Is inequality inevitable?

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

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

南非是世界上最獨不平等的國家之一，

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

此地最有錢的千分之一人口

擁有近 30% 該國的財富，

more than double what the bottom 90% owns.

是底層 90% 的人 加總起來的兩倍以上。

Income and wealth inequality are not new.

收入和財富不平等並不是新的現象。

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

事實上，歷史上曾經研究過 經濟不平等的經濟學家和歷史學家

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

都沒有找到任何 沒有這種問題的社會。

Which raises a bleak question:

這就帶出了老問題：

is inequality inevitable?

不平等是無可避免的嗎？

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

估計不平等的方式之一 是用吉尼係數這個數字，

which is calculated by comparing the income or wealth distribution

其計算方式是將 完全平等社會的收入或財富分佈

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

拿來和實際的收入或財富分佈做比較。

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

這個形狀的面積乘以二 就是吉尼係數。

A Gini of 1 indicates perfect inequality—

吉尼係數為一時， 表示完全不平等——

one person has everything and everyone else has nothing.

即一個人擁有一切， 其他人什麼都沒有。

You’d never see this in real life

現實中不會出現這個狀況， 因為那個人以外的人都會餓死。

because everyone except that one person would starve.

A Gini index of 0 indicates perfect equality—

吉尼係數為零時，表示完全平等——

everyone has exactly the same income or wealth.

每個人的收入或財富都完全相同。

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

但在現實中也不會出現， 連共產國家都沒有，

because for one thing, that would mean paying everyone—

其中一個原因是， 那就表示支付每個人——

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

不論多年輕、多年老、 做什麼工作、是否有工作——

the exact same wage.

完全相同的工資。

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

現今，在已開發國家， 稅後的吉尼係數大約是 0.3，

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

不過，範圍相當大， 從非常平等到非常不平等。

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

繼續談下去之前，

你應該要知道吉尼係數 或任何其他經濟不平等的測量值

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

沒有告訴我們什麼：

it gives no information about how income and wealth are distributed

它沒有任何關於收入及財富 在不同屬性上的分佈資訊：

across genders, races, educational backgrounds or other demographics;

比如性別、種族、教育程度， 或其他人口統計屬性；

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

它也無法告訴我們 要脫離貧困是容易或困難。

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

它也無法洞察某個特定社會如何

arrived at its present level of inequality.

走到現今的不平等狀態。

Economic inequality is deeply entangled with other types of inequality:

經濟不平等和其他類型的不平等 深深糾結在一起：

for example, generations of discrimination, imperialism,

比如，世世代代的歧視、 帝國主義，以及殖民主義

and colonialism

created deeply rooted power and class inequalities

都會造成根深蒂固的 權力和階級不平等，

that persist to this day.

一直留傳至今。

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

但我們至少仍需對國家財富分配 有個粗略的測量值。

That’s what the Gini index gives us.

那就是吉尼係數能告訴我們的。

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

在經濟面上，有些國家 遠比其他國家更不平等。

And that’s because a significant portion of economic inequality

那是因為很大一部分的經濟不平等

is the result of choices that governments make.

是政府所做的選擇造成的結果。

Let's talk about some of these choices.

咱們來談談其中一些選擇。

First: what kind of economy to use.

第一，要用哪種經濟結構。

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

在二十世紀，

有些國家轉換到 社會主義或共產主義，

for a variety of reasons,

理由各式各樣，

including reducing economic inequality.

包括減少經濟不平等在內。

These changes did dramatically reduce economic inequality

這些改變確實能大大減少 經濟上的不平等，

in the two largest non-capitalist economies,

最大的兩個非資本主義 經濟體就是實例，

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

中國和蘇聯——

特別是蘇聯。

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

但這兩個國家都沒有世界 名列前茅的經濟體那麼繁榮。

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

沒錯，大家賺的錢和鄰居差不多， 但也真的是不多。

but that wasn’t very much.

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

這和許多其他議題 促成蘇聯在 1991 年解體。

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

而中國，為了更快速成長，

在 1970 年代末開始將其經濟 轉向資本主義的方向。

starting in the late 1970s.

What about capitalist countries?

那資本主義國家呢？

Can they choose to reduce economic inequality?

它們能選擇減少經濟不平等嗎？

It’s tempting to think

很容易會想：

「不，因為資本主義的重點

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

就是要像唐老鴨的守財奴叔叔 把金幣堆到可以鑽進去的程度。

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

China seems to provide the textbook example of this:

這方面，中國似乎就像是 教科書上的範例一樣：

after it became more capitalist,

在中國變得更資本主義之後， 它的吉尼係數飆升，

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

從不到 0.4 衝破 0.55。

Meanwhile, its per capita yearly income

同時，中國的人均年收入 從大約一千五百美金跳升

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

到超過一萬三千美金。

But there are many counter-examples:

但也有許多反例：

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

有些資本主義國家的不平等 能保持不變或下降。

France has kept its Gini index below 0.32 since 1979.

1979 年起，法國的吉尼係數 就一直維持在 0.32 以下。

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

愛爾蘭的吉尼係數從 1995 年後 就大部分是向下的趨勢。

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

1990 年代後，荷蘭和丹麥的 吉尼係數一直保持在 0.28 以下。

How do they do it?

它們怎麼辦到的？

One way is with taxes.

其中一招和稅有關。

Personal income taxes in most countries are progressive:

大部分國家的個人所得稅採累進稅率：

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

賺得越多，稅率就越高。

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

稅制的稅率越是累進， 就越能減少不平等。

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

舉例來說，在法國的稅前收入不平等

is roughly the same as it is in the US,

和美國大致上不相上下，

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

法國的稅後不平等

約比美國低 20%。

Meanwhile, inheritance taxes can reduce the amount of wealth

同時，用遺產稅

可以減少一個家族 世世代代累積的財富量。

that a single family can amass over generations.

Germany and many other European countries have inheritance or estate taxes

德國和許多其他歐洲國家 會課遺產稅或房地產遺產稅，

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

金額從幾千到幾十萬歐洲不等，

depending on who's inheriting.

依繼承人身分而不同。

The US, on the other hand,

另一方面，美國則容許

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

一千兩百萬美金的聯邦遺產免稅額。

Another way is with transfers—

另一招是運用轉移——

when the government takes tax revenues from one group of people

也就是政府將一群人 繳的稅金給予另一群人。

and gives it to another.

For example, Social Security programs tax people who work

舉例來說，向工作的人課社安稅，

and use the revenue to support retirees.

用這些稅收來支助退休者。

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

在義大利，

義大利人的可支配 家庭收入約有四分之一

comes from government transfers.

來自政府轉移。

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

那算是很多，特別是和美國比，

where the figure is just over 5%.

美國的這個比率只比 5% 多一點。

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

第三招是確保人人都能 接受教育和取得健康照護。

like education and healthcare.

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

教育程度高且健康的勞動力

在市場上能取得較高的薪資，

thus reducing inequality.

因而減少不平等。

The fourth way is addressing the digital divide:

第四招是解決數位落差：

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

也就是能上網的人 和無法上網的人之間的落差。

A fifth way is dealing with extreme wealth.

第五招是處理極端的財富。

Multibillionaires can buy social media platforms,

億萬富翁可以買到社群媒體平台、

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

新聞出處、策略智囊團， 也許甚至能買到政客，

and bend them to their will,

讓政客順著他們，

threatening the very fabric of democracy.

威脅到民主的結構。

We are just barely scratching the surface of inequality here.

這裡我們只點到不平等的皮毛而已。

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

我們還沒談到 誰富誰貧的巨大落差，

the power structures that prevent social and economic mobility;

阻擋社會和經濟流動的權力結構，

and the drastic inequality between countries—

以及國家間的嚴重不平等——

the fact that, for example,

比如，光是三個美國人擁有的財富

just three Americans have 90 billion more dollars than Egypt,

就比埃及全國多九百億美金的事實，

a country of 100 million people.

埃及還是個有一億人口的國家呢。

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

最後，還可以思考一點：

權力和財富會自我強化，

which means that equality is not.

那就表示平等不會。

Left to their own devices, societies tend toward inequality—

若放任社會自己發展， 社會就會傾向不平等——

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

除非我們能削弱財富 和權力集中的回饋迴路。