关注社会:"美国梦"如今已然成神话

US inequality is at its highest point for nearly a century. Those at the top – no matter how you slice it – are enjoying a larger share of the national pie; the number below the poverty level is growing. The gap between those with the median income and those at the top is growing, too. The US used to think of itself as a middle-class country – but this is no longer true.

美国的不平等程度正处于近一个世纪以来的最高点。不管你如何解读，收入最高的人群正享用着更大的一块蛋糕；位于贫困线以下的人群正在扩大。中值收入和最高收入人群之间的差距也在拉大。美国曾经认为自己是一个中产阶级国家，但情况已不再是这样了。

Economists have justified such disparities by citing "marginal productivity theory", which explains higher incomes through greater societal contributions. But those who have really transformed our society, by providing the knowledge that underpins the advances in technology, earn a relative pittance. Just think of the inventors of the laser, the Turing machine or the discoverers of DNA. The innovation of those on Wall Street, while well compensated, brought the global economy to the brink of ruin; and these financial entrepreneurs walked off with mega-incomes.

经济学家们引用"边际生产率理论"(marginal productivity theory)为此类差异提供理由，该理论用更大的社会贡献来解释更高的收入。但那些提供推动技术进步的知识、从而真正改变我们的社会的人，得到的报酬相对微薄。想想激光、图灵机的发明人，或者DNA的发现者吧。华尔街高薪人士的创新把全球经济推向毁灭的边缘，可这些金融企业家们照样揣着巨额收入一走了事。

One might feel better about inequality if there were a grain of truth in trickle-down economics. But the median income of Americans today is lower than it was a decade and a half ago; and the median income of a full-time male worker is lower than it was more than four decades ago. Meanwhile, those at the top have never had it so good.

如果滴漏(trickle-down)经济学有一点点道理的话，人们对于不平等的心态或许会好一点。但美国人如今的收入中值不及15年以前；全职男性员工的收入中值低于40多年前。与此同时，那些收入最高的人群从未像现在这样富有。

Some argue that increased inequality is an inevitable byproduct of the market. False: several countries are reducing inequality while maintaining economic growth.

一些人辩称，不平等程度加剧是市场不可避免的副产品。错：有好几个国家在降低不平等程度的同时保持了经济增长。

Markets are shaped by the rules of the game. Our political system has written rules that benefit the rich at the expense of others. Financial regulations allow predatory lending and abusive credit-card practices that transfer money from the bottom to the top. So do bankruptcy laws that provide priority for derivatives. The rules of globalisation – where capital is freely mobile but workers are not– enhance an already large asymmetry of bargaining: businesses threaten to leave the country unless workers make strong concessions.

市场是用游戏规则塑造而成的。我们的政治体制制定了造福于富人、而让其他人付出代价的规则。金融监管听任掠夺性的放贷和欺骗性的信用卡业务实践泛滥，从而让金钱从底层向顶层转移。为衍生品提供优先权的破产法也是如此。全球化的规则（资金可以自由流动，但员工不可以）加剧了本已巨大的议价不对称性：企业威胁，除非员工做出巨大让步，否则将离开所在国家。

Textbooks teach us that we can have a more egalitarian society only if we give up growth or efficiency. However, closer analysis shows that we are paying a high price for inequality: it contributes to social, economic and political instability, and to lower growth. Western countries with the healthiest economies (for example those in Scandinavia) are also the countries with the highest degree of equality.

教科书告诉我们，只有放弃增长或效率，我们才能拥有一个更平等的社会。然而，更仔细的分析显示，我们正为不平等付出巨大代价：它加剧了社会、经济和政治的不稳定，也加剧了增长放缓。拥有最健康经济的西方国家（例如斯堪的纳维亚半岛国家）也是平等程度最高的国家。

The US grew far faster in the decades after the second world war, when inequality was lower, than it did after 1980, since when the gains have gone disproportionately to the top. There is growing evidence looking across countries over time that suggests a link between equality, growth and stability.

在二战后不平等程度较低的那几十年里，美国经济的增速远远快于1980年以后。1980年后，经济增长所带来的好处超出比例地流向收入最高人群。从各个国家的长期数据来看，越来越多的证据表明，平等、增长和稳定之间似乎存在着一定联系。

There is good news in this: by reducing rent-seeking – finding ways of getting a larger share of the pie, rather than making the pie larger – and the distortions that give rise to so much of America's inequality we can achieve a fairer society and a better-performing economy. Laws that tax speculators at less than half the rate of those who work for a living or make the innovations that are transforming our society, say something about our values; but they also distort our economy, encouraging young people to move into gambling rather than into more productive areas. Since so much of the income at the top is derived from rent seeking, higher taxes at the top would discourage rent-seeking.

从好的方面来看：通过减少"寻租"（设法分得更大一块蛋糕，而不是把蛋糕做得更大），减少给美国带来这么多不平等的扭曲机制，我们可以让美国社会更加公平，也让美国经济运转得更好。针对投机者的税率，尚不及挣钱谋生者和创新者适用税率的一半，这样的法律在某种程度上体现了我们的价值观，但也扭曲了我们的经济，鼓励年轻人投机，而不是投入生产活动。因为顶层有这么多收入来自"寻租"，因此对收入最高人群征更高的税会抑制"寻租"。

America used to be thought of as the land of opportunity. Today, a child's life chances are more dependent on the income of his or her parents than in Europe, or any other of the advanced industrial countries for which there are data. The US worked hard to create the American dream of opportunity. But today, that dream is a myth.

过去，人们觉得美国遍地是机会。可在如今的美国，一个孩子在人生机遇方面依赖父母收入的程度，超过欧洲或有数据记录的其他任何发达工业国家。昔日的美国努力创造机会均等的"美国梦"。但如今，"美国梦"只是个神话。

We can once again become a land of opportunity but it will not happen on its own, and it will not happen with a politics that focuses on cutting public education and other programmes to enhance opportunities for the bottom and middle, while cutting taxes for those at the very top. President Barack Obama's support for these investments, as well as the "Buffett rule" that asks those at the top to pay at least as much in tax as a share of their income as those who are less fortunate, are moves in the right direction. Republican candidate Mitt Romney's suggestion that we cut back on public employees is worrisome; as is his silence on whether capital gains on speculation should be taxed at a lower rate than income derived from hard work.

美国能够再次变成一个遍地是机会的地方，但这种变化不会自动发生。只要我们还在实行这样的政策——削减公共教育和有助于增加中下层发展机会的其他项目、同时削减收入最高人群适用的税率——这种变化就不会发生。美国总统巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)支持公共教育等投资，并支持"巴菲特规则"（要求针对收入最高人群的所得税税率至少达到普通人的水平），这些举措的方向都是正确的。共和党总统候选人米特•罗姆尼(Mitt Romney)提出要裁减公务员，同时在另一个问题上（投机产生的资本利得适用税率是否应低于辛勤工作所得）保持沉默，这些都令人担忧。

The country will have to make a choice: if it continues as it has in recent decades, the lack of opportunity will mean a more divided society, marked by lower growth and higher social, political and economic instability. Or it can recognise that the economy has lost its balance. The gilded age led to the progressive era, the excesses of the Roaring Twenties led to the Depression, which in turn led to the New Deal. Each time, the country saw the extremes to which it was going and pulled back. The question is, will it do so once again?

美国将不得不面临一个抉择：如果继续走近几十年的老路，机会的匮乏将意味着社会分化更加严重，经济增长率降低，社会、政治和经济更加不稳定。抑或，美国可以意识到：经济已失衡。黄金时代之后迎来进步时代，咆哮的二十年代(Roaring Twenties)的过分行为引发大萧条(Depression)，而大萧条又引出罗斯福新政(New Deal)。每次发现自己正走向极端之后，这个国家都把自己拉回了正常轨道。问题是，这一次还会这样吗？