In this talk today, I want to present a different idea

今天我要用不同的角度解釋

for why investing in early childhood education

為何早期幼兒教育

makes sense as a public investment.

算的上是一種公共投資

It's a different idea, because usually,

這是一種不同的見解

when people talk about early childhood programs,

因為通常談到幼兒教育

they talk about all the wonderful benefits for participants

都只想到孩子們的好處及利益

in terms of former participants, in preschool,

對於上過幼兒園的孩童來說

they have better K-12 test scores,

他們從小到大的成績都特別優異

better adult earnings.

長大後的薪水也較高

Now that's all very important,

的確，這些都很重要

but what I want to talk about is what preschool does

但是，我今天想談的

for state economies

是幼兒教育對一個州的經濟影響

and for promoting state economic development.

以及在經濟發展上的重要性

And that's actually crucial

主要原因是

because if we're going to get increased investment

如果我們想增加

in early childhood programs,

幼兒教育的投資

we need to interest state governments in this.

就必須讓州政府重視這件事情

The federal government has a lot on its plate,

聯邦政府要處理很多事情

and state governments are going to have to step up.

因此州政府應該站出來

So we have to appeal to them,

我們要呼籲

the legislators in the state government,

各州的立法機關

and turn to something they understand,

用他們能夠理解的方式

that they have to promote the economic development

請機關想方設法

of their state economy.

促進該州的經濟發展

Now, by promoting economic development,

現在，藉由促進經濟發展

I don't mean anything magical.

這不是神話故事

All I mean is, is that early childhood education

我想說的是，幼兒教育

can bring more and better jobs to a state

能為該州帶來更多、更好的工作

and can thereby promote higher per capita earnings

藉此提高

for the state's residents.

該州居民的平均所得

Now, I think it's fair to say that when people think about

我想大家都很清楚，當我們想到

state and local economic development,

州與地方的經濟發展時

they don't generally think first about what they're doing

沒有人會優先想到

about childcare and early childhood programs.

兒童保育及教育

I know this. I've spent most of my career researching these programs.

我了解，因為我終其一生在做這項研究

I've talked to a lot of directors

和許多州政府的經濟發展部門主管

of state economic development agencies about these issues,

及許多立法者

a lot of legislators about these issues.

討論過這個議題

When legislators and others think about economic development,

在大夥談到經濟發展時

what they first of all think about are business tax incentives,

他們第一個想到的 就是稅費獎勵方案、

property tax abatements, job creation tax credits,

財產稅減免、 創造工作職位稅務優惠...等等

you know, there are a million of these programs all over the place.

有上百萬種這類的方案

So for example, states compete very vigorously

舉例來說，州政府間競爭激烈

to attract new auto plants or expanded auto plants.

為了吸引汽車廠進駐或是擴建

They hand out all kinds of business tax breaks.

他們會提出各式各樣的減稅方案

Now, those programs can make sense

如果這些方案真的能增加設廠點

if they in fact induce new location decisions,

那麼一切都說得通

and the way they can make sense is,

說得通的原因是

by creating more and better jobs,

藉由增加更多、更好的工作機會

they raise employment rates, raise per capita earnings of state residents.

提高了就業率及平均所得

So there is a benefit to state residents

居民能因此獲得利益

that corresponds to the costs that they're paying

他們繳稅給這些減稅方案

by paying for these business tax breaks.

而能得到這個好處

My argument is essentially that early childhood programs

我的論點是，幼兒教育

can do exactly the same thing,

也能達到同樣的目標

create more and better jobs, but in a different way.

用另一種方式 來創造更多、更好的工作機會

It's a somewhat more indirect way.

只是比較間接一點

These programs can promote more and better jobs by,

這些計畫可以促進更多的好工作

you build it, you invest in high-quality preschool,

藉由建立、投資優質幼兒園

it develops the skills of your local workforce

能增進地方勞工的技術

if enough of them stick around, and, in turn,

前提是有足夠的人留在當地

that higher-quality local workforce

那麼這些高品質勞工

will be a key driver of creating jobs and creating

將會是創造當地社區

higher earnings per capita in the local community.

工作機會與提高所得的金鑰

Now, let me turn to some numbers on this.

現在，來看看一些統計數據

Okay. If you look at the research evidence --

你可以看到大量的研究證明

that's extensive -- on how much early childhood programs

有上幼兒園的孩童

affect the educational attainment, wages and skills

對於未來的學歷、薪資與技能

of former participants in preschool as adults,

造成多大的影響

you take those known effects,

以這些實際狀況

you take how many of those folks will be expected

估算看看，有多少人會留在家鄉

to stick around the state or local economy and not move out,

或是當地企業 而不會進都會區工作

and you take research on how much skills

然後看看他們的技能 能夠創造多少工作機會

drive job creation, you will conclude,

你會在這三種研究中

from these three separate lines of research,

得到一個結論——

that for every dollar invested in early childhood programs,

在幼兒教育中多投資 1 美元

the per capita earnings of state residents

該州居民的平均所得

go up by two dollars and 78 cents,

就會成長 2.78 美元

so that's a three-to-one return.

因此這是三比一的報酬率

Now you can get much higher returns,

而且還能有高達十六比一的報酬率

of up to 16-to-one, if you include anti-crime benefits,

如果把降低犯罪率也算進來

if you include benefits to former preschool participants

還有把在此就讀幼兒教育

who move to some other state,

後來搬到其它地區的人也算進來

but there's a good reason for focusing on these three dollars

我們有很好的理由著眼於這三美元

because this is salient and important

因為這對立法者

to state legislators and state policy makers,

和制定州政策的人來說極其重要

and it's the states that are going to have to act.

州政府應該有所動作

So there is this key benefit that is relevant

因此對制定經濟發展政策的人來說

to state policy makers in terms of economic development.

這項利益是十分關鍵的因素

Now, one objection you often hear,

常常能聽到人們反對的聲音

or maybe you don't hear it because people are too polite to say it, is,

或者你沒聽到，因為大家講得很含蓄

why should I pay more taxes

我為什麼要繳更多稅

to invest in other people's children?

來投資別人的小孩？

What's in it for me?

這跟我有什麼關係？

And the trouble with that objection,

重點問題在於

it reflects a total misunderstanding

它反應出人們完全不了解

of how much local economies

地方經濟對相互依賴人們之間的影響

involve everyone being interdependent.

地方經濟對相互依賴人們之間的影響

Specifically, the interdependency here is, is that

特別是在這裡我們所說的相互依賴

there are huge spillovers of skills --

指的是大量技職人口的外移－－

that when other people's children get more skills,

當別人的小孩有更多的技能

that actually increases the prosperity of everyone,

就能夠讓每個人都富裕

including people whose skills don't change.

即使那些人的技能都未改變

So for example, numerous research studies have shown

舉例來說無數的研究報告指出

if you look at what really drives

如果你檢視

the growth rate of metropolitan areas,

影響大都市成長率的主因

it's not so much low taxes, low cost, low wages;

其實跟較低的稅額、支出、薪資關係不大

it's the skills of the area. Particularly, the proxy for skills

而是和該地區的技能有關

that people use is percentage of college graduates in the area.

尤其是人們所雇用的代工 等於該地區學院畢業生的比率

So when you look, for example, at metropolitan areas

比如說，當你在像波士頓

such as the Boston area, Minneapolis-St. Paul,

明尼亞波利．聖保羅和矽谷等大都市

Silicon Valley, these areas are not doing well economically

這些地區在經濟上的表現不佳

because they're low-cost.

因為它們很廉價

I don't know if you ever tried to buy a house in Silicon Valley.

不知道你有沒有試過在矽谷買房子

It's not exactly a low-cost proposition.

其實根本不是廉價的問題

They are growing because they have high levels of skills.

他們會成長是因為有很強的技能

So when we invest in other people's children,

因此當我們投資別人的小孩

and build up those skills, we increase the overall job growth

然後發展那些技能，我們就能全方位地

of a metro area.

增加大都市的工作機會

As another example, if we look

另一個例子是

at what determines an individual's wages,

當我們尋找影響一個人薪資的原因

and we do statistical exploration of that, what determines wages,

然後用統計來找出決定薪資的關鍵

we know that the individual's wages will depend, in part,

我們就會發現，個人薪資

on that individual's education,

會受到個人學歷的影響

for example whether or not they have a college degree.

好比說有沒有大學文憑

One of the very interesting facts is that, in addition,

很有趣的是

we find that even once we hold constant, statistically,

我們還發現了，即使在數據上

the effect of your own education,

去除學歷所造成的影響

the education of everyone else in your metropolitan area

大都市中其他人的學歷

also affects your wages.

還是會影響你的薪資

So specifically, if you hold constant your education,

具體來說如果你的學歷不變

you stick in percentage of college graduates in your metro area,

但是大都市中大專畢業生比率提高

you will find that has a significant positive effect on your wages

你會發現，即使自己的學歷依舊

without changing your education at all.

還是會對你的薪資 帶來很明顯、正向影響

In fact, this effect is so strong

事實上，這個影響大到

that when someone gets a college degree,

當某個人拿到學院學位

the spillover effects of this on the wages

就會造成大都市中

of others in the metropolitan area

其他人薪資的成長

are actually greater than the direct effects.

甚至大於對他們自身的影響

So if someone gets a college degree, their lifetime earnings

因此如果有某個人拿到學院學歷

go up by a huge amount, over 700,000 dollars.

他們的終身所得 會大幅成長超過七十萬美元

There's an effect on everyone else in the metro area

大都市中大專院校畢業生比例提升

of driving up the percentage of college graduates in the metro area,

對大都市裡的其他人都有影響

and if you add that up -- it's a small effect for each person,

如果加總起來——對每一個人來說雖小

but if you add that up across all the people in the metro area,

但是如果加總對整體都市人口的影響

you actually get that the increase in wages for everyone else

你會發現每個人的薪資都上升了

in the metropolitan area adds up to almost a million dollars.

合計大約有上百萬美元

That's actually greater than the direct benefits

這其實比一個人選擇要接受教育

of the person choosing to get education.

直接得到的好處還多

Now, what's going on here?

現在，發生了什麼事？

What can explain these huge spillover effects of education?

有什麼可以解釋 教育上龐大的溢出效應？

Well, let's think about it this way.

讓我們用另一種方式來思考看看

I can be the most skilled person in the world,

假設我是世界上技術最好的人

but if everyone else at my firm lacks skills,

但是我公司裡的每個人都很缺乏技術

my employer is going to find it more difficult

我的老闆就會發現

to introduce new technology, new production techniques.

要引進新的生產技術很難

So as a result, my employer is going to be less productive.

結果就是老闆會得到較少的生產量

They will not be able to afford to pay me as good wages.

他們就沒有辦法付高一點的薪水給我

Even if everyone at my firm has good skills,

即使我公司裡的每個人都有很好的技術

if the workers at the suppliers to my firm

如果我的原料供應商的員工

do not have good skills,

技術不好

my firm is going to be less competitive

我的公司也會缺乏競爭力

competing in national and international markets.

無法在國內或國際間的市場競爭

And again, the firm that's less competitive

同樣地，如果公司缺乏競爭力

will not be able to pay as good wages,

就沒有辦法付出較好的薪水

and then, particularly in high-tech businesses,

結果就變成——尤其是高科技的產業

they're constantly stealing ideas and workers from other businesses.

會不斷地偷別人的點子和員工

So clearly the productivity of firms in Silicon Valley

因此，很顯然矽谷的公司生產力

has a lot to do with the skills not only of the workers at their firm,

不只與他們公司員工的技術有關

but the workers at all the other firms in the metro area.

也和這個大都市其它所有公司的員工有關

So as a result, if we can invest in other people's children

因此如果你可以透過幼兒園

through preschool and other early childhood programs

以及高品質的幼兒教育

that are high-quality, we not only help those children,

來投資別人的小孩

we help everyone in the metropolitan area

我們不只幫助那些孩子 還幫助了在都市中的每個人

gain in wages and we'll have the metropolitan area

能有更好的薪水

gain in job growth.

也能在都市中有更多的工作機會

Another objection used sometimes here

另一個反對因素通常是

to invest in early childhood programs

人口的外移會影響

is concern about people moving out.

人們投資幼兒教育的意願

So, you know, maybe Ohio's thinking about investing

也許俄亥俄州會想投資

in more preschool education

更多的幼兒園

for children in Columbus, Ohio,

給在俄亥俄州哥倫布市的小孩

but they're worried that these little Buckeyes will,

但是他們擔心小小七葉樹（俄亥俄州人）

for some strange reason, decide to move to Ann Arbor, Michigan,

可能會因為某種奇怪的原因 決定搬到密西根州的安娜堡

and become Wolverines.

然後變成貂熊（密西根人）

And maybe Michigan will be thinking about investing

也許密西根人會想要投資

in preschool in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and be worried

當地安娜堡的幼兒園

these little Wolverines will end up moving to Ohio and becoming Buckeyes.

然後密西根人就會擔心 小貂熊會搬到俄刻俄州當七葉樹

And so they'll both underinvest because everyone's going to move out.

因此他們都因為擔心 人口外移而投資不足

Well, the reality is, if you look at the data,

然而，事實上數據顯示

Americans aren't as hyper-mobile as people sometimes assume.

美國人並非如大家所想得那麼愛搬家

The data is that over 60 percent of Americans

數據顯示超過六成的美國人

spend most of their working careers

終其一生

in the state they were born in, over 60 percent.

都在他們出生的州裡工作，有超過六成！

That percentage does not vary much from state to state.

每個州的數據差別不大

It doesn't vary much with the state's economy,

也和各州的經濟影響不大

whether it's depressed or booming,

不管景氣是好是壞

it doesn't vary much over time.

時間所造成的影響也不大

So the reality is, if you invest in kids,

事實是如果你想投資孩童

they will stay.

他們會想留在家鄉

Or at least, enough of them will stay

至少，大部份的人會留下來

that it will pay off for your state economy.

他們會為家鄉的經濟盡一份心力

Okay, so to sum up, there is a lot of research evidence

總而言之有許多研究證明了

that early childhood programs, if run in a high-quality way,

幼兒教育如果能有好的品質

pay off in higher adult skills.

就能夠帶來成人良好的技能

There's a lot of research evidence

有很多研究指出

that those folks will stick around the state economy,

這些人會留在家鄉

and there's a lot of evidence that having more workers

也有很多研究指出，在當地

with higher skills in your local economy

如果有更多高技能的員工

pays off in higher wages and job growth for your local economy,

就能夠帶來更高的薪水 和當地更多的工作機會

and if you calculate the numbers for each dollar,

如果你仔細計算

we get about three dollars back

每一美元能得到的回饋

in benefits for the state economy.

將是三美元

So in my opinion, the research evidence is compelling

因此我認為研究的可信度高

and the logic of this is compelling.

而且這一整套邏輯也很有說服力

So what are the barriers to getting it done?

那麼達到目標有哪些阻礙呢？

Well, one obvious barrier is cost.

最明顯的就是金錢

So if you look at what it would cost

如果每個州政府全面投資

if every state government invested

四歲孩童、全天候的幼兒園

in universal preschool at age four, full-day preschool at age four,

要花多少錢

the total annual national cost would be roughly

每年的國家支出總額大約是

30 billion dollars.

三百億美元

So, 30 billion dollars is a lot of money.

三百億美元很多

On the other hand, if you reflect on

另一方面，換算看看

that the U.S.'s population is over 300 million,

美國的總人口數高達三億人

we're talking about an amount of money

我們所說的總金額

that amounts to 100 dollars per capita.

大約是每人平均一百美元

Okay? A hundred dollars per capita, per person,

每人平均一百美元

is something that any state government can afford to do.

這是每個國家都能夠負擔得起的

It's just a simple matter of political will to do it.

這只是一個簡單的政策

And, of course, as I mentioned,

當然，如我剛才所提到的