含有〈职业〉标签的文章(9)

随便干啥,钱无所谓

【2017-03-10】

有一种求职广告很奇葩,常见于豆瓣文青,刚刚又看到一个,结尾都是『随便干啥,钱无所谓』,这两句看似宽松普适又便宜,其实是吓退雇主的杀手锏,『随便干啥』=『没有任何专业热情』,『钱无所谓』=『金钱根本不能激励我』,一个既没任何专业热情又无法被金钱激励的人,谁敢要啊? ​​​​

 

标签: |
7662
【2017-03-10】 有一种求职广告很奇葩,常见于豆瓣文青,刚刚又看到一个,结尾都是『随便干啥,钱无所谓』,这两句看似宽松普适又便宜,其实是吓退雇主的杀手锏,『随便干啥』=『没有任何专业热情』,『钱无所谓』=『金钱根本不能激励我』,一个既没任何专业热情又无法被金钱激励的人,谁敢要啊? ​​​​  
[译文]劳动法的仇女渊源

The Misogynist Origins of American Labor Law
美国劳动法的仇女起源

作者:Jeffrey Tucker @ 2016-02-17
译者:混乱阈值(@混乱阈值)
校对:鳗鱼禅(@鳗鱼禅)
来源:FEE,https://fee.org/articles/government-s-war-on-women-1900-1920/

Many now credit government for past progress in gender equality, mostly because of late 20th-century legislation that appeared to benefit women in the workplace. This is a distorted view. Few know that government at all levels actually sought to prevent that progress.

如今许多人把过去在性别平等上的进步归功于政府,主要是因为二十世纪后期的立法看似让职业女性受益。然而这个观点与现实不符。鲜为人知的是,各个层级的政府都曾企图阻挠这种进步。

A century ago, just as markets were attracting women to professional life, government regulation in the United States specifically targeted women to restrict their professional choices. The regulations were designed to drive them out of offices and factories and back into their homes — for their own good and the good of their families, their communities, and the future of the race.

一个世纪前,正当市场吸引女性进入职场之际,美国的政府管制刻意将女性作为目标人群,限制她们的职业选择。这些管制措施的目的是把女性从办公室和工厂驱赶回家中——为了女性和她们家庭、社区,以及民族的未来。

The new controls — the first round of a century of interventions in the free labor market — were designed to curb the sweeping changes in economics and demographics that were taking place due to material advances in the last quarter of the 19th century. The regulations limited women’s choices so they would stop making what elites considered the wrong decisions.

这些新的控制措施——是整整一个世纪对自由劳动力市场的干涉浪潮的第一波——意在阻止由于十九世纪最后二十五年物质进步所带来的经济和人口统计上的巨大变化。管制措施限制了女性的选择,这样她们就无法做出当时社会精英眼中的“错误”决定。

The real story, which is only beginning to emerge within the academic literature, is striking. It upends prevailing narratives about the relationship between government and women’s rights. Many cornerstones of the early welfare and regulatory state were designed to hobble women’s personal liberty and economic advancement. They were not progressive but reactionary, an attempt to turn back the clock.

Women’s Work Is Not New
女性工作不是什么新鲜事

It was the freedom and opportunity realized in the latter period of the 19th century that changed everything for women workers, opening up new lines of employment.

The growth of industrial capitalism meant that women could leave the farm and move to the city. They could choose to leave home without having married — and even stay in the workforce as married women. They enjoyed more choice in education and professional life than ever before.

New clerical jobs, unknown a century earlier, were everywhere to be had. Women’s wages were rising quickly, by an impressive 16 percent from 1890 through 1920. Nor were women working at “exploitative” wages. A Rand corporation 标签: | | | | | |

7466
The Misogynist Origins of American Labor Law 美国劳动法的仇女起源 作者:Jeffrey Tucker @ 2016-02-17 译者:混乱阈值(@混乱阈值) 校对:鳗鱼禅(@鳗鱼禅) 来源:FEE,https://fee.org/articles/government-s-war-on-women-1900-1920/ Many now credit government for past progress in gender equality, mostly because of late 20th-century legislation that appeared to benefit women in the workplace. This is a distorted view. Few know that government at all levels actually sought to prevent that progress. 如今许多人把过去在性别平等上的进步归功于政府,主要是因为二十世纪后期的立法看似让职业女性受益。然而这个观点与现实不符。鲜为人知的是,各个层级的政府都曾企图阻挠这种进步。 A century ago, just as markets were attracting women to professional life, government regulation in the United States specifically targeted women to restrict their professional choices. The regulations were designed to drive them out of offices and factories and back into their homes — for their own good and the good of their families, their communities, and the future of the race. 一个世纪前,正当市场吸引女性进入职场之际,美国的政府管制刻意将女性作为目标人群,限制她们的职业选择。这些管制措施的目的是把女性从办公室和工厂驱赶回家中——为了女性和她们家庭、社区,以及民族的未来。 The new controls — the first round of a century of interventions in the free labor market — were designed to curb the sweeping changes in economics and demographics that were taking place due to material advances in the last quarter of the 19th century. The regulations limited women’s choices so they would stop making what elites considered the wrong decisions. 这些新的控制措施——是整整一个世纪对自由劳动力市场的干涉浪潮的第一波——意在阻止由于十九世纪最后二十五年物质进步所带来的经济和人口统计上的巨大变化。管制措施限制了女性的选择,这样她们就无法做出当时社会精英眼中的“错误”决定。 The real story, which is only beginning to emerge within the academic literature, is striking. It upends prevailing narratives about the relationship between government and women’s rights. Many cornerstones of the early welfare and regulatory state were designed to hobble women’s personal liberty and economic advancement. They were not progressive but reactionary, an attempt to turn back the clock. Women’s Work Is Not New 女性工作不是什么新鲜事 It was the freedom and opportunity realized in the latter period of the 19th century that changed everything for women workers, opening up new lines of employment. The growth of industrial capitalism meant that women could leave the farm and move to the city. They could choose to leave home without having married — and even stay in the workforce as married women. They enjoyed more choice in education and professional life than ever before. New clerical jobs, unknown a century earlier, were everywhere to be had. Women’s wages were rising quickly, by an impressive 16 percent from 1890 through 1920. Nor were women working at “exploitative” wages. A Rand corporation study of wage differentials discovered an interesting fact: women’s wages relative to men’s were higher in 1920 than they were in 1980. 新的文书类工作在那之前一个世纪还不存在,而此时已经到处都是。从1890年至1920年女性的工资快速上升,涨幅高达16%。女性的工资并非是“剥削性”的。兰德公司一项关于工资差异的研究揭示了一个有趣的事实:1920年女性工资相对于男性工资的比率要高于1980年。 The Law Intervenes 法律介入 And yet, these were also the years in which we first saw government intervention in the labor market, much of it specifically targeting women. As historian Thomas Leonard argues in his spectacular book Illiberal Reformers (2016), an entire generation of intellectuals and politicians panicked about what this could mean for the future of humanity. 然而,在那些年政府首次开始介入劳动力市场,明确针对的目标主要是女性。正如历史学家Thomas Leonard在其力作《非自由的改革者(Illiberal Reformers)》中指出的,整整一代的知识分子和政治家恐慌于女性工资上升会给人类未来带来的影响。 Society must control reproduction and therefore what women do with their lives. So said the prevailing ideology of the age. We couldn’t have a situation in which markets enticed women to leave the control of their families and move to the city. 社会必须控制生育,因而也就必须控制女性的人生。那个时代盛行的意识形态如是说。市场引诱女性离开家庭的控制搬迁到城市,这种情况让人无法接受。 Though they are called Progressives, the reformers’ rhetoric had more in common with the “family values” movement of the 1970s and ‘80s — with pseudoscientific race paranoia playing the role that religion would later play. In many ways, they were the ultimate conservatives, attempting to roll back the tide of history made possible by the advance of the capitalist economy. 尽管他们被称为进步主义者,这些改革者的话语倒跟1970和80年代的“家庭价值观”运动有更多共同点——也包括日后宗教也运用的伪科学种族妄想狂那一套。在许多方面,这些人是终极的保守主义者,他们企图使资本经济的进步带来的历史浪潮倒流。 They were incredibly successful. Over a 10-year period between 1909 and 1919, 40 states restricted the number of hours that women employees could work. Fifteen states passed new minimum wage laws to limit entry-level jobs. Most states created stipends for single-parent families, specifically to incentivize women to reject commercial life, return to protected domesticity, and stop competing with men for wages. 他们大获全胜。1909年至1919年的十年间,40个州限制了女性雇员可以工作的小时数。15个州通过了新的最低工资法来限制初级工作职位。大多数州制定了对单职工家庭的津贴,特意激励女性抵制商业生活回归被保护的家庭生活,同时不再与男人在职场上竞争。 Such laws were completely new in American history (and in almost all of modern history) because they intervened so fundamentally in the right of workers and employers to make any sort of contract. The Progressive agenda involved government deeply in issues that directly affected people’s ability to provide for themselves. It also created unprecedented impositions on both employees and their employers. Such laws would have been inconceivable even 50 years earlier. 这些法律在美国历史上(同时也在几乎整个现代历史上)没有先例。原因在于它们如此根本性地介入了工人和雇主订立任意契约的权利。在一些直接影响人们自给自足能力的议题上,进步主义的议程和政府关联极深。同时进步主义创立了前所未有的税项,同时向雇主和雇员征收。这样的法律即使在五十年前也是不可想象的。 How did all this happen so fast, and why? 政府的干预如何迅速实施?为何能得逞? The Inferiority of Women 女性的劣势 Richard T. Ely, the hugely influential founder of the American Economic Association and the godfather of progressive economics, explained the issue clearly, laying the groundwork for the laws that followed. His 1894 book Socialism and Social Reform expressed a panic about women’s entry into the workforce: Richard T. Ely 是美国经济协会极具影响力的创建者,也是进步主义经济学的教父。他曾清楚地阐述了这个问题,为之后产生的法律打下了基石。他在1894年发表的著作《社会主义与社会改革》中对女性加入劳动力大军表达了恐慌:
Restrictions should be thrown about the employment of married women, and their employment for a considerable period before and after child-birth should be prohibited under any circumstances. There should also be a restriction of the work-day, as in England, for children and young persons under eighteen, and for women. Such a limitation having beneficial effect upon the health of the community…. Night work should be prohibited for women and persons under eighteen years of age and, in particular, all work injurious to the female organism should be forbidden to women. 应该限制雇用已婚女性,在任何情形下,都应该禁止雇用处于分娩期前后的女性,禁止雇用期应该相当长。我们应该仿效英格兰,限制儿童、十八岁以下的年轻人和女性的工作时长。这种限制利于社会健康发展。……应该禁止女性和不满十八岁者上夜班,尤其应该禁止女性从事那些损害女性生理机体的工作。
If the reference to the “female organism” sounds strange, remember that this generation of intellectuals believed in eugenics — using state force to plan the emergence of the model race — and hence saw women mainly as propagators of the race, not human individuals with the right to choose. 如果书中所谓的“女性生理机体”听着别扭,请记住那一代知识分子相信优生学——即使用国家的力量来制定生产模范种族的计划,因此他们将女性主要看成生育者,而非拥有选择权利的个人。 For anyone who believed that government had a responsibility to plan human production (and most intellectuals at the time did believe this), the role of women was critical. They couldn’t be allowed to do what they wanted, go where they wanted, or make lives for themselves. This was the normal thought pattern for the generation that gave the United States unprecedented legal restrictions on the labor market. 对于任何相信政府有责任对人类生育做规划的人(当时大多数知识分子确实相信)来说,女性的角色至关重要。女性不能被允许做自己想做的事,去她们想去的地方,或过她们自己想要的生活。这就是当时一代人通常的思维模式,而正是这种思维模式让美国政府对劳动力市场进行前所未有的法律限制。 The Supreme Court Weighs In 最高法院的介入 Consider the Supreme Court case of Muller v. Oregon, which considered state legislation on maximum working hours and decided in favor of the state. Oregon was hardly unusual; it was typical of the 20 states that had already passed such laws directed at women’s freedom to choose employment. From the text of Colorado’s law passed in 1903: “No woman” shall “work or labor for a greater number than eight hours in the twenty-four hour day … where such labor, work, or occupation by its nature, requires the woman to stand or be upon her feet.” 看一下Muller诉俄勒冈州这个最高法院案例,最高法院认可对最大工作小时数的州立法,并做了对州政府有利的判决。俄勒冈州并非特别,它只是已经通过此类针对女性选择工作自由的法律的二十个州的典型。在1903年通过的科罗拉多州的法律这样写道:“没有女性”应该“在一天的24小时中进行8小时以上的工作或劳动……这里指的是需要女性站立完成的工作、劳动或职业。” The decision in Muller v. Oregon, then, ratified such laws all over the country. Today, this case is widely considered the foundation of progressive labor law. What’s not well known is that the brief that settled the case was a remarkable piece of pseudoscience that argued for the inferiority of women and hence their need for special protections from the demands of commercial enterprise. That brief was filed by future Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis. 于是,最高法院对Muller诉俄勒冈州案的判决正式批准了全国范围内此类法律。今天,该诉讼被普遍认为是进步主义劳动法的基础。而不为人所周知的是,终结该诉讼的那份简报是一篇令人称奇的伪科学文章,该简报论述了女性的劣势,认为女性需要特殊的保护使她们免受商业公司侵害。这份简报正是后来成为最高法院法官的Louis Brandeis提交的。 The Weird and Awful “Brandeis Brief” 奇怪又糟糕的“Brandeis简报” The “Brandeis Brief” argued that the law had to stop the massive influx of women into the workplace because women have “special susceptibility to fatigue and disease,” because female blood has more water in it than men’s blood. Their blood composition also accounts for why women have less focus, energy, and strength generally, according to the brief. “Brandeis简报”认为法律必须制止大量女性流入劳动力大军,因为女性“特别容易疲劳和生病”,原因是与男性相比,女性血液中含有更高比例的水分。按照这份简报的说法,女性的血液成分比例也解释了为何女性通常在注意力、精力和体力上逊于男性。。 “Physicians are agreed that women are fundamentally weaker than men in all that makes for endurance: in muscular strength, in nervous energy, in the powers of persistent attention and application.” “医生们认同女性在一切和耐力有关的方面从根本上弱于男性的观点:这些方面包括肌肉力量,神经系统的能量,持续保持注意力和坚持的能力。” Moreover, “In strength as well as in rapidity and precision of movement women are inferior to men. This is not a conclusion that has ever been contested.” 此外,“不仅在力量上,在速度和动作的精确度上,女性都劣于男性。这一结论从未受到过质疑。” Long hours are “more disastrous to the health of women than to men,” the brief explained. Government therefore needed to regulate work hours for the “health, safety, morals, and general welfare of women.” 长时间工作“对女性健康的损害要大于对男性,”该简报这样解释道。因此政府需要为了“女性的健康、安全、道德,以及生活幸福”对工作时长进行管制。 Restrictions on work hours were therefore essential. “It is of great hygienic importance on account of the more delicate physical organization of woman,” the brief said, “and will contribute much toward the better care of children and the maintenance of a regular family life.” 因此限制工作时间就至关重要。“考虑到女性生理组织更脆弱,(限制工作时间长度)在卫生上具有重大意义”,该简报这样写道,“这对关爱儿童和维持正常家庭生活都非常有益。” This brief is also notable for being the first to combine science, however bogus, and public policy in an appeal to the Supreme Court. 这份简报另一个闻名于世的原因,是它首次在向最高法院的上诉中将科学——尽管是冒牌货——与公共政策结合在一起。 Florence Kelley’s Dream of Nonworking Women Florence Kelley的女性不工作梦想 One might suspect that the entire effort was a male-driven one to stop female progress, but that’s not the case. A leader in the campaign for such labor interventions was writer and activist Florence Kelley. Modern progressives celebrate her activism for maximum work hours, the 10-hour workday, minimum wages, and children’s rights. Indeed, she is considered a great hero by the sanitized version of history that progressives tell each other. 现在可能有人会怀疑这整个事情都是男性驱使的,意在阻止女性进步,但事实并非如此。支持政府介入劳动力市场的运动的一位领导者Florence Kelley是一名作家兼激进分子。现代进步主义者颂扬了她在最大工作时长、十小时工作制、最低工资和儿童权益上的激进主义。没错,在进步主义者相互传颂的历史洁本中,她是一位伟大的英雄。 Before we cheer her accomplishments, however, we should look at Kelley’s driving motivation. Writing in the American Journal of Sociology, she explained that she wanted a minimum wage as a wage floor to stop manufacturing plants and retail outlets from employing women for less than they could otherwise employ men. 但在为她的成就欢呼之前,我们应该看看Kelley的动机。在发表于《美国社会学杂志》的文章上,她解释道,她支持最低工资标准是因为最低工资相当于工资门槛,可以不让工厂和零售商店以低于男性工资的标准雇佣女性。 Retail stores, she wrote, tend to “minimize the employment of men, substituting them for women, girls, and boys, employed largely at less than living wages.” It was precisely such competition from women and children that Kelley intended to stop, so that men could earn higher wages and women could return to traditional roles. 她写道,零售商店倾向于“将雇佣的男性数量最小化,取而代之的是以低于基本生活工资的薪酬雇佣女性,女孩和男孩。”Kelley希望制止的正是这些来自于女性和儿童的就业竞争,这样男性就可以赚更多工资,而女性则可以回归她们的传统角色。 In her book Some Ethical Gains through Legislation (1905), Kelley said that long working hours had to be ended for women because commercial life was introducing “vice” into communities (“vice” for this generation was the preferred euphemism for every manner of sexual sin). Worse, women were choosing commercial life over home “on their own initiative.” 在出版于1905年的《一些通过立法获得的伦理好处》一书中,Kelley认为女性长时间工作必须被阻止,因为商业化生活正在将“恶习”带入社区(那一代人更喜欢用“恶习”这一委婉说法来指代任何与性相关的罪孽 )。而更糟的是,女性在商业化生活和家庭二者间选择了前者,完全是“自己主动的”。 Kelley considered it necessary to restrict women’s rights for their own “health and morality,” she said, and also to boost men’s wages so women would stay home under the care of their mothers, fathers, suitors, and husbands. Kelley认为有必要为了女性的“健康和道德”限制女性权利。在书中她写道,限制女性权利也是为了推动男性工资的增长,从而使得女性可以留在家中受她们的父母、求婚者和丈夫们的照顾。 Moreover, to make such work illegal would make “righteous living” more practical for women. If they stopped being rewarded in wages, they would return to domestic life. Kelley even regretted the invention of electricity because it allowed women to work late at factories, when they should be at home reading to children by firelight. 此外,将女性长时间工作定为非法会使得“正直的生活”对女性来说更为实际可行。如果女性不再受工资回报的奖励,她们就会回归家庭生活。Kelley甚至还为电的发明感到遗憾,因为是电让女性可以夜晚在工厂工作,而此时她们本应在家中的炉火旁给孩子们讲故事。 In Kelley’s view, the ideal role of women with children is not to enter commercial life at all: “Family life in the home is sapped in its foundation when mothers of young children work for wages.” It’s an opinion with which some may still sympathize, but should such an opinion be imposed on working families by coercive legislation? For this paragon of progressive social reform, it was clear that lawmakers had to force women back into the home. 在Kelley看来,女性面对孩子的理想角色是完全不进入商业化生活:“当小孩的母亲们为工资工作时,家庭生活的基础被削弱了。”现在有些人依然支持这样的观点,但这样的观点应该通过强制性立法被强加于双职工家庭吗?按照这种进步主义社会改革的范式,立法者必须强迫女性回家。 Florence Kelley and the movement she represented sought to disemploy women and get everyone back to a premodern form of domestic living. She wanted not more rights for women but fewer. The workplace was properly for men, who were to get paid high wages sufficient for the whole family. That was the basis for her support of a range of legislation to drive women out of the workforce and put an end to the new range of options available to them, options that many women were happy to choose. Florence Kelley与她代表的运动,追求的是女性不被雇佣以及所有人都回归现代之前的家庭生活。她要的不是女性拥有更多权利,而是更少。工作场所适合男性,因为他们在那里能获得高薪酬,足够养活全家人。就是基于这样的理念,她支持通过广泛的立法将女性从工作场所驱逐出去,使女性不再有一系列新的选项——很多女性乐于选择的选项。 Fear the Women of East Prussia 对东普鲁士女性的恐惧 All this scholarship and activism is one thing, but what about the popular press? 这些学术研究和激进主义是一回事,那大众传媒又怎么样呢? Professor Edward A. Ross, author of Sin and Society, spoke out in the New York Times on May 3, 1908. In an article titled “The Price Woman Pays to Industrial Progress,” Ross warned that America’s “fine feminine form” was endangered by commercial society. Edward A. Ross教授是《罪与社会》一书的作者。他在1908年3月3日纽约时报上一篇题为《女性为产业进步所付出的代价》文章中警告了“精致的女性气质”正在被商业化社会所危害。 If women were permitted to work, an evolutionary selection process would govern their reproduction to the detriment of the human race. The graceful women who would otherwise bear beautiful children would be pushed out of the gene pool and replaced by “squat, splay-footed, wide-backed, flat-breasted, broad-faced, short-necked — a type that lacks every grace that we associate with women.” 如果允许女性工作,进化选择过程会主宰她们的生育,危害人类。本来会生养漂亮孩子的优雅女性会被挤出基因池,取而代之的将是“矮胖、八字脚、宽背、平胸、脸蛋平庸、脖子短的女性——这种类型的女性在任何方面都不能让我们把女性优雅与之相联系。” Ross’s example: “the women of East Prussia,” who “bear a child in the morning” and “are out in the field in the afternoon.” Ross举的例子是“东普鲁士女人”,她们“在早晨刚生完孩子”,“下午就下地”。 The professor explained that women who had worked in factories would not make suitable bearers of children. “Think of the discouraging situation of the young man who after he has been married two or three years finds he has a wife who at the age of 28 or 30 has collapsed, become a miserable invalid, suffering aches and pains all the time.” Why, she might find herself “unable to keep the home attractive.” And all of this “because of just a few extra dollars added to the profits of the employer or a few extra dollars saved to the consumer.” 该教授解释说,在工厂工作的女性不会是合适的生养者。“试想一下这样令人沮丧的情况:一个年轻男人在和他妻子结婚两三年后发现她在28或30岁的年纪垮掉了,终日一身病痛。”这样的妻子可能会发现自己“无法把家里弄得漂亮”。而这一切“仅仅是为了让雇主多赚几美元,或是让消费者多省几美元”。 Because of the dangerous combination of employment and natural selection, Ross contended, the government had to extend a hand to help these women by limiting working hours and establishing a high bar to enter the workforce: minimum wages. 由于雇佣劳动和自然选择的危险结合,Ross主张政府必须通过限制工作时长,并对进入劳动力市场设置高门槛——即最低工资——向女性伸出援手。 Only through such enlightened interventions could government save women from the workplace, so that they could return to the maternal duties of rearing “girls who have the qualities of fineness — grace and charm.” 政府只有通过这样高明的干预才能将女性从工作场所中拯救出来,这样女性才能回归母亲的角色,抚养“具有优雅和美丽这些优秀特质的女孩”。 Is This Satire? 讽刺否? If this reads like satire, sadly it is not. Nor were such views unusual in a generation of ruling-class intellectuals, politicians, and activists that embraced eugenics and rejected capitalism as too random, too chaotic, too liberating. Their plan was to reestablish and entrench by law the family and marital structure they believed in, which absolutely precluded a generation of women making individual choices over their own lives. Every trend panicked the eugenic generation. They fretted about the falling birth rate among those who should be reproducing and the rising birth rate among those who shouldn’t be. They worried about morals, about competition, about health, about culture. Most of all, they regretted the change that a dynamic economy was bringing about. 所有的时代趋向都让相信优生学的一代人恐慌。他们担心本应生养的群体的生育率在下降,而那些本不应生育的群体的生育率却在上升。他们忧虑于道德、竞争、健康和文化。所有问题中他们最担心的是充满活力的经济即将带来的改变。 Thus, from 1900 through 1920, a period that set the stage for a century of interventions in the labor market, hundreds of laws stifling women were passed in every state and at the federal level, too. None dared call it misogyny, but this is real history, however rarely it is told. 因此,1900至1920年间,政府为干预劳动力市场打好了舞台,这种干预持续了一个世纪。数以百计窒息女性的法律在所有州以及联邦层面上通过。没人敢称之为厌女,但这是真实的历史,尽管很少被说起。 Feminists against Regulation 对抗管控的女权主义 Laws that disemployed thousands of women nationwide led to vast protests. The Equal Opportunity League, an early feminist organization in New York, lobbied the state legislature to repeal the bans on work. And it received quite the press coverage. 使全国范围内成千上万的女性失去工作的法律导致了大范围的抗议。机会平等联盟是一个位于纽约的早期女权组织,它游说州立法机构废除对女性工作的禁令,得到了相当多的媒体报道。 “So-called ‘welfare’ legislation is not asked for or wanted by real working women,” the league said. “These ‘welfare’ bills are drafted by self-styled social uplifters who assert that working women do not know enough to protect themselves.” “所谓的“福利”立法不是真正在工作的女性要求或内心想要的,”该联盟如是说。“这些“福利”法案由自封的社会提升者起草,他们认为工作的女性不知如何保护自己。” “Are women people? Women are no longer the wards of the State and a law that is unconstitutional for a man voter is equally unconstitutional for a woman voter.” “女性也是人吧?女性不再是州政府的被监护人,对男性投票人来说违宪的法律对女性投票人来说一样违宪。” “Working at night is not more injurious than working in the daytime,” the league argued. “Many women prefer to work at night because the wage is higher, opportunities for advancement greater, and women with children can enjoy being with their child after school hours in the day time.” “在晚上工作不比在白天工作更有害”,该联盟这样认为。“许多女性喜欢在晚上工作是因为工资更高,升职的机会更大,而且有孩子的女性可以在白天孩子放学后和孩子在一起。” In fact, the phrase “equal pay for equal work” was not created to mandate higher wages for women. It was a league slogan invoked to argue against laws that made it “a crime to employ women even five minutes after the eight-hour day.” The phrase emerged as a preferred slogan to protest in favor of free markets, not against them. 事实上,“同工同酬”这一警句的出现并非为了强制提高女性工资。它是联盟的一句口号,用来反对那些认定“8小时工作时间之外即使多雇佣女性5分钟也是犯罪”的法律。这一广受欢迎警句的是作为亲市场而非反对自由市场的口号而提出的。 The Equal Opportunity League also passionately opposed the minimum wage law. Such laws, it argued, “while purporting to be for [women’s] benefit, would really be a serious handicap to them in competing with men workers for desirable positions.” 平等机会联盟也积极地反对最低工资法。联盟认为这样的法律“尽管本意是为了照顾(女性)利益,实质上却让女性在与男性工人竞争好职位时受到严重妨碍”。 In short, the conclusion of the League is that these proposed bills and laws, ostensibly intended to protect and shield the woman worker, will, if permitted to stand, unquestionably work her industrial ruin and throw her back into the slough of drudgery out of which she is just emerging after centuries of painful, laborious effort to better her condition. ("Women’s Work Limited by Law," New York Times, January 18, 1920) 简单来说,联盟的结论是这些提议中的法案和法律表面上意在保护女性工人,实际上一旦通过则毫无疑问会毁坏女性的职业生涯,将女性赶回家务重活的泥沼。而女性在经历数个世纪痛苦艰难的努力后才刚刚脱离这一泥沼而改善了自己的状况。(《女性的工作被法律所限》,《纽约时报》1920年1月18日。) Restriction Becomes Liberation? 限制变成了解放? The fairy tale version of history says that during the 20th century, government freed women to become newly empowered in the workplace. The reality is exactly the opposite. Just as the market was granting women more choices, government swept in to limit them in the name of health, purity, family values, and social uplift. Such laws and regulations are still around today, though they have been recharacterized in a completely different way. As Orwell might say, somewhere along the way, restriction became liberation. 历史的童话版本说,在20世纪政府给予了女性自由,让女性在工作场所拥有了权利。真相恰好相反。市场给予女性更多的选择,而政府却插手进来以健康、纯洁、家庭价值观和社会地位提升等名义限制女性的选择。这类法律和法规在今天仍然存在,虽然它们以完全不同的方式被重新描绘。正如奥威尔所说,在通往动物庄园路途中,不知从何处起,限制变成了解放。 (Author’s note: I’m grateful to Thomas Leonard’s Illiberal Reformers for providing the footnotes I followed to write this piece. Also, much more rethinking of Progressive Era politics and its impact on the family is discussed in Steven Horwitz’s Hayek’s Modern Family, newly published by Palgrave.) (作者附言:非常感激Thomas Leonard的《非自由的改革者》,循着该书提供的脚注,我写下了此文。另外,对进步时代的政治及其对家庭之影响的更多再思考,在Steven Horwitz所著的由Palgrave最新出版的《哈耶克的现代家庭》一书中有更多讨论。) (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

批量改造

【2016-06-07】

@熊也餐厅 服务生和理发师为什么要在大街上做军事化训练要打客人吗~

@whigzhou: 短时间成批量改造行为习惯(诸如用袖子擦鼻涕,死盯着客人看,间歇性怪叫,甩着抹布跳霹雳舞)的低成本简易方法,这事情跟你的雇工来源有关系,大学生虽然工资不高,但通常不愿去海底捞打工。

@whigzhou: 理由跟在贫困地区开工厂不能为工人提供自助午餐类似,要不然下午都撑得没法干活了

@whigzhou: 职业伦理和工业文化的形成是个漫长(more...)

标签: | | | |
7202
【2016-06-07】 @熊也餐厅 服务生和理发师为什么要在大街上做军事化训练要打客人吗~ @whigzhou: 短时间成批量改造行为习惯(诸如用袖子擦鼻涕,死盯着客人看,间歇性怪叫,甩着抹布跳霹雳舞)的低成本简易方法,这事情跟你的雇工来源有关系,大学生虽然工资不高,但通常不愿去海底捞打工。 @whigzhou: 理由跟在贫困地区开工厂不能为工人提供自助午餐类似,要不然下午都撑得没法干活了 @whigzhou: 职业伦理和工业文化的形成是个漫长的过程,这一点从发薪周期的演变也可看出:最早是日薪,然后周薪、月薪、年薪,在成熟工业社会,这一驯化过程由社会(通过强大的文化压力)完成,而在过渡型社会,只能由雇主自己动手 @长空博云: 服从性训练 在大街上干这个也把那些不适合的都给剔除了 这两个行业自尊心太强没法干 你说的这些个东西是上上个世纪的事儿了 @whigzhou: 上上世纪?都是我耳熟能详的事情,我有这么老吗?  
[微言]女码农

【2014-10-30】

@大象公会 【为什么没有女码农】多数码农(程序员)为男性,人们通常解释为:编程需要数理等逻辑思维,感性的女人天生不适合。但计算机发展初期,女程序员占绝大多数,占行业统治地位。为什么会这样? 作者:@hitay

@whigzhou: 早期的机器码编程和后来的高级语言编程完全两码事,前者差不多就是把现成的方程翻译成机器码,工作性质类似电报译码员,逻辑建模过程在之前已由他人完成,不包括在编程工作中,所以,问“女性突然失去了对计算机的兴趣”这样的问题没什么意义

@trustno1v2:人肉编译器而(more...)

标签:
5571
【2014-10-30】 @大象公会 【为什么没有女码农】多数码农(程序员)为男性,人们通常解释为:编程需要数理等逻辑思维,感性的女人天生不适合。但计算机发展初期,女程序员占绝大多数,占行业统治地位。为什么会这样? 作者:@hitay @whigzhou: 早期的机器码编程和后来的高级语言编程完全两码事,前者差不多就是把现成的方程翻译成机器码,工作性质类似电报译码员,逻辑建模过程在之前已由他人完成,不包括在编程工作中,所以,问“女性突然失去了对计算机的兴趣”这样的问题没什么意义 @trustno1v2:人肉编译器而已 @whigzhou: 比作打毛衣或刺绣更容易理解 @Lax蚊子:因为女性细心反而更占优势? @whigzhou: 我猜女性可能更喜欢付出/收获比更确定的工作,一分付出一分收获,不愿意做那种奋搏好多天可能大捞一票也可能一无所获的事情,而编程工作越来越像后者 @whigzhou: 这两种工作类型的区别,突出的体现在熬夜上,付出/收获不确定的工作往往需要熬夜连续奋战,而女孩好像更不能接受熬夜 @whigzhou: 这里说的收获不是金钱回报,而是可以看得见的有用结果 @whigzhou: 软件工程臭名昭著的三大特征:1)付出/收获不确定(意味着工期/成本难控制),2)任务难以分割,3)反馈周期长(意味着激励延迟),大概都是女孩不喜欢的 @黄章晋ster:其实程序员这个岗位上的收入不确定、反馈周期长,体现得并不比很多工种更强烈,大量自由职业的工作,甚至作家、记者、艺术家都具有同样的特征,而且还更强烈,我个人觉得是这个职业已经形成的强烈的Nerd文化特征(譬如其社会性极低)才是女性最不喜欢的。  
[微言]奇葩职业(欢迎补充)

【2014-04-17】

@whigzhou: 有意思 //What is a job that exists only in your country? http://t.cn/8sOHs93 I think this happens only in Tehran. Some people get paid to walk behind your car, so the traffic cameras can not capture your plate number w(more...)

标签: |
5145
【2014-04-17】 @whigzhou: 有意思 //What is a job that exists only in your country? http://t.cn/8sOHs93 I think this happens only in Tehran. Some people get paid to walk behind your car, so the traffic cameras can not capture your plate number when you enter the restricted traffic areas! @whigzhou: 补充一个:在中国,有些学生小弟或退休大妈专以扮演普通市民接受电视采访为生。 @whigzhou: 对了,还有催奶师 http://t.cn/z0euWa6 经过国家人力资源和社会保障部中国就业培训技术指导中心组织的理论笔试、实操技能考核(高级催奶师增加案例分析答辩考核)成绩合格者,统一颁发中华人民共和国人力资源和社会保障部催乳师或高级催乳师岗位培训合格证书,证书统一编号,全国通用 @whigzhou: 为人乳宴供奶的奶妇 http://t.cn/zQXsWLn @whigzhou: 出售胎盘的产科护士 http://t.cn/zORMTWA  
[饭文]为何高等教育在制造失业?

为何高等教育在制造失业?
辉格
2013年12月29日

社科院最近发表的一份报告显示,几年前就开始显露出来的大学毕业生就业困难依然没有缓解的迹象,今年毕业的大学生中,有17.6%在毕业后两个月时仍未找到工作,随着毕业生人数的持续增长,这一情况看来至少还要维持三四年,直到毕业生开始下降才有望缓解。

这一困难,与总的就业状况是背道而驰的,总体上,劳动力市场从五六年前就开始进入了一个供给下降的阶段,年轻劳动力的供给萎缩尤为剧烈,随之而来的是,企业大面积用工荒,蓝领工人工资迅速提高,劳动密集型产业开始外移。

大学生与总体就业状况的反差,也体现在上述报告的另一项数据中:高级职业学(more...)

标签: | | |
4861
为何高等教育在制造失业? 辉格 2013年12月29日 社科院最近发表的一份报告显示,几年前就开始显露出来的大学毕业生就业困难依然没有缓解的迹象,今年毕业的大学生中,有17.6%在毕业后两个月时仍未找到工作,随着毕业生人数的持续增长,这一情况看来至少还要维持三四年,直到毕业生开始下降才有望缓解。 这一困难,与总的就业状况是背道而驰的,总体上,劳动力市场从五六年前就开始进入了一个供给下降的阶段,年轻劳动力的供给萎缩尤为剧烈,随之而来的是,企业大面积用工荒,蓝领工人工资迅速提高,劳动密集型产业开始外移。 大学生与总体就业状况的反差,也体现在上述报告的另一项数据中:高级职业学校的学生,在毕业两个月后没找到工作的只有8.1%,不到大学生的一半;这一反差实际上表明了,在大学生的职业期望和当前产业体系所提供的工作岗位之间,存在巨大的错位,而这种错位很大程度上正是现有教育体系所造成的,教育经历一方面让学生对自我身份定位和未来职业生涯产生了不切实际的预期,同时也没有帮助他们获得当前市场真正需要工作技能。 特别引人注目的是,这种不切实际的期望,不仅仅是甚至主要不是有关工资水平的,实际上,在许多情况下,蓝领岗位的工资已经大幅超出白领岗位,但多数大学生仍宁愿拿着两千多的月薪,忍受高昂的物价和恶劣的生活条件,挤在大城市的群租房甚至地下室里,也不愿接受一份月薪五六千或者更高的蓝领工作,仅仅因为他们认为自己理所当然的已经成为一名白领。 每个人对自己的社会地位有个认知,除非这个地位已低得无法再低,他都会希望他人认可其地位,并竭力避免从这地位跌落,当跌落前景出现时,如何避免它就成了头等优先的大事,重要性甚至超过生命,许多人在破产、失业、事业失败、罪行丑闻败露后自杀,都是因为意识到自己的社会地位已经不保。 那么,为何普通高等教育会让学生对白领地位形成自我认知,而职业技术教育则很少有这样的效果呢?或许这与中国文化中的士大夫价值观和科举传统有关,士大夫历来是蔑视技术专长和专业价值的,而科举制不仅与这种价值观完全配合,还搭建了一部反专业化的社会地位爬升阶梯,这部阶梯在国家资源分配能力的作用下,在整个社会流动结构中取得了压倒性影响力。 所以,尽管传统中国社会的流动性很高,即便最贫困阶层的青年也有机会向上爬,但他们借以向上爬升的通道,(至少在和平年代)只有科举一途(尽管在某些时代做太监也是条上升出路,但与科举相比,这条通道毕竟太狭窄),而凭借各种专业技术能力向上爬升的空间极为有限,许多王朝甚至通过将许多技术性职业列入贱籍而刻意堵死这些通道。 结果是形成了这样一种价值氛围,在其中,像厨师、木匠、技工、家政、护理这样的技术性职业,尽管收入可以很高,但在流行价值观中却被视为是卑下而缺乏吸引力的,不是一条可借以向上爬升的适当阶梯;而与之相应的后果是,在这些职业圈子的内部,也始终未能发展出一种丰厚的专业价值观,让从业者从中获得价值满足和自豪感,并以此吸引年轻入行者。 所谓专业价值观,就是从事某项专业、拥有相应技能、用这些技能作出好东西——这些活动本身带给从业者金钱和实物报酬之外的满足,这种价值观的形成,需要专业化分工的稳定存在,需要专业圈子内对产品和技能进行持续的比较、评价和讲述,通过师徒传承关系而形成传统和流派,这种文化要发育得比较丰厚,还需要一部分从业者成为专业的评论、研究和传播者。 比如餐饮行业要形成自己的价值观,不仅需要专业厨师,还要美食评论家去评论和传播他们的作品,要有历史学家去追溯烹饪技术的发展沿革和传承关系,要有食品和营养专家去研究各种食材,要有行业组织和专业刊物为知识和传统的积累提供交流和组织平台。 然而,或许是因为我们的文化有着排斥专业价值观的传统,或许是因为历史上就缺乏发育成熟的专业价值观,或许是因为缺乏专业领域发展自身组织和文化传统所需要的恰当制度环境,此类价值观的缺失,是中国文化与西方文化的一个显著差异,这一点,在诸如维基词条编辑和开源代码贡献这样没有金钱回报的活动中,表现的最清楚。 很明显,职业学校和大学原本都可以参与这些发展过程,但实际上,国内的职业学校大都停留在技能培训,而缺乏向上发展的动力,而普通高校则多半对这些领域不屑一顾,视之为难登大雅之堂的市井杂学,难入象牙之塔的奇技淫巧,在前些年的学校合并升级改造浪潮中,许多学校甚至迫不及待的摆脱这些成分而把自己标榜成所谓综合性大学。 由政府设计和经营的公立教育与科研产业,实际上构造了一个由普通教育、大学教职、院士、核心期刊、诺贝尔奖等元素构成的现代科举系统,以及相应的价值观,白领成了现代士大夫,那些宁可受穷也不愿放下架子从事蓝领职业的人,则成了现代范进,这个系统在未来将继续源源不断的创造失业。 对于现代范进们,更为不幸的是,当前产业结构的变化,正在消灭越来越多的白领岗位,在市场全球化和信息技术革命的推动下,许多产业已经和正在经历扁平化改造,比如在新型连锁企业对传统零售服务业、电子商务对实体零售店的替代过程中,企业层级结构变得高度扁平,大量中间层级被取消,而正是这些中间层级提供了大量白领岗位。  
[饭文]在家工作可行吗?

在家工作可行吗?
辉格
2013年2月26日

最近,雅虎实施了一项新的作息制度,从过去的灵活作息制全面撤回到传统模式,要求所有员工必须回答办公室上班,而此前许多员工已与公司达成谅解可以在家工作,新规定甚至可能迫使一些员工必须搬家才能留在雅虎,这些受影响的员工很快在网络论坛和推特上发出了抱怨,一些求贤若渴的创新公司则乘机煽风点火,大挖墙脚。

在家工作确实有很多好处,最直接的是避免了通勤负担,让员工可以更灵活的选择居住地点,这往往也意味着更高的居住质量和更低的房价,而这些因素在员工生活质量和生活成本的构成中占据着很重要的位置,也是他(more...)

标签: |
4567
在家工作可行吗? 辉格 2013年2月26日 最近,雅虎实施了一项新的作息制度,从过去的灵活作息制全面撤回到传统模式,要求所有员工必须回答办公室上班,而此前许多员工已与公司达成谅解可以在家工作,新规定甚至可能迫使一些员工必须搬家才能留在雅虎,这些受影响的员工很快在网络论坛和推特上发出了抱怨,一些求贤若渴的创新公司则乘机煽风点火,大挖墙脚。 在家工作确实有很多好处,最直接的是避免了通勤负担,让员工可以更灵活的选择居住地点,这往往也意味着更高的居住质量和更低的房价,而这些因素在员工生活质量和生活成本的构成中占据着很重要的位置,也是他们选择工作时的优先考虑,因而这方面的通融是大公司招募优秀员工的一大卖点,也可大幅扩展其招募的地理范围。 有些工作在某些任务阶段,需要长时间不受打扰的连续高强度工作,即便公司不要求加班,任务本身的创造性也会激励员工没日没夜的专注其中,这种情况下的,和每天加班到深夜回家睡个觉相比,在家上班可以让员工在保持(甚至享受)工作狂热的同时,不至于脱离家庭生活,疏远与亲人的关系,即便没时间陪他们消遣,让他们感觉到你就在身边,也是一种慰籍。 但在家工作也会带来各种问题,许多人缺乏自制力,有拖延习惯,容易分心,甚至任务越重大越急迫时越容易产生逃避心态,这些倾向反映了人性的某些弱点,这些弱点在面临对于人性还非常陌生的现代职业环境时尤其凸显,对于缺乏自制力的人,只有置身于没有其他事情可做的环境下,才能避免分心和拖延,迫使自己行动起来。 这也是为何对于专注而深入的阅读,像Kindle这样的单功能阅读器,比通用平板电脑更好,心理学家也发现,过多的选择机会未必是好事,为达成某个目标,人们常需要借助外力来剥夺自己在某段时间中的选择机会,而严格的作息制度可以提供这样的外力。 更大的问题是,离开集中办公环境,可能会让员工脱离企业文化,这样便对公司营造或延续某些传统和价值观的努力构成了障碍,而这些传统和价值观可能正是企业的核心资产,是其构建商业模式、确立和实施经营目标、影响公众认知所依赖的基础,它们的流失最终将使企业得以特立独行的禀赋变质。 现实的看,许多任务的性质就不适合在家工作,有些工作没有一个任务定义、分割和封装,然后各自拿去做完交差这样一个明确清晰的过程,任务可能是在完成过程中不断明确起来的,其间各种想法念头点子都在团队成员的持续交流互动中不断涌现,或者虽然任务最终有个定义和封装,但之前的互动和确立过程构成整个工作的大部分。 或者,虽然互动交流只占工作时间的一小部分,但却有着根本的重要性,正如雅虎HR主管在改制通知中所言,许多好点子好念头,都来自办公室走廊和自助餐厅里的闲聊,和各种非正式的临时小会议;这些交流机会之所以难以被现有通信工具替代,是因为它们依赖于事先未计划的偶遇和随机产生的上下文情境,若不是恰好撞上了,许多交流就不会发生。 况且,即便是刻意安排的交流,现有远程通信手段也远远难以替代面对面交流,因为人们在对话交流时,大量信息是通过身体姿态和动作表情等语言之外的媒介来传递的,而这些信息需要在特定的上下文情境中才能有效表达,而在视频会议情境下往往会被弃而不用。 当然,不惜代价的话,未来或许可以把家庭书房改造成具有三面视频墙的高度逼真的虚拟办公室,坐在里面能看到周围的同事,能发生偶遇,打个招呼,聊上几句,开个临时小会,还能随你的位置而在小隔间、餐厅、健身房、会议室之间切换背景,然而至少现在,通信工具在特性和成本上都还离这个目标很遥远。  
[微言]财务自由

【2012-11-08】

@方三文:【视频:投资能否通向财务自由】 http://t.cn/zlsEZFR

@whigzhou: “财务自由”的可操作定义是“剩余生命期的任一时刻的预期可支配现金量超出弹性低于某个规定值的低弹性需求所需的现金量”,按此定义,实现财务自由的途径之一是增加预期现金流,途径之二是降低需求或让它变得更有弹性

@whigzhou: 所以,一种让你实现财务自由的方法,最好是在让你赚钱的同时尽量不提高需求,但大部分赚钱方法同时也是提高需求的方法,首先,赚钱的事实本身会提高你的需求,这一点无法消除,(more...)

标签: | |
4696
【2012-11-08】 @方三文:【视频:投资能否通向财务自由】 http://t.cn/zlsEZFR @whigzhou: “财务自由”的可操作定义是“剩余生命期的任一时刻的预期可支配现金量超出弹性低于某个规定值的低弹性需求所需的现金量”,按此定义,实现财务自由的途径之一是增加预期现金流,途径之二是降低需求或让它变得更有弹性 @whigzhou: 所以,一种让你实现财务自由的方法,最好是在让你赚钱的同时尽量不提高需求,但大部分赚钱方法同时也是提高需求的方法,首先,赚钱的事实本身会提高你的需求,这一点无法消除,其次,赚钱过程通常让你更多的与有钱人打交道或同处一圈,这个可以消除,比如一个宅男股民可以避免混进有钱人圈子... @whigzhou: 结论是,炒股票的确可以是较有优势的实现财务自由方法,另外,收垃圾和做包工头可能也不错,比较悲剧的可能是理财和私人银行部门... @冬冬丁: 哈,这广告就是想忽悠人去他们的聪明人社区 @whigzhou: 嗯,所以上雪球网肯定不是实现财务自由的好方法,哈哈 @冬冬丁: 捡垃圾的不知道,包工头真不行 @whigzhou: 为啥?要么开个老年痴呆富翁疗养院吧?可以整天想着:瞧你那么多钱也享受不了有个鸟用,多爽 @陈乃章: 包租婆肯定行,可预期的支出渠道主要是打麻将和购物. @whigzhou: 嗯,屌丝群租房包租婆  
[微言]专业价值观

【2012-10-20】

@春夏秋冬er @whigzhou 辉总对不同学科之间有时会互相鄙视的现象怎么看?你有瞧不太上的学科,或者说是对某学科有偏见吗?

@whigzhou: 我用“专业价值观”来解释这种现象,专业价值观是工具价值终极化的一种,它既让从业者降低对其专业工作的货币报酬的要求,也在不同专业之间建立了价值隔阂,表现为相互鄙视

@whigzhou: 这方面我自己好像也未能免俗,不过我对学科一般没什么歧视,只对某些学科的从业(more...)

标签: | | | |
4561
【2012-10-20】 @春夏秋冬er @whigzhou 辉总对不同学科之间有时会互相鄙视的现象怎么看?你有瞧不太上的学科,或者说是对某学科有偏见吗? @whigzhou: 我用“专业价值观”来解释这种现象,专业价值观是工具价值终极化的一种,它既让从业者降低对其专业工作的货币报酬的要求,也在不同专业之间建立了价值隔阂,表现为相互鄙视 @whigzhou: 这方面我自己好像也未能免俗,不过我对学科一般没什么歧视,只对某些学科的从业者有所歧视。 @whigzhou: 比如历史专业者通常对阅读量、记忆力、语言文字能力、材料把握的全面精准等等赋予特殊价值地位,因而对戴蒙德之类跨界进入其领域的异类分子会特别鄙视,而实际上跨界者往往带来一些史学界几辈子也摸不着的洞见。