金融時(shí)報(bào):盧德主義在英國(guó)抬頭？

盧德主義在英國(guó)抬頭？

先進(jìn)機(jī)器設(shè)備的應(yīng)用，會(huì)減少勞動(dòng)者的工作崗位、降低他們的工資嗎？?jī)砂倌昵暗挠?guó)，搗毀機(jī)器的盧德分子就是這么認(rèn)為的。而今天，人們似乎又聽(tīng)到了歷史的回聲。FT臥底經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家Tim Harford用幽默的對(duì)話的形式對(duì)此進(jìn)行了分析。

測(cè)試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識(shí)：

Luddite ['l?dait] 盧德分子，十九世紀(jì)初(1811-1817)英國(guó)搗毀機(jī)器的手工業(yè)者；指強(qiáng)烈反對(duì)機(jī)械化或自動(dòng)化的人。有觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為這是社會(huì)主義運(yùn)動(dòng)的先聲。

droll [dr??l] 可笑，滑稽

mater and pater 父母

chancellor ['t?ɑ?ns(?)l?] 在英國(guó)指財(cái)政大臣，在德國(guó)奧地利指總理，在美國(guó)指衡平法院法官

Low pay and the rise of the machines （757 words）

By Tim Harford

‘4.6 million Britons (20 per cent of all employees) earn below the Living Wage – a leap from 3.4 million (14 per cent) in 2009'

The Resolution Foundation – 4 September 2013 …

4.6m Britons don't earn a living wage – are they dead?

Very droll. For “living wage” read “decent wage”. The Living Wage (with capital letters) is a target set by campaigners for a good solid hourly wage – currently £8.55 an hour in London and £7.45 an hour elsewhere. That's 20 per cent above the legal minimum wage rate. A lot of people don't make that much money. Some of them will be doing just fine – £7 an hour isn't bad if you're 17 years old, living with mater and pater and saving up for a gap year somewhere sunny – but others will not.

I feel like I've heard about all this before. Why are we talking about it now?

It's the new narrative for the Labour party. Here's the awkward thing for Labour: the economy is slowly picking up steam. So how to attack George Osborne, the chancellor? Ed Balls, shadow chancellor, could argue that Mr Osborne deserves no credit for the upturn – that government austerity made the depression longer and deeper than necessary. To an economist that's pretty plausible. To the voting public it doesn't seem to have much bite. And so the new story – pushed by Mr Balls and his deputy Rachel Reeves this week – is that while it's welcome that the economy is recovering, the problem is that hard-working families aren't benefiting.

Why is it always “hard-working families”? The phrase conjures up images of a family with six kids, all chained together and sent down a coal mine.

Can we skip the stylistic criticism for a moment and talk about the economics?

OK…

What is powerful about this story is that there's a lot of truth to it, and little Mr Osborne can do is likely to change it. And if Mr Balls were chancellor, little he could do would change it either. There are forces at work in the world economy that are making it hard for people with traditionally valuable skills to prosper.

Such as?

As technology becomes cheaper and better, people are replacing “labour” with “capital” – that is, employing fewer people, or paying the people they do employ less, and replacing them with machines or computers. Research published by two economists at the University of Chicago, Loukas Karabarbounis and Brent Neiman, has documented this trend: it's global, it's been going on for three decades, and it is happening in many different sectors of the economy. Some people can get more done in an automated world – but others find themselves shoved out of skilled work and into poorly paid alternatives. So inequality increases. The arrival on the scene of China and other major low-wage economies has also played a part.

We need to fight back!

Maybe. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, could organise a Luddite revolution against the machines. I don't think that's what he and Mr Balls have in mind when they talk about “predistribution”.

What do they mean when they talk about “predistribution”?

It means fixing inequality without the need to resort to redistributive taxation. Which raises the question of how. Improving education is one idea – but then who is in favour of worse schools? It also seems to mean bullying big companies to pay better wages to their most junior staff. But pressure has the same consequences as a too-high minimum wage: it can increase wages but it can also destroy jobs.

Perhaps we should look to Germany for answers: they seem to have solved their economic problems and have a strong manufacturing sector.

Germany has been reliant on low-wage jobs and flexible working conditions as much as anyone – perhaps more than most, as the economist Adam Posen has argued. Even employment in China's manufacturing sector is in structural decline: it was at its highest back in 1996. And you're missing one important thing about this argument.

Which is what?

Throughout this long recession, economists have been puzzled by the fact that so many people have managed to keep their jobs – or find new jobs. A key part of the answer: falling wages and flexible hours. The UK's flexible labour market kept the show on the road in the dark days; now it is being blamed, quite reasonably, for the fact that people have jobs that don't pay very well. Politicians may talk out of both sides of their mouths – but they can't have it both ways.

請(qǐng)根據(jù)你所讀到的文章內(nèi)容，完成以下自測(cè)題目：

1.How much is the “living wage” proposed by the campaigners?

A.Decent wage.

B.Minimum wage of London.

C.Average wage of Britain.

D.120% of minimum wage.

答案(1)

2.How does shadow chancelor Mr. Balls(Labour) attack Osborne(Conservative)?

A.That the economy is not recovering.

B.That the austerity is not tough enough.

C.That hard-working families are't benefiting.

D.That some families have to send their children down to a coal mine to make a living.

答案(2)

3.Inequality in Britain is increasing, why?

A.It is a global phenomenon.

B.Labour is being replaced by capital.

C.Economic recession hit Britain hard.

D.China's wage level is on the rise.

答案(3)

4.What does this mean?

“Politicians may talk out of both sides of their mouths – but they can't have it both ways.”

A.We can't fight recession and protect jobs at the same time.

B.We can't have a recovery and falling wages at the same time.

C.We can't have flexible labour market and handsome wages at the same time.

D.We can't blame the employers and the employees at the same time.

答案(4)

* * *

(1)答案：D.120% of minimum wage.

解釋?zhuān)核麄冎鲝埖?ldquo;糊口工資”是在倫敦每小時(shí)8.55磅，在其他地區(qū)至少7.45磅。這比法定最低工資高了20%。

(2)答案：C.That hard-working families are't benefiting.

解釋?zhuān)篈B都與事實(shí)相反：波爾斯承認(rèn)經(jīng)濟(jì)在復(fù)蘇，但認(rèn)為財(cái)政緊縮過(guò)于嚴(yán)厲了。至于D是作者在黑波爾斯：他有點(diǎn)夸大其詞來(lái)博同情，說(shuō)的跟這些家庭過(guò)得多慘似的。

(3)答案：B.Labour is being replaced by capital.

解釋?zhuān)杭夹g(shù)在進(jìn)步，成本在下降，自動(dòng)化程度因此提高，也就是“資本”代替“勞動(dòng)”，因此具有專(zhuān)業(yè)技能的少數(shù)人收入能夠大增，而更多技能較低的勞動(dòng)者收入上漲緩慢或停滯。這就是技術(shù)進(jìn)步帶來(lái)收入差距加大的機(jī)制。另外，中國(guó)等工資較低國(guó)家融入全球經(jīng)濟(jì)，也在拖低發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家勞動(dòng)密集型行業(yè)的收入。 ACD都是不能解釋問(wèn)題的。

(4)答案：C.We can't have flexible labour market and handsome wages at the same time.

解釋?zhuān)喝绻阕x懂本文的主旨就不難選出答案了：如果人為抬高工資，會(huì)造成失業(yè)，而英國(guó)較靈活的勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)為英國(guó)走出衰退做出了貢獻(xiàn)。A意思正確但不是所問(wèn)的。B錯(cuò)誤，因?yàn)楣べY可以下調(diào)正是勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)靈活，這正是復(fù)蘇的原因之一，兩者是一致的。C正確，政客們一邊說(shuō)靈活的勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)好，一方面又說(shuō)希望提高勞動(dòng)者的工資，這兩者其實(shí)是無(wú)法兼得的。D與題目不相關(guān)。