Helping America's workers
关键词： America，workerAmerica's economy
Helping America's workers
Sep 21st 2006
From The Economist print edition
The Democrats need to posture less and think harder
民主党应该少作姿态，多做实事
BACK in the 1990s, when Democrats last had any power in Washington, the party was run by economic centrists. Bill Clinton and his crowd believed in free trade and free markets. They were friendly to business and wary of unions. The centrists' creed was that government should not interfere with the market, but help workers cope with the consequences.
90年代民主党还在华盛顿掌权的时候，经济上奉行中间政策的民主党人大行其道。比尔·克林顿和他的幕僚们支持自由贸易和自由市场，关心企业，警惕工会。中间派的宗旨是国家不该干涉市场，但应该帮助工人们应对自由竞争的后果。
Judging by the political rhetoric of the mid-term election campaigns, that centrism has all but disappeared. As they rail against America's growing income inequality and the stagnation of many workers' wages, the Democrats have tilted clearly to the left. Gone is the firm defence of globalisation. In its place is a new populism, based on bashing business, boosting the unions and meddling with markets.
从民主党中期选举的政治口号来看，这种中间政策差不多不复存在了。民主党们尖刻责备美国收入不平衡的持续扩大和许多工人加薪遥遥无期，明显偏向左派道路。全球化不再是他们坚护的对象，取而代之的是一种基于对企业的抨击，对工会的促进和对市场的干涉的新利民思想。
The party's bigwigs attend anti-Wal-Mart rallies and lambast the company—America's biggest retailer and private employer—for failing to provide adequate health care or recognise unions. Virtually every Democrat in Congress wants new laws to make union organising easier (see article). And almost everyone puts top priority on raising the minimum wage.
民主党要人参加反沃尔玛，痛责这个美国最大的零售商和私营雇佣公司没有提供足够的医疗保障和对工会予以承认。基本上每一位议会里的民主党人都想要通过法案简化组织工会的程序。 差不多每一位民主党人都将提高最低薪水作为首要政策。
This populism is based on a dangerous combination of nostalgia and sloppy thinking. The nostalgia is for a rose-tinted version of the 1950s and 1960s. If only the unions were stronger or big business cowed, the argument runs, the middle class would once more flourish, and the gap between rich and poor would narrow.
但民主党这种利民思想是基于对美化了的五六十年代政治的怀念加上他们一厢情愿的想法，结果甚至可能是有害的。他们宣称，要是工会力量更强大，大企业后退了，中产阶级会复兴，穷富差距会减小。
That is nonsense. The principal causes of rising inequality, in America and much of the rest of the world, are rapid technological innovation and globalisation. These structural shifts, which have spawned enormous prosperity, are boosting the earnings of the most skilled and well-educated far faster than the rest. Neither business-bashing nor union-boosting will turn back the clock, as most Democrats privately admit. But Wal-Mart is an irresistibly easy target. Crafting an agenda that would really help American workers would be rather more demanding.
这些都是胡说八道。在美国和世界其他地方贫富不均的主要源起是科技的飞速创新和全球化效应。这些结构性调整带来巨大繁荣的同时，更快的提高了技艺最精湛，教育最优秀的人们的收入。就连大多数民主党人也私下承认，无论是抨击企业或者促进工会都不能扭转局势。但沃尔玛是个诱人的方便靶子，而打造一个真正有利于美国工人的政治议程又相当不易。
Start with tax reform
从税制改革开始
If Democrats are serious about fighting inequality, their top priority ought to be tax reform. America's tax code is the country's main mechanism for redistributing income. Yet it is a tangled mess, increasingly reliant on regressive taxes, such as the payroll tax, and full of subsidies that benefit rich people while reducing economic efficiency.
如果民主党人们在对抗不平等上动了真格，第一要务应该是税制改革。美国的税制是收入再分配的主要机制，但是体制错综复杂，并且越来越依赖诸如工资税之类的累退税，还有五花八门的减低经济效率的补贴让富人受益。
The mortgage-interest deduction, a subsidy for home-owners, costs some $80 billion a year, does little to help poor people buy their own homes and does a lot to encourage rich people to buy McMansions. Over half the subsidy goes to the richest tenth of Americans. Tax incentives for employer-provided health insurance cost some $150 billion a year and are a big reason for America's escalating medical costs.
按揭利息的降低是对有房的人的补贴，每年花费800亿美元的财政支出，然而对穷人买房意义不大，却鼓励富人买麦式豪宅*。超过一半的补贴付给了最富的十分之一美国人。对雇主提供的医疗保险的税务优惠每年花费1500亿美元，是美国的医疗费用节节高升的重要原因。
Again, the richest tenth of Americans captures more than one-quarter of the benefits. All told, the tax code is larded with more than $700 billion-worth of inefficient subsidies. Scaling them back would improve the economy's efficiency and would free up a huge amount of money, both to reduce the deficit and to shift resources to poorer Americans.
还需要说明的是，最富的十分之一美国人获取了超过四分之一的税务优惠。合计起来税制里有超过7000亿美元的低效补贴。削减这些低效补贴可以提高经济运转效率，节省一大笔金钱来减少赤字和增加对更贫困美国人的资源配置。
And the best way to shift those resources is again through the tax code, by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Introduced in 1975 and extended by Ronald Reagan and every president since, the EITC is a type of negative income tax for poor workers and is America's most efficient antipoverty tool. If Democrats are serious about helping poor workers, they should advocate further expansion. But few Democrats mention the EITC on the hustings. Instead they want to raise the minimum wage, a market-meddle whose costs are debated, but which few would prescribe as the most efficient route to helping the poor—particularly since not all minimum-wage workers are poor.
最好的资源配置方法就是通过增加所得收入抵免(EITC)的方法改善税制。所得收入抵免制度于1975年制定，为罗纳德·里根总统和他以后的总统们沿用。它是降低贫穷工人收入税的一种税制，是美国最有效的降低贫困的方针。如果民主党真的想帮助贫困工人，他们应该进一步提高抵税额。但屈指可数的民主党人在竞选演讲时提到所得收入抵免制度。相反他们想采取提高最低工资这项干涉市场的政策。该政策的花费还有争议，但很少人会认为它是最有效的帮助穷人的方法，尤其在所有领取最低工资的工人不一定穷困的情况下。
In sum, today's Democratic politicians care more about embracing empty symbolism than crafting effective policies. Not only do they fail to push ideas, such as EITC expansion, that are known to work; but they have also avoided intellectually tougher debates, such as how to revamp health-care or counter the rising elitism of the universities (see article). A few hardy souls in Washington think-tanks still dream up market-friendly centrist ideas—the latest a proposal to aim unemployment benefits at workers whose old jobs have gone for good and whose new jobs pay less, rather than those who are temporarily out of work (see article). But Democratic bigwigs are too busy sounding populist to notice.
总之，今天的民主党政治家更关心宣扬空洞的象征意义而非打造有效的政策。他们不仅不能将像增加所得收入抵免这样行之有效的政策付诸实践，而且还避开诸如怎样改善医疗体制或反对大学里壮大的精英主义之类的思想交锋。华盛顿智囊团里仍抱有维护市场自由的中间思想的坚定派已经为数不多了。最近还有一个提案还体现着这种思想，它旨在给那些再就业薪水降低的工人而不是短期失业工人失业补助。但民主党要人们忙着宣扬利民思想，倒没有注意。
* 麦氏豪宅(McMansion)，意为如麦当劳快餐般，以廉价材料来建造超大面积房屋，以追求炫耀的表面效果，比如高耸的天花板、宽大的扶手楼梯等。
Helping America's workers
Sep 21st 2006
From The Economist print edition
The Democrats need to posture less and think harder
民主党应该少作姿态，多做实事
BACK in the 1990s, when Democrats last had any power in Washington, the party was run by economic centrists. Bill Clinton and his crowd believed in free trade and free markets. They were friendly to business and wary of unions. The centrists' creed was that government should not interfere with the market, but help workers cope with the consequences.
90年代民主党还在华盛顿掌权的时候，经济上奉行中间政策的民主党人大行其道。比尔·克林顿和他的幕僚们支持自由贸易和自由市场，关心企业，警惕工会。中间派的宗旨是国家不该干涉市场，但应该帮助工人们应对自由竞争的后果。
Judging by the political rhetoric of the mid-term election campaigns, that centrism has all but disappeared. As they rail against America's growing income inequality and the stagnation of many workers' wages, the Democrats have tilted clearly to the left. Gone is the firm defence of globalisation. In its place is a new populism, based on bashing business, boosting the unions and meddling with markets.
从民主党中期选举的政治口号来看，这种中间政策差不多不复存在了。民主党们尖刻责备美国收入不平衡的持续扩大和许多工人加薪遥遥无期，明显偏向左派道路。全球化不再是他们坚护的对象，取而代之的是一种基于对企业的抨击，对工会的促进和对市场的干涉的新利民思想。
The party's bigwigs attend anti-Wal-Mart rallies and lambast the company—America's biggest retailer and private employer—for failing to provide adequate health care or recognise unions. Virtually every Democrat in Congress wants new laws to make union organising easier (see article). And almost everyone puts top priority on raising the minimum wage.
民主党要人参加反沃尔玛，痛责这个美国最大的零售商和私营雇佣公司没有提供足够的医疗保障和对工会予以承认。基本上每一位议会里的民主党人都想要通过法案简化组织工会的程序。 差不多每一位民主党人都将提高最低薪水作为首要政策。
This populism is based on a dangerous combination of nostalgia and sloppy thinking. The nostalgia is for a rose-tinted version of the 1950s and 1960s. If only the unions were stronger or big business cowed, the argument runs, the middle class would once more flourish, and the gap between rich and poor would narrow.
但民主党这种利民思想是基于对美化了的五六十年代政治的怀念加上他们一厢情愿的想法，结果甚至可能是有害的。他们宣称，要是工会力量更强大，大企业后退了，中产阶级会复兴，穷富差距会减小。
That is nonsense. The principal causes of rising inequality, in America and much of the rest of the world, are rapid technological innovation and globalisation. These structural shifts, which have spawned enormous prosperity, are boosting the earnings of the most skilled and well-educated far faster than the rest. Neither business-bashing nor union-boosting will turn back the clock, as most Democrats privately admit. But Wal-Mart is an irresistibly easy target. Crafting an agenda that would really help American workers would be rather more demanding.
这些都是胡说八道。在美国和世界其他地方贫富不均的主要源起是科技的飞速创新和全球化效应。这些结构性调整带来巨大繁荣的同时，更快的提高了技艺最精湛，教育最优秀的人们的收入。就连大多数民主党人也私下承认，无论是抨击企业或者促进工会都不能扭转局势。但沃尔玛是个诱人的方便靶子，而打造一个真正有利于美国工人的政治议程又相当不易。
Start with tax reform
从税制改革开始
If Democrats are serious about fighting inequality, their top priority ought to be tax reform. America's tax code is the country's main mechanism for redistributing income. Yet it is a tangled mess, increasingly reliant on regressive taxes, such as the payroll tax, and full of subsidies that benefit rich people while reducing economic efficiency.
如果民主党人们在对抗不平等上动了真格，第一要务应该是税制改革。美国的税制是收入再分配的主要机制，但是体制错综复杂，并且越来越依赖诸如工资税之类的累退税，还有五花八门的减低经济效率的补贴让富人受益。
The mortgage-interest deduction, a subsidy for home-owners, costs some $80 billion a year, does little to help poor people buy their own homes and does a lot to encourage rich people to buy McMansions. Over half the subsidy goes to the richest tenth of Americans. Tax incentives for employer-provided health insurance cost some $150 billion a year and are a big reason for America's escalating medical costs.
按揭利息的降低是对有房的人的补贴，每年花费800亿美元的财政支出，然而对穷人买房意义不大，却鼓励富人买麦式豪宅*。超过一半的补贴付给了最富的十分之一美国人。对雇主提供的医疗保险的税务优惠每年花费1500亿美元，是美国的医疗费用节节高升的重要原因。
Again, the richest tenth of Americans captures more than one-quarter of the benefits. All told, the tax code is larded with more than $700 billion-worth of inefficient subsidies. Scaling them back would improve the economy's efficiency and would free up a huge amount of money, both to reduce the deficit and to shift resources to poorer Americans.
还需要说明的是，最富的十分之一美国人获取了超过四分之一的税务优惠。合计起来税制里有超过7000亿美元的低效补贴。削减这些低效补贴可以提高经济运转效率，节省一大笔金钱来减少赤字和增加对更贫困美国人的资源配置。
And the best way to shift those resources is again through the tax code, by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Introduced in 1975 and extended by Ronald Reagan and every president since, the EITC is a type of negative income tax for poor workers and is America's most efficient antipoverty tool. If Democrats are serious about helping poor workers, they should advocate further expansion. But few Democrats mention the EITC on the hustings. Instead they want to raise the minimum wage, a market-meddle whose costs are debated, but which few would prescribe as the most efficient route to helping the poor—particularly since not all minimum-wage workers are poor.
最好的资源配置方法就是通过增加所得收入抵免(EITC)的方法改善税制。所得收入抵免制度于1975年制定，为罗纳德·里根总统和他以后的总统们沿用。它是降低贫穷工人收入税的一种税制，是美国最有效的降低贫困的方针。如果民主党真的想帮助贫困工人，他们应该进一步提高抵税额。但屈指可数的民主党人在竞选演讲时提到所得收入抵免制度。相反他们想采取提高最低工资这项干涉市场的政策。该政策的花费还有争议，但很少人会认为它是最有效的帮助穷人的方法，尤其在所有领取最低工资的工人不一定穷困的情况下。
In sum, today's Democratic politicians care more about embracing empty symbolism than crafting effective policies. Not only do they fail to push ideas, such as EITC expansion, that are known to work; but they have also avoided intellectually tougher debates, such as how to revamp health-care or counter the rising elitism of the universities (see article). A few hardy souls in Washington think-tanks still dream up market-friendly centrist ideas—the latest a proposal to aim unemployment benefits at workers whose old jobs have gone for good and whose new jobs pay less, rather than those who are temporarily out of work (see article). But Democratic bigwigs are too busy sounding populist to notice.
总之，今天的民主党政治家更关心宣扬空洞的象征意义而非打造有效的政策。他们不仅不能将像增加所得收入抵免这样行之有效的政策付诸实践，而且还避开诸如怎样改善医疗体制或反对大学里壮大的精英主义之类的思想交锋。华盛顿智囊团里仍抱有维护市场自由的中间思想的坚定派已经为数不多了。最近还有一个提案还体现着这种思想，它旨在给那些再就业薪水降低的工人而不是短期失业工人失业补助。但民主党要人们忙着宣扬利民思想，倒没有注意。
* 麦氏豪宅(McMansion)，意为如麦当劳快餐般，以廉价材料来建造超大面积房屋，以追求炫耀的表面效果，比如高耸的天花板、宽大的扶手楼梯等。
Copyright © 2006 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
翻译 by Lianne
Trackback
你可以使用这个链接引用该篇文章 http://publishblog.blogchina.com/blog/tb.b?diaryID=6274363