Is inequality inevitable?

Translator: Aubrey Cheng

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

南非係全球最唔平等嘅國家之一

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

最有錢嗰十分一入面嘅一成人 坐擁全國財富大概三成

more than double what the bottom 90% owns.

比起喺底層嘅九成人得到嘅多兩倍

Income and wealth inequality are not new.

財富分配不公一直都存在

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

事實上，有詳細紀錄歷年貧富懸殊嘅 經濟學家同歷史學家

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

發現呢種現象喺每個社會都有出現

Which raises a bleak question:

咁就帶出一個令人沮喪嘅問題：

is inequality inevitable?

究竟財富不公係咪無法避免嘅呢？

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

其中一個用嚟估計貧富懸殊嘅方式， 係使用堅尼系數去量度

which is calculated by comparing the income or wealth distribution

呢個數字係透過將實際財富分配

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

同財富分配絕對平均嘅社會做比較

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

呢個形狀嘅面積乘以2就會得出堅尼系數

A Gini of 1 indicates perfect inequality—

而堅尼系數數值係「1」 表示財富分配絕對唔平均—

one person has everything and everyone else has nothing.

即係當一個人擁有所有嘢， 而其他人乜嘢都冇

You’d never see this in real life

你唔會喺現實生活中見到呢個情況

because everyone except that one person would starve.

因為咁即係話除咗嗰個人之外， 其他人都會餓死

A Gini index of 0 indicates perfect equality—

至於堅尼系數數值係「0」 則表示絕對平均

everyone has exactly the same income or wealth.

所有人嘅財富分配都一樣

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

但你亦都唔會喺現實中見到呢個情況， 就算係共產國家都唔會

because for one thing, that would mean paying everyone—

因為咁係意味著

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

無論你乜嘢年紀、做乜嘢工種、喺邊度返工

the exact same wage.

你都係逗緊一樣嘅人工

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

現今，喺已發展國家， 典型稅後嘅堅尼系數數值係「0.3」

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

雖然由相對平均到唔平均 都有一個好闊嘅幅度

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

喺深入講多啲之前， 你應該要知道堅尼系數

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

或者其他量度貧富懸殊嘅工具 冇話俾我哋知嘅事：

it gives no information about how income and wealth are distributed

佢冇話俾我哋知財富係點樣

across genders, races, educational backgrounds or other demographics;

喺性別、種族、教育背景或 其他人口統計呢啲類別之間分配

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

佢唔會話你知要脫貧 係幾咁容易或幾咁艱難

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

佢亦都唔會就某個特定社會

arrived at its present level of inequality.

係點樣去到目前貧富懸殊嘅狀態提出見解

Economic inequality is deeply entangled with other types of inequality:

貧富懸殊係同其他類型嘅不平等環環相扣

for example, generations of discrimination, imperialism,

例如：跨代歧視、帝國主義

and colonialism

同殖民主義

created deeply rooted power and class inequalities

都會造成根深蒂固嘅權力同階級之分

that persist to this day.

並且持續到今日

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

但我哋至少要有一個粗略估計 究竟喺個國家嘅人得到幾多

That’s what the Gini index gives us.

呢個就係堅尼系數俾到我哋嘅資訊

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

有啲國家嘅財富分配比其他國家更唔平等

And that’s because a significant portion of economic inequality

因為造成明顯財富不公嘅部分

is the result of choices that governments make.

係取決於政府嘅政策上

Let's talk about some of these choices.

不如我哋講下呢啲政策呀

First: what kind of economy to use.

首先，國家行緊邊種經濟體制

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

喺二十世紀，有啲國家轉咗去行 社會主義或者共產主義

for a variety of reasons,

基於多種原因

including reducing economic inequality.

當中包括減少財富分配不公

These changes did dramatically reduce economic inequality

呢啲改變的確大幅度減少咗財富不公

in the two largest non-capitalist economies,

喺兩個最大嘅非資本主義經濟國家

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

中國同蘇聯—特別係蘇聯

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

但佢哋都冇好似世界領先經濟體一樣咁繁盛

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

係嘅，人均收入的確差唔多

but that wasn’t very much.

但亦都賺得唔多

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

呢個原因—加上其他因素— 導致蘇聯喺1991年解體

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

而中國為咗要急速增長

starting in the late 1970s.

喺1970尾開始轉咗去行資本主義

What about capitalist countries?

咁資本主義國家呢？

Can they choose to reduce economic inequality?

佢哋可以選擇減少財富唔平等嗎？

It’s tempting to think

大家會好容易認為

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

「唔得，因為資本主義嘅中重點 就係等我哋好似唐老鴨嘅守財奴叔叔，

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

史高治叔叔咁將金幣堆到可以跳入金幣池當中嘅程度」

China seems to provide the textbook example of this:

中國似乎為大家示範咗個教科書式嘅做法：

after it became more capitalist,

當佢變成資本主義後

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

佢嘅堅尼系數由低過0.4上升到超過0.55

Meanwhile, its per capita yearly income

同時，中國嘅人均收入

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

由大約等於一千五百美金 躍升到超過一萬三千美金

But there are many counter-examples:

但都有好多相反嘅例子：

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

就係有啲資本主義國家嘅 財富唔平等係維持不變同下降緊

France has kept its Gini index below 0.32 since 1979.

法國自1979年起一直保持 堅尼系數喺0.32以下

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

愛爾蘭自1995年大多數傾向下降趨勢

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

荷蘭同丹麥自1980年起 保持堅尼系數喺0.28以下

How do they do it?

呢啲國家究竟係點做到㗎呢？

One way is with taxes.

其中一個方法係稅務

Personal income taxes in most countries are progressive:

大多數國家嘅個人入息税 都係採用累進式稅率—

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

賺得越多，要交嘅税越多

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

當稅務系統越係累進， 越可以減少財富不公

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

所以，例如法國喺稅前嘅財富唔平等

is roughly the same as it is in the US,

係同美國嘅大概差唔多

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

法國稅後嘅財富唔平等 係比美國大概低兩成

Meanwhile, inheritance taxes can reduce the amount of wealth

同時，推出遺產稅亦可以減少

that a single family can amass over generations.

一個家庭世世代代可以繼承到嘅財富

Germany and many other European countries have inheritance or estate taxes

德國同其他歐洲國家有遺產稅或者地產稅

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

金額由幾千至幾十萬歐羅

depending on who's inheriting.

睇下係邊個繼承而有分別

The US, on the other hand,

另一方面，美國

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

可以俾你承繼一千二百萬美元 而無須交聯邦稅

Another way is with transfers—

另一個方法，就係轉移

when the government takes tax revenues from one group of people

當政府將一班人交嘅稅

and gives it to another.

俾咗另一班人

For example, Social Security programs tax people who work

例如，社保計劃係向在職人士徵稅

and use the revenue to support retirees.

用稅收去支助退休人士

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

喺意大利， 意大利人嘅家庭可支配收入大約有四分之一

comes from government transfers.

係嚟自政府嘅轉移

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

嗰個比例都幾多，尤其係相比起美國

where the figure is just over 5%.

個數目只係5%多啲

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

第三種方法，確保所有人都有機會

like education and healthcare.

接受教育同享有醫療福利

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

受過高等教育，健康嘅勞動人口 先可以喺市場上要求較高嘅薪金

thus reducing inequality.

因此減少唔平等

The fourth way is addressing the digital divide:

第四種方法，解決數碼領域上出現嘅分歧：

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

用唔用到互聯網嘅分別

A fifth way is dealing with extreme wealth.

第五種方法，處理極端財富

Multibillionaires can buy social media platforms,

億萬富翁可以買幾個社交媒體平台

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

新聞台、智庫、甚至乎政客

and bend them to their will,

要聽佢哋嘅意願做嘢

threatening the very fabric of democracy.

徹徹底底咁威脅緊民主制度

We are just barely scratching the surface of inequality here.

我哋只係輕輕講到財富不公嘅表面

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

都重未講到邊個有錢邊個冇， 呢種咁極端嘅分別

the power structures that prevent social and economic mobility;

阻礙社會同經濟流動嘅權力結構

and the drastic inequality between countries—

以及各國之間形成嘅嚴重財富不公

the fact that, for example,

事實上，譬如話淨係三個美國人擁有嘅財富

just three Americans have 90 billion more dollars than Egypt,

就比埃及全國多九百億美金

a country of 100 million people.

而埃及重係擁有一億人口嘅國家嚟添

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

重有最後一樣嘢可以思考下： 權力同財富都係自我強化緊

which means that equality is not.

即係話平等就唔係

Left to their own devices, societies tend toward inequality—

若果任由各國社會自己發展， 社會就傾向財富唔平等

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

除非我哋減弱到財富同權力集中嘅輪迴