第7章
机器之祸
（接前面部分）
2
But the opposition to labor-saving machinery, even today, is not confined to economic illiterates. As late as 1970, a book appeared by a writer so highly regarded that he has since received the Nobel Prize in economics. His book opposed the introduction of laborsaving machines in the underdeveloped countries on the ground that they “decrease the demand for labor”!* The logical conclusion from this would be that the way to maximize jobs is to make all labor as inefficient and unproductive as possible. It implies that the English Luddite rioters, who in the early nineteenth century destroyed stocking frames, steam-power looms, and shearing machines, were after all doing the right thing.
然而，即便是在今天，反对省力机械的论调仍然并不限于那些经济学盲。直到1970年还出了一本这样的书，其作者受到了高度评价，并荣获了诺贝尔经济学奖。在这本书中，该作者反对在经济欠发达国家使用省力机械，理由是机器会“减少对劳动力的需求”！[脚注:冈纳·缪尔达尔（Gunnar Myrdal）：《世界贫困的挑战》（The Challenge of World Poverty），(New York: Pantheon Books, 1970), pp. 400-401 处处可见.]按此逻辑得到的的结论就是：要想创造尽可能多的就业机会，就必须让所有劳工尽可能地从事缺乏效率和收益的工作。言下之意，19世纪初捣毁织袜机、蒸汽动力织布机和剪切机的英国卢德暴乱分子们（Luddite）的所作所为，归根到底竟然是对的。
One might pile up mountains of figures to show how wrong were the technophobes of the past. But it would do no good unless we understood clearly why they were wrong. For statistics and history are useless in economics unless accompanied by a basic deductive understanding of the facts—which means in this case an understanding of why the past consequences of the introduction of machinery and other labor-saving devices had to occur. Otherwise the technophobes will assert (as they do in fact assert when you point out to them that the prophecies of their predecessorsturned out to be absurd): “That may have been all very well in the past but today conditions are fundamentally different; and now we simply cannot afford to develop any more labor-saving machines.” Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, indeed, in a syndicated newspaper column of September19, 1945, wrote: “We have reached a point today where labor-saving devices are good only when they do not throw the worker out of his job.”
我们可以用一大堆数字来说明，过去那些恐惧科技进步的人错得有多离谱，但这样做无济于事，除非我们清楚地认识到他们为什么错。因为在经济学中，统计的与历史的东西，如果不与一种对事实作出基本推理的理解相结合的话，它们就是毫无疑义的。就本章分析的情况而言，这种结合意味着要去理解为什么在采用机器和其他的省力装置之后，必然产生那样的结果。要是我们不这样做，那些科技恐惧症患者就会狡辩说：“过去的状况还能忍受，但是今天的状况已经发生了根本性的变化，如今我们根本无法承受开发更多的省力机器。”当有人指出他们的前辈所作的预言被证明是荒谬的时候，他们正是以此来辩解的。1945年9月19日，在某报业集团的专栏中，美国第32任总统夫人埃莉诺·罗斯福（Eleanor Roosevelt）写道：“发展到今天，省力装置只有在不使人失业的情况下，对我们才是有利的。”
If it were indeed true that the introduction of labor-saving machinery is a cause of constantly mounting unemployment and misery, the logical conclusions to be drawn would be revolutionary, not only in the technical field but for our whole concept of civilization. Not only should we have to regard all further technical progress as a calamity; we should have to regard all past technical progress with equal horror. Every day each of us in his own activity is engaged in trying to reduce the effort it requires to accomplish a given result. Each of us is trying to save his own labor, to economize the means required to achieve his ends. Every employer, small as well as large, seeks constantly to gain his results more economically and efficiently— that is, by saving labor. Every intelligent workman tries to cut down the effort necessary to accomplish his assigned job. The most ambitious of us try tirelessly to increase the results we can achieve in a given number of hours. The technophobes, if they were logical and consistent, would have to dismiss all this progress and ingenuity as not only useless but vicious. Why should freight be carried from Chicago to New York by railroad when we could employ enormously more men, for example, to carry it all on their backs?
如果采用省力机器确实会造成失业率不断上升、加剧不幸的话，我们将合乎逻辑地得出颠覆性的结论，不仅会颠覆技术领域的观念，而且会颠覆整个人类文明的观念。我们不仅应该把任何的新技术进步都视为一场灾难，而且更该觉得过去所有的技术进步也都同样恐怖。每一天，我们每个人在处理个人事务时，总希望省心省力，把该做的事情尽快做完。每个人都想少花力气多办事。大大小小的雇主，总在设法通过节约劳动力来提高经济效益。头脑灵活的工人，都会想办法以最少的付出去完成上面指派的工作。雄心勃勃的人，总在坚持不懈地跟时间赛跑。如果严守逻辑上的一致性，那么科技恐惧症患者们必须摒弃所有这些进步和智巧，因为技术进步不但无益，而且有害。比方说从芝加哥运货到纽约，要是我们能够大量雇用人力，我们何必还要用火车，让人扛起货物背过去得了。
Theories as false as this are never held with logical consistency, but they do great harm because they are held at all. Let us, therefore, try to see exactly what happens when technical improvements and labor-saving machinery are introduced. The details will vary in each instance, depending upon the particular conditions that prevail in a given industry or period. But we shall assume an example that involves the main possibilities.
类似这样的错误理论，在逻辑上从来都站不住脚，但一旦有人相信，就贻害无穷。因此，我们需要设法弄明白：随着技术进步和省力机械的采用，到底会发生什么事。视特定行业或特定时期而言，具体情况会有不同，但我们应当采用囊括各种主要的可能性的范例。
Suppose a clothing manufacturer learns of a machine that will make men’s and women s overcoats for half as much labor as previously. He installs the machines and drops half his labor force.
假设有位制衣商了解到有种机器，可用于制造男式女式大衣，所耗人力只相当于以往的一半。于是，他购置了这种机器，并且裁掉了一半的员工。
This looks at first glance like a clear loss of employment. But the machine itself required labor to make it; so here, as one offset, are jobs that would not otherwise have existed. The manufacturer, however, would have adopted the machine only if it had either made better suits for half as much labor, or had made the same kind of suits at a smaller cost. If we assume the latter, we cannot assume that the amount of labor to make the machines was as great in terms of payrolls as the amount of labor that the clothing manufacturer hopes to save in the long run by adopting the machine; otherwise there would have been no economy, and he would not have adopted it.
初看上去，这似乎是很明显的就业损失。但是，机器本身需要人工去制造，由此带来原本不存在的工作机会，是冲抵损失的工作机会之一。应该看到，只有当这种机器可以用过去一半的人力生产出更好的大衣，或是能以更低的成本生产出同样好的大衣时，制衣商才会购置机器。假设是后一种情况，便不能假定制造机器所用的劳动量，以工资来计算的话，恰恰等于制衣商购置机器时期望能长期节省的劳动量，否则就没有经济效益可言，制衣商也不会购置那种机器。
So there is still a net loss of employment to be accounted for. But we should at least keep in mind the real possibility that even the first effect of the introduction of labor-saving machinery may be to increase employment on net balance; because it is usually only in the long run that the clothing manufacturer expects to save money by adopting the machine: it may take several years for the machine to “pay for itself.”
这么算来，就业机会仍然出现净损失。但我们至少要注意这样一个极大的可能性：即省力机械采用，其带来第一波影响也很有可能是使整体就业增加。因为制衣商使用机器，通常只是期望机器能长期帮他省钱，要机器“挣回本钱”也许要等上好几年的时间。
After the machine has produced economies sufficient to offset its cost, the clothing manufacturer has more profits than before. (We shall assume that he merely sells his coats for the same price as his competitors and makes no effort to undersell them.) At this point, it may seem, labor has suffered a net loss of employment, while it is only the manufacturer, the capitalist, who has gained. But it is precisely out of these extra profits that the subsequent social gains must come. The manufacturer must use these extra profits in at least one of three ways, and possibly he will use part of them in all three: (1) he will use the extra profits to expand his operations by buying more machines to make more coats; or (2) he will invest the extra profits in some other industry; or (3) he will spend the extra profits on increasing his own consumption. Whichever of these three courses he takes, he will increase employment.
等到机器挣够了本钱，开始产生经济效益时，制衣商就可以获得比从前更多的利润（假设他不打算低价销售，大衣的售价和竞争对手相同）。在这种情况下，好像劳工的就业机会遭受了损失，而只有那位制衣商，也就是资本家才能从中获利。但正因为资本家有了超额利润，相应的社会收益才得以体现。这位制衣商只有三种途径用掉超额利润，并且有可能在三个方面都分配一些资金：（1）用超额利润扩大生产，购置更多的机器，生产更多的大衣；（2）将超额利润投资到其他行业；（3）将超额利润用于个人消费。无论把利润用于哪个方面，他都会增加就业机会。
In other words, the manufacturer, as a result of his economies, has profits that he did not have before. Every dollar of the amount he has saved in direct wages to former coat makers, he now has to pay out in indirect wages to the makers of the new machine, or to the workers in another capital-using industry, or to the makers of a new house or car for himself or for jewelry and furs for his wife. In any case (unless he is a pointless hoarder) he gives indirectly as many jobs as he ceased to give directly.
换句话说，这位制衣商由于经济效益而获得了以前没有的利润。他从制衣工人直接工资那里节省下来的每一块钱，现在必须以间接工资的形式支付给新机器的生产工人，或者支付给他所投资的其他行业的工人，或者支付给为他盖新房、造新车的工人，或者通过为太太添置珠宝皮裘，支付给相关行业的工人。不管支付给什么人（除非他是一毛不拔的守财奴），他所间接提供的工作机会，将和他削减的直接工作机会一样多。
But the matter does not and cannot rest at this stage. If this enterprising manufacturer effects great economies as compared with his competitors, either he will begin to expand his operations at their expense, or they will start buying the machines too. Again more work will be given to the makers of the machines. But competition and production will then also begin to force down the price of overcoats. There will no longer be as great profits for those who adopt the new machines. The rate of profit of the manufacturers using the new machine will begin to drop, while the manufacturers who have still not adopted the machine may now make no profit at all. The savings, in other words, will begin to be passed along to the buyers of overcoats—to the consumers.
此外，事情不会也不可能就此打住。如果这位事业心强的制衣商在业界拥有相当大的成本优势，他会开始扩张营运规模，宰割坐以待毙的对手，或者逼迫他们着手添置机器。这样，又促使机制制造商增加人工。同时随着竞争加剧和产品增多，也会开始压低大衣的价格。那些新添置机器的制衣商获利不可能再如以往丰厚。率先使用新机器的制衣商获利率也开始下滑。仍未使用机器的制衣商可能根本无法获利。换句话说，整个业界创造的节约开始向大衣的购买者转移，也就是回馈给消费者。
But as overcoats are now cheaper, more people will buy them. This means that, though it takes fewer people to make the same number of overcoats as before, more overcoats are now being made than before. If the demand for overcoats is what economists call “elastic”—that is, if a fall in the price of overcoats causes a larger total amount of money to be spent on overcoats than previously— then more people may be employed even in making overcoats than before the new labor-saving machine was introduced. We have already seen how this actually happened historically with stockings and other textiles.
不过，由于大衣现在便宜了，更多的人会来购买。这意味着，生产同样数量的大衣，虽然雇佣的人工比以往更少，但现在的大衣总产量却比以往更大。如果人们对大衣的需求像经济学家所说的那样具有“弹性”（elastic），也就是说，价格下跌能刺激消费，消费者总体花在购买大衣上的总金额会比以前多，那么整个制衣业所雇用的劳工人数，甚至可能多于采用机器之前。从历史来看，针织袜业和其他纺织品业所发生的情形正是如此。
But the new employment does not depend on the elasticity of demand for the particular product involved. Suppose that, though the price of overcoats was almost cut in half—from a former price, say, of $150 to a new price of $100—not a single additional coat was sold. The result would be that while consumers were as well provided with new overcoats as before, each buyer would now have $50 left over that he would not have had left over before. He will therefore spend this $50 for something else, and so provide increased employment in other lines.
然而，新的就业并不取决于对某种具体产品的需求弹性。假设说，即使大衣的价格下跌了几乎一半（比如说从原来的150美元降为100美元），且总销量跟以前相比持平。其结果将是，消费者和以前一样都有一件新大衣，而不一样的是，每位消费者节省下了50美元。因此，他将把这50美元用在其他的什么东西上，从而增加了其他行业的就业。
In brief, on net balance machines, technological improvements, automation, economies and efficiency do not throw men out of work.
总之，整体而言，机器、技术改进、自动化、降低成本和提高效率并不会使人失去工作。
（未完待续）