The Economist explains
Why American wage growth is so lousy
為什麼美國人的工資才漲了這麼一點
Apr 13th 2015, 18:19 by C.W. of The Economist
譯者：老狒狒
AMERICA'S unemployment rate is 5.5%. By historical standards, that is low. It is also falling rapidly: unemployment is down more than a percentage point from a year ago. Economic theory suggests that in such circumstances, workers should begin to enjoy healthier pay rises. Low unemployment means that employers have to try harder to find new workers, while existing workers can threaten to move elsewhere. As a result, workers should be able to demand higher wages. Yet firms in America seem not to have gotten the message. Inflation-adjusted wages for typical workers are stagnant. In fact, they have barely grown in the last five years; average hourly earnings rose 2% year-on-year in February of 2015: about the same as in February of 2010. Why hasn't America's falling unemployment translated into faster wage growth?
當前，美國的失業率為5.5%。根據歷史標準，這是低的。而且還在快速下降：當前的失業率比一年前低了1個百分點以上。經濟理論認為，在這種情況下，工人應當開始享受更為健康的工資上漲。低失業率意味著用工方必需更加努力，才能找到新的工人。與此同時，現有的工人可以威脅轉到別的地方去。其結果是，工人應當能夠要求更高的工資。然而，美國的企業似乎沒有得到這個信息。按照通脹調整後，普通工人的工資停滯不前。實際上，工資在過去5年中幾乎就沒有漲過；2015年2月，每小時平均收入同比上漲了2％：與2010年基本持平。那麼，為什麼美國不斷下降的失業率沒有轉化為更快的工資增長呢？
To understand current patterns one first has to remember how American firms behaved during the 2007-09 recession. At that time, they were desperate to cut costs. They would like to have foisted pay cuts on their staff. But cutting pay is harder than it sounds (just imagine what would happen to workplace morale if your boss tried to cut everyone's pay by 10% overnight). Instead, employers reacted to the deep downturn by firing as many workers as they dared, beginning with the least productive. Better workers, meanwhile, were squeezed in order to boost their productivity, so as to manage too-high wage rates without having to lay off the cream of the payroll. As conditions improved after the recession ended, firms' prior response left them with a wage hangover. Rather than continue to pump workers for extra productivity, firms preferred to return to more normal management conditions, and to let too-high wages adjust over time: 「pent-up」 wage cuts have been achieved simply by not granting raises. Wages, in other words, are not rising by more because in many cases they are already too high.
為了理解當前的模式，有必要回憶一下美國企業在2007－2009年衰退中的表現。當時，它們曾不顧一切地去降低成本它們本想強行削減職工的工資。但是，削減工資這種事比聽上去要難得多（只要設想一下：如果老闆企圖在一夜之間把每個人的工資都降低10％，工廠的士氣發生什麼，就會知道了這有多難了）。相反，用工方通過儘可能多的解僱工人的方式應對了衰退，首先被解僱的是生產力最低的工人。與此同時，為了提高生產力，較好的工人受到了擠壓，因而使得企業可以在不削減工資的情況下維持過高的工資率。衰退結束後，隨著條件的改善，企業的第一反應就是將職工的工資放置不動。與其為了額外的生產力而繼續給工人增加工資，企業更傾向於回歸更正常的管理情況，任由過高的工資隨著時間而調整：「被壓抑的」工資削減已經通過沒有保證提高工資這種方式簡單地得到了實現。也就是說，工資之所以沒有再上漲，是因為在許多情況下，工資早已太高了。
Yet there is also evidence that many workers are not demanding high wages. Oddly, that may be down to a reform to America's unemployment-insurance scheme taken at the end of 2013, which slashed the maximum time for which Americans could draw unemployment benefits. About 1.3m Americans were affected immediately. With nothing to fall back on, the wage expectations for many unemployed people fell. In economic parlance their "reservation wage"—or the threshold pay rate needed to coax them into and keep them in employment—declined precipitously. To take advantage of the growing pool of cheap workers, employers in certain sectors went on a hiring binge. Indeed, a big chunk of the 3m extra jobs created during 2014 were in low-wage sectors.
然而，還存在著許多工人沒有要求提高工資的證據。奇怪的是，這或許可以被歸結為在2013年年底對美國失業保險項目的一次改革，這次改革大大地降低了美國人能夠領取失業救濟的最長時間。大約130萬美國人受到了直接的影響。由於無以求助，許多失業者的工資預期就降了下來。用經濟學術語來說，他們的「保留工資」——即引誘他們並讓他們處於就業狀態所需要的門檻工資率——突然間大幅降低了。某些部門的用工方繼續一場僱傭工人的盛宴，享盡了廉價工人數量日漸增加的好處。事實上，在2014年創造的300萬個額外工作的大部分都在低工資部門。
The biggest reason for sluggish wages, however, remains what it has been for most of recent history: America's sickly labour market. Unemployment is low, but other measures of labour-market 「slack」 paint a much bleaker picture. The number of workers who work part-time but would rather be full-time (so-called 「part-time for economic reasons」) is still much higher than before the recession hit. This is important: a recent paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that even after accounting for other measures of unemployment, the number of workers counted as 「part-time for economic reasons」 exerts a very strong effect on wage growth. (That is probably because such workers would rather push their employers for more hours than for higher pay). Policymakers should not be fooled by the unemployment rate. The American labour market is much more robust than it was, but it is a long way from full health. It will take many more months of strong job growth to generate rapid and sustained growth in pay.
然而，工資停滯不前的最大原因仍舊是近年來主要問題：美國病態的勞動力市場。失業率處於地位，但是其他衡量勞動力市場「鬆弛」的標準描繪出的卻是一幅非常黯淡的圖景。從事兼職但寧願有份全職工作（即所謂的「因為經濟原因而兼職）的工人人數仍然比衰退之前高很多。這一點很重要：芝加哥聯邦儲備銀行的一份最新報告發現，即便是算上其他的失業標準，被歸入「為經濟原因而兼職」的工人的數量對工資增長施加了一種很強烈的影響（這可能是因為，這些工人寧願推動用工方增加工作時間而不是提高工資）。決策者不應當被失業率欺騙。同以前相比，現在的美國勞動力市場非常強勁，但是這種強勁離著完全健康還有很長的一段距離。產生快速且持續的工資增長將需要更長時間的強勁的工作增長。