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

譯者: Ming Lee 審譯者: Bing-J. Yen

I'd like to start with a simple question:

首先我想由簡單的問題開始：

Why do the poor make so many poor decisions?

為甚麼窮人總是做出不智的的抉擇？

I know it's a harsh question,

我知道這是一個嚴峻的問題，

but take a look at the data.

請看一下這些資料。

The poor borrow more, save less,

窮人借的多、存的少，

smoke more, exercise less, drink more

菸抽得兇、動得少、酒喝得多，

and eat less healthfully.

吃的也不夠健康。

Why?

為甚麼？

Well, the standard explanation

標準答案，

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

一度曾被前英國首相 柴契爾夫人下了定論，

And she called poverty "a personality defect."

她把窮人闡釋為：「一種個人的缺陷。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

A lack of character, basically.

基本上說的是「性格的不足。」

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

我想應該沒人敢像她如此直白。

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

但認為窮人一定是哪裡不對勁的人，

is not restricted to Mrs. Thatcher.

並不是只有柴契爾夫人而已。

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

在座有些人可能認為 窮人必須為自己犯的錯負責。

for their own mistakes.

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

另有些人則認為 我們該協助窮人做更好的抉擇。

But the underlying assumption is the same:

但基本的假設一樣，

there's something wrong with them.

都認為窮人就是有問題的人。

If we could just change them,

認為只要改造他們，

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

只要指導他們如何過活，

if they would only listen.

只要他們願意聽就好了。

And to be honest,

坦白說，

this was what I thought for a long time.

我長久以來以為就是如此。

It was only a few years ago that I discovered

幾年前我才發現，

that everything I thought I knew about poverty was wrong.

自己對貧窮的既有觀念全是錯的。

It all started when I accidentally stumbled upon a paper

我偶然讀到某篇文章時意外發現， 文章出自幾位美國心理學家，

by a few American psychologists.

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

他們歷經八千英里來到印度， 為了參加一個頗有意思的研究。

for a fascinating study.

And it was an experiment with sugarcane farmers.

研究對象是種植甘蔗的農人。

You should know that these farmers collect about 60 percent

那些農夫「一次性的收入」 占了他們整年收入的 60%；

of their annual income all at once,

right after the harvest.

那是甘蔗收成後立即拿到的報酬。

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

這表示一年之中的某些日子 他們相對貧窮，

and rich the other.

其他日子則相對較為寬裕。

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

研究員分別測量他們 收成前、收成後的智商。

What they subsequently discovered completely blew my mind.

他們的發現徹底打亂了我的想法。

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

因為收成前的智商遠低於收成後的；

The effects of living in poverty, it turns out,

結果發現這是貧窮所導致的，

correspond to losing 14 points of IQ.

對應了 14 分的智商落差。

Now, to give you an idea,

給你一個概念，

that's comparable to losing a night's sleep

這種智商落差，與整晚失眠，

or the effects of alcoholism.

或酗酒後的結果相當。

A few months later, I heard that Eldar Shafir,

幾個月後，我聽到愛爾達‧夏菲爾，

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

普林斯頓大學的教授， 同時也是這個研究的作者之一，

was coming over to Holland, where I live.

要來荷蘭的消息，我住在荷蘭，

So we met up in Amsterdam

所以相約在阿姆斯特丹會面，

to talk about his revolutionary new theory of poverty.

一起研究他最新、革命性的貧窮理論。

And I can sum it up in just two words:

我只須用兩個詞總結：

scarcity mentality.

「匱乏」、「心理」。

It turns out that people behave differently

就是說，當人們意識到缺少某種東西時，

when they perceive a thing to be scarce.

行為就會改變。

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

至於是甚麼東西，並不怎麼重要，

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

不管是缺乏時間、金錢或食物。

You all know this feeling,

大家都知道那種感覺，

when you've got too much to do,

當你太忙的時候，

or when you've put off breaking for lunch

或是忙到沒時間吃飯的時候，

and your blood sugar takes a dive.

此時你的血糖會急遽降低，

This narrows your focus to your immediate lack --

因為「缺乏」而導致注意力減弱，

to the sandwich you've got to have now,

使你忘記吃三明治，

the meeting that's starting in five minutes

無法專注於五分鐘後要開始的會議，

or the bills that have to be paid tomorrow.

或明天一定要付的帳單。

So the long-term perspective goes out the window.

所以長期的願景消失了。

You could compare it to a new computer

你可以把它比喻為一台新電腦，

that's running 10 heavy programs at once.

同一時間讓它跑十個重負荷的軟體，

It gets slower and slower, making errors.

最後它會愈跑愈慢，並開始出現錯誤。

Eventually, it freezes --

結果最後當機了……

not because it's a bad computer,

這不是因為電腦很爛，

but because it has too much to do at once.

是因它同時要運算太多指令所致。

The poor have the same problem.

窮人有一樣的困擾，

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

他們不是因為笨才做出笨的抉擇，

but because they're living in a context

而是因為他們的生活環境，

in which anyone would make dumb decisions.

那種誰都會犯錯的時空背景。

So suddenly I understood

所以我突然頓悟，

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

為何有那麼多的扶貧計畫都無效。

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

例如教育投資，通常不見成效。

Poverty is not a lack of knowledge.

貧窮不肇因於知識的匱乏。

A recent analysis of 201 studies

最近對 201 個貨幣管理 培訓效果的研究分析，

on the effectiveness of money-management training

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

得到的結論是「幾乎沒半點成效」。

Now, don't get me wrong --

請別誤會我的意思，

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

這並不是說窮人沒有學到任何東西，

they can come out wiser for sure.

他們絕對可以變得更精明。

But it's not enough.

但是那樣還不夠。

Or as Professor Shafir told me,

或正如夏菲爾教授告訴我的：

"It's like teaching someone to swim

「這就像教人家游泳，

and then throwing them in a stormy sea."

然後把他們丟到 波濤洶湧的大海裡一樣。」

I still remember sitting there,

我記得當時坐在那裡，

perplexed.

一臉迷茫，

And it struck me

我受到了衝擊，我們 幾十年前就該想到這一切。

that we could have figured this all out decades ago.

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

心理學家並不需要複雜的大腦掃描，

只要測量農夫的智商就夠了，

they only had to measure the farmer's IQ,

而智商測驗一百多年前早就發明了。

and IQ tests were invented more than 100 years ago.

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

其實，我意識到 我之前讀過關於貧窮心理的文章。

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

史上最偉大的作家之一 喬治‧歐威爾，

experienced poverty firsthand in the 1920s.

1920 年代親歷過貧窮的滋味。

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

他當時寫道：「貧窮的本質

is that it "annihilates the future."

是它『摧毀了未來』。」

And he marveled at, quote,

他驚嘆道：

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

「人們如何理所當然地認為，

只要你的收入低於某個水平，

and pray over you

他們就有權向你傳道、為你祈禱。」

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

Now, those words are every bit as resonant today.

過去他所說的每一個字， 今天絲毫不減，仍如此共鳴。

The big question is, of course:

當然，最大的問題是：

What can be done?

我們能怎麼辦？

Modern economists have a few solutions up their sleeves.

現代經濟學家袖中藏有一些密技，

We could help the poor with their paperwork

我們可以幫助窮人做點文書工作，

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

或是寄給他們一些文字訊息， 提醒他們付清帳單，

This type of solution is hugely popular with modern politicians,

這種類型的解決方案 非常受現代政治家的歡迎，

mostly because,

主要是因為

well, they cost next to nothing.

它們幾乎不花什麼錢。

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

我認為，這是我們經常治療症狀

in which we so often treat the symptoms,

但忽略根本原因的時代象徵。

but ignore the underlying cause.

So I wonder:

所以我想知道：

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

何不改變窮人的生活環境呢？

Or, going back to our computer analogy:

回看前面關於電腦的比喻。

Why keep tinkering around with the software

為什麼要把軟體改來改去，

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

當你可用增加記憶體容量來解決？

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

說到這裡，夏菲爾教授一臉茫然。

And after a few seconds, he said,

過了一下，他說：

"Oh, I get it.

「呃，我懂了。

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

你的意思是，只要給他們更多的錢，

to eradicate poverty.

就可以根除貧窮了，是嗎？

Uh, sure, that'd be great.

是啊，當然，那就太好了。

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

但恐怕你們阿姆斯特丹 擁有的左翼政治品牌，

you've got in Amsterdam --

it doesn't exist in the States."

在美國並不存在。」

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

但這真的是老派左翼政黨的點子嗎？

I remembered reading about an old plan --

我記得讀過一個舊計畫，

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

以前由思想領袖提出來的方案。

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

哲學家湯瑪斯•摩爾 500 年前 早就在《烏托邦》這本書中暗示過。

more than 500 years ago.

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

支持他理想的人士 從左翼擴展到右翼──

from the civil rights campaigner, Martin Luther King,

從民權法案推動者馬丁·路德·金恩

to the economist Milton Friedman.

到經濟學家米爾頓•傅利曼──

And it's an incredibly simple idea:

都是非常簡單的概念：

basic income guarantee.

「保障基本收入」。

What it is?

那是什麼呢？

Well, that's easy.

很簡單，

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

就是每月給你足夠支付基本需求的費用：

food, shelter, education.

食物、住居、教育。

It's completely unconditional,

那是種毫無條件的支付，

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

你不需去做什麼事來得到它， 也沒人要求你一定要把錢花在何處。

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

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

基本收入不是「恩賜」而是「權力」，

There's absolutely no stigma attached.

不帶有任何的污辱意味在內。

So as I learned about the true nature of poverty,

所以當我了解到貧窮的本質時，

I couldn't stop wondering:

我不禁自問：

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

是否這是我們期盼的呢？

Could it really be that simple?

它真的就是那樣單純嗎？

And in the three years that followed,

我在隨後的三年裡盡我所能

I read everything I could find about basic income.

閱讀有關基本收入的資料，

I researched the dozens of experiments

我研究過數十個 已經在全球施行的實驗，

that have been conducted all over the globe,

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

沒多久我偶然看到一則故事，

that had done it -- had actually eradicated poverty.

某個城市實施了這個措施， 而且真正的消滅了貧窮。

But then ...

但是接下來，大家幾乎全忘了。

nearly everyone forgot about it.

This story starts in Dauphin, Canada.

故事始於加拿大的杜芬市。

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

1974 年，該市每位居民 都得到了一份基本收入保障，

ensuring that no one fell below the poverty line.

以確保每人生活的水平 不會低於貧窮門檻。

At the start of the experiment,

實驗剛開始時，

an army of researchers descended on the town.

一群研究人員來到該市。

For four years, all went well.

四年來一切順利。

But then a new government was voted into power,

但新政府上任後，

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

加拿大內閣認為該實驗所費不貲，

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

當很顯然沒有餘錢來分析結果時，

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

研究人員決定將文件打包，

大約 2000 箱。

Twenty-five years went by,

25 年過去了，

and then Evelyn Forget, a Canadian professor,

一位名為依雯琳•佛給特的 加拿大教授，

found the records.

發現了那些資料。

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

三年來她用盡統計方法 分析那些資料，

and no matter what she tried,

然後發現，不管她如何分析，

the results were the same every time:

每次得到答案的都一樣：

the experiment had been a resounding success.

結論是：「那是個徹底成功的實驗。」

Evelyn Forget discovered

依雯琳•佛給特發現

that the people in Dauphin had not only become richer

杜芬市的市民不但變得更富有，

but also smarter and healthier.

而且變得更聰明、更健康。

The school performance of kids improved substantially.

學生的表現獲得了實質的進步，

The hospitalization rate decreased by as much as 8.5 percent.

市民住院比例減少 8.5% 之多，

Domestic violence incidents were down,

家庭暴力發生率降低了，

as were mental health complaints.

精神健康的抱怨也減少了，

And people didn't quit their jobs.

人們也不會隨意辭去工作。

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

只有初為人母的婦女 減少些許工作量，

who stayed in school longer.

還有必需上課的學生們。

Similar results have since been found

從那之後，世界上其他無數的實驗

in countless other experiments around the globe,

也得到同樣的結果。

from the US to India.

從印度到美國。

So ...

所以，

here's what I've learned.

這是我從中所學到的：

When it comes to poverty,

當面對貧窮的問題時，

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

我們較富有的人 不應自以為懂得最多；

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

不要再寄送鞋子 和泰迪熊給窮苦的人，

to people we have never met.

給那些你從沒見過面的窮人。

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

我們應該破除 父權統治形式的官僚作風，

when we could simply hand over their salaries

我們只需把薪水 直接交給想幫助的窮人就好了。

to the poor they're supposed to help.

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Because, I mean, the great thing about money

因為金錢最棒之處是在於

is that people can use it to buy things they need

窮人可以用錢來買自己所需的東西，

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

而不是讓自封為專家的人 來決定買些什麼需要的東西。

Just imagine how many brilliant scientists and entrepreneurs and writers,

試想多少卓越的科學家、 企業家和作家，

like George Orwell,

例如喬治•奧威爾，

are now withering away in scarcity.

因為匱乏而提早凋零？

Imagine how much energy and talent we would unleash

試想可以釋出多少 窮人的精力和才能？

if we got rid of poverty once and for all.

只要把窮困一勞永逸地剷除掉。

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

我相信基本收入可像風險投資那樣 在每個人身上產生作用。

And we can't afford not to do it,

我們無法承擔放手不管所帶來的風險，

because poverty is hugely expensive.

因為貧窮本身就是一種巨額的支出。

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

看一下美國因兒童貧困所付出的代價，

It's estimated at 500 billion dollars each year,

估計它每年花費掉了 5000 億元，

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

如健康照顧支出增加、

輟學比率升高，還有犯罪率升高等。

and more crime.

Now, this is an incredible waste of human potential.

那是多麼難以令人置信的人力浪費。

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

但讓我們回頭談一下這個燙手山竽，

How could we ever afford a basic income guarantee?

該如何去背負基本收入保障的負擔呢?

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

這個，其實比你想的還要便宜。

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

杜芬市在財務上採用 「負所得稅」的作法。

This means that your income is topped up

意思是，一旦你低於貧困線

as soon as you fall below the poverty line.

就增加你的收入。

And in that scenario,

在那種情形下，

according to our economists' best estimates,

根據經濟學家的預估，

for a net cost of 175 billion --

若運用 1,750 億美元的預算，

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

相當於美國軍隊預算的 1/4 或國內生產總值的 1%，

you could lift all impoverished Americans above the poverty line.

就可以把美國全部的貧苦家庭 拉升到貧窮門檻以上。

You could actually eradicate poverty.

可以真的根除貧窮。

Now, that should be our goal.

這應該是你我共同的目標。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

The time for small thoughts and little nudges is past.

拋棄狹隘思維和不做為的關鍵到了，

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

我相信這是創造積極新思維的時刻，

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

「基本收入」不僅是另一個政策而已， 它含有更深遠的意義。

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

它也是對「甚麼才是有效」 這問題的反思。

And in that sense,

在這種認知下，

it will not only free the poor,

不只可以解放貧困的人，

but also the rest of us.

也可以解放我們。

Nowadays, millions of people feel

今日，有數百萬窮困的人，

that their jobs have little meaning or significance.

覺得他們的工作沒意義、無足輕重。

A recent poll among 230,000 employees

最近在針對二十三萬名受雇者，

in 142 countries

142 個國家進行的調查中，

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

發現只有 30% 的就業者 真正喜歡自己的工作。

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

另一個調查發現，

英國 37% 的上班族 認為他們的工作根本不應該存在。

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

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

正如布拉德•彼特在電影 《鬥陣俱樂部》中所說的話：

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

「我們花太多時間做不喜歡的工作， 只為了買我們不需要的東西。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Now, don't get me wrong --

不要誤會我，

I'm not talking about the teachers and the garbagemen

我不是說老師、收垃圾的清潔隊員，

and the care workers here.

還有護理人員。

If they stopped working,

如果他們罷工的話，

we'd be in trouble.

我們就不妙了。

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

我說的是那些高薪的專業人士，

他們憑藉優秀的簡歷賺錢，

who earn their money doing ...

參加策略性交易者 點對點的會議，

strategic transactor peer-to-peer meetings

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

同時集思廣益，

共同創造網路社會中 破壞性共創的附加價值。

in the network society.

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

（掌聲）

(Applause)

Or something like that.

或其他類似事件。

Just imagine again how much talent we're wasting,

只要再想一下，我們浪費了多少天才，

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

只因為我們教育孩子 必須「為了餬口而工作」，

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

或想一下數年前 在臉書上班的數學天才

所發出的不平之鳴：

"The best minds of my generation

「我們這一代最厲害的腦袋

are thinking about how to make people click ads."

在思考如何讓別人點選廣告。」

I'm a historian.

我是一個歷史學家，

And if history teaches us anything,

如果歷史有教給我們甚麼教訓的話，

it is that things could be different.

那就是情況可以不同。

There is nothing inevitable

現在我們構建社會和經濟的方式

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

並不是不可避免的。

Ideas can and do change the world.

「理想」真的能夠改變世界。

And I think that especially in the past few years,

我認為，特別是在過去幾年中，

it has become abundantly clear

我們已經非常清楚地認識到，

that we cannot stick to the status quo --

我們不能堅持現狀，

that we need new ideas.

我們需要新的想法。

I know that many of you may feel pessimistic

很多人或許感到悲觀，

about a future of rising inequality,

對於未來，感到日愈增加的不平等、

xenophobia

仇外，

and climate change.

和氣候改變。

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

但光瞭解我們要對抗甚麼是不夠的，

We also need to be for something.

我們還需要進一步去為目標而奮鬥。

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

馬丁·路德·金恩說的不是： 「我做了個噩夢。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

He had a dream.

他有一個夢想。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

So ...

所以，

here's my dream:

這是我的夢想：

I believe in a future

我相信有那麼一個未來，

where the value of your work is not determined

工作的價值不是決定在 你的薪水有多高，

by the size of your paycheck,

but by the amount of happiness you spread

而是決定在你散播的幸福有多少，

and the amount of meaning you give.

還有你帶給他人的意義有多少。

I believe in a future

我相信有一個未來，

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

在那裡的教育重心 不是為了沒用的工作做準備，

but for a life well-lived.

而是為了好好地活出人生而努力。

I believe in a future

我相信有一個未來，

where an existence without poverty is not a privilege

在那裏「沒有窮人存在」 不是一種特權，

but a right we all deserve.

而是我們大家應該擁有的權利。

So here we are.

所以，我們在此，

Here we are.

我們齊聚一起。

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

我們做了研究，我們有了證據，

and we've got the means.

我們還有方法。

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

自湯瑪斯•摩爾首創基本收入觀念 至今已歷經 500 年，

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

喬治•奧威爾發現貧窮本質 也已有 100 年，

we all need to change our worldview,

我們大家必須改變世界觀，

because poverty is not a lack of character.

因為貧窮不是性格的缺陷，

Poverty is a lack of cash.

貧窮是缺乏現金。

Thank you.

謝謝！

(Applause)

（掌聲）