【TED】大衛-奧托。自動化會奪走我們所有的工作嗎？(Will automation take away all our jobs? | David Autor) (【TED】David Autor: Will automation take away all our jobs? (Will automation take away all our jobs? | David Autor))

Subtitles section Play video

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.

這些發明都發揮了作用。
These inventions have worked.

我們再也不用徒手挖溝渠，
We no longer dig ditches by hand,

不用手工鍛鐵製作工具，
pound tools out of wrought iron

甚至記帳都不用實體帳本了。
or do bookkeeping using actual books.

但美國成年人的勞工市場就業率
And yet, the fraction of US adults employed in the labor market

在現在 2016 年
is higher now in 2016

竟比 125 年前的 1890 年還要高。
than it was 125 years ago, in 1890,

而且在這 125 年間，
and it's risen in just about every decade

每 10 年都有成長。
in the intervening 125 years.

這產生了一個矛盾現象。
This poses a paradox.

機械不斷地取代掉我們的工作，
Our machines increasingly do our work for us.

但為什麼我們的勞工沒有過剩且技術沒有被淘汰呢？
Why doesn't this make our labor redundant and our skills obsolete?

為什麼還是有那麼多的工作岡位？
Why are there still so many jobs?

（笑聲）
(Laughter)

今晚，我會試著回答這些問題，
I'm going to try to answer that question tonight,

並說明這對我們未來的工作有甚麼意義，
and along the way, I'm going to tell you what this means for the future of work

以及自動化對我們社會
and the challenges that automation does and does not pose

所帶來的衝擊和無法撼動的地方。
for our society.

為什麼有這麼多的工作崗位？
Why are there so many jobs?

這實際上涉及到兩個經濟學的基本原則。
There are actually two fundamental economic principles at stake.

一個是與人類的聰明才智
One has to do with human genius

及創造力有關。
and creativity.

另一個與人類貪得無厭的天性有關，
The other has to do with human insatiability,

或者你可以叫它做「貪婪」。
or greed, if you like.

我先從 O 型環原則談起，
I'm going to call the first of these the O-ring principle,

這個原則決定了我們工作的類型。
and it determines the type of work that we do.

第二個原則是「永不知足」原則，
The second principle is the never-get-enough principle,

它決定了會有多少個實際存在的工作崗位。
and it determines how many jobs there actually are.

我們先從 O 型環開始。
Let's start with the O-ring.

ATM，自動提款機，
ATMs, automated teller machines,

它給銀行櫃台人員的就業機會帶來了兩種不同的作用。
had two countervailing effects on bank teller employment.

各位都知道，ATM 取代了很多櫃台人員的工作。
As you would expect, they replaced a lot of teller tasks.

每家分行的櫃台人員數量大約減少了三分之一。
The number of tellers per branch fell by about a third.

但很快銀行就發現設置新分行的成本變便宜了。
But banks quickly discovered that it also was cheaper to open new branches,

同期內，分行的數量成長了將近 40% 。
and the number of bank branches increased by about 40 percent

結果就是，分行越多，櫃台人員越多。
in the same time period.

但這些銀行職員做的工作與之前有點不同。
The net result was more branches and more tellers.

隨著他們常規的現金業務減少，
But those tellers were doing somewhat different work.

他們變得不太像出納人員
As their routine, cash-handling tasks receded,

反而更像是個推銷人員，
they became less like checkout clerks

需要與客戶培養感情，
and more like salespeople,

幫他們解決問題，
forging relationships with customers,

並推銷他們新產品，像是信用卡、貸款、投資型產品：
solving problems

更多的銀行職員從事著對腦力認知需求很高的工作。
and introducing them to new products like credit cards, loans and investments:

一個普遍的原則就是，
more tellers doing a more cognitively demanding job.

我們從事的工作，
There's a general principle here.

大都需要多樣化的技能，
Most of the work that we do

既要腦力又要體力，
requires a multiplicity of skills,

既要求專業素養又要敏銳的直覺，
and brains and brawn,

用愛迪生的話來說，就是天才加勤奮。
technical expertise and intuitive mastery,

總的來說，其中一些工作自動化了，
perspiration and inspiration in the words of Thomas Edison.

但不代表其它的工作就不必要。
In general, automating some subset of those tasks

事實上，反而變得更重要，
doesn't make the other ones unnecessary.

自動化反而增加了他們的經濟價值。
In fact, it makes them more important.

我來舉一個明顯的例子。
It increases their economic value.

1986 年，挑戰者號太空船
Let me give you a stark example.

在起飛不到兩分鐘，失事爆炸，墜毀在地表上。
In 1986, the space shuttle Challenger

事後發現，肇事的原因，
exploded and crashed back down to Earth

原來是推進火箭上一個不起眼的 O 型環，
less than two minutes after takeoff.

前一天晚上在發射台上凍僵了，
The cause of that crash, it turned out,

在發射不久後失效，引發了悲劇。
was an inexpensive rubber O-ring in the booster rocket

這個耗資十幾億美金的巨大工程，
that had frozen on the launchpad the night before

結果是一個不起眼的 O 型環，
and failed catastrophically moments after takeoff.

決定了是發射成功，
In this multibillion dollar enterprise

還是失敗造成七位太空人的死亡悲劇。
that simple rubber O-ring

這場悲劇催生了一個巧妙的比喻──
made the difference between mission success

《O 型環經濟理論》，
and the calamitous death of seven astronauts.

由哈佛經濟學家麥可克雷姆
An ingenious metaphor for this tragic setting

在挑戰者號失事後所命名。
is the O-ring production function,

《O型環經濟理論》指出，一項工作的誕生
named by Harvard economist Michael Kremer

是由一系列互相連結的步驟
after the Challenger disaster.

所組成的鏈，
The O-ring production function conceives of the work

每一處連結都必須牢固才能保證任務的成功。
as a series of interlocking steps,

一旦有任何環節出問題，
links in a chain.

該任務、產品或服務
Every one of those links must hold for the mission to succeed.

就會失敗。
If any of them fails,

這種不確定的緊張情況，有著一種令人驚嘆的積極影響，
the mission, or the product or the service,

因為它可以改善
comes crashing down.

過程中任一環節的可靠性，
This precarious situation has a surprisingly positive implication,

並對其它環節的改善，起了價值增加的作用。
which is that improvements

具體來說，如果大多數的連結都很脆弱且很容易壞，
in the reliability of any one link in the chain

那麼每個環節的可靠與否，
increases the value of improving any of the other links.

就顯得不那麼重要了。
Concretely, if most of the links are brittle and prone to breakage,

反正很有可能其它的東西也會壞掉。
the fact that your link is not that reliable

但一旦其它的環節變得相形穩固可靠時，
is not that important.

每一個環節就變得很重要了。
Probably something else will break anyway.

到了一個極限，每一個環節都是勝敗的關鍵。
But as all the other links become robust and reliable,

O 型環對挑戰者號很重要的原因，
the importance of your link becomes more essential.

是因為其它環節都運作地很完美。
In the limit, everything depends upon it.

如果挑戰者號的太空設備
The reason the O-ring was critical to space shuttle Challenger

類似 Widows 2000 作業系統──
is because everything else worked perfectly.

（笑聲）
If the Challenger were kind of the space era equivalent

O 型環的可靠性就不那麼重要了，
of Microsoft Windows 2000 --

因為機械會直接當機。
(Laughter)

（笑聲）
the reliability of the O-ring wouldn't have mattered

這裡有個更宏觀的觀點，
because the machine would have crashed.

人類所扮演的角色就像 O 型環。
(Laughter)

沒錯，ATM 是可以作一些現金交易的任務，
Here's the broader point.

速度也比櫃台人員快，
In much of the work that we do, we are the O-rings.

但卻無法完全取代櫃台人員。
Yes, ATMs could do certain cash-handling tasks

因為他們的問題解決能力，
faster and better than tellers,

及他們維持客戶關係的能力，增加了他們的重要性。
but that didn't make tellers superfluous.

同樣的原則也適用於蓋房子、
It increased the importance of their problem-solving skills

診斷及照顧病人、
and their relationships with customers.

或者在教室裡
The same principle applies if we're building a building,

向一整間的高中生教課。
if we're diagnosing and caring for a patient,

一旦我們的工具改進了，
or if we are teaching a class

科技反而放大了我們的引響力，
to a roomful of high schoolers.

提高了我們專業度、
As our tools improve,

判斷力及創造力的重要性。
technology magnifies our leverage

講到這，帶出了第二原則：
and increases the importance of our expertise

永不知足。
and our judgment and our creativity.

你可能會想，好， O 型環理論，我懂了，
And that brings me to the second principle:

人類所從事的工作將會很重要。
never get enough.

這些任務無法由機械完成，但又不能不做。
You may be thinking, OK, O-ring, got it,

但這無法說明我們還需要多少工作。
that says the jobs that people do will be important.

如果你仔細想想，這有點無法自圓其說，
They can't be done by machines, but they still need to be done.

一旦我們對某樣東西有了足夠的生產力，
But that doesn't tell me how many jobs there will need to be.

我們基本上不就會自動失業了嗎？
If you think about it, isn't it kind of self-evident

1900 年，40% 的美國就業人口，
that once we get sufficiently productive at something,

從事的工作都是農業。
we've basically worked our way out of a job?

如今，農業人口比例已經少於 2%。
In 1900, 40 percent of all US employment

為什麼農夫會變得這麼少？
was on farms.

不是因為我們吃得少。
Today, it's less than two percent.

（笑聲）
Why are there so few farmers today?

百年來農業生產力的成長，
It's not because we're eating less.

讓我們現在只需數百萬個農夫，
(Laughter)

就能養活全國的 3.2 億人口。
A century of productivity growth in farming

這真的是個很大的進步，
means that now, a couple of million farmers

但這也意味著農產業中，也只剩這麼多類似 O 型環的工作。
can feed a nation of 320 million.

所以很明顯地，科技會消彌掉工作機會。
That's amazing progress,

農業只是其中一個案例。
but it also means there are only so many O-ring jobs left in farming.

還有很多類似的案例。
So clearly, technology can eliminate jobs.

但事實是，一個單一產品、服務或產業的表現，
Farming is only one example.

不能代表總體經濟的實質表現。
There are many others like it.

很多我們現在從事的產業──
But what's true about a single product or service or industry

健康、醫療、
has never been true about the economy as a whole.

理財、保險、
Many of the industries in which we now work --

電子、電腦──
health and medicine,

在上一世紀僅有少數人在從業或根本還不存在。
finance and insurance,

很多我們花很多錢消費的產品──
electronics and computing --

空調、休旅車、
were tiny or barely existent a century ago.

電腦、手機設備──
Many of the products that we spend a lot of our money on --

這些在上一世紀，不是貴得要死，
air conditioners, sport utility vehicles,

不然就是還沒有被發明出來。
computers and mobile devices --

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，
were unattainably expensive,

我們就會發明新產品、新想法、產生新的服務，
or just hadn't been invented a century ago.

來控制我們的注意力、
As automation frees our time, increases the scope of what is possible,

占據我們的時間，
we invent new products, new ideas, new services

並刺激消費。
that command our attention,

你可能會想有些東西真的是多餘的──
occupy our time

極限瑜珈、冒險旅遊、
and spur consumption.

口袋怪獸──
You may think some of these things are frivolous --

我都同意。
extreme yoga, adventure tourism,

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。
Pokémon GO --

2015 年的一般勞動階層，
and I might agree with you.

如果想獲得 1915 年的一般生活水準，
But people desire these things, and they're willing to work hard for them.

只要每年工作 17 周就可達到，
The average worker in 2015

只要三分之一的時間。
wanting to attain the average living standard in 1915

但大部分的人不會那樣做。
could do so by working just 17 weeks a year,

他們寧願選擇努力工作
one third of the time.

來賺取科技所帶給他們的精神食糧。
But most people don't choose to do that.

豐富的物質永遠消除不了內心的空虛。
They are willing to work hard

套一句經濟學家托斯丹范伯倫說的話：
to harvest the technological bounty that is available to them.

「發明是需求之母。」
Material abundance has never eliminated perceived scarcity.

現在……
In the words of economist Thorstein Veblen,

如果你同意上述的兩個觀點，
invention is the mother of necessity.

O 型環原則以及永不知足原則，
Now ...

那你就會認同我說的，
So if you accept these two principles,

一定會有工作岡位產生。
the O-ring principle and the never-get-enough principle,

那是否意味著都不用煩惱了呢？
then you agree with me.

自動化、就業機會、機器人和工作──
There will be jobs.

它們自己會自動幫我們安排好？
Does that mean there's nothing to worry about?

不。
Automation, employment, robots and jobs --

這不是我的論點。
it'll all take care of itself?

自動化為我們帶來了財富，
No.

讓我們可以用更少的時間做更多的事。
That is not my argument.

沒有經濟規則說，
Automation creates wealth

我們會好好地善用自動化所帶來的財富，
by allowing us to do more work in less time.

這的確值得我們擔心。
There is no economic law

想想這兩個國家，
that says that we will use that wealth well,

挪威和沙烏地阿拉伯。
and that is worth worrying about.

兩個國家都有豐盛的石油，
Consider two countries,

他們的錢好像是直接從地底下的洞口噴上來的。
Norway and Saudi Arabia.

（笑聲）
Both oil-rich nations,

但兩個國家利用這筆財富幫助人民繁榮、
it's like they have money spurting out of a hole in the ground.

幫助人民成功的方式卻不相同。
(Laughter)

挪威是個欣欣向榮的民主國家。
But they haven't used that wealth equally well to foster human prosperity,

總體而言，它的人民都過很舒服。
human prospering.

國家人民的幸福指數排名，
Norway is a thriving democracy.

基本上都在第一到第四之間徘徊。
By and large, its citizens work and play well together.

而沙烏地阿拉伯卻是個君主專制的國家，
It's typically numbered between first and fourth

很多人民的生活水平，都沒有機會可以獲得改善。
in rankings of national happiness.

國家人民的幸福指數，全球排名基本上都落在 35 名左右，
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy

這麼有錢的國家，排名竟這麼落後。
in which many citizens lack a path for personal advancement.

只是讓大家比較一下，
It's typically ranked 35th among nations in happiness,

美國大都排在第 12 到第 13 之間。
which is low for such a wealthy nation.

這兩個國家的差別
Just by way of comparison,

不在他們有錢與否，
the US is typically ranked around 12th or 13th.

也不在科技是否發達。
The difference between these two countries

而是他們的制度。
is not their wealth

挪威長期來致力於
and it's not their technology.

建立一個充滿機會與經濟活躍的社會。
It's their institutions.

雖然沙烏地阿拉伯的生活水平已經有提升，
Norway has invested to build a society

但人民仍飽受壓抑。
with opportunity and economic mobility.

兩個國家都很有錢，
Saudi Arabia has raised living standards

但人民卻有著不同的幸福。
while frustrating many other human strivings.

接下來，我要來談談我們目前所面臨的挑戰，
Two countries, both wealthy,

自動化給我們所帶來的挑戰。
not equally well off.

這挑戰不是因為我們會沒有工作。
And this brings me to the challenge that we face today,

美國自金融海嘯以來，
the challenge that automation poses for us.

已經增加了 1400 萬個就業機會。
The challenge is not that we're running out of work.

我們的挑戰是，這些工作
The US has added 14 million jobs

都不是好工作，
since the depths of the Great Recession.

因為很多人都不適任
The challenge is that many of those jobs

目前已經創造出來的工作。
are not good jobs,

美國以及其它已開發國家的就業環境，
and many citizens cannot qualify for the good jobs

現在看起來像是個啞鈴，
that are being created.

兩端都特別重。
Employment growth in the United States and in much of the developed world

其中一端，
looks something like a barbell

這群人受高等教育、有高薪工作，
with increasing poundage on either end of the bar.

像是醫生、護士、程式設計師、工程師，
On the one hand,

市場及銷售經理。
you have high-education, high-wage jobs

這些工作的就業機會相當穩固，就業機會會持續成長。
like doctors and nurses, programmers and engineers,

同樣地，低技術工作的就業機會成長也很穩固，
marketing and sales managers.

低學歷工作像是餐廳服務生、
Employment is robust in these jobs, employment growth.

清潔、保全人員、
Similarly, employment growth is robust in many low-skill,

居家健康照顧。
low-education jobs like food service,

同時，有些就業機會也會萎縮：
cleaning, security,

中等教育、中等收入、中產階級的工作，
home health aids.

像是藍領階級的生產工人及操作人員，
Simultaneously, employment is shrinking

白領階級的文書及銷售人員。
in many middle-education, middle-wage, middle-class jobs,

這當中的背後原因
like blue-collar production and operative positions

也不是甚麼多深奧的道理。
and white-collar clerical and sales positions.

很多這種中等技術的工作、
The reasons behind this contracting middle

只要充分了解規則及步驟流程
are not mysterious.

漸漸地都會被軟體
Many of those middle-skill jobs

及電腦所取代。
use well-understood rules and procedures

這樣的挑戰造就了一些現象，
that can increasingly be codified in software

也就是經濟學家所稱的「就業兩極化」，
and executed by computers.

中間層的工作機會
The challenge that this phenomenon creates,

以及中產階級都會逐漸消失，
what economists call employment polarization,

並造成我們的社會更階級化。
is that it knocks out rungs in the economic ladder,

一邊是高薪、受高等教育的專業人士，
shrinks the size of the middle class

做的是有趣的工作，
and threatens to make us a more stratified society.

而另一邊，大部分的公民從事低薪的工作，
On the one hand, a set of highly paid, highly educated professionals

他們只盼望舒適、健康富裕的日子能趕緊到來。
doing interesting work,

這不是我希望的進步，
on the other, a large number of citizens in low-paid jobs

我認為這也不是你們希望的。
whose primary responsibility is to see to the comfort and health of the affluent.

但還是有一些令人振奮的好消息。
That is not my vision of progress,

我們過去面臨相當大的經濟轉型，
and I doubt that it is yours.

而且我們都成功克服過來了。
But here is some encouraging news.

在 19 世紀末，20 世紀初，
We have faced equally momentous economic transformations in the past,

當自動化取代掉大部分的農場工作──
and we have come through them successfully.

還記得拖拉機嗎？
In the late 1800s and early 1900s,

以農業為主的州面臨了大量的失業威脅，
when automation was eliminating vast numbers of agricultural jobs --

農場不再需要年輕世代的人，
remember that tractor? --

但這些年輕人還沒準備好工業化即將帶來的衝擊。
the farm states faced a threat of mass unemployment,

為了克服挑戰，
a generation of youth no longer needed on the farm

政府做了一個重大的改革，
but not prepared for industry.

要求這些年輕人
Rising to this challenge,

在 16 歲長大成人後繼續留在學校接受教育。
they took the radical step

這就是美國的高中教育改革運動，
of requiring that their entire youth population

這的確很花錢。
remain in school and continue their education

因為這些孩子不僅要投入學校，
to the ripe old age of 16.

而且還不能工作。
This was called the high school movement,

但最後證明，這是美國在 20 世紀
and it was a radically expensive thing to do.

做得最好的投資政策之一。
Not only did they have to invest in the schools,

它讓我們學習到全世界最新、最靈活、
but those kids couldn't work at their jobs.

最有生產力的技術。
It also turned out to be one of the best investments

如果要看這些變革所帶來的好處，我們可以想像一下，
the US made in the 20th century.

把 1899 年的勞工運動
It gave us the most skilled, the most flexible

帶回到目前的現實世界。
and the most productive workforce in the world.

儘管這些人背部強壯，品格也很好，
To see how well this worked, imagine taking the labor force of 1899

但他們缺乏基本的識字與算數能力，
and bringing them into the present.

只能做最平凡的工作。
Despite their strong backs and good characters,

很多人都不夠格上工。
many of them would lack the basic literacy and numeracy skills

這個案例是要說明我們卓越的機構，
to do all but the most mundane jobs.

特別是我們的學校，
Many of them would be unemployable.

讓我們獲取了
What this example highlights is the primacy of our institutions,

科技繁榮所帶來的成果。
most especially our schools,

所以說不用擔心是騙人的。
in allowing us to reap the harvest

我們千萬別誤會了。
of our technological prosperity.

如果美國政府在一世紀前的高中教育改革運動中，
It's foolish to say there's nothing to worry about.

沒有投資學校、沒有投資技術，
Clearly we can get this wrong.

我們可能不會這麼繁榮、便利，
If the US had not invested in its schools and in its skills

社會的幸福感可能也會大大地減少。
a century ago with the high school movement,

但說我們就是命中注定，這樣說的人也沒多聰明，
we would be a less prosperous,

我們的命運並不是由機械決定，
a less mobile and probably a lot less happy society.

也不是由市場決定。
But it's equally foolish to say that our fates are sealed.

這取決於我們自己及我們的機構。
That's not decided by the machines.

我一開始就提到一個矛盾的現象。
It's not even decided by the market.

機械不斷地取代掉我們的工作，
It's decided by us and by our institutions.

但為什麼我們的勞工沒有過剩，
Now, I started this talk with a paradox.

技術沒有被淘汰掉？
Our machines increasingly do our work for us.

這很明顯啊！我們偉大的發明，
Why doesn't that make our labor superfluous,

不就是害我們的經濟與社會進入地獄之路的元兇嗎？
our skills redundant?

歷史已經重複地為我們解答這個矛盾現象好幾次了。
Isn't it obvious that the road to our economic and social hell

答案的第一個部分就是：科技放大了我們存在的重要性，
is paved with our own great inventions?

增進了我們的價值，
History has repeatedly offered an answer to that paradox.

使我們的專業、判斷與創造力更佳地提升。
The first part of the answer is that technology magnifies our leverage,

這是 O 型環法則。
increases the importance, the added value

答案的第二部分就是：
of our expertise, our judgment and our creativity.

我們永無止境的發明以及無窮的慾望。
That's the O-ring.

意思就是我們永遠不知足、永不知足。
The second part of the answer is our endless inventiveness

總是有新事物要做。
and bottomless desires

適應快速的科技變化
means that we never get enough, never get enough.

創造出了真實的挑戰，
There's always new work to do.

最明顯地就是我們勞動市場的兩極化，
Adjusting to the rapid pace of technological change

以及它為經濟活躍度所帶來的威脅。
creates real challenges,

這些挑戰不會自動地被克服。
seen most clearly in our polarized labor market

它不便宜，
and the threat that it poses to economic mobility.

也不容易。
Rising to this challenge is not automatic.

但，是可以預見的。
It's not costless.

這裡有一些好消息，
It's not easy.

因為我們驚人的生產力，
But it is feasible.

我們變富有了。
And here is some encouraging news.

當然我們已經負擔的起投資我們自己、我們孩子的費用，
Because of our amazing productivity,

就像美國一百年前的高中教育改革運動一樣。
we're rich.

嚴格來講，我們付不起不做的代價。
Of course we can afford to invest in ourselves and in our children

你可能在想，
as America did a hundred years ago with the high school movement.

奧圖教授已經告訴了我們一個
Arguably, we can't afford not to.

有關於好幾年前、
Now, you may be thinking,

最近幾年，
Professor Autor has told us a heartwarming tale

可能是現在，但不是未來的動人故事。
about the distant past,

因為大家都知道這次不一樣了。
the recent past,

對吧？這次會不一樣嗎？
maybe the present, but probably not the future.

當然不一樣。
Because everybody knows that this time is different.

每次都不一樣。
Right? Is this time different?

過去 200 年，在無數場合中，
Of course this time is different.

學者與社會運動者不斷地警告我們，
Every time is different.

工作要消失了，我們會被我們自己給淘汰掉：
On numerous occasions in the last 200 years,

例如，19 世紀初的盧德份子（英國參加搗毀機器的人）；
scholars and activists have raised the alarm

1920 年代中期的美國勞工部長
that we are running out of work and making ourselves obsolete:

詹姆士戴維斯；
for example, the Luddites in the early 1800s;

1982 年諾貝爾經濟學家，瓦西里·列昂季耶夫；
US Secretary of Labor James Davis

當然，還有很多學者、
in the mid-1920s;

評論員、科學家
Nobel Prize-winning economist Wassily Leontief in 1982;

還有今日的媒體名嘴。
and of course, many scholars,

這些人的預測在我看來似乎都很狂妄。
pundits, technologists

這些自稱聖賢的人，像是在告訴我們，
and media figures today.

「如果我都想像不到人們未來可以做什麼工作，
These predictions strike me as arrogant.

那麼，你、我、我們的小孩
These self-proclaimed oracles are in effect saying,

也都不會想像到。」
"If I can't think of what people will do for work in the future,

我沒膽在公眾面前對人類的聰明才智
then you, me and our kids

提出太多的質疑。
aren't going to think of it either."

聽著，我無法告訴你一百年後
I don't have the guts

人們要做什麼工作。
to take that bet against human ingenuity.

因為未來不是我說了算。
Look, I can't tell you what people are going to do for work

如果我是 1900 年愛荷華州的農夫，
a hundred years from now.

如果有一位 21 世紀的經濟學家瞬間移動來到我的農場，
But the future doesn't hinge on my imagination.

跟我說：「嘿，奧圖農夫，你知道嗎？
If I were a farmer in Iowa in the year 1900,

接下來的 100 年，
and an economist from the 21st century teleported down to my field

農業的從業人員將從 40% 減少到剩 2%，
and said, "Hey, guess what, farmer Autor,

只因為生產力提升了。
in the next hundred years,

你覺得剩下 38% 的人將來會做什麼工作？」
agricultural employment is going to fall from 40 percent of all jobs

我不可能會說：「喔，我們早就知道了，
to two percent

我們會開發 app 軟體、放射性藥物、
purely due to rising productivity.

瑜珈課程、手機表情符號 Bitmoji。」
What do you think the other 38 percent of workers are going to do?"

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

我根本不會知道的。
We'll do app development, radiological medicine,

但我希望我可以智慧地說出，
yoga instruction, Bitmoji."

「哇，少了 95% 的農場工人，
(Laughter)

卻沒有造成食物短缺，
I wouldn't have had a clue.

真的是一大進步啊！
But I hope I would have had the wisdom to say,

我希望人類繁榮富有後，
"Wow, a 95 percent reduction in farm employment

能找到更有意義的事來做。」
with no shortage of food.

總體而言，我會說那是一定要的。
That's an amazing amount of progress.

非常感謝各位。
I hope that humanity finds something remarkable to do

（掌聲）
with all of that prosperity."
And by and large, I would say that it has.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)