为什么经济学家对中国自由贸易的判断如此失误

嘿。

Hey.

我是格雷格·格罗佐尔斯基。

Greg Grozolski here.

今天，我们分享2025年最受欢迎的附加节目。

Today, we're sharing our most popular bonus episode of twenty twenty five.

这是我和今年年初的经济学家大卫·奥特的对话。

It's my conversation with economist David Otter from the beginning of this year.

话题是自由贸易的成本。

It's about the cost of free trade.

如果你是NPR Plus的新用户，我们想确保你不会错过这一期。

If you're new to NPR Plus, we wanted to make sure you didn't miss this one.

如果你已经听过，不用担心。

If you've already heard it, don't worry.

两周后，我们会为你带来全新的附加节目。

We'll be back with a fresh bonus episode for you in two weeks.

如果你还没有注册Plus，但想要更多这样的独家内容，请访问plus.npr.org。

And if you're not signed up for Plus but want more bonus content like this, go to plus.npr.org.

几十年来，经济学界的主流观点认为，自由贸易对美国来说显然是有利的。

So for decades, the mainstream thinking in economics was that free trade would be a clear win for The United States.

当然。

Sure.

当时的推理是，虽然一些工人可能会失业，但随着经济的转型与增长，他们会找到新的工作，总体上一切都会顺利。

The reasoning went some workers might lose jobs, but the thinking was they'd get new ones as the economy changed and grew, and everything would basically be fine.

但事实证明，一切并不顺利。

Everything turned out not to be fine.

没有任何一项研究比麻省理工学院经济学家大卫·奥特及其同事主导的这项研究更能清晰地揭示这一点。

No research project has made that more clear than one spearheaded by MIT economist David Otter and his colleagues.

关于贸易影响的说法，与人们真实的生活状况相去甚远，人们总说全是收益。

The story that has been told about the consequences of trade is so far from the reality of how people live that it's just, you know, it's all gains.

每个人都过得更好。

Everyone's better off.

实际上并没有成本。

There's no real cost.

我的意思是，理论上可能会有，但现实中并没有。

I mean, in theory, there could be, but in practice, there's not.

但这根本不是任何人的切身经历，也不是数据最终所显示的情况。

But that's just not the lived experience of anyone, and that's not what the data ultimately show.

在过去十五年左右的时间里，奥特与经济学家大卫·多恩和戈登·汉森一起发表了一系列关于所谓‘中国冲击’的令人震惊的研究。

Over the last fifteen years or so, Otter, along with economists David Dorn and Gordon Hansen, have published a series of eye opening studies on something known as the China shock.

这一冲击指的是自2001年左右中国进口大量涌入美国后，美国所发生的变化。

The shock refers to what happened to The United States after Chinese imports came flooding into the country starting around 2001.

《经济学人》发现的情况是毁灭性的。

What The Economist found was devastating.

超过一百万个制造业岗位被摧毁，这些失业集中在全美各地的社区。

Well over a million manufacturing jobs destroyed, these job losses were hyper concentrated in communities around America.

中国冲击基本上在这些社区制造了微型萧条，前制造业工人难以适应并找到新工作。

The China shock basically created miniature depressions in these communities, and former manufacturing workers struggled to adapt and get new jobs.

经济研究以及其他所有社会科学都认为，失业的成本极高。

Economic research and research and all other social sciences says job loss is extremely costly.

死亡率上升，抑郁率上升，这几乎和离婚一样，对心理的伤害程度非常严重。

Mortality goes up, depression goes up next to, you know, going through a divorce or, you know, it's it's really way up there in the degree of psychic damage.

当然，人们会失业等等，但我们不应假装这无关紧要。

Of course, people can lose jobs and so on, but we shouldn't pretend that this is inconsequential.

奥特、多恩和汉森最近与经济学家玛吉·琼斯和布拉德利·塞茨勒合作，重新审视了他们具有影响力的中国冲击研究。

Auditor Dorn and Hansen recently joined with economists Maggie Jones and Bradley Setzler to revisit their influential China shock research.

这一次，他们拥有更优质、更精确的数据。

This time, they have even better, more precise data.

随着时间的推移，他们能够更长远地观察中国冲击对美国社区造成的影响。

And with the greater passage of time, they're able to look and see what happened to American communities hit by the China shock over a longer time frame.

他们的分析涵盖了截至2019年、即新冠疫情爆发前的数据。

Their analysis goes through 2019, the eve of the COVID nineteen pandemic.

在这篇新论文中，他们能够区分对中国冲击影响的个体层面和地域层面。

In this new paper, they're able to disentangle the effects on people and the effects on places.

它描绘了一幅更加细致、正如大卫所描述的那样，更加黯淡的图景，展现了直接受到中国冲击影响的制造业工人所经历的一切。

It paints an even more nuanced and, as David describes it, bleaker picture of what happened to the manufacturing workers directly hit by the China shock.

这篇论文还展示了这些社区中另一组工人——如移民和拥有大学学位的年轻人——如何在制造业废墟中崛起的新行业中找到了工作。

The paper also shows how a different set of workers in these communities, like immigrants and young folks with college degrees, found jobs in new sectors that grew out of the ashes of manufacturing.

今年早些时候，我为《星球金钱》通讯采访了奥特。

So I interviewed Otter earlier this year for the Planet Money newsletter.

我们将在节目笔记中提供该采访的链接。

We'll link to it in the episode notes.

这是一场关于中国冲击、经济学以及关税作用的广泛而深入的对话。

It was a really wide ranging and deep conversation about the China shock, economics, and the role of tariffs.

我们讨论的一些内容没有出现在通讯中，但我们很高兴能在本集附加节目中与您分享。

Some of the stuff we talked about didn't make it into the newsletter, but we're happy to be able to share it with you now in this bonus episode.

好的。

Okay.

以下是我在麻省理工学院经济学教授大卫·奥特的对话。

Here it is, my conversation with MIT economics professor David Otter.

你的论文第一句话是：区域性失业集中是我们这个时代面临的主要经济挑战。

The first sentence of your paper is is regionally concentrated job loss is a major economic challenge of our time.

那么首先，你能为普通听众简单解释一下吗？

So for first, can you just kind of, for a lay audience, just explain that?

为什么这种区域性集中的失业会成为一个重大的经济挑战呢？

Like, why is that a a major economic challenge that this regionally concentrated job loss?

当然可以。

Well, sure.

我们知道，美国的失业率并不高，而且很长时间以来都是如此，但受教育程度较低的劳动者劳动参与率却在下降，而这与蓝领工作的减少密切相关。

So, you know, we do not have high unemployment in The United States and haven't had for a long time, but we have had declined labor force participation of less educated workers, and that has been strongly tied associated with the decline of blue collar work.

许多不工作的成年人都是没有大学学历的男性。

And a lot of the nonworking adults are men without college degrees.

嗯。

Mhmm.

他们中的许多人原本从事生产类工作，虽然不完全是，但主要是蓝领工作。

Many of them who might have been in kind of production work, not exclusively, but in blue collar work Mhmm.

很久以前。

Some time ago.

确实，制造业衰退最严重的地区，正是我们看到适龄成年男性失业率增幅最大的地方。

And it's absolutely the case that the places where manufacturing has declined the most, that's where we've seen these largest the largest increases in joblessness among prime age adult men.

而中国贸易冲击提供了一个非常鲜明的案例来观察这一现象，因为其影响具有很强的地域性。

And then the China trade shock provided a very focal event for seeing that because its impact was so regional.

为什么它们如此具有地域性？

Why are they so regional?

因为，虽然中国商品销往全美各地的沃尔玛，但原本会生产这些商品的地区却非常集中。

Because, you know, although Chinese goods are sold in, you know, Walmarts all over America, the places that would have made those goods, had they not come from China, were very localized.

对吧？

Right?

比如，美国的家具之都、运动衫之都，产业分布非常集中。

So you have, like, the furniture capital, the sweatshirt capital of The United States, and, you know, industry is very localized.

制造业，首先，像医院、药房和杂货店。

Manufacturing is, first of all, you know, hospitals and drugstores and grocery stores.

你在每个县都能找到它们。

You find them in every county.

嗯。

Mhmm.

对吧？

Right?

制造业要集中得多。

Manufacturing is much more concentrated.

你在美国中西部地区、南部部分地区和西海岸都有制造业，但它在任何意义上都不是均匀分布的。

You have the place in the Upper Midwest, have parts of South, you have parts of the West Coast, but it's not evenly dispersed in any sense.

而且不仅如此，制造业集中的地方还非常专业化。

And then even more than that, where it occurs, it's very specialized.

地方，对吧？

Place Right?

那里生产汽车。

That does autos.

有一个地方专门生产工具。

You have a place that does tools.

有一个地方专门负责组装。

You have a place that does assembly.

有一个地方，你知道的，历史上一直生产袜子、纺织品等各种产品。

You have a place that, you know, historically does socks and textiles and various.

因此，当中国2001年加入世界贸易组织后，来自中国的竞争急剧加剧，进口量激增，这使得许多劳动密集型、技术含量不高的美国制造业失去了竞争力。

So when competition from China accelerated dramatically with China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001 and the incredible surge of imports, that really made noncompetitive a lot of labor intensive, not particularly high-tech US manufacturing.

比如玩具、纺织品，还有像你在塔吉特或沃尔玛看到的那种普通家具。

So toys, textiles, you know, commodity furniture like you would, you know, see at a Target or Walmart.

因此，这些行业几乎在一夜之间变得难以维系。

And so it it made those sectors just kind of nonviable almost overnight.

由于这些行业高度集中，它们所在的地区就像一颗炸弹在市中心爆炸一样。

And because those sectors were so concentrated, it made the areas in which they were located, it was just like a, you know, a kind of a bomb being dropped over downtown.

然后我想象，这必然会产生连锁反应。

And then And I'd imagine that there's ripple effects obviously of that.

所以这仅仅是制造业，然后这些人会去当地的商店买这买那。

So that's just the manufacturing, and then, like, those people were going to their local store and buying this and that.

因此，这些本地社区也受到了连锁影响。

And so we're it would there were ripple effects of of that as well in these local communities.

我们看不到制造业以外的巨大就业影响，但确实看到了收入结构的变化。

We don't see huge employment effects outside of manufacturing, but you do see a change in the income structure

嗯。

Mhmm.

高薪工作的数量减少了，尤其是针对没有大学学位的工人的高薪工作。

And a decline in the number of high wage jobs and especially high wage jobs for workers without college degrees.

制造业历来是一个高工资、低教育水平的行业。

Manufacturing is a historically a pretty high wage, low education sector.

我有个小问题。

Just a quick side question.

我从没听说过北美自由贸易协定带来的冲击。

I never hear about the NAFTA shock.

为什么呢？

Why is that?

是因为数据不够好，还是因为冲击没那么大，还是别的原因？

Is that just because the data's not as good, or is there was the shock wasn't as big or or what?

不是。

No.

是因为人们不知道如何衡量它。

It's because people didn't know how to measure it.

事实上，现在有一系列研究使用我们分析中国贸易冲击的相同方法来考察北美自由贸易协定的贸易冲击，并且确实记录了显著的就业影响和重大的政治影响。

In fact, there is now a literature that kind of examines the the NAFTA trade shock sort of using the same toolkit that we use for the China trade shock and and actually documents pretty large employment effects and large political effects.

所以事实上，经济学家中流传着一种说法：哦，我们从未真正认为它有重大的分配效应，真正让我们意识到这一点的是中国贸易冲击。

So in fact, you know, there's this lore among economists that, oh, we never really thought it had big distributional effects and was the China shock was the one that really woke us up to this.

但事实是我们当时没有很好地衡量这些影响，因此即使它们正在发生，我们也没有从中学习。

But turns out we weren't doing a good job of measuring them when they're present, and therefore, we weren't learning about them even when they were happening.

因此，北美自由贸易协定的实际影响比当时人们所理解的要大得多，甚至比此后几十年经济学家们所认识到的还要大。

And so NAFTA actually was a bigger deal than it was understood not only to be at the time, but understood by economists for a couple decades subsequently.

好吧，有一件事我想快速提一下。

Well, one quick thing.

长期以来，显然在自由贸易问题上存在两党共识。

So there was this bipartisan consensus, obviously, for a long time on on free trade.

但那时候我还在上高中。

And but, like like, the time travel I was in high school at the time.

我记得1999年西雅图的抗议活动。

I remember the nineteen ninety nine Seattle protests.

我后来回看时发现，工会确实说这会对美国工人造成负面影响。

I I and I've looked back, and labor unions were certainly saying this is gonna be bad for American workers.

像伯尼·桑德斯这样的人也这么说。

People like Bernie Sanders were saying it.

特朗普也在说这一点。

Trump is saying it.

但据我所知，大多数经济学家和政策制定者都认为，中国加入世界贸易组织不会造成太大影响。

And yet, as far as I can tell, most economists and policymakers assume that, you know, China joining the World Trade Organization would wouldn't be that bad.

当然会有一些输家，但我们能调整，一切都会好起来的。

There would be obviously some losers, but we'll adjust and everything will be fine.

你能从主流经济学的角度给我们梳理一下吗？

Can you just sort of take us, like, from the the mainstream economic perspective on this?

因为，他们根本没听人说话吗？

Because, like, like, were they just not listening to people?

他们觉得你只是错的吗？

Do they think you're just wrong?

这种‘我们根本没料到’的情况，到底是怎么回事？

Like, what where does where is this this, like, we we didn't see it coming?

因为看起来有些人确实预见到了。

Because it it seemed like some people did see it coming.

是的。

Yeah.

作为经济学家，我们被教导要相信比较优势理论，它说：看吧。

So as economists, we we are, you know, taught the kind of theory of comparative advantage, and it says, look.

你知道，相互同意的国家之间的自由贸易会提高各国的GDP和经济产出。

You know, free trade among consenting nations raises, you know, GDP, raises, you know, economic output in all of them.

嗯。

Mhmm.

但需要指出的是，这并不会让这些国家的每个人变得更好。

Now a caveat to that point is it doesn't make every person in those countries better off.

事实上，总体上会使一些人变得更糟。

In fact, it will, in general, make some people worse off.

所以，基本上，它扩大了蛋糕，但预计某些部分的绝对份额会缩小。

So, basically, it grows the pie, but it really it's expected to shrink some slices in absolute terms.

嗯。

Mhmm.

对吧？

Right?

而之所以如此，原因是什么？

And and the reason is why is that true?

因为贸易通过改变价格发挥作用，而商品的价格直接与生产它们所用的技能相关。

Because trade works by changing prices, and the price of goods are directly tied to the skills used to produce them.

所以，如果你擅长制造家具，而家具的价格下跌了一半，那么你的技能，你专门的技能，价值就会降低。

And so if you have a lot of skills in making furniture and the price of furniture fall in half, well, you know, your skills, your specialized skills are not gonna be worth as much.

对吧？

Right?

因此，经济学家们早已理解这一点，早在二十世纪五十年代以来，通过雷宾斯基定理和斯托尔珀-萨缪尔森定理，他们就正式证明了：贸易确实会扩大整体蛋糕，但会让某些部分变小。

And so economists have understood this, you know, really for centuries and in very formal terms since the nineteen fifties, the Rybinski theorem, the Stolper Samuelson theorem, they really proved that, actually, it'll grow the pie but make some slices smaller.

嗯。

Mhmm.

那么，为什么经济学家们对此没有更关注呢？

So why weren't economists more concerned about this?

首先，从历史上看，二十世纪，尤其是战后时期的大量贸易，都是发生在富裕国家之间。

Well, first of all, historically, a lot of the trade in the, you know, the twentieth century, the postwar era was trade among rich countries.

所以，这更像是，我们向法国出口一些喷气发动机。

And so it was more like, you know, we sell, you know, some jet engines to France.

他们卖给我们一些香槟，而我们都专注于自己的比较优势。

They sell us some champagne, and, you know, we kind of all just focus on our comparative advantage.

这其实并不是关于价格竞争。

It's really not about price competition.

而是关于交易专业化的商品，当然，这非常好。

It's around, you know, trading specialized goods in which, you know, of course, it's great.

我们双方通过这笔交易都变得更好了。

We're both better off to make that trade.

这是一个原因。

That's one reason.

因此，我们并不习惯于与收入低得多的国家进行大规模的贸易扩张。

So we weren't kind of used to major trade expansions with, you know, much lower income countries.

这并不意味着我们不能从中受益，但会产生不同的后果。

Doesn't mean we can't benefit from that, but it's gonna have different consequences.

嗯。

Mhmm.

另一个原因是缺乏不利影响的证据，而这种缺乏被当作没有影响的证据。

The other is the absence of evidence of adverse effects, and the absence was taken as evidence of absence, that there were no effects.

但事实证明，用于分析这些数据的研究方法根本没有提出正确的问题。

But it turns out the research methods that were used to analyze that were just not really asking the right questions.

他们并没有就价格提出问题，因为贸易是通过价格发挥作用的。

This isn't they were asking questions about prices because trade works through prices.

他们没有就就业问题提出问题。

They weren't asking questions about employment.

在许多经济模型中，就业率被假定为100%。

In many economic models, employment is assumed to be a 100%.

所有想工作的人都能找到工作。

Everyone who who wants to work can work.

因此，在这种情况下，你唯一预期看到的影响就是工资的变化。

And so, you know, the only effects you would expect to see in that case would be changes in wages.

但事实上，我们看到的很多影响是通过就业率的变化，而不是工资的变化发生的。

But in fact, what we see is a lot of it occurs through changes in employment rates, not through changes in wages.

你知道吗？

You know?

所以多兰、汉森和我一直在研究这个问题长达十多年。

So Doran and Hansen and I have been working on this for more than a decade.

我们关于这个问题的第一篇论文，所谓的‘中国综合症’论文，花了

And our first paper on this, the so called China syndrome paper, took a

不同的地方是？再说一遍？

different was that again?

我知道它最初是一篇工作论文，后来才正式发表。

I know it was a working paper, and then it was officially published.

它是一篇

It's a

2011年的论文。

working paper in 2011.

它在2013年正式发表，在经济学领域算是非常快了。

It was published in 2013, so lightning fast for economics.

它基本上指出，与其关注整体经济、工资和价格，不如研究区域劳动力市场，也就是通勤区——由我们定义的、人们居住和工作所在的县集群，我们一共定义了722个通勤区。

And it basically said, instead of looking at the aggregate economy and wages and prices, let's look at regional labor markets, you know, commuting zones, clusters of counties where people live and work, of which there are 722 commuting zones by how we define them.

让我们关注那些更容易受到中国进口冲击的地区，与那些受影响较小的地区进行对比。

And let look at the ones that are more exposed to Chinese imports than ones that are less exposed.

我们所说的‘更容易受到冲击’，是指这些地区过去曾生产那些中国大幅抢占市场份额的产品。

And what we mean by more exposed is they were previously making the things in which China gained big market share.

我们所说的‘大幅抢占市场份额’，是指所有国家都开始从中国进口这些商品。

And what we mean is big market share is all countries started importing these goods from China.

对吧？

Right?

所以我们不只是看运动鞋对美国的进口量。

So we don't just look at imports of sneakers to The US.

我们还考察了澳大利亚、日本、法国和德国等地的进口情况，分析其中的共同趋势：如果所有国家突然都转向中国产的运动鞋、家具、工具或服装，那一定是因为这些产品变得更加高效，或者贸易壁垒降低了。

We look at them in, you know, Australia and Japan and France and Germany, and we we look at the common components and say, well, if everyone is all of sudden switching to Chinese sneakers or Chinese furniture or Chinese tools or Chinese clothing, it must be because they're, you know, they're becoming much more productive or facing lower trade barriers.

对吧？

Right?

并不是因为美国突然间制造得不好了。

It's not it's not because The US is suddenly making them badly.

只是因为中国变得非常擅长了。

It's just because China's gotten really good.

然后我们说，让我们看看地理分布。

Then we say, let's look at the geography.

那么哪些地区会面临需求下降？

What places would therefore be facing reduced demand?

嗯。

Mhmm.

在这里你可以立即看到。

And there you can see immediately.

事实上，非常明显的是，首先制造业就业人数下降了。

It's incredibly first order evident, actually, that first of all, manufacturing employment goes down.

这本就是预期之中的。

Would expect that.

这必须是真实的。

That would have to be true.

我们不是在购买，而是在进口东西。

We're not buying we're importing stuff.

我们没有生产它。

We're not making it.

因此，这些地区的制造业就业人数必然下降。

So, of course, manufacturing employment goes down in those areas.

然后，一个悬而未决的问题是：接下来会发生什么？

And then the the open question is, well, what happens?

人们只是找到了另一份同样好的工作吗？

Do people just find another equally good job?

另一个制造业部门会兴起吗？

Does another manufacturing sector grow up?

等等。

Etcetera.

我们发现失业率上升，劳动力参与率下降，对社会转移支付的使用增加，其中一些措施针对性很强，比如失业保险和贸易调整援助，但很多是医疗保险、医疗补助和残疾福利。

And what we found is a rise in unemployment, a nonparticipation, an increase in usage of, you know, social transfer benefits, some of them well targeted, like unemployment insurance and trade adjustment, but a lot of them having Medicare, Medicaid, disability.

因此，主要结果是调整过程痛苦、缓慢且留下持久创伤。

And so the main result was the adjustment process was wrenching and slow and scarring.

这并不像劳动力市场的黑板模型那样，你失去一份工作后，几乎立刻就能找到另一份同样好的工作。

It was not like the blackboard model of labor market where you lose one job and you get other get another almost equally good job at another firm.

换句话说，这个模型——我想你之前用过这个说法——假设经济中会实现无缝、无摩擦的劳动力转移和重新配置。

In other words, the the model was like I think if you've used this term before, was it they assumed there would be sort of, like, the seamless, frictionless shifting and reallocation across the economy.

人们会想，哦，我失去了制造业的工作，但你知道吗？

People like, oh, I lost a manufacturing job, but you know what?

在这个新经济中，我可以去X地方工作，虽然短期内可能会有些痛苦，但会有补偿，而且这些地方最终会适应。

In this new economy, I could work at x place, and, you know, there might be some pain in the short run, but, know, there's payments and, like, these places will adjust.

当然。

Sure.

你看。

Look.

看。

Look.

一百万个就业岗位。

A million jobs.

对吧？

Right?

我们是一个拥有1.5亿劳动力的市场。

We're a labor market of a 150,000,000 people.

这能有多大影响呢？

Like, how much could that matter?

对吧？

Right?

这还不到1%。

That's, like, less than 1%.

你知道，潮水每天都会涨落，水进水出，就这么简单。

You know, the tide goes in and out every day, so you you know, water goes in, water goes out.

为什么这很重要？

Why does it matter?

但当然，这一百万个岗位并不是均匀分布在全国各地的。

But, of course, it's not a million jobs evenly spread across the country.

对吧？

Right?

因此，这些岗位主要集中在东南部、深南部、德克萨斯州部分地区，以及西海岸少量地区。

So it was very concentrated in the South Atlantic, the Deep South, parts of Texas, and then a little bit on the West Coast.

而且这些岗位高度集中，通常这些产业是一个社区的经济支柱。

And it was really concentrated these were often these industries were kind of the economic foundation of a given community.

所以，回到这篇新论文，你是在区分对地区的影响和对个人的影响。

So so to go to this new paper, so you're disentangling the effect on place versus the effect on people.

只是为了确认一下，我们为什么在意这个区别？

And just just so I have it, why do we care about that distinction?

因为我认为，大多数时候人们会想，哦，一个美国社区受到了伤害。

Because I think most of the time people think, oh, an American community gets hurt.

为什么要把地方和人分开分析？

Why why disentangle the place versus the people?

嗯，我认为这两种视角都是合理的。

Well, I think I think they're both valid perspectives.

对吧？

Right?

显然，为人的角度辩护并不难。

So, obviously, it's not hard to make the case for the people.

对吧？

Right?

这些是当时在那里的人。

Well, these are people who were there.

他们受到了影响。

They were affected.

对吧？

Right?

你可能会合理地觉得，哇。

And you might legitimately feel like, wow.

这对我们来说真的没搞好。

This really didn't work out well for us.

我们对此很沮丧。

We're pretty upset about it.

然后你会想，波士顿市现在怎么样？

And then there's like, well, how's the city of Boston doing?

你知道，剑桥怎么样？

How's, you know, how's Cambridge?

洛杉矶怎么样？

How's Los Angeles?

你知道，杜鲁斯等等地方怎么样？

You know, how's Duluth, etcetera?

所以，如果你从一个完美的地点角度来看，你会得到一个完全不同的答案。

And so if you look at it from the perfect place, you get a quite different answer.

嗯。

Mhmm.

因为他们在很多方面已经恢复了。

Because they they have in many ways bounced back.

你会说，你看，失业率很低。

And you say, look, unemployment is low.

有很多新企业。

There's lots of new businesses.

年轻人正在涌入。

There's young people coming in.

更多元化了，你知道的，等等。

It's more diverse, you know, etcetera.

嗯。

Mhmm.

你到底在担心什么？

What are you even worried about?

嗯，如果你当时在制造业工作，你非常清楚当时发生了什么，以及那种感受至今仍在。

Well, you know, if you're if you're the person who was in manufacturing at that time, you understand very well what happened and how it still feels.

事实上，你以为这些人会全都收拾行李搬去更好的地方，但其实他们搬走的可能性反而更低了。

You actually turns out those people, you might think they all would have packed up and headed for higher ground, but in fact, they became less likely to move out.

可能是因为他们处境艰难，难以获得资源，也可能是因为他们看不到更好的机会。

Possibly because they were, you know, in dire straits, so it was hard to get the resource and possibly because they didn't see better opportunities available to them.

他们可能搬去的许多地方也受到了类似影响，因此根本没有离开的必要。

The many of the places they might have gone were similarly affected, and so there was no real reason to leave.

如果我理解错了，请纠正我。

Correct me if I'm wrong.

所以，基本上，与中国开展自由贸易，导致了许多社区的去工业化。

So, like, basically, free trade with China, like, led to deindustrialization in a bunch of different communities.

而这篇论文说，实际上之后确实有复苏，但这些工作往往更差劲。

And then this paper is saying, like, you know, actually, there was in fact a recovery afterwards, but the jobs tended to be crappier.

而且还不止如此。

And even No.

我的意思是，这只是

Mean, that's just

他们不再从事工业了。

that it's they're not in industry.

你知道的，零售、低端医疗服务、仓储、大型超市、餐饮服务，还有一些教育行业。

You know, retail, low end medical services, you know, warehousing, big box stores, food services, some education.

嗯。

Mhmm.

很可能主要是公立教育。

Probably mostly public education.

所以他们重新创造了就业机会。

So they regrew employment.

出现了新的产业。

There was new industries that came.

不同的产业。

Different industries.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。

Yep.

而且这些工作还被不同的人群接手了，这一点让我感到惊讶。

And and even more of these jobs were taken by different demographic groups, which is something that, like, surprised me.

所以你发现，在这些地方经济复苏后，从事这些工作的人更可能是本土出生的西班牙裔、外国出生的西班牙裔，以及受过大学教育的其他种族女性。

So you're finding that after these local economies recover, the people who take the jobs are, quote, more likely to be native born Hispanics, foreign born Hispanics, and other races women in the college educated.

就像这些工作被……是的。

Like, these jobs dis Yeah.

所以，基本上。

So, basically

这其实非常重要。

so that's actually really important.

因此，美国出生的西班牙裔大量涌入这些地区，尤其是年轻的美国出生西班牙裔，此外，许多外国成年移民——其中很多其实不是西班牙裔——也迁入了。

So US born Hispanics moved heavily into these places, young US born Hispanics, and then foreign born adults, many of them non Hispanic actually, also moved in.

而且，尽管男性和女性在制造业中失去的工作岗位数量相对均衡，但纺织等行业在当时女性就业比例很高，因此遭受了大量制造业岗位流失。

And then there are lots of, you know, the the even though men and women actually lost jobs in relatively equal numbers in manufacturing, there's a lot of manufacturing job losses in textiles and so on, which is very female intensive at that time.

你看到女性群体出现了显著反弹，甚至包括那些此前从未进入劳动力市场的女性，但男性却没有类似情况。

You saw a big rebound among women and women who not had not even previously been in the labor market entering, but not so much among men.

因此，性别比例发生了变化。

So the gender ratio shifted.

但关键是，尽管这些地方的经济复苏了，但那些直接受到冲击的人却并没有从中受益。

But but the point is though that, like, the the economy rebounds in these places, but it doesn't rebound for the people who were hurt directly by the the shock.

这完全正确。

That's absolutely correct.

所以你花了很多时间讨论现有的经济模型和这种对经济学的理解，因为这正是这篇论文的核心所在。

So you spend a lot of time talking about the existing models and sort of this understanding of economics because that's kind of the whole point of this paper.

对吧？

Right?

它探讨的是地方劳动力市场如何应对贸易和其他冲击。

It's how local labor markets respond to trade and other shocks.

而且你真的在强调，这一直是错的。

And and you're you're really stressing, like, it's been wrong.

我觉得你已经说得非常清楚了。

I think you've made that, like, abundantly clear.

但具体到今天，你认为这个领域在贸易冲击后的调整问题上到底哪里错了？你觉得这篇新论文如何融入这一讨论？你认为未来的思路应该怎样发展？

But, like, what specifically these days do you think the profession is getting wrong about, like, the sort of readjustment to trade shocks, and how do you think this new paper kind of fits into that and how you think the thinking should go?

当然。

Sure.

经济学家喜欢认为世界是人们做出最优决策的地方。

Well, economists like to think of the world as, you know, people doing making optimal decisions.

所以你会说，你认为存在一些摩擦吗？

And so you say, well, do you imagine there's some frictions?

转换职业存在一些摩擦。

There's some frictions to changing occupation.

转换地点也存在一些摩擦。

There's some friction to changing places.

因此，人们需要很长时间才能完成调整，但最终你应当预期这种调整会发生。

And so it takes a long time for people to make the adjustment, but eventually, you should expect it to happen.

所以，你知道，这可以说是一种过渡成本。

And so the you know, this this is kind of a a transitional cost.

嗯。

Mhmm.

我想让我们感到惊讶的是，最有可能解释这一现象的两种机制：一是人们从制造业转向非制造业，二是他们迁移到其他机会更好的地方。

I guess what what surprised us is the two mechanisms that seem most likely to kind of encapsulate that in the reward of one people changing from manufacture to non manufacturing, and the other is them relocating to other places where better opportunities would be available.

但我们并没有看到这两种机制在起作用，即改变行业或改变地点。

And we really don't see those operating, this kind of changing sectors, changing locations.

因此，似乎在很大程度上，人们在成年黄金年龄时就已经决定了自己未来的职业方向。

And so it really seems like, to a substantial degree, people have cast their lot by the time they're, you know, kind of prime age adults in what they're gonna be doing in adulthood.

如果这种情况迅速发生变化，他们就很难适应。

And then if that changes very rapidly, it's it's quite challenging for them to adjust.

简单总结一下。

Just to recap.

所以有两种机制。

So there's the two mechanisms.

一种是，哦，我换了行业。

One one is like, oh, I I changed my industry.

我找到了一份不同的工作。

I get a different job.

另一种是我搬到了另一个地方。

The other is I moved to a different place.

但这两种机制似乎都失效了。

And both of those seem to be broken.

相反，这些人，我想， disproportionately 在做什么呢？

Instead, these people, I guess, disproportionately are are what are they doing?

他们是失业了，还是在领取社会援助？

They're unemployed, or are they on social assistance?

他们中的许多人仍然留在衰退的制造业中。

So many of them stay in declining manufacturing industries.

制造业进入长期衰退，许多仍留在岗位上的人在某种程度上仍留在制造业。

Manufacturing goes into long run decline, and many of those people who stay working stay in manufacturing to some extent.

有些人退出劳动力市场，比如退休，有些人转向非制造业，但这种转变在数量上并不大。

Some leave the labor force, you know, some retire, and some transition to nonmanufacturing, but it's not quantitatively very large.

所以他们中的许多人只是在当地慢慢老去。

So many of them just kind of age in place.

这有点是推测，但是什么在推动这种现象呢？

And and this is a bit of speculation, but, like, what is driving that?

是否存在某种行为上的因素？这是否是一种非理性的行为？

Is there, like, a behavioral like, is this, like, an irrational sort of thing?

还是系统中存在某些激励机制，比如残疾福利之类的，使得这种情况得以持续？这非常

Or are there incentives in the system that, like like, disability benefits or something that allow this It's a very

理性的。

rational thing.

人们，你知道，人们为什么从事你现在做的这份工作？

People, you know, people why are you doing the job you do?

这是你最擅长的事情。

It's the thing you're best at.

你喜欢的事情，你投入了技能的事情，你能够做的报酬最高的事情。

The thing you enjoy, the thing that your skills that you've invested in skills, the things that you're it's the highest paid thing you can do.

大多数人从事的都是他们能赚到最高报酬的工作。

Most people are doing the job that pays them the highest pay they could earn.

对吧？

Right?

因此，下一批机会，外部选择几乎从来不如你现在拥有的这个好。

And so the next set of opportunities, the outside option is very rarely as good as the one that you have.

这就是为什么你早就没有选择离开了。

That's why you're not taking it already.

当制造业从业者说，嗯，这就是我的身份。

And so when manufacturing clients, you know, you say, well, this is the this is my identity.

这些是我的技能。

These are my skills.

这是我最擅长的事情。

This is the thing I'm best at doing.

因此，人们会尽可能长时间地坚持下去。

And so people stick with it to the degree they can.

随着行业萎缩，确实有一些人失去了工作。

As the sector contracts, definitely some people lose jobs.

有些人转向制造业。

Some people transition on manufacturing.

有些人退出了劳动力市场。

Some people leave the labor force.

但其他人，行业萎缩的很大一部分原因是他们停止招聘。

But other people a lot of what the contraction occurs is they'd stop hiring.

因此，新人无法进入。

And so new people don't enter.

该行业一旦开始萎缩，就会在接下来的二十年里急剧下滑，但很大一部分原因是新进入者减少。

The sector continue once it starts contracting, it just, you know, really plummets over the next twenty years, but a lot of that is through reduced entry.

所以我认为《中国冲击》这篇论文引起如此大共鸣的一个原因是，它恰好与特朗普主义的兴起相吻合。

So I think one reason why the China shock paper resonated so much is it it kinda coincided with the rise of Trumpism.

而且，每次读你的论文，我都感觉像有灯泡突然亮起来一样。

And, like, I feel like every time I read one of your papers, I just feel like light bulbs going off.

比如这篇论文，我一直想到过去十年多来爆发的民粹主义和本土主义政治。

For example, this paper, like, I kept thinking about, like, the populist and nativist nativist politics we've seen explode over the last decade plus.

我只是很好奇。

I'm just curious.

这个项目是否让你对这一点有了新的认识？

Like, has this whole project sort of opened your eyes to to this?

它是否让你更明白了什么是

Does it make more sense what what's

我自己的眼睛早就睁开了，因为我已经研究这个问题很久了。

happened to the I can think I my eyes have been open to this for a while because I've been working on it for a while.

是的。

Yeah.

但这确实为那种‘哇’的感觉增添了更多的深度和细微差别。

But it this does give more depth and nuance to the sense of, wow.

我们都知道，许多人目睹了自己的社区衰落，而周围的世界却迅速发生了变化。

We're you know, essentially a lot of people saw their communities decline and then the world changed very rapidly around them.

他们基本上是在原地老去。

Well, they kind of aged in place.

数据本身不会说话，但这是一个非常震撼的故事。

Mean, data doesn't speak in words, but that's a very dramatic story.

我想说，美国本可以以更好的方式应对这场冲击。

I want to say that there are many ways The US could have handled better this rate shock.

对吧？

Right?

我认为美国被一种信念蒙蔽了，认为没什么好担心的，既然不是问题，何必制定政策呢？

I think The US was very blinded by the belief that there was nothing to worry about, so why do you need a policy for a thing that's not a problem?

正因为这种近乎意识形态的信念——认为没有人会受到伤害——我们没有建立任何调整政策来支持那些希望换工作的工人。

And because of that, you know, kind of almost ideological belief that no one could be harmed, we didn't have in place adjustment policies to support workers to who want to change jobs.

对吧？

Right?

你知道，奥巴马政府实际上真的开展了一个非常出色的实验项目，即贸易调整援助计划，他们基本上说：看。

You know, the Obama administration actually really ran a terrific experimental project with the trade adjustment program assistance program where essentially they they said, look.

如果你尽快找到新工作，我们会帮助弥补你旧工资和新工资之间的部分差额，至少在一段时间内。

If you take a new job soon, we'll help make up part of the difference between your old wage and your new wage, at least for a while.

这对许多不想重返校园的人来说很有吸引力。

And that is attractive to a lot more people who don't wanna go back to school.

卡内基梅隆大学的布莱恩·科瓦克及其合作者发现，这个项目实际上在帮助人们重返劳动力市场方面非常有效。

And Brian Kovac of Carnegie Mellon University and coauthors, you know, finds that this was actually really effective in helping people get back into labor market.

它并没有像那样长期提高他们的收入。

It didn't, like, raise their earnings over the long term.

它防止了长期的失业脱离现象。

It it prevented the kind of long term displacement.

然后，没有任何努力来真正缓冲这一变化发生的速率。

And then there was no effort to really buffer the rate at which this occurred.