美国梦的囚徒困境 [美国媒体]

Prisoners of the American Dream

美国梦的囚徒困境



With inequality increasing, many around the world might assume that Americans would want to close the income gap by instituting a more progressive system of redistribution. But the opposite is true: Americans’ perceptions of privilege, opportunity, and social mobility contrast markedly with views elsewhere.

随着不平等现象加剧，世界各地很多人也许认为美国人会希望通过建立一个更先进的分配制度缩小贫富差距。但是事实正相反：美国人对特权，机遇以及社会流动性的看法与其他地方的人截然不同。

CAMBRIDGE – Given worsening economic inequality in the United States, many observers might assume that Americans would want to reduce income differences by instituting a more progressive tax system. That assumption would be wrong because, in December, the US Congress passed a sweeping tax bill that will, at least in the short term, disproportionately benefit higher-income households.

剑桥——考虑到美国日益恶化的收入分配不均问题，很多观察者预计美国人会通过建立一个更进步的税收制度以减少收入差距。这个才想错了，因为12月美国国会通过了一项全面税收法案，该法案短期内会给高收入家庭带来不恰当的收益。

Despite their country’s mounting income gap, Americans’ support for redistribution has, according to the General Social Survey, remained flat for decades. Perhaps John Steinbeck got it right when he supposedly said that, “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
For those who believe that a society should offer its members equal opportunity, and that anyone who works hard can climb higher on the socioeconomic ladder, redistribution is unnecessary and unfair. After all, equal opportunists argue, if everyone begins at the same starting point, a bad outcome must be due to an individual’s own missteps.

尽管美国收入差距日益失衡，但综合社会调查数据显示数十年来支持改革的美国人数没有变化。也许约翰斯坦贝克（ John Steinbeck）的观点有一定代表性，其声称“社会主义从未扎根于美国，因为穷人们并不认为自己是受剥削的无产阶级，而是暂时陷入困境的百万富翁。”
对于那些坚信社会应为每个成员提供平等机会以及相信努力工作就能爬上更高社会台阶的人来说，收入再分配既没有必要也不公平。毕竟机会均等主义者认为，如果每个人站在同一个起点开始奋斗，肯定是个人犯了一连串错误才会获得不满意的结果。

This view approximates that of a majority of Americans. According to the World Values Survey, 70% of Americans believe that the poor can make it out of poverty on their own. This contrasts sharply with attitudes in Europe, where only 35% believe the same thing. Put another way, most Europeans consider the poor unfortunate, while most Americans consider them indolent. This may be one reason why European countries support more generous – and costlier – welfare transfers than the US.

这种观点基本上得到了大多数美国人的支持。世界价值观调查显示，70%的美国人相信穷人受穷是自作自受。这与欧洲形成了鲜明对比，欧洲只有大约35%的人持有类似观点。换句话说u，大多数欧洲人认为穷人很不幸应受到同情，而美国人认为他们是懒惰致贫。这大概也是为什么欧洲国家比美国更慷慨，更乐于进行财富转移再分配。

Americans have deep-seated, optimistic views about social mobility, opinions that are rooted in US history and bolstered by narratives of rags-to-riches immigrants. But today, Americans’ beliefs about social mobility are based more on myth than on fact.

拥有将早期艰苦移民经历深深植入历史记忆的美国人对社会稳定拥有非同一般的乐观积极态度。但现如今美国人对社会稳定的信心更多的基于迷信而不是事实。

According to survey research that colleagues and I recently conducted and analyzed, Americans estimate that among children in the lowest income bracket, 12% will make it to the top bracket by the time they retire. Americans also believe that with hard work, only 22% of children in poverty today will remain there as adults.

同事以及我自身归纳总结得出的调查结论显示，美国人预计只有12%的低收入阶层儿童会在退休时将自身社会地位提高到顶点。美国人也认为经过辛勤工作，只有22%的贫困儿童成年时依旧贫困。

The actual numbers are 8% and 33%, respectively. In other words, Americans overestimate upward social mobility and underestimate the likelihood of remaining stuck in poverty for generations. They also believe that if everyone worked hard, the American Dream of self-made success would hew closer to reality.

但实际数字分别是8%和33%。换句话说，美国人高估了自己的社会流动性，低估了贫困代代沿袭的可能性。他们也相信如果每个人都努力工作，美国梦自我实现的价值观会更贴近现实。

European respondents are more pessimistic about mobility: unlike Americans, they overestimate the odds of remaining in poverty. For example, French, Italian, and British respondents said, respectively, that 35%, 34%, and 38% of low-income children will remain poor, when the reality is that 29%, 27%, and 31% will.

欧洲人对社会流动性则持有更消极的看法：不像美国，他们高估了自身无法脱贫的可能性。例如，法国，意大利以及英国人各自认同通过工作能提高社会地位的比例为35%，34%和38%。而各自儿童成年后依旧贫困的比例为29%，27%和31%。

Views about social mobility are not uniform across the political spectrum or across geographic regions. In both the US and Europe, for example, people who call themselves “conservative” on matters of economic policy believe that there are equal opportunities for all children, and that the free-market economy in their country is fair.

关于社会流动性的看法在不同政治派别和地理区域间并不一致。例如美国和欧洲宣称在经济政策上持有保守态度的人相信所有儿童都有平等的机会，而他们国家是平等的自由市场经济体制。

The opposite holds true for those who call themselves economically “liberal.” These people favor government intervention, because they believe that, left to their own devices, markets will not ensure fairness, and may even generate more inequality.

持有相反意见的人自称自由派。这些人偏好政府介入市场经济，因为他们相信没有政府的截图市场无法确保公平，甚至会产生更多不平等。

An even more striking pattern is that Americans are overly optimistic about social mobility in parts of the country where actual mobility is low – including the southeastern states of Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. In these states, respondents believe that mobility is more than two times greater than it is. By contrast, respondents underestimate social mobility in northern states – including Vermont, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington – where it is higher.

一个更引人注目的现象是在乔治亚洲东南部，亚拉巴马州，弗吉尼亚州，北卡莱罗纳州以及南加州等美国实际流动性较低的地区，那里的美国人对社会流动性过于乐观。这些州的人相信社会实际流动性表明上的两倍。与此相反的是，他们低估了北部州的流动性——包括佛蒙特州，蒙大拿州，北达科他州，南达科他州以及华盛顿，这些地方的流动性比预计的高。

As part of our study, we shared data on social stratification in Europe and America with our participants. We found that self-identified liberals and conservatives interpreted this information differently. When shown pessimistic information about mobility, for example, liberals became even more supportive of redistributive policies, such as public education and universal health care.

作为研究的一部分，我们与欧洲以及美国同行分享了一些社会分层状况的数据。我们发现自认为的自由派和保守派很好的解释了这些现象。例如，当看到一些关于流动性的悲观消息时，自由派会变得更支持在大众教育和医疗保健领域进行再分配。

Conservatives, by contrast, remained unmoved. While they acknowledged that low social mobility is economically limiting, they remained as averse to government intervention and redistribution as they were before we shared the data with them.

相反的是保守派不为所动。当他们得知低流动性限制了经济发展，他们一如之前依旧抗拒政府介入和再分配。

Part of the reason for conservatives’ reaction, I believe, is mistrust. Many conservatives hold government in deep disdain; only 17% of conservative voters in the US and Europe say they can trust their country’s political leaders. The share of conservatives with an overall negative view of government was 80%; among liberals, it was closer to 50%. Moreover, a high percentage of conservatives say the best way to reduce inequality is to lower taxes on businesses and people.

我认为保守派如此反映的部分原因是不信任。很多保守派鄙视政府：只有17%的美欧保守派表示他们相信本国领导人。对政府持有负面观点的保守派占到了80%；而在自由派中，这一比例也有50%。此外，很高比例的保守派声称减轻收入不平等问题最有效的措施就是给商人和大众减税。

But suspicion of government may also stem from a belief that political systems are rigged, and that politicians can’t or won’t improve things because they have become “captured” by entrenched interests, mired in legislative stalemate, or stymied by bureaucracy. In short, when conservatives learn that social mobility is lower than they thought, they believe government is the problem, not the solution. As J.D. Vance noted in his 2016 memoir Hillbilly Elegy, many on the American right now believe that “it’s not your fault that you’re a loser; it’s the government’s fault.”

但对政府的怀疑也许来源于坚信政府受到系统性操纵，政客们也无力改变现实，因为他们已经被根深蒂固的利益集团操纵了，或陷入了立法僵局和官僚主义。简而言之，但保守派了解到流动性低于他们预计时，他们相信政府才是问题而不是去寻找解决方法。如J·D·万斯在2016年回忆录“Hillbilly Elegy”中所指出的那样，许多美国人现在都认为“如果你是个失败者，一切不是你的错而是政府的错。”

We may be so polarized in the US and Europe that, even after receiving the same information, we respond in opposite ways. The left will want more government, and the right will want less. Clearly, reality is not so neat. But what is clear is that people’s views about social mobility have as much to do with ideology and geography as with their circumstances.

对美国和欧洲的研究也许也陷入了极端，以至于就算获得了这么多数据，我们依旧得出了截然不同的结论。左翼呼吁政府更多介入经济，右翼则相反。很明显，现实没那么简单。但至少有一点很清楚，人们对社会流动性的看法受到个人状况，意识形态以及地理条件的限制。

Stefanie Stantcheva is an associate professor of economics at Harvard University.

斯坦切娃，哈佛大学经济学副教授。