How economic inequality harms societies | Richard Wilkinson

譯者: Yung Hsiang Tseng 審譯者: Ana Choi

You all know the truth of what I'm going to say.

相信各位都知道我接下來要說什麼。

I think the intuition that inequality is divisive and socially corrosive

我認為，「不平等」會腐蝕與破壞社會的穩定性,

has been around since before the French Revolution.

這種思潮在法國大革命前就已經出現。

What's changed

唯一不同的是,

is we now can look at the evidence,

現在我們有足夠的資料

we can compare societies, more and less equal societies,

來比較各個國家的社會型態，分析誰比較平等或不平等,

and see what inequality does.

並看看何謂真正的「不平等」。

I'm going to take you through that data

待會我會給各位看各種數據,

and then explain why

並且跟各位說明

the links I'm going to be showing you exist.

這些數據之間是存在著關聯性的。

But first, see what a miserable lot we are.

在這之前，先來看看現代人有多慘。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

I want to start though

首先讓我們來看看

with a paradox.

一個矛盾的現象。

This shows you life expectancy

這張圖呈現了平均壽命

against gross national income --

與國民總收入(Gross National Income, GNI)

how rich countries are on average.

之間的關係。

And you see the countries on the right,

各位可以看到在右邊的國家

like Norway and the USA,

像是挪威與美國,

are twice as rich as Israel, Greece, Portugal on the left.

總收入是左邊國家的兩倍，像是以色列、希臘、葡萄牙。

And it makes no difference to their life expectancy at all.

但這五個國家的平均壽命並沒有太大差別。

There's no suggestion of a relationship there.

因此它們之間並沒有任何關係存在。

But if we look within our societies,

但是，看看我們的社會(譯註：這裡指英國),

there are extraordinary social gradients in health

平均壽命與財富之間

running right across society.

卻呈現負斜率的關係。

This, again, is life expectancy.

縱軸代表平均壽命。

These are small areas of England and Wales --

橫軸代表英格蘭與威爾斯地區的人民富裕程度--

the poorest on the right, the richest on the left.

愈右邊代表愈窮，愈左邊代表愈富裕。

A lot of difference between the poor and the rest of us.

財富與壽命之間存在強烈的關聯性。

Even the people just below the top

財富稍微少一點的人

have less good health

比起財富稍微多一點的人

than the people at the top.

平均壽命便有些微的差距。

So income means something very important

所以對現代社會而言

within our societies,

收入是非常重要的,

and nothing between them.

沒有人可以否定

The explanation of that paradox

要解釋這種矛盾的現象

is that, within our societies,

必須先檢視一下我們的社會

we're looking at relative income

這裡要探討的是「相對收入」

or social position, social status --

也可以稱作「社會地位」--

where we are in relation to each other

每個人或多或少都會感覺到

and the size of the gaps between us.

自己比別人窮或比別人富有。

And as soon as you've got that idea,

有了這種想法以後

you should immediately wonder:

各位一定會想知道

what happens if we widen the differences,

如果我比現在更富有

or compress them,

或是更窮的話

make the income differences bigger or smaller?

會變成什麼情況呢？

And that's what I'm going to show you.

這就是待會兒我要跟各位探討的東西。

I'm not using any hypothetical data.

我不會使用假設性的數據。

I'm taking data from the U.N. --

以下的數據來自聯合國

it's the same as the World Bank has --

跟世界銀行的數據是一樣的--

on the scale of income differences

該數據說明一些自由競爭市場的國家,

in these rich developed market democracies.

它們國內的貧富差距。

The measure we've used,

我們來看看這張圖表,

because it's easy to understand and you can download it,

非常簡單易懂，各位也能從網路自行下載,

is how much richer the top 20 percent

它呈現出在每個國家裡面

than the bottom 20 percent in each country.

前20%富有以及前20%貧窮人口之間的貧富差距。

And you see in the more equal countries on the left --

左邊的國家財富分配比較均等

Japan, Finland, Norway, Sweden --

像是日本、芬蘭、挪威、瑞典--

the top 20 percent are about three and a half, four times as rich

富人與窮人之間的貧富差距

as the bottom 20 percent.

相差大約3.5倍到4倍之間。

But on the more unequal end --

但是那些財富分配不均的國家--

U.K., Portugal, USA, Singapore --

像是英國、葡萄牙、美國、新加坡--

the differences are twice as big.

貧富差距比左邊的國家整整多了一倍。

On that measure, we are twice as unequal

由此可見，相較於其他自由競爭市場的國家

as some of the other successful market democracies.

我們國家的經濟失衡程度整整多了一倍。

Now I'm going to show you what that does to our societies.

現在讓我們來看看，這種現象對我們的社會有何影響。

We collected data on problems with social gradients,

我蒐集了各種社會現象與問題的數據,

the kind of problems that are more common

在社會底層的人民之中

at the bottom of the social ladder.

這些問題會更為明顯。

Internationally comparable data on life expectancy,

我統計的數據包括平均壽命,

on kids' maths and literacy scores,

兒童的數學與識字能力,

on infant mortality rates, homicide rates,

嬰兒死亡率、兇殺案發生率,

proportion of the population in prison, teenage birthrates,

監獄內的人口與總人口的比例、未成年少女的生育率,

levels of trust,

人民之間的信賴程度,

obesity, mental illness --

過度肥胖、心理疾病--

which in standard diagnostic classification

這裡所謂的心理疾病，依照標準的診斷分類

includes drug and alcohol addiction --

也包括毒癮與酒癮--

and social mobility.

最後一個項目則是社會流動率。

We put them all in one index.

我們將以上數據整合成一個指數。

They're all weighted equally.

每筆數據之間都經過均衡的運算。

Where a country is is a sort of average score on these things.

圖中這些國家的位置會反映出它們對該指數的平均表現。

And there, you see it

現在，各位看到了

in relation to the measure of inequality I've just shown you,

這張圖跟上一張圖之間的關係

which I shall use over and over again in the data.

這種關係，之後仍會不斷地提到

The more unequal countries

經濟失衡愈嚴重的國家,

are doing worse

對於上述社會問題與現象的指數

on all these kinds of social problems.

平均表現會愈差。

It's an extraordinarily close correlation.

兩者之間有著緊密的關聯性。

But if you look at that same index

但如果使用相同的指數

of health and social problems

也就是上述的各種社會問題與現象

in relation to GNP per capita,

與國民生產毛額,

gross national income,

或是國民總收入比較的話,

there's nothing there,

這兩者之間

no correlation anymore.

就不會有任何關聯。

We were a little bit worried

我們有點擔心

that people might think

或許有人會認為

we'd been choosing problems to suit our argument

我們只選了支持我們理論的數據,

and just manufactured this evidence,

甚至連數據都是偽造的,

so we also did a paper in the British Medical Journal

所以我們也在「英國醫學雜誌」發表了一篇文章

on the UNICEF index of child well-being.

採用了聯合國兒童基金會的兒童福利指數。

It has 40 different components

該指數由另一個研究團隊所整合

put together by other people.

涵蓋了40種不同的變數。

It contains whether kids can talk to their parents,

包括兒童是否能跟父母溝通,

whether they have books at home,

家裡有沒有書本,

what immunization rates are like, whether there's bullying at school.

接種疫苗的比率、有無校園霸凌。

Everything goes into it.

可以說包羅萬有。

Here it is in relation to that same measure of inequality.

然後我們拿這個指數與先前的資料作比較。

Kids do worse in the more unequal societies.

發現經濟失衡愈嚴重，兒童的福利就愈差。

Highly significant relationship.

兩者之間依然有強烈的關聯性。

But once again,

儘管如此,

if you look at that measure of child well-being,

如果我們再把這個兒童福利指數

in relation to national income per person,

拿來與國民總收入做比較,

there's no relationship,

兩者依然沒有任何關聯,

no suggestion of a relationship.

一點邊都沾不上。

What all the data I've shown you so far says

從開始演講到現在我說了那麼多

is the same thing.

其實都在講同一件事

The average well-being of our societies

那就是社會的安樂與穩定

is not dependent any longer

與國民收入或是經濟成長之間

on national income and economic growth.

是一點關係也沒有。

That's very important in poorer countries,

這對於已開發國家而言或許沒什麼,

but not in the rich developed world.

但對貧困國家的影響很大。

But the differences between us

不過，如果撇開國家的立場不談,

and where we are in relation to each other

改以人的立場來觀察的話,

now matter very much.

對我們就影響深遠。

I'm going to show you some of the separate bits of our index.

現在，我把剛剛提到的各種數據拆開來探討。

Here, for instance, is trust.

就拿「信賴程度」來舉例吧。

It's simply the proportion of the population

這張圖顯示了一個國家的人與人之間

who agree most people can be trusted.

對於彼此的信賴程度。

It comes from the World Values Survey.

統計資料來自「世界價值觀調查協會」。

You see, at the more unequal end,

在經濟失衡較嚴重的國家,

it's about 15 percent of the population

只有15%的人

who feel they can trust others.

認為彼此可以信任。

But in the more equal societies,

但是在經濟發展均衡的國家,

it rises to 60 or 65 percent.

卻有60%~65%的人口可以彼此信任。

And if you look at measures of involvement in community life

如果把圖的縱軸改成社會參與度

or social capital,

或是社會資本的動用,

very similar relationships

得到的結果都非常相似,

closely related to inequality.

都跟經濟失衡與否存在強烈的關係。

I may say, we did all this work twice.

事實上，這份調查工作我們作了兩次。

We did it first on these rich, developed countries,

第一次是以已開發國家為對象,

and then as a separate test bed,

並把得到的數據當作實驗平台,

we repeated it all on the 50 American states --

然後對全美國的五十個州作相同的調查--

asking just the same question:

問他們相同的問題:

do the more unequal states

也就是問他們是否認為經濟失衡較嚴重的州

do worse on all these kinds of measures?

對於上述各種社會問題的表現比較差？

So here is trust from a general social survey of the federal government

這張圖就是針對美國人民所作的調查結果,

related to inequality.

同樣是經濟失衡與信賴程度之間的關係。

Very similar scatter

最後得到的結果

over a similar range of levels of trust.

與前幾張圖極為相似。

Same thing is going on.

同一件事在各地都是相同的結果。

Basically we found

基本上，我們發現

that almost anything that's related to trust internationally

根據我們的實驗平台裡的所有資料

is related to trust amongst the 50 states

在國際上跟「信賴程度」有關的調查中

in that separate test bed.

其結果跟美國內部的調查結果都極為相似。

We're not just talking about a fluke.

這絕對不是歪打正著。

This is mental illness.

這張圖的縱軸換成了心理疾病。

WHO put together figures

數據來自世界衛生組織,

using the same diagnostic interviews

他們隨機挑選各國的人民

on random samples of the population

並經由問診而得到這些資料,

to allow us to compare rates of mental illness

這些資料讓我們得以分析在各個社會之中

in each society.

擁有心理疾病的人口比例。

This is the percent of the population

縱軸代表的就是在前幾年之中

with any mental illness in the preceding year.

擁有心理疾病的人口佔總人口的比例。

And it goes from about eight percent

比例最低與最高的國家之間

up to three times that --

足足差了三倍--

whole societies

這代表整個美國社會

with three times the level of mental illness of others.

有四分之一的人口患有心理疾病。

And again, closely related to inequality.

當然，這與經濟失衡有著高度關聯。

This is violence.

這張圖的縱軸是兇殺案發生率。

These red dots are American states,

紅點代表美國各州的比率,

and the blue triangles are Canadian provinces.

藍色三角形則代表加拿大各省。

But look at the scale of the differences.

兩種圖形的分布位置有些許不同。

It goes from 15 homicides per million

每一百萬人中，兇殺案的發生數介於15宗

up to 150.

到150宗之間。

This is the proportion of the population in prison.

這張圖的縱軸則是監獄內人口與總人口的比例。

There's a about a tenfold difference there,

不過刻度是採用對數刻度,

log scale up the side.

最低與最高比例相差約十倍。

But it goes from about 40 to 400

從四十人到四百人都有,

people in prison.

相差不小。

That relationship

這種現象的產生

is not mainly driven by more crime.

並不單純與犯罪率有關。

In some places, that's part of it.

犯罪率只是其中一種因素。

But most of it is about more punitive sentencing,

主要因素來自於

harsher sentencing.

過於嚴厲或粗糙的判決。

And the more unequal societies

在經濟失衡較嚴重的國家

are more likely also to retain the death penalty.

執行死刑的比率也比較高。

Here we have children dropping out of high school.

這張圖的縱軸則換成了中學生的退學率。

Again, quite big differences.

最低與最高比率之間依然差異很大。

Extraordinarily damaging,

這對於人才的發掘,

if you're talking about using the talents of the population.

會造很大的損失。

This is social mobility.

這張圖的縱軸代表社會流動率。

It's actually a measure of mobility

這裡呈現的是以收入為基準

based on income.

來推算出的流動率。

Basically, it's asking:

講白話一點，它就是在問：

do rich fathers have rich sons

富人的父親也是富人嗎？

and poor fathers have poor sons,

窮人的父親也是窮人嗎？

or is there no relationship between the two?

或是根本一點關係也沒有？

And at the more unequal end,

在經濟失衡較嚴重的國家,

fathers' income is much more important --

像是英國跟美國--

in the U.K., USA.

你父親的財產就非常重要。

And in Scandinavian countries,

相反地，在斯堪地納維亞地區的國家,

fathers' income is much less important.

你父親的財產就比較無關緊要了。

There's more social mobility.

因為社會流動率很高。

And as we like to say --

因此，我給各位一些建議--

and I know there are a lot of Americans in the audience here --

我知道在座的觀眾之中有很多是美國人--

if Americans want to live the American dream,

如果美國人想完成他們的美國夢的話,

they should go to Denmark.

最好是往丹麥發展。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

(Applause)

(掌聲)

I've shown you just a few things in italics here.

斜體字的部分我們剛剛已經討論過了。

I could have shown a number of other problems.

現在我們來看看其他的社會問題。

They're all problems that tend to be more common

這些問題在下層社會之間

at the bottom of the social gradient.

愈來愈普遍。

But there are endless problems with social gradients

不過，新的社會問題層出不窮,

that are worse in more unequal countries --

經濟失衡愈嚴重的國家受害愈大--

not just a little bit worse,

這些損害不是一點點而已,

but anything from twice as common to 10 times as common.

甚至還有可能持續不斷地擴大。

Think of the expense,

像是物價持續上漲,

the human cost of that.

人民終有一天會吃不消。

I want to go back though to this graph that I showed you earlier

現在我們回過頭來看看這張圖

where we put it all together

綜合所有的資料後,

to make two points.

可以得到兩點結論。

One is that, in graph after graph,

其一，在這一張張的圖表之中,

we find the countries that do worse,

我們可以發現，社會問題愈多的國家,

whatever the outcome,

不論它們的現況為何,

seem to be the more unequal ones,

愈有可能成為經濟嚴重失衡的國家,

and the ones that do well

反之亦然

seem to be the Nordic countries and Japan.

看看北歐國家或日本就能了解。

So what we're looking at

因此我們可以篤定

is general social disfunction related to inequality.

社會的失常與經濟失衡有絕對的關係。

It's not just one or two things that go wrong,

並不是只有一兩件事出問題,

it's most things.

而是整個社會都有問題。

The other really important point I want to make on this graph

其二，也是很重要的一點,

is that, if you look at the bottom,

請各位看看這張圖的底部,

Sweden and Japan,

也就是瑞典與日本,

they're very different countries in all sorts of ways.

就各種面向而言，這是兩個差異極大的國家。

The position of women,

像是婦女的社會地位,

how closely they keep to the nuclear family,

或是對核能的觀點,

are on opposite ends of the poles

都有著天差地別的見解,

in terms of the rich developed world.

儘管它們都同樣是高度開發國家。

But another really important difference

不過，我們探討的重點在於

is how they get their greater equality.

它們是如何做到經濟發展均衡的。

Sweden has huge differences in earnings,

在瑞典，各種行業之間的工資差異不小,

and it narrows the gap through taxation,

但是政府用稅收來彌補這段差距,

general welfare state,

或是提供完善的社會福利,

generous benefits and so on.

以及大量的補助津貼。

Japan is rather different though.

日本的方法比較不一樣。

It starts off with much smaller differences in earnings before tax.

它是以縮小工資差異的方法達成平衡。

It has lower taxes.

因此稅賦相對地比較低。

It has a smaller welfare state.

當然社會福利就差了一些。

And in our analysis of the American states,

我們在分析美國的狀況時,

we find rather the same contrast.

發現了一些相似的政策。

There are some states that do well through redistribution,

某些州在所得重分配這方面表現不錯,

some states that do well

這些州之所以表現不錯

because they have smaller income differences before tax.

是因為它們的工資差異比較小。

So we conclude

所以結論就是

that it doesn't much matter how you get your greater equality,

要讓經濟均衡發展並沒有特定的方法,

as long as you get there somehow.

重點是要用對方法。

I am not talking about perfect equality,

我並不是在評論誰的做法比較好,

I'm talking about what exists in rich developed market democracies.

我只是在闡述某些高度開發的自由競爭市場國家的情況。

Another really surprising part of this picture

在下一張圖中，我們會看到另一項驚人的事實,

is that it's not just the poor

那就是，不是只有窮人

who are affected by inequality.

才會受到經濟失衡影響。

There seems to be some truth in John Donne's

就好像約翰‧多恩(譯註：英國詩人)所說的

"No man is an island."

「沒有人是一座孤島」。

And in a number of studies, it's possible to compare

經由各項研究，我們可以比較

how people do in more and less equal countries

各種社會階層的人民

at each level in the social hierarchy.

如何受到經濟失衡的影響。

This is just one example.

這張圖只是個例子。

It's infant mortality.

討論的是嬰兒死亡率。

Some Swedes very kindly classified a lot of their infant deaths

有些瑞典學者在統計嬰兒死亡率時

according to the British register of general socioeconomic classification.

所採用的分類法，是根據英國社會經濟學的分類法來劃分。

And so it's anachronistically

這種分類法有點不符合時代潮流,

a classification by fathers' occupations,

因為它把父親的職業分成很多等級,

so single parents go on their own.

卻把單親獨立成一個分類。

But then where it says "low social class,"

圖中最左邊的「低階職業」

that's unskilled manual occupations.

指的是不需要任何技術的勞動業。

It goes through towards the skilled manual occupations in the middle,

往右邊指的是需要技術的勞動業,

then the junior non-manual,

然後是比較不需要專業技能的非勞動業,

going up high to the professional occupations --

最右邊則是需要專業知識的職業--

doctors, lawyers,

像是醫生、律師,

directors of larger companies.

或是大型公司的主管。

You see there that Sweden does better than Britain

不論父親從事哪種等級的職業

all the way across the social hierarchy.

瑞典人的嬰兒死亡率都比英國人低。

The biggest differences are at the bottom of society.

尤其是社會底層的人民之間差異最大。

But even at the top,

即使是上層社會的人民,

there seems to be a small benefit

瑞典的表現仍然略勝一籌,

to being in a more equal society.

足以證明瑞典的經濟失衡較不明顯。

We show that on about five different sets of data

現在，我們已經看過了五種不同的數據,

covering educational outcomes

包括教育、健康等問題,

and health in the United States and internationally.

不管是美國內部還是國際上的數據都已經看過了。

And that seems to be the general picture --

在這之中我們可以找到一個共同點--

that greater equality makes most difference at the bottom,

那就是經濟失衡對社會底層的人民影響最大,

but has some benefits even at the top.

對上層社會的影響相對較小。

But I should say a few words about what's going on.

即使如此，有些事我還是不得不說。

I think I'm looking and talking

現在，我們換個觀點來看問題,

about the psychosocial effects of inequality.

從經濟失衡對心理層面的影響著手。

More to do with feelings of superiority and inferiority,

人們會產生優越感或自卑感,

of being valued and devalued,

對別人的褒貶特別在意,

respected and disrespected.

也會去注意別人對你的態度。

And of course, those feelings

當然，不可諱言地

of the status competition that comes out of that

群眾的競爭心態其實來自於

drives the consumerism in our society.

現今社會的消費主義(Consumerism)。

It also leads to status insecurity.

另外，人們的安全感也會受到影響。

We worry more about how we're judged and seen by others,

我們會很在意別人用什麼眼光看我們,

whether we're regarded as attractive, clever,

我們的表現是否夠吸引人？夠知性？

all that kind of thing.

諸如此類。

The social-evaluative judgments increase,

愈在意別人的眼光

the fear of those social-evaluative judgments.

就會愈沒有安全感。

Interestingly,

有趣的是

some parallel work going on in social psychology:

有社會心理學家曾作過以下的實驗:

some people reviewed 208 different studies

他們分析了208件不同的案例,

in which volunteers had been invited

實驗內容是，先邀請許多自願者

into a psychological laboratory

進入心理實驗室,

and had their stress hormones,

然後讓他們做一些充滿壓迫感的工作,

their responses to doing stressful tasks, measured.

並觀察他們體內分泌的壓力荷爾蒙增加量。

And in the review,

實驗結果非常地諷刺,

what they were interested in seeing

他們發現有一種工作

is what kind of stresses

會大量地增加

most reliably raise levels of cortisol,

皮質醇的分泌量

the central stress hormone.

也就是最主要的壓力荷爾蒙。

And the conclusion was

這種工作就是

it was tasks that included social-evaluative threat --

常會被社會大眾品頭論足的工作--

threats to self-esteem or social status

人們會感到自尊或社會地位受到威脅

in which others can negatively judge your performance.

因為你會害怕得到負面的評價。

Those kind of stresses

來自別人眼光的壓力

have a very particular effect

對一個人的影響最大,

on the physiology of stress.

這是心理學的研究結果。

Now we have been criticized.

我們的研究也曾經受到質疑。

Of course, there are people who dislike this stuff

當然，有些人不喜歡我們的實驗數據,

and people who find it very surprising.

也有些人對這些數據感到不可思議。

I should tell you though

我必須在此告訴各位

that when people criticize us for picking and choosing data,

某些人質疑我們只選用支持我們理論的數據,

we never pick and choose data.

但我們從未這樣做。

We have an absolute rule

我們有自己的篩選機制

that if our data source has data for one of the countries we're looking at,

只要是跟我們研究的國家有關的數據,

it goes into the analysis.

我們就把它加進來分析。

Our data source decides

唯一會考慮的

whether it's reliable data,

只有資料的可信度

we don't.

絕無挑選數據。

Otherwise that would introduce bias.

不然這場演講就沒意義了。

What about other countries?

至於其他的國家呢？

There are 200 studies

其他還有200多項研究

of health in relation to income and equality

都證明人的健康與收入、經濟狀況有關,

in the academic peer-reviewed journals.

這些研究散見於各種學術期刊。

This isn't confined to these countries here,

並不侷限於今天提到的這些國家,

hiding a very simple demonstration.

只是這些國家較俱代表性。

The same countries,

只要國與國之間的情況相似,

the same measure of inequality,

經濟失衡程度差不多,

one problem after another.

兩國內部都會產生相同的問題。

Why don't we control for other factors?

我們為什麼不用其他的衡量標準分析呢？

Well we've shown you that GNP per capita

我已跟各位說明過，如果改用國民生產毛額

doesn't make any difference.

作為衡量標準，結果也不會改變的。

And of course, others using more sophisticated methods in the literature

當然，在現有文獻中，有其他學者用更精密的方法

have controlled for poverty and education

以貧窮、教育等問題做衡量標準,

and so on.

這不在話下。

What about causality?

至於這些數據間的因果關係呢？

Correlation in itself doesn't prove causality.

兩件事之間有關聯性並不能證明它們有因果關係。

We spend a good bit of time.

我們為此花了不少時間。

And indeed, people know the causal links quite well

當然，大部分的人都能接受

in some of these outcomes.

我們研究出的因果關係。

The big change in our understanding

我想我們認知上最大的改變

of drivers of chronic health

就是在富裕已開發的國家中

in the rich developed world

某些慢性病的起因,

is how important chronic stress from social sources

像是免疫系統疾病,

is affecting the immune system,

或是心血管疾病,

the cardiovascular system.

竟是來自社會上的壓力。

Or for instance, the reason why violence

在經濟失衡嚴重的國家,

becomes more common in more unequal societies

社會上的暴力事件比較頻繁,

is because people are sensitive to being looked down on.

也是因為人們對別人的眼光愈來愈敏感。

I should say that to deal with this,

我必須說，要解決這些問題,

we've got to deal with the post-tax things

就得先確立稅收的標準

and the pre-tax things.

以及稅收的運用。

We've got to constrain income,

所有人的所得都必須受到限制,

the bonus culture incomes at the top.

尤其是上層社會的人。

I think we must make our bosses accountable to their employees

我認為，公司老闆應該對員工的薪資負起責任,

in any way we can.

非這麼做不可。

I think the take-home message though

今天我希望各位都能在心中記住一個想法,

is that we can improve the real quality of human life

那就是我們確實能夠藉由縮小收入差距

by reducing the differences in incomes between us.

來讓我們的社會更加均衡發展。

Suddenly we have a handle

如果有一天，在座各位的其中一人

on the psychosocial well-being of whole societies,

成功解決了經濟失衡的問題

and that's exciting.

那將會是全人類的福音。

Thank you.

謝謝各位

(Applause)

(掌聲)