关于贫富分化
本帖最后由 晨枫 于 2014-1-24 20:14 编辑贫富分化在中国是一个热门的话题，但这在美国也是一个热门的话题。相关话题当然还有上升通道、最低收入、劫富济贫等。奥巴马在12月4日的讲话中，就把美国的贫富分化成为“我们这个时代的决定性挑战”（the defining challenge of our time）。据说奥巴马在周二的国情咨文中要提及这个问题。坊间有很多猜想，但不需要猜想的是一个事实：美国社会对这个问题的存在具有一致共识，但对于这个问题的解决具有极大分歧。民主党人90%认为政府应该出手解决这个问题，共和党人只有45%的人认为这是政府的事情。
贫富分化其实是两个问题：一是财富向最高收入群落的进一步集中，二是最低收入的群体进一步扩大。这是两个不同的问题，原因、解决方法也不可能一样。但不管在美国，还是在中国，或者世界上其他什么地方，人们常常把两者混为一谈。人们对于要缩小贫富差距这一点没有分歧，分歧在于如何缩小贫富差距：用税收或者政策手段迫使财富从高收入群体反向流入低收入群体，还是机会和上升通道鼓励低收入群体脱贫。美国的“中产阶级消失”和财富加速向高收入群体集中使这个争论激烈化。中国过去实际上没有这样的问题。尽管中国过去实行社会主义，实际上这不是劫富济贫的社会主义，而是一口饭分两碗吃的低水平平均主义。在改革开放之初，中国没有选择，只有用机会和上升通道鼓励所有人脱贫，一些人做到了，一些人没有，这才有了现在的贫富分化问题。
回到美国。共和党的观点是：个人财富是个人能力与对社会贡献的回报，劫富济贫是社会不公，而不是社会公正。民主党的观点是：高收入群体有责任不成比例地承担社会责任，贫富分化本身就是社会最大的不公正。这是两种不同的社会哲学，不能简单地说谁对谁错，否则错误的一方早就被打下历史舞台了。
但另一方面，这两种观点的正确都是有条件的，而这条件正在受到严酷的检验。共和党观点的正确性取决于社会的自由、公正，这包括个人财富的来自正当，社会上升通道畅通。历史上尤其是2008年经济危机以来揭露的很多丑恶中，暴富的财富来路常常与法律和道德的擦边球相关，而阶层固化、上升通道堵塞越来越成为中下阶层个人发展的致命障碍。另一方面，美国不断涌现的新经济和成功人士（如比尔•盖茨、麦克•扎克伯格还有更早的约翰•洛克菲勒、亨利•福特）则都是美国梦的成功例子。
民主党观点的正确性则在很大程度上取决于最低收入群体的进取心。久旱的禾苗遇到甘霖，马上就能茁壮成长；但雨露洒到石头上，水流失了，被太阳晒干了，依然是干涸的石头。历史上关于美国社会病的分析中，社会底层中普遍存在逃学、早孕、家庭破裂、坐吃福利等问题一遍又一遍地被揭示，早已不是新闻了。另一方面，新移民家庭白手起家，发奋进取，成功例子也是遍地皆是。但民主党无法解决把新移民例子扩大到本土最底层群体的问题。
富者更富不是坏事，但财富向少数人集中不是一件好事。少数人拥有大大多于自己需要的财富，使得财富淤积，不加入流通、消费和再生产。但劫富济贫也有问题，这使得有能力者的积极性受到打击，无能力者的工作动力得不到刺激。在解决贫富分化的提议中，提高最低收入是最没有用处的办法。如果最低收入只能使很少人受惠，那这根本不是问题，这是社保问题，提高最低收入和增加社保是一样的作用，怎么做都没有问题，也用不着争论。但如果提高最低收入面向社会上相当一部分人，那提高最低收入只能推高全社会成本，成为一个毫无意义的数字游戏。美国“中产阶级消失”的争论还涉及经济全球化，很多人把中产阶级萎缩的主要原因怪罪到工作机会外流。这实际上也是不对的。工作机会外流是比较经济的结果，是因为美国工人的单位劳动生产率赶不上外流的目的地。保护主义和闭关自守救不了美国经济，否则北朝鲜就该是世界第一经济大国了。
人的能力是有差别的，这一点通常没人否认。人的生活待遇应该与能力相关，因此人的生活待遇也应该是有差别的，这一点通常也没人否认。问题在于，生活待遇差别是否应该与能力差别成比例，这比例如何界定。
在经济高速发展的时候，就业市场火爆，泥沙俱下，鱼龙混杂，能力超常和能力一般的人一起滚滚而下，造成的必然现象就是中产结局迅速壮大。虽然最高收入群体的财富依然不成比例地更快速增长，但社会主体忙于庆祝自己的成功和生活条件的改善，对富者更富并不介意，甚至秘密期望自己也有朝一日成为富者。经济进入稳定发展甚至呆滞的时候，就业市场撤火，这就是大浪淘沙的时候了。浑水澄清，能力超常和能力一般的人开始分出三六九等，阶层固化，上升通道堵塞，贫富分化作为核心社会问题开始浮现。直到下一次工业革命，或者世界政治经济秩序的大洗牌。
贫富分化有什么办法解决？这可能是经济稳定甚至呆滞时代的问题，暂时的解决是使得经济高速发展，但经济回到稳定的时候，肯定会再次出现。这或许是无解的问题。
坦率地讲，这个问题无解。
理论上，人人生来平等，但是实际上那是根本不可能的，头脑才能性格决定了这点，于是两极分化就只是时间问题。公正与公平是社会正常发展的基石，对财富的通过政府手段进行调整，以缓解社会矛盾，使之不至于激化到引发社会动乱，这在相当大程序上损害了这个基石，这是个两难的问题。于是只要社会扁平，它就不会有活力，而假使它陡峭，那就会动荡，理论上的平衡，现实中则是两头不讨好。
说白了，达尔文的世界，为什么要追求乌托邦呢，还是玩周期率算了。 贫富分化是世界性问题。南非这方面很突出，不考虑社会福利的话基尼系数将近0.7，依靠覆盖人口将近三分之一的低水平社会福利把系数拉到0.6。
在南非中高中产对于高税收的看法普遍是，等于交安保费了，免得社会动荡。不过这也不是长久之计，南非最近几年矿业罢工（有趣的是，在南非罢工最激烈的往往不是最低薪人群，而是中低薪水的，超出最低收入两三倍收入的人群）已经严重打击整体经济了，中高收入群体利益同样受损。只剩下个别资本家发财了，这就要出大问题了。
贫富分化天经地义，只要社会经济整体前进就没太大问题。
我个人的观察，强化技能培训，增加个人就业机会是必要的，教育机会的平等至少能让有就业欲望有创业欲望的人找到门槛。
在这一点上，TG做的非常不够，过去40年的教育成本绝大部分都是个人承担了。
退一万步讲，在经济下滑的时候举办多种形式的技能培训和技能大赛，给予影视歌星一般的社会关注，就算是财政出钱养着技能工人，对社会也是有益的。 老兵帅客 发表于 2014-1-24 14:21 static/image/common/back.gif
坦率地讲，这个问题无解。
理论上，人人生来平等，但是实际上那是根本不可能的，头脑才能性格决定了这点， ...
现实是达尔文的，理想是乌托邦的，这中间的差距还真不好调和。问题是（尤其是西方）现代教育理念强调抹杀差别，取消考试，取消评分评级，这种做法培养了几代以为否认差别而差别就真的不存在了的人，培养了几代只知道entitlement而不知道个人努力的人。很奇怪的是，都反对自己硬背，反对竞争，但孩子课余运动或者舞蹈、音乐课上名次、竞争非常激烈，家长跟着一起起劲，而且联系打球、舞蹈动作的时候就no pain no gain，反对读书死记硬背的劲头都没了。 日德北欧这些算是发达社会里很公平的了，但是他们的社会结构都比较特殊，其他地区学不来。
我估计未来人类不会花那么大力气去解决贫富分化问题。我预测的未来是，全球形成一个超大号印度，有新型种姓制度，各种姓各安其命，和谐生活。 除非共产主义了，否则贫富差别是无法消除的
贫富分化的程度，应当在社会的稳定和发展之间求得平衡
这是一个需要在实践中不断调整的动态平衡，不可能一劳永逸地解决
换言之，社会本身就是分化的，分化是人类社会存在的方式 tianxq888 发表于 2014-1-25 12:41 static/image/common/back.gif
除非共产主义了，否则贫富差别是无法消除的
贫富分化的程度，应当在社会的稳定和发展之间求得平衡
感觉我们这代人有生之年会看到全世界血流成河。不一定是WWW1、2那样的，可能比较低烈度，就像印尼那样。我们还是高筑墙、广集粮、造大棒吧，保护好自己就行了。 本帖最后由 寒地散人 于 2014-1-26 14:06 编辑
片面夸大个人的能力从而忽视资本的力量，是目前对于贫富差距加大这一社会问题偷换概念的解释，我们就以
宗庆后和他的女儿宗馥莉来为例，女儿接管爸爸的权利及资产后，从法律上确定资产和权利的归属后，难道
我们就可以认为女儿的能力与其父亲相同吗？我个人认为当资本超过一定规模后，资本的力量要远大于个人的
力量，因此如何限制资本的力量是解决贫富差距的根本办法。
资本达到一定规模后要寻租权利，资本和权力的结合会使贫富差距问题更加突出。
附：宗庆后女儿宗馥莉以浙江政协常委身份出席活动
http://www.guancha.cn/politics/2014_01_22_201374.shtml 无解。尤其在生存技能进一步精细化之后。
往前推100年，底层的人民肯吃苦，码头背大包，黄包车多跑几趟，也能完成一点点积累。勤快的佃户多干活，省吃俭用，成为自耕农小地主的例子很多。现在这种全靠身体赚钱做积累的机会基本不存在了。生手熟手，受过技能培训没受过培训的，生产率相差百倍。结果就是愿意十万雇一个人，也不愿意一万雇十个人。沃尔玛 然后203 发表于 2014-1-25 11:08 static/image/common/back.gif
贫富分化天经地义，只要社会经济整体前进就没太大问题。
我个人的观察，强化技能培训，增加个人就业机会是 ...
这么说不全面。从当年下岗潮开始，TG一直在大范围的进行就业技术培训、增加就业机会。市面上的各种小店、早点摊、报摊、夜市就是结果。但是就业机会受经济、社会大环境影响，不是说增加就能增加的。 猫元帅 发表于 2014-1-26 15:21 static/image/common/back.gif
这么说不全面。从当年下岗潮开始，TG一直在大范围的进行就业技术培训、增加就业机会。市面上的各种小店、 ...
技术培训总是会有收获的，也许收获不在眼下。
也许我没见识过TG的就业技术培训吧，我所知道的技校优惠政策是2005年才有的。
社会上的职业技术学校，那不算是TG组织的吧，成本也都是个人承担。很久以前的工人夜校行业培训等等哪里去了呢？ 然后203 发表于 2014-1-26 15:31 static/image/common/back.gif
技术培训总是会有收获的，也许收获不在眼下。
也许我没见识过TG的就业技术培训吧，我所知道的技校优惠政 ...
无偿的就业培训，前提是你要登记为失业。如果已经就业，就不会有无偿的技能培训。你说的那种工人夜校有个前提，就是工人和工厂的关系相对固定才可以，即使在以前计划经济时代，这个也是要选送的。 猫元帅 发表于 2014-1-26 15:40 static/image/common/back.gif
无偿的就业培训，前提是你要登记为失业。如果已经就业，就不会有无偿的技能培训。你说的那种工人夜校有个 ...
所以说非不能，实不为也。
城镇化后打算让进城的人们还是维持单个状态？至少行业内需要有基本的组织功能/技能传播体系。低水平技工很多，中高级技工缺乏的状况，依靠零星的个人自学无法解决。
技能的传授，影响的不是一个人，更有可能是一代传一代，形成积累。
这类事情犹如城市地下管线建设，大概没有哪个tg官员拿来当政绩抓。现行制度体系下也比较犯忌。 Foreign Policy 上面正好有一篇文章开了个方， 很惊悚的题目“马克思回来了”， 仔细一看，内容是“全世界无产阶级联合起来”改良版， “全世界中产阶级联合起来， 制约超级富豪阶级”。
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/01/21/marx_is_back_global_working_class
Marx Is Back
The global working class is starting to unite -- and that's a good thing.
BY Charles Kenny
JANUARY 21, 2014
The inscription on Karl Marx's tombstone in London's Highgate Cemetery reads, "Workers of all lands, unite." Of course, it hasn't quite ended up that way. As much buzz as the global Occupy movement managed to produce in a few short months, the silence is deafening now. And it's not often that you hear of shop workers in Detroit making common cause with their Chinese brethren in Dalian to stick it to the boss man. Indeed, as global multinational companies have eaten away at labor's bargaining power, the factory workers of the rich world have become some of the least keen on helping out their fellow wage laborers in poor countries. But there's a school of thought -- and no, it's not just from the few remaining Trotskyite professors at the New School -- that envisions a type of global class politics making a comeback. If so, it might be time for global elites to start trembling. Sure, it doesn't sound quite as threatening as the original call to arms, but a new specter may soon be haunting the world's 1 percent: middle-class activism.
Karl Marx saw an apocalyptic logic to the class struggle. The battle of the vast mass against a small plutocracy had an inevitable conclusion: Workers 1, Rich Guys 0. Marx argued that the revolutionary proletarian impulse was also a fundamentally global one -- that working classes would be united across countries and oceans by their shared experience of crushing poverty and the soullessness of factory life. At the time Marx was writing, the idea that poor people were pretty similar across countries -- or at least would be soon -- was eminently reasonable. According to World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, when The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, most income inequality at the global level was driven by class differences within countries. Although some countries were clearly richer than others, what counted as an income to make a man rich or condemn him to poverty in England would have translated pretty neatly to France, the United States, even Argentina.
But as the Industrial Revolution gained steam, that parity changed dramatically over the next century -- one reason Marx's prediction of a global proletarian revolution turned out to be so wrong. Just a few years after The Communist Manifesto was published, wages for workers in Britain began to climb. The trend followed across the rest of Europe and North America. The world entered a period of what Harvard University economist Lant Pritchett elegantly calls "divergence, big time." The Maddison Project database of historical statistics suggests that per capita GDP in 1870 (in 1990 dollars, adjusting for purchasing power) was around $3,190 in Britain -- compared with an African average of $648. Compare that with Britain in 2010, which had a per capita GDP of $23,777; the African average was $2,034. One hundred and forty years ago, the average African person was about one-fifth as rich as his British comrade. Today, he's worth less than one-tenth.
Although many Americans get worked up about absurdly inflated CEO salaries and hedge fund bonuses, a hard economic fact has been overlooked: As the West took off into sustained growth, the gap in incomes among countries began to dwarf the income gaps within countries. That means a temp in East London may still struggle to make ends meet, but plop her down in Lagos and she'll live like a queen. If you're feeling bad about your nonexistent year-end bonus, consider this: Milanovic estimates that the average income of the richest 5 percent in India is about the same as that of the poorest 5 percent in the United States.
Like banks and multinationals, wealth and poverty are now globalized.
Like banks and multinationals, wealth and poverty are now globalized. The lowest municipal workers in Europe and the United States are far richer than their counterparts in poor developing countries (even when purchasing power parity is taken into account), and they're almost infinitesimally better off than the majority of people in those countries who still survive off the earnings of small farms or microenterprises.
Sorry, Karl: The simple fact that poor people in Europe and America are in the income elite according to the standards of South Asia and Africa is why the workers of all lands have not yet united. The second congress of the Communist International, in 1920, condemned the despicable betrayal by many European and American socialists during World War I, who "used 'defense of the fatherland' to conceal the 'right' of 'their' bourgeoisie to enslave the colonies." The gathered representatives argued that the mistrust generated could "be eradicated only after imperialism is destroyed in the advanced countries and after the entire basis of economic life of the backward countries is radically transformed."
Yet all that might soon be changing. Globalization may have been the watchword of the 1990s, but it's still a work in progress. As interconnected global markets get ever more interconnected, average incomes are converging. The last 10 years have seen developing countries grow far more rapidly than high-income countries, closing the gap in average incomes. Economist Arvind Subramanian estimates that China in 2030 will be about as rich as the whole European Union today and that Brazil won't be far behind, clocking in at a GDP per capita of around $31,000. Indonesia, he reckons, will see a GDP per capita of $23,000 -- about the same as tech powerhouse South Korea today.
Put simply, this means that within the space of hardly a generation, a good chunk of the world will soon be rich, or at least solidly middle class. According to forecasts I've developed with my Center for Global Development colleague Sarah Dykstra, about 16 percent of the Earth's population lives in countries rich enough to be labeled "high income" by the World Bank. If growth rates continue as they have in the past decade, 41 percent of the world's people will find themselves in the "high income" bracket by 2030. In short, if developing countries continue growing at the rate we've seen recently, inequality among countries will shrink -- and inequality within nations will return as the dominant source of global inequality.
Does that mean Marx was right -- if just a couple of centuries off on his timing? Not exactly.
The reality is that this new middle class will have lives that Victorian-era working-class Brits could only dream about. They'll work in LED-lit shops and offices rather than in dark, hellish mills. And they'll live nearly 40 years longer than the average person in 1848 based on life expectancy at birth. But will they share common cause with their fellow factory workers an ocean away?
Maybe, but not because the barricade is the only option. Marx predicted that the global working class would unite and revolt because wages everywhere would be driven to subsistence. But as wages increase and level out around the world, the plight of the proletariat -- hard work, low pay -- today more than ever means easier work and better pay. And it's bringing hundreds of millions of people, in China alone, out of poverty. Clearly, the communist revolutions of the first half of the 20th century proved far, far worse for living standards than the well-regulated markets of the latter half.
But that doesn't mean Warren Buffett should breathe easily. In fact, it is exactly because the rich and poor will look increasingly similar in Lagos and London that it's more likely that the workers of the world in 2030 will unite. As technology and trade level the playing field and bring humanity closer together, the world's projected 3.5 billion laborers may finally realize how much more they have in common with each other than with the über-wealthy elites in their own countries.
They'll pressure governments to collaborate to ensure that their sweat and blood don't excessively enrich a tiny, global capitalist elite, but are spread more widely. They'll work to shut down tax havens where the world's plutocrats hide their earnings, and they'll advocate for treaties to prevent a "race to the bottom" in labor regulations and tax rates designed to attract companies. And they'll push to ensure it isn't just the world's richest who benefit from a global lifestyle -- by striving to open up free movement of labor for all, not just within countries but among them. Sure, it's not quite a proletarian revolution. But then again, the middle class has never been the most ardent of revolutionaries -- only the most effective. The next decade won't so much see the politics of desperate poverty taking on plutocracy, as the middle class taking back its own. But it all might put a ghostly smile on Karl's face nonetheless.
洗心 发表于 2014-1-26 23:27 static/image/common/back.gif
Foreign Policy 上面正好有一篇文章开了个方， 很惊悚的题目“马克思回来了”， 仔细一看，内容是“全世界 ...
中产阶级自己就很矛盾。打工的时候当然盼着薪水高，资本的掠夺少，但是退休以后呢，却需要依靠资本投入的回报来维持生活质量。随着年龄越来越长，中产对资本回报的要求也就越来越高。中产阶级的长远利益可是和大资本的长远利益直接相关的。这个命怎么革呢？
而且还有人数众多的无产阶级。里面有不少比例可是同样希望享受生活，却不希望付出多少劳动或者没什么能力付出有价值的劳动的，这些人不开心了，同样也会闹起来，而且肯定比中产彻底多了。革命以后大资本失势无产阶级同样会是受益者，但是中产这么辛苦工作不就是为了过的和无产不一样吗？
所以问题是，即使全世界的中产者联合起来，那么干什么呢？ 橡树村 发表于 2014-1-26 23:49 static/image/common/back.gif
中产阶级自己就很矛盾。打工的时候当然盼着薪水高，资本的掠夺少，但是退休以后呢，却需要依靠资本投入的 ...
村长犀利。上面这篇文章有个论点是马克思有一点错了，随着经济的发展， 无产阶级越来越少了， 将来社会更多的是中产和富豪之间的斗争和平衡。
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19487985
澳洲矿业大亨兼最富有的女人刚提出澳洲人应该向非洲人学习，为每天两美元的工资努力工作，倒是为这个做了个注脚。 橡树村 发表于 2014-1-26 23:49 static/image/common/back.gif
中产阶级自己就很矛盾。打工的时候当然盼着薪水高，资本的掠夺少，但是退休以后呢，却需要依靠资本投入的 ...
其实是一个度，而且这个认可度是动态的。人对差距的不公平感应该是与生俱来的，不管是什么原因。但是能在多大程度上忍受，我看是不断变化的。 然后203 发表于 2014-1-25 11:08 static/image/common/back.gif
贫富分化天经地义，只要社会经济整体前进就没太大问题。
我个人的观察，强化技能培训，增加个人就业机会是 ...
教会了徒弟饿死了师傅 人在江湖 发表于 2014-1-26 14:33 static/image/common/back.gif
无解。尤其在生存技能进一步精细化之后。
往前推100年，底层的人民肯吃苦，码头背大包，黄包车多跑几趟，也 ...
沃尔玛是啥意思啊
页:
[1]
2