Timothy Bartik: The economic case for preschool

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

翻译人员: Yuting Liu 校对人员: Wei Wu

In this talk today, I want to present a different idea

在今天的演讲里，我想陈述一个不同的观点

for why investing in early childhood education

关于为什么投资儿童的学龄前教育

makes sense as a public investment.

可以被看做为一种公共投资。

It's a different idea, because usually,

这是一个不同的观点，因为经常

when people talk about early childhood programs,

人们谈论儿童学龄前教育方案时

they talk about all the wonderful benefits for participants

他们探讨的是接受了学前教育的孩子是否

in terms of former participants, in preschool,

比没有接受学前教育的孩子做得更好

they have better K-12 test scores,

他们从小学到高中有更好的成绩

better adult earnings.

成年之后有更高的收入。

Now that's all very important,

的确这些都很重要

but what I want to talk about is what preschool does

但我想讨论的是学前教育如何影响

for state economies

各州的经济

and for promoting state economic development.

并且促进各州的经济发展。

And that's actually crucial

这其实是很关键的

because if we're going to get increased investment

因为如果我们想要提高对

in early childhood programs,

儿童学龄前教育计划的投资

we need to interest state governments in this.

我们就需要各州政府对它感兴趣。

The federal government has a lot on its plate,

联邦政府有很多问题需要解决

and state governments are going to have to step up.

所以各州政府需要向前迈一步。

So we have to appeal to them,

于是我们需要呼吁他们

the legislators in the state government,

各州的立法者们

and turn to something they understand,

并且转换成他们理解的东西

that they have to promote the economic development

他们需要促进他们州的

of their state economy.

经济发展。

Now, by promoting economic development,

我所说的促进经济发展

I don't mean anything magical.

并不是什么神奇的东西。

All I mean is, is that early childhood education

我只是想说明，儿童学龄前教育

can bring more and better jobs to a state

可以为各州带来更多与更好的工作

and can thereby promote higher per capita earnings

也因此能够提高各州居民的

for the state's residents.

人均收入。

Now, I think it's fair to say that when people think about

现在，我认为一般人在谈及

state and local economic development,

各个州和地方经济发展时

they don't generally think first about what they're doing

他们大多不会想到这会跟当地的

about childcare and early childhood programs.

儿童看护和早教计划有什么关系。

I know this. I've spent most of my career researching these programs.

而我了解，我的整个职业生涯都在研究这些计划

I've talked to a lot of directors

我与很多州际经济发展机构负责人

of state economic development agencies about these issues,

讨论过这些问题

a lot of legislators about these issues.

也与许多立法者讨论过。

When legislators and others think about economic development,

当立法者和其他人思考关于经济发展时

what they first of all think about are business tax incentives,

他们首先想到营业税优惠政策

property tax abatements, job creation tax credits,

减免财产税， 创造就业机会税收抵免

you know, there are a million of these programs all over the place.

正如你所知，这类计划多到数不清

So for example, states compete very vigorously

例如，各州对在吸引新建汽车厂

to attract new auto plants or expanded auto plants.

或扩展汽车厂项目上竞争非常激烈。

They hand out all kinds of business tax breaks.

他们给予各种各样的营业税减免政策。

Now, those programs can make sense

这些计划能够达到预期效果

if they in fact induce new location decisions,

取决于他们是否吸引了新的制造厂来到本地

and the way they can make sense is,

而吸引投资和制造业的目的

by creating more and better jobs,

就是创造更多与更好的工作，

they raise employment rates, raise per capita earnings of state residents.

提高就业率，提高居民人均收入。

So there is a benefit to state residents

这对于当地的居民是有好处的

that corresponds to the costs that they're paying

虽然他们也需要付出一些代价

by paying for these business tax breaks.

他们需要承担那些减免的营业税

My argument is essentially that early childhood programs

我的观点是儿童学龄前教育在本质上

can do exactly the same thing,

可以达到一样的效果

create more and better jobs, but in a different way.

创造更多更好的工作，但用另外一种方法

It's a somewhat more indirect way.

这是一个间接的方法

These programs can promote more and better jobs by,

这些计划可以带来更多更好的工作

you build it, you invest in high-quality preschool,

如果我们投资建立高质量的学前教育

it develops the skills of your local workforce

它会提高当地劳动力的技能

if enough of them stick around, and, in turn,

如果这些孩子们有足够的人留在当地

that higher-quality local workforce

那么这些更高质量的劳动人口

will be a key driver of creating jobs and creating

将会成为当地创造新的工作机会的主力

higher earnings per capita in the local community.

并成为提高当地社区人均收入水平的中坚力量。

Now, let me turn to some numbers on this.

接下来让我给你们展示一些具体的数据。

Okay. If you look at the research evidence --

如果你翻阅研究资料——

that's extensive -- on how much early childhood programs

这方面的研究已经很多——关于学龄前教育计划

affect the educational attainment, wages and skills

如何对参加过学龄前教育的人的

of former participants in preschool as adults,

教育程度，薪水和技能的影响，

you take those known effects,

我们把这些影响综合起来，

you take how many of those folks will be expected

估算一下接受学前教育的人有多少大的比例

to stick around the state or local economy and not move out,

会留在当地的经济圈中，没有搬走

and you take research on how much skills

再考虑到通过学龄前教育提高的劳动技能

drive job creation, you will conclude,

促进创造了多少就业机会，你就会得出结论，

from these three separate lines of research,

这三个不同方向的研究结果表明

that for every dollar invested in early childhood programs,

在儿童早教计划中每投入一美元

the per capita earnings of state residents

会对各州居民的人均收入

go up by two dollars and 78 cents,

增加2美金78美分

so that's a three-to-one return.

所以这是三比一的回报率

Now you can get much higher returns,

你可以得到更高的回报率

of up to 16-to-one, if you include anti-crime benefits,

高达十六比一，如果你把社会治安的改进也考虑进来，

if you include benefits to former preschool participants

并且把接受过学龄前教育，但是后来

who move to some other state,

搬出去的人的收益也算在内的话。

but there's a good reason for focusing on these three dollars

但是现在我们把注意力放在这三美元上

because this is salient and important

因为这三个方面对于州立法者

to state legislators and state policy makers,

和州政策制定者而言是最重要的

and it's the states that are going to have to act.

而这也是让州政府行动起来的理由。

So there is this key benefit that is relevant

所以对于各州的政策制定者而言

to state policy makers in terms of economic development.

这将是一项对本州经济意义重大的举措。

Now, one objection you often hear,

你可能听说过一些反对意见

or maybe you don't hear it because people are too polite to say it, is,

或许你没有听说过因为人们不好意思说出来

why should I pay more taxes

就是为什么我需要付更多的税

to invest in other people's children?

去为别人孩子的教育投资

What's in it for me?

我得到了什么？

And the trouble with that objection,

这个异议的问题在于

it reflects a total misunderstanding

它显示了人们的误解，

of how much local economies

地方经济需要

involve everyone being interdependent.

每一个人的参与

Specifically, the interdependency here is, is that

特别在这里他们是相互关联的

there are huge spillovers of skills --

有大量的技术外溢效应

that when other people's children get more skills,

当其他人的孩子得到了更多的技术

that actually increases the prosperity of everyone,

实际上这样会让每个人更富有

including people whose skills don't change.

包括了那些技术没有提高的人们

So for example, numerous research studies have shown

举个例子，众多的研究显示

if you look at what really drives

如果你查看到底是什么驱动着

the growth rate of metropolitan areas,

都市地区的增长率

it's not so much low taxes, low cost, low wages;

并不是低税率，低成本，低工资

it's the skills of the area. Particularly, the proxy for skills

是这个地区的技术。特别是

that people use is percentage of college graduates in the area.

当地高校毕业生的比例

So when you look, for example, at metropolitan areas

所以当你看一些都市地区

such as the Boston area, Minneapolis-St. Paul,

比如波士顿，明尼阿波利斯 - 圣保罗

Silicon Valley, these areas are not doing well economically

硅谷，这些地区经济发展良好

because they're low-cost.

并不是因为它们成本很低

I don't know if you ever tried to buy a house in Silicon Valley.

我不知道你有没有尝试过在硅谷买房子

It's not exactly a low-cost proposition.

并不是一个低成本的投资。

They are growing because they have high levels of skills.

它们在发展因为他们有高水准的技能

So when we invest in other people's children,

所以当我们为别人的孩子投资

and build up those skills, we increase the overall job growth

并且建立那些技能，我们提高了一个区域的

of a metro area.

总体职业增长

As another example, if we look

举另一个例子，如果我们看

at what determines an individual's wages,

是什么决定了一个人的工资

and we do statistical exploration of that, what determines wages,

我们对此进行数据分析，是什么决定了工资

we know that the individual's wages will depend, in part,

我们知道一个人的工资一部分取决于

on that individual's education,

这个人的教育

for example whether or not they have a college degree.

比如有没有接受过本科教育

One of the very interesting facts is that, in addition,

另外一个非常有趣的事实是

we find that even once we hold constant, statistically,

我们发现就算我们在数据上

the effect of your own education,

将你的教育程度对工资的影响保持不变

the education of everyone else in your metropolitan area

在都市区里其他人的教育

also affects your wages.

也会对你的工资产生影响

So specifically, if you hold constant your education,

具体一些，如果你将你的教育保持不变

you stick in percentage of college graduates in your metro area,

把当地的本科生比例加进去

you will find that has a significant positive effect on your wages

你会发现它对你的工资有明显的改善

without changing your education at all.

而完全不需要改变你的受教育程度

In fact, this effect is so strong

事实上，这个影响强烈到

that when someone gets a college degree,

当一个人获得了本科教育

the spillover effects of this on the wages

它对于在大都市地区其他人

of others in the metropolitan area

工资的溢出效应

are actually greater than the direct effects.

实际大于（对你自己的）直接影响

So if someone gets a college degree, their lifetime earnings

所以如果一个人获得了本科教育，他有生之年的收入

go up by a huge amount, over 700,000 dollars.

将会增加超过700,000美金

There's an effect on everyone else in the metro area

增加都市地区的高校毕业生比例

of driving up the percentage of college graduates in the metro area,

对当地的人们都会产生影响

and if you add that up -- it's a small effect for each person,

并且如果你把他们加起来 - 这是对每个人的小影响

but if you add that up across all the people in the metro area,

但是如果你把整个都市地区的人们加起来

you actually get that the increase in wages for everyone else

实际上每个人得到了薪水的提升

in the metropolitan area adds up to almost a million dollars.

在都市地区增加了近百万美金

That's actually greater than the direct benefits

这实际上是大于选择接受高等教育的人

of the person choosing to get education.

所带来的直接效益

Now, what's going on here?

现在，这是怎么回事呢？

What can explain these huge spillover effects of education?

什么可以解释教育所带来的的巨大溢出效应？

Well, let's think about it this way.

那么，让我们这样想

I can be the most skilled person in the world,

我可以成为世界上技术能力最强的人

but if everyone else at my firm lacks skills,

但是如果我的公司里的其他人缺乏技术

my employer is going to find it more difficult

我的雇主会难以引进

to introduce new technology, new production techniques.

新的技术，新的生产技术

So as a result, my employer is going to be less productive.

因而导致我的雇主降低生产率

They will not be able to afford to pay me as good wages.

他将无法支付我良好的工资

Even if everyone at my firm has good skills,

就算在我公司里的每一个人有良好的技术

if the workers at the suppliers to my firm

如果我的供应商的工人

do not have good skills,

没有良好的技术

my firm is going to be less competitive

在国内和国际市场竞争时

competing in national and international markets.

我的公司竞争力会降低

And again, the firm that's less competitive

同样的，竞争力较弱的公司

will not be able to pay as good wages,

将会没有能力支付更高的工资

and then, particularly in high-tech businesses,

并且，特别是在高技术公司中

they're constantly stealing ideas and workers from other businesses.

他们会经常从别的公司窃取理念和工人

So clearly the productivity of firms in Silicon Valley

所以很明确硅谷的生产率

has a lot to do with the skills not only of the workers at their firm,

不仅与公司职员的技巧有所关联

but the workers at all the other firms in the metro area.

更与当地其他公司的员工相关

So as a result, if we can invest in other people's children

因此，如果我们可以为他人的孩子投资

through preschool and other early childhood programs

通过高质量的学前教育和其他儿童早期教育计划

that are high-quality, we not only help those children,

我们不仅可以帮助那些孩子

we help everyone in the metropolitan area

我们还会帮助都市地区的每一个人

gain in wages and we'll have the metropolitan area

提高总体的工资，并且能够促进都市地区的

gain in job growth.

就业增长。

Another objection used sometimes here

另一个常见的反对意见

to invest in early childhood programs

是担心早期儿童教育计划的投资

is concern about people moving out.

会随着人们搬走而打水漂。

So, you know, maybe Ohio's thinking about investing

因此，可能俄亥俄州打算为自己州的

in more preschool education

哥伦布市的孩子们

for children in Columbus, Ohio,

投资学前教育计划，

but they're worried that these little Buckeyes will,

但是他们担心这些小朋友们将来可能

for some strange reason, decide to move to Ann Arbor, Michigan,

因为一些奇怪的原因，决定搬去密歇根州的安阿伯市

and become Wolverines.

并且变成密歇根人。

And maybe Michigan will be thinking about investing

可能密歇根在想关于投资

in preschool in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and be worried

密歇根州安阿伯市的幼儿教育，但他们也担心

these little Wolverines will end up moving to Ohio and becoming Buckeyes.

这些密歇根人会最终搬到俄亥俄州然后变成俄州人

And so they'll both underinvest because everyone's going to move out.

最终他们都因为担心人们搬走而减少学前教育投入

Well, the reality is, if you look at the data,

事实上如果我们翻阅一下统计数据就会发现

Americans aren't as hyper-mobile as people sometimes assume.

美国没有人们想象的那么喜爱搬家

The data is that over 60 percent of Americans

数据显示百分之六十以上的美国人

spend most of their working careers

大部分的职业生涯花在

in the state they were born in, over 60 percent.

他们出生的州，多余百分之六十

That percentage does not vary much from state to state.

这个比例在各州之间变化不大

It doesn't vary much with the state's economy,

这并不会受到各州经济形势的影响。

whether it's depressed or booming,

无论是萧条或是发展

it doesn't vary much over time.

随着时间的推移它并不会有很大的改变

So the reality is, if you invest in kids,

所以现实是，如果你为孩子投资

they will stay.

他们会留下来

Or at least, enough of them will stay

至少会有足够多的人留下来

that it will pay off for your state economy.

为当地的经济发展做出贡献。

Okay, so to sum up, there is a lot of research evidence

好的，总结一下，有很多的研究证据表明

that early childhood programs, if run in a high-quality way,

为高质量的学龄前教育投入，能够通过

pay off in higher adult skills.

提高成年劳动技能的方式得到补偿。

There's a lot of research evidence

有很多的研究结果表明

that those folks will stick around the state economy,

这些人会留在州经济圈中

and there's a lot of evidence that having more workers

并且有很多证据表明在地区经济中

with higher skills in your local economy

高技能劳动者数量的增加

pays off in higher wages and job growth for your local economy,

能够提高平均工资，促进就业增长

and if you calculate the numbers for each dollar,

并且我们计算得到每多投入一美元

we get about three dollars back

就能够为当地经济

in benefits for the state economy.

多贡献三美元的收益。

So in my opinion, the research evidence is compelling

所以在我看来，这些研究成果是令人信服的

and the logic of this is compelling.

并且这个逻辑是有说服力的

So what are the barriers to getting it done?

那么有哪些障碍阻止我们去做这些事情？

Well, one obvious barrier is cost.

嗯，一个明显的障碍就是费用

So if you look at what it would cost

我们估算了所需要投入的总额

if every state government invested

如果各州政府都参与投资

in universal preschool at age four, full-day preschool at age four,

从4岁开始普及幼儿园，全日制幼儿园

the total annual national cost would be roughly

每年全国总共的花销大约是

30 billion dollars.

300亿美金

So, 30 billion dollars is a lot of money.

那么，300亿美金是很大一笔资金

On the other hand, if you reflect on

可是，如果你思考一下

that the U.S.'s population is over 300 million,

美国有3亿人口

we're talking about an amount of money

那么这笔投资平摊到每个人头上

that amounts to 100 dollars per capita.

人均只需要承担100美金

Okay? A hundred dollars per capita, per person,

清楚了么？每人一百美金，

is something that any state government can afford to do.

每一个州政府都有能力做到

It's just a simple matter of political will to do it.

这只是政府会不会去做的问题

And, of course, as I mentioned,

当然，就如同我所说过的

this cost has corresponding benefits.

这个支出有相对应的收益

I mentioned there's a multiplier of about three,

我提过这有一个大约1比3的回报率

2.78, for the state economy,

2.78，对于州政府来说

in terms of over 80 billion in extra earnings.

代表着800亿美金的额外收入

And if we want to translate that from just billions of dollars

如果我们想把上百亿的美金转化成

to something that might mean something,

一些有意义的事情

what we're talking about is that, for the average low-income kid,

那么我可以告诉你，仅仅通过提高学龄前教育的质量，

that would increase earnings by about 10 percent

不需要对K-12（大学前教育）作任何的改动

over their whole career, just doing the preschool,

不需要对大学做任何的改造

not improving K-12 or anything else after that,

就能够使低收入家庭背景的孩子

not doing anything with college tuition or access,

在成年后的总收入提高10%

just directly improving preschool,

并能够为来自中等收入家庭的孩子

and we would get five percent higher earnings

将他们的平均薪水

for middle-class kids.

提高5%。

So this is an investment

所以这是一个投资

that pays off in very concrete terms

有非常实际的回报

for a broad range of income groups in the state's population

能够为各州不同收入层次的人群

and produces large and tangible benefits.

产生实实在在的利益

Now, that's one barrier.

现在，这里有一个障碍

I actually think the more profound barrier

我觉得更严重的障碍

is the long-term nature of the benefits from early childhood programs.

是学龄前教育计划回报的长期性特点

So the argument I'm making is, is that we're increasing

所以，我的论点是我们提高

the quality of our local workforce,

当地劳动力的水平

and thereby increasing economic development.

将会提高地方经济

Obviously if we have a preschool with four-year-olds,

显然如果我们把4岁的孩子送到幼儿园

we're not sending these kids out at age five

我们不会让这些孩子在5岁时

to work in the sweatshops, right? At least I hope not.

送去糖果店工作，对吧？至少我希望如此

So we're talking about an investment

所以我们在谈论一个投资

that in terms of impacts on the state economy

对各州经济的影响

is not going to really pay off for 15 or 20 years,

在15到20年以内是不会体现出来的

and of course America is notorious for being

并且美国是众所周知的

a short term-oriented society.

短期性社会

Now one response you can make to this,

现在你可以对此作出的一个回应

and I sometimes have done this in talks,

并且我有时会在谈论时这么做

is people can talk about, there are benefits for these programs

人们可以讨论关于这些计划所带来的好处

in reducing special ed and remedial education costs,

在减低特殊教育和补习教育成本

there are benefits, parents care about preschool,

家长们关心学龄前教育

maybe we'll get some migration effects

也许我们会得到一些迁移效果

from parents seeking good preschool,

让家长们寻找好的幼儿园

and I think those are true,

我觉得这是正确的

but in some sense they're missing the point.

但是在某种意义上他们忽略了重点

Ultimately, this is something

归根结底，这是我想说的

we're investing in now for the future.

我们为未来而投资

And so what I want to leave you with is

所以我将留给大家

what I think is the ultimate question.

这个我认为的根本问题

I mean, I'm an economist, but this is ultimately

我想说，我是一个经济学家，但这在根本上

not an economic question, it's a moral question:

不是一个经济学问题，这是一个道德问题：

Are we willing, as Americans,

我们是否愿意，作为美国人

are we as a society still capable

我们作为一个社会是否仍然能够

of making the political choice to sacrifice now

做出政治上的选择去牺牲现在

by paying more taxes

以付出更多的税作为代价

in order to improve the long-term future

以改善长远的未来

of not only our kids, but our community?

不仅为了我们的孩子，也是为了我们的社会

Are we still capable of that as a country?

作为一个国家我们是否还能够做到这一点？

And that's something that each and every citizen

这是每一个公民

and voter needs to ask themselves.

每一个选民需要问他们自己的问题

Is that something that you are still invested in,

这是否是你仍然在坚持投资的，

that you still believe in the notion of investment?

那个你始终相信的投资理念

That is the notion of investment.

这就是投资的理念

You sacrifice now for a return later.

为未来牺牲现在

So I think the research evidence

所以我认为这些

on the benefits of early childhood programs

对于儿童学龄前教育计划好处

for the local economy is extremely strong.

的研究证据是极强的

However, the moral and political choice

但是，道德和政治上的选择

is still up to us, as citizens and as voters.

还是取决于我们，作为公民和投票者

Thank you very much. (Applause)

谢谢（鼓掌）