機(jī)器人時(shí)代的人類工作

In recent months, anthropologists have been rummaging through the grassroots of America’s workforce jungle in search of an answer to one of the great questions of our time: what happens to human jobs when robots arrive?

最近幾個(gè)月，人類學(xué)家一直在考察整個(gè)美國(guó)勞動(dòng)力群體，以尋找我們這個(gè)時(shí)代最重要問題之一的答案：如果機(jī)器人來臨，人類就業(yè)會(huì)怎樣?

You might expect the answer to be very depressing. If there is one thing on which almost all economists agree, it is that digital technologies are performing many jobs once done by humans.

你可能會(huì)猜，答案非常令人沮喪。如果有一件事是幾乎所有經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家都同意的，那就是數(shù)字技術(shù)正在完成曾經(jīng)由人類完成的很多工作。

Manufacturing offers a particularly stark example of this. A study by Ball State university suggests that 5.6m US manufacturing jobs were lost between 2000 and 2010 — almost nine in 10 thanks to automation, not trade. It could be worse: McKinsey, a consultancy, estimates that 45 per cent of the tasks currently done by humans could be automated as the pattern spreads into the service sector. This equates to $2tn in annual wages — and millions of jobs.

制造業(yè)提供了一個(gè)尤為明顯的例子。波爾州立大學(xué)(Ball State university)的一項(xiàng)研究顯示，2000年至2010年，有560萬(wàn)個(gè)美國(guó)制造業(yè)崗位消失，幾乎十分之九是因?yàn)樽詣?dòng)化，而非貿(mào)易。情況還可能更糟：咨詢公司麥肯錫(McKinsey)估計(jì)，隨著自動(dòng)化模式擴(kuò)大到服務(wù)業(yè)，在目前由人類完成的工作中，有45%可能會(huì)實(shí)現(xiàn)自動(dòng)化。這相當(dāng)于數(shù)以百萬(wàn)計(jì)的就業(yè)崗位和2萬(wàn)億美元的年薪。

That sounds scary. There is, however, an intriguing twist. When anthropologists have conducted “participation observation” among American workers — that is, observing at what is actually happening in people’s everyday lives, rather than looking at top-down statistics — they discovered a more complex story than the raw numbers suggest.

這聽上去很可怕。然而，其中有一個(gè)有趣的轉(zhuǎn)折。當(dāng)人類學(xué)家對(duì)美國(guó)勞動(dòng)者進(jìn)行“參與觀察”(即觀察人們每天的實(shí)際日常生活，而不是考察自上而下的統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)字)時(shí)，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個(gè)比原始數(shù)據(jù)揭示的更復(fù)雜的情況。

Yes, machines are wiping out some human jobs but people are also working with robots in new roles. That more upbeat story tends to be obscured, yet it deserves a great deal more attention — particularly when president-elect Donald Trump takes office next month.

確實(shí)，機(jī)器正消滅一些人類的工作，但人們還在新的崗位上與機(jī)器人合作。這種更樂觀的情況往往不那么直觀，但應(yīng)獲得更多關(guān)注，特別是美國(guó)當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)下月上臺(tái)之時(shí)。

Consider the findings of Benjamin Shestakofsky, an anthropologist who spent 19 months inside a California company that uses digital technologies to connect buyers and sellers of domestic services. Mr Shestakovsky initially assumed that his research would show how machines were replacing human workers. When he did grassroots analysis he realised that the company was growing so fast, with such big and complex computing systems, that it was constantly drafting more humans — not robots — to monitor, manage and interpret the data. “Software automation can substitute for labour but it also creates new human-machine complementaries,” he told an American Anthropological Association meeting recently, noting that companies “are creating new types of jobs”.

考慮一下人類學(xué)家本杰明•舍斯塔科夫斯基(Benjamin Shestakofsky)的研究結(jié)果吧，他曾在一家加州公司待過19個(gè)月，該公司利用數(shù)字技術(shù)為家政服務(wù)的買家和賣家搭橋。他起初認(rèn)為，他的研究將展示出機(jī)器正如何取代人類勞動(dòng)者。在他進(jìn)行基礎(chǔ)分析時(shí)，他發(fā)現(xiàn)，該公司增長(zhǎng)非常迅速，有著巨大且復(fù)雜的計(jì)算系統(tǒng)，它正不斷選派更多人類(而非機(jī)器人)監(jiān)控、管理和解讀這些數(shù)據(jù)。“軟件自動(dòng)化可以取代勞動(dòng)力，但它也會(huì)產(chǎn)生新的人機(jī)互補(bǔ)，”他最近在美國(guó)人類學(xué)協(xié)會(huì)(American Anthropological Association)的一次會(huì)議上表示。他指出，企業(yè)“正創(chuàng)造新的工作種類”。

Shreeharsh Kelkar, another anthropologist, saw the same pattern in the education world. Until recently it was presumed that the rise of digital teaching tools would make human teachers less important. But watching educators in action, Mr Kelkar found that human teachers are working with these digital tools to be more efficient. The issue is not that computers are automating jobs away, he says, but that “assemblages of humans and computers are emerging”.

另一位人類學(xué)家施里哈什•克爾卡(Shreeharsh Kelkar)在教育行業(yè)也看到了同樣的情況。直到不久前，人們還認(rèn)為，數(shù)字教學(xué)工具的出現(xiàn)將讓人類教師的重要性降低。但在實(shí)際觀察教育者的過程中，克爾卡發(fā)現(xiàn)，人類教師正利用這些數(shù)字工具提高效率。他表示，問題不是電腦自動(dòng)化正讓工作消失，而是“人類與電腦正在合作”。

An obvious response is that it is far from clear whether these anecdotes are typical, nor does anyone know whether these new “assemblages” of human and machine will create enough jobs to offset those lost to automation. In addition, new digitised jobs may seem less attractive than the old roles since they are often structured as “contingent work”, with self-employed workers who provide services on demand.

一種可以預(yù)見的反應(yīng)是，認(rèn)為現(xiàn)在還遠(yuǎn)不清楚，這些軼聞是否典型，人們也不知道這些人類與機(jī)器的新“合作”是否會(huì)創(chuàng)造足夠多的就業(yè)，來抵消自動(dòng)化導(dǎo)致的就業(yè)損失。另外，新的數(shù)字化工作似乎不如舊工作那樣吸引人，因?yàn)樗鼈兺ǔ１辉O(shè)置成“臨時(shí)工作”，由自由職業(yè)者按需提供服務(wù)。

Still, the findings of the anthropologists should not be ignored. For one thing, they suggest that there is a burning need for policymakers to obtain much better data on what is really happening in the American workplace. Anthropological studies are small scale, while the macro-level data are surprisingly weak, partly because the Bureau of Labor Statistics tends to collect data through traditional channels. “We don’t know what is going on with contingent work today,” says Mary Gray, an anthropologist who works at Microsoft. “The tech companies don’t track labour any better than the BLS.”

然而，人類學(xué)家的發(fā)現(xiàn)不應(yīng)被忽視。首先，這些發(fā)現(xiàn)意味著，政策制定者亟需獲取有關(guān)美國(guó)勞動(dòng)場(chǎng)所實(shí)際狀況的更全面信息。人類學(xué)研究的規(guī)模較小，而宏觀層面的數(shù)據(jù)驚人地薄弱，部分原因是美國(guó)勞工統(tǒng)計(jì)局(Bureau of Labor Statistics)往往通過傳統(tǒng)渠道收集數(shù)據(jù)。“我們不知道目前臨時(shí)工作的情況，”在微軟(Microsoft)工作的人類學(xué)家瑪麗•格雷(Mary Gray)表示，“科技公司對(duì)勞動(dòng)力狀況的追蹤并不比勞工統(tǒng)計(jì)局好。”

Second, if anyone does manage to paint an accurate portrait of that labour force, they need to show this to Mr Trump. In recent months the president-elect has repeatedly stated that he is determined to keep more manufacturing business in America, partly because he — wrongly — likes to blame the loss of manufacturing jobs to competition from China or Mexico. But if he does succeed in this goal of America First he will — paradoxically — only accelerate the automation trend as companies will scramble to cut costs. This is not necessarily a bad thing but it suggests that Mr Trump’s hopes of recreating old-style American jobs is wrong-headed.

其次，如果有人成功準(zhǔn)確描繪了勞動(dòng)力狀況，他們還需要向特朗普說明這點(diǎn)。最近幾個(gè)月，這位當(dāng)選美國(guó)總統(tǒng)多次表示，他決定將更多制造業(yè)留在美國(guó)，部分原因是他(錯(cuò)誤地)喜歡將制造業(yè)就業(yè)損失歸咎于來自中國(guó)或墨西哥的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。但如果他成功實(shí)現(xiàn)了“美國(guó)優(yōu)先”的目標(biāo)，他反而只會(huì)加快自動(dòng)化趨勢(shì)，因?yàn)槠髽I(yè)急于降低成本。這并不一定是壞事，但它表明，特朗普恢復(fù)舊式美國(guó)就業(yè)的希望是錯(cuò)誤的。

That leads to the third point: the urgent need for a bigger policy debate about how to prepare workers for this new world. Workforce training needs to change to instil more digital skills.

接下來是第三點(diǎn)：迫切需要就如何讓勞動(dòng)者適應(yīng)新的世界展開更大的政策辯論。需要改革勞動(dòng)力培訓(xùn)，讓勞動(dòng)者掌握更多數(shù)字技能。

New types of social security, health and pension systems are necessary to accommodate contingent workers. Some policymakers understand this. Senators such as Mark Warner, a Democrat, for example, are pushing for new safety nets for contingent workers. But if this debate is to secure any serious traction, it is imperative that the technology sector itself steps in. Hitherto, Silicon Valley has not been particularly vocal on these questions, but Mr Trump seems intent on pulling them into the spotlight: last week he summoned tech leaders to Trump Tower to “reassure” them about his plans.

新型的社會(huì)保障、健康和養(yǎng)老體系是容納臨時(shí)工作者的必要舉措。一些政策制定者明白這點(diǎn)。例如民主黨人馬克•沃納(Mark Warner)等參議員正推動(dòng)為臨時(shí)工作者建立新的保障網(wǎng)絡(luò)。然而，如果這場(chǎng)辯論要獲得巨大支持的話，科技行業(yè)本身必須介入。到目前為止，硅谷在這些問題上并不特別積極，但特朗普似乎決心把他們推到聚光燈下：最近，他召集科技界領(lǐng)袖到特朗普大廈(Trump Tower)，讓他們對(duì)他的計(jì)劃“放心”。

So Silicon Valley should seize this chance and start a dialogue about how to help humans deal with all those robots in the workforce. Otherwise, the day will come when Silicon Valley itself could find itself being blamed for American job losses.

因此，硅谷應(yīng)抓住這個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)，就如何幫助人類應(yīng)對(duì)勞動(dòng)力中的所有那些機(jī)器人展開對(duì)話。否則，硅谷終有一天會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)自己將因?yàn)槊绹?guó)就業(yè)損失而受到指責(zé)。