Is inequality inevitable?

翻译人员: Yip Yan Yeung 校对人员: Grace Man

In South Africa, one of the most unequal countries in the world,

南非，世界上贫富不均 最严重的国家之一，

the richest one-tenth of 1%, owns almost 30% of all the country’s wealth,

最富有的 0.1% 的人 拥有整个国家约 30% 的财富，

more than double what the bottom 90% owns.

比末位 90% 的人 拥有的多不止一倍。

Income and wealth inequality are not new.

收入和财富不均 不是什么新鲜话题。

In fact, economists and historians who’ve charted economic inequality

长久以来记录经济不均衡 问题的经济学家和历史学家

throughout history haven’t found a single society without it.

从未发现过 不存在这个现象的社会。

Which raises a bleak question:

这就让人想到一个悲观的问题：

is inequality inevitable?

不平等是不可避免的吗？

One way to estimate inequality is with a number called the Gini index,

衡量不平等程度的一种方式是 基尼系数（Gini index），

which is calculated by comparing the income or wealth distribution

通过比较绝对平等社会的 收入或财富分布

of a perfectly equal society to the actual income or wealth distribution.

与实际收入或财富分布计算得出。

The area of this shape multiplied by 2 is the Gini index.

这块面积乘以二就可得出基尼系数。

A Gini of 1 indicates perfect inequality—

基尼系数为 1 即为绝对不平等，

one person has everything and everyone else has nothing.

一个人应有尽有， 其他人一无所有。

You’d never see this in real life

现实生活中是不会 出现这样的情形的，

because everyone except that one person would starve.

因为这就代表除了一个人， 所有人都得挨饿。

A Gini index of 0 indicates perfect equality—

基尼系数为 0 即为完全平等，

everyone has exactly the same income or wealth.

人人都拥有相同的收入或财富。

But you also never see this in real life, not even in communist countries,

但是现实生活中也不会出现这样的 情况，连共产主义国家都不可能，

because for one thing, that would mean paying everyone—

因为首先，这就意味着 为每个人——

no matter how young, old, what job they’re in or where they work—

无论年龄、工作岗位、 工作地点，

the exact same wage.

支付同样的薪水。

Typical after-tax Ginis in developed countries today are around 0.3,

发达国家的税后基尼系数 通常为 0.3 左右，

though there’s a wide range from pretty equal to pretty unequal.

虽然相对平等和相对不平等 之间有一定的范围。

Before we go any further, you should know what the Gini index—

在我们更深入讨论之前， 你得知道基尼系数，

or any other measure of economic inequality— doesn’t tell us:

和其他经济不平等的衡量标准 没有告诉我们什么：

it gives no information about how income and wealth are distributed

它不会显示我们的收入和财富

across genders, races, educational backgrounds or other demographics;

根据性别、人种、教育背景及其他 人口统计数据的分布，

it doesn’t tell us how easy or difficult it is to escape poverty.

不会显示我们 脱离贫困的难易程度。

And it also gives no insight as to how a particular society

也不能体现这个社会

arrived at its present level of inequality.

达到现在这个不平等情况的历程。

Economic inequality is deeply entangled with other types of inequality:

经济不平等与其他形式的 不平等息息相关，

for example, generations of discrimination, imperialism,

如世世代代的歧视、帝国主义、

and colonialism

殖民主义，

created deeply rooted power and class inequalities

造成了深入骨髓的 权力和阶级不平等，

that persist to this day.

直至今日。

But we still need at least a rough measure of who gets how much in a country.

但是我们还是得有一个 对国民所得的粗略估计。

That’s what the Gini index gives us.

这就是基尼系数的功能。

Some countries are, economically, much more unequal than others.

有的国家在经济上 要比别的国家不平等得多。

And that’s because a significant portion of economic inequality

这是由于经济不平等的 大部分原因来自于

is the result of choices that governments make.

政府决策。

Let's talk about some of these choices.

我们来谈谈几个决策的例子。

First: what kind of economy to use.

第一：采用何种经济体制。

In the 20th century, some countries switched to socialism or communism

20 世纪，一些国家由于各种原因 采用了社会主义或共产主义，

for a variety of reasons,

including reducing economic inequality.

比如减少贫富不均。

These changes did dramatically reduce economic inequality

这些改革确实急剧减少了 贫富不均现象，

in the two largest non-capitalist economies,

这发生在了两个最大的 非资本主义经济体——

China and the Soviet Union— especially in the Soviet Union.

中国和苏联， 尤其是在苏联中。

But neither country prospered as much as the world's leading economies.

但是这两个国家都没有 像世界领先经济体那样发达起来。

So yes, people earned about as much as their neighbors did,

所以没错，人人都和邻居 赚得一样多，

but that wasn’t very much.

但是赚了没多少。

This— and many other issues— contributed to the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991.

这和很多其他因素共同 导致了 1991 年的苏联解体。

And China, to grow more quickly, shifted its economy towards capitalism

而中国，为了加速发展， 从上世纪 70 年代后期

starting in the late 1970s.

开始逐渐向资本主义转型。

What about capitalist countries?

资本主义国家又是什么情况？

Can they choose to reduce economic inequality?

它们想解决经济不平等问题吗？

It’s tempting to think

我们可能会这么想：

“no, because the whole point of capitalism is to hoard enough gold coins

“不可能，因为资本主义的目的就是

to be able to dive into them like Scrooge McDuck.”

囤一大堆金币，像麦克老鸭那样 在金币海里游泳。”

China seems to provide the textbook example of this:

中国似乎证实了这个想法：

after it became more capitalist,

逐步转型资本主义后，

its Gini index shot up from under 0.4 to over 0.55.

中国的基尼系数从 低于 0.4 飙升至高于 0.55。

Meanwhile, its per capita yearly income

与此同时，人均年收入

jumped from the rough equivalent of $1,500 to over $13,000.

从折合约 1500 美元 升至超 13000 美元。

But there are many counter-examples:

但是也有很多反例：

capitalist countries in which inequality is actually holding steady or decreasing.

有资本主义国家的不平等系数 持平或降低。

France has kept its Gini index below 0.32 since 1979.

法国从 1979 年起基尼系数 一直保持在 0.32 以下，

Ireland's Gini has been trending mostly downward since 1995.

爱尔兰的基尼系数从 1995 年 持续走低。

The Netherlands and Denmark have kept theirs below 0.28 since the 1980s.

荷兰和丹麦从上世纪 80 年代起 就一直保持在 0.28 以下。

How do they do it?

它们是如何做到的？

One way is with taxes.

一个方法是征税。

Personal income taxes in most countries are progressive:

大部分国家的个人所得税 制度是梯度式的：

the more money you make, the higher your tax rate.

赚得越多，税率越高。

And the more progressive your tax system, the more it reduces inequality.

税制梯度越大就 越能减少不平等现象。

So, for example, while pre-tax income inequality in France

所以，以法国为例， 虽然法国的税前收入不均情况

is roughly the same as it is in the US,

和美国大致相同，

post-tax inequality in France is roughly 20% lower.

法国的税后不均情况 要比美国低 20%。

Meanwhile, inheritance taxes can reduce the amount of wealth

遗产税也可以减少

that a single family can amass over generations.

一个家庭代代相传的财富。

Germany and many other European countries have inheritance or estate taxes

德国和一些欧洲国家 设立了遗产税或继承税制度，

that kick in at a few thousand to a few hundred thousand Euros,

税款大约在几千至几万欧元，

depending on who's inheriting.

取决于继承人身份。

The US, on the other hand,

而美国

lets you inherit $12 million without paying any federal tax.

允许在不缴联邦税的情况下 继承 1200 万美元的遗产。

Another way is with transfers—

还有一种方式是转移支付，

when the government takes tax revenues from one group of people

意思是政府将 来自一部分人的税收

and gives it to another.

补贴给另一部分人。

For example, Social Security programs tax people who work

比如，社会保障计划 向就业人员征税，

and use the revenue to support retirees.

将这笔税收补贴给退休人员。

In Italy, about a quarter of Italians’ disposable household income

在意大利，四分之一的 意大利家庭可支配收入

comes from government transfers.

来自政府发放。

That’s a lot, especially relative to the US,

数目不小， 尤其是与美国相比，

where the figure is just over 5%.

美国的比例只是略高于 5%。

A third way is to ensure that everyone has access to things

第三个方式是对每个公民的保障，

like education and healthcare.

如教育和医疗保障。

A highly educated, healthy workforce can command a higher salary on the market,

一个高知健康劳力可以 在就业市场要求更高的工资，

thus reducing inequality.

由此减少不平等现象。

The fourth way is addressing the digital divide:

第四个方式是弥合数字鸿沟，

the gap between those who have access to the Internet and those who do not.

即有无条件上网的 人群之间的差距。

A fifth way is dealing with extreme wealth.

第五个方式是处理极端富裕情况。

Multibillionaires can buy social media platforms,

亿万富翁可以买下社交平台、

news outlets, policy think-tanks, perhaps even politicians,

新闻媒体、政策智囊团， 甚至是政客，

and bend them to their will,

按照他们的意愿行事，

threatening the very fabric of democracy.

威胁着民主的基本结构。

We are just barely scratching the surface of inequality here.

我们其实还只是在“隔靴搔痒”。

We haven’t touched on the drastic divides in who has wealth and who doesn’t;

我们都没触及 贫富群体之间的鸿沟、

the power structures that prevent social and economic mobility;

阻碍社会和经济流动的权力结构

and the drastic inequality between countries—

和国与国之间的不平等差距，

the fact that, for example,

就这点而言，举个例子，

just three Americans have 90 billion more dollars than Egypt,

有三个美国人的财产比埃及——

a country of 100 million people.

人口一亿的国家 还多 900 亿美元财产。

And here’s one final thing to think about: power and wealth are self-reinforcing,

最后有一点值得我们思考： 权力和财富会自我增强，

which means that equality is not.

代表平等并不会。

Left to their own devices, societies tend toward inequality—

如果就这么自主运行下去， 社会会日趋不平等，

unless we weaken the feedback loops of wealth and power concentration.

除非我们可以削弱 财富和权力集中的闭环。