Will automation take away all our jobs? | David Autor

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Joanna Pietrulewicz

譯者: 易帆 余 審譯者: yue chen

Here's a startling fact:

有一個驚人的事實：

in the 45 years since the introduction of the automated teller machine,

45 年前，自從引進自動提款機，

those vending machines that dispense cash,

就是那些會吐鈔票的販賣機，

the number of human bank tellers employed in the United States

美國銀行櫃台的從業人數

has roughly doubled,

增加了將近一倍，

from about a quarter of a million to a half a million.

從 25 萬人增加到 50 萬人。

A quarter of a million in 1970 to about a half a million today,

從 1970 年的 25 萬人 成長到今日的 50 萬人，

with 100,000 added since the year 2000.

其中 10 萬人， 是 2000 年以後增加出來的。

These facts, revealed in a recent book

這些事實，都詳細記載在 最近的一本書上，

by Boston University economist James Bessen,

作者是波斯頓大學的 經濟學家，詹姆士貝森，

raise an intriguing question:

他提出了一個有趣的問題：

what are all those tellers doing,

那麼多的銀行櫃台人員都在做什麼，

and why hasn't automation eliminated their employment by now?

為什麼自動化服務 到現在還沒有讓他們失業？

If you think about it,

回想一下，

many of the great inventions of the last 200 years

過去 200 年來的偉大發明，

were designed to replace human labor.

很多都是為了取代人力的。

Tractors were developed

拖拉機的發明，

to substitute mechanical power for human physical toil.

就是為了利用機械的動力 取代辛苦的人工勞力。

Assembly lines were engineered

工廠的組裝線，

to replace inconsistent human handiwork

就是為了利用機械的穩定性，

with machine perfection.

取代手工的不穩定性。

Computers were programmed to swap out

電腦程式化就是為了 以完美無缺的數位計算能力

error-prone, inconsistent human calculation

取代人力計算時易出錯、 不一致的現象。

with digital perfection.

These inventions have worked.

這些發明都發揮了作用。

We no longer dig ditches by hand,

我們再也不用徒手挖溝渠，

pound tools out of wrought iron

不用手工鍛鐵製作工具，

or do bookkeeping using actual books.

甚至記帳都不用實體帳本了。

And yet, the fraction of US adults employed in the labor market

但美國成年人的勞工市場就業率

is higher now in 2016

在現在 2016 年

竟比 125 年前的 1890 年還要高。

than it was 125 years ago, in 1890,

and it's risen in just about every decade

而且在這 125 年間，

in the intervening 125 years.

每 10 年都有成長。

This poses a paradox.

這產生了一個矛盾現象。

Our machines increasingly do our work for us.

機械不斷地取代掉我們的工作，

Why doesn't this make our labor redundant and our skills obsolete?

但為什麼我們的勞工沒有過剩 且技術沒有被淘汰呢？

Why are there still so many jobs?

為什麼還是有那麼多的工作岡位？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I'm going to try to answer that question tonight,

今晚，我會試著回答這些問題，

and along the way, I'm going to tell you what this means for the future of work

並說明這對我們未來的工作 有甚麼意義，

and the challenges that automation does and does not pose

以及自動化對我們社會

for our society.

所帶來的衝擊和無法撼動的地方。

Why are there so many jobs?

為什麼有這麼多的工作崗位？

There are actually two fundamental economic principles at stake.

這實際上涉及到兩個 經濟學的基本原則。

One has to do with human genius

一個是與人類的聰明才智

and creativity.

及創造力有關。

The other has to do with human insatiability,

另一個與人類貪得無厭的天性有關，

or greed, if you like.

或者你可以叫它做「貪婪」。

I'm going to call the first of these the O-ring principle,

我先從 O 型環原則談起，

and it determines the type of work that we do.

這個原則決定了我們工作的類型。

The second principle is the never-get-enough principle,

第二個原則是 「永不知足 」原則，

and it determines how many jobs there actually are.

它決定了會有多少個 實際存在的工作崗位。

Let's start with the O-ring.

我們先從 O 型環開始。

ATMs, automated teller machines,

ATM，自動提款機，

had two countervailing effects on bank teller employment.

它給銀行櫃台人員的就業機會 帶來了兩種不同的作用。

As you would expect, they replaced a lot of teller tasks.

各位都知道，ATM 取代了很多 櫃台人員的工作。

The number of tellers per branch fell by about a third.

每家分行的櫃台人員 數量大約減少了三分之一。

But banks quickly discovered that it also was cheaper to open new branches,

但很快銀行就發現 設置新分行的成本變便宜了。

and the number of bank branches increased by about 40 percent

同期內，分行的數量 成長了將近 40% 。

in the same time period.

The net result was more branches and more tellers.

結果就是，分行越多， 櫃台人員越多。

But those tellers were doing somewhat different work.

但這些銀行職員做的工作 與之前有點不同。

As their routine, cash-handling tasks receded,

隨著他們常規的現金業務減少，

they became less like checkout clerks

他們變得不太像出納人員

and more like salespeople,

反而更像是個推銷人員，

forging relationships with customers,

需要與客戶培養感情，

solving problems

幫他們解決問題，

and introducing them to new products like credit cards, loans and investments:

並推銷他們新產品， 像是信用卡、貸款、投資型產品：

more tellers doing a more cognitively demanding job.

更多的銀行職員從事著 對腦力認知需求很高的工作。

There's a general principle here.

一個普遍的原則就是，

Most of the work that we do

我們從事的工作，

requires a multiplicity of skills,

大都需要多樣化的技能，

and brains and brawn,

既要腦力又要體力，

technical expertise and intuitive mastery,

既要求專業素養又要敏銳的直覺，

perspiration and inspiration in the words of Thomas Edison.

用愛迪生的話來說， 就是天才加勤奮。

In general, automating some subset of those tasks

總的來說，其中一些工作自動化了，

doesn't make the other ones unnecessary.

但不代表其它的工作就不必要。

In fact, it makes them more important.

事實上，反而變得更重要，

It increases their economic value.

自動化反而增加了他們的經濟價值。

Let me give you a stark example.

我來舉一個明顯的例子。

In 1986, the space shuttle Challenger

1986 年，挑戰者號太空船

exploded and crashed back down to Earth

在起飛不到兩分鐘， 失事爆炸，墜毀在地表上。

less than two minutes after takeoff.

The cause of that crash, it turned out,

事後發現，肇事的原因，

was an inexpensive rubber O-ring in the booster rocket

原來是推進火箭上 一個不起眼的 O 型環，

that had frozen on the launchpad the night before

前一天晚上在發射台上凍僵了，

and failed catastrophically moments after takeoff.

在發射不久後失效，引發了悲劇。

In this multibillion dollar enterprise

這個耗資十幾億美金的巨大工程，

that simple rubber O-ring

結果是一個不起眼的 O 型環，

made the difference between mission success

決定了是發射成功，

and the calamitous death of seven astronauts.

還是失敗造成 七位太空人的死亡悲劇。

An ingenious metaphor for this tragic setting

這場悲劇催生了一個巧妙的比喻──

is the O-ring production function,

《O 型環經濟理論》，

named by Harvard economist Michael Kremer

由哈佛經濟學家麥可克雷姆

after the Challenger disaster.

在挑戰者號失事後所命名。

The O-ring production function conceives of the work

《O型環經濟理論》指出， 一項工作的誕生

as a series of interlocking steps,

是由一系列互相連結的步驟

所組成的鏈，

links in a chain.

Every one of those links must hold for the mission to succeed.

每一處連結都必須牢固 才能保證任務的成功。

If any of them fails,

一旦有任何環節出問題，

the mission, or the product or the service,

該任務、產品或服務

comes crashing down.

就會失敗。

This precarious situation has a surprisingly positive implication,

這種不確定的緊張情況， 有著一種令人驚嘆的積極影響，

which is that improvements

因為它可以改善

in the reliability of any one link in the chain

過程中任一環節的可靠性，

increases the value of improving any of the other links.

並對其它環節的改善， 起了價值增加的作用。

Concretely, if most of the links are brittle and prone to breakage,

具體來說，如果大多數的連結 都很脆弱且很容易壞，

the fact that your link is not that reliable

那麼每個環節的可靠與否，

is not that important.

就顯得不那麼重要了。

Probably something else will break anyway.

反正很有可能其它的東西也會壞掉。

But as all the other links become robust and reliable,

但一旦其它的環節 變得相形穩固可靠時，

the importance of your link becomes more essential.

每一個環節就變得很重要了。

In the limit, everything depends upon it.

到了一個極限， 每一個環節都是勝敗的關鍵。

The reason the O-ring was critical to space shuttle Challenger

O 型環對挑戰者號很重要的原因，

is because everything else worked perfectly.

是因為其它環節都運作地很完美。

If the Challenger were kind of the space era equivalent

如果挑戰者號的太空設備

of Microsoft Windows 2000 --

類似 Widows 2000 作業系統──

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

the reliability of the O-ring wouldn't have mattered

O 型環的可靠性就不那麼重要了，

because the machine would have crashed.

因為機械會直接當機。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Here's the broader point.

這裡有個更宏觀的觀點，

In much of the work that we do, we are the O-rings.

人類所扮演的角色就像 O 型環。

Yes, ATMs could do certain cash-handling tasks

沒錯，ATM 是可以 作一些現金交易的任務，

faster and better than tellers,

速度也比櫃台人員快，

but that didn't make tellers superfluous.

但卻無法完全取代櫃台人員。

It increased the importance of their problem-solving skills

因為他們的問題解決能力，

and their relationships with customers.

及他們維持客戶關係的能力， 增加了他們的重要性。

The same principle applies if we're building a building,

同樣的原則也適用於蓋房子、

if we're diagnosing and caring for a patient,

診斷及照顧病人、

or if we are teaching a class

或者在教室裡

to a roomful of high schoolers.

向一整間的高中生教課。

As our tools improve,

一旦我們的工具改進了，

technology magnifies our leverage

科技反而放大了我們的引響力，

and increases the importance of our expertise

提高了我們專業度、

and our judgment and our creativity.

判斷力及創造力的重要性。

And that brings me to the second principle:

講到這，帶出了第二原則：

never get enough.

永不知足。

You may be thinking, OK, O-ring, got it,

你可能會想，好， O 型環理論，我懂了，

that says the jobs that people do will be important.

人類所從事的工作將會很重要。

They can't be done by machines, but they still need to be done.

這些任務無法由機械完成， 但又不能不做。

But that doesn't tell me how many jobs there will need to be.

但這無法說明我們還需要多少工作。

If you think about it, isn't it kind of self-evident

如果你仔細想想， 這有點無法自圓其說，

一旦我們對某樣東西 有了足夠的生產力，

that once we get sufficiently productive at something,

我們基本上不就會自動失業了嗎？

we've basically worked our way out of a job?

In 1900, 40 percent of all US employment

1900 年，40% 的美國就業人口，

was on farms.

從事的工作都是農業。

Today, it's less than two percent.

如今，農業人口比例已經少於 2%。

Why are there so few farmers today?

為什麼農夫會變得這麼少？

It's not because we're eating less.

不是因為我們吃得少。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

A century of productivity growth in farming

百年來農業生產力的成長，

means that now, a couple of million farmers

讓我們現在只需數百萬個農夫，

can feed a nation of 320 million.

就能養活全國的 3.2 億人口。

That's amazing progress,

這真的是個很大的進步，

but it also means there are only so many O-ring jobs left in farming.

但這也意味著農產業中， 也只剩這麼多類似 O 型環的工作。

So clearly, technology can eliminate jobs.

所以很明顯地， 科技會消彌掉工作機會。

Farming is only one example.

農業只是其中一個案例。

There are many others like it.

還有很多類似的案例。

But what's true about a single product or service or industry

但事實是，一個單一產品、 服務或產業的表現，

has never been true about the economy as a whole.

不能代表總體經濟的實質表現。

Many of the industries in which we now work --

很多我們現在從事的產業──

health and medicine,

健康、醫療、

finance and insurance,

理財、保險、

electronics and computing --

電子、電腦──

were tiny or barely existent a century ago.

在上一世紀僅有少數人在從業 或根本還不存在。

Many of the products that we spend a lot of our money on --

很多我們花很多錢消費的產品──

air conditioners, sport utility vehicles,

空調、休旅車、

computers and mobile devices --

電腦、手機設備──

were unattainably expensive,

這些在上一世紀，不是貴得要死，

or just hadn't been invented a century ago.

不然就是還沒有被發明出來。

As automation frees our time, increases the scope of what is possible,

當自動化騰出了我們的空閒時間， 增進了各個領域的可能性，

we invent new products, new ideas, new services

我們就會發明新產品、 新想法、產生新的服務，

that command our attention,

來控制我們的注意力、

occupy our time

占據我們的時間，

and spur consumption.

並刺激消費。

You may think some of these things are frivolous --

你可能會想有些東西 真的是多餘的──

extreme yoga, adventure tourism,

極限瑜珈、冒險旅遊、

Pokémon GO --

口袋怪獸──

and I might agree with you.

我都同意。

But people desire these things, and they're willing to work hard for them.

但人們就是喜歡這些東西， 而且很願意在它們身上付出心力。

The average worker in 2015

2015 年的一般勞動階層，

wanting to attain the average living standard in 1915

如果想獲得 1915 年的 一般生活水準，

could do so by working just 17 weeks a year,

只要每年工作 17 周就可達到，

one third of the time.

只要三分之一的時間。

But most people don't choose to do that.

但大部分的人不會那樣做。

They are willing to work hard

他們寧願選擇努力工作

to harvest the technological bounty that is available to them.

來賺取科技所帶給他們的精神食糧。

Material abundance has never eliminated perceived scarcity.

豐富的物質永遠 消除不了內心的空虛。

In the words of economist Thorstein Veblen,

套一句經濟學家 托斯丹范伯倫說的話：

invention is the mother of necessity.

「發明是需求之母。 」

Now ...

現在……

So if you accept these two principles,

如果你同意上述的兩個觀點，

the O-ring principle and the never-get-enough principle,

O 型環原則以及永不知足原則，

then you agree with me.

那你就會認同我說的，

There will be jobs.

一定會有工作岡位產生。

Does that mean there's nothing to worry about?

那是否意味著都不用煩惱了呢？

Automation, employment, robots and jobs --

自動化、就業機會、 機器人和工作──

it'll all take care of itself?

它們自己會自動幫我們安排好？

No.

不。

That is not my argument.

這不是我的論點。

Automation creates wealth

自動化為我們帶來了財富，

by allowing us to do more work in less time.

讓我們可以用 更少的時間做更多的事。

There is no economic law

沒有經濟規則說，

that says that we will use that wealth well,

我們會好好地善用 自動化所帶來的財富，

and that is worth worrying about.

這的確值得我們擔心。

Consider two countries,

想想這兩個國家，

Norway and Saudi Arabia.

挪威和沙烏地阿拉伯。

Both oil-rich nations,

兩個國家都有豐盛的石油，

it's like they have money spurting out of a hole in the ground.

他們的錢好像是直接從 地底下的洞口噴上來的。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But they haven't used that wealth equally well to foster human prosperity,

但兩個國家利用這筆財富 幫助人民繁榮、

human prospering.

幫助人民成功的方式卻不相同。

Norway is a thriving democracy.

挪威是個欣欣向榮的民主國家。

By and large, its citizens work and play well together.

總體而言，它的人民都過很舒服。

It's typically numbered between first and fourth

國家人民的幸福指數排名，

in rankings of national happiness.

基本上都在第一到第四之間徘徊。

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy

而沙烏地阿拉伯卻是個 君主專制的國家，

in which many citizens lack a path for personal advancement.

很多人民的生活水平， 都沒有機會可以獲得改善。

It's typically ranked 35th among nations in happiness,

國家人民的幸福指數， 全球排名基本上都落在 35 名左右，

which is low for such a wealthy nation.

這麼有錢的國家，排名竟這麼落後。

Just by way of comparison,

只是讓大家比較一下，

the US is typically ranked around 12th or 13th.

美國大都排在第 12 到第 13 之間。

The difference between these two countries

這兩個國家的差別

is not their wealth

不在他們有錢與否，

and it's not their technology.

也不在科技是否發達。

It's their institutions.

而是他們的制度。

Norway has invested to build a society

挪威長期來致力於

建立一個充滿機會 與經濟活躍的社會。

with opportunity and economic mobility.

Saudi Arabia has raised living standards

雖然沙烏地阿拉伯的 生活水平已經有提升，

while frustrating many other human strivings.

但人民仍飽受壓抑。

Two countries, both wealthy,

兩個國家都很有錢，

not equally well off.

但人民卻有著不同的幸福。

And this brings me to the challenge that we face today,

接下來，我要來談談 我們目前所面臨的挑戰，

the challenge that automation poses for us.

自動化給我們所帶來的挑戰。

The challenge is not that we're running out of work.

這挑戰不是因為我們會沒有工作。

The US has added 14 million jobs

美國自金融海嘯以來，

since the depths of the Great Recession.

已經增加了 1400 萬個就業機會。

The challenge is that many of those jobs

我們的挑戰是，這些工作

are not good jobs,

都不是好工作，

and many citizens cannot qualify for the good jobs

因為很多人都不適任

目前已經創造出來的工作。

that are being created.

Employment growth in the United States and in much of the developed world

美國以及其它 已開發國家的就業環境，

looks something like a barbell

現在看起來像是個啞鈴，

with increasing poundage on either end of the bar.

兩端都特別重。

On the one hand,

其中一端，

you have high-education, high-wage jobs

這群人受高等教育、有高薪工作，

like doctors and nurses, programmers and engineers,

像是醫生、護士、 程式設計師、工程師，

marketing and sales managers.

市場及銷售經理。

Employment is robust in these jobs, employment growth.

這些工作的就業機會相當穩固， 就業機會會持續成長。

Similarly, employment growth is robust in many low-skill,

同樣地，低技術工作的 就業機會成長也很穩固，

low-education jobs like food service,

低學歷工作像是餐廳服務生、

cleaning, security,

清潔、保全人員、

home health aids.

居家健康照顧。

Simultaneously, employment is shrinking

同時，有些就業機會也會萎縮：

in many middle-education, middle-wage, middle-class jobs,

中等教育、中等收入、 中產階級的工作，

like blue-collar production and operative positions

像是藍領階級的 生產工人及操作人員，

and white-collar clerical and sales positions.

白領階級的文書及銷售人員。

The reasons behind this contracting middle

這當中的背後原因

are not mysterious.

也不是甚麼多深奧的道理。

Many of those middle-skill jobs

很多這種中等技術的工作、

use well-understood rules and procedures

只要充分了解規則及步驟流程

that can increasingly be codified in software

漸漸地都會被軟體

and executed by computers.

及電腦所取代。

The challenge that this phenomenon creates,

這樣的挑戰造就了一些現象，

what economists call employment polarization,

也就是經濟學家所稱的 「就業兩極化」，

is that it knocks out rungs in the economic ladder,

中間層的工作機會

shrinks the size of the middle class

以及中產階級都會逐漸消失，

and threatens to make us a more stratified society.

並造成我們的社會更階級化。

On the one hand, a set of highly paid, highly educated professionals

一邊是高薪、 受高等教育的專業人士，

doing interesting work,

做的是有趣的工作，

on the other, a large number of citizens in low-paid jobs

而另一邊，大部分的公民 從事低薪的工作，

whose primary responsibility is to see to the comfort and health of the affluent.

他們只盼望舒適、 健康富裕的日子能趕緊到來。

That is not my vision of progress,

這不是我希望的進步，

and I doubt that it is yours.

我認為這也不是你們希望的。

But here is some encouraging news.

但還是有一些令人振奮的好消息。

We have faced equally momentous economic transformations in the past,

我們過去面臨相當大的經濟轉型，

and we have come through them successfully.

而且我們都成功克服過來了。

In the late 1800s and early 1900s,

在 19 世紀末，20 世紀初，

when automation was eliminating vast numbers of agricultural jobs --

當自動化取代掉 大部分的農場工作──

remember that tractor? --

還記得拖拉機嗎？

the farm states faced a threat of mass unemployment,

以農業為主的州 面臨了大量的失業威脅，

a generation of youth no longer needed on the farm

農場不再需要年輕世代的人，

but not prepared for industry.

但這些年輕人還沒準備好 工業化即將帶來的衝擊。

Rising to this challenge,

為了克服挑戰，

they took the radical step

政府做了一個重大的改革，

of requiring that their entire youth population

要求這些年輕人

remain in school and continue their education

在 16 歲長大成人後 繼續留在學校接受教育。

to the ripe old age of 16.

This was called the high school movement,

這就是美國的高中教育改革運動，

and it was a radically expensive thing to do.

這的確很花錢。

Not only did they have to invest in the schools,

因為這些孩子不僅要投入學校，

but those kids couldn't work at their jobs.

而且還不能工作。

It also turned out to be one of the best investments

但最後證明，這是美國在 20 世紀

the US made in the 20th century.

做得最好的投資政策之一。

It gave us the most skilled, the most flexible

它讓我們學習到全世界 最新、最靈活、

and the most productive workforce in the world.

最有生產力的技術。

To see how well this worked, imagine taking the labor force of 1899

如果要看這些變革所帶來的好處， 我們可以想像一下，

把 1899 年的勞工運動

and bringing them into the present.

帶回到目前的現實世界。

Despite their strong backs and good characters,

儘管這些人背部強壯，品格也很好，

many of them would lack the basic literacy and numeracy skills

但他們缺乏基本的識字與算數能力，

to do all but the most mundane jobs.

只能做最平凡的工作。

Many of them would be unemployable.

很多人都不夠格上工。

What this example highlights is the primacy of our institutions,

這個案例是要說明我們卓越的機構，

most especially our schools,

特別是我們的學校，

in allowing us to reap the harvest

讓我們獲取了

of our technological prosperity.

科技繁榮所帶來的成果。

It's foolish to say there's nothing to worry about.

所以說不用擔心是騙人的。

Clearly we can get this wrong.

我們千萬別誤會了。

If the US had not invested in its schools and in its skills

如果美國政府在一世紀前的 高中教育改革運動中，

a century ago with the high school movement,

沒有投資學校、沒有投資技術，

we would be a less prosperous,

我們可能不會這麼繁榮、便利，

a less mobile and probably a lot less happy society.

社會的幸福感可能也會大大地減少。

But it's equally foolish to say that our fates are sealed.

但說我們就是命中注定， 這樣說的人也沒多聰明，

That's not decided by the machines.

我們的命運並不是由機械決定，

It's not even decided by the market.

也不是由市場決定。

It's decided by us and by our institutions.

這取決於我們自己及我們的機構。

Now, I started this talk with a paradox.

我一開始就提到一個矛盾的現象。

Our machines increasingly do our work for us.

機械不斷地取代掉我們的工作，

Why doesn't that make our labor superfluous,

但為什麼我們的勞工沒有過剩，

our skills redundant?

技術沒有被淘汰掉？

Isn't it obvious that the road to our economic and social hell

這很明顯啊！我們偉大的發明，

is paved with our own great inventions?

不就是害我們的經濟與 社會進入地獄之路的元兇嗎？

History has repeatedly offered an answer to that paradox.

歷史已經重複地為我們解答 這個矛盾現象好幾次了。

The first part of the answer is that technology magnifies our leverage,

答案的第一個部分就是： 科技放大了我們存在的重要性，

increases the importance, the added value

增進了我們的價值，

of our expertise, our judgment and our creativity.

使我們的專業、判斷與 創造力更佳地提升。

That's the O-ring.

這是 O 型環法則。

The second part of the answer is our endless inventiveness

答案的第二部分就是：

我們永無止境的發明 以及無窮的慾望。

and bottomless desires

means that we never get enough, never get enough.

意思就是我們 永遠不知足、永不知足。

There's always new work to do.

總是有新事物要做。

Adjusting to the rapid pace of technological change

適應快速的科技變化

創造出了真實的挑戰，

creates real challenges,

seen most clearly in our polarized labor market

最明顯地就是我們勞動市場的兩極化，

and the threat that it poses to economic mobility.

以及它為經濟活躍度所帶來的威脅。

Rising to this challenge is not automatic.

這些挑戰不會自動地被克服。

It's not costless.

它不便宜，

It's not easy.

也不容易。

But it is feasible.

但，是可以預見的。

And here is some encouraging news.

這裡有一些好消息，

Because of our amazing productivity,

因為我們驚人的生產力，

we're rich.

我們變富有了。

Of course we can afford to invest in ourselves and in our children

當然我們已經負擔的起 投資我們自己、我們孩子的費用，

as America did a hundred years ago with the high school movement.

就像美國一百年前的 高中教育改革運動一樣。

Arguably, we can't afford not to.

嚴格來講，我們付不起不做的代價。

Now, you may be thinking,

你可能在想，

Professor Autor has told us a heartwarming tale

奧圖教授已經告訴了我們一個

about the distant past,

有關於好幾年前、

the recent past,

最近幾年，

maybe the present, but probably not the future.

可能是現在， 但不是未來的動人故事。

Because everybody knows that this time is different.

因為大家都知道這次不一樣了。

Right? Is this time different?

對吧？這次會不一樣嗎？

Of course this time is different.

當然不一樣。

Every time is different.

每次都不一樣。

On numerous occasions in the last 200 years,

過去 200 年，在無數場合中，

scholars and activists have raised the alarm

學者與社會運動者不斷地警告我們，

that we are running out of work and making ourselves obsolete:

工作要消失了， 我們會被我們自己給淘汰掉：

for example, the Luddites in the early 1800s;

例如，19 世紀初的盧德份子 （英國參加搗毀機器的人）；

US Secretary of Labor James Davis

1920 年代中期的美國勞工部長

in the mid-1920s;

詹姆士戴維斯；

Nobel Prize-winning economist Wassily Leontief in 1982;

1982 年諾貝爾經濟學家， 瓦西里·列昂季耶夫；

and of course, many scholars,

當然，還有很多學者、

pundits, technologists

評論員、科學家

and media figures today.

還有今日的媒體名嘴。

These predictions strike me as arrogant.

這些人的預測 在我看來似乎都很狂妄。

These self-proclaimed oracles are in effect saying,

這些自稱聖賢的人， 像是在告訴我們，

"If I can't think of what people will do for work in the future,

「如果我都想像不到 人們未來可以做什麼工作，

then you, me and our kids

那麼，你、我、我們的小孩

aren't going to think of it either."

也都不會想像到。」

I don't have the guts

我沒膽在公眾面前 對人類的聰明才智

to take that bet against human ingenuity.

提出太多的質疑。

Look, I can't tell you what people are going to do for work

聽著，我無法告訴你一百年後

a hundred years from now.

人們要做什麼工作。

But the future doesn't hinge on my imagination.

因為未來不是我說了算。

If I were a farmer in Iowa in the year 1900,

如果我是 1900 年 愛荷華州的農夫，

and an economist from the 21st century teleported down to my field

如果有一位 21 世紀的經濟學家 瞬間移動來到我的農場，

and said, "Hey, guess what, farmer Autor,

跟我說：「嘿， 奧圖農夫，你知道嗎？

in the next hundred years,

接下來的 100 年，

agricultural employment is going to fall from 40 percent of all jobs

農業的從業人員 將從 40% 減少到剩 2%，

to two percent

purely due to rising productivity.

只因為生產力提升了。

What do you think the other 38 percent of workers are going to do?"

你覺得剩下 38% 的人 將來會做什麼工作？ 」

I would not have said, "Oh, we got this.

我不可能會說： 「喔，我們早就知道了，

We'll do app development, radiological medicine,

我們會開發 app 軟體、 放射性藥物、

yoga instruction, Bitmoji."

瑜珈課程、手機表情符號 Bitmoji。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I wouldn't have had a clue.

我根本不會知道的。

But I hope I would have had the wisdom to say,

但我希望我可以智慧地說出，

"Wow, a 95 percent reduction in farm employment

「哇，少了 95% 的農場工人，

with no shortage of food.

卻沒有造成食物短缺，

That's an amazing amount of progress.

真的是一大進步啊！

I hope that humanity finds something remarkable to do

我希望人類繁榮富有後，

with all of that prosperity."

能找到更有意義的事來做。」

And by and large, I would say that it has.

總體而言，我會說那是一定要的。

Thank you very much.

非常感謝各位。

(Applause)

（掌聲）