【翻譯練習】歡迎進入「後．工作」經濟
Welcome To The Post-Work Economy
作者：Ben Schiller
來源：https://www.fastcompany.com/3056483/welcome-to-the-post-work-economy
如果經濟的目標，是讓每個人都能得到一份薪資優渥的工作，那麼目前的經濟顯然尚未達標。大多數美國人實質薪資 40 年來並未調漲。包含「低度就業」在內的實際失業率高於 10%。現在很多工作都屬於兼職、彈性工時或「零工」性質，無法享受員工福利，也幾無保險可言。而且，美國竟然還花大錢去補助所謂的「屎缺」，譬如超過 50% 的速食店員工可以領到某種形式的公共救助。
工作型態的變化，是 Co.Exist 發布的「2016 年改變世界的觀點」之一，其他觀點還包括：
• 你的數位資料足跡，正在超乎想像地影響你的生活
• 想要調整職場上的心理健康，所需要的遠遠不只是瑜珈室而已
• CRISPR 技術即將顛覆人類的糧食體系－－並向基因改造技術下戰帖
• 進步企業的未來前景：公司除了績效優良，本身體質也要優良才行
• 進入無現金社會，會發生什麼事？
• 比特幣背後的技術，將如何翻轉底層十億窮人的生活
• 難民將成為經濟復甦的力量－－前提是我們得允許這件事發生
• 抗生素來到窮途末日，人類能否自救－－還是說，超級細菌早就贏了？
• 假如我們付錢拜託人民出門投票，會怎麼樣？
再加上，就連有正職的人也常常沒那麼樂在工作。每當討論工作的意義和目的，大多數人覺得自己只是一顆被操控的棋子。北美洲只有 29% 的員工認為自己很投入工作 (全球而言，此數值為 13%)。再者，其實很多工作即將由電腦取代。運算處理類型的技術，已經汰除許多「重複性操作型」(routine manual) 和「重複性認知型」(routine cognitive) 的活動，在工廠和辦公室尤其明顯。然後人工智慧新型機器也可能繼續攻城掠地，甚至侵占專業性工作的領域。一份研究指出，未來 20 年內 47% 的工作將岌岌可危。
當然，是有很多傳統作法可以處理這個問題，像是增進教育和訓練 (這樣一來就有更多人可以提升他們的薪資等級，而且技能強過機器人) 以及基本工資加碼；然而把時間拉長，實在無法確定這些作法到底足不足以應付問題。最核心的問題，也許是工作正在失去其價值。工作帶給我們的好處，像是養家活口、建立自我認同感等，已經受到抨擊。
為了因應變局，現在很多人呼籲應該推行「全民基本收入」(universal basic income，UBI)，也就是國家為每個人民提供足夠生活用度的金錢。有了全民基本收入，可以讓所謂的「不穩定無產階級」(precariat) 穩住最起碼的生活，畢竟對這群階級而言，工作並無助於增加他們的財務安全。有了全民基本收入，我們就能擺脫屎缺的壓榨，自動化的好處就能人人雨露均霑，而非僅有幸運的少數人獨占。有了全民基本收入，我們也能擁有更多時間從事有創造力、實現理想的活動，享受新科技創造出來的「富足」(想想看現在的電腦已有多強大、多便宜，然後想想未來電腦還可能會有多創新的發展)。數次全民基本收入計畫曾試行於芬蘭、瑞典和加拿大 (確實也有數個理由可以解釋全民基本收入為何如此吸引人)。
批評全民基本收入的人認為，國家負擔不起這種不切實際的計畫，而且全民基本收入恐怕會造就出幾百萬個無業遊民，只靠政府分的這些錢過活－－或許批評者說的沒錯。這些批評言論很合理，不過在馬上駁斥全民基本收入之前，請務必先用未來可能的經濟環境來考量全民基本收入這件事，而不是用當前的經濟現況。與其說全民基本收入是針對現在情形設計出來的方案，不如說是針對資本主義而設計，畢竟資本主義再也不似以往那般對社會貢獻生產力。
如果想認識我們現在處於何種經濟，以及這種經濟何以讓許多人沒辦法足夠取得所需，那麼你得先閱讀英國經濟新聞主編保羅．梅森 (Paul Mason) 的重要鉅作《後資本主義》(Postcapitalism)。梅森在書中探討因現今經濟體系敗壞而促成的眾多變動，其中就有提到全民基本收入。梅森介紹創新和繁榮如何在經濟史長河當中起起落落，然後指出當前的經濟布局，其實不如我們所想的同樣能夠推動創新和繁榮 (臉書的發明，並不像蒸汽機出現那般具有劃時代意義)。
梅森說，我們必須朝著「後資本主義」經濟的方向前進，在這樣的經濟裡，為賺錢而工作不再成為主流，貨物、資訊和智慧財產由眾人共享，而且經濟參與者有了全新的合作方式，可能是信用合作社形式的金融機構，也可能是合作社形式的零售商。重要的是，梅森還提到目前的經濟正統樣貌，也就是奠基於「自由市場」、全球化和金融服務業膨脹角色的經濟今貌，並不是經過一連串的汰舊換新後，從歷史自然演變而來的最終狀態，反而是一套始於 1980 年代的特定選擇所造就的結果，在這樣的經濟中，一部分的人比其他人拿到更多好處。
梅森在書中講述許多令人耳目一新的觀點，不過主旨還是圍繞著資本主義正在被自己的重量給壓垮，我們需要尋找替代方案。梅森提出資本主義崩潰的三個主因：
金融風暴
2008 年金融危機突顯出當前經濟體系本質上的不穩定。央行以維持低利率、穩定物價和鼓勵民眾借貸等手段，令貨幣長期處於低廉狀態，終至引發金融危機。人們申辦信用卡、車貸和房貸，用債務彌補低迷的薪資 (1970 年代起，美國經濟當中債務所占比例增加一倍，收入卻始終停滯不前)。華爾街利用重新包裝後的貸款組合滾利生息。但是接下來，次級房貸借款人還不出積欠之款，物價下跌，發卡數量開始下降。
然而，即使經濟衰退，銀行仍不願棄守它們的廉價貨幣策略。金融危機過後，美國、日本和歐洲的銀行印行了 12 兆美元的新鈔，蓋掉原有債務，然後誘使人們墜入新債務。現在，經濟再度播下債務致災的種子，只不過這一次，我們不曉得是否還有紓困的資源來解救經濟制度上的重要參與者。
梅森寫道：「位處新自由主義正中心的虛妄幻想，是每個人即使薪資沒漲也能享受消費生活。經濟體系可以一直一直發行貨幣，但是如果勞工得到的錢愈來愈少，然後從勞工的房貸和信用卡賺到的利潤愈來愈多，經濟最後還是會走進死胡同。金融體系放貸給備受壓力的消費者，藉此賺取利潤，放任這樣的利潤擴張下去，到了某個時間點，經濟體系將會瓦解，然後反噬。」
梅森認為，西方資本主義的基礎，是金融化 (消費者的債務變成可交易的物品)、法定貨幣或紙幣 (並非依憑任何實質之物，像是黃金)、以及債權國 (如中國) 與債務國 (如美國) 之間的全球失衡。這種體系容易受到景氣循環的影響，底下的真實面目被掩蓋了。事實上，經濟並沒有非常快速地成長，而且或許已有好一段時間未見成長。
資訊商品
現代經濟逐漸仰賴資訊。有句網路流行語這麼說：資訊「想要自由 (免費)」，然而對資本主義而言，自由 (免費) 不是好事，因為資本主義要的是競爭和獲利。
資訊商品不像實體物品。就本質而言，電腦程式和一台汽車是不一樣的。製造每一台新款的 BMW，就跟製造每一台舊款的的 BMW 同樣困難；可是複製另一份電腦程式卻易如反掌。只要拿到程式庫，不管多產出幾份程式，基本上通通免費。這對 Google、Facebook 和 Apple 等資訊龍頭而言，確實是天大的好消息，也就是說只要這些公司持有程式庫，便能坐等熱錢源源流入。不過，如果這些公司想讓人們繼續相信它們賣的東西是有價值的，此時就必須發揮一些創意了。它們得搬出智慧財產的道理 (惡名昭彰的法律渾沌地帶)；它們得維持自身的壟斷地位，例如實務上 Google 對網路搜尋的壟斷 (Bing，抱歉了)；或是，它們得捨棄原本的產品，然後去賣別的東西 (Facebook 把使用者個資賣給廣告商)。這些經營之道完全背離資本主義固有的「交換」原則，因為以往的供需法則業已崩壞。我們已經從匱乏的時代來到富足的時代。
時日一久，科技很可能把很多事物變成「零邊際成本」。舉例來說，能源將來可望脫離市場力量的主宰，我們只要在屋頂安裝太陽能板，那麼基本上每度電都可以免費；每當房屋需要什麼物品，只要 3D 列印就可以解決；一旦物聯網建構起來，每個人都能相互串連，促成前所未見的共同創造和攜手合作。
梅森說：「如今，構成現代資本主義主要矛盾的，是自由 (免費) 的機會，充足的共創物品，以及壟斷企業、銀行和努力維持對權力和資訊控制的政府所構成的體系。萬事萬物都捲進了網絡和階級間的鬥爭。」
氣候變遷
到現在為止，政府和企業都說市場機制是全球暖化的最佳解方，然而所有證據都狠狠打臉。來看數據：國際能源署指出，如果希望全球均溫不會上升超過政府和科學家一致同意的攝氏二度，那麼就必須在 2050 年前將排碳量控制在 8860 億噸以下；結果化石燃料公司依然投資重本在開採油氣上，這些儲量燃燒後釋放的二氧化碳，會是國際能源署控制排碳數字的好幾倍。經濟學把氣候變遷詮釋為嚴重的巿場失靈。
梅森寫道：「真正荒謬無比的，不是那些否認氣候變遷的人，而是以為現有市場機制足以阻止氣候變遷、以為市場必須設下氣候行動的底線、以為可以把市場調控到上演人類史上最大再造計畫的政客和經濟學者。」
資本主義以外的生活？
在展望未來這方面，梅森還是沒有描繪出一幅清楚的藍圖。但是他說，我們應該把金融業給社會化 (別讓金融業在大談賺錢的同時，卻把紓困金額留給社會買單)、把資訊給社會化 (這樣 Google 和 Facebook 就沒有資訊不對等的問題)、促進合作事業和非營利組織發展、並將公用事業國營化。在梅森的經濟裡，「山村免費無線上網的考量順位，要排在電信壟斷企業權利的前面」。
基本收入扮演了非市場經濟的關鍵角色，擁有基本收入，人們才能自由自在地去當非營利組織的志工、成立食品合作社、或用 3D 設計模組來設計事物。基本收入並不會讓人們拋下工作－－本來就有高薪滿意工作的人，還是會堅守工作崗位－－而是讓人們不用再去做那些由機器就能更輕鬆安全代勞的事情。
基本收入是一種把工作獎勵散布到公益活動的管道，以經濟而言，目前只有一部分的公益活動有得到這種獎勵。梅森寫道：「基本收入假定的是工時其實根本太少，不敷使用，所以我們必須把流動性注入到機制裡，好好分配工時。律師和日照社工都需要用領全薪的工作時數，來換取由國家付薪的自由運用時數。」
另一本新書《發明未來》(Inventing the Future) 同樣提倡基本收入，作者尼克．瑟尼斯克 (Nick Srnicek) 和艾力克斯．威廉斯 (Alex Williams) 認為，引進全民基本收入方案最大的阻礙，是政治上和文化上的挑戰。政治挑戰是人們必然會抗拒政府大撒幣的主意，這就跟人們現在抗拒傳統的福利方案是一樣的。文化挑戰在於「工作已經非常深植在我們的核心身分認同裡」。即使工作貶值，錢少事多，我們依然一想到工作，就想到自力更生、自我實現和救贖之類的觀念。(關於如何支付全民基本收入，瑟尼斯克和威廉斯避而未談，不過他們有提到減少軍事花費及增加碳稅等其他稅目)。
很多人大概會強力反對後資本主義的觀點，因為資本主義已經是美國和大多數先進國家不可或缺的風景。無論左派右派，大多數人也都信服自由市場的觀念，因為我們一直以來聽到的說法，總是自由市場帶動經濟成長，以及人們應該如何在這個市場裡自由活動。
資本主義以外的觀點，總讓人覺得有社會主義的意味，即使梅森的建言跟舊式社會主義完全風馬牛不相及。其實梅森的主張，是企圖隨順科技的演進動線，並接受這世界原本的樣貌，而不是另外費心創出虛擬的新自由主義天堂。事實是，容易落入貧富差距、資訊壟斷和金融權力窠臼的資本主義，正在一點一滴喪失動力。是時候開始思考新方案了。
If the goal of the economy is to provide decent-paying work for everyone, that economy clearly isn't doing a good job at the moment. Real wages for most Americans haven't increased in 40 years. Real unemployment–which includes the "under-employed"–is above 10%. Many jobs are now part-time, flexi-time, or "gigs" with no benefits and few protections. And, we spend a lot of money to subsidize so-called "bullshit jobs": more than 50% of fast food workers receive some form of public assistance, for instance.
This is one of Co.Exist's World Changing Ideas of 2016. Here are the rest:
• Your Data Footprint Is Affecting Your Life In Ways You Can't Even Imagine
• Fixing Mental Health In The Workplace Requires A Lot More Than A Yoga Room
• CRISPR Is Going To Revolutionize Our Food System–And Start A New War Over GMOs
• The Future Of Progressive Business Is Companies That Are Good, Not Just Doing Good
• What Happens When We Become A Cashless Society?
• How The Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Going To Change The Lives Of The Bottom Billion
• Refugees Will Revitalize The Economy–If We Let Them
• Can We Save Ourselves From The End Of Antibiotics–Or Have The Superbugs Already Won?
• What If We Paid People To Vote?
And, even for people who are employed, work often isn't that fun. For all the talk of the meaning and purpose of our jobs, most people see them merely as a means to an end. Only 29% of employees in North America say they're engaged (worldwide, the number is 13%). And the reality is that a lot of work will soon be done by computer. Processing-type technology has already eliminated many "routine manual" and "routine cognitive" activities, notably in factories and offices. And new artificially intelligent machines are likely to take away more, even within professional occupations. Forty-seven percent of jobs are at risk over the next 20 years, one study showed.
Of course, there are many conventional ways we could deal with this, including improving education and training (so more people can work up the wage-scale and beyond the ability of robots) and raising minimum wages. But, over the long term, it's questionable whether even these approaches will be sufficient. The fundamental problem could be that work is losing its value. The thing that provided–that allowed families to prosper and individuals to build a sense-of-self–is under attack.
We have an economy where capitalism isn't as socially productive as it's traditionally been.
In response, many are now calling for a "universal basic income" (UBI)–where the state gives everyone enough to live on. This would put a floor under the class of people we're calling the "precariat," people for whom work doesn't lead to increased financial security. It would free us from the bullshit, allowing everyone to benefit from automation, not just the lucky few. And it would leave us more time for creative, fulfilling things, enjoying the "abundance" that new technology affords (think how useful and cheap computers are today and imagine what they might let everyone do in the future). There are several UBI trials planned in Finland, Switzerland, and Canada (and, indeed, several reasons why the idea is attractive).
Critics of UBI say it's unaffordable, impractical, and liable to lead to millions of layabouts living off the government dime–and perhaps they're right. These criticisms are reasonable. But before dismissing UBI too quickly, it's important to consider the idea not in the context of our current economy, but of what the economy could become in the future. UBI is not so much an idea for now; it's an idea for an economy where capitalism isn't as socially productive as it's traditionally been.
To understand the type of economy we have and how it's not providing for a lot of people, you need to read Postcapitalism, a profound and important book by Paul Mason, a British economist and journalist. Mason makes the case for UBI, among a larger set of changes necessitated by the failure of the current system. Presenting a long economic history showing how innovation and prosperity rises and falls in waves, he shows how our current arrangements aren't as innovative and prosperous as we tend to think (the invention of Facebook isn't as momentous as the coming of the steam engine).
Mason says we need to move towards a "postcapitalist" economy, where working for money loses its centrality, where goods, information, and intellectual property are shared, and where economic actors collaborate in new ways, whether it's credit union-type financial institutions or co-operative-type retailers. Importantly, Mason also shows how current economic orthodoxy–based around "free markets," globalization and an oversized role for the financial services industry–isn't some historical end-state, perfecting everything that went before. Rather, it's the result of a particular set of choices, starting in the 1980s, that advantage some people over others.
Mason's book contains a lot of refreshing ideas, but the main thrust is that capitalism is creaking under its own weight, and that we need an alternative. He gives three main reasons:
Financial meltdown
The 2008 financial crisis showed the inherent instability of the current system. We had a crisis because central banks kept money cheap for a long time by keeping interest rates low, maintaining the price of assets and encouraging everyone to borrow. We took on credit cards, auto loans, and mortgages, substituting debt for the weakness of wages (while incomes have stagnated since the 1970s, debt in the U.S. economy has doubled). Wall Street traded our loans in repackaged units, generating profits. But then subprime borrowers couldn't repay what they owed, asset prices fell, and the cards started falling.
But even as the economy collapsed, the banks didn't retreat from their cheap money policies. Following the financial crisis, banks in the U.S., Japan, and Europe have printed $12 trillion in new money, mopping up the old debts and inspiring new ones. And now the seeds of debt-derived disaster are being replanted, only this time it's questionable whether we'll have the resources to bail out the systemically important players.
"The fiction at the heart of neoliberalism is that everybody can enjoy the consumer lifestyle without wages rising," Mason writes. "You can go on creating money forever but if a declining share of it flows to workers, and yet a growing part of profits is generated out of their mortgages and credit cards, you are eventually going to hit a wall. At some point, the expansion of financial profit through providing loans to stressed consumers will break, and snap back."
"At some point, the expansion of financial profit through providing loans to stressed consumers will break, and snap back."
Western capitalism, Mason argues, is built on financialization (whereby consumer debt is made tradable), fiat or paper money (which isn't based on anything tangible, like gold), and global imbalances between creditor nations (like China) and debtor nations (like the U.S.). It's a system prone to boom and bust that masks an underlying reality: The real economy isn't growing very quickly and probably hasn't for some while.
Information goods
Modern economies are increasingly based around information. Information "wants to be free"–as the saying goes–but free things are bad for capitalism, because capitalism is about competition and making profits.
Information goods aren't like physical goods. Intrinsically, a computer program is different from a car. Building each new BMW is as hard as the one before; creating another copy of a computer program is easy. Once you've got the recipe, each extra unit is essentially free. That's great for information giants like Google, Facebook, and Apple. It means that once they have a recipe, they can watch the money rush in. But maintaining the idea that what they're selling is valuable requires a certain inventiveness. They need to appeal to intellectual property principles (a notoriously messy area of the law). They need to maintain monopolies, like Google's de facto monopoly over search. Sorry Bing. Or they need to give the product away, then sell something else (Facebook sells your personal data to advertisers). None of these things are intrinsic to the main capitalistic exchange because the old law of supply and demand has broken down. We've moved from an era of scarcity to an era of abundance.
"The main contradiction in modern capitalism is between the possibility of free, abundant socially produced goods, and a system of monopolies."
In time, technology is likely to drive many things to "zero marginal cost." Energy, for example, won't be subject to market forces. We'll just have a solar panel on the roof and each kilowatt hour will essentially be free. When we need something for the house, we'll just print it with a 3-D printer. And when we have an Internet of Things, everyone will be connected, enabling unparalleled co-creation and collaboration.
"Today, the main contradiction in modern capitalism is between the possibility of free, abundant socially produced goods, and a system of monopolies, banks, and governments struggling to maintain control over power and information," Mason says. "Everything is pervaded by a fight between network and hierarchy."
Climate change
Up to now, governments and businesses have said that market mechanisms are the best way to deal with global warming. But all evidence suggests that they're wrong. Consider the numbers. To stay under the two-degree threshold agreed by governments and scientists, we need to burn no more than 886 billion tons of carbon by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency. And yet fossil fuel firms continue to invest heavily in exploiting reserves that, if burned, will result in many times that amount of emissions. In economics-speak, climate change represents a massive market failure.
"The real absurdists are not the climate-change deniers, but the politicians and economists who believe that the existing market mechanisms can stop climate change, that the market must set the limits of climate action, and that the market can be structured to deliver the biggest re-engineering project humanity has ever tried," Mason writes.
Life beyond capitalism?
In looking beyond the current system, Mason stops short of providing a blueprint. But he says we should socialize aspects of the finance industry (to stop it from taking all the profits while leaving society with bail-out bills), socialize information (so Google and Facebook don't enjoy information asymmetry), encourage collaborative work and nonprofits, and nationalize utilities. In Mason's economy, we would "privilege the free Wi-Fi network in the mountain village over the rights of the telecoms monopoly."
A basic income is key in a non-market economy. It's what allows people to volunteer at nonprofit businesses, set up food co-ops, or design something using a 3-D design module. It wouldn't stop people from working–those with well-paying, satisfying jobs would continue to do them–but it would stop people from having to do things that machines can do more easily and more safely.
A basic income is a way to spread the rewards of work across socially useful activities, only some of which are currently rewarded, economically speaking. "A basic income says, in effect, there are too few work hours to go around, so we need to inject liquidity into the mechanism that allocates them," Mason writes. "The lawyer and the daycare worker would both need to be able to exchange hours of work at full pay, for hours of free time paid for by the state."
A basic income says, in effect, there are too few work hours to go round, so we need to inject liquidity into the mechanism that allocates them.
The biggest challenges to introducing UBI are political and cultural, say Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams in Inventing the Future, another new book that calls for a basic income. Political, because people naturally resist the idea of giving away free money, just as today they resist traditional welfare. And cultural, because "work is so deeply ingrained into our very identity." Even when work is degrading and miserable, we still associate it with self-reliance, self-realization and something redemptive. (Srnicek and Williams gloss over how to pay for UBI, though they mention reduced military spending and increases in carbon and other taxes).
It's likely that many people will recoil from the ideas of post-capitalism because capitalism is such a normative part of life in America and in much of the advanced world. Most of us here, left and right, believe in the idea of free markets, because we've been told that is what allows the economy to grow, and how people should be: free in our interactions.
Everything else sounds like socialism, even if what Mason is suggesting isn't anything like the old type of socialism. Instead, his ideas are an attempt to run with the grain of technology and accept the world as it is, not the neoliberal paradise we imagine it to be. The fact is that capitalism–with its tendency to income inequality, information monopolies, and financial power–is running out of steam. It's time to start thinking about something new.
作者：Ben Schiller
來源：https://www.fastcompany.com/3056483/welcome-to-the-post-work-economy
如果經濟的目標，是讓每個人都能得到一份薪資優渥的工作，那麼目前的經濟顯然尚未達標。大多數美國人實質薪資 40 年來並未調漲。包含「低度就業」在內的實際失業率高於 10%。現在很多工作都屬於兼職、彈性工時或「零工」性質，無法享受員工福利，也幾無保險可言。而且，美國竟然還花大錢去補助所謂的「屎缺」，譬如超過 50% 的速食店員工可以領到某種形式的公共救助。
工作型態的變化，是 Co.Exist 發布的「2016 年改變世界的觀點」之一，其他觀點還包括：
• 你的數位資料足跡，正在超乎想像地影響你的生活
• 想要調整職場上的心理健康，所需要的遠遠不只是瑜珈室而已
• CRISPR 技術即將顛覆人類的糧食體系－－並向基因改造技術下戰帖
• 進步企業的未來前景：公司除了績效優良，本身體質也要優良才行
• 進入無現金社會，會發生什麼事？
• 比特幣背後的技術，將如何翻轉底層十億窮人的生活
• 難民將成為經濟復甦的力量－－前提是我們得允許這件事發生
• 抗生素來到窮途末日，人類能否自救－－還是說，超級細菌早就贏了？
• 假如我們付錢拜託人民出門投票，會怎麼樣？
再加上，就連有正職的人也常常沒那麼樂在工作。每當討論工作的意義和目的，大多數人覺得自己只是一顆被操控的棋子。北美洲只有 29% 的員工認為自己很投入工作 (全球而言，此數值為 13%)。再者，其實很多工作即將由電腦取代。運算處理類型的技術，已經汰除許多「重複性操作型」(routine manual) 和「重複性認知型」(routine cognitive) 的活動，在工廠和辦公室尤其明顯。然後人工智慧新型機器也可能繼續攻城掠地，甚至侵占專業性工作的領域。一份研究指出，未來 20 年內 47% 的工作將岌岌可危。
當然，是有很多傳統作法可以處理這個問題，像是增進教育和訓練 (這樣一來就有更多人可以提升他們的薪資等級，而且技能強過機器人) 以及基本工資加碼；然而把時間拉長，實在無法確定這些作法到底足不足以應付問題。最核心的問題，也許是工作正在失去其價值。工作帶給我們的好處，像是養家活口、建立自我認同感等，已經受到抨擊。
為了因應變局，現在很多人呼籲應該推行「全民基本收入」(universal basic income，UBI)，也就是國家為每個人民提供足夠生活用度的金錢。有了全民基本收入，可以讓所謂的「不穩定無產階級」(precariat) 穩住最起碼的生活，畢竟對這群階級而言，工作並無助於增加他們的財務安全。有了全民基本收入，我們就能擺脫屎缺的壓榨，自動化的好處就能人人雨露均霑，而非僅有幸運的少數人獨占。有了全民基本收入，我們也能擁有更多時間從事有創造力、實現理想的活動，享受新科技創造出來的「富足」(想想看現在的電腦已有多強大、多便宜，然後想想未來電腦還可能會有多創新的發展)。數次全民基本收入計畫曾試行於芬蘭、瑞典和加拿大 (確實也有數個理由可以解釋全民基本收入為何如此吸引人)。
批評全民基本收入的人認為，國家負擔不起這種不切實際的計畫，而且全民基本收入恐怕會造就出幾百萬個無業遊民，只靠政府分的這些錢過活－－或許批評者說的沒錯。這些批評言論很合理，不過在馬上駁斥全民基本收入之前，請務必先用未來可能的經濟環境來考量全民基本收入這件事，而不是用當前的經濟現況。與其說全民基本收入是針對現在情形設計出來的方案，不如說是針對資本主義而設計，畢竟資本主義再也不似以往那般對社會貢獻生產力。
如果想認識我們現在處於何種經濟，以及這種經濟何以讓許多人沒辦法足夠取得所需，那麼你得先閱讀英國經濟新聞主編保羅．梅森 (Paul Mason) 的重要鉅作《後資本主義》(Postcapitalism)。梅森在書中探討因現今經濟體系敗壞而促成的眾多變動，其中就有提到全民基本收入。梅森介紹創新和繁榮如何在經濟史長河當中起起落落，然後指出當前的經濟布局，其實不如我們所想的同樣能夠推動創新和繁榮 (臉書的發明，並不像蒸汽機出現那般具有劃時代意義)。
梅森說，我們必須朝著「後資本主義」經濟的方向前進，在這樣的經濟裡，為賺錢而工作不再成為主流，貨物、資訊和智慧財產由眾人共享，而且經濟參與者有了全新的合作方式，可能是信用合作社形式的金融機構，也可能是合作社形式的零售商。重要的是，梅森還提到目前的經濟正統樣貌，也就是奠基於「自由市場」、全球化和金融服務業膨脹角色的經濟今貌，並不是經過一連串的汰舊換新後，從歷史自然演變而來的最終狀態，反而是一套始於 1980 年代的特定選擇所造就的結果，在這樣的經濟中，一部分的人比其他人拿到更多好處。
梅森在書中講述許多令人耳目一新的觀點，不過主旨還是圍繞著資本主義正在被自己的重量給壓垮，我們需要尋找替代方案。梅森提出資本主義崩潰的三個主因：
金融風暴
2008 年金融危機突顯出當前經濟體系本質上的不穩定。央行以維持低利率、穩定物價和鼓勵民眾借貸等手段，令貨幣長期處於低廉狀態，終至引發金融危機。人們申辦信用卡、車貸和房貸，用債務彌補低迷的薪資 (1970 年代起，美國經濟當中債務所占比例增加一倍，收入卻始終停滯不前)。華爾街利用重新包裝後的貸款組合滾利生息。但是接下來，次級房貸借款人還不出積欠之款，物價下跌，發卡數量開始下降。
然而，即使經濟衰退，銀行仍不願棄守它們的廉價貨幣策略。金融危機過後，美國、日本和歐洲的銀行印行了 12 兆美元的新鈔，蓋掉原有債務，然後誘使人們墜入新債務。現在，經濟再度播下債務致災的種子，只不過這一次，我們不曉得是否還有紓困的資源來解救經濟制度上的重要參與者。
梅森寫道：「位處新自由主義正中心的虛妄幻想，是每個人即使薪資沒漲也能享受消費生活。經濟體系可以一直一直發行貨幣，但是如果勞工得到的錢愈來愈少，然後從勞工的房貸和信用卡賺到的利潤愈來愈多，經濟最後還是會走進死胡同。金融體系放貸給備受壓力的消費者，藉此賺取利潤，放任這樣的利潤擴張下去，到了某個時間點，經濟體系將會瓦解，然後反噬。」
梅森認為，西方資本主義的基礎，是金融化 (消費者的債務變成可交易的物品)、法定貨幣或紙幣 (並非依憑任何實質之物，像是黃金)、以及債權國 (如中國) 與債務國 (如美國) 之間的全球失衡。這種體系容易受到景氣循環的影響，底下的真實面目被掩蓋了。事實上，經濟並沒有非常快速地成長，而且或許已有好一段時間未見成長。
資訊商品
現代經濟逐漸仰賴資訊。有句網路流行語這麼說：資訊「想要自由 (免費)」，然而對資本主義而言，自由 (免費) 不是好事，因為資本主義要的是競爭和獲利。
資訊商品不像實體物品。就本質而言，電腦程式和一台汽車是不一樣的。製造每一台新款的 BMW，就跟製造每一台舊款的的 BMW 同樣困難；可是複製另一份電腦程式卻易如反掌。只要拿到程式庫，不管多產出幾份程式，基本上通通免費。這對 Google、Facebook 和 Apple 等資訊龍頭而言，確實是天大的好消息，也就是說只要這些公司持有程式庫，便能坐等熱錢源源流入。不過，如果這些公司想讓人們繼續相信它們賣的東西是有價值的，此時就必須發揮一些創意了。它們得搬出智慧財產的道理 (惡名昭彰的法律渾沌地帶)；它們得維持自身的壟斷地位，例如實務上 Google 對網路搜尋的壟斷 (Bing，抱歉了)；或是，它們得捨棄原本的產品，然後去賣別的東西 (Facebook 把使用者個資賣給廣告商)。這些經營之道完全背離資本主義固有的「交換」原則，因為以往的供需法則業已崩壞。我們已經從匱乏的時代來到富足的時代。
時日一久，科技很可能把很多事物變成「零邊際成本」。舉例來說，能源將來可望脫離市場力量的主宰，我們只要在屋頂安裝太陽能板，那麼基本上每度電都可以免費；每當房屋需要什麼物品，只要 3D 列印就可以解決；一旦物聯網建構起來，每個人都能相互串連，促成前所未見的共同創造和攜手合作。
梅森說：「如今，構成現代資本主義主要矛盾的，是自由 (免費) 的機會，充足的共創物品，以及壟斷企業、銀行和努力維持對權力和資訊控制的政府所構成的體系。萬事萬物都捲進了網絡和階級間的鬥爭。」
氣候變遷
到現在為止，政府和企業都說市場機制是全球暖化的最佳解方，然而所有證據都狠狠打臉。來看數據：國際能源署指出，如果希望全球均溫不會上升超過政府和科學家一致同意的攝氏二度，那麼就必須在 2050 年前將排碳量控制在 8860 億噸以下；結果化石燃料公司依然投資重本在開採油氣上，這些儲量燃燒後釋放的二氧化碳，會是國際能源署控制排碳數字的好幾倍。經濟學把氣候變遷詮釋為嚴重的巿場失靈。
梅森寫道：「真正荒謬無比的，不是那些否認氣候變遷的人，而是以為現有市場機制足以阻止氣候變遷、以為市場必須設下氣候行動的底線、以為可以把市場調控到上演人類史上最大再造計畫的政客和經濟學者。」
資本主義以外的生活？
在展望未來這方面，梅森還是沒有描繪出一幅清楚的藍圖。但是他說，我們應該把金融業給社會化 (別讓金融業在大談賺錢的同時，卻把紓困金額留給社會買單)、把資訊給社會化 (這樣 Google 和 Facebook 就沒有資訊不對等的問題)、促進合作事業和非營利組織發展、並將公用事業國營化。在梅森的經濟裡，「山村免費無線上網的考量順位，要排在電信壟斷企業權利的前面」。
基本收入扮演了非市場經濟的關鍵角色，擁有基本收入，人們才能自由自在地去當非營利組織的志工、成立食品合作社、或用 3D 設計模組來設計事物。基本收入並不會讓人們拋下工作－－本來就有高薪滿意工作的人，還是會堅守工作崗位－－而是讓人們不用再去做那些由機器就能更輕鬆安全代勞的事情。
基本收入是一種把工作獎勵散布到公益活動的管道，以經濟而言，目前只有一部分的公益活動有得到這種獎勵。梅森寫道：「基本收入假定的是工時其實根本太少，不敷使用，所以我們必須把流動性注入到機制裡，好好分配工時。律師和日照社工都需要用領全薪的工作時數，來換取由國家付薪的自由運用時數。」
另一本新書《發明未來》(Inventing the Future) 同樣提倡基本收入，作者尼克．瑟尼斯克 (Nick Srnicek) 和艾力克斯．威廉斯 (Alex Williams) 認為，引進全民基本收入方案最大的阻礙，是政治上和文化上的挑戰。政治挑戰是人們必然會抗拒政府大撒幣的主意，這就跟人們現在抗拒傳統的福利方案是一樣的。文化挑戰在於「工作已經非常深植在我們的核心身分認同裡」。即使工作貶值，錢少事多，我們依然一想到工作，就想到自力更生、自我實現和救贖之類的觀念。(關於如何支付全民基本收入，瑟尼斯克和威廉斯避而未談，不過他們有提到減少軍事花費及增加碳稅等其他稅目)。
很多人大概會強力反對後資本主義的觀點，因為資本主義已經是美國和大多數先進國家不可或缺的風景。無論左派右派，大多數人也都信服自由市場的觀念，因為我們一直以來聽到的說法，總是自由市場帶動經濟成長，以及人們應該如何在這個市場裡自由活動。
資本主義以外的觀點，總讓人覺得有社會主義的意味，即使梅森的建言跟舊式社會主義完全風馬牛不相及。其實梅森的主張，是企圖隨順科技的演進動線，並接受這世界原本的樣貌，而不是另外費心創出虛擬的新自由主義天堂。事實是，容易落入貧富差距、資訊壟斷和金融權力窠臼的資本主義，正在一點一滴喪失動力。是時候開始思考新方案了。
If the goal of the economy is to provide decent-paying work for everyone, that economy clearly isn't doing a good job at the moment. Real wages for most Americans haven't increased in 40 years. Real unemployment–which includes the "under-employed"–is above 10%. Many jobs are now part-time, flexi-time, or "gigs" with no benefits and few protections. And, we spend a lot of money to subsidize so-called "bullshit jobs": more than 50% of fast food workers receive some form of public assistance, for instance.
This is one of Co.Exist's World Changing Ideas of 2016. Here are the rest:
• Your Data Footprint Is Affecting Your Life In Ways You Can't Even Imagine
• Fixing Mental Health In The Workplace Requires A Lot More Than A Yoga Room
• CRISPR Is Going To Revolutionize Our Food System–And Start A New War Over GMOs
• The Future Of Progressive Business Is Companies That Are Good, Not Just Doing Good
• What Happens When We Become A Cashless Society?
• How The Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Going To Change The Lives Of The Bottom Billion
• Refugees Will Revitalize The Economy–If We Let Them
• Can We Save Ourselves From The End Of Antibiotics–Or Have The Superbugs Already Won?
• What If We Paid People To Vote?
And, even for people who are employed, work often isn't that fun. For all the talk of the meaning and purpose of our jobs, most people see them merely as a means to an end. Only 29% of employees in North America say they're engaged (worldwide, the number is 13%). And the reality is that a lot of work will soon be done by computer. Processing-type technology has already eliminated many "routine manual" and "routine cognitive" activities, notably in factories and offices. And new artificially intelligent machines are likely to take away more, even within professional occupations. Forty-seven percent of jobs are at risk over the next 20 years, one study showed.
Of course, there are many conventional ways we could deal with this, including improving education and training (so more people can work up the wage-scale and beyond the ability of robots) and raising minimum wages. But, over the long term, it's questionable whether even these approaches will be sufficient. The fundamental problem could be that work is losing its value. The thing that provided–that allowed families to prosper and individuals to build a sense-of-self–is under attack.
We have an economy where capitalism isn't as socially productive as it's traditionally been.
In response, many are now calling for a "universal basic income" (UBI)–where the state gives everyone enough to live on. This would put a floor under the class of people we're calling the "precariat," people for whom work doesn't lead to increased financial security. It would free us from the bullshit, allowing everyone to benefit from automation, not just the lucky few. And it would leave us more time for creative, fulfilling things, enjoying the "abundance" that new technology affords (think how useful and cheap computers are today and imagine what they might let everyone do in the future). There are several UBI trials planned in Finland, Switzerland, and Canada (and, indeed, several reasons why the idea is attractive).
Critics of UBI say it's unaffordable, impractical, and liable to lead to millions of layabouts living off the government dime–and perhaps they're right. These criticisms are reasonable. But before dismissing UBI too quickly, it's important to consider the idea not in the context of our current economy, but of what the economy could become in the future. UBI is not so much an idea for now; it's an idea for an economy where capitalism isn't as socially productive as it's traditionally been.
To understand the type of economy we have and how it's not providing for a lot of people, you need to read Postcapitalism, a profound and important book by Paul Mason, a British economist and journalist. Mason makes the case for UBI, among a larger set of changes necessitated by the failure of the current system. Presenting a long economic history showing how innovation and prosperity rises and falls in waves, he shows how our current arrangements aren't as innovative and prosperous as we tend to think (the invention of Facebook isn't as momentous as the coming of the steam engine).
Mason says we need to move towards a "postcapitalist" economy, where working for money loses its centrality, where goods, information, and intellectual property are shared, and where economic actors collaborate in new ways, whether it's credit union-type financial institutions or co-operative-type retailers. Importantly, Mason also shows how current economic orthodoxy–based around "free markets," globalization and an oversized role for the financial services industry–isn't some historical end-state, perfecting everything that went before. Rather, it's the result of a particular set of choices, starting in the 1980s, that advantage some people over others.
Mason's book contains a lot of refreshing ideas, but the main thrust is that capitalism is creaking under its own weight, and that we need an alternative. He gives three main reasons:
Financial meltdown
The 2008 financial crisis showed the inherent instability of the current system. We had a crisis because central banks kept money cheap for a long time by keeping interest rates low, maintaining the price of assets and encouraging everyone to borrow. We took on credit cards, auto loans, and mortgages, substituting debt for the weakness of wages (while incomes have stagnated since the 1970s, debt in the U.S. economy has doubled). Wall Street traded our loans in repackaged units, generating profits. But then subprime borrowers couldn't repay what they owed, asset prices fell, and the cards started falling.
But even as the economy collapsed, the banks didn't retreat from their cheap money policies. Following the financial crisis, banks in the U.S., Japan, and Europe have printed $12 trillion in new money, mopping up the old debts and inspiring new ones. And now the seeds of debt-derived disaster are being replanted, only this time it's questionable whether we'll have the resources to bail out the systemically important players.
"The fiction at the heart of neoliberalism is that everybody can enjoy the consumer lifestyle without wages rising," Mason writes. "You can go on creating money forever but if a declining share of it flows to workers, and yet a growing part of profits is generated out of their mortgages and credit cards, you are eventually going to hit a wall. At some point, the expansion of financial profit through providing loans to stressed consumers will break, and snap back."
"At some point, the expansion of financial profit through providing loans to stressed consumers will break, and snap back."
Western capitalism, Mason argues, is built on financialization (whereby consumer debt is made tradable), fiat or paper money (which isn't based on anything tangible, like gold), and global imbalances between creditor nations (like China) and debtor nations (like the U.S.). It's a system prone to boom and bust that masks an underlying reality: The real economy isn't growing very quickly and probably hasn't for some while.
Information goods
Modern economies are increasingly based around information. Information "wants to be free"–as the saying goes–but free things are bad for capitalism, because capitalism is about competition and making profits.
Information goods aren't like physical goods. Intrinsically, a computer program is different from a car. Building each new BMW is as hard as the one before; creating another copy of a computer program is easy. Once you've got the recipe, each extra unit is essentially free. That's great for information giants like Google, Facebook, and Apple. It means that once they have a recipe, they can watch the money rush in. But maintaining the idea that what they're selling is valuable requires a certain inventiveness. They need to appeal to intellectual property principles (a notoriously messy area of the law). They need to maintain monopolies, like Google's de facto monopoly over search. Sorry Bing. Or they need to give the product away, then sell something else (Facebook sells your personal data to advertisers). None of these things are intrinsic to the main capitalistic exchange because the old law of supply and demand has broken down. We've moved from an era of scarcity to an era of abundance.
"The main contradiction in modern capitalism is between the possibility of free, abundant socially produced goods, and a system of monopolies."
In time, technology is likely to drive many things to "zero marginal cost." Energy, for example, won't be subject to market forces. We'll just have a solar panel on the roof and each kilowatt hour will essentially be free. When we need something for the house, we'll just print it with a 3-D printer. And when we have an Internet of Things, everyone will be connected, enabling unparalleled co-creation and collaboration.
"Today, the main contradiction in modern capitalism is between the possibility of free, abundant socially produced goods, and a system of monopolies, banks, and governments struggling to maintain control over power and information," Mason says. "Everything is pervaded by a fight between network and hierarchy."
Climate change
Up to now, governments and businesses have said that market mechanisms are the best way to deal with global warming. But all evidence suggests that they're wrong. Consider the numbers. To stay under the two-degree threshold agreed by governments and scientists, we need to burn no more than 886 billion tons of carbon by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency. And yet fossil fuel firms continue to invest heavily in exploiting reserves that, if burned, will result in many times that amount of emissions. In economics-speak, climate change represents a massive market failure.
"The real absurdists are not the climate-change deniers, but the politicians and economists who believe that the existing market mechanisms can stop climate change, that the market must set the limits of climate action, and that the market can be structured to deliver the biggest re-engineering project humanity has ever tried," Mason writes.
Life beyond capitalism?
In looking beyond the current system, Mason stops short of providing a blueprint. But he says we should socialize aspects of the finance industry (to stop it from taking all the profits while leaving society with bail-out bills), socialize information (so Google and Facebook don't enjoy information asymmetry), encourage collaborative work and nonprofits, and nationalize utilities. In Mason's economy, we would "privilege the free Wi-Fi network in the mountain village over the rights of the telecoms monopoly."
A basic income is key in a non-market economy. It's what allows people to volunteer at nonprofit businesses, set up food co-ops, or design something using a 3-D design module. It wouldn't stop people from working–those with well-paying, satisfying jobs would continue to do them–but it would stop people from having to do things that machines can do more easily and more safely.
A basic income is a way to spread the rewards of work across socially useful activities, only some of which are currently rewarded, economically speaking. "A basic income says, in effect, there are too few work hours to go around, so we need to inject liquidity into the mechanism that allocates them," Mason writes. "The lawyer and the daycare worker would both need to be able to exchange hours of work at full pay, for hours of free time paid for by the state."
A basic income says, in effect, there are too few work hours to go round, so we need to inject liquidity into the mechanism that allocates them.
The biggest challenges to introducing UBI are political and cultural, say Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams in Inventing the Future, another new book that calls for a basic income. Political, because people naturally resist the idea of giving away free money, just as today they resist traditional welfare. And cultural, because "work is so deeply ingrained into our very identity." Even when work is degrading and miserable, we still associate it with self-reliance, self-realization and something redemptive. (Srnicek and Williams gloss over how to pay for UBI, though they mention reduced military spending and increases in carbon and other taxes).
It's likely that many people will recoil from the ideas of post-capitalism because capitalism is such a normative part of life in America and in much of the advanced world. Most of us here, left and right, believe in the idea of free markets, because we've been told that is what allows the economy to grow, and how people should be: free in our interactions.
Everything else sounds like socialism, even if what Mason is suggesting isn't anything like the old type of socialism. Instead, his ideas are an attempt to run with the grain of technology and accept the world as it is, not the neoliberal paradise we imagine it to be. The fact is that capitalism–with its tendency to income inequality, information monopolies, and financial power–is running out of steam. It's time to start thinking about something new.
留言
張貼留言