爲何加強教育也無法解決收入不均問題

Suppose you accept the persuasive data that inequality has been rising in the United States and most advanced nations in recent decades. But suppose you don’t want to fight inequality through politically polarizing steps like higher taxes on the wealthy or a more generous social welfare system.

假設你認同這樣一個令人信服的數據分析：近幾十年裏，收入不均現象在美國及大多數先進國家一直愈演愈烈；同時也假設你並不想通過政治領域的分裂措施來對抗收入不均現象，譬如對富人加稅，或者加大社會福利力度。

There remains a plausible solution to rising inequality that avoids those polarizing ideas: strengthening education so that more Americans can benefit from the advances of the 21st-century economy. This is a solution that conservatives, centrists and liberals alike can comfortably get behind. After all, who doesn’t favor a stronger educational system? But a new paper shows why the math just doesn’t add up, at least if the goal is addressing the gap between the very rich and everyone else.

此外還有一種貌似可信的辦法，既能夠繞開那種分裂思維，又能夠解決收入不均的加劇，那就是加強教育，從而讓更多的美國人能夠從21世紀的經濟進步中受益。這是一項保守派、中間派和自由派都能泰然支持的政策。畢竟，有誰會不喜歡更強大的教育系統呢？但是一篇新論文卻闡述了這張算盤爲何打不響——至少它無法消弭鉅富階層與其他民衆之間的貧富差距。

Brad Hershbein, Melissa Kearney and Lawrence Summers offer a simple little simulation that shows the limits of education as an inequality-fighter. In short, more education would be great news for middle and lower-income Americans, increasing their pay and economic security. It just isn’t up to the task of meaningfully reducing inequality, which is being driven by the sharp upward movement of the very top of the income distribution.

布拉德·賀什本(Brad Hershbein)、梅麗莎·科爾尼(Melissa Kearney)和勞倫斯·薩莫斯(Lawrence Summers)提供了一個簡單的模擬小實驗，爲大家演示教育在對抗收入不均現象上的侷限性。簡言之，更高的學歷對於中低收入的美國人而言是條喜訊，這能提升他們的薪資水平，加強他們的經濟保障。只是這並不等同於如何有意義地緩解收入不均的問題，而後者當前的驅動力來自於收入分配最頂層人口的急劇向上流動。

It is all the more interesting that the research comes from Mr. Summers, a former Treasury secretary who is hardly known as a soak-the-rich class warrior. It is published by the Hamilton Project, a centrist research group operating with Wall Street funding and seeking to find third-way-style solutions to America’s problems that can unite left and right.

更加值得玩味的是，這項研究出自薩莫斯先生之手，他是前任財政部長，很難被歸類爲“仇富派”的勇士。該研究的結果由漢密爾頓項目(Hamilton Project)發佈，這是一箇中間派的研究小組，由華爾街資助，致力於針對美國的種種難題，尋找能夠同時團結左右兩派的第三類途徑對策。

In their simulation, they assume that 10 percent of non-college-educated men of prime working age suddenly obtained a college degree or higher, which would be an unprecedented rise in the proportion of the work force with advanced education.

在他們的模擬實驗中，他們假定處於黃金工作年齡的未受本科教育者中，有10%突然獲得了本科或本科以上學歷，這將導致高等學歷勞動者所佔比例出現前所未有的提升。

They assume that these more educated men go from their current pay levels to pay that is in line with current college graduates, minus an adjustment for the fact that more college grads in the work force could depress their wages a bit.

他們假定，這些學歷有所提高的勞動者的薪資金額，將從原有水平調整至原有本科學歷者的同等水平，再減去一個調整金額，因爲勞動力市場中的本科學歷者人數增加，可能會引發這一人羣工資水平的輕微下降。

There is no doubt that in this simulated world with a more educated labor force, middle-income workers earn more — $37,060 in simulated 2013 earnings for a person at the 50th percentile, compared with $34,000 in the real world, a 9 percent improvement.

毋庸置疑，在這個勞動者的學歷水平經過提高的模擬世界中，中等收入勞動者的收入出現了增長――1名收入排在第50百分位的勞動者，2013年收入的模擬值爲37,060美元，較現實世界中34,000美元的實際收入水平，增長了9%。

But that improvement brings that 50th-percentile worker only back closer to the inflation-adjusted level of income he enjoyed in 1979, which was $37,838. Meanwhile, the 90th-percentile worker in this simulation holds onto (and indeed improves upon) the sharp income gains of the past 34 years. Annual earnings at the 90th percentile climbed from $75,700 in 1979 to more than $100,000 in both the actual 2013 data and the simulation with higher education levels.

但是這種學歷水平的提高，不過是讓這位排名第50百分位的勞動者，更加接近他在1979年時的通脹調整後收入水平即37,838美元而已。另一方面，模擬實驗中排名第90百分位的勞動者繼續擁有（實際上會有所增加）過去34年來最大幅度的收入增益。第90百分位勞動者的2013年年收入較1979年時的75,700美元出現攀升，無論是實際值，還是學歷水平提高後的模擬值，均超過100,000美元。

Add it all up, and the Gini ratio, a frequently used measure of income inequality, would decrease only to 0.55 from 0.57 in this scenario of drastic educational improvement. It would still be far higher than the 0.43 recorded in 1979.

綜合計算後，常被用於衡量收入不均程度的基尼係數，在這種學歷水平出現大幅提高的情境中，卻僅從0.57下降到了0.55。與1979年時的0.43相比，依然要高出許多。

None of this is to say that a better educational system isn’t desirable. The 9 percent income gain for middle-income men evident in the authors’ simulation is a big deal.

這些結果中的任何一條，都沒有暗示大家不需要更發達的教育系統。在三位作者的模擬實驗中，中等收入勞動者明顯將會獲得的9%收入增益，擁有十分重大的意義。

“Increasing the educational attainment of men without a college degree will increase their average earnings and their likelihood of being employed,” the authors write. And even if it doesn’t do much to reduce overall inequality, they find it does reduce inequality within the bottom half of the income distribution, by increasing the earnings of those near the 25th percentile of earnings (in 2013, those making $6,100 a year, compared with $8,720 in the simulation with higher education).

“提高無本科學歷勞動者的受教育程度，將會增加他們的平均收入和就業機率，”這三位作者寫道。而即便這並未令整個社會的收入不均現象減輕多少，他們發現，這樣做確實能夠提高收入排名在第25百分位附近的勞動者的收入（他們在2013年的收入爲一年6,100美元，學歷水平提高後的模擬值爲8,720美元），從而切實地減輕了收入分配下半層內部的收入不均現象。

In other words, it’s worth pursuing more and better education for working-class Americans on its own terms, because it will improve their lives and economic potential. Inequality, meanwhile, is a deeper problem, and its potential solutions remain ideologically divisive.

換言之，對於美國的工薪階層而言，追求更高等更優質的學歷，本身還是值得的，因爲這將會改善他們的生活品質和經濟前景。與此同時，收入不均是一個更深層次的問題，各方的潛在對策依然存在意識形態上的分裂。