Byron Auguste On Rewiring the U.S. Labor Market (Ep. 160)

He is author of a 1995 book called The Economics of International Payments Unions and Clearing Houses.

他是 1995 年出版的《国际支付联盟和清算所经济学》一书的作者。

He has a doctorate of philosophy in economics from Oxford University, an undergraduate econ degree from Yale, and has been a Marshall Scholar.

他拥有牛津大学经济学哲学博士学位、耶鲁大学经济学本科学位，并曾是马歇尔学者。

Welcome.

欢迎。

And learning digital tools — you’re much more likely to be able to learn them anywhere.

学习数字工具 — 您更有可能在任何地方学习它们。

With physical tools — let’s say in textiles or design — you need to be in a center where there’s a lot of other artisans.

对于物理工具 ——比如纺织品或设计——你需要处于一个有很多其他工匠的中心。

With digital tools, you can be more of anywhere.

借助数字工具，您可以随时随地。

When you have a couple of million people doing a job without a degree, and that job requires them doing a degree, maybe we should reevaluate what “requires” means.

当有数百万人从事没有学位的工作，而这项工作需要他们获得学位时，也许我们应该重新评估“需要”的含义。

I don’t talk about those jobs requiring a degree.

我不谈论那些需要学位的工作。

I think companies often screen out people.

我认为公司经常筛选人才。

They preemptively pre-screen people who don’t have a degree, but that’s not the same as saying it requires it.

他们先发制人地预先筛选没有学位的人，但这并不等于说需要学位。

If you look at the overlap of the distributions, if you’ve got millions of people that you’re excluding just because your arbitrary definition of them means that on average, that’s kind of dumb, isn’t it?

如果你看看分布的重叠，如果你有数百万人被排除在外，只是因为你对他们的任意定义意味着平均而言，这有点愚蠢，不是吗？

It’s like prejudice.

这就像偏见。

It’s prejudging somebody based on a statistical distribution, even though they quite likely could have those skills.

这是根据统计分布对某人进行预先判断，即使他们很可能拥有这些技能。

Twenty-five years ago, when you needed to just have a keyword search, fine.

二十五年前，当您只需要进行关键字搜索时，就可以了。

But now you could post the training that you do for your own people once they have the job, and see who could do the first three modules of the training, and give them an interview.

但现在，您可以在自己的员工获得工作后发布为他们所做的培训，看看谁可以完成培训的前三个模块，并给他们面试。

There are so many different ways, but the point is you should screen in based on skills, not screen out based on pedigree.

有很多不同的方法，但要点是你应该根据技能筛选，而不是根据血统筛选。

That’s the fundamental issue.

这是根本问题。

Secondly, having more pathways and ways to engage.

其次，有更多的参与途径和方式。

Most people move through the job market based on the skills they have, the experiences they have.

大多数人根据自己拥有的技能和经验在就业市场上流动。

So, if there’s not a lot of men in the early stages of care work, it actually is harder for them to move in, just like if there’s not a lot of women in the early stages of construction work, it’s harder for them to move in, even though there should be a lot more women in construction and a lot more men in care.

因此，如果在护理工作的早期阶段没有很多男性，那么她们实际上更难搬进来，就像在建筑工作的早期阶段没有很多女性一样，即使应该有更多的女性从事建筑工作和更多的男性从事护理工作，她们也更难搬进来。

You started this question with a typical bachelor’s degree, but there’s no typical bachelor’s degree, as you know, by topic, but also by school.

你从一个典型的学士学位开始这个问题，但正如你所知，没有典型的学士学位，按主题，但也按学校。

A college degree isn’t one thing.

大学学位不是一回事。

It’s 18,000 different things.

有 18,000 种不同的东西。

That’s the first point.

这是第一点。

As we talked about before, there’s a huge overlap in the distribution of actual skill, actual competency, IQ — everything you want — conscientiousness, all the rest of it.

正如我们之前谈到的，实际技能、实际能力、智商 —— 你想要的一切 —— 责任心，以及所有其他方面的分布存在巨大的重叠。

Picture someone coming out of, let’s say, a flagship state university versus somebody coming out with most community college degrees or who didn’t finish college, but who has basically the same characteristics.

想象一下，一个人来自一所旗舰州立大学，而另一个人拥有大多数社区大学学位或没有完成大学学业，但具有基本相同的特征。

The first one, the one coming out of college, is likely going to go into entry-level sales, entry-level management, entry-level technology.

第一个是大学毕业的，很可能会进入入门级销售、入门级管理、入门级技术。

And from then on, their employers will invest in developing their human capital as part of their employer’s business model and competitive strategy.

从那时起，他们的雇主将投资发展他们的人力资本，作为其雇主商业模式和竞争战略的一部分。

Whereas the second person who starts with the same skill set, same attributes, will probably be put into entry-level retail, warehouse, factory floor.

而第二个具有相同技能、相同属性的人可能会被派往入门级零售、仓库、工厂车间。

And for the most part, they will be trained for safety compliance and efficiency and not for career development and so forth.

在大多数情况下，他们将接受安全合规性和效率方面的培训，而不是职业发展等方面的培训。

After 10 years of that, well, then you’re going to have a massive difference in wage outcomes that, in the particular scenario I’m talking about, really don’t have to do with what they learned.

10年后，好吧，那么你的工资结果将会有巨大的差异，在我所说的特定场景中，这实际上与他们学到的东西无关。

They have to do with the initial signaling.

它们与初始信号有关。

We’ve got to recognize the fact that people are placed in jobs and kept from moving into jobs that they have the skills for.

我们必须认识到这样一个事实：人们被安排在工作岗位上，但却无法进入他们拥有技能的工作岗位。

We mostly learn on the job.

我们主要是在工作中学习。

That’s where most of our human capital is developed.

这是我们大部分人力资本得到开发的地方。

I think we’ve got it backwards when we think about a skills gap being driven by education.

我认为，当我们考虑教育造成的技能差距时，我们就搞错了。

The skills gap is a result of the opportunity gap that we’ve imposed — not entirely, but the implications for the college wage premium is that there are three things.

技能差距是我们强加的机会差距的结果——并不完全是这样，但对大学工资溢价的影响是三件事。

There’s signaling, there’s learning in college, but there’s also, what are you allowed to learn on the job as a result?

有信号，有大学学习，但还有，你可以在工作中学到什么？

If we have in America, let’s say, 37 percent of people get four-year college degrees.

假设在美国，37% 的人获得四年制大学学位。

The ones who don’t, on average, are less conscientious.

平均而言，那些不这样做的人不太认真。

Why think that 10 years later, given their lower conscientiousness, they can be retrained when they either couldn’t get through college, wouldn’t finish, didn’t even start — whatever the case may be?

为什么认为 10 年后，考虑到他们的责任心较低，当他们无法读完大学、无法完成学业、甚至没有开始的时候，他们可以接受再培训——无论情况如何？

For example, if you start at college, and you’re a first-generation college student, and then your mother who’s providing for your younger siblings gets sick, and you drop out of college to earn money to support your family, are you less conscientious than the more affluent person who’s taking college?

例如，如果你开始上大学，你是第一代大学生，然后你供养弟弟妹妹的母亲生病了，你从大学辍学赚钱养家，你是否比那些上大学的更富裕的人更不认真？

I don’t think so.

我不这么认为。

In other words —

换句话说 —

There are millions of people who aspire to go to college.

有数百万人渴望上大学。

We talk about people who are skilled through alternative routes, or STARs, that don’t have bachelor’s degrees.

我们谈论的是那些通过替代途径获得技能的人，即 STAR，但没有学士学位。

About 40 percent of them actually do have college credits, but they didn’t finish for a lot of reasons.

其中大约 40% 的人实际上确实拥有大学学分，但由于多种原因他们没有完成学业。

For example, they had to work, and they had to work a lot.

例如，他们必须工作，而且必须工作很多。

If their work schedule doesn’t correspond to their class schedule, then maybe they can’t get the classes they need.

如果他们的工作安排与他们的课程安排不符，那么他们可能无法获得他们需要的课程。

They basically would have to go six, seven years.

他们基本上要花六、七年。

They run out of money.

他们没钱了。

They might just plain run out of money.

他们可能只是没钱了。

There are all sorts of family instability.

家庭不稳定的因素有很多。

In other words, I just don’t agree with the view that says that the reason most people who don’t complete college don’t complete it because of some Animal House behavior.

换句话说，我只是不同意这样一种观点，即大多数没有完成大学学业的人之所以没有完成大学学业是因为一些动物之家的行为。

I disagree.

我不同意。

It’s mainly because of the economic and social conditions and what they have to do to manage the totality of life.

这主要是因为经济和社会条件以及他们必须做的事情来管理整体生活。

Finally, I’ll say most people in college right now are not 19-, 20-year-olds.

最后，我要说的是，现在大学里的大多数人都不是19岁、20岁的人。

Most people in college are actually working learners.

大多数大学里的人实际上都是在职学习者。

That’s the typical college student today.

这就是今天典型的大学生。

They already come to this with children, with responsibilities.

他们已经带着孩子和责任来到了这一步。

I just think our picture of what college is should be different than 50 years ago.

我只是认为我们对大学的看法应该与 50 年前有所不同。

It hasn’t caught up.

它还没有跟上。

There are also businesses exactly like the ones you’re talking about, that actually train and hire people, and they actually provide outsource services to companies because those companies wouldn’t hire those individuals because they don’t have degrees, but those individuals are great problem-solvers.

还有一些企业与您所谈论的企业完全相同，它们实际上培训和雇用人员，并且实际上向公司提供外包服务，因为这些公司不会雇用这些人，因为他们没有学位，但这些人是出色的问题解决者。

They’re great, and again, technology is the area where you see it the most, but that is happening actually.

它们很棒，再说一遍，技术是您看到最多的领域，但这实际上正在发生。

That’s an arbitrage opportunity, for sure.

这当然是一个套利机会。

There’s a lot to be said for that, but software development plus art, software development plus music — there’s really incredible value to having, if you will, orthogonal skill sets, hybrid skill sets because then you notice things other people don’t.

对此有很多话要说，但是软件开发加上艺术，软件开发加上音乐 ——如果你愿意的话，拥有正交技能集、混合技能集确实具有令人难以置信的价值，因为这样你就会注意到其他人没有注意到的事情。

I think so much of creativity comes at the margin between disciplines.

我认为很多创造力都来自学科之间的边缘。

I also think we’d get a lot more creativity if you had more diversity of talent.

我还认为，如果人才更加多元化，我们就会获得更多创造力。

In the Singapore context, that has one meaning, and in our context, that has a different meaning.

在新加坡的背景下，这有一种含义，而在我们的背景下，这有不同的含义。

But really, two different life experiences combined with the rigors of learning something well.

但实际上，两种不同的生活经历加上学好东西的严格要求。

I looked up the Gallup ratings on engagement at work, these international ratings.

我查阅了盖洛普关于工作敬业度的评级，这些国际评级。

There’s a set of people who are so unhappy at work that they want to sabotage things, and there’s a set of people who are so engaged at work that they’re excited.

有些人在工作中非常不开心，以至于他们想要破坏事情，而有些人则在工作中非常投入，以至于他们感到兴奋。

There’s a set of people in the middle.

中间有一群人。

Singapore has the highest percentage of people in the middle that are neither lit up nor are they disgruntled.

新加坡的中间人群中既不高兴也不不满的比例最高。

I mentioned that to the crowd, and there was a lot of knowing laughter.

我向人群提到了这一点，引起了很多会心的笑声。

I think that’s a positive and remains a positive.

我认为这是积极的，并且仍然是积极的。

I think it’s really important to recognize, though, when we talk about adopting the German system, people here tend to say, “Oh, German companies do apprenticeships, so US companies should do apprenticeships.” But it’s not just the German companies do apprenticeships.

不过，我认为认识到这一点非常重要，当我们谈论采用德国制度时，这里的人们往往会说，“哦，德国公司进行学徒制，所以美国公司应该进行学徒制。”但不仅仅是德国公司提供学徒培训。

German companies plug into an apprenticeship system, and they play their part in it.

德国公司加入了学徒制度，并在其中发挥了自己的作用。

Upper secondary education, labor councils, industry councils — these kinds of collective entities do the heavy lifting, and they plug into it.

高中教育、劳工委员会、工业委员会——这些集体实体承担着繁重的任务，并且参与其中。

I don’t think it’s that applicable here, and in particular, I don’t think the Hanseatic League and the hundreds of years of history that went into the development of that system — you can’t just replicate that here.

我不认为这在这里适用，特别是，我不认为汉萨联盟和该系统发展的数百年历史  -  你不能在这里复制它。

I think the US system would look different.

我认为美国的体系会有所不同。

I think the weakness of the German system — and partly why you’re seeing this more and more, Tyler — is they actually don’t use this system for .

我认为德国体系的弱点——泰勒——以及你越来越多地看到这种情况的部分原因是他们实际上并不使用这个体系。

.

。

.

。

let’s say you’re in your 30s, and there’s been a change in industrial structure, and you need to retool.

假设你30多岁了，产业结构发生了变化，你需要重新装备。

They don’t use the apprenticeship system for that.

他们不使用学徒制度。

Just a couple of years before COVID, I was over — the OECD and the EU had a session on the future of adult education as part of their Apprenticeship Week, and adult education — in the sense of those already in the workplace — is not as strong as your apprenticeship system.

就在新冠疫情爆发前几年，我就结束了——“经合组织和欧盟在其学徒周期间召开了一次关于成人教育未来的会议，而成人教育”——“就那些已经在工作场所的人来说”——并不像你们的学徒制度那么强大。

I think the dynamism of the economy means that just an education-to-employment model is not going to be enough.

我认为经济的活力意味着仅仅从教育到就业的模式是不够的。

I would like to see an American system leapfrog the German system, be much more data-driven, be much more inclusive, not just about education to employment, but about everyone in their pathways through the job.

我希望看到美国的体系超越德国的体系，更加数据驱动，更加包容，不仅涉及教育到就业，还涉及每个人的工作道路。

And we can see in the data that such a system is possible.

我们从数据中可以看到这样的系统是可能的。

Yes, absolutely, I think there are a lot of benefits to graduating from college.

是的，当然，我认为大学毕业有很多好处。

If you are in a position to graduate from a quality college, you definitely should try to do that.

如果你有能力从一所优质大学毕业，你绝对应该尝试这样做。

That would be my advice.

这就是我的建议。

Even if you want to be a plumber, maybe you should do that first because then society, as it exists, will both allow you to be a plumber and allow you to do other things if you decide you want to do other things later.

即使您想成为一名水管工，也许您应该首先这样做，因为存在的社会既允许您成为一名水管工，又允许您在以后决定要做其他事情时做其他事情。

That’s different than saying that we should organize a system in which something that cost tens of thousands of dollars and many years of your life is a prerequisite to having a decent job and a decent living.

这与我们应该组织一个体系不同，在这个体系中，花费数万美元和多年生命的东西是拥有体面工作和体面生活的先决条件。

I think that’s a terrible way to organize a society, which is different than saying, given how we’ve organized the society, what should an individual choose?

我认为这是一种糟糕的组织社会的方式，这不同于说，鉴于我们如何组织社会，个人应该选择什么？

If you were born in 1980, you’re age 30.

如果你是1980年出生的，那么你现在30岁了。

It looks like about half of Americans were living better than their parents and about half were living worse.

看起来大约一半的美国人比他们的父母生活得更好，而大约一半的美国人生活得比他们的父母更差。

Presumably, when we see the 2020 data, it’ll have gone underwater.

想必，当我们看到 2020 年的数据时，它已经被淹没了。

We’re the first generation in which Americans, and certainly white Americans, are living worse in material terms, in terms of their life possibilities — where more than half are living worse than their parents.

我们是第一代美国人，当然还有美国白人，在物质方面、在生活可能性方面生活得更糟——超过一半的人比他们的父辈生活得更糟。

That is a profound shock.

这是一个深刻的震撼。

I think that on top of it, given so much of it is economics and gender expectations being what they are, that probably does hit men harder.

我认为最重要的是，考虑到经济和性别期望本身，这可能确实对男性造成更大的打击。

More and more of those pathways, where if you didn’t have a college degree but you kept your nose clean and you worked hard — again, for white men, that usually worked out, and now it often doesn’t.

越来越多的这样的途径，如果你没有大学学位，但你保持干净并努力工作——同样，对于白人来说，这通常会奏效，但现在却常常行不通。

A big part of it is just insane levels of pedigree bias, where we attribute so much value to having a bachelor’s degree as opposed to actually doing the job.

其中很大一部分原因就是疯狂的血统偏见，我们认为拥有学士学位比实际做这份工作更有价值。

That doesn’t just affect white men; it affects many.

这不仅影响白人男性，也影响男性。它影响到很多人。

But I do think that that shift in reality relative to expectations has been a significant part of it.

但我确实认为现实相对于期望的转变是其中的重要组成部分。

I’m not saying that doctors shouldn’t have medical degrees or perhaps even that you need a civil engineering degree to be building a bridge.

我并不是说医生不应该拥有医学学位，甚至不是说你需要土木工程学位才能建造一座桥梁。

But we are requiring bachelor’s degrees for jobs in sales, in general management, in IT operations, where you can easily see whether someone has the skills or not.

但我们要求销售、综合管理、IT 运营等职位拥有学士学位，在这些职位上你可以很容易地看出某人是否具备相关技能。

Millions of employers for millions of jobs — you’re adding these degree requirements.

数以百万计的雇主提供数以百万计的工作岗位 ——你正在添加这些学位要求。

Yes, at the individual level, I think we are overvaluing degrees and we are undervaluing the skills of people who are skilled through alternative routes, or STARs.

是的，在个人层面上，我认为我们高估了学位，而低估了通过替代途径（STAR）获得技能的人的技能。

But at a system level, it’s incredibly destructive math.

但在系统层面，这是极具破坏性的数学。

If 70 percent of new jobs in the 10 years to COVID were ones that employers said, “Oh, you need a bachelor’s degree,” but only 40 percent of American workers have a bachelor’s degree, well, then obviously, that math doesn’t work.

如果在新冠疫情爆发的 10 年内，70% 的新工作都是雇主说的“哦，你需要学士学位”，但只有 40% 的美国工人拥有学士学位，那么显然，数学是行不通的。

It’s absolutely self-harm at a system level.

从系统层面来说，这绝对是一种自我伤害。

It is a market problem, but it’s a collective-action problem too.

这是一个市场问题，但也是一个集体行动问题。

Like healthcare, it’s a market where the ultimate use is not necessarily by the person hiring or training, and even more so, it’s a market where self-concept plays a big role.

与医疗保健一样，这个市场的最终用途不一定是由雇用或培训的人员来实现，更重要的是，这是一个自我概念发挥重要作用的市场。

For example, in the HR field — that was a field, 30 years ago, where if you were a good, conscientious, people-person manager, someone might say, “Hey, you should look into a stint in HR.” The HR department had people who had worked in operations, on the factory floor, in finance — just all over.

例如，在人力资源领域——30 年前，在这个领域，如果你是一位优秀、尽职尽责、以人为本的经理，有人可能会说，“嘿，你应该考虑在人力资源领域工作一段时间。”人力资源部门的人都曾在运营部门、工厂车间、财务部门工作过——到处都有。

It was a very diverse group.

这是一个非常多元化的群体。

Now it’s a field that, over the last three years, has become the most credentialized.

现在，这个领域在过去三年中已成为最受认可的领域。

Now, that’s the front end of screening.

现在，这是筛选的前端。

“Hey, we’re hiring for an important job.

“嘿，我们正在招聘一项重要的工作。

Well, my job’s important, and I have a bachelor’s degree for it, so, probably this has to have a bachelor’s degree.” There’s a tremendous amount of cut and pasting going on, just without thinking about what the role requires.

嗯，我的工作很重要，而且我有学士学位，所以，可能这必须有学士学位。”进行了大量的剪切和粘贴，只是没有考虑角色的要求。

I think you can’t ignore these hysteresis effects, if you will.

我认为如果你愿意的话，你不能忽视这些滞后效应。

There’s a path dependency here that’s taken us far off course.

这里存在一种路径依赖，使我们偏离了轨道。

It’s not just about some straight free-market decisions.

这不仅仅是一些直接的自由市场决策。

I don’t know if you saw this.

我不知道你是否看到了这个。

There was a Harvard Business Review, the big survey, Harvard Business School survey and Accenture, I think, that actually looked at attitudes about digital transformation.

我认为，哈佛商业评论、大型调查、哈佛商学院调查和埃森哲实际上考察了人们对数字化转型的态度。

And senior executives said that one of the biggest barriers to digital transformation is that their frontline workers did not want to learn new skills.

高管们表示，数字化转型的最大障碍之一是一线员工不愿意学习新技能。

But they also surveyed frontline workers who, off the charts, wanted to learn new skills for digital transformation and saw as the problem that they weren’t being given any guidance on what skills to learn.

但他们也调查了一线员工，他们非常希望学习数字化转型的新技能，并认为问题是他们没有得到任何关于学习哪些技能的指导。

I think you see that that’s absolutely true of college.

我想你知道这对于大学来说绝对是正确的。

Think about the information problem facing someone working in a frontline job, say, making $15 an hour, who wants to do better, wants to earn more, wants to be able to support their family more.

想想那些从事一线工作的人所面临的信息问题，比如说，每小时挣 15 美元的人，想要做得更好，想要赚更多的钱，想要能够更多地养家糊口。

Half the people will say, “Oh, you need to go to school.

一半的人会说：“哦，你需要去上学。

You need to go four years, five years, six years, and then see what happens.” The other half of the people are like, “Oh, you should apply for a job.”

你需要四年、五年、六年，然后看看会发生什么。”另一半人会说，“哦，你应该申请一份工作。”

If you say, “Go to school,” where do I get the money?

如果你说“去上学”，我从哪里得到钱？

By the way, even if I can get scholarships or student loans or whatever, who supports my kids?

顺便说一句，即使我可以获得奖学金或学生贷款什么的，谁来养活我的孩子？

Who pays the rent?

谁付房租？

That’s one problem.

这是一个问题。

Then it’ll be years before you know.

然后你要过很多年才能知道。

But then, if you apply for a job, you’re not going to know that much more either.

但是，如果你申请工作，你也不会知道更多。

You might not get the job, but then the question is, why didn’t you get the job?

你可能得不到这份工作，但问题是，你为什么没有得到这份工作？

You don’t get feedback from the interview.

您不会从面试中得到反馈。

You don’t know if you’ve been screened out.

你不知道自己是否被筛选掉了。

We’ve worked with people who said, “You can’t get me a job at this company.

我们曾与这样的人共事：“你无法在这家公司为我找到工作。

I’ve applied four times.

我已经申请了四次了。

They rejected me.” But guess what?

他们拒绝了我。”但你猜怎么着？

They hadn’t rejected them.

他们并没有拒绝他们。

They had screened them out.

他们已经把他们筛选掉了。

They had not evaluated their skills and found them wanting.

他们没有评估自己的技能，发现自己有不足之处。

They had screened them out without considering them.

他们没有考虑就将他们筛选掉了。

Since we partner with this company, say, “Hey, in our system, you just do it based on skills and attributes.

由于我们与这家公司合作，因此可以说：“嘿，在我们的系统中，你只需根据技能和属性来做这件事。

You don’t screen people out.” They actually got the job.

你不会把人排除在外。”他们确实得到了这份工作。

There is a market failure in the actual workflow of hiring that is massive, and I agree with you.

在实际的招聘工作流程中存在着巨大的市场失灵，我同意你的观点。

We should be very optimistic about being able to overcome that.

我们应该对能够克服这个问题感到非常乐观。

I can tell you, lots of employers have been moving in that direction for the last 5, 10 years because they see the old direction’s not working for them.

我可以告诉你，在过去的 5、10 年里，许多雇主一直在朝着这个方向前进，因为他们发现旧的方向不适合他们。

But I think there’s a much larger opportunity.

但我认为还有更大的机会。

I think no one entity, no one person, no one organization, not even one sector can solve this problem alone.

我认为没有一个实体、没有一个人、没有一个组织、甚至没有一个部门能够单独解决这个问题。

I really think it’s a multi-sector problem.

我真的认为这是一个多部门的问题。

The question isn’t, how can a nonprofit solve it?

问题不是，非营利组织如何解决这个问题？

Because a nonprofit can’t solve it.

因为非营利组织无法解决这个问题。

The question is, what’s missing?

问题是，缺少什么？

Fundamentally, I believe — and Opportunity@Work believes — what’s missing is an actual set of valid signals that show you screen-in signals, as opposed to screen-out signals.

从根本上说，我相信 — 而 Opportunity@Work 也相信 — 缺少的是一组实际的有效信号，这些信号向您显示屏幕输入信号，而不是屏幕输出信号。

You cannot interview everybody, but if you’re screening out because, on average, you think people with a bachelor’s degree are better, therefore, you’re screening out millions of people who can do the job — well, that’s a terrible system.

你不可能面试所有人，但如果你因为平均而言认为拥有学士学位的人更好而进行筛选，那么你就筛选出了数以百万计能够胜任这项工作的人——好吧，这是一个糟糕的系统。

An individual employer — they can’t necessarily change that whole system because the system works through hiring platforms and lots of other things.

个体雇主——他们不一定会改变整个系统，因为该系统通过招聘平台和许多其他东西运行。

And the employers that have the biggest ability to change it don’t need to change it as much because they’re winning the poaching wars.

而最有能力改变这种情况的雇主不需要做出太多改变，因为他们正在赢得偷猎战争。

It’s the companies that are losing the poaching wars that are actually really sucking wind on talent.

那些在挖角战中失败的公司实际上正在吸走人才。

They don’t have the power to change that system, but they can change their practices, and we’re working to help them.

他们没有权力改变这个系统，但他们可以改变他们的做法，我们正在努力帮助他们。

But I will say this.

但我会这么说。

If you think about something like the SAT, when it first started — I’m talking about in the 1930s essentially — it was an alternative route into a college.

如果你想一想像 SAT 这样的考试，当它刚开始时 ——我说的是 20 世纪 30 年代本质上的考试——它是进入大学的另一种途径。

It started with the Ivies.

它始于常春藤盟校。

It was started with James Conant and Harvard and the Ivies and the Seven Sisters and the rest, and then it gradually moved out.

它是由詹姆斯·科南特、哈佛、常春藤盟校、七姐妹大学和其他学校开始的，然后逐渐退出。

The problem they were trying to solve back in the ’30s was that up until that point, the way you got into, say, Dartmouth is the headmaster of Choate would write to Dartmouth and say, “Here’s our 15 candidates for Dartmouth.” Dartmouth would mostly take them because Choate knew what Dartmouth wanted.

他们在 30 年代试图解决的问题是，直到那时，你进入达特茅斯的方式是乔特的校长会写信给达特茅斯并说：“这是达特茅斯的 15 名候选人。”达特茅斯学院大多会录取他们，因为乔特知道达特茅斯学院想要什么。

Then you had the high school movement in the US, where between 1909 and 1939, you went from 9 percent of American teenagers going to high school to 79 percent going to high school.

然后美国发生了高中运动，从 1909 年到 1939 年间，美国青少年上高中的比例从 9% 上升到 79%。

Now, suddenly, you had high school students applying to college.

现在，突然间，有高中生申请大学。

They were at Dubuque Normal School in Iowa.

他们在爱荷华州的迪比克师范学校。

How does Dartmouth know whether this person was .

达特茅斯如何知道这个人是否是。

.

。

.

。

The people from Choate didn’t start taking the SATs, but the SAT — even though it was a pretty terrible test at the time, it was better than nothing.

Choate的人并没有开始参加SAT考试，但是SAT ——尽管当时这是一个相当糟糕的考试，但总比没有好。

It was a way that someone who was out there — not in the normal feeder schools — could distinguish themselves.

这是一种让那些在外面——“不在正常的寄宿学校”——的人能够脱颖而出的方式。

I think that is a very valuable role to play.

我认为这是一个非常有价值的角色。

As you know, Tyler, the SAT does, to some extent, still play that role.

泰勒，正如你所知，SAT 在某种程度上仍然扮演着这个角色。

But also, because now that everybody has had to use it, it also is something that can be gamed more — test prep and all the rest of it.

而且，因为现在每个人都必须使用它，所以它也是可以更多地进行游戏的东西——测试准备和所有其他的东西。

Now, in 1983, with the nation at risk, we suddenly decided, “Oh, point of high school is for everyone to go to college.” No one had told high schools up until that point.

现在，在 1983 年，国家处于危险之中，我们突然决定，“哦，高中的目的是让每个人都上大学。”直到那时还没有人告诉高中。

Now that that’s the case, the basic problem is, if you keep the number of college seats constant, and you demand that everybody try to go to college — and in fact, if businesses, to some extent, weaponize college degrees by saying, “Oh, if you don’t have a college degree, you can’t get into a decent job” — well then, suddenly you’ve got a huge demand for college degrees, and you’ve got basically mostly fixed supply.

现在情况确实如此，基本问题是，如果你保持大学学位的数量不变，并且你要求每个人都努力上大学 ——事实上，如果企业在某种程度上将大学学位武器化，说：“哦，如果你没有大学学位，你就找不到一份体面的工作” ——那么，突然间你对大学学位的需求很大，而且基本上基本上是固定的供应。

What happens, as an economist?

作为经济学家，会发生什么？

What happens is, you create this horrible zero-sum bottleneck in the talent-development system and in the signaling system.

发生的情况是，你在人才发展系统和信号系统中造成了这种可怕的零和瓶颈。

So yes, you can debate what should be the signals that allow people to go to college.

所以，是的，你可以争论什么是允许人们上大学的信号。

But the fact of the matter is, we should have 50 percent more, maybe twice as many high-quality seats in college.

但事实是，我们的大学优质席位应该增加 50%，也许是两倍。

That’s the problem.

这就是问题所在。

Affirmative action and testing and issues like this become life-or-death issues because we put way too much weight on that bottleneck.

平权行动、测试以及诸如此类的问题成为生死攸关的问题，因为我们过于重视这个瓶颈。

What we really need is more quality college seats, and we need many more valid alternative routes.

我们真正需要的是更多优质的大学座位，我们需要更多有效的替代路线。

That should be not just for people who are 18, 19, 20, but people in their 20s, people in their 30s, people in their 40s, people in their 50s because jobs are changing all the time, and we need all the talents.

这不应该只是针对18、19、20岁的人，还应该是20多岁的人、30多岁的人、40多岁的人、50多岁的人，因为工作一直在变化，我们需要所有的人才。

It is absolutely not the case that people stop learning.

人们绝对不会停止学习。

That’s what we need.

这就是我们所需要的。

I think a lot of this is a second-order distraction because what we actually need is more of the good thing, not just different ways of screening people out.

我认为这在很大程度上是一种二阶干扰，因为我们真正需要的是更多的好事，而不仅仅是筛选人员的不同方式。

I think college should also be much more seen as skills acquisition along the way.

我认为大学也应该更多地被视为一种技能的获取过程。

You think of Western Governors University, which is an example of filling a market.

你会想到西部州长大学，它就是填补市场的一个例子。

It’s a nonprofit, but it’s been growing by I think 10 percent, 15 percent a year since it was founded.

它是一个非营利组织，但自成立以来，我认为它每年以 10%、15% 的速度增长。

And it’s competency-based education, where every level of learning can be validated.

这是基于能力的教育，每个级别的学习都可以得到验证。

In principle, the bachelor’s degree is the ribbon and bow at the end of the process.

原则上，学士学位是该过程最后的丝带和蝴蝶结。

One of the things that’s really powerful is that there’s a huge overlap in the skill set required for many low-wage jobs and those for many middle-wage jobs.

真正强大的事情之一是，许多低薪工作和许多中等工资工作所需的技能存在巨大重叠。

A second-level call center representative has a lot of the skills required for enterprise sales, for example, but enterprise sales might pay twice as much money.

例如，二级呼叫中心代表拥有企业销售所需的很多技能，但企业销售可能支付两倍的钱。

If you think about formal education or training as more like topping up the skills you learn on the job, you have a much more efficient path to source people by the millions into jobs you want.

如果您认为正规教育或培训更像是补充您在工作中学到的技能，那么您就有一条更有效的途径来为数百万人提供您想要的工作。

That’s a much more direct path.

这是一条更直接的道路。

There are about 50 gateway jobs that are lower-wage jobs where the skills required for them basically match the skills for middle-wage jobs.

大约有 50 个门户工作属于低工资工作，其所需技能基本上与中等工资工作的技能相匹配。

The 70 million STARs — 30 million of them have skills for a job that pays 50 percent more than the jobs they’re in today.

7000 万 STAR——其中 3000 万拥有的技能足以胜任比他们现在从事的工作工资高出 50% 的工作。

And you’ll say, “Well, why doesn’t the market allow them to move into those jobs?” The answer is, it partly does.

你会说，“那么，为什么市场不允许他们从事这些工作呢？”答案是，部分如此。

We have a database of 130 million job transitions, and that’s exactly how STARs — and for that matter, people with bachelor’s degrees — tend to move into higher-wage jobs.

我们有一个包含 1.3 亿个工作转换的数据库，这正是 STAR   以及拥有学士学位的人  倾向于进入更高工资工作的方式。

They move into higher-wage jobs with highly overlapping skill sets to the jobs they’re in.

他们从事高薪工作，技能与所从事的工作高度重叠。

We see a much more direct impact than genomics or teaching third graders to code or any number of things you might also think might matter.

我们看到了比基因组学或教三年级学生编码或您可能也认为可能重要的许多事情更直接的影响。

A much more direct effect is, instead of these movements happening at random, why don’t we put some street lights around them?

更直接的影响是，我们为什么不在它们周围放置一些路灯，而不是这些运动随机发生？

Why don’t we actually treat these accidental pathways up through the labor market as intentional ones?

为什么我们不把这些偶然进入劳动力市场的途径视为有意的途径呢？

I think that can be the basis of an American system, if you will, that’s much more related to data, much more driven by work, as opposed to just waiting.

我认为这可以成为美国体系的基础，如果你愿意的话，它更多地与数据相关，更多地由工作驱动，而不是仅仅等待。

I think that would be a far superior — or rather, not as a replacement for higher education because, again, pluralism matters.

我认为这将是一种更优越的教育——或者更确切地说，不能替代高等教育，因为多元化很重要。

It’s creating a wide variety of ways that people can succeed.

它创造了人们取得成功的多种方式。

Well, if the actual outcomes today are generated by all sorts of bias — and most obviously, for the purposes of this conversation, this degree bias — well, then the AI will say, “Oh, well, you’re not going to probably be able to get that job because all our data says you won’t.”

好吧，如果今天的实际结果是由各种偏见产生的——最明显的是，为了本次对话的目的，这种程度的偏见——好吧，那么人工智能会说，“哦，好吧，你可能无法得到那份工作，因为我们所有的数据都表明你不会。”

But why is it?

但为什么会这样呢？

It’s not because of some intrinsic reason.

这并不是因为某些内在原因。

It’s because we have a system that’s biased against you.

这是因为我们的系统对你有偏见。

The same can be true if you look at the levels of occupational segregation in this country by gender, certainly, but by race also.

如果你看看这个国家按性别划分的职业隔离程度，情况也是如此，当然，也按种族划分。

For you to believe that that’s an actually optimal situation, you’d have to have a pretty low opinion of, let’s say, Black people because —

为了让你相信这实际上是一个最佳情况，你必须对黑人有很低的看法，因为 -

What AI is doing — the machine learning AI is turbocharging the failures of the human system.

人工智能正在做什么 ——机器学习人工智能正在加剧人类系统的故障。

I’m not blaming the AI, to be very clear.

需要明确的是，我并不是在责怪人工智能。

I think AI could be very helpful, extremely helpful.

我认为人工智能会非常有帮助，非常有帮助。

To apply machine learning to human learning, for example — I think that can be very powerful.

例如，将机器学习应用于人类学习 —— 我认为这可能非常强大。

I could see, in the future, you could have a business model that had an AI patch.

我可以看到，在未来，你可能会拥有一个带有人工智能补丁的商业模式。

You have 85 percent of the skills for the job.

您拥有该工作 85% 的技能。

The AI can help you do the other 15 percent, can teach you as you go, can validate when you have the skills.

AI 可以帮助您完成剩下的 15%，可以边做边教您，可以验证您何时具备技能。

It could be metered, and then it goes away, and you have all the skills.

它可以被计量，然后它就消失了，你就拥有了所有的技能。

AI can be incredibly helpful, but it’s got to be trying to solve the right problem.

人工智能可以非常有帮助，但它必须努力解决正确的问题。

This is the biggest thing about AI.

这是人工智能最重要的事情。

What is the problem you’re trying to solve?

您想要解决的问题是什么？

Secondarily, what are the constraints you’re imposing?

其次，你施加的限制是什么？

Because an AI will then go to town, but if you’re trying to solve the wrong problem with an AI, it’s a disaster.

因为人工智能随后会进城，但如果你试图用人工智能解决错误的问题，那就是一场灾难。

I’m not blaming the AI.

我并不是责怪人工智能。

That’s the wrong problem statement.

这是错误的问题陈述。

A right problem statement is, how do you help people who have a tremendous amount of skills but not all of them?

一个正确的问题陈述是，你如何帮助那些拥有大量技能但不是全部技能的人？

We’re not quite sure.

我们不太确定。

If you set AI to solve that problem, well, I think AI could be very powerful.

如果你让人工智能来解决这个问题，那么我认为人工智能会非常强大。

One, they’ve concluded that when you have all the data, the bachelor’s degree has zero additional explanatory power.

第一，他们得出的结论是，当你拥有所有数据时，学士学位的额外解释力为零。

That’s one thing when you apply most of it.

当你应用其中的大部分时，这是一回事。

The second thing is, the best teams are not just aggregations of the “best individuals” in the role.

第二件事是，最好的团队不仅仅是该角色中“最好的个人”的集合。

The best teams have dynamics of their own that include some that are more team players, some that are more .

最好的团队有自己的动力，其中一些团队更具团队精神，一些则更具团队精神。

.

。

.

。

It’s not that applying AI has to be problematic.

这并不是说应用人工智能一定会出现问题。

It’s that applying AI to a problem that’s poorly understood and poorly specified is not going to work.

问题的关键是，将人工智能应用于人们理解甚少且描述不明确的问题是行不通的。

What it actually did is a combination of removing degree requirements for some jobs where they clearly didn’t belong, and in other cases, it had to do with jobs that there weren’t really formal degree requirements, but there also wasn’t outreach to STARs.

它实际上所做的是取消一些明显不属于的工作的学位要求，而在其他情况下，它与没有真正正式学位要求的工作有关，但也没有向 STAR 进行推广。

I think a big thing that Maryland and Governor Hogan did — and he and I were there announcing this together, but he really focused on, “We see your talent, we see your skills, we want it.

我认为马里兰州和霍根州长做了一件大事——他和我一起宣布了这一点，但他真正关注的是，“我们看到了你的才华，我们看到了你的技能，我们想要它。

We want your help solving the problems for the state of Maryland.” That’s really important.

我们希望您帮助解决马里兰州的问题。”这真的很重要。

I get annoyed when I hear people, “Oh, are we going to give someone a job?” A job is not a gift.

当我听到人们说“哦，我们要给某人一份工作吗？”时，我会很生气。工作不是一份礼物。

Work is solving problems, and STARs are problem-solvers.

工作就是解决问题，而STAR就是问题解决者。

We have a lot of unsolved problems, and when you have people who can help you solve the problems, and you’re keeping them out, that’s ridiculous.

我们有很多未解决的问题，当有人可以帮助你解决问题时，你却将他们拒之门外，这是荒谬的。

Maryland also posted hundreds of these jobs on Stellarworx, which is Opportunity@Work’s STARs talent marketplace.

马里兰州还在 Opportunity@Work 的 STAR 人才市场 Stellarworx 上发布了数百个此类职位。

Look, it’s getting the pipeline going because they’ve had lots of applications.

看，它正在启动管道，因为他们已经有很多应用程序。

We offer some additional ways to screen people in.

我们提供一些额外的方式来筛选人员。

Again, at the end of the day, it’s those who hire in Maryland — there’s a very formal process.

再说一次，归根结底，是那些在马里兰州招聘的人——有一个非常正式的流程。

One thing that’s been really gratifying is that many other states have reached out, and many other county governments have reached out, but also lots of employers.

真正令人欣慰的一件事是，许多其他州已经伸出援手，许多其他县政府也伸出援手，但也有很多雇主伸出援手。

Many employers that we worked with already have seen the Maryland examples being very validating for their work.

与我们合作的许多雇主已经看到马里兰州的例子非常适合他们的工作。

If they say this thing that was never invented for that, this college degree and, ideally, a selective college degree — that’s what we’re going to base it on.

如果他们说这个从来没有为此发明过的东西，这个大学学位，以及理想情况下的选择性大学学位 ——这就是我们要建立的基础。

That’s the thing.

就是这样。

It sets this incredible magnetic signal that everybody’s got to charge towards that.

它发出了令人难以置信的磁信号，每个人都必须为此充电。

Then we say, all right, that sets off the competition in higher ed.

然后我们说，好吧，这引发了高等教育领域的竞争。

How do we judge whether you’re doing well in higher ed?

我们如何判断你在高等教育方面表现是否良好？

I’ll tell you what, how about this?

我告诉你什么，这个怎么样？

The more people you can exclude, the better you’re doing.

你可以排除的人越多，你做得就越好。

So, we’re saying everybody needs a college degree, and then we’re saying, you get to the top of the rankings in U.S. News & World Report by excluding as many people as you can.

所以，我们说每个人都需要大学学位，然后我们说，通过排除尽可能多的人，你可以在《美国新闻与世界报道》中名列前茅。

That is a terrible incentive structure.

这是一个糟糕的激励结构。

Surprise!

惊喜！

Colleges are trying to rise up the rankings.

大学正在努力提高排名。

They’re trying to be better reviewed, so you get what you ask for.

他们试图得到更好的审查，所以你会得到你所要求的。

That’s the thing.

就是这样。

What’s mystifying to me, Tyler, is how surprised businesses are when they say, “Oh, colleges, aren’t giving us the skills we want.” It’s like, they’re giving you what you ask for, which is people with bachelor’s degrees, and then we’re surprised when we say, “Oh, the best college is the one that keeps the most out,” and then we’re saying, “Why don’t colleges let more people in?” The problem starts with this combination of an elitist attitude.

泰勒，让我感到困惑的是，当企业说“哦，大学没有给我们提供我们想要的技能”时，他们是多么惊讶。就像，他们给了你你想要的东西，那就是拥有学士学位的人，然后当我们说“哦，最好的大学就是把最多的人拒之门外”时，我们会感到惊讶，然后我们说，“为什么大学不让更多的人进来呢？”问题始于这种精英主义态度的结合。

It says, “Oh, how do you know something’s good?” It’s that not many people can do it.

它说：“哦，你怎么知道某样东西是好的？”就是没有多少人能做到。

No, that’s wrong.

不，那是错误的。

I think colleges should be judged by how many people they successfully include and how much progress they help them make, not just in terms of their potential earnings — although it’s obviously important — but what they learn.

我认为评判大学的标准应该是看他们成功接纳了多少人，以及他们帮助他们取得了多少进步，而不仅仅是看他们的潜在收入————尽管这显然很重要————而是看他们学到了什么。

They might learn that they want to do something completely different.

他们可能会发现自己想做一些完全不同的事情。

I think colleges should be judged by that, and right now we’re judging colleges in almost the worst possible way.

我认为应该以此来评判大学，而现在我们正在以几乎最糟糕的方式评判大学。

It shouldn’t be surprising that many colleges feel the pressure to try to be elite, to see how many people they can get to apply, how many people they can reject, and not to add seats because then it would be harder to do that.

毫不奇怪，许多大学感受到了努力成为精英的压力，看看他们能吸引多少人申请，他们能拒绝多少人，而不是增加席位，因为那样做就更难了。

I think we need to change the incentive structure for universities, but that’s a very different thing than saying we should disrespect college education or university education.

我认为我们需要改变大学的激励结构，但这与我们应该不尊重大学教育或大学教育是完全不同的事情。

I think it’s obviously incredibly important and valuable for the country.

我认为这对国家来说显然非常重要和有价值。

We need more of it for more people.

我们需要为更多的人提供更多。

But I think the problem is more when we go to this monoculture, and we say there’s a single metric by which to judge people, by which to judge universities.

但我认为，当我们谈到这种单一文化时，问题就更大了，我们说有一个单一的标准来评判人，评判大学。

I think that’s a pretty big mistake.

我认为这是一个很大的错误。

It tends to be specific to the situation and to the role, of course, because I’d be looking for different things for someone who’s doing, let’s say, sales or business development versus someone who’s doing analytics.

当然，它往往针对具体情况和角色，因为我会为从事销售或业务开发的人与从事分析的人寻找不同的东西。

Someone who’s doing sales and business development, who maybe can’t sell me on anything in the interview, I’d be more concerned.

如果是从事销售和业务开发的人，他们可能无法在面试中向我推销任何东西，我会更担心。

But someone who’s doing careful research who doesn’t sell me on anything in the interview, I’d be okay with that.

但如果有人在进行仔细的研究，并且在采访中没有向我兜售任何东西，我就可以接受。

For me, at that level, what I’m looking for a little bit is anomalies.

对我来说，在这个层面上，我正在寻找的一点是异常现象。

I would put more weight on their track record, but in the interview, I’d want to understand — we call it production function — how did they get that track record?

我会更看重他们的业绩记录，但在采访中，我想了解 — 我们称之为生产函数 — 他们是如何获得这一业绩记录的？

Is that something that is more at the expense of the others around them?

这是不是更多地以牺牲周围其他人为代价？

Or is it something that actually has built up the success of the team too?

或者这实际上也为团队的成功奠定了基础？

If an interview doesn’t jive with the track record, I want to dig deeper.

如果采访与以往的记录不相符，我想进行更深入的挖掘。

I think interviews may be overrated for jobs where there are .

我认为对于有面试的工作来说，面试可能被高估了。

.

。

.

。

or a whole series of interviews might be overrated for jobs where there’s a huge number of positions to be filled, and the role is relatively standardized and understood.

或者，对于需要填补的职位数量巨大、而且该职位相对标准化和易于理解的工作来说，一系列面试可能会被高估。

I think we should have a lot more where people can demonstrate that they’re ready for a job.

我认为我们应该有更多的东西让人们可以证明他们已经为工作做好了准备。

Even if they don’t get that particular job, they get pulled into another similar job without another whole round of interviews.

即使他们没有得到那份特定的工作，他们也会被拉到另一份类似的工作，而无需进行另一轮面试。