盡管幾乎每家商店如今都貼滿(mǎn)了招工啟事,,許多餐廳也因?yàn)槿耸植蛔愣鴴炱鹆斯膭?lì)食客耐心等候的告示,但一份新出爐的研究報(bào)告發(fā)現(xiàn),,美國(guó)并不是真的缺乏勞動(dòng)力——遠(yuǎn)非如此,。
根據(jù)羅斯福研究所(Roosevelt Institute)發(fā)布的新報(bào)告,如果勞動(dòng)力需求持續(xù)強(qiáng)勁,,美國(guó)在未來(lái)10年能夠額外增加2800萬(wàn)個(gè)就業(yè)崗位,。這足足比美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)預(yù)算辦公室(Congressional Budget Office)對(duì)最大就業(yè)人數(shù)的估算高出大約10個(gè)百分點(diǎn)。
“那種認(rèn)為美國(guó)存在絕對(duì)意義上的勞動(dòng)力短缺的說(shuō)法是非?;闹嚨?。只要保持當(dāng)前的緊張水平,現(xiàn)在很多賦閑在家的人是可以而且也會(huì)進(jìn)入勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)的,?!痹搱?bào)告的執(zhí)筆者之一,羅斯福研究所的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家J·W·梅森說(shuō),。
為了確定最大就業(yè)人數(shù),,梅森和他的團(tuán)隊(duì)計(jì)算了潛在的勞動(dòng)力規(guī)模——基本上是通過(guò)詢(xún)問(wèn)有多少人可能在美國(guó)工作,,并充分考慮了不同種族,、性別、受教育程度和年齡群體的就業(yè)率,。在這樣做的過(guò)程中,,他們發(fā)現(xiàn)勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)要比傳統(tǒng)的失業(yè)指標(biāo)所顯示的情況松弛得多。
“從本質(zhì)上說(shuō),,如果我們能夠消除種族就業(yè)差距,,以及非育兒方面的性別就業(yè)差距,并且讓不同受教育程度和年齡群體的就業(yè)差距恢復(fù)到相對(duì)近期的水平,,美國(guó)就可以額外獲得2800萬(wàn)工人,?!泵飞诮邮堋敦?cái)富》雜志采訪時(shí)表示。
這并不是說(shuō)工人在就業(yè)方面不會(huì)遇到很多障礙,,特別是系統(tǒng)性的不平等和歧視,。這份報(bào)告發(fā)現(xiàn),美國(guó)黑人,、女性和受教育程度較低的人更加頻繁地發(fā)現(xiàn)自己排在招聘隊(duì)伍的最后面,。
梅森說(shuō):“就業(yè)歧視當(dāng)然非常重要,我們不應(yīng)該忽視這一點(diǎn),。但還有很多其他障礙讓一些人比其他人更容易找到工作?!边@包括工作時(shí)間的靈活性,、地點(diǎn),甚至出身等因素,。
但值得注意的是,,據(jù)這份報(bào)告估算,要想增加這2800萬(wàn)個(gè)工作崗位,,美國(guó)的年均就業(yè)增長(zhǎng)率必須達(dá)到2.7%,,這是自20世紀(jì)70年代以來(lái)美國(guó)從未企及的增長(zhǎng)水平?!笆堑?,我們近年來(lái)還沒(méi)有看到過(guò)如此高的就業(yè)增長(zhǎng)率,但這并不意味著這是不可能的,?!弊髡邔?xiě)道。
而對(duì)雇主來(lái)說(shuō),,實(shí)現(xiàn)這種水平的充分就業(yè)將是顛覆性的,。公司和企業(yè)可能不得不放寬用人標(biāo)準(zhǔn),或者更加努力地招聘員工,。
“也許你不得不考慮那些你認(rèn)為沒(méi)有必要的大學(xué)學(xué)歷的人,、沒(méi)有必要的工作經(jīng)驗(yàn)的人,或者那些對(duì)工作時(shí)間更挑剔的人,?!泵飞f(shuō)。
“人們對(duì)勞動(dòng)力的買(mǎi)方市場(chǎng)習(xí)以為常,,現(xiàn)在市場(chǎng)出現(xiàn)了一些小調(diào)整,。但這種小調(diào)整并不意味著緊急狀況,也不意味著我們應(yīng)該切斷人們的工作機(jī)會(huì),,僅僅因?yàn)檫@會(huì)讓雇主過(guò)得更輕松一些,?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:任文科
盡管幾乎每家商店如今都貼滿(mǎn)了招工啟事,許多餐廳也因?yàn)槿耸植蛔愣鴴炱鹆斯膭?lì)食客耐心等候的告示,,但一份新出爐的研究報(bào)告發(fā)現(xiàn),,美國(guó)并不是真的缺乏勞動(dòng)力——遠(yuǎn)非如此。
根據(jù)羅斯福研究所(Roosevelt Institute)發(fā)布的新報(bào)告,,如果勞動(dòng)力需求持續(xù)強(qiáng)勁,,美國(guó)在未來(lái)10年能夠額外增加2800萬(wàn)個(gè)就業(yè)崗位。這足足比美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)預(yù)算辦公室(Congressional Budget Office)對(duì)最大就業(yè)人數(shù)的估算高出大約10個(gè)百分點(diǎn),。
“那種認(rèn)為美國(guó)存在絕對(duì)意義上的勞動(dòng)力短缺的說(shuō)法是非?;闹嚨摹V灰3之?dāng)前的緊張水平,,現(xiàn)在很多賦閑在家的人是可以而且也會(huì)進(jìn)入勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)的,。”該報(bào)告的執(zhí)筆者之一,,羅斯福研究所的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家J·W·梅森說(shuō),。
為了確定最大就業(yè)人數(shù),梅森和他的團(tuán)隊(duì)計(jì)算了潛在的勞動(dòng)力規(guī)?!旧鲜峭ㄟ^(guò)詢(xún)問(wèn)有多少人可能在美國(guó)工作,,并充分考慮了不同種族、性別,、受教育程度和年齡群體的就業(yè)率,。在這樣做的過(guò)程中,他們發(fā)現(xiàn)勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)要比傳統(tǒng)的失業(yè)指標(biāo)所顯示的情況松弛得多,。
“從本質(zhì)上說(shuō),,如果我們能夠消除種族就業(yè)差距,以及非育兒方面的性別就業(yè)差距,,并且讓不同受教育程度和年齡群體的就業(yè)差距恢復(fù)到相對(duì)近期的水平,,美國(guó)就可以額外獲得2800萬(wàn)工人?!泵飞诮邮堋敦?cái)富》雜志采訪時(shí)表示,。
這并不是說(shuō)工人在就業(yè)方面不會(huì)遇到很多障礙,特別是系統(tǒng)性的不平等和歧視,。這份報(bào)告發(fā)現(xiàn),,美國(guó)黑人、女性和受教育程度較低的人更加頻繁地發(fā)現(xiàn)自己排在招聘隊(duì)伍的最后面,。
梅森說(shuō):“就業(yè)歧視當(dāng)然非常重要,,我們不應(yīng)該忽視這一點(diǎn)。但還有很多其他障礙讓一些人比其他人更容易找到工作,?!边@包括工作時(shí)間的靈活性,、地點(diǎn),甚至出身等因素,。
但值得注意的是,,據(jù)這份報(bào)告估算,要想增加這2800萬(wàn)個(gè)工作崗位,,美國(guó)的年均就業(yè)增長(zhǎng)率必須達(dá)到2.7%,,這是自20世紀(jì)70年代以來(lái)美國(guó)從未企及的增長(zhǎng)水平?!笆堑?,我們近年來(lái)還沒(méi)有看到過(guò)如此高的就業(yè)增長(zhǎng)率,但這并不意味著這是不可能的,?!弊髡邔?xiě)道。
而對(duì)雇主來(lái)說(shuō),,實(shí)現(xiàn)這種水平的充分就業(yè)將是顛覆性的。公司和企業(yè)可能不得不放寬用人標(biāo)準(zhǔn),,或者更加努力地招聘員工,。
“也許你不得不考慮那些你認(rèn)為沒(méi)有必要的大學(xué)學(xué)歷的人、沒(méi)有必要的工作經(jīng)驗(yàn)的人,,或者那些對(duì)工作時(shí)間更挑剔的人,。”梅森說(shuō),。
“人們對(duì)勞動(dòng)力的買(mǎi)方市場(chǎng)習(xí)以為常,,現(xiàn)在市場(chǎng)出現(xiàn)了一些小調(diào)整。但這種小調(diào)整并不意味著緊急狀況,,也不意味著我們應(yīng)該切斷人們的工作機(jī)會(huì),,僅僅因?yàn)檫@會(huì)讓雇主過(guò)得更輕松一些?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:任文科
Despite the number of help-wanted signs dotting nearly every shop these days or notes encouraging patience at restaurants because of staffing shortages, a new report finds that the U.S. is far from a real dearth of workers.
A new report from the Roosevelt Institute finds that the U.S. could add an additional 28 million jobs over the next decade if there’s a sustained and strong demand for labor. That’s about 10 percentage points higher than the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of maximum employment.
“It's absurd to say there's a labor shortage in any absolute sense. There are a lot of people sitting on the sidelines who can and will come into the labor market if we just keep the current level of tightness,” says J.W. Mason, an author of the report and an economist with the Roosevelt Institute.
To determine maximum employment, Mason and the team calculated the size of the latent labor force by basically asking how many people could plausibly be working in the U.S. by taking into account employment rates across race, gender, education, and age. In doing so, they found that there’s much more labor market slack than conventional measures of unemployment suggest.
“Essentially, if you could get rid of the racial employment gap, get rid of the non-childcare gender gap, and just get the education and age gaps back to the levels they've been at in the relatively recent past, then that gets you 28 million additional workers,” Mason told Fortune.
That’s not to say that workers don’t face a lot of barriers to employment, including systemic inequalities and discrimination. The report finds that Black Americans, women, and those with less education do find themselves at the back of the hiring queue more often.
“Employment discrimination is very important and we shouldn't lose sight of that, but there are a lot of other barriers that make it easier for some people to get employed than others,” Mason says. That includes factors such as flexibility of worker schedules, location, and even background.
It’s worth noting, however, that the report estimates that adding these 28 million jobs would require an average annual growth in employment of 2.7%—a rate the U.S. hasn’t seen since the 1970s. “That we have not seen employment grow at this rate in recent years does not mean it is impossible,” the authors write.
And achieving this level of true full employment will be disruptive for employers. Companies and businesses may have to relax their standards or work a lot harder to recruit employees.
“Maybe you have to consider people without the college degree you thought was required, or people without as much experience as you thought was required, or people who are going to be pickier about their schedule,” Mason says.
“People are used to having a buyer's market for labor, and it's a little bit of an adjustment. But a little bit of adjustment does not mean an emergency, and it doesn't mean that we should be cutting off the opportunities for people to work just because that will make employers’ lives a little easier.”