作者:
kwei (光影)
2020-02-09 05:17:23凱因斯錯了，青年世代過超慘
苦勞網
https://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/93974
譯者 /張宗坤 政大勞工所碩士生
【編按】1930年，英國經濟學家凱因斯寫下〈我們後代的經濟前景〉，他預言資本主義在
發展100年後，將很有可能解決人類的經濟問題，帶領人們走向物質豐裕和閒暇的時代。
但正如本文作者指出，凱因斯的預言未曾實現，新世代的青年反而持續苦於工資停滯、生
態危機等資本主義制度造成的深層問題，而漸漸傾向於左翼社會主義。
原文標題"Keynes was wrong. Gen Z will have it worse."，刊載於《麻省理工科技評
論》（MIT Technology Review）。
網頁： https://tinyurl.com/sjjayxy
The founder of macroeconomics predicted that capitalism would last for
approximately 450 years. That’s the length of time between 1580, when Queen
Elizabeth invested Spanish gold stolen by Francis Drake, and 2030, the year
by which John Maynard Keynes assumed humanity would have solved the problem
of our needs and moved on to higher concerns.
宏觀經濟學的創始人凱因斯曾預測，資本主義大概可以存在450年左右。這個時間大概介
於1580和2030年間，也就是從伊莉莎白女皇投資了航海家德瑞克（Francis Drake）偷走
的西班牙黃金，直到凱因斯預言人類將能夠滿足我們自身的需求，並將視野投向更高層次
的年代。
It’s true that today the system seems on the edge of transformation, but not
in the way Keynes hoped. Gen Z’s fate was supposed to be to relax into a
life of leisure and creativity. Instead it is bracing for stagnant wages and
ecological crisis.
確實，資本主義這個系統看似正處在轉型的邊緣，但卻不是朝凱因斯所希望的方向轉變。
Z世代的命運，原本應該是能夠在休閒娛樂和創造力的生命得到放鬆，但如今卻必須為工
資停滯和生態危機做準備。
In a famous essay from the early 1930s called “Economic Possibilities for
Our Grandchildren,” Keynes imagined the world 100 years in the future. He
spotted phenomena like job automation (which he called “technological
unemployment”) coming, but those changes, he believed, augured progress:
progress toward a better society, progress toward collective liberation from
work. He was worried that the transition to this world without toil might be
psychologically difficult, and so he suggested that three-hour workdays could
serve as a transitional program, allowing us to put off the profound question
of what to do when there’s nothing left to do.
早在凱因斯1930年代早期的名篇，〈我們後代的經濟前景〉（Economic Possibilities
for Our Grandchildren）一文中，他就已預言了百年後的世界樣貌。凱因斯點出了某些
現象，如工作自動化（他稱之為「技術性失業」）的到來，但他相信這些轉變是進步的預
告：朝著更好的社會進步，朝著人類集體從工作中被解放出來的方向進步。因為擔心這個
不需辛勞工作就能得來的轉變，將會造成心理上的負擔，他建議可以把每天工作三小時當
作過渡方案，讓我們可以放下「沒別的事可做時該做什麼」的嚴重問題。
Well, we know the grandchildren in the title of Keynes’s essay: they’re the
kids and younger adults of today. The prime-age workforce of 2030 was born
between 1976 and 2005. And though the precise predictions he made about the
rate of economic growth and accumulation were strikingly accurate, what they
mean for this generation is very different from what he imagined.
我們其實認識凱因斯文章標題裡頭的「後代」是誰：他們就是今天的孩子和年輕人們。
2030年的成年勞動力，是在1976年到2005年間出生的。儘管他針對經濟成長率與經濟積累
做出的精確預測驚人地可靠，這些數值對於這個世代的意義，已遠不同於他所想像。
Instead of progress toward a labor-free utopia, America has experienced
disappearing jobs as a kind of economic climate change. Apocalyptic forecasts
loom while poor and working-class communities take the brunt of the early
impacts: wage stagnation, deregulated and unsafe workplaces, an epidemic of
opioid addiction. The increasingly profligate wealth on the other end of
society is no less disturbing.
與其說是朝向不需勞動的烏托邦的方向進步，美國反倒正體會到對工作的失望，猶如某種
經濟上的氣候變遷。預言中的災難不斷逼近，窮人與勞動階級首當其衝：工資停滯、工作
場所不受管制且變得危險，還有成癮物質像瘟疫地流行。社會另一端不斷成長、恣意揮霍
的財富，也同樣讓人感到不安。
What the hell happened? To figure out why Generation Z isn’t going to be
Generation EZ, we have to ask some fundamental questions about economics,
technology, and progress. After we assumed for a century that a better world
would appear on top of our accumulated stuff, the assumptions appear
unfounded. Things are getting worse.
到底發生了什麼鳥事？為了找出新世代（Z Generation）沒有變成輕鬆世代（EZ
Generation）的原因，我們必須質問一些關於經濟、科技與進步的根本問題。我們假設在
我們累積的成果之上將出現一個更好的社會，已經假設了一個世紀，但這個假設似乎沒有
根據。事情變得越來越糟。
//////
As recently as the first web boom two decades ago, it was still possible to
talk about technological development and economic expansion as being good for
everybody. Take Webvan, the early (and subsequently much derided) grocery
delivery startup. The company planned to combine the efficiencies of the
internet and other advances in information and logistics to provide
better-quality products at lower prices, delivered directly to consumers by
higher-paid and better-trained workers. It’s a univocal, Keynesian vision of
development: not only do all involved benefit individually as consumers,
employees, or capitalists, but society itself steps together up the mountain
toward the elimination of necessity and a higher plane of being.
二十年前最近一波的網路爆發，那時還大致可以說，技術發展與經濟擴張對大家都好。以
早期（後來更多是嘲諷的語氣）的雜貨新創電商Webvan為例，這家公司規劃結合網路及其
他資訊與物流科技的優勢，以更便宜的價格提供品質更好的商品，透過良好訓練的高薪員
工，直接送到消費者手中。這是個非常凱因斯式的發展觀點：這不只對所有個別參與其中
的消費者、受僱者和資本家有利，對整個社會來說，也是齊心協力解決需求，朝著更高層
次的生存方向高昇。
When Webvan went belly-up, analysts assumed it meant the core idea was
hopelessly wrong: it just doesn’t make sense to use human capacity to bring
individual people their supermarket orders. Harvard Business School professor
John Deighton, when asked about the future of the industry in 2001, said, “
Home-delivered groceries? Never.” Yet less than 20 years later I can have
one of the world’s few trillion-dollar companies (Amazon) deliver my order
via its grocery brand (Whole Foods) in an hour. And if that’s not fast
enough, there are various platform services (Instacart, Postmates, and
others) through which I can hire someone to go pick my order up and bring it
to me immediately. Buzzing clouds of freelance servants, always in motion.
Webvan倒閉時，分析家們認為這代表上述的核心理念無可救藥地錯了：透過人力滿足所有
的超市個人訂單，似乎是不可能的。哈佛經濟學院的教授John Deighton在被問到2001年
的未來經濟圖景時說道，「雜貨送到家？沒門的事。」然而，不到二十年內，我可以透過
世上少數數兆規模的公司（Amazon），藉由它們的雜貨品牌（Whole Foods），將我的訂
單在數小時內送達。如果我覺得這還不夠快，還有好幾間不同的平台服務商（Instacart
、Postmates或者其他公司），我可以透過它們麻煩某人幫我取件，再馬上帶來給我。一
群鬧哄哄的打工族僕人，隨時等候差遣。
For consumers, these services have made life more convenient. For owners,
stock prices and corporate profits have been cruising higher and higher for
decades. But as workers, we have suffered. Gone is the Webvan vision of
highly trained, highly paid, upwardly mobile, stock-holding delivery drivers.
Amazon’s treatment of its workers at all levels is so intensely exploitative
that former employees have created their own form of writing: the “
report-back,” an essay that exposes the particular, common hardships of
working at the firm. It’s one part worker’s inquiry, one part trauma diary.
對消費者來說，這些服務讓生活變得更便利。對老闆來說，股票價格和公司利潤在過去數
十年內穩定增長。但作為勞工，他們卻吃足了苦頭。類似Webvan這樣，希望送貨員能高度
熟練、領高薪、向上移動，甚至可以持股的看法，已經一去不復返。在任何程度上，
Amazon高壓地剝削著所有層級的員工，導致某些前員工甚至開始形成了獨特的寫作文類：
「回饋報告」（report-back），這些文章揭露了公司工作上常見的特定困難。這些文章
既反映工人們的疑惑，也是某種療傷日記。
Here’s how one warehouse employee described the workflow:
以下是某位倉庫員工描述的工作流程：
“The AI is your boss, your boss’s boss, and your boss’s boss’s boss: it
sets the target productivity rates, the shift quotas, and the division of
labor on the floor ... Ultimately what this means to you is that you’ll
rarely work with the same people twice, you’ll be isolated, put on random
tasks from shift to shift, slog for stowing or sorting or picking or packing
rates well exceeding your average—because your supervisor told you so, and
the program told him before that.”
「人工智慧是你的老闆，也是你老闆的老闆，還是你老闆的老闆的老闆：它決定了目標產
率、輪班份額，以及這一層樓的工作分工……這對你而言的最終意義是，你很少跟相同人共事兩次以上，你將被孤立，在這個班、
到那個班，被佈置隨機的任務，忙著堆放或是分類或者揀選或者包裝，頻率遠超出你平均
所能——因為你的主管要你這麼做，在這之前程式又要他對你這麼做。」
Rather than relieving workers from toil, improvements in technology grind out
their efficiencies by molding laborers into unreasonable shapes. Across
departments, Amazon workers report being forced by the circumstances of their
jobs to urinate in bottles and trash cans. Using layers of subcontracting
agreements, the largest firms insulate themselves from responsibility to and
for their lowest-wage workers. Recent investigations into Amazon’s last-mile
shipping reveal exhausted drivers whose required carelessness has,
predictably, been known to kill people. The company remains, as far as the
business community is concerned, exemplary.
比起將勞工從辛勞的工作中解放出來，技術的進步反倒將勞動者形塑成不合理的樣貌，摧
毀了他們的效率。Amazon不同部門的工人曾回報過，他們為工作環境所迫，不得不尿在瓶
子或是垃圾桶裡。透過採用一層層的外包合約，這間最大的公司免於為這些最低薪的工人
負起任何一點責任。近來針對Amazon最後一哩運程（last-mile shipping）的調查顯示，
精疲力竭的司機，很可能將因他們的粗心造成傷亡。然而就整個企業界而言，這間公司仍
是榜樣。
Everywhere, the idea of liberation from work seems like a dream. Workers
making parts for iPhones have been exposed to toxic chemicals; Taiwanese
manufacturing giant Foxconn is regularly under the microscope for poor labor
conditions. Instacart delivery workers went on strike to complain about
changes that led to fewer tips; two days later the company cut their bonuses
(Instacart says the two events are unrelated). Gig workers on the audio
platform Rev.com recently discovered an overnight pay cut that meant Rev now
takes 70 cents of every dollar a customer spends on getting audio
transcribed, and they get a mere 30.
不論在何處，自工作中解放出來的念頭，似乎就像一場夢。製作iPhone組件的工人暴露在
有毒化學物質之下，台灣的製造業龍頭富士康常常因為低劣的勞動條件而受到檢視。
Instacart的貨運員發起罷工，抨擊那些導致小費減少的改變，兩天後，公司砍掉了他們
的紅利獎金（Instacart表示這兩件事情毫無關係）。影音平台Rev.com的零工勞工，近來
發現過夜津貼被砍掉了，這代表Rev從消費者花掉用來取得影音拷貝檔案的每1美元中拿走
了70美分，而他們只能拿到30美分。
Young Americans are reaching prime working age in the Amazon economy, not the
Webvan one. According to the Economic Policy Institute, while worker
productivity increased 69.6% between 1979 and 2019, hourly pay has risen a
measly 11.6%. “The income, wages, and wealth generated over the last four
decades have failed to ‘trickle down’ to the vast majority largely because
policy choices made on behalf of those with the most income, wealth, and
power have exacerbated inequality,” the EPI says. The difference between
productivity and pay is an increase in exploitation: workers doing more and
getting less. That was not the plan.
年輕的美國人在Amazon經濟中達到工作年齡，而非Webvan的那個年代。根據經濟政策研究
所（Economic Policy Institute，EPI）的說法，在1979年到2019年，勞工生產力成長
69.6％的同時，每小時薪資僅少得可憐地成長了11.6％。EPI指出，「過去四十年來產生
的收入、工資和財富，顯然未能『涓滴』及於絕大多數人，主因是代表那些收入、工資和
財富最著者所作出的政策選擇，加劇了不平等。」生產力與薪資間的差距，代表剝削程度
的提升：工人做的越多但拿的越少。這不在規劃之中。
//////
Keynes and his policy vision fell out of fashion when the laissez-faire
fundamentalism championed by Milton Friedman carried Reagan and Thatcher into
global power. The old view of the future yielded to an era of deregulation
and privatization. This was the “End of History,” with the free market as
the proper—perhaps even inevitable—vehicle for human nature.
在傅利曼（Milton Friedman）倡導的自由放任基本教義派推動雷根和柴契爾掌握全球大
權之時，凱因斯和他的政策觀點落伍了。關於未來的舊觀點，讓位給去管制化和私有化的
紀元。這就是「歷史的終結」（the End of History）：自由市場就是人性的適當載體（
甚至可說是不可避免的載體）。
Here all pursue their individual interests, and together that adds up to the
best of all possible worlds—at least as long as the government stays out of
the way. We were taught as fact, for example, that rent