

漲到一小時15美元。

an ordinance raising the minimum wage in Seattle

比當時聯邦的平均薪資

to 15 dollars an hour,

一小時7.25美元還多兩倍有餘。

more than double

這是怎麼辦到的？

what the prevailing federal $7.25 rate is.

正常人可能會這麼問。

How did this happen,

這條法律得以立案， 是因為我們出來呼籲，

reasonable people might ask.

中產階級才是資本主義經濟發展、

It happened because a group of us

繁榮的來源。

reminded the middle class

我們提醒了他們， 當工人口袋裡多了錢，

that they are the source

大眾商家就多了更多顧客，

of growth and prosperity in capitalist economies.

同時就需要雇用更多員工。

We reminded them that when workers have more money,

我們提醒了他們，

businesses have more customers,

當商家付給工人薪資的同時，

and need more employees.

也消除了納稅人對於窮困族群的負擔，

We reminded them that when businesses

像是食物券、醫療補給費、

pay workers a living wage,

和租房補助，

taxpayers are relieved of the burden

諸如此類低收入戶所需的補助。

of funding the poverty programs

我們提醒了他們 ，低收入工人

like food stamps and medical assistance

不擅長扮演納稅人的角色，

and rent assistance

所以當你提高所有企業、商家的最低薪資，

that those workers need.

所有的企業、商家都會受益，

We reminded them that low-wage workers

並且足以進一步的互相競爭。

make terrible taxpayers,

最傳統的反面看法是：

and that when you raise the minimum wage

提高最低薪資，代表減少總體的工作機會。

for all businesses,

政客們總是打著“下滲經濟”的旗幟，

all businesses benefit

喊著

yet all can compete.

“看吧, 提高創造工作機會的成本，

Now the orthodox reaction, of course,

結果會怎樣? 工作機會就變少了!” 的口號。

is raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Right?

真的是這樣嗎?

Your politician's always echoing

證據顯示完全相反。

that trickle-down idea by saying things like,

從一九八零年開始，我們國家CEO的薪水

"Well, if you raise the price of employment,

比國民平均薪水高出三十倍，

guess what happens? You get less of it."

上升到今天的五百倍。

Are you sure?

這，才是提高創造工作機會的成本。

Because there's some contravening evidence.

再說，以我的了解，

Since 1980, the wages of CEOs in our country

我還沒見過哪個公司，

have gone from about 30 times the median wage

把他們CEO的工作給外包，或者自動化，

to 500 times.

或是將工作機會移出到中國大陸。

That's raising the price of employment.

不但如此，跟以前比起來，

And yet, to my knowledge,

我們似乎雇用越來越多的CEO跟高級主管，

I have never seen a company

高科技員工

outsource its CEO's job, automate their job,

和金融顧問也一樣，越來越多。

export the job to China.

他們的薪水也同樣是國民平均的幾倍之多。

In fact, we appear to be employing

我們卻仍然雇用越來越多這樣的人才。

more CEOs and senior managers than ever before.

所以無庸置疑的，你絕對可以 提高創造工作機會的成本，

So too for technology workers

同時增加工作機會的數量。

and financial services workers,

我知道大多數人，

who earn multiples of the median wage

都認為15美元的最低時薪，

and yet we employ more and more of them,