喬納森·拉索

The one common denominator1 of certain business owners？ They cannot find anyone to take over when they retire.

Many of us were riveted by the Roys and their myriad2 dysfunctional3 dramas on HBOs hit series Succession. While we eagerly await season three of the behind-the-scenes media empire drama， a real crisis is unfolding in the American economy. I know this from firsthand experience， but also from recent data and policy issues making business news headlines.

I have a country house. Toys， too—boats， cars， a motor scooter4. Over several decades， these objects have fostered relationships with carpenters， masons， roofers， electricians （both land and marine）， painters， plumbers， auto mechanics， boat mechanics and landscapers.

The one common denominator of these business owners？ They cannot find anyone to take over when they retire. Almost all of them work alone or with labor that is not able to succeed them. Over the years， I have repeatedly asked why this is so.

The answers：

“Its too hard to find anyone interested in being a plumber.” （Fill in with “carpenter，” etc.）

“Way too expensive to train someone. Plus， I have to pay workers comp， social security， payroll tax and then they often quit in a year.”

“No one wants to do this trade for life anymore.”

“My teens would rather be TikTok micro-influencers.”

The local papers run ‘Help Wanted ads 52 weeks a year for marine mechanics， electricians， plumbers assistants and licensed heating technicians. These are all high-wage jobs; some of these skilled tradesmen make well over six figures.

Recently， several nonprofits joined forces with academia and the corporate world to study the situation. They found that 30 million low-wage workers （for example， at Walmart or McDonalds） have the ability to earn 70 percent more income if they had the right training， either in their current field or a new one.

One of the key findings was that some jobs currently requiring a college degree actually dont need one. Companies should “hire… based on skills rather than degrees as a matter of fairness and economic efficiency. For example， computer technicians often earn more than $75，000/year. This job should not require college.”

Bestselling author David Goodharts recent book， Head， Hand， Heart directly addresses the entire range of issues. He goes into societys biases against working in a trade5 by arguing that we wrongly prioritize and even idolize the wrong kind of work. According to him， theres more than equal value in working with your head （adjunct professor）， your hands （motorcycle mechanic） or your heart （cheesemaker）.

In his view， the problem is that society admires and rewards the quant currency trader who programs a path to riches by arbitraging6 the Turkish lira against the Canadian loonie7. How useful to society is that？ Why should that person live in Greenwich， Connecticut？

To some degree this mispricing of occupational status has been challenged by COVID-19. Clearly someone who can keep our lights on， computer functioning or home warm—not to mention take our blood oxygen—has been properly deemed more “essential” than， for example， a plastic surgeon who can tighten a neck fold.

Progress is slowly being made. The same study advocating for training to obtain higher-wage jobs， pointed out that foundations like Markle are working with companies including AT&T， Kaiser Permanente， Microsoft and? ? others on apprenticeship programs.

Congress is not unaware of this worker/job misalignment8. The House recently passed an amendment to the National Apprenticeship Act that streamlines cumbersome9 rules and incentivizes10 businesses to take on trainees. It awaits Senate action.

It would be smart to rethink how we view and train our workforce for another reason. The inequality gap needs to be narrowed. The chorus11 of economists and political commentators telling us this is the issue for our society grows by the day. Upping the skills of the workforce addresses that in a positive way. Few would deny that innovators and industry disruptors should be well compensated for building things like Teslas or platforms like Airbnb. But the people who keep civilization going should share in societys bounty12.

Regardless， it seems imperative for all of us to focus on this issue for another reason. Self- interest. If we cant keep our buildings， houses， cars， computers and recreational goods in working order， things will fall apart. We need to put people to work in living-wage jobs， jobs that eliminate the need for the government to subsidize food and health care as it does for so many recipients. Most importantly， we need to give millions of non-college bound young people a pathway to dignity and make them part of our productive society.

All of this is going to require a sea change. Perhaps it starts with perception—that the head， hand and heart are valuable. Then onto government， where， in places like Germany， apprenticeships are a core part of industrial policy. Lastly， it may be as simple as acknowledging and honoring the value that craftspeople and tradespeople bring to our lives.

某些企業(yè)主的共同特點(diǎn)是什么？他們退休后都找不到人來(lái)接替。

HBO的熱播劇《繼承》中的羅伊家族和他們之間種種離奇事件吸引了我們很多人。而就在我們急切地等待這部媒體帝國(guó)幕后大戲的第三季時(shí)，一場(chǎng)真正的危機(jī)正在美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)中上演。我是從自己的親身經(jīng)歷，以及最近的數(shù)據(jù)和商業(yè)新聞?lì)^條中的政策問(wèn)題了解到的。

我在鄉(xiāng)下有一棟房子。也有各種供消遣的玩意兒，比如船、汽車和摩托車。幾十年來(lái)，因?yàn)檫@些物件，我與木匠、泥瓦匠、屋頂工人、（陸上和海上的）電工、油漆工、水管工、汽車機(jī)械師、船舶機(jī)械師和園林設(shè)計(jì)師等都有過(guò)交往。

這些企業(yè)主的共同特點(diǎn)是什么？他們退休后都找不到人來(lái)接替。他們幾乎所有人都是獨(dú)自工作，要么就是手下人無(wú)法接替他們。這么多年來(lái)，我反復(fù)問(wèn)為什么會(huì)這樣。

答案如下：

“找一個(gè)對(duì)當(dāng)水管工感興趣的人太難了?！?（“木匠”等工作也同樣如此。）

“培訓(xùn)一個(gè)人太貴了。此外，我還得給工人交補(bǔ)償保險(xiǎn)、社會(huì)保險(xiǎn)、工資稅，然后他們往往一般不到一年就辭職了。”

“不再有人愿意一輩子干這行了?！?/p>

“我的孩子們寧愿當(dāng)抖音的小網(wǎng)紅?！?/p>

當(dāng)?shù)貓?bào)紙一年到頭都在刊登“招工”廣告，招聘船舶機(jī)械師、電工、水管工助理以及有執(zhí)照的供暖技術(shù)人員。這些都是高薪工作;有些手藝精湛的技工掙到的錢甚至大大超過(guò)六位數(shù)。

最近，幾家非營(yíng)利組織與學(xué)術(shù)界和企業(yè)界聯(lián)手研究了這一情況。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，3000萬(wàn)名低收入工人（例如，在沃爾瑪或麥當(dāng)勞工作的人），如果在當(dāng)前領(lǐng)域或新領(lǐng)域接受了適當(dāng)?shù)呐嘤?xùn)，就有能力比目前多掙70%的收入。

研究中還有一個(gè)重要發(fā)現(xiàn)，即目前一些崗位要求有大學(xué)學(xué)歷而實(shí)際上并不需要。公司應(yīng)該“從公平和經(jīng)濟(jì)效率的角度考慮，根據(jù)技能而不是學(xué)歷來(lái)招聘。例如，計(jì)算機(jī)技術(shù)人員的年薪通常在7.5萬(wàn)美元以上，這份工作就不應(yīng)該要求有大學(xué)學(xué)歷”。

暢銷書作家戴維·古德哈特在新書《頭腦、雙手、心靈》中坦率地分析了所有問(wèn)題。他深入探討了社會(huì)對(duì)從事某一行當(dāng)?shù)钠?，認(rèn)為我們總是錯(cuò)誤地看重，甚至推崇不合適的工作類型。根據(jù)他的說(shuō)法，用頭腦（客座教授）、雙手（摩托車修理工）或者心靈（奶酪制造師）工作，價(jià)值完全同等。

在古德哈特看來(lái)，問(wèn)題在于社會(huì)推崇且獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)量化貨幣交易員這一行業(yè)，這些人通過(guò)在土耳其里拉和加拿大盧尼之間進(jìn)行套利來(lái)規(guī)劃自己的致富之路。這對(duì)社會(huì)能有多大用處？為什么那樣的人竟然可以住在康涅狄格州的格林威治？

這種對(duì)職業(yè)的錯(cuò)誤定價(jià)某種程度上受到了新冠疫情的挑戰(zhàn)。顯然，現(xiàn)在人們正確地認(rèn)為能讓我們的燈亮著，電腦運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)著，或者能讓我們家里溫暖的人要比什么能收緊頸部褶皺的整形醫(yī)生“必要”多了;就更不用說(shuō)為我們測(cè)血氧的人了。

情況正在慢慢得到改善。那項(xiàng)主張通過(guò)培訓(xùn)獲得高薪工作的研究指出：類似馬克爾這樣的基金會(huì)正在與美國(guó)電話電報(bào)公司、凱撒醫(yī)療集團(tuán)、微軟公司等企業(yè)合作開展學(xué)徒計(jì)劃。

國(guó)會(huì)并非沒有無(wú)視工人和工作之間的不對(duì)等。最近眾議院通過(guò)了《國(guó)家學(xué)徒法》的修正案，簡(jiǎn)化了繁瑣的規(guī)則，并鼓勵(lì)企業(yè)招收實(shí)習(xí)生。這項(xiàng)法案目前仍在等待參議院的審議。

我們出于另一種理由去重新思考如何看待和培訓(xùn)勞動(dòng)力，這是明智的。我們需要縮小不平等差距。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家和政治評(píng)論人士的呼聲與日俱增，他們齊聲告誡我們，這是我們的社會(huì)問(wèn)題。而提高勞動(dòng)力的技能以一種積極的方式解決這個(gè)問(wèn)題。幾乎沒有人會(huì)否認(rèn)，創(chuàng)新者和行業(yè)顛覆者應(yīng)該因?yàn)榻ㄔ炝颂厮估@樣的東西或愛彼迎這樣的平臺(tái)而得到豐厚的補(bǔ)償。但是維持文明發(fā)展進(jìn)程的人應(yīng)該享有社會(huì)的獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)。

無(wú)論如何，我們所有人都必須關(guān)注這個(gè)問(wèn)題還有一個(gè)原因，那就是切身利益。如果我們不能讓建筑、房屋、汽車、電腦和娛樂用品正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)，那么一切都會(huì)分崩離析。我們需要讓人們從事能維持生計(jì)的工作，有了這樣的工作就不需要政府像現(xiàn)在這樣，為眾多受助者提供食品和醫(yī)療補(bǔ)貼。最重要的是，我們需要給數(shù)百萬(wàn)上不了大學(xué)的年輕人提供一條有尊嚴(yán)的生路，讓他們也能為社會(huì)生產(chǎn)力添磚加瓦。

所有這一切都需要翻天覆地的變化。也許它始于一種認(rèn)知，即頭腦、雙手與心靈是有價(jià)值的。然后是政府：在像德國(guó)這樣的地方，學(xué)徒制是工業(yè)政策的一個(gè)核心部分。最后，它也許其實(shí)很簡(jiǎn)單，那就是承認(rèn)和尊重工匠和技工給我們生活帶來(lái)的價(jià)值。

（譯者為“《英語(yǔ)世界》杯”翻譯大賽獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)撸?/p>