第7章
机器之祸

（接前面部分）
3
 
Not all inventions and discoveries, of course, are “labor-saving” machines. Some of them, like precision instruments, like nylon, lucite, plywood and plastics of all kinds, simply improve the quality of products. Others, like the telephone or the airplane, perform operations that direct human labor could not perform at all. Still others bring into existence objects and services, such as X-ray machines, radios, TV sets, air-conditioners and computers, that would otherwise not even exist. But in the foregoing illustration we have taken precisely the kind of machine that has been the special object of modern technophobia.

不消说，并不是一切的发明与发现都是“节省劳动”的机器。有的发明创造的目的在于改良产品性能，如精密仪器、尼龙、合成树脂、胶合板、各种塑料。至于电话和飞机这样的发明创造，它们所执行的作业是直接人力无法执行的。更多的发明创造则给人类带来前所未有的产品和服务，如X射线机、收音机、电视机、空调、电脑。但在前面的论述中，我们所选取的，正是当代科技恐惧症患者尤其抵制的机器类型。

It is possible, of course, to push too far the argument that machines do not on net balance throw men out of work. It is sometimes argued, for example, that machines create more jobs than would otherwise have existed. Under certain conditions this may be true. They can certainly create enormously more jobs in particular trades. The eighteenth century figures for the textile industries are a case in point. Their modern counterparts are certainly no less striking. In 1910, 140,000 persons were employed in the United States in the newly created automobile industry. In 1920, as the product was improved and its cost reduced, the industry employed 250,000 In 1930, as this product improvement and cost reduction continued, employment in the industry was 380,000. In 1973 it had risen to 941,000. By 1973, 514,000 people were employed in making aircraft and aircraft parts, and 393,000 were engaged in making electronic components. So it has been in one newly created trade after another, as the invention was improved and the cost reduced.²

反过来，那些认为机器总体而言不会让人失业的主张也有可能说过头。例如，有时人们主张，机器能创造更多的工作机会。在某些情况下，这种说法可能符合事实。在某些特定行业中，机器绝对能创造远多于从前的工作机会。18世纪的纺织业便是一个很好的例子。现代的新兴产业与之相比有过之而无不及。1910年，在美国有14万人受雇于新兴的汽车制造业。到1920年，由于产品改进和成本降低，有25万人受雇于这个行业。到1930年，随着产品继续改良，成本继续降低，整个业界的从业人员达到了38万人。1973年，这个数字上升到94.1万。同样在1973年，有51.4万人受雇飞机及其机零部件制造业，39.3万人从事电子元件制造。因此，随着发明的不断进步和成本的降低，在一个接一个的新兴产业中，的确都出现了上述就业增长的情形。{尾注:经济学家迈克尔·考克斯（W. Michael Cox）和理查德·阿尔姆（Richard Alm）在1992年为达拉斯联邦储备银行写了一篇文章，在文中，这两位作者指出工作机会是一个不断创造的过程。经济学家熊彼特第一个提出“创造性破坏”，即科技创新能把劳动力从过时的工作中解放出来，进而创造新的就业机会。考克斯和阿尔姆考查了20世纪就业的迅猛增长的全过程。在这一过程中，1900年美国有2 900万工人，在1991年工人人数已达1.16亿。（考克斯和阿尔姆的〈流失〉（The Churn），达拉斯联邦储备委员会年报，1992年）}

There is also an absolute sense in which machines may be said to have enormously increased the number of jobs. The population of the world today is four times as great as in the middle of the eighteenth century, before the Industrial Revolution had got well under way. Machines may be said to have given birth to this increased population; for without the machines, the world would not have been able to support it. Three out of every four of us, therefore, may be said to owe not only our jobs but our very lives to machines.

机器可以大幅度地增加就业数量的观点还有一种绝对正确性。当今的全球人口是18世纪中叶工业革命形成规模前的4倍，因此也可以说，是机器使人口得以增加。如果没有近现代机器，这个世界根本无法养活那么多人。即，我们之中四分之三的人能有工作可做，能够在这个世界上存在，都要拜机器所赐。

Yet it is a misconception to think of the function or result of machines as primarily one of creating jobs. The real result of the machine is to increase production, to raise the standard of living, to increase economic welfare. It is no trick to employ everybody, even (or especially) in the most primitive economy. Full employment—very full employment; long, weary, backbreaking employment—is characteristic of precisely the nations that are most retarded industrially. Where full employment already exists, new machines, inventions and discoveries cannot—until there has been time for an increase in population — bring more employment. They are likely to bring more unemployment (but this time I am speaking of voluntaiy and not involuntary unemployment) because people can now afford to work fewer hours, while children and the overaged no longer need to work.

然而，把机器的主要功用或是成果看作是创造就业却是一种错误的观念。机器的真正成果是增加生产、提高生活水平、增加经济福利。要让人人都有活儿干，即使（或尤其是）在最原始的社会中，也易如反掌。全面就业（full employment）——真正的全面就业，起早摸黑、全年无休、累死累活的就业状态——是工业发展最落后的国家的特色。对于已经达到这种全面就业的地方，新机器、新发明和新发现并没有办法带来更多就业机会，必须要等到人口有所增长才有办法。新机器的确有可能使失业增加（但这里谈的是自愿性失业，而不是非自愿性失业），毕竟，人们如今可以不必工作那么长的时间，孩童和老人也不用再工作。

What machines do, to repeat, is to bring an increase in production and an increase in the standard of living. They may do this in either of two ways. They do it by making goods cheaper for consumers (as in our illustration of the overcoats), or they do it by increasing wages because they increase the productivity of the workers. In other words, they either increase money wages or, by reducing prices, they increase the goods and services that the same money wages will buy. Sometimes they do both. What actually happens will depend in large part upon the monetary policy pursued in a country. But in any case, machines, inventions and discoveries increase real wages.

我们需要重申，机器所带来的是增加生产和提高生活水平。这个结果可以通过两条途径来实现：机器使消费者购买的产品变得更加便宜（在前面大衣例子中已有说明），或者提高工人的生产力，从而使工人的工资能够提高。换句话说，机器能够提高货币工资，或者能够降低物价，让同样的薪水能买到更多的产品和服务。有时候两种情况会同时发生。至于到底发生哪种情况，主要根据当时国家的货币政策而定。但无论如何，机器、发明和发现都会提高实际工资水平。

4
 
A warning is necessary before we leave this subject. It was precisely the great merit of the classical economists that they looked for secondary consequences, that they were concerned with the effects of a given economic policy or development in the long run and on the whole community. But it was also their defect that, in taking the long view and the broad view, they sometimes neglected to take also the short view and the narrow view. They were too often inclined to minimize or to forget altogether the immediate effects of developments on special groups. We have seen, for example, that many of the English stocking knitters suffered real tragedies as a result of the introduction of the new stocking frames, one of the earliest inventions of the Industrial Revolution.

在我们结束这个话题之前，有必要再提醒一下读者。古典经济学家的可贵之处，在于他们寻求特定经济政策的续发后果，关心其在长期内对公众整体的影响。但是它的不足之处，在于他们过分注重长期和全局，有时反倒无视短期和局部的效应。他们往往低估经济发展对特殊群体的即时影响，甚至根本不放在心上。例如，我们已经看到，在工业革命最早期的发明之一新织袜机的应用，导致了许多英格兰手工织袜工人所遭遇的不幸。

But such facts and their modern counterparts have led some writers to the opposite extreme of looking only at the immediate effects on certain groups. Joe Smith is thrown out of a job by the introduction of some new machine. “Keep your eye on Joe Smith,” these writers insist. “Never lose track of Joe Smith.” But what they then proceed to do is to keep their eyes only on Joe Smith, and to forget Tom Jones, who has just got a new job in making the new machine, and Ted Brown, who has just got a job operating one, and Daisy Miller, who can now buy a coat for half what it used to cost her. And because they think only of Joe Smith, they end by advocating reactionary and nonsensical policies.

不过，这些事实及其现代版本，又使得某些经济文章作者走到了另一个极端，也就是只关注特定群体所遭受的即时后果。由于某种新机器投入使用，张三失去了工作，那些学者坚决要求社会“关注张三”、“绝不要忘记张三”。他们接下来所做的就是眼睛只看张三，而忘了李四刚得到制造新机器的新工作、王五刚得到操作新机器的工作，以及赵六现在只需要用过去一半的价钱就能买到大衣。正因为他们只想到张三，他们鼓吹倒行逆施的荒谬政策。

Yes, we should keep at least one eye on Joe Smith. He has been thrown out of a job by the new machine. Perhaps he can soon get another job, even a better one. But perhaps, also, he has devoted many years of his life to acquiring and improving a special skill for which the market no longer has any use. He has lost this investment in himself, in his old skill, just as his former employer, perhaps, has lost his investment in old machines or processes suddenly rendered obsolete. He was a skilled workman, and paid as a skilled workman. Now he has become overnight an unskilled workman again, and can hope, for the present, only for the wages of an unskilled workman, because the one skill he had is no longer needed. We cannot and must not forget Joe Smith. His is one of the personal tragedies that, as we shall see, are incident to nearly all industrial and economic progress.

的确，我们也至少应该给予张三一些关注。他因新机器而失去了工作。也许不久他就会找到找另一份工作，甚至比过去的工作还好。但实际的情形也可能是，他这辈子花了大半生所学习和掌握的某项特殊技能，变成了市场不再需要的技能。他对自身与旧技能的投资都白费了，正如他的老雇主在旧机器或旧工艺流程上面的投资，突然之间也变得落伍过时，血本无归一样。张三本来是技术工人，拿的是技术工人的工资。因为他的技能不再有人需要，他又沦为非技术工人，只能领到普通工人的工资。我们不能也不应该忘掉张三。像我们将要看到的，张三的经历几乎是所有工业和经济进步都必将带来的个人悲剧。

To ask precisely what course we should follow with Joe Smith —whether we should let him make his own adjustment, give him separation pay or unemployment compensation, put him on relief, or train him at government expense for a new job—would carry us beyond the point that we are here trying to illustrate. The central lesson is that we should try to see all the main consequences of any economic policy or development—the immediate effects on special groups, and the long-run effects on all groups.

我们到底应该对张三怎么办——不管他、让他自己去适应变化；发放遣散补偿金或失业补助给他，任由他依靠领取救济金度日；或者由政府出钱培训，帮助他再就业——这些话题已经超出了本章要讨论的范围。这里要总结的教训是，我们应该设法观察经济政策或经济动向的所有的主要后果——既观察其对特殊群体产生的即期影响，又观察其对所有群体产生的长期影响。

If we have devoted considerable space to this issue, it is because our conclusions regarding the effects of new machinery, inventions and discoveries on employment, production and welfare are crucial. If we are wrong about these, there are few things in economics about which we are likely to be right.

我们在这个主题上倾注了大量的时间和精力，这是因为就新机器、新发明和新发现对于就业、生产和福利的影响，我们能得出什么样的结论至关重要。要是我们得出的结论是错误的，那么我们在经济学上就很难做多少正确的事情了。