【10.07.29 经济学家】我们中国工人有力量
【中文标题】我们中国工人有力量【原文标题】The rising power of the Chinese worker
【登载媒体】经济学家
【原文链接】http://www.economist.com/node/16693333?story_id=16693333
在中国的工厂里，工人的报酬随着抗议行为的增多而持续上涨，这对中国、对世界经济都是一件好事。
廉价劳动力成就了中国的经济奇迹，相比于美国和德国的竞争对手，中国的生产型工人辛苦工作，仅获得了产品成本中微不足道的一小部分。中国的新兴城市中有1.3亿“流动人口”，去年平均每人每月拿到手1348元人民币。仅折合197美元，比美国人平均月工资的二十分之一稍微多一点，但是这已经比去年增长了17％。随着中国经济复苏，工资水平也逐渐上涨。在出口型工厂聚集的沿海城市，老板们缺少工人，而工人缺少耐心。一系列的罢工事件就像一把匕首刺向世界工厂的心脏。
中国工人的底气来源于2008年生效的一部新劳动法，除此之外还有更基本的供求关系原则。工厂越来越难找到合适的工人，也越来越难留住这些人。这个国家的农村地区还有大约7000万潜在的农民工，其它农村人或许更希望在那些越来越多、离家比较近的内地工厂中工作。但是，即使在中国，强壮有力、技术过硬的工人来源也并不是无限的。明年，15到29岁的人口数量将会锐减。而且，尽管工人的工资在上升，但是他们的待遇诉求上升得更快。他们似乎越来越不愿意毫无怨言地“吃苦”。
为何撤回打手？
实际上，中国工人从不像那些讽刺漫画中那么温顺，即使如此，近期发生的罢工事件频率也是前所未见的（中国南方省份广东在48天里发生了36起罢工事件）。工人罢工的对象都是跨国公司。
中国执政党共产党曾经迅速地镇压了前几次工人暴动事件，但是这一次，他们的反应相对比较平静。政府控制的工会里的打手殴打了一些本田工厂的工人，但是他们很快就被撤走了。这些罢工事件在政府控制的媒体中都被广泛、简洁地报道，罢工领头人到现在为止也没有在深更半夜听到敲门声。
这说明个三个问题。第一，中国不愿意对容易招惹国际媒体关注的大品牌公司中的工人下重手。第二，对于恐吓外国公司的行为，中国越来越淡化处理。实际上，如果工人不满意，政府还是更愿意责备外国老板，而不是本地企业家。金融危机之后，党正确地得出一个结论：外国投资者比中国更需要对方。最重要的是第三点，政府认为，工人们的这些叛逆行为与自己宣称的“经济再平衡”目标一致。这是毫无疑问的。中国的经济过于依赖投资，本土消费没有起到应有的作用。主要原因在于工人们从全国大蛋糕上分得的那一份实在少得可怜：从1990年的61％降到2007年的53％（相当于美国的三分之二）。以牺牲利益为代价提高工人的工资，可以让他们更好地享受自己劳动的果实。
中国的高工资也可以让西方受益。这个观点似乎有些奇怪，因为富裕的国家是相当依赖中国的廉价劳动力的：据估算，与中国的贸易可以让每个美国家庭每年节省1000美元，这都应当归功于商店中的廉价商品、商业行为中廉价的投入，以及在市场中创造出更激烈的竞争环境。如果中国的廉价劳动力为全球劳动力市场再补充四分之一，以进一步降低西方产品的价格，那么中国的高工资或许会开始输出通货膨胀。而且，从全球的经济角度来看，劳动力与土地和石油一样，也是一种资源。中国的劳动力规模缩减就像榨干沙特阿拉伯的油井一样，对我们没有好处。
未来的全球消费者
但是在金融危机之后，事情发生了变化，通货紧缩比通货膨胀造成了更大的威胁。仅在经合组织中就有4700万失业的工人，劳动力不再是制约全球经济发展的因素。世界需要的是消费群体，而不是劳动群体。中国的高工资会对美国人一直耿耿于怀的汇率问题产生类似的影响，中国的贸易顺差将会缩减，内部消费会有所提升。这还会让那些无所事事的外国公司和工人们忙碌起来。中国消费如果增加20％，美国的出口额就会增长250亿美元，这会让20万美国人找到工作。
而且，更多的消费会让世界经济回归充分就业的状态。到那时，外国公司和消费者或许会怀念廉价的中国沿海地区的工人，是他们曾经让产品的利润那么高、价格那么低。但是实际上，在中国内陆和类似印度这样的地方，还是可以找到廉价劳动力的。而且中国的工资水平其实并不是唯一的决定性因素，中国工人的生产率同样重要。中国的劳动力成本在1995年之后番了三倍，但是工人的平均产出量番了五倍。
在低级别劳动力日趋枯竭的情况下，中国为了延续伟业，就必须增加技术工人的数量。这需要一支稳定的工人队伍，他们必须与雇主相处足够长的时间，以便让雇主值得为其投入。因此，政府需要放松其内部护照制度，也就是所谓的户口，这个制度曾经让农民工无法在与家乡的亲人不分离的情况下在城市里扎根生活。有了充足的劳动力，政府就有了一批对城市当局没有过多要求的流动人群，他们不会在经济状况不良时迅速地回到自己的家乡。在劳动力市场紧缩的条件下要继续保持高增长，中国的流动人口应该找地方扎根了。
已故的剑桥经济学家Joan Robinson曾写道：“被资本主义剥削的痛苦比不上根本不受剥削的痛苦。”她是受东南亚地区失业现象的启发，在1962年写下这句俏皮话的。从那时开始，资本主义一直忙于“剥削”那里，连同其北方巨型的邻居，同时也增加了他们的收益。现在，资本主义该向他们投资了。
原文：
In China’s factories, pay and protest are on the rise. That is good for China, and for the world economy
CHEAP labour has built China’s economic miracle. Its manufacturing workers toil for a small fraction of the cost of their American or German competitors. At the bottom of the heap, a “floating population” of about 130m migrants work in China’s boomtowns, taking home 1,348 yuan a month on average last year. That is a mere $197, little more than one-twentieth of the average monthly wage in America. But it is 17% more than the year before. As China’s economy has bounced back, wages have followed suit. On the coasts, where its exporting factories are clustered, bosses are short of workers, and workers short of patience. A spate of strikes has thrown a spanner into the workshop of the world.
The hands of China’s workers have been strengthened by a new labour law, introduced in 2008, and by the more fundamental laws of demand and supply (see article). Workers are becoming harder to find and to keep. The country’s villages still contain perhaps 70m potential migrants. Other rural folk might be willing to work closer to home in the growing number of factories moving inland. But the supply of strong backs and nimble fingers is not infinite, even in China. The number of 15- to 29-year-olds will fall sharply from next year. And although their wages are increasing, their aspirations are rising even faster. They seem less willing to “eat bitterness”, as the Chinese put it, without complaint.
Why the goons were called off
In truth, Chinese workers were never as docile as the popular caricature suggested. But the recent strikes have been unusual in their frequency (Guangdong province on China’s south coast suffered at least 36 strikes in the space of 48 days), their longevity and their targets: foreign multinationals.
China’s ruling Communist Party has swiftly quashed previous bouts of labour unrest. This one drew a more relaxed reaction. Goons from the government-controlled trade union roughed up some Honda strikers, but they were quickly called off. The strikes were widely, if briefly, covered in the state-supervised press. And the ringleaders have not so far heard any midnight knocks at the door.
This suggests three things. First, China is reluctant to get heavy-handed with workers in big-brand firms that attract global media attention. But, second, China is becoming more relaxed about spooking foreign investors. Indeed, if workers are upset, better that they blame foreign bosses than local ones. In the wake of the financial crisis, the party has concluded, correctly, that foreign investors need China more than it needs them. Third, and most important, the government may believe that the new bolshiness of its workers is in keeping with its professed aim of “rebalancing” the economy. And it would be right. China’s economy relies too much on investment and too little on consumer spending. That is mostly because workers get such a small slice of the national cake: 53% in 2007, down from 61% in 1990 (and compared with about two-thirds in America). Letting wages rise at the expense of profits would allow workers to enjoy more of the fruits of their labour.
Higher Chinese wages would also be good for the West. This may seem odd, given how much the rich world has come to rely on cheap Chinese labour: by one estimate, trade with China has added $1,000 a year to the pockets of every American household, thanks to cheaper goods in the country’s stores, cheaper inputs for its businesses and stiffer competition in its markets. Just as expanding the global labour force by a quarter through the addition of cheap Chinese workers helped to keep prices down in the West, so higher Chinese wages might start to export inflation. Furthermore, from the point of view of the global economy, labour is a resource, like land or oil. It would not normally benefit from the dwindling of China’s reserves of labour any more than from the drying up of Saudi wells.
Tomorrow’s global consumers
But in the wake of the financial crisis, things are different. Deflation is now a bigger threat than inflation. And with 47m workers unemployed in the OECD alone, labour is not holding back the global economy. What the world lacks is willing customers, not willing workers. Higher Chinese wages will have a similar effect to the stronger exchange rate that America has been calling for, shrinking China’s trade surplus and boosting its spending. This will help foreign companies and the workers they have idled. A 20% rise in Chinese consumption might well lead to an extra $25 billion of American exports. That could create over 200,000 American jobs.
Eventually, this extra spending will help the world economy return to full employment. At that point, foreign companies and consumers may miss China’s cheap coastal workers, who kept profits high and prices low. But there will still be cheap labour to be found inland and in places like India. And Chinese wages were anyway only half the story. The other half was Chinese productivity. Chinese labour costs tripled in the decade after 1995, but output per worker quintupled.
To repeat that feat, as it runs dry of crude labour, China will have to increase its supply of skilled workers. That will require a stable workforce, which stays with its employers long enough to be worth investing in. For that the government will need to relax further its system of internal passports, or hukou, which prevent migrant workers from settling formally in the city without losing their family plot back home. When labour was abundant, it suited the government to have a floating population that made few demands on urban authorities and drifted back to the family farm whenever hardship beckoned. But to maintain fast growth as the labour market tightens, China’s floating population will have to drop anchor.
As the late Joan Robinson, a Cambridge economist, once wrote, “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all”. Her quip, written in 1962, was inspired by underemployment in South-East Asia. Since then, capital has busily “exploited” workers in that region and its giant northern neighbour, much to their benefit. Now it is time for capital to invest in them. 还是比较深刻的 我觉得北欧才是社会主义，例如斯德哥尔摩的出租车司机和大学教授工资一样多，就是辛苦一些而已。在那里只要你努力就一定可以体面地生存，什么时间国内才能这样？ 除非死个10亿人我看就差不多把。。。恩恩。。。 其实中国工人很可悲，中国产品的大部分利润被外商企业拿走，工人拿到的更少，出口到国外是最优质的产品，留给自己用的是次等品 为什么我不能加分了？ 有的是失去廉价劳动力的失落！ optimus_prime 发表于 2010-8-15 20:35 static/image/common/back.gif
我觉得北欧才是社会主义，例如斯德哥尔摩的出租车司机和大学教授工资一样多，就是辛苦一些而已。在那里只要 ...
等到国内人均创造财富跟北欧一样时。
页:
[1]