我們為何應該免費把錢給每個人? Why we should give free money to everyone?

Unconditional Basic Income
回覆文章
漢化組亞伯
文章: 84
註冊時間: 2014-04-26, 17:02

我們為何應該免費把錢給每個人? Why we should give free money to everyone?

文章 漢化組亞伯 » 2014-04-29, 10:33

Why we should give free money to everyone?
我們為何應該免費把錢給每個人?

原文:
https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-s ... 5-cb9fbb39

London, May 2009. A small experiment involving thirteen homeless men takes off. They are street veterans. Some of them have been sleeping on the cold tiles of The Square Mile, the financial center of the world, for more than forty years. Their presence is far from cheap. Police, legal services, healthcare: the thirteen cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds. Every year.
2009年5月的倫敦。一項包含了13位無家可歸遊民的小實驗展開了。他們是遊蕩在街頭的退役老兵。其中一些人一直睡在The Square Mile的冰冷瓷磚上,而這裡是超過40年的世界金融中心。這些老兵遊民的存在耗費了巨大的社會成本。警察治安管制、法律服務、醫療照護等等:這13位遊民老兵每年耗費了納稅人數十萬英鎊的社會成本。

That spring, a local charity takes a radical decision. The street veterans are to become the beneficiaries of an innovative social experiment. No more food stamps, food kitchen dinners or sporadic shelter stays for them. The men will get a drastic bailout, financed by taxpayers. They'll each receive 3,000 pounds, cash, with no strings attached. The men are free to decide what to spend it on; counseling services are completely optional. No requirements, no hard questions. The only question they have to answer is:
那年春天,一個當地的慈善機構採用了一項激進的決定。這些街頭遊民老兵們將成為一項創新社會實驗的受益者。不再給他們食物券、不再有廚房裡的晚餐或偶爾才給他們的過夜住所庇護。這些人反而將得到顛覆性的援助:由納稅人所資助。他們每個人都將收到3千英鎊的現金,未附加任何的前提條件。這些人能自由決定要把這些錢花在哪裡。相關的諮詢服務也完全是自由選擇的。不再有刁難人的要求或問題。他們唯一必須回答的問題是:

What do you think is good for you?
「你覺得什麼才是對你好?」

Gardening classes
園藝課程

‘I didn’t have enormous expectations,’ an aid worker recalls.
「我對他們的回答沒有龐大的期待。」一位援助人員如此回憶道。

Yet the desires of the homeless men turned out to be quite modest. A phone, a passport, a dictionary - each participant had his own ideas about what would be best for him. None of the men wasted their money on alcohol, drugs or gambling. On the contrary, most of them were extremely frugal with the money they had received. On average, only 800 pounds had been spent at the end of the first year.
然而,這些無家可歸的遊民所展現出來的欲望,其結果是相當卑微的。一台電話、一本護照、一本字典--每位參與者都有自己關於什麼才是對其自身最好的想法。沒有人把他們的錢浪費在酗酒、毒品或賭博上。相反地,大部份的人對於花費自己所得到的金錢,都抱持著一種極端節儉的態度。平均而言,到了第一年的年底,只花了8百英鎊。

Simon’s life was turned upside down by the money. Having been addicted to heroin for twenty years, he finally got clean and began with gardening classes. ‘For the first time in my life everything just clicked, it feels like now I can do something’, he says. ‘I’m thinking of going back home. I’ve got two kids.’
Simon的生活透過運用這筆錢而天翻地覆。雖然對海洛因已成癮了20年,他最後仍成功戒毒並開始去上園藝課程。「在我的人生中,終於第一次每件事都順利進行。我感覺現在能做到一些事。」他如此說道。「我正想回家。我有兩位小孩。」

A year after the experiment had started, eleven out of thirteen had a roof above their heads. They accepted accommodation, enrolled in education, learnt how to cook, got treatment for drug use, visited their families and made plans for the future. ‘I loved the cold weather,’ one of them remembers. ‘Now I hate it.’ After decades of authorities’ fruitless pushing, pulling, fines and persecution, eleven notorious vagrants finally moved off the streets.
在此實驗開始之後經過一年,13位中有11位得到了居住的地方。他們獲得了住房、註冊了學校的教育、學習如何煮菜、得到使用毒品後的治療、拜訪了家人並訂定了未來的計畫。「我過去喜愛冰冷的天氣。」其中一位參與實驗的成員說道。「但現在我討厭了。」在有關權威當局數十年徒勞無功的拉扯、罰款與迫害之後,11名「惡名昭彰」的流浪漢終於搬離了街道。

Costs? 50,000 pounds a year, including the wages of the aid workers. In addition to giving eleven individuals another shot at life, the project had saved money by a factor of at least 7. Even The Economist concluded:
花了多少錢?每年5萬英鎊,包括給援助人員的薪資。除了讓這11位成員浴火重生,這項計畫也節省了至少7倍的錢。甚至連《經濟學人》都下了這樣的結論:

‘The most efficient way to spend money on the homeless might be to give it to them.’
「在無家可歸的遊民身上,最有效率的花錢方式可能就是直接把錢給他們。」

Santa exists
存在著聖誕老人

We tend to presume that the poor are unable to handle money. If they had any, people reason, they would probably spend it on fast food and cheap beer, not on fruit or education. This kind of reasoning nourishes the myriad social programs, administrative jungles, armies of program coordinators and legions of supervising staff that make up the modern welfare state. Since the start of the crisis, the number of initiatives battling fraud with benefits and subsidies has surged.
我們傾向於假設窮人沒有能力處理金錢。如果他們有任何錢,人們就會推測他們將把錢花在速食和便宜的啤酒上,而不是買水果或接受教育。這種思維的推論,助長了各式各樣的社會福利計畫、行政叢林、一大群計畫協調者與監督人員,最終造成了現代的福利國家。自從金融危機爆發以來,人們已提出各種提議來對抗利用詐騙的手段獲得補助與津貼的弊病。

People have to ‘work for their money,’ we like to think. In recent decades, social welfare has become geared toward a labor market that does not create enough jobs. The trend from 'welfare' to 'workfare' is international, with obligatory job applications, reintegration trajectories, mandatory participation in 'voluntary' work. The underlying message: Free money makes people lazy.
人們必須「工作賺錢。」我們喜歡這樣想。在最近幾十年來,社會福利已用於未創造出足夠工作的勞動市場中。從「福利」再到「工作福利」是一種國際趨勢,伴隨著應徵義務性工作、罪犯為了回歸社會而實施的勞動服務、強制性參與「志願」工作等等。其潛藏的訊息如下:免費給錢會讓人們懶惰。

Except that it doesn’t.
但實情並非如此。

Meet Bernard Omandi. For years he worked in a quarry, somewhere in the inhabitable West of Kenya. Bernard made $2 a day, until one morning, he received a remarkable text message. 'When I saw the message, I jumped up', he later recalled. And with good reason: $500 had just been deposited into his account. For Bernard, the sum amounted to almost a year’s salary.
讓我們看看Bernard Omandi。他已在露天礦場工作了好幾年,這是一處肯亞西部無法住人的地方。Bernard每天賺2美元,直到有一天早上,他收到一則不尋常的文字訊息。「當我看到訊息時,我整個人跳了起來。」他之後如此回憶。而且確實有跳起來的好理由:他的銀行帳戶剛剛有人存進了500美元。對Bernard而言,這筆錢的金額總數幾乎相當於他一整年的薪水。

A couple of months later a New York Times reporter walked around his village. It was like everyone had won the jackpot - but no one had wasted the money. People were repairing their homes and starting small businesses. Bernard was making $6 to $9 a day driving around on his new Bajai Boxer, an Indian motor cycle which he used to provide transportation for local residents. ‘This puts the choice in the hands of the poor, and not me,' Michael Faye, co-founder of GiveDirectly, the coordinating organization, said. ‘The truth is, I don’t think I have a very good sense of what the poor need.’ When Google had a look at his data, the company immediately decided to donate $2.5 million.
在幾個月過後,一位紐約時報的記者在他的村莊附近走動。這就像每個人都中了頭獎一樣--但沒有人浪費錢。人們正修理他們的房子並創立小型企業。Bernard靠著到處駕駛他的Bajai Boxer,正在每天賺得6至9美元,而這是一部他用來載送當地居民的新摩托車。「這讓選擇權置於窮人們的手中,而不是我。」Michael Faye說道,他是GiveDirectly這個組織的共同創辦者,此組織協力促成了這椿美事。他也說:「事實上,我不認為我非常清楚窮人們需要什麼。」當Google看了他提供的資料,Google便立刻決定捐贈250萬美元。

Bernard and his fellow villagers are not the only ones who got lucky. In 2008, the Ugandan government gave about $400 to almost 12,000 youths between the ages of 16 and 35. Just money – no questions asked. And guess what? The results were astounding. A mere four years later, the youths’ educational and entrepreneurial investments had caused their incomes to increase by almost 50%. Their chances of being employed had increased by 60%.
Bernard與其村民同胞不是唯一的幸運兒。在2008年,烏干達政府發送了約400美元給幾乎1.2萬名介於16至35歲的年輕人。就是給金錢--而且沒有問任何問題。猜猜看接下來怎麼樣了?結果令人震驚。僅僅四年過後,年輕人的教育與創業投資就讓他們的收入增加了幾乎50%。他們被雇用的機會則增加了60%。

Another Ugandan program awarded $150 to 1,800 poor women in the North of the country. Here, too, incomes went up significantly. The women who were supported by an aid worker were slightly better off, but later calculations proved that the program would have been even more effective had the aid workers’ salary simply been divided among the women as well.
另一項烏干達的計畫是獎勵150美元給此國家北部的1.8萬名貧窮婦女。在這裡也一樣,她們的收入後來大幅上升。受到援助人員支援的婦女們稍微更有錢一些,但之後的計算證明了,若連援助人員的薪水也在這些婦女之間分發的話,那這項計畫將會更有效許多。

Studies from all over the world drive home the exact same point: free money helps. Proven correlations exist between free money and a decrease in crime, lower inequality, less malnutrition, lower infant mortality and teenage pregnancy rates, less truancy, better school completion rates, higher economic growth and emancipation rates. ‘The big reason poor people are poor is because they don’t have enough money’, economist Charles Kenny, a fellow at the Center for Global Development, dryly remarked last June. ‘It shouldn’t come as a huge surprise that giving them money is a great way to reduce that problem.’
從世界各地而來的研究都達致相同的論點:免費給錢有幫助。免費給錢與下列的現象存在著關聯:犯罪減少、不平等也減少、較不會營養不良、嬰兒致死率與青少年懷孕率較低、較不會逃學、更高的學業完成率、更高的經濟成長與解放率。「窮人之所以窮的重大原因,就是他們沒有足夠的錢。」經濟學家Charles Kenny如此乾巴巴地評論道,他是全球發展中心(Center for Global Development)的研究員。「我們不應大大驚訝,其實給窮人錢就是減輕問題的極佳方式。」

In the 2010 work Just Give Money to the Poor, researchers from the Brooks World Poverty Institute, an independent institute based at the University of Manchester, give numerous examples of money being scattered successfully. In Namibia, malnourishment, crime and truancy fell 25 percent, 42 percent and nearly 40 percent respectively. In Malawi, school enrollment of girls and women rose 40 percent in conditional and unconditional settings. From Brazil to India and from Mexico to South Africa, free-money programs have flourished in the past decade. While the Millenium Development Goals did not even mention the programs, by now more than 110 million families in at least 45 countries benefit from them.
在2010年的成果報告「把錢給窮人就對了(Just Give Money to the Poor)」之中,從Brooks的世界貧窮研究機構(Brooks World Poverty Institute)而來的研究員,給出了大量灑錢的成功案例(這是一間設於曼徹斯特大學的一間獨立機構)。在那米比亞此國家中,營養不良、犯罪與逃學的程度分別下降了25%、42%與接近40%。在馬拉威,女孩與女人的學校註冊率上升了40%,不論是在有條件或無條件的設置下。從巴西到印度,從墨西哥到南非,免費給錢的計畫在過去的十年中已萌芽滋長。儘管聯合國千禧年發展目標(Millenium Development Goals)甚至並未提到這些計畫,但到了現在,在至少45個國家中,有超過1.1億個家庭受益於這些計畫。

Researchers sum up the programs’ advantages: (1) households make good use of the money, (2) poverty decreases, (3) long-term benefits in income, health, and tax income are remarkable, (4) there is no negative effect on labor supply – recipients do not work less, and (5) the programs save money. Why would we send well-paid foreigners in SUVs when we could just give cash? This would also diminish risk of corrupt officials taking their share. Free money stimulates the entire economy: consumption goes up, resulting in more jobs and higher incomes.
研究員總結了此計畫的優點:(1)家家戶戶妥善利用金錢。(2)減少貧窮。(3)在收入、健康與稅收等方面的長期利益是非凡的。(4)在勞動力的供應上沒有負面影響--收到錢的人並未較少工作。(5)這項計畫反而能省下一大筆錢。所以當我們能就是給現金時,為何還要派送那些坐在休旅車內的高薪外國人?直接給錢也能減少腐敗官員海撈一筆的風險。免費給錢能刺激整個經濟:消費增加,導致更多的工作與更高的收入。

‘Poverty is fundamentally about a lack of cash. It's not about stupidity,’ author Joseph Hanlon remarks. ‘You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you have no boots.’
「貧窮基本上就是關於缺現金而已,這跟窮人愚笨無關。」作家Joseph Hanlon評論道。「如果你連靴子都沒有,你連靴帶都沒得拉。」(註: pull oneself up by one's own bootstraps為片語「自力更生」意,此處為雙關。)

An old idea
一個老想法

The idea has been propagated by some of history’s greatest minds. Thomas More dreamt of it in his famous Utopia (1516). Countless economists and philosophers, many of them Nobel laureates, would follow suit. Proponents cannot be pinned down on the political spectrum: it appeals to both left- and right-wing thinkers. Even the founders of neoliberalism, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman supported the idea. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) directly refers to it.
這種免費給錢的想法早就由一些歷史上最偉大的思想家推廣過。湯瑪斯·摩爾(註:「烏托邦」一詞的發明者)在其著名的作品《烏托邦》一書(1516年)中曾夢想過這種概念。無數的經濟學家與哲學家,許多人都是諾貝爾獎得主,也跟著有樣學樣。此想法的支持者不能用政治光譜的角度去簡化:這種想法同時吸引了左翼與右翼的思想家。甚至連新自由主義的創立者,弗里德里希·海耶克與米爾頓·傅利曼都支持這種想法。世界人權宣言的第二十五章(1948年)也直接提及這個概念。

The basic income.
即「無條件基本收入」。

And not just for a few years, in developing countries only, or merely for the poor – but free money as a basic human right for everyone. The philosopher Philippe van Parijs has called it ‘the capitalist road to communism.’ A monthly allowance, enough to live off, without any outside control on whether you spend it well or whether you even deserve it. No jungle of extra charges, benefits, rebates - all of which cost tons to implement. At most with some extras for the elderly, unemployed and disabled.
這不只是在開發中國家或只給窮人幾年時間的錢--而是把免費的金錢視為每個人的基本人權。哲學家Philippe van Parijs稱其為「資本主義家至共產主義者」之路。每個月的零用錢,足夠一個人的基本生活開銷,不論你是否好好花費這筆錢或甚至不論這筆錢是否為你應得的,都沒有任何的外在控制。沒有額外收費、補助或退款這些行政叢林--因為這些東西都要花上大量的成本。最多只是給老年人、失業者與殘障者一些額外的錢。

The basic income - it is an idea whose time has come.
無條件基本收入--這就是時機已到的想法。

Mincome, Canada
加拿大的Mincome實驗(加拿大版的無條件基本收入實驗)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

In an attic of a warehouse in Winnipeg, Canada, 1,800 boxes are accumulating dust. The boxes are filled with data – tables, graphs, reports, transcripts – from one of the most fascinating social experiments in postwar history: Mincome.
在加拿大的Winnipeg地區的一間倉庫閣樓中,1千8百個箱子上正堆積著灰塵。這些箱子中都裝滿了各種資料--表格、圖表、報告、文稿--這些東西都來自於一個戰後歷史上最令人著迷的社會實驗之一:Mincome。

Evelyn Forget, professor at the University of Manitoba, heard about the experiment in 2004. For five years, she courted the Canadian National Archive to get access to the material. When she was finally allowed to enter the attic in 2009, she could hardly believe her eyes: this archive stored a wealth of information on the application of Thomas More’s age-old ideal.
Evelyn Forget是曼尼托巴大學的教授,並在2004年聽到這個實驗。她花了5年的時間與加拿大的國家檔案館打官司以取得此實驗的文件材料。當她在2009年終於被允許進入館內的閣樓時,她幾乎不敢相信她的眼睛:這個檔案館儲藏了大量關於湯瑪斯·摩爾古老理想的應用資料。

One of the almost 1,000 interviews tucked away in boxes was with Hugh and Doreen Henderson. Thirty-five years earlier, when the experiment took off, he worked as a school janitor and she took care of their two kids. Life had not been easy for them. Doreen grew vegetables and they kept their own chickens in order to secure their daily food supply.
在接近1千份的訪談資料中,其中1份塞在箱子裡的是關於Hugh與Doreen Henderson的資料。在35年前,當此實驗開始時,他的工作是一位學校的警衛並照顧著兩位小孩。生活對他們而言是艱困的。Doreen種植蔬菜,而且他們還額外養雞以為了確保每日的食物供應。

One day the doorbell rang. Two men wearing suits made an offer the Henderson family couldn’t refuse. ‘We filled out forms and they wanted to see our receipts’, Doreen remembers. From that moment, money was no longer a problem for the Henderson family. Hugh and Doreen entered Mincome – the first large-scale social experiment in Canada and the biggest experiment implementing a basic income ever conducted.
有一天門鈴響了。兩位穿著西裝的人提出一個Henderson一家人無法拒絕的提議。「我們填寫了表格,然後他們想要看我們的收據。」Doreen如此回憶。從那個時刻起,金錢再也不是Henderson一家人的問題了。Hugh與Doreen收到了一筆Mincome--這是加拿大史上第一個大規模的社會實驗,也是一個關於無條件基本收入的最大型實驗。

In March 1973 the governor of the province had decided to reserve $17 million for the project. The experiment was to take place in Dauphin, a small city with 13,000 inhabitants north of Winnipeg. The following spring researchers began to crowd the town to monitor the development of the pilot. Economists were keeping track of people’s working habits, sociologists looked into the experiment’s effects on family life and anthropologists engaged in close observation of people’s individual responses.
在1973年3月,曼尼托巴省的政府當局決定省下1千7百萬美元以執行這項計畫。這項實驗在Dauphin發生了,這是一個有著1.3萬名居民的小城市,就在Winnipeg的北方。在隔年的春天,研究員開始湧入此城市以監控此試驗的發展。經濟學家們追蹤人們的工作習慣、社會學家們檢視這項實驗對於家庭生活的影響,而人類學家則從事近距離的觀察,了解人們對於此計畫的個別回應。

The basic income regulations had to ensure no one would drop below the poverty line. In practice this meant that about a 1,000 families in Dauphin, covering 30% of the total population, received a monthly paycheck. For a family of five, the amount would come down to $18,000 a year today (figure corrected for inflation). No questions asked.
無條件基本收入的控管必須確保沒有人的生活會降至貧窮線之下。實際上這就表示在Dauphin的約1千戶家庭(大約佔了總人口的30%),每個月都會收到一筆支票。對於五口之家的一戶家庭而言,這筆錢的總數相當於今日每年都得到1.8萬美元的收入(此數據已計入通貨膨脹的影響)。政府也不會再過問任何事情。

Four years passed until a round of elections threw a spanner in the works. The newly elected conservative government didn’t like the costly experiment that was financed by the Canadian taxpayer for 75%. When it turned out that there was not even enough money to analyze the results, the initiators decided to pack the experiment away. In 1,800 boxes.
經過了四年,直到有一天新一輪的選舉破壞了整個計畫。新選上的保守黨政府不喜歡這項昂貴的實驗,因為這項實驗的資金來源是向加拿大的納稅者徵收高達75%的稅率。當結果變成甚至沒有足夠的錢來分析整個計畫結果的利弊得失時,此計畫的發起者決定整個實驗計畫都拾收打包起來,最後塞進1千8百個箱子內。

The Dauphin population was bitterly disappointed. At its start in 1974, Mincome was seen as a pilot project that might eventually go national. But now it seemed to be destined for oblivion. ‘Government officials opposed to Mincome didn't want to spend more money to analyze the data and show what they already thought: that it didn't work,’ one of the researchers remembers. ‘And the people who were in favor of Mincome were worried because if the analysis was done and the data wasn't favorable then they would have just spent another million dollars on analysis and be even more embarrassed.’
Dauphin的人們無奈又失望。在1974年此計畫開始時,Mincome這項試驗計畫被視為最後可能推行到加拿大全國之中。但現在似乎註定要被遺忘了。「反對Mincome的政府官員不想花更多錢分析這些實驗的資料,而且已表示出以下的想法:這沒有用。」 其中一位研究員如此回憶。「而那些贊成Mincome的人又會擔心,因為如果分析出來的資料結果是不可讓人支持的,那麼他們就等於會再浪費額外的1百萬美元在分析資料這件事上面,其立場會變得更為尷尬許多。」

When professor Forget first heard of Mincome, no one knew how the experiment had truly worked out. However, 1970 had also been the year Medicare, the national health insurance system, had been implemented. The Medicare archives provided Forget with a wealth of data allowing her to compare Dauphin to surrounding towns and other control groups. For three years, she analyzed and analyzed, consistently coming to the same conclusion:
當Forget教授第一次聽到Mincome時,沒有人知道到底這個實驗的結果最終是如何。然而1970年也是Meidcare(即國家醫療保險制度)實施的那一年。國家醫療保險的檔案資料提供了大量的資料給Forget教授,使其能比較Dauphin這個城市與鄰近的城鎮與其它的對照組。她花了三年的時間不斷持續地分析再分析,並達致相同的結論:

Mincome had been a great success.
Mincome是一項偉大的成就。

From experiment to law
從實驗到法律

‘Politicians feared that people would stop working, and that they would have lots of children to increase their income,’ professor Forget says. Yet the opposite happened: the average marital age went up while the birth rate went down. The Mincome cohort had better school completion records. The total amount of work hours decreased by only 13%. Breadwinners hardly cut down on their hours, women used the basic income for a couple of months of maternity leave and young people used it to do some extra studying.
「政客們害怕人們會停止工作,並害怕人們會生很多孩子以增加收入。」Forget教授如是說。然而事實正好相反:人們的平均結婚年齡上升了,而生育率則下降。Mincome的支持者有更佳的就學完成紀錄。而工作的總時數只減少了13%。負責養家活口的人幾乎沒有減少其工作時數,婦女們利用無條件基本收入度過好幾個月的產假空窗期,而年輕人則利用這筆錢額外學習新東西。

Forget’s most remarkable discovery is that hospital visits went down by 8,5%. This amounted to huge savings (in the United States it would be more than $200 billion a year now). After a couple of years, domestic violence rates and mental health also saw improvement. Mincome made the entire town healthier. The basic income continued to influence following generations, both in terms of income and health.
Forget教授最驚人的發現在於,人們去醫院的比率減少了8.5%。這等同於省下一大筆錢(在今日的美國,等於一年省下超過兩千億美元)。在幾年之後,家庭暴力比率與精神病也能看到改善。Mincome讓整個城鎮更為健康。無條件基本收入也能持續影響後代子孫,不論是以收入或健康的觀點來衡量皆然。

Dauphin, the town with no poverty, was one of five North-American basic income experiments. Four U.S. projects preceded it. Today, few people know how close the US was in the sixties to implementing a solid social welfare system that could stand the comparison with that of most Western-European countries nowadays. In 1964, president Lyndon B. Johnson declared a ‘war on poverty.’ Democrats and Republicans were united in their ambition to fundamentally reform social security. But first more testing was needed.
Dauphin是沒有貧窮問題的城鎮,也是北美洲五個無條件基本收入實驗的其中之一。在此之前已有4個美國的計畫實施過。今日,幾乎無人知道美國在1960年代是多麼接近實施一個穩固的社會福利系統的境界,能夠與今日大部份的西歐國家互相匹敵比較。在1964年,美國的林登·詹森總統宣告了「對抗貧窮的戰爭」。民主黨與共和黨雄心勃勃,團結一致,從根本上改革社會的安全保障制度。但首先需要更多的測試。

Several tens of millions were made available to test the effects of a basic income among 10,000 families in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Seattle and Denver. The pilots were the first large-scale social experiments differentiating between various test and control groups. The researchers were trying to find the answers to three questions. 1: Does a basic income make people work significantly less? 2: If so, will it make the program unaffordable? 3: And would it consequently become politically unattainable?
在賓夕法尼亞州、印第安納州、北卡羅來納州、西雅圖與丹佛等地,美國投入了數千萬美元來測試無條件基本收入的效果。這些試驗是美國首批大規模的社會實驗,並與各式各樣的實驗組與對照組分隔比較。當時的研究員正試著找出以下三個問題的答案:1無條件基本收入會讓人們的工作時數顯著下降嗎?2.如果會讓工時明顯下降,那政府還能繼續負擔此計畫所需要的錢嗎?3.若政府真的無法負擔,會因此變得在政治上無法實現嗎?

The answers: no, no and yes.
答案是:1.不會2.能3.會

The decrease in working hours turned out to be limited. ‘The ‘laziness’ contention is just not supported by our findings’, the chief data analyst of the Denver experiment said. ‘There is not anywhere near the mass defection the prophets of doom predicted.’ On average, the decline in work hours amounted to 9 percent per household. Like in Dauphin, the majority of this drop was caused by young mothers and students in their twenties.
工時的下降從結果來看是有限的。「『懶惰』這個主張就是沒有被我們的研究發現所支持。」丹佛實驗的主要資料分析者這樣說。「沒有任何地方出現唱衰者所預測的大規模失敗。」平均而言,每間家庭的工時下降了9%。如同在Dauphin一樣,工時下降的主要原因是由於年輕的媽媽們與20幾歲的學生們所造成。

‘These declines in hours of paid work were undoubtedly compensated in part by other useful activities, such as search for better jobs or work in the home,’ an evaluative report of a Seattle project concluded. A mother who had never finished high school got a degree in psychology and went on to a career in research. Another woman took acting classes, while her husband started composing. ‘We’re now self-sufficient, income-earning artists’, they told the researchers. School results improved in all experiments: grades went up and dropout rates went down. Nutrition and health data were also positively affected – for example, the birth weight of newborn babies increased.
「這些給薪工作的工時下降,毫無疑問有一部份由其它有益的活動彌補起來了,像是尋找更佳的工作或在家工作。」一份西雅圖計畫的評估報告如此下結論。一位從未完成高中學業的母親得到了心理學的學位,並繼續從事一份研究性質的職業。另一位婦女上了演戲的課程,而其丈夫則開始創作。「我們現在是自給自足的賺錢藝術家。」這對夫妻這樣告訴研究員。而學業表現的改善則出現在所有實驗中:學生成績上升,輟學率下降。營養與健康資料也得到正面的影響--例如,新生嬰兒的出生重量增加了。

For a while, it seemed like the basic income would fare well in Washington.
有好一陣子,似乎無條件基本收入在華盛頓會從此消失。

WELFARE REFORM IS VOTED IN HOUSE, a NYT headline on April 17, 1970 read. An overwhelming majority had endorsed President Nixon’s proposal for a modest basic income. But once the proposal got to the Senate, doubts returned. ‘This bill represents the most extensive, expensive and expansive welfare legislation ever handled by the Committee on Finance,’ one of the senators said.
但「白宮投票贊成社會福利改革」,1970年4月17日的紐約時報頭條如此報導。壓倒性的大多數人稱讚尼克森總統發放無條件基本收入的提議。但一旦這項提議進到了參議院,各種疑問就開始回來了。「這項法案是史上財政委員會所處理過範圍最廣泛、花費最昂貴的社會福利立法。」其中一位參議員這樣說道。

Then came that fatal discovery: the number of divorces in Seattle had gone up by more than 50%. This percentage made the other, positive results seem utterly uninteresting. It gave rise to the fear that a basic income would make women much too independent. For months, the law proposal was sent back and forth between the Senate and the White House, eventually ending in the dustbin of history.
接著那個最致命的發現就來臨了:在西雅圖的離婚數字上升了超過50%。這項百分比讓剩下的其它所有正面結果看起來完全黯淡無光。這造成了人們對於無條件基本收入會讓婦女們更獨立許多的恐懼。在好幾個月內,這項法律提案在參議院與白宮之間來來回回,最後的結果是無條件基本收入被扔到歷史的垃圾桶裡。

Later analysis would show that the researchers had made a mistake – in reality the number of divorces had not changed.
而之後的分析也顯示出研究員犯了一個錯誤--事實上離婚的數字並未改變。

Futile, dangerous and perverse
無用、危險與墮落的

‘It Can Be Done! Conquering Poverty in the US by 1976’, James Tobin, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize, wrote in 1967. At that time, almost 80% of the American population was in favor of adopting a small basic income. Nevertheless, Ronald Reagan sneered years later: ‘In the sixties we waged a war on poverty, and poverty won.’
「在美國,到了1976年能做到克服貧窮問題!」詹姆士·托賓(James Tobin)在1976年如此寫道,而他接下來會贏得1981年的諾貝爾經濟學獎。在當時,幾乎80%的美國人支持採行小規模的無條件基本收入政策。然而,隆納·雷根總統在之後幾年對此嗤之以鼻:「在1960年代,我們對貧窮發動了一場戰爭,但貧窮勝利了。」

Milestones of civilization are often first considered impossible utopias. Albert Hirschman, one of the great sociologists of the previous century, wrote that utopian dreams are usually rebutted on three grounds: futility (it is impossible), danger (the risks are too big) and perversity (its realization will result in the opposite: a dystopia). Yet Hirschmann also described how, once implemented, ideas previously considered utopian are quickly accepted as normal.
文明的里程碑通常一開始都被認為是不可能的烏托邦。阿爾伯特·赫希曼(Albert Hirschman),20世紀最偉大的社會學家之一,寫到烏托邦的夢想通常因為下列三個理由而被駁斥:無用(不可能)、危險(風險太大)與墮落(其實現反而會導致相反的結果:反烏托邦)。然而赫希曼也描述了想法一旦被執行後,之前被認為是烏托邦的東西是如何快速地被人們接受為「正常的」。

Not so long ago, democracy was a grand utopian ideal. From the radical philosopher Plato to the conservative aristocrat Joseph de Maistre, most intellectuals considered the masses too stupid for democracy. They thought that the general will of the people would quickly degenerate into some general’s will instead. Apply this kind of reasoning to the basic income: it would be futile because we would not be able to afford it, dangerous because people would stop working, and perverse because we would only have to work harder to clean up the mess it creates.
就在不久以前,「民主」被認為是偉大的烏托邦的理想。從激進的哲學家柏拉圖再到保守的貴族邁斯特(Joseph de Maistre),大部份的知識份子都認為大眾太愚笨而無法施行民主制度。他們認為人們的普遍意志反而將很快退化成一位將軍的意志而已。讓我們把這種思維推論用在無條件基本收入上吧:這個想法將會是無用的,因為我們不能負擔得起這些開支;這是危險的,因為人們將會停止工作;這是墮落的,因為我們只會必須更辛苦工作來清理這項想法所帶來的爛攤子。

But wait a second.
但,等一下。

Futile? For the first time in history we are rich enough to finance a robust basic income. It would allow us to cut most of the benefits and supervision programs that the current social welfare system necessitates. Many tax rebates would be redundant. Further financing could come from (higher) taxing of capital, pollution and consumption.
無用的?在歷史上,我們人類第一次夠有錢到能資助堅實的無條件基本收入計畫。這會讓我們刪除大部份的社會福利補助津貼與各式各樣的政府監督計畫,而這些反而都是目前的社會福利系統所必需的冗餘。退還許多稅款將會是多餘的動作。更進一步的資金來源能從(更高的)資本利得而課稅,或從環境汙染與消費方面課稅而獲得。

A quick calculation. The country I live in, Holland, has 16.8 million inhabitants. Its poverty line is set at $1,300 a month. This would make for a reasonable basic income. Some simple math would set the cost on 193.5 billion euro annually, about 30% of our national GDP. That’s an astronomically high figure. But remember: the government already controls more than half of our GDP. It does not keep the Netherlands from being one of the richest, most competitive and happiest countries in the world.
快速計算一下。在我所居住的國家,荷蘭,有1千680萬居民。她的貧窮線是設定在每個月1千3百美元。這會是合理的無條件基本收入標準。一些簡單的數學計算會把花費設定在每年需要1千935億歐元,大約是我們國家總GDP的30%。這是一項天文數字。但請記住:政府已控制了我們超過一半的GDP。但這「不會」不讓荷蘭變成世界上最富有、最具競爭力與最快樂的國家之一。

The basic income that Canada experimented with – free money as a right for the poor – would be much cheaper. Eradicating poverty in the United States would cost $175 billion, economist Matt Bruenig recently calculated – a quarter of the country’s $700 billion military budget. Still, a system that only helps the poor confirms the divide with the well-to-do. ‘A policy for the poor is a poor policy,’ Richard Titmuss, the mastermind of the British welfare state, once wrote. A universal basic income, on the other hand, can count on broad support since everyone benefits.
加拿大實驗的無條件基本收入--免費給窮人錢的權利--將會更便宜許多。在美國消滅貧窮將花費1千750億,這是經濟學家Matt Bruenig最近的計算,這筆錢是美國7千億軍事預算的1/4。所以目前這種制度仍只會讓窮人更確定與富人之間的差距。「為了照顧窮人的政策就是爛政策。」英國社會福利國家政策的智囊Richard Titmus曾經這樣寫道。相反地,無條件基本收入能仰賴廣泛的支持,因為每個人都能從中受益。

Dangerous? Indeed, we would work a little less. But that’s a good thing, with the potential of working wonders for our personal and family lives. A small group of artists and writers (‘all those whom society despises while they are alive and honors when they are dead’ – Bertrand Russell) may actually stop doing paid work. Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence that the great majority of people, regardless of what grants they would receive, want to work. Unemployment makes us very unhappy.
危險的?確實,我們會較少工作。但這是一件好事,因為我們將有潛力為了個人理想與家庭生活而在工作上表現出非凡的驚奇。一小群藝術家與作家(「這些所有目前社會鄙視的人,儘管生前活著,但要到死後才顯現出其榮耀。」--伯特蘭·羅素(分析哲學創立者))可能真的會停止從事給薪工作。然而,有大量的證據顯示,大多數的人不論將得到哪些承諾與保證,仍然都會想要去工作。這是因為無業會讓人們非常不快樂。

One of the perks of the basic income is that it stimulates the ‘working poor’ – who are, under the current system, more secure receiving welfare payments - to look for jobs. The basic income can only improve their situation; the grant would be unconditional. Minimum wage could be abolished, improving employment opportunities at the lower ends of the labor market. Age would no longer need to form an obstacle to finding and keeping employment (as older employees would not necessarily earn more) thereby boosting overall labor participation.
無條件基本收入的其中一個好處是它會刺激「窮忙族」(這些人在目前的制度中靠著接收社會福利的支付,生活才能更有保障)去尋找工作。無條件基本收入只能改善他們的處境。這項承諾會是無條件的。政府將能夠廢除最低薪資,改善勞動市場中較低端的就業機會。「年齡」將沒有必要形成找工作與維持就業的障礙(因為更老的員工將不一定需要賺更多錢了),因此反而能強化整體的勞動參與狀況。

Perverse? On the contrary, over the last decades our social security systems have degenerated into perverse systems of social control. Government officials spy on people receiving welfare to make sure they are not wasting their money. Inspectors spend their days coaching citizens to help them make sense of all the necessary paperwork. Thousands of government officials are kept busy keeping an eye on this fraud-sensitive bureaucracy. The welfare state was built to provide security but degenerated in a system of distrust and shame.
墮落的?話講反了吧,在過去的數十年來,我們的社會保障系統才是已退化成一種墮落的社會控制系統。政府官員監控著接受社會福利的人民,以確保他們不會浪費公帑。監察人員耗費時間指導這些公民來幫忙他們完成必要的紙上文書行政作業。數以千計的政府官員整天忙於注意這個對詐騙行為敏感的官僚體系。建造「福利國」的本意是提供社會保障,現在反而退化成一個欺暪與可恥的系統。

Think different
不同的思考

It has been said before. Our welfare state is out of date, based on a time in which men were the sole breadwinners and employees stayed with one company for their entire careers. Our pension system and unemployment protection programs are still centered around those lucky enough to have steady employment. Social security is based on the wrong premise that the economy creates enough jobs. Welfare programs have become pitfalls instead of trampolines.
前面已經說過了,我們目前的「福利國」是過時的,其時代背景是人們為唯一養家活口的人與員工,並停留在一間公司裡渡過整個職業生涯。而我們的津貼補助系統與失業保護計畫,仍然圍繞著那些夠幸運擁有穩定工作的人。社會安全保障的基礎假設是錯誤的,即認為目前的經濟能創造足夠多的工作。社會福利計畫已變成政府的財政黑洞,而不是社會發展的彈簧床。

Never before has the time been so ripe to implement a universal and unconditional basic income. Our ageing societies are challenging us to keep the elderly economically active for as long as possible. An increasingly flexible labor market creates the need for more security. Globalization is eroding middle-class wages worldwide. Women’s emancipation will only be completed when a greater financial independence is possible for all. The deepening divide between the low- and highly educated means that the former are in need of extra support. The rise of robots and the increasing automatization of our economy could cost even those at the top of the ladder their jobs.
在人類的歷史上,實施普遍的無條件基本收入的時機從未如此成熟過。我們目前老年高齡化的社會正挑戰著我們的智慧,以便讓能帶來經濟效益的活躍老人們能儘量繼續工作越久越好。而越來越彈性化的勞動市場條件創造出更多保障的需求。全球化正在腐蝕全球中產階級的薪資。要完全解放施加在婦女們身上的束縛,也只有當人人都擁有更多的個人財務獨立性時才有可能。低教育水準與高知識份子之間不斷加深的鴻溝,意味著前者需要額外的支援。機器人的崛起與經濟中日益增加的自動化現象,也可能甚至會讓身處社會階層頂端的富人們也付出工作上的代價。

Legend has it that while Henry Ford II was giving a tour around a new, fully automatic factory to union leader Walter Reuther in the 1960s, Ford joked:
傳說在1960年代,當亨利·福特二世巡迴參訪一間全新的完全自動化工廠時,他對工會的領袖瓦特·魯瑟(Walter Reuther)開玩笑:

'Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues?'
「瓦特,你如何讓那些機器人支付欠你工會的錢?」

Reuther is said to have replied:
據說魯瑟如此回應:

'Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?'
「享利,你如何讓機器人買你的車?」

A world where wages no longer rise still needs consumers. In the last decades, middle-class purchasing power has been maintained through loans, loans and more loans. The Calvinistic reflex that you have to work for your money has turned into a license for inequality.
在一個薪資不再上升的世界中,仍然需要消費者們。在過去的幾十年中,中產階級的購買力已透過貸款、貸款與更多的貸款而維持住。喀爾文主義式的反映,即一個人必須工作賺錢這個觀念,已經變成不平等的一張證照了。

No one is suggesting societies the world over should implement an expensive basic income system in one stroke. Each utopia needs to start small, with experiments that slowly turn our world upside down — like the one four years ago in the City of London. One of the aid workers later recalled: 'It’s quite hard to just change overnight the way you’ve always approached this problem. These pilots give us the opportunity to talk differently, think differently, describe the problem differently.'
沒有人建議整個世界上的社會,應該在一夕之間就實施昂貴的無條件基本收入制度。但每個烏托邦都需要從小規模的實驗開始,並慢慢顛覆我們的整個世界--就像四年前在倫敦那樣。其中一位參與無條件基本收入計畫的援助人員之後回憶道:「如果就是要在一夜之間改變你長久以來處理問題的方式,這是相當困難的一件事。但這些試驗計畫給了我們機會,用不同的角度來討論、思考與描述問題。」

That is how all progress begins.
這就是如何開展所有進步的方式。

回覆文章