2021年经济学人 “贪婪的工作”会导致性别收入差距吗？(2)

（单词翻译）

Even if the distribution of women's occupations matched that of men—"if women were the doctors and men were the nurses"—she calculates that at most a third of the pay gap would disappear.

即使女性的职业分布与男性相同——“如果女的当医生、男的当护士”——她计算出至多只能减少三分之一的工资差距。

The most important cause is that women curtail¹ their careers as a part of a rational household response to labour markets, which generously reward anyone, male or female, who is willing to hold down what Ms Goldin calls a "greedy job".

最重要的原因是，女性缩减了自己的职业生涯，这是家庭对劳动力市场做出的一种理性反应的一部分。这个市场慷慨地奖励任何愿意坚守戈尔丁所说的“贪婪的工作”的人，无论男女。

These are roles, such as those in law, accountancy and finance, that demand long and unpredictable hours.

这些领域，比如法律、会计和金融行业的工作，需要很长且不可预测的工作时间。

Parents need somebody to be on-call at home in case a child falls ill and needs picking up from school, or needs cheering on at a concert or football match.

父母中需要有一个人在家里随叫随到，准备着孩子生病需要从学校接回，或是需要到音乐会或足球比赛上为孩子加油鼓劲。

That is incompatible² with a greedy job, which requires being available for last-minute demands from a client or boss.

这和贪婪地索取精力的工作无法兼容，因为这种工作要随时待命，满足客户或老板的紧急需求。

No one person can do both.

没有一个人能同时做到这两点。

The rational response is for one parent to specialise in lucrative³ greedy work, and for the other—typically the mother—to prioritise the children.

理性的反应是，父母中的一方专门从事有利可图的贪婪工作，而另一位家长——通常是母亲优先照顾孩子。

Ms Goldin writes that "couple equity⁴ has been, and will continue to be, jettisoned⁵ for increased family income."

戈尔丁女士写道，“为了增加家庭收入，夫妻平等被舍弃了，而且以后仍将如此。

A gender⁶ pay gap resulting primarily from the choices of households is a thorny⁷ problem for liberals who prize freedom of choice.

对于崇尚自由选择的自由主义者来说，主要由家庭选择造成的性别收入差距是个棘手的问题。

It is also tricky⁸ territory for economists¹⁰, who often emphasise¹¹ the "revealed preference" of those they study, and the resulting efficiency of market outcomes.

对经济学家来说，这也是一个棘手的领域，他们经常强调研究对象的“显示性偏好”，以及由此带来的市场效率。

True to her membership of the Chicago school of conservative-leaning economists, Ms Goldin does not offer the confident prescriptions¹² for the expansion of government that could have easily followed her compelling diagnosis¹³ of the problem.

戈尔丁的态度符合她所属的倾向保守的芝加哥学派，在对这个问题做出令人信服的诊断后，却并没有自信地指出需要扩大政府干预这一原本已是顺理成章的方案。

Some parts of her book suggest she supports more subsidies¹⁴ for child care, like those proposed by President Joe Biden.

书中部分内容流露出她支持对儿童保育提供更多补贴，就像美国总统拜登主张的那样。

But speaking to The Economist⁹ she was more circumspect¹⁵, pointing out that among Mr Biden's proposals she would prioritise cash transfers to parents (a policy that makes no attempt to change households’ choices).

但在接受本刊采访时，她显得更为谨慎，指出在拜登的主张里，她会优先选择向父母提供现金援助（这项政策无意改变家庭的选择）。

The book is about "what happened and why", she says, rather than solutions.

她说，这本书是关于“发生了什么以及为什么发生”，而不是解决方案。

Another theme of the book, however, is just how much progress for women is a result of technological¹⁶ change and innovation.

不过，这本书的另一个主题是，女性的进步在多大程度上是技术变革和创新的结果。

Could similar forces disrupt greediness?

类似的力量会破坏工作的贪婪程度吗？

For some jobs it is hard to see how; little can stop the self-employed pouring hours into their businesses, say.

对于某些工作来说这难以想象，比如没有什么能阻止个体经营者在自己的事业上投入大量时间。

But firms have an incentive¹⁷ to make jobs less greedy, because hiring and promoting mothers means drawing from a bigger pool of talent.

但是企业有动力让工作变得不那么贪婪，因为雇用母亲、给她们升职意味着从更大的人才库中吸取人才。

Ms Goldin points to pharmacy¹⁸ as an example of an industry that has made the transition.

戈尔丁女士指出，制药业是一个已经实现转型的例子。

Many pharmacists used to be self-employed, with customers expecting personal service.

许多药剂师过去都是个体户，因为顾客希望得到个人化的服务。

But computers and consolidation¹⁹ have led to pharmacists becoming more substitutable for each other, making the job less greedy without a loss of status or pay.

但计算机和业内整合让药剂师工作变得具有可替代性，使这份工作变得不那么贪婪，同时也不会失去地位或工资。

Perhaps remote work or artificial intelligence will do the same for other professions.

也许远程工作或人工智能对其他职业也会起到同样的作用。

Like a radical²⁰, Ms Goldin has identified a structural²¹ feature of the economy: "It isn’t you, it's the system," she reassures²² the reader.

戈尔丁像一个激进分子那样，指出了经济的一个结构性特征。“不是你的问题，而是体制的问题，”她向读者保证。

But she has the liberal's hesitancy about disrupting a system that is built on choice.

但她和自由主义者一样，对于颠覆一个建立在选择之上的体制仍犹豫不决。