技術(shù)與全球化沖擊好工作
“史上最高位的股市!就業(yè)強(qiáng)勁回歸!”唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)去年12月發(fā)推文夸口稱。主張?jiān)诰蜆I(yè)方面數(shù)量幾乎就是一切這種觀點(diǎn)的人中，這位美國總統(tǒng)是最著名的一位。
But job numbers alone are an increasingly crude barometer of economic health. For workers under pressure from changing technology and globalisation, a new measure is required, based on job quality as much as job quantity.
但單純從就業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)來判斷經(jīng)濟(jì)健康狀況卻是越來越不精確了。不斷變化的技術(shù)和全球化使職場中人備受壓力，因此需要?jiǎng)?chuàng)建一個(gè)新的指標(biāo)，同時(shí)考量工作崗位的數(shù)量和質(zhì)量。
More subtle politicians have been quick to realise this. Philip Hammond, UK chancellor of the exchequer, referred in his Budget speech in November to a “relentless focus on getting more people into work”. But he added the condition that such work should be “good quality and well paid”.
比較敏銳的政客們很快就意識(shí)到了這一點(diǎn)。在去年11月的預(yù)算演講中，英國財(cái)政大臣菲利普•哈蒙德(Philip Hammond)提到了“要持續(xù)關(guān)注于讓更多的人有工作”。但他補(bǔ)充了前提條件，即這些工作應(yīng)該是“質(zhì)量好、薪酬豐厚的”。
A few days later, the UK government laid out four “grand challenges” of its industrial strategy, including the promotion of artificial intelligence. “Embedding AI across the UK will create thousands of good quality jobs and drive economic growth,” the strategy document insisted.
幾天后，英國政府闡述了其產(chǎn)業(yè)戰(zhàn)略的四項(xiàng)“重大挑戰(zhàn)”，其中包括推廣人工智能。該戰(zhàn)略文件堅(jiān)稱：“讓AI廣布全英國，將創(chuàng)造許多優(yōu)質(zhì)就業(yè)崗位，推動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長。”
Recent history suggests the UK may be indulging in some wishful thinking. Automation is one of the forces identified by David Autor of MIT as squeezing out “good jobs” — the middle-skilled roles to which “ordinary working people” (to use the politicians’ mantra) would aspire.
近年來的情況表明，英國政府可能想得過于美好了。麻省理工學(xué)院(MIT)的戴維•奧特爾(David Autor)認(rèn)為自動(dòng)化是把“好工作”排擠掉的力量之一。這里說的“好工作”，是指“普通勞動(dòng)人民”(這里借用政客們的說法)所向往的中等技能工作崗位。
Globalisation is another such pressure. The remainder of the workforce is polarising into high-level managerial and professional posts and low-tier service jobs. Such good jobs as survive demand ever more sophisticated skills.
全球化則是另一股力量。職場上剩余的勞動(dòng)者正在分化為高級(jí)管理和專業(yè)職位，以及低層次的服務(wù)崗位。這些尚存的好工作要求具備更高級(jí)的技能。
For managers who hold on to their positions, this poses new tests. Rick Wartzman, whose book The End of Loyalty is subtitled “The Rise and Fall of Good Jobs in America”, says the challenge starts with whether to cut jobs, or find ways to reposition staff for the automation revolution.
對(duì)于保住職位的經(jīng)理們來說，這將帶來新考驗(yàn)?！吨艺\不再》(The End of Loyalty)的作者瑞克•沃茲曼(Rick Wartzman)說，挑戰(zhàn)始于是削減工作崗位，還是想辦法重新安排員工的崗位，以適應(yīng)自動(dòng)化革命。那本書的副標(biāo)題是“美國好工作的興衰”(The Rise and Fall of Good Jobs in America)。
“Management is about making these kinds of decisions,” he told me. For instance, “[how] to put people, or combinations of people and technology, in the right position to maximise effectiveness. Doing an across-the-board cost-cutting exercise isn’t management.”
“管理就是要做出這一類的決定，”他告訴我說。例如，“(如何)把人或人和技術(shù)的組合放在合適位置，實(shí)現(xiàn)效率最大化。實(shí)施一套全方位的成本削減舉措算不上管理。”
The Brookings Institution recently looked at 14m “good jobs” in the US and found that their “digital score” — based on the knowledge, skills and tools needed to fulfil those roles — had risen from 29 to 50 between 2002 and 2016, out of a possible score of 100 for the most “digitally intense” occupations. In other words, basic digital skills are now a prerequisite for positions — mechanic, nurse, builder — which traditionally open the door to advancement for the two-thirds of Americans who lack a college degree.
不久前，布魯金斯學(xué)會(huì)(Brookings Institution)在研究美國的1400萬份“好工作”后發(fā)現(xiàn)，這些好工作的“數(shù)字技能分?jǐn)?shù)”——基于履行這些職務(wù)所需的知識(shí)、技能和工具——從2002年的29分上升到2016年的50分。最高分100分，為“數(shù)字密集度”最高的職位。換言之，具備基本數(shù)字技能已成為從事技工、護(hù)士、建筑工等職位的一個(gè)先決條件，而傳統(tǒng)上，干這類工作的未取得大學(xué)學(xué)歷的美國人中，有三分之二的人有升職機(jī)會(huì)。
The same challenge is multiplied by many millions in populous, fast-growing countries such as India. One Indian manufacturing tycoon I met just shrugged when I asked whether he felt any responsibility to the staff he would have to lay off as he installed more sophisticated machines in his factories. His response was just one indication that digitalisation could slam the door in the face of many young Indians, who are counting on basic literacy and numeracy to open up decent production line jobs.
在印度等人口眾多、發(fā)展迅速的國家里，同樣的挑戰(zhàn)被放大了無數(shù)倍。我問一位印度制造業(yè)大亨，他在自己工廠里安裝更先進(jìn)機(jī)器時(shí)，將不得不解雇一些員工，那么他是否感覺對(duì)這些人負(fù)有責(zé)任?他的回應(yīng)只是聳聳肩。這不過是表明數(shù)字化可能會(huì)斷了許多印度年輕人工作門路的跡象之一，這些人指望著靠基本的讀寫和計(jì)算能力來謀求體面的生產(chǎn)線崗位。
Sometimes, a lack of such skills also blights the future of people forced out of good jobs. In Amy Goldstein’s book Janesville , workers laid off by General Motors flocked to the Wisconsin town’s college to retrain, only for their teachers to discover that some “didn’t even know how to turn [a computer] on”.
有時(shí)，缺乏此類技能也會(huì)毀掉那些丟掉好工作的人們的未來。在埃米•戈?duì)柎奶?Amy Goldstein)的著作《簡斯維爾》(Janesville)中，被通用汽車公司(General Motors)解雇的員工蜂擁至這個(gè)威斯康星州城鎮(zhèn)的大學(xué)進(jìn)行再培訓(xùn)，結(jié)果他們的老師卻發(fā)現(xiàn)有些人“甚至不會(huì)開機(jī)(電腦)”。
One responsibility of future managers is to ensure that this ground-level digital education is made available. “The next phase of the digital skills push needs to add a new, less-glamorous focus on IT basics such as Microsoft Office and basic customer relationship management (CRM) software to the cooler agenda of scaling up the code schools,” Brookings fellow Mark Muro wrote in a blogpost about the think-tank’s report.
未來管理者的職責(zé)之一是確保員工有機(jī)會(huì)獲得這種基礎(chǔ)數(shù)字教育。“推廣數(shù)字技能的下一階段，需要在增加編程學(xué)校的高大上議程之外，加上一個(gè)新的、不那么迷人的關(guān)注點(diǎn)：微軟Office等IT基礎(chǔ)知識(shí)和基本的客戶關(guān)系管理(CRM)軟件，”布魯金斯學(xué)會(huì)研究員馬克•穆羅(Mark Muro)在一篇關(guān)于該智庫報(bào)告的博文中寫道。
The model, says Wartzman, needs to change to one in which managers offer staff opportunities for lifelong learning. Ideally, this should happen on the job, rather than after redundancy, when the efficacy of retraining may be undermined by the general lack of opportunities, as happened to Janesville’s unemployed car workers in the depths of the 2008-09 recession.
沃茲曼說，當(dāng)前模式需要轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)楣芾碚邽閱T工提供終身學(xué)習(xí)機(jī)會(huì)的模式。在理想情況下，這應(yīng)該發(fā)生在工作中，而不是裁員之后——那種時(shí)候機(jī)會(huì)的普遍缺乏可能會(huì)削弱再培訓(xùn)的效果，在2008年至2009年經(jīng)濟(jì)嚴(yán)重衰退時(shí)期，簡斯維爾失業(yè)汽車工人就面臨這種情形。
The last resort may be to find ways to change the status of what used to be considered poor jobs. In Taiwan, the government successfully improved urban cleanliness by upgrading the “bad job” of street cleaning. It now comes with a salary close to the national average and a decent pension. Public competitions pit “clean teams” from different districts against each other.
最后一招是想辦法改變那些歷來被認(rèn)為很差的工作的地位。在臺(tái)灣，當(dāng)局通過提高清潔街道這個(gè)“壞工作”的待遇，成功地讓城市變得更干凈?，F(xiàn)在，街道環(huán)衛(wèi)工人的工資已接近臺(tái)灣的平均水平，并能拿到不錯(cuò)的養(yǎng)老金。公共競賽讓不同地區(qū)的“清潔團(tuán)隊(duì)”彼此展開競爭。
It is an idiosyncratic example, but it underlines a point that Trump may want to consider. Creating more jobs is a fine goal; creating better jobs is even finer.
這個(gè)例子有些特殊，但它凸顯了一個(gè)道理，也許特朗普愿意花心思想一想。創(chuàng)造更多的工作崗位是一個(gè)美好的目標(biāo);而更值得追求的是創(chuàng)造優(yōu)良的工作崗位。
Andrew Hill is the FT’s management editor 安德魯•希爾(Andrew Hill)是英國《金融時(shí)報(bào)》的管理編輯
