Poverty isn't a lack of character; it's a lack of cash | Rutger Bregman

翻译人员: Lipeng Chen 校对人员: Jack Zhang

I'd like to start with a simple question:

让我们从一个简单的问题开始：

Why do the poor make so many poor decisions?

为什么穷人总是做出不好的决策？

I know it's a harsh question,

我知道这是一个残酷的问题，

but take a look at the data.

但是让我们看看数据。

The poor borrow more, save less,

穷人借钱越多，积蓄越少，

smoke more, exercise less, drink more

抽烟越多，锻炼越少，喝酒越多，

and eat less healthfully.

饮食越不健康。

Why?

为什么呢？

Well, the standard explanation

标准的解释

was once summed up by the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

是由英国首相Margaret Thatcher总结的。

And she called poverty "a personality defect."

她将贫穷称为“一种人格缺陷”。

(Laughter)

（笑）

A lack of character, basically.

简而言之，就是缺少一种品格。

Now, I'm sure not many of you would be so blunt.

我知道你们大部分人不会这么直接。

But the idea that there's something wrong with the poor themselves

但是，不止Thatcher夫人一个人持有这种观点——

is not restricted to Mrs. Thatcher.

穷人之所以贫穷是因为他们自己有问题。

Some of you may believe that the poor should be held responsible

一些人会认为

for their own mistakes.

穷人应该为他们自己的错误买单。

And others may argue that we should help them to make better decisions.

另一些人会反驳，我们应该帮助他们去做正确的决定。

But the underlying assumption is the same:

但是潜在的假设是相同的：

there's something wrong with them.

穷人一定有问题。

If we could just change them,

如果我们能改变他们，

if we could just teach them how to live their lives,

如果我们能教他们去正确地生活，

if they would only listen.

如果他们能听从我们的劝告。

And to be honest,

坦诚地说，

this was what I thought for a long time.

长期以来，我也是这么认为的。

It was only a few years ago that I discovered

然而，就在几年前，我才发现

that everything I thought I knew about poverty was wrong.

我对于贫困的一切看法都是错误的。

It all started when I accidentally stumbled upon a paper

一切都源于一次偶然的机会，我发现了一篇

by a few American psychologists.

由几位美国心理学家发表的文章。

They had traveled 8,000 miles, all the way to India,

他们前往印度，跋涉8000英里，

for a fascinating study.

去进行一项有趣的研究。

And it was an experiment with sugarcane farmers.

这是一个针对甘蔗种植者的实验。

You should know that these farmers collect about 60 percent

你们应该知道，农民们60%的年收入

of their annual income all at once,

都来自于

right after the harvest.

丰收之后。

This means that they're relatively poor one part of the year

这意味着他们每年有一段时间相对贫穷

and rich the other.

另一段时间相对富裕。

The researchers asked them to do an IQ test before and after the harvest.

研究人员分别在丰收前和丰收后对农民们进行智商测试。

What they subsequently discovered completely blew my mind.

他们随后的发现令我震惊。

The farmers scored much worse on the test before the harvest.

测试表明，农民们在丰收前的智商较低。

The effects of living in poverty, it turns out,

在贫困中生活的结果就是——

correspond to losing 14 points of IQ.

智商降低14点。

Now, to give you an idea,

现在，再讲一个

that's comparable to losing a night's sleep

能让你们彻底失眠的观点，

or the effects of alcoholism.

甚至连酗酒也不管用。

A few months later, I heard that Eldar Shafir,

几个月后，我听说

a professor at Princeton University and one of the authors of this study,

普林斯顿大学的教授、该研究的作者之一Eldar Shafir

was coming over to Holland, where I live.

将要来到我所在的荷兰。

So we met up in Amsterdam

于是我们在阿姆斯特丹见面

to talk about his revolutionary new theory of poverty.

谈到了他那革命性的贫困新理论。

And I can sum it up in just two words:

我将这个理论总结为几个字：

scarcity mentality.

匮乏心态。

It turns out that people behave differently

当人们察觉到缺乏某种东西时

when they perceive a thing to be scarce.

他们的行为就会发生变化。

And what that thing is doesn't much matter --

无论这个“东西”是什么——

whether it's not enough time, money or food.

缺时间、缺钱或缺食物。

You all know this feeling,

你们都知道这种感觉，

when you've got too much to do,

当你有太多事情要做时，

or when you've put off breaking for lunch

或者当你没吃早餐时

and your blood sugar takes a dive.

你的血糖骤降。

This narrows your focus to your immediate lack --

你满脑子都是你所缺乏的东西——

to the sandwich you've got to have now,

你现在必须得吃的三明治（缺乏食物），

the meeting that's starting in five minutes

将在5分钟内开始的会议（缺少时间）

or the bills that have to be paid tomorrow.

或是必须于明天前支付的账单（缺钱）。

So the long-term perspective goes out the window.

这就导致你无法从长远的角度去思考。

You could compare it to a new computer

就像一台新电脑

that's running 10 heavy programs at once.

一次性运行10个庞杂的程序。

It gets slower and slower, making errors.

它会变得越来越慢，出现错误。

Eventually, it freezes --

最终，死机了——

not because it's a bad computer,

不是因为它是一台坏电脑，

but because it has too much to do at once.

而是因为它一次性要处理太多程序。

The poor have the same problem.

穷人面临着同样的问题。

They're not making dumb decisions because they are dumb,

他们做出不好的决定，不是因为他们是蠢人，

but because they're living in a context

而是因为他们生活在一个

in which anyone would make dumb decisions.

任何人都会做出愚蠢的决定的环境中。

So suddenly I understood

瞬间我明白了

why so many of our anti-poverty programs don't work.

为什么这么多反贫穷计划都不管用。

Investments in education, for example, are often completely ineffective.

比如在教育上加大投资，往往一点用都没有。

Poverty is not a lack of knowledge.

贫穷不是因为知识匮乏。

A recent analysis of 201 studies

最近，一项针对201起

on the effectiveness of money-management training

金钱管理训练的有效性分析表明

came to the conclusion that it has almost no effect at all.

这种训练完全无效。

Now, don't get me wrong --

请不要误解了我的意思——

this is not to say the poor don't learn anything --

我不是说穷人不学无术——

they can come out wiser for sure.

他们当然可以变得更加聪明。

But it's not enough.

但这还不够。

Or as Professor Shafir told me,

或者说，就像Shafir教授所说，

"It's like teaching someone to swim

“就像是刚开始教一个人游泳

and then throwing them in a stormy sea."

却立马把他们扔进波涛汹涌的大海。”

I still remember sitting there,

我仍然记得，我坐在那，

perplexed.

困惑不解。

And it struck me

教授的话给我带来了巨大的冲击——

that we could have figured this all out decades ago.

我们本应在几十年前就想明白。

I mean, these psychologists didn't need any complicated brain scans;

我的意思是说，这些心理学家不需要任何复杂的大脑扫描；

they only had to measure the farmer's IQ,

他们只需要测量一下农民们的智商，

and IQ tests were invented more than 100 years ago.

而智商测试在100多年前就被发明出来了。

Actually, I realized I had read about the psychology of poverty before.

事实上，我意识到我以前读过关于贫穷心理学的书籍。

George Orwell, one of the greatest writers who ever lived,

世界上最著名的作家之一George Orwell

experienced poverty firsthand in the 1920s.

在1920年代曾亲身经历过贫穷。

"The essence of poverty," he wrote back then,

他在书中写到：“贫穷的本质，

is that it "annihilates the future."

是摧毁未来。”

And he marveled at, quote,

他感叹道：

"How people take it for granted they have the right to preach at you

“人们理所应当地认为

and pray over you

当你的收入在贫困线以下时

as soon as your income falls below a certain level."

他们有权教导你并为你祈祷。”

Now, those words are every bit as resonant today.

如今，这些话仍然能引起共鸣。

The big question is, of course:

当然，最大的问题是：

What can be done?

我们能做些什么？

Modern economists have a few solutions up their sleeves.

现代经济学家已经想出一些解决办法。

We could help the poor with their paperwork

我们可以帮助穷人做一些文书工作

or send them a text message to remind them to pay their bills.

或者给他们发消息提醒他们支付账单。

This type of solution is hugely popular with modern politicians,

这种类型的解决办法颇受当代政客欢迎，

mostly because,

主要是因为，

well, they cost next to nothing.

这几乎没有成本。

These solutions are, I think, a symbol of this era

我认为，这种解决办法是这个时代的一个标签——

in which we so often treat the symptoms,

我们往往只关注表象，

but ignore the underlying cause.

却忽略深层原因。

So I wonder:

试问：

Why don't we just change the context in which the poor live?

我们为什么不去改变穷人的生活环境？

Or, going back to our computer analogy:

让我们回到前面提到的电脑类比：

Why keep tinkering around with the software

与其一直纠结于一点点改进软件，

when we can easily solve the problem by installing some extra memory instead?

为什么我们不简单地直接增加一些额外的内存呢？

At that point, Professor Shafir responded with a blank look.

这时，Shafir教授露出一副茫然的表情。

And after a few seconds, he said,

几秒钟后，他说：

"Oh, I get it.

“噢，我知道了。

You mean you want to just hand out more money to the poor

你的意思是你想给穷人发钱

to eradicate poverty.

以根除贫困。

Uh, sure, that'd be great.

额，当然，这是个好想法。

But I'm afraid that brand of left-wing politics

但是，恐怕你在阿姆斯特丹提出的

you've got in Amsterdam --

这种左翼政策的想法——

it doesn't exist in the States."

在美国并不存在。”

But is this really an old-fashioned, leftist idea?

但这真的是一个过时的左派想法吗？

I remembered reading about an old plan --

我记得我看到过一个以前的计划——

something that has been proposed by some of history's leading thinkers.

由一些历史上重要的思想家提出。

The philosopher Thomas More first hinted at it in his book, "Utopia,"

500多年前，哲学家Thmas More在他的著作“乌托邦”

more than 500 years ago.

最先提及了这个计划。

And its proponents have spanned the spectrum from the left to the right,

它的支持者遍布左翼和右翼，

from the civil rights campaigner, Martin Luther King,

包括人权运动者Martin Luther King，

to the economist Milton Friedman.

及经济学家Milton Friedman。

And it's an incredibly simple idea:

这个计划简单得不可置信：

basic income guarantee.

保障基本收入。

What it is?

什么意思呢？

Well, that's easy.

很简单。

It's a monthly grant, enough to pay for your basic needs:

就是每月的补助金，保障基本开支：

food, shelter, education.

食物，住宿，教育。

It's completely unconditional,

这是无条件给予的，

so no one's going to tell you what you have to do for it,

没有人会告诉你如何去得到它，

and no one's going to tell you what you have to do with it.

没有人会告诉你如何去使用它。

The basic income is not a favor, but a right.

这个基本收入不是一种恩惠，而是一种权利。

There's absolutely no stigma attached.

这绝对不是什么见不得人的事。

So as I learned about the true nature of poverty,

正如我对贫穷本质的理解一样。

I couldn't stop wondering:

我止不住在想：

Is this the idea we've all been waiting for?

这是我们一直都在期待的想法吗？

Could it really be that simple?

它真的就这么简单吗？

And in the three years that followed,

随后的三年中，

I read everything I could find about basic income.

我阅读了一切我能找到的关于基本收入的书籍。

I researched the dozens of experiments

我研究了几十个

that have been conducted all over the globe,

遍布全球进行的实验，

and it didn't take long before I stumbled upon a story of a town

很快我发现了一个镇子的故事——

that had done it -- had actually eradicated poverty.

真正根除了贫困。

But then ...

然而...

nearly everyone forgot about it.

几乎没有人记得。

This story starts in Dauphin, Canada.

这个故事开始于加拿大Dauphin。

In 1974, everybody in this small town was guaranteed a basic income,

1974年，这个镇子上的每个人都得到了基本收入保障金，

ensuring that no one fell below the poverty line.

没有人掉到贫困线以下。

At the start of the experiment,

在实验的开始，

an army of researchers descended on the town.

一队研究学者空降在镇子上。

For four years, all went well.

在随后的四年，一切都很顺利。

But then a new government was voted into power,

然而，新政府掌权，

and the new Canadian cabinet saw little point to the expensive experiment.

加拿大新内阁认为这项昂贵的实验没有任何意义。

So when it became clear there was no money left to analyze the results,

所以，很明显，没有足够的资金去支撑结果分析工作，

the researchers decided to pack their files away in some 2,000 boxes.

学者们将这些文件打包装进2000个箱子里并带走。

Twenty-five years went by,

25年过去了，

and then Evelyn Forget, a Canadian professor,

一位加拿大教授Evelyn Forget

found the records.

发现了这些记录。

For three years, she subjected the data to all manner of statistical analysis,

三年间，她用尽各种方法对这些数据进行统计分析，

and no matter what she tried,

不管何种方法，

the results were the same every time:

每一次的结果都是一样的：

the experiment had been a resounding success.

这是一个彻彻底底成功的实验。

Evelyn Forget discovered

Evely Forget发现

that the people in Dauphin had not only become richer

在Dauphin，人们不仅变得更加富有，

but also smarter and healthier.

还变得更加聪明且健康。

The school performance of kids improved substantially.

孩子们在学校的表现有了大幅度进步。

The hospitalization rate decreased by as much as 8.5 percent.

就医率下降了8.5%。

Domestic violence incidents were down,

家庭暴力事件减少了，

as were mental health complaints.

精神健康问题也减少了。

And people didn't quit their jobs.

而且人们都去工作。

The only ones who worked a little less were new mothers and students --

只有新晋母亲和学生们工作得少一些——

who stayed in school longer.

学生们在学校的时间增加。

Similar results have since been found

从美国到印度，全球范围内，

in countless other experiments around the globe,

不计其数的其他实验

from the US to India.

也得到了相似的结论。

So ...

所以...

here's what I've learned.

我得到了如下结论。

When it comes to poverty,

当贫困出现时，

we, the rich, should stop pretending we know best.

我们这些富有的人，应该停止我们假装最了解穷人。

We should stop sending shoes and teddy bears to the poor,

我们应该停止给穷人们、我们没见过的人们

to people we have never met.

送去鞋子和泰迪熊。

And we should get rid of the vast industry of paternalistic bureaucrats

我们应该根除大张旗鼓式的专断官僚主义，

when we could simply hand over their salaries

我们可以把工资

to the poor they're supposed to help.

给那些应该受到帮助的穷人们。

(Applause)

（掌声）

Because, I mean, the great thing about money

因为，我认为，钱应该花在

is that people can use it to buy things they need

穷人们需要的地方

instead of things that self-appointed experts think they need.

而不是专家们认为他们需要的地方。

Just imagine how many brilliant scientists and entrepreneurs and writers,

想象一下有多少杰出的科学家、企业家和作家，

like George Orwell,

例如George Orwell，

are now withering away in scarcity.

因为缺钱而陨落。

Imagine how much energy and talent we would unleash

想象一下，如果我们能一次性让所以人彻底摆脱贫困

if we got rid of poverty once and for all.

有多少能量和天赋能够被释放。

I believe that a basic income would work like venture capital for the people.

我认为，保障基本收入是对人们的一项风险投资。

And we can't afford not to do it,

而且我们不得不这么做，

because poverty is hugely expensive.

因为贫穷的代价太昂贵了。

Just look at the cost of child poverty in the US, for example.

比如，让我们看看在美国用于儿童贫困的支出。

It's estimated at 500 billion dollars each year,

每年估计有5000亿美元

in terms of higher health care spending, higher dropout rates,

用于解决越来越高的卫生保健开支，越来越高的辍学率

and more crime.

及越来越多的犯罪。

Now, this is an incredible waste of human potential.

现在看来，这是对于人类潜能的一种不可置信的浪费。

But let's talk about the elephant in the room.

让我们讨论一下最关键的问题。

How could we ever afford a basic income guarantee?

我们是否能够承担基本收入保障？

Well, it's actually a lot cheaper than you may think.

其实这比你们想象的要便宜得多。

What they did in Dauphin is finance it with a negative income tax.

在Dauphin，政府给予人民最低收入补贴。

This means that your income is topped up

这意味着只要你掉到贫困线以下

as soon as you fall below the poverty line.

你的收入就会提高。

And in that scenario,

在这种情形下，

according to our economists' best estimates,

据我们的经济学家最乐观的估计，

for a net cost of 175 billion --

净支出1750亿美金——

a quarter of US military spending, one percent of GDP --

美国军费支出的四分之一，全国GDP的百分之一——

you could lift all impoverished Americans above the poverty line.

你就可以将美国所有的贫困人口拉至贫困线以上。

You could actually eradicate poverty.

你就可以实实在在地彻底驱除贫困。

Now, that should be our goal.

现在来看，这应该是我们共同的目标。

(Applause)

（掌声）

The time for small thoughts and little nudges is past.

前面所讲都是一些琐碎的想法和说服...

I really believe that the time has come for radical new ideas,

现在到了最根本的新想法的时间，

and basic income is so much more than just another policy.

保障基本收入不仅仅是一个新政策。

It is also a complete rethink of what work actually is.

它还是关于对于“工作”本质的全面的再思考。

And in that sense,

就其意义而言，

it will not only free the poor,

它不仅将解放穷人，

but also the rest of us.

还将解放我们其余的人。

Nowadays, millions of people feel

现如今，成千上万的人认为

that their jobs have little meaning or significance.

他们的工作没有任何意义或并不重要。

A recent poll among 230,000 employees

最近的一个针对142个国家共23,0000员工

in 142 countries

的问卷调查发现

found that only 13 percent of workers actually like their job.

只有13%的员工真正热爱他们的工作。

And another poll found that as much as 37 percent of British workers

另一项调查发现英国37%的员工

have a job that they think doesn't even need to exist.

认为他们的工作根本没有存在的价值。

It's like Brad Pitt says in "Fight Club,"

就像Brad Pitt在搏击俱乐部中所说

"Too often we're working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need."

“我们总是在做着那些我们憎恨的工作， 买着那些我们根本不需要的东西。”

(Laughter)

（笑）

Now, don't get me wrong --

现在，请不要误解我——

I'm not talking about the teachers and the garbagemen

在这里我不是说老师、清洁工

and the care workers here.

及看护工作者。

If they stopped working,

如果他们停止工作，

we'd be in trouble.

那麻烦可就大了。

I'm talking about all those well-paid professionals with excellent résumés

我是说那些所有的有着出色的履历、拿着高薪水的专家们

who earn their money doing ...

他们在社交网络中

strategic transactor peer-to-peer meetings

通过战略性的会议，

while brainstorming the value add-on of disruptive co-creation

并努力想出创造性毁灭的附加价值

in the network society.

来赚钱。

(Laughter)

（笑）

(Applause)

（掌声）

Or something like that.

或者类似的情况。

Just imagine again how much talent we're wasting,

让我们想象一下我们浪费了多少天分，

simply because we tell our kids they'll have to "earn a living."

仅仅因为我们告诉我们的孩子们他们不得不为了生存而工作。

Or think of what a math whiz working at Facebook lamented a few years ago:

或者，看看几年前在Facebook工作的一个数学天才抱怨的，

"The best minds of my generation

“我这代最优秀的思想

are thinking about how to make people click ads."

是考虑如何让人们点击更多的广告。”

I'm a historian.

我是一个历史学家。

And if history teaches us anything,

如果历史教给我们任何东西，

it is that things could be different.

那就是事情可以不一样。

There is nothing inevitable

我们建立起我们的社会和经济

about the way we structured our society and economy right now.

不是只有一种方式。

Ideas can and do change the world.

思想可以并且正在改变世界。

And I think that especially in the past few years,

我认为，特别是在过去几年，

it has become abundantly clear

我们不能安于现状，

that we cannot stick to the status quo --

这变得越来越明确了——

that we need new ideas.

我们需要新的想法。

I know that many of you may feel pessimistic

我知道你们中的许多人对未来加剧的不平等、

about a future of rising inequality,

仇外、

xenophobia

以及气候变化

and climate change.

感到悲观。

But it's not enough to know what we're against.

但是光知道我们反对什么是不够的。

We also need to be for something.

我们需要做些什么。

Martin Luther King didn't say, "I have a nightmare."

Martin Luther King没有说，“我有一个噩梦。”

(Laughter)

（笑）

He had a dream.

他有一个梦想。

(Applause)

（掌声）

So ...

所以...

here's my dream:

这是我的梦想：

I believe in a future

我相信在未来，

where the value of your work is not determined

你工作的价值

by the size of your paycheck,

不由你赚的钱决定，

but by the amount of happiness you spread

而是由你传播的快乐和

and the amount of meaning you give.

你创造的意义决定。

I believe in a future

我相信在未来，

where the point of education is not to prepare you for another useless job

教育的目的不在于为一个无意义的工作做好准备，

but for a life well-lived.

而在于为有意义的一生做好准备。

I believe in a future

我相信在未来，

where an existence without poverty is not a privilege

脱离贫困不是一项特权，

but a right we all deserve.

而是我们应得的一项权利。

So here we are.

所以有我们。

Here we are.

有我们。

We've got the research, we've got the evidence

我们进行研究，我们得到证据，

and we've got the means.

我们创造意义。

Now, more than 500 years after Thomas More first wrote about a basic income,

现在，在Thomas More第一次描述基础收入500年之后

and 100 years after George Orwell discovered the true nature of poverty,

以及在George Orwell发现贫穷的实质100年之后，

we all need to change our worldview,

我们需要改变我们的世界观，

because poverty is not a lack of character.

因为贫穷不是缺少一种人格。

Poverty is a lack of cash.

贫穷就是缺少金钱。

Thank you.

谢谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）