Once in a generation, an automation scare triggers a bout of enthusiasm for a universal basic income — a payment made to all citizens regardless of work, wealth or their social contribution. Today’s discussion of the merits of UBI echoes similar debates in the 1960s and 1990s. But the appeal of this palliative for the replacement of humans by machines is misplaced.
这是二三十年出现一次的事情，对自动化的恐慌使得“全民基本收入”(universal basic income)之说大热。所谓全民基本收入，是发钱给全体人民，而不论他们的工作、财富或社会贡献。今天围绕全民基本收入的优点展开的讨论，与上世纪60年代和90年代分别出现过的两场讨论相似。这只能是应对机器取代人类问题的权宜之计，却产生了不该有的吸引力。
The starting point for thinking about how a government should respond to an intense wave of creative destruction in the economy is an acknowledgment that previous policy responses have failed. Governments did not have anything to offer in response to the deindustrialisation (thanks to automation) of large areas, and the loss of millions of jobs. People found that their governments had breached the implicit social contract of the postwar welfare state.思考政府该如何应对经济中汹涌的创造性破坏浪潮，首先要承认以前的政策是失败的。面对大片地区的去工业化（拜自动化所赐）以及就业大量减少，政府无计可施。人们发现，政府已违背了战后关于福利国家的不成文的社会契约。However significant the scale of the next wave of automation turns out to be, it would be worth avoiding making the same mistakes again. So it is not surprising the idea of UBI has been revived. But it is hard to see why it would do better at addressing the economic and social costs of large-scale redundancy than the previous policy of making payments to those who lost their jobs. The problem is a hole torn in the fabric of a local or regional economy and society; giving people money is a temporary patch.无论下一波自动化浪潮最终会形成多大的规模，避免再犯同样的错误是值得的。因此，人们重提全民基本收入这个概念也就不足为奇。但很难看出为什么在应对大规模裁员造成的经济和社会成本方面，全民基本收入就优于原来发放失业救济金的政策。我们面临的问题就像是在地方或区域性的经济和社会这块布上撕开的一个洞，而给老百姓钱只能是个临时补丁。Part of the answer must be the simpler one of giving people jobs. If the state is going to have to spend money, it ought to do so through a jobs guarantee, so the people affected have an alternative to the dole. Even if this only pays slightly more, it sustains the benefits of continuing attachment to the job market.解决途径之一当然是选择一种更为简单的办法：给人们工作。如果国家怎么样都要花钱，就该把钱花到提供工作保障上，这样受到影响的人就有了领失业救济金之外的选择。这样做只会多花一点钱，但好处是让人不脱离就业市场。Another part of the policy mix is tackling the wider impact of this kind of economic shock on local areas. The decline of the “left behind” regions of developed economies has snowballed as shops close, people who can move away leave, the quality of schools and public services deteriorates, and infrastructure investment gets low priority because the economic returns to projects look underwhelming.政策组合的另一部分，是着手解决这种经济冲击对当地的更广泛影响。在发达经济体中“落后”地区的衰落不断加剧，商店关门，有能力离开的人走了，学校和公共服务的质量下降，基建投资因经济效益欠佳而不受重视。So more important that UBI — whose focus is the individual — is a commitment to universal basic service, with a focus on the community or the natural economic region. If teachers or nurses do not want to move to Detroit and West Virginia, or Burnley and Grimsby, then there should be a pay premium large enough to overcome their reluctance. And the quality of service in local transport networks should be as good in declining as in wealthy areas.因此，比全民基本收入——其核心是个体——更重要的是提供全民基本服务(universal basic service)的承诺，把重点放在社区或自然经济区域。如果教师或护士不愿搬到底特律或西弗吉尼亚，伯恩利或格里姆斯比，那么应该提供更高的薪酬，优渥到足以让他们克服自己的不情愿。而且，不管是富裕地区还是衰落地区，地方交通网络的服务质量要一样好。The UK’s welfare state, like others in the west, was the product of a determination to avoid a repeat of the catastrophe of the Depression and a political imperative to reward the millions of working people who had contributed to the war effort. But while the concept of society’s mutual insurance against large-scale shocks outside the control of the individual is surely right, the insurance is ineffective if it ignores the context in which individuals find themselves. If the robots come for millions of jobs, it will hardly matter that the state provides everyone with a basic income if there is none of the civic fabric of a thriving economy.与西方其他国家一样，英国成为一个福利国家，既是出于避免大萧条那样的灾难重演的决心，也出于奖励曾为战争作出贡献的数百万工作者的政治必要。但是，虽然以社会共同保障来应对超出个人控制的大规模冲击这一概念肯定是正确的，但如果忽视提供这种保障的背景是个体有实现自我的需要，那么这种保障就是无效的。如果机器人将抢走数百万工作，就算国家给所有人发放基本收入，却缺乏繁荣的经济中所应有的市政体系，那也是无济于事。To focus on UBI is to look at the next wave of automation through too narrow a prism. One advocate of a version of a guaranteed income was Milton Friedman, who supported it in part because of its focus on the individual. This is exactly why it would be an inadequate response to a significant economic shock. No individual can deal with a major technological change in the structure of the economy.
着眼于全民基本收入，就是通过一个狭窄的棱镜来看待下一轮自动化。米尔顿?弗里德曼(Milton Friedman)曾提倡过一种保障性收入，他之所以支持这种政策，部分缘于它对个体的关注。而这恰是为什么这种政策不足以应对重大经济冲击的原因。没有个体能应对经济结构中的重大技术变革。A guaranteed income of ￡15,000 a year (or whatever the level might be) is a sticking plaster. If the robots really are coming, or perhaps even if they are not, governments should be thinking now about the investments they need to make and the services they need to provide, to everyone, to ensure a better policy response this time around.由政府向每人每年发放1.5万英镑的保障性收入（或随便多少）就像是贴膏药。如果机器人真的要来了，或即便它们还不来，政府也应该开始考虑需要作出哪些投资以及需要提供什么服务——面向所有人——以确保这次能有更好的应对政策。The writer is a professor of economics at the University of Manchester本文作者是曼彻斯特大学(University of Manchester)经济学教授