Reading Notes 2016.11.15 – Compensation Problem

# A Hicks-Kaldor compensation for the creative destructive process?

此書的 chapter 15.0 處,有這樣一段話:

In most economies for which data is available, at least 10% of jobs are destroyed every year, and about the same number of new ones are created. Every day, in France or the UK, a job is destroyed and another one created every 14 seconds. This is part of the creative destruction process at the heart of capitalist economies that we described in Unit 1 and Unit 2.

Those who lose their jobs bear substantial costs in the short run. The short run may not seem very short to them: it can last years or even decades. Those who benefit may be the children of the handloom weaver displaced by the power loom; the children of the unemployed typist who was displaced by the computer. They benefit by finding a job in an occupation that is more productive than the job their parents did, and they may share in the benefit from the new goods and services that are available because the power loom or the computer exist.

同樣的說法我也聽其他經濟學家說過。只是,以我粗淺的福利經濟學知識,還有代際流動的實證研究看來,這裡隱含的compensation宣稱恐怕難以成立。當然,我也沒看過哪個經濟學家正經八百地要論證此宣稱。Just a kind of folk wisdom.

與此相關,在美國總統選舉之後,我看到了這樣一篇報導:「同溫層泡泡」破裂了, by Alice Yang. 其中作者引述了她同學的一段話:

我來自堪薩斯州的農村,一個無法用都市形容的地方,我身旁的親人,我的叔叔、阿姨,甚至連我的父母都支持川普,好幾次我都和我的爸爸吵了很兇的架,他對我大吼他無法了解我,但我也很困惑為什麼我也沒辦法瞭解他。我好痛苦,也好害怕,為什麼一場選舉讓我的家庭變成了這樣。

來自堪薩斯州農村的小孩上了哈佛,這不正是前述書中那段話的意思嗎?但這結果,從明說的或隱含的 compensation principle 的角度,又該怎麼理解呢?