Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Here's a startling fact:

    有一個驚人的事實:

  • in the 45 years since the introduction of the automated teller machine,

    45 年前,自從引進自動提款機,

  • those vending machines that dispense cash,

    就是那些會吐鈔票的販賣機,

  • the number of human bank tellers employed in the United States

    美國銀行櫃台的從業人數

  • has roughly doubled,

    增加了將近一倍,

  • from about a quarter of a million to a half a million.

    從 25 萬人增加到 50 萬人。

  • A quarter of a million in 1970 to about a half a million today,

    從 1970 年的 25 萬人 成長到今日的 50 萬人,

  • with 100,000 added since the year 2000.

    其中 10 萬人, 是 2000 年以後增加出來的。

  • These facts, revealed in a recent book

    這些事實,都詳細記載在 最近的一本書上,

  • by Boston University economist James Bessen,

    作者是波斯頓大學的 經濟學家,詹姆士貝森,

  • raise an intriguing question:

    他提出了一個有趣的問題:

  • what are all those tellers doing,

    那麼多的銀行櫃台人員都在做什麼,

  • and why hasn't automation eliminated their employment by now?

    為什麼自動化服務 到現在還沒有讓他們失業?

  • If you think about it,

    回想一下,

  • many of the great inventions of the last 200 years

    過去 200 年來的偉大發明,

  • were designed to replace human labor.

    很多都是為了取代人力的。

  • Tractors were developed

    拖拉機的發明,

  • to substitute mechanical power for human physical toil.

    就是為了利用機械的動力 取代辛苦的人工勞力。

  • Assembly lines were engineered

    工廠的組裝線,

  • to replace inconsistent human handiwork

    就是為了利用機械的穩定性,

  • with machine perfection.

    取代手工的不穩定性。

  • Computers were programmed to swap out

    電腦程式化就是為了 以完美無缺的數位計算能力

  • error-prone, inconsistent human calculation

    取代人力計算時易出錯、 不一致的現象。

  • with digital perfection.

    這些發明都發揮了作用。

  • These inventions have worked.

    我們再也不用徒手挖溝渠,

  • We no longer dig ditches by hand,

    不用手工鍛鐵製作工具,

  • pound tools out of wrought iron

    甚至記帳都不用實體帳本了。

  • or do bookkeeping using actual books.

    但美國成年人的勞工市場就業率

  • And yet, the fraction of US adults employed in the labor market

    在現在 2016 年

  • is higher now in 2016

    竟比 125 年前的 1890 年還要高。

  • than it was 125 years ago, in 1890,

    而且在這 125 年間,

  • and it's risen in just about every decade

    每 10 年都有成長。

  • in the intervening 125 years.

    這產生了一個矛盾現象。

  • This poses a paradox.

    機械不斷地取代掉我們的工作,

  • Our machines increasingly do our work for us.

    但為什麼我們的勞工沒有過剩 且技術沒有被淘汰呢?

  • Why doesn't this make our labor redundant and our skills obsolete?

    為什麼還是有那麼多的工作岡位?

  • Why are there still so many jobs?

    (笑聲)

  • (Laughter)

    今晚,我會試著回答這些問題,

  • I'm going to try to answer that question tonight,

    並說明這對我們未來的工作 有甚麼意義,

  • and along the way, I'm going to tell you what this means for the future of work

    以及自動化對我們社會

  • and the challenges that automation does and does not pose

    所帶來的衝擊和無法撼動的地方。

  • for our society.

    為什麼有這麼多的工作崗位?

  • Why are there so many jobs?

    這實際上涉及到兩個 經濟學的基本原則。

  • There are actually two fundamental economic principles at stake.

    一個是與人類的聰明才智

  • One has to do with human genius

    及創造力有關。

  • and creativity.

    另一個與人類貪得無厭的天性有關,

  • The other has to do with human insatiability,

    或者你可以叫它做「貪婪」。

  • or greed, if you like.

    我先從 O 型環原則談起,

  • I'm going to call the first of these the O-ring principle,

    這個原則決定了我們工作的類型。

  • and it determines the type of work that we do.

    第二個原則是 「永不知足 」原則,

  • The second principle is the never-get-enough principle,

    它決定了會有多少個 實際存在的工作崗位。

  • and it determines how many jobs there actually are.

    我們先從 O 型環開始。

  • Let's start with the O-ring.

    ATM,自動提款機,

  • ATMs, automated teller machines,

    它給銀行櫃台人員的就業機會 帶來了兩種不同的作用。

  • had two countervailing effects on bank teller employment.

    各位都知道,ATM 取代了很多 櫃台人員的工作。

  • As you would expect, they replaced a lot of teller tasks.

    每家分行的櫃台人員 數量大約減少了三分之一。

  • The number of tellers per branch fell by about a third.

    但很快銀行就發現 設置新分行的成本變便宜了。

  • But banks quickly discovered that it also was cheaper to open new branches,

    同期內,分行的數量 成長了將近 40% 。

  • and the number of bank branches increased by about 40 percent

    結果就是,分行越多, 櫃台人員越多。

  • in the same time period.

    但這些銀行職員做的工作 與之前有點不同。

  • The net result was more branches and more tellers.

    隨著他們常規的現金業務減少,

  • But those tellers were doing somewhat different work.

    他們變得不太像出納人員

  • As their routine, cash-handling tasks receded,

    反而更像是個推銷人員,

  • they became less like checkout clerks

    需要與客戶培養感情,

  • and more like salespeople,

    幫他們解決問題,

  • forging relationships with customers,

    並推銷他們新產品, 像是信用卡、貸款、投資型產品:

  • solving problems

    更多的銀行職員從事著 對腦力認知需求很高的工作。

  • and introducing them to new products like credit cards, loans and investments:

    一個普遍的原則就是,

  • more tellers doing a more cognitively demanding job.

    我們從事的工作,

  • There's a general principle here.

    大都需要多樣化的技能,

  • Most of the work that we do

    既要腦力又要體力,

  • requires a multiplicity of skills,

    既要求專業素養又要敏銳的直覺,

  • and brains and brawn,

    用愛迪生的話來說, 就是天才加勤奮。

  • technical expertise and intuitive mastery,

    總的來說,其中一些工作自動化了,

  • perspiration and inspiration in the words of Thomas Edison.

    但不代表其它的工作就不必要。

  • In general, automating some subset of those tasks

    事實上,反而變得更重要,

  • doesn't make the other ones unnecessary.

    自動化反而增加了他們的經濟價值。

  • In fact, it makes them more important.

    我來舉一個明顯的例子。

  • It increases their economic value.

    1986 年,挑戰者號太空船

  • Let me give you a stark example.

    在起飛不到兩分鐘, 失事爆炸,墜毀在地表上。

  • In 1986, the space shuttle Challenger

    事後發現,肇事的原因,

  • exploded and crashed back down to Earth

    原來是推進火箭上 一個不起眼的 O 型環,

  • less than two minutes after takeoff.

    前一天晚上在發射台上凍僵了,

  • The cause of that crash, it turned out,

    在發射不久後失效,引發了悲劇。

  • was an inexpensive rubber O-ring in the booster rocket

    這個耗資十幾億美金的巨大工程,

  • that had frozen on the launchpad the night before

    結果是一個不起眼的 O 型環,

  • and failed catastrophically moments after takeoff.

    決定了是發射成功,

  • In this multibillion dollar enterprise

    還是失敗造成 七位太空人的死亡悲劇。

  • that simple rubber O-ring

    這場悲劇催生了一個巧妙的比喻──

  • made the difference between mission success

    《O 型環經濟理論》,

  • and the calamitous death of seven astronauts.

    由哈佛經濟學家麥可克雷姆

  • An ingenious metaphor for this tragic setting

    在挑戰者號失事後所命名。

  • is the O-ring production function,

    《O型環經濟理論》指出, 一項工作的誕生

  • named by Harvard economist Michael Kremer

    是由一系列互相連結的步驟

  • after the Challenger disaster.

    所組成的鏈,

  • The O-ring production function conceives of the work

    每一處連結都必須牢固 才能保證任務的成功。

  • as a series of interlocking steps,

    一旦有任何環節出問題,

  • links in a chain.

    該任務、產品或服務

  • Every one of those links must hold for the mission to succeed.

    就會失敗。

  • If any of them fails,

    這種不確定的緊張情況, 有著一種令人驚嘆的積極影響,

  • the mission, or the product or the service,

    因為它可以改善

  • comes crashing down.

    過程中任一環節的可靠性,

  • This precarious situation has a surprisingly positive implication,

    並對其它環節的改善, 起了價值增加的作用。

  • which is that improvements

    具體來說,如果大多數的連結 都很脆弱且很容易壞,

  • in the reliability of any one link in the chain

    那麼每個環節的可靠與否,

  • increases the value of improving any of the other links.

    就顯得不那麼重要了。

  • Concretely, if most of the links are brittle and prone to breakage,

    反正很有可能其它的東西也會壞掉。

  • the fact that your link is not that reliable

    但一旦其它的環節 變得相形穩固可靠時,

  • is not that important.

    每一個環節就變得很重要了。

  • Probably something else will break anyway.

    到了一個極限, 每一個環節都是勝敗的關鍵。

  • But as all the other links become robust and reliable,

    O 型環對挑戰者號很重要的原因,

  • the importance of your link becomes more essential.

    是因為其它環節都運作地很完美。

  • In the limit, everything depends upon it.

    如果挑戰者號的太空設備

  • The reason the O-ring was critical to space shuttle Challenger

    類似 Widows 2000 作業系統──

  • is because everything else worked perfectly.

    (笑聲)

  • If the Challenger were kind of the space era equivalent

    O 型環的可靠性就不那麼重要了,

  • of Microsoft Windows 2000 --

    因為機械會直接當機。

  • (Laughter)

    (笑聲)

  • the reliability of the O-ring wouldn't have mattered

    這裡有個更宏觀的觀點,

  • because the machine would have crashed.

    人類所扮演的角色就像 O 型環。

  • (Laughter)

    沒錯,ATM 是可以 作一些現金交易的任務,

  • Here's the broader point.

    速度也比櫃台人員快,

  • In much of the work that we do, we are the O-rings.

    但卻無法完全取代櫃台人員。

  • Yes, ATMs could do certain cash-handling tasks

    因為他們的問題解決能力,

  • faster and better than tellers,

    及他們維持客戶關係的能力, 增加了他們的重要性。

  • but that didn't make tellers superfluous.

    同樣的原則也適用於蓋房子、

  • It increased the importance of their problem-solving skills

    診斷及照顧病人、

  • and their relationships with customers.

    或者在教室裡

  • The same principle applies if we're building a building,

    向一整間的高中生教課。

  • if we're diagnosing and caring for a patient,

    一旦我們的工具改進了,

  • or if we are teaching a class

    科技反而放大了我們的引響力,

  • to a roomful of high schoolers.

    提高了我們專業度、

  • As our tools improve,

    判斷力及創造力的重要性。

  • technology magnifies our leverage

    講到這,帶出了第二原則:

  • and increases the importance of our expertise

    永不知足。

  • and our judgment and our creativity.

    你可能會想,好, O 型環理論,我懂了,

  • And that brings me to the second principle:

    人類所從事的工作將會很重要。

  • never get enough.

    這些任務無法由機械完成, 但又不能不做。

  • You may be thinking, OK, O-ring, got it,

    但這無法說明我們還需要多少工作。

  • that says the jobs that people do will be important.

    如果你仔細想想, 這有點無法自圓其說,

  • They can't be done by machines, but they still need to be done.

    一旦我們對某樣東西 有了足夠的生產力,

  • But that doesn't tell me how many jobs there will need to be.

    我們基本上不就會自動失業了嗎?

  • If you think about it, isn't it kind of self-evident

    1900 年,40% 的美國就業人口,

  • that once we get sufficiently productive at something,

    從事的工作都是農業。

  • we've basically worked our way out of a job?

    如今,農業人口比例已經少於 2%。

  • In 1900, 40 percent of all US employment

    為什麼農夫會變得這麼少?

  • was on farms.

    不是因為我們吃得少。

  • Today, it's less than two percent.

    (笑聲)

  • Why are there so few farmers today?

    百年來農業生產力的成長,

  • It's not because we're eating less.

    讓我們現在只需數百萬個農夫,

  • (Laughter)

    就能養活全國的 3.2 億人口。

  • A century of productivity growth in farming

    這真的是個很大的進步,

  • means that now, a couple of million farmers

    但這也意味著農產業中, 也只剩這麼多類似 O 型環的工作。

  • can feed a nation of 320 million.

    所以很明顯地, 科技會消彌掉工作機會。

  • That's amazing progress,

    農業只是其中一個案例。

  • but it also means there are only so many O-ring jobs left in farming.

    還有很多類似的案例。

  • So clearly, technology can eliminate jobs.

    但事實是,一個單一產品、 服務或產業的表現,

  • Farming is only one example.

    不能代表總體經濟的實質表現。

  • There are many others like it.

    很多我們現在從事的產業──

  • But what's true about a single product or service or industry

    健康、醫療、

  • has never been true about the economy as a whole.

    理財、保險、

  • Many of the industries in which we now work --

    電子、電腦──

  • health and medicine,

    在上一世紀僅有少數人在從業 或根本還不存在。

  • finance and insurance,

    很多我們花很多錢消費的產品──

  • electronics and computing --

    空調、休旅車、

  • were tiny or barely existent a century ago.

    電腦、手機設備──

  • Many of the products that we spend a lot of our money on --

    這些在上一世紀,不是貴得要死,

  • air conditioners, sport utility vehicles,

    不然就是還沒有被發明出來。

  • computers and mobile devices --

    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,

  • were unattainably expensive,

    我們就會發明新產品、 新想法、產生新的服務,

  • or just hadn't been invented a century ago.

    來控制我們的注意力、

  • As automation frees our time, increases the scope of what is possible,

    占據我們的時間,

  • we invent new products, new ideas, new services

    並刺激消費。

  • that command our attention,

    你可能會想有些東西 真的是多餘的──

  • occupy our time

    極限瑜珈、冒險旅遊、

  • and spur consumption.

    口袋怪獸──

  • You may think some of these things are frivolous --

    我都同意。

  • extreme yoga, adventure tourism,

    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。

  • Pokémon GO --

    2015 年的一般勞動階層,

  • and I might agree with you.

    如果想獲得 1915 年的 一般生活水準,

  • But people desire these things, and they're willing to work hard for them.

    只要每年工作 17 周就可達到,

  • The average worker in 2015

    只要三分之一的時間。

  • wanting to attain the average living standard in 1915

    但大部分的人不會那樣做。

  • could do so by working just 17 weeks a year,

    他們寧願選擇努力工作

  • one third of the time.

    來賺取科技所帶給他們的精神食糧。

  • But most people don't choose to do that.

    豐富的物質永遠 消除不了內心的空虛。

  • They are willing to work hard

    套一句經濟學家 托斯丹范伯倫說的話:

  • to harvest the technological bounty that is available to them.

    「發明是需求之母。 」

  • Material abundance has never eliminated perceived scarcity.

    現在……

  • In the words of economist Thorstein Veblen,

    如果你同意上述的兩個觀點,

  • invention is the mother of necessity.

    O 型環原則以及永不知足原則,

  • Now ...

    那你就會認同我說的,

  • So if you accept these two principles,

    一定會有工作岡位產生。

  • the O-ring principle and the never-get-enough principle,

    那是否意味著都不用煩惱了呢?

  • then you agree with me.

    自動化、就業機會、 機器人和工作──

  • There will be jobs.

    它們自己會自動幫我們安排好?

  • Does that mean there's nothing to worry about?

    不。

  • Automation, employment, robots and jobs --

    這不是我的論點。

  • it'll all take care of itself?

    自動化為我們帶來了財富,

  • No.

    讓我們可以用 更少的時間做更多的事。

  • That is not my argument.

    沒有經濟規則說,

  • Automation creates wealth

    我們會好好地善用 自動化所帶來的財富,

  • by allowing us to do more work in less time.

    這的確值得我們擔心。

  • There is no economic law

    想想這兩個國家,

  • that says that we will use that wealth well,

    挪威和沙烏地阿拉伯。

  • and that is worth worrying about.

    兩個國家都有豐盛的石油,

  • Consider two countries,

    他們的錢好像是直接從 地底下的洞口噴上來的。

  • Norway and Saudi Arabia.

    (笑聲)

  • Both oil-rich nations,

    但兩個國家利用這筆財富 幫助人民繁榮、

  • it's like they have money spurting out of a hole in the ground.

    幫助人民成功的方式卻不相同。

  • (Laughter)

    挪威是個欣欣向榮的民主國家。

  • But they haven't used that wealth equally well to foster human prosperity,

    總體而言,它的人民都過很舒服。

  • human prospering.

    國家人民的幸福指數排名,

  • Norway is a thriving democracy.

    基本上都在第一到第四之間徘徊。

  • By and large, its citizens work and play well together.

    而沙烏地阿拉伯卻是個 君主專制的國家,

  • It's typically numbered between first and fourth

    很多人民的生活水平, 都沒有機會可以獲得改善。

  • in rankings of national happiness.

    國家人民的幸福指數, 全球排名基本上都落在 35 名左右,

  • Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy

    這麼有錢的國家,排名竟這麼落後。

  • in which many citizens lack a path for personal advancement.

    只是讓大家比較一下,

  • It's typically ranked 35th among nations in happiness,

    美國大都排在第 12 到第 13 之間。

  • which is low for such a wealthy nation.

    這兩個國家的差別

  • Just by way of comparison,

    不在他們有錢與否,

  • the US is typically ranked around 12th or 13th.

    也不在科技是否發達。

  • The difference between these two countries

    而是他們的制度。

  • is not their wealth

    挪威長期來致力於

  • and it's not their technology.

    建立一個充滿機會 與經濟活躍的社會。

  • It's their institutions.

    雖然沙烏地阿拉伯的 生活水平已經有提升,

  • Norway has invested to build a society

    但人民仍飽受壓抑。

  • with opportunity and economic mobility.

    兩個國家都很有錢,

  • Saudi Arabia has raised living standards

    但人民卻有著不同的幸福。

  • while frustrating many other human strivings.

    接下來,我要來談談 我們目前所面臨的挑戰,

  • Two countries, both wealthy,

    自動化給我們所帶來的挑戰。

  • not equally well off.

    這挑戰不是因為我們會沒有工作。

  • And this brings me to the challenge that we face today,

    美國自金融海嘯以來,

  • the challenge that automation poses for us.

    已經增加了 1400 萬個就業機會。

  • The challenge is not that we're running out of work.

    我們的挑戰是,這些工作

  • The US has added 14 million jobs

    都不是好工作,

  • since the depths of the Great Recession.

    因為很多人都不適任

  • The challenge is that many of those jobs

    目前已經創造出來的工作。

  • are not good jobs,

    美國以及其它 已開發國家的就業環境,

  • and many citizens cannot qualify for the good jobs

    現在看起來像是個啞鈴,

  • that are being created.

    兩端都特別重。

  • Employment growth in the United States and in much of the developed world

    其中一端,

  • looks something like a barbell

    這群人受高等教育、有高薪工作,

  • with increasing poundage on either end of the bar.

    像是醫生、護士、 程式設計師、工程師,

  • On the one hand,

    市場及銷售經理。

  • you have high-education, high-wage jobs

    這些工作的就業機會相當穩固, 就業機會會持續成長。

  • like doctors and nurses, programmers and engineers,

    同樣地,低技術工作的 就業機會成長也很穩固,

  • marketing and sales managers.

    低學歷工作像是餐廳服務生、

  • Employment is robust in these jobs, employment growth.

    清潔、保全人員、

  • Similarly, employment growth is robust in many low-skill,

    居家健康照顧。