David Cutler and Ed Glaeser on the Health and Wealth of Cities (Ep. 131)

Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler.

大家好，欢迎回到《与泰勒对话》。

Today I am here with two Harvard economists who have a new book out, co-authored.

今天，我和两位哈佛大学经济学家在一起，他们合着了一本新书。

The two economists are David Cutler and Ed Glaeser.

这两位经济学家是大卫·卡特勒和埃德·格莱泽。

The new book is called Survival of the City: Living and Thriving in an Age of Isolation.

这本新书名为《城市的生存：孤立时代的生活与繁荣》。

It’s about urbanism.

这是关于城市化的。

It’s about the pandemic.

这是关于大流行的。

It’s about healthcare economics and much more.

它涉及医疗保健经济学等等。

Thank you very much for having me.

非常感谢你邀请我。

It’s a pleasure to be able to see and speak with you.

很高兴能够见到您并与您交谈。

Here are all the questions I want to ask you about your work.

以下是我想问您的有关您工作的所有问题。

To start, why does education predict health above and beyond its ability to predict health behaviors and to predict income?

首先，为什么教育对健康的预测能力超出了其预测健康行为和预测收入的能力？

One of the great — I was going to say great mysteries, but one of the most important things that we’ve observed about the world is that people who are better educated are in better health.

伟大的事情之一——我本来想说的是伟大的谜团，但我们观察到的关于世界的最重要的事情之一是，受过更好教育的人健康状况更好。

That’s true virtually systematically, and it’s increasingly so over time.

这实际上是系统性的，而且随着时间的推移越来越如此。

That is, the gap between people with a college degree and people without a college degree is growing over time, even as other gaps, for example, between whites and Blacks, are shrinking over time.

也就是说，拥有大学学位的人和没有大学学位的人之间的差距随着时间的推移而不断扩大，而其他差距，例如白人和黑人之间的差距，则随着时间的推移而缩小。

But even if we adjust for that, education seems to matter a lot.

但即使我们对此进行调整，教育似乎也很重要。

It’s also puzzling to me — in your own work, it matters more at younger ages.

这也让我感到困惑——在你自己的工作中，这在年轻时更重要。

You would think the returns are cumulative: it would really pay off when you’re 67 because you’ve invested in a stock portfolio for decades, but it matters most when you’re young.

你可能会认为回报是累积的：当你 67 岁时，它才会真正得到回报，因为你已经投资了股票投资组合数十年，但在你年轻的时候，这才是最重要的。

What’s your best micro account of that?

你对此最好的微型账户是什么？

One of the things that’s super interesting is that, for example, people who live in cities — where there are more better-educated people — smoke less, even conditional on your own education.

非常有趣的事情之一是，例如，生活在城市的人——那里有更多受过良好教育的人——吸烟较少，甚至以你自己的教育程度为条件。

The same thing is true about age and so on.

年龄等也是如此。

To the extent education makes you healthier by lowering your stress and raising your relative status — which is a possible hypothesis — what are the policy implications of that?

如果教育通过减轻压力和提高相对地位使你变得更健康 ——“这是一个可能的假设”—— 这对政策有何影响？

What should we do?

我们应该做什么？

Part of what we’re learning over time is that social insurance programs are actually having a bigger and more sustained effect on health than we had thought they did.

随着时间的推移，我们了解到，社会保险计划实际上对健康产生的影响比我们想象的更大、更持久。

For example, we’ve always thought of Medicare and Medicaid as being the primary social insurance programs that affect health, but then there’s research that the WIC program — Women, Infants, and Children — affects health, that food stamp programs affect health, that TANF benefits affect health, that housing policies can affect health.

例如，我们一直认为医疗保险和医疗补助是影响健康的主要社会保险计划，但后来有研究表明，WIC 计划——“妇女、婴儿和儿童”——影响健康，食品券计划影响健康，TANF 福利影响健康，住房政策可以影响健康。

And you think that’s through lowering stress as one mechanism?

您认为这是通过减轻压力作为一种机制吗？

As one mechanism, I think it’s through lowering stress.

作为一种机制，我认为这是通过减轻压力来实现的。

There are many other mechanisms as well.

还有许多其他机制。

What we’ve seen when we’ve looked more carefully at long-run data is that many programs really seem like they have a big impact over the course of the life cycle on people’s health.

当我们更仔细地观察长期数据时，我们发现许多项目似乎确实在生命周期中对人们的健康产生了巨大影响。

So I’m a big believer that one way to improve health is to help make sure that social insurance programs are reaching everyone they ought to and are doing it in the best way.

因此，我坚信改善健康的一种方法是帮助确保社会保险计划惠及每个应有的人，并以最好的方式进行。

What do you think is the health value of Google, either positive or negative?

您认为 Google 的健康价值是什么，是积极的还是消极的？

It’s the busiest doctor in our country, right?

这是我们国家最忙的医生，对吧？

How do we assess that?

我们如何评价这一点？

Oh, absolutely.

哦，绝对是。

Information technology is dramatically changing how people interact with the medical-care system.

信息技术正在极大地改变人们与医疗保健系统互动的方式。

I haven’t seen a formal study on this, but my sense is that Dr. Google has actually been pretty good for health because now you can find out things about where can I go to get a COVID test, or what about flu shots, and so on.

我还没有看到这方面的正式研究，但我的感觉是，谷歌博士实际上对健康很有好处，因为现在你可以找到关于我可以去哪里进行新冠病毒检测，或者流感疫苗注射等等的信息。

For many people who have difficulty finding a doctor and interacting with the medical system, that is very helpful.

对于许多难以找到医生并与医疗系统互动的人来说，这非常有帮助。

Does that positive side show up in the numbers anywhere?

这种积极的一面是否体现在任何地方的数字中？

I haven’t seen a really good study that’s looked at access to the internet and health.

我还没有看到过关于互联网访问和健康的真正好的研究。

But one particularly good thing that’s come out of the COVID pandemic is that now telemedicine seems firmly implanted, and that’s really a result of improvements in IT and stuff.

但新冠疫情带来的一件特别好的事情是，现在远程医疗似乎已经牢牢扎根，这实际上是 IT 和其他方面改进的结果。

Your ability to see your doctor online has really been a blessing to a lot of people.

您能够在线看医生确实对很多人来说是一件幸事。

It’s not exactly Google, but it’s of the same spirit.

它不完全是谷歌，但它具​​有同样的精神。

If you could have new data to study one question in healthcare that so far has been hard to study, what would that be?

如果您可以使用新数据来研究迄今为止难以研究的医疗保健问题，那会是什么？

I think you hit on the big issue at the start, which is, how do you take people who have difficulty interacting with the medical system and for whom society has been somewhat unfair and at least try and improve some aspects — their health, their economic circumstances, but we’ll stick here with the health component.

我认为你一开始就触及了一个大问题，那就是，你如何对待那些难以与医疗系统互动以及社会对他们有些不公平的人，至少尝试改善某些方面——他们的健康、他们的经济状况，但我们将在这里坚持健康部分。

How do you reach people for whom society’s opportunities have not extended as much and do what you can to make their health be better?

您如何接触那些社会机会没有那么多的人，并尽您所能改善他们的健康？

What do you make of the Latino life expectancy paradox?

您如何看待拉丁裔预期寿命悖论？

Latino immigrants come to the US, often not speaking English, not well connected at all.

来到美国的拉丁裔移民通常不会说英语，也没有很好的人脉。

They often outlive people who are born here, but their descendants do less well.

他们往往比出生在这里的人活得更久，但他们的后代却过得不那么好。

You’re presupposing that it’s about the people not being well equipped to handle ordinary America, but Latinos seem to show the opposite trend.

你假设这是因为人们没有足够的能力来应对普通的美国，但拉丁裔似乎表现出相反的趋势。

First off, there’s a little bit of selection in terms of the Latino immigrants, but in part, also they bring behaviors that are typically from the countries where they are from.

首先，拉丁裔移民有一些选择，但在某种程度上，他们也带来了来自他们所在国家的典型行为。

Then second generation will be more like Americans and so on, in terms of smoking and obesity and a variety of adverse behaviors like that.

那么第二代就会更像美国人等等，在吸烟、肥胖以及诸如此类的各种不良行为方面。

You’ve written some of the best-known papers on obesity and put forward the hypothesis that rising obesity is due, in part, to food preparation being quicker and easier.

您撰写了一些有关肥胖的最著名的论文，并提出了这样的假设：肥胖率上升部分是由于准备食物变得更快更容易。

If that’s true, why don’t diets work better?

如果这是真的，为什么节食效果不好呢？

Because food preparation lowers the relative price of eating, but if you just target the quantity directly by dieting, it seems that most people don’t lose weight by dieting.

因为准备食物降低了吃饭的相对价格，但如果直接通过节食来控制数量，似乎大多数人都不会通过节食来减肥。

It would be odd for the price to matter but the quantity not to matter.

如果价格重要但数量不重要，那就奇怪了。

I have puzzled over this a lot.

我对此感到很困惑。

What I think is happening is that it plays into our inability to delay gratification for periods of time.

我认为正在发生的事情是我们无法延迟一段时间的满足感。

What people say, including myself very frequently, is “I’m going to start dieting and exercising tomorrow or next week.” If I really am going to start dieting and exercising next week, then it really doesn’t matter what I eat this week because everything will be fine.

人们（包括我自己）经常说的是“我明天或下周要开始节食和锻炼。”如果我真的要在下周开始节食和锻炼，那么这周吃什么并不重要，因为一切都会好起来的。

The difficulty is that next week, I’ll say the same thing about the following week.

困难在于，下周，我会对下周说同样的话。

Why is obesity such a big problem in rural Mexico, say, Chiapas?

为什么肥胖在墨西哥农村地区（例如恰帕斯州）是一个大问题？

I mean, we know why — they drink too much Coca-Cola.

我的意思是，我们知道为什么 ——他们喝了太多可口可乐。

But structurally, why is that the case in terms of relative prices?

但从结构上看，为什么相对价格会出现这种情况呢？

What’s happened in a lot of countries is, as they get richer, they adopt more of a Western diet, particularly a US diet.

许多国家的情况是，随着他们变得更加富裕，他们更多地采用西方饮食，尤其是美国饮食。

You adopt a diet that’s high in corn syrup and fast food and salty foods and things like that.

您采用的饮食中含有大量玉米糖浆、快餐和咸味食物等。

You observe this in parts of rural Mexico when there’s some income.

当墨西哥农村地区有一些收入时，你会观察到这种情况。

You observe that a lot in islands in the Pacific that all of a sudden had mineral wealth, so people are endowed with a lot of money.

你观察到，太平洋上的许多岛屿突然拥有了丰富的矿产资源，因此人们被赋予了很多钱。

Then one of the things that they do is, their diet changes to a Western diet.

然后他们做的一件事就是将饮食改为西方饮食。

What do you make of the data that suggests both pets and even lab animals are growing fatter?

您如何看待宠物甚至实验动物都在变胖的数据？

Food is much cheaper, right?

食物便宜得多，对吧？

We can afford much more of it.

我们可以负担得起更多。

But lab animals — we control what they eat, right?

但是实验动物 ——我们控制它们吃什么，对吧？

There’s some kind of regimen.

有某种养生之道。

And obesity seems to be rising in cases where relative prices facing humans are not obviously the culprit.

在人类面临的相对价格并不是明显罪魁祸首的情况下，肥胖率似乎正在上升。

Is it that people are buying more cat food, and labs are spending more for their rats?

是不是人们购买了更多的猫粮，而实验室在老鼠身上花费了更多的钱？

It seems odd.

看起来很奇怪。

Yes.

是的。

I don’t know quite about the labs.

我对实验室不太了解。

I presume that they’re feeding them more since my guess is the exercise is controlled, and there wouldn’t have been genetic change that rapidly.

我猜想他们给它们喂的更多了，因为我的猜测是运动是受控制的，而且基因变化不会那么快。

It could be that components of the food are different as well.

食物的成分也可能不同。

The first approximation what matters is total calories in, but they’re probably types of calories and combinations of calories that lead to more or less weight gain.

重要的第一个近似值是总卡路里含量，但它们可能是导致体重增加或减少的卡路里类型和卡路里组合。

It also depends on what time of day one eats and a variety of other things like that, too.

它还取决于一个人一天中的什么时间吃饭以及各种其他类似的事情。

What do you think of the — I call them the residual theories?

你如何看待 —— 我称它们为残余理论？

That there’s something unknown in the environment.

环境中存在未知的东西。

It could be a chemical, something in the way we live that’s causing obesity levels to increase, and we just haven’t identified it yet.

它可能是一种化学物质，是我们生活方式中的某种物质，导致肥胖水平增加，只是我们还没有识别出来。

Do you take this seriously?

你认真对待这件事吗？

Or are they just made-up stuff?

或者它们只是虚构的东西？

I do take it seriously as a theory, absolutely.

我绝对把它当作一种理论来认真对待。

One of the things that I think the literature has not been as good at as it could be is the impact of the environment — not just environment in terms of green space and ability to walk on the streets, but the impact of the environment in terms of pollution and exposure to various substances and what that may then do to health.

我认为文献没有充分关注的一件事是环境的影响 ——不仅仅是绿地和在街道上行走的能力方面的环境，还有环境在污染和接触各种物质方面的影响以及这可能对健康造成的影响。

Why is hospital price transparency so hard to achieve?

为什么医院价格透明这么难？

We’ve passed laws — good laws, in my opinion.

我们已经通过了法律——在我看来是好的法律。

The Trump people were for them and doubled down on the issue.

特朗普的人支持他们，并在这个问题上加倍努力。

When hospitals don’t do it, they get a slap on the wrist.

如果医院不这样做，他们就会受到惩罚。

Maybe they’re sent a letter in the mail.

也许他们会通过邮件收到一封信。

Voters seem to like the idea.

选民似乎喜欢这个主意。

Why has that been such a tough slog?

为什么这是一个如此艰难的过程？

It was one of the very few things that the Trump administration did that I really enjoyed, and that I give them credit for, was their attempt to push this.

这是特朗普政府所做的极少数让我真正喜欢并值得赞扬的事情之一，就是他们试图推动这一目标。

How do we explain the cross-sectional variation there?

我们如何解释那里的横截面变化？

Because I agree with what you said, but if I look, say, today, at the vaccines, there are really quite a few Americans who obsess over Moderna versus Pfizer, this versus that.

因为我同意你所说的，但是如果我看看今天的疫苗，确实有相当多的美国人痴迷于 Moderna 与辉瑞，这个与那个。

Maybe some of what they think is wrong, but they spend enormous amounts of time on social media consuming information about vaccines.

也许他们认为有些内容是错误的，但他们花费大量时间在社交媒体上消费有关疫苗的信息。

They don’t seem to be put off by nervousness.

他们似乎并没有因为紧张而推迟。

You can sometimes get people to do shopping.

有时你可以让人们去购物。

Where people have time and settings, and it’s a very clear choice, you can get them to do someshopping, particularly if there are not people involved.

当人们有时间和环境，并且这是一个非常明确的选择时，你可以让他们去购物，特别是在没有人参与的情况下。

It helps if it’s a pill and not a person who you’re deciding between yes or no, and where you don’t feel like your doctor has a stake in it, something like that.

如果它是一颗药丸，而不是一个让你在是或否之间做出决定的人，或者你不觉得你的医生与它有利害关系，诸如此类的事情，这会有所帮助。

Why don’t we have more paying for healthcare outcomes?

为什么我们不为医疗保健结果支付更多费用？

I give my doctor a bonus if I stay healthy, for instance.

例如，如果我保持健康，我会给我的医生奖金。

More complex ways of doing it, using intermediaries, collective contracts, but there’s very little.

更复杂的方法是利用中介机构、集体合同，但这种方法很少。

Why?

为什么？

As you know, one of the books that I wrote really has a lot about pay for performance.

如你所知，我写的一本书确实有很多关于绩效工资的内容。

First off, the past decade, particularly the past five years or so, there’s been enormous experimentation with it.

首先，过去十年，特别是过去五年左右，对此进行了大量的实验。

There’s been quite a lot of paying for outcomes, not in massive ways but in reasonable ways.

人们为成果付出了相当多的代价，不是以大量的方式，而是以合理的方式。

If you were to express that in terms of the model, what’s the limitation in economic terms?

如果用模型来表达，那么经济方面的限制是什么？

Something we can’t measure, something that’s not contractible, or what?

我们无法测量的东西，不可收缩的东西，还是什么？

I think there are a couple of parts.

我认为有几个部分。

One part is that every individual insurer has their own system, so the doctor finds it very difficult to customize what they’re doing to every single insurer.

一方面是每个保险公司都有自己的系统，所以医生发现很难为每个保险公司定制他们正在做的事情。

They get one set of incentives from Medicare, and another set of incentives from the Blue Cross policy, and another one from the United policy.

他们从 Medicare 获得一套激励措施，从 Blue Cross 政策获得另一套激励措施，从 United 政策获得另一套激励措施。

Even within Blue Cross, it varies, depending on which plan you’re in.

即使在 Blue Cross 内，情况也会有所不同，具体取决于您所参与的计划。

That’s one, is that it’s very difficult when it is so diffuse.

其一，当它如此分散时，这是非常困难的。

If we think about very wealthy individuals who could afford any scheme and really care about being healthy, and they have some form of concierge medicine, and possibly even a buyer agent working for them, what do those incentives look like?

如果我们考虑非常富有的人，他们可以负担得起任何计划，并且真正关心健康，并且他们有某种形式的礼宾医疗，甚至可能有为他们工作的买家代理，那么这些激励措施是什么样的？

Or what should they look like?

或者说它们应该是什么样子？

I think for everyone, there should be a fair component of performance-based payment.

我认为对于每个人来说，基于绩效的薪酬都应该有公平的组成部分。

I think it would be better if we made it easier to judge them.

我认为如果我们能够更容易地评判他们会更好。

For example, we use things from electronic medical records rather than doctors have to write everything down on pencil and paper and so on.

例如，我们使用电子病历中的内容，而不是医生必须将所有内容写在铅笔和纸上等等。

I think we’d be better if there were more coordination amongst them so that everyone is, in essence, rowing the same way, or that everyone in the orchestra is playing the same music, as opposed to people playing different pieces of music and expecting to hear it go well.

我认为，如果他们之间有更多的协调，这样每个人本质上都以同样的方式划船，或者管弦乐队中的每个人都演奏相同的音乐，而不是人们演奏不同的音乐并期望听到它顺利进行，那么我们会更好。

Let’s say you, David Cutler, have $100 billion, and you’ve hired a team of doctors to look after you.

假设你，大卫·卡特勒，拥有 1000 亿美元，并且雇佣了一组医生来照顾你。

What kind of contract do you write with them?

您与他们签订什么样的合同？

You’ve thought about this more and better than anyone.

你比任何人都想得更多、想得更好。

What would you do?

你会怎么办？

The kinds of contracts — based on the literature — I think are best, are you get paid a fixed amount for caring for the person.

合同类型 — 基于文献 — 我认为最好的合同是你因照顾该人而获得固定金额的报酬。

A per-member per-month fee for caring for the person.

每位会员每月的护理费用。

If you have an episode of care, there’s a fixed payment for the episode.

如果您有一次护理，则该次护理需要支付固定费用。

That encourages coordination across the episode.

这鼓励了整个情节的协调。

There’s a lot of outcome measurement, so that you can say, “If you really do a good job caring for the patients or the patient, then you’re going to earn a lot extra.”

有很多结果衡量标准，所以你可以说，“如果你真的很好地照顾病人或病人，那么你会赚很多额外的钱。”

You would hire a third party to assess how well your doctor had done?

您会聘请第三方来评估您的医生的表现吗？

Because the literature is not mainly based on people with $100 billion, right?

因为文献并不是主要以拥有1000亿美元的人为对象，对吗？

You’re designing something from scratch with extra resources.

您正在使用额外的资源从头开始设计一些东西。

Yes, although there are metrics out there that you can certainly use.

是的，尽管有一些您当然可以使用的指标。

Most conditions — there are reasonable metrics that if you put them together, the docs are generally happy with.

大多数情况 — 都有合理的指标，如果将它们放在一起，文档通常会感到满意。

They’re not perfect.

他们并不完美。

I think one could do pretty well by that.

我认为这样做可以做得很好。

If you captured a lot of the doc’s attention — for example, the way that you do better — if you look at organizations that do really well, the way the organization does it is, they go to the doctor and they say, “This is what we’re going to practice here.

如果你吸引了医生的很多注意力——例如，你做得更好的方式——如果你看看做得很好的组织，他们会去找医生说：“这就是我们要在这里实践的。

We’re going to do images in this circumstance.

我们将在这种情况下制作图像。

We’re not going to do them in this.

我们不会这样做。

We’re going to do this in this circumstance.

我们将在这种情况下这样做。

We’re not going to do it here.”

我们不会在这里这样做。”

As you probably know, from 1950 to 1990, American youth suicide rates tripled.

您可能知道，从 1950 年到 1990 年，美国青少年的自杀率增加了两倍。

Why did that happen?

为什么会发生这种事？

And they’ve gone up since then at various times.

从那时起，它们在不同的时间都在上涨。

Suicide rates are an extremely unfortunate poor outcome, and they have also been going up recently, particularly more among middle-aged folks, but also among younger folks as well.

自杀率是一种极其不幸的不良后果，而且最近自杀率一直在上升，尤其是在中年人中，但在年轻人中也同样如此。

As you’re alluding to, I’ve done some work on suicide.

正如你提到的，我做了一些关于自杀的工作。

There is a confluence of different factors.

这是多种不同因素共同作用的结果。

On the demand side, there is pain of various forms, and there’s demand for pain relief.

在需求方面，有各种形式的痛苦，也有缓解痛苦的需求。

Pain can be physical pain.

疼痛可以是身体上的疼痛。

It can be mental health impairment.

这可能是心理健康障碍。

It can be despair.

这可能是绝望。

I’m putting those all together as being pain.

我把这些都归为痛苦。

How strong do you think is the evidence for the Twenge hypothesis that right now iPhone addictions are causing isolation, anxiety, mental illness in young people?

您认为 Twenge 假设的证据有多大，即目前 iPhone 成瘾正在导致年轻人孤立、焦虑和精神疾病？

Is that just two time trends in tandem, or is there actual evidence that’s true?

这只是两个时间趋势的串联，还是有实际证据表明这是真的？

It’s obviously time trends.

这显然是时间趋势。

The question is the evidence, and I haven’t been through the evidence thoroughly enough to have a firm view.

问题在于证据，而我对证据的了解还不够彻底，无法得出坚定的观点。

I know there are people who believe that it’s causal, but I myself don’t have a strong view as to what extent it’s causal versus correlational.

我知道有人相信这是因果关系，但我自己对于因果关系与相关关系的程度并没有强烈的看法。

In 2006, you wrote a famous paper, “Why Americans Smoke Less.” You argue it’s because they better understand the health effects of smoking.

2006 年，您写了一篇著名论文《为什么美国人吸烟较少》。您认为这是因为他们更好地了解吸烟对健康的影响。

Since 2006, anecdotally, I observe Western Europeans smoke much less than they used to.

有趣的是，自 2006 年以来，我观察到西欧人的吸烟量比以前少了很多。

Is that because they’ve acquired a similar understanding?

是因为他们有相似的认识吗？

Or for other reasons?

还是因为其他原因？

You started this off in one of the most amazing places, which is that, 40 years after the US surgeon general conclusively demonstrated that smoking was bad for you, and 50 years after it really was known that smoking was bad for you, Americans had cut smoking in half, and people in Western European countries had not.

你从最令人惊奇的地方之一开始，那就是，在美国卫生局局长最终证明吸烟对你有害 40 年后，在人们真正知道吸烟对你有害 50 年后，美国人已经将吸烟量减少了一半，而西欧国家的人们却没有。

How can that persist?

这怎么能坚持下去呢？

Turning to your book with Ed, which again, is Survival of the City, just coming out — putting aside anti-COVID measures, which we’re all familiar with, how can cities be made less contagious for disease in America?

转向你与艾德合作的书，这本书又是《城市的生存》，刚刚出版 —— 抛开我们都熟悉的抗新冠措施，如何才能让美国城市的疾病传染性降低呢？

We learned a couple of things about cities and contagiousness of disease.

我们了解了一些有关城市和疾病传染性的知识。

One is that poor health anywhere is poor health everywhere.

一是任何地方的健康状况不佳就是到处的健康状况不佳。

I may be totally selfish.

我可能完全是自私的。

Go back to when you endowed me with a lot of income.

回到你给我很多收入的时候。

I may care only about myself.

我可能只关心我自己。

Until a couple of years ago, that meant I didn’t have to care about the health of people in poorer parts of Boston.

直到几年前，这意味着我不必关心波士顿贫困地区人们的健康。

What’s wrong with, say, the CDC?

比如说，疾病预防控制中心出了什么问题？

Their budget in real terms has gone up quite a bit.

他们的实际预算增加了很多。

This morning — the day we’re recording — they issued a warning to Americans not to travel to Canada, which is literally insane.

今天早上——“我们录制的那天”——他们向美国人发出警告，不要前往加拿大，这简直是疯了。

It’s the Biden administration now for some time.

拜登政府已经有一段时间了。

I’m broadly libertarian, skeptical about government — even I was shocked when that happened.

我基本上是自由主义者，对政府持怀疑态度——甚至当这件事发生时我也感到震惊。

What’s the model that explains how something like that can come about?

解释这样的事情如何发生的模型是什么？

There are two different types of things.

有两种不同类型的事物。

Sometimes there’s just bad luck.

有时只是运气不好。

For example, the CDC’s first tests for COVID got contaminated, and it took them a while to figure out what was the contamination, and stuff like that.

例如，疾病预防控制中心对新冠病毒的首次检测受到了污染，他们花了一段时间才弄清楚污染是什么，诸如此类的事情。

There’s just bad luck.

只是运气不好而已。

Then sometimes it’s systemic in that — an agency is falling apart, or it’s not sure about its mission or anything else, and then it’s a structural problem.

有时它是系统性的——一个机构正在分崩离析，或者它不确定自己的使命或其他什么，然后这是一个结构性问题。

Take a given family — they’re thinking about the health tradeoff of moving to the suburbs.

以某个家庭为例，他们正在考虑搬到郊区对健康的影响。

What would you advise them?

你会给他们什么建议？

What’s the main cost?

主要费用是什么？

What’s the main benefit?

主要好处是什么？

Moving out of a city and into a suburb —

离开城市进入郊区 —

Moving out of a city, not Manhattan, but a large city.

搬出一个城市，不是曼哈顿，而是大城市。

— as opposed to moving from a rural area.

— 与从农村地区搬来相反。

Right.

正确的。

Moving from one of the top 10 cities to an upper-middle-class suburb.

从十大城市之一搬到中上阶层郊区。

What’s the health tradeoff?

健康权衡是什么？

Probably not much in the sense that most of their behaviors will be the same.

从他们的大多数行为都相同的意义上来说，可能并没有多大区别。

The exposure to infectious disease, in general, is higher within cities.

一般来说，城市内的传染病暴露率较高。

If you look, this was not too early on in COVID-19, but it’s become more so, which is that increasingly urban areas are easier to spread infectious disease because there’s more close contact.

如果你仔细观察的话，你会发现，在 COVID-19 中，这种情况并不算太早，但现在变得更加严重，越来越多的城市地区更容易传播传染病，因为有更多的密切接触。

You’re taking subways, things like that.

你正在乘坐地铁之类的东西。

I would say probably, on that count, there would be a little bit less exposure.

我想说，就这一点而言，曝光可能会少一些。

Within cities, are there high returns or low returns to making travel through the city easier?

在城市内部，让城市出行变得更便捷的回报是高还是低？

Basically, you would get people to the emergency ward faster if they had a gunshot wound or a heart attack.

基本上，如果人们遭受枪伤或心脏病发作，您可以更快地将他们送往急诊室。

Does that matter much, or that’s seventh order?

这很重要吗，还是七阶？

No, that matters quite a lot.

不，这非常重要。

Having a well-functioning emergency system is extremely important.

拥有一个运转良好的应急系统极其重要。

Just take one example.

只举一个例子。

When the marathon bombings occurred in Boston a few years ago, the number of deaths was very small.

几年前波士顿发生马拉松爆炸事件时，死亡人数非常少。

I think it was two or three deaths.

我认为有两三个人死亡。

No one who made it to a hospital alive died.

被送往医院的人中没有一人死亡。

That was because the emergency system had practiced intensely, how do you handle a mass casualty situation?

因为应急系统已经演练得很紧张了，出现大规模伤亡的情况怎么处理？

Where do you get people to?

你把人们带到哪里？

What do you do once they’re there?

他们到达后你会做什么？

If we put aside the fact that you likely have personal connections where you live right now, as many of us do, just in the abstract, as you grow older, where in this country would you most want to get sick?

如果我们抛开这样一个事实，即您可能像我们许多人一样，在您现在居住的地方有个人联系，只是抽象地讲，随着年龄的增长，您最想在这个国家的哪个地方生病？

Say I have to move from Boston.

假设我必须从波士顿搬走。

I can’t really know very much.

我真的不知道太多。

The upper Midwest has very good healthcare if you think about the Minnesota-Wisconsin area.

如果您考虑一下明尼苏达州 - 威斯康星州地区，中西部北部地区的医疗保健非常好。

Extremely good healthcare pretty much across the board.

几乎全面的医疗保健都非常好。

The gradients there are not as big as you’ll see in other areas in terms of the care received.

就所接受的护理而言，那里的梯度并不像您在其他地区看到的那么大。

They don’t go wild on doing stuff.

他们不会疯狂地做事。

Life expectancy is high, not all because of the medical care system, but likely a little bit of it is because of the medical care system.

预期寿命高，并不全是因为医疗体系，但可能有一点是因为医疗体系。

What’s the risk that VIPs get worse care because they’re overtreated?

VIP 人士因受到过度治疗而获得较差护理的风险有多大？

For some things, reasonably high.

对于某些事情来说，相当高。

What would those things be?

那些东西会是什么？

Excessive testing is a big one.

过度测试是一个大问题。

For example, excessive PSA testing for men potentially with prostate cancer.

例如，对可能患有前列腺癌的男性进行过多的 PSA 检测。

It’s not even recommended that you get tested any more.

甚至不建议您再进行测试。

It’s just recommended that you talk to your doctor about testing.

只是建议您与您的医生讨论测试事宜。

Or excessive biopsies in, let’s say, women, where you might suspect breast cancer.

或者对女性进行过多的活检，您可能怀疑患有乳腺癌。

What you do after biopsy?

活检后做什么？

It’s the cascade.

这是级联。

People talk it about in terms of a cascade.

人们用级联来谈论它。

The first thing is never that bad, but then it leads to the next thing and the next thing and so on.

第一件事永远不会那么糟糕，但它会导致下一件事，然后下一件事，依此类推。

As you know, early in the 20th century, recent immigrant arrivals to the United States clustered together fairly tightly in terms of living in the same areas, often within cities.

如您所知，20 世纪初，新抵达美国的移民相当紧密地聚集在一起，居住在同一地区，通常是在城市内。

That trend then weakens throughout much of the 20th century, and in the last few decades, it’s been re-emerging.

这种趋势在 20 世纪的大部分时间里逐渐减弱，但在过去的几十年里又重新出现。

Why is it coming back?

为什么它又回来了？

There’s a line of work that, at least on the health end, comes from Anne Case and Angus Deaton.

安妮·凯斯 (Anne Case) 和安格斯·迪顿 (Angus Deaton) 的一系列工作，至少在健康方面是这样。

They and a colleague, Arthur Stone, wrote a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper last year, where they argued basically, my shorthand is that education is the new race, that we’re learning how to dismantle some of the barriers that have existed by race, certainly not all of them, but some of them.

他们和同事阿瑟·斯通（Arthur Stone）去年在《美国国家科学院院刊》上发表了一篇论文，他们在论文中基本上认为，我的简写是，教育是新的种族，我们正在学习如何消除种族存在的一些障碍，当然不是全部，而是其中一些。

What’s coming up is that education is increasingly associated with where you live, what resources you have access to, and so on.

即将发生的事情是，教育越来越与您居住的地方、您可以获得的资源等等相关。

We, alas, have time for only two more questions.

唉，我们只剩下时间再问两个问题了。

Your book with Ed, Survival of the City — if you had to pick an area — it doesn’t have to be disagreement, though it could be, but simply something you and he see differently.

你和艾德合着的书《城市的生存》————如果你必须选择一个领域————这不一定是分歧，尽管可能存在分歧，而只是你和他的看法不同而已。

What would that be, of the topics in the book?

书中的主题是什么？

And where does that difference come from?

这种差异从何而来？

We had incredibly interesting discussions about if businesses left cities because workers decided to move to the suburbs, what would that mean for cities?

我们进行了非常有趣的讨论，如果企业因为工人决定搬到郊区而离开城市，这对城市意味着什么？

Would that be like mass terrible?

那会像大规模恐怖吗？

Would that be not so bad?

那不是那么糟糕吗？

I had originally thought, “Oh my gosh, it would be terrible for cities if all the jobs moved out.” And Ed convinced me that my views were certainly way overstated.

我原本想，“天哪，如果所有的工作岗位都搬出去，对城市来说将是可怕的。”埃德让我相信我的观点肯定被夸大了。

Maybe there was not nothing to them, but certainly, they were way overstated.

也许他们并不是什么都没有，但可以肯定的是，他们被夸大了。

Last question.

最后一个问题。

To improve the US healthcare system, if you could offer one nonobvious recommendation — not so much on political agendas right now — but something we could do that would just flat-out be better, what would that be?

为了改善美国的医疗保健体系，如果你能提供一项不明显的建议 ——“目前在政治议程上还不太重要”—— 但我们可以做的事情会变得更好，那会是什么？

There are so many things that one thinks about.

一个人思考的事情有​​很多。

I would say the be-all and end-all of healthcare is the money that’s spent.

我想说，医疗保健的最重要和最终目的就是所花的钱。

When you spend so much money, you can’t direct the system well.

当你花那么多钱的时候，你就不能很好地指挥这个系统。

You can’t insure people.

你无法为人们提供保险。

You can’t invest in the kinds of things you want.

你不能投资你想要的东西。

After COVID, I would focus, first order, on reducing spending, and there are two areas that I would address uppermost in my mind.

在新冠疫情之后，我的首要任务是减少支出，其中有两个领域是我最关心的问题。

A real pleasure.

真是一种享受。

David Cutler, thank you very much.

大卫·卡特勒，非常感谢你。

Again, David’s new book with Ed Glaeser is Survival of the City: Living and Thriving in an Age of Isolation.

再次，大卫与埃德·格莱泽的新书是《城市的生存：孤立时代的生活与繁荣》。

It’s been a pleasure to be with you, thank you so much.

很高兴和你在一起，非常感谢。

Now we have Ed Glaeser.

现在我们有埃德·格莱泽。

Ed is professor of economics at Harvard University, and most importantly, he is arguably the greatest urban economist ever to have lived.

埃德是哈佛大学经济学教授，最重要的是，他可以说是有史以来最伟大的城市经济学家。

Ed, welcome.

艾德，欢迎。

Thank you very much, Tyler.

非常感谢你，泰勒。

Thank you for that distinctly over-the-top introduction, but I’m very grateful.

感谢您的过度介绍，但我非常感激。

Let’s start with a simple question.

让我们从一个简单的问题开始。

All this enthusiasm about cities and agglomeration benefits — the pandemic comes along.

所有这些对城市和集聚效益的热情————流行病随之而来。

A lot of people transition to work from a distance, and then we see big measured productivity gains.

许多人转向远程工作，然后我们看到了生产力的大幅提高。

What has gone on there?

那里发生了什么事？

It reminds us that for many jobs, in a static sense, you can do this long-distance.

它提醒我们，对于很多工作来说，从静态意义上来说，你可以进行这种远距离的工作。

You can make things work.

你可以让事情顺利进行。

I think many of us found this.

我想我们很多人都发现了这一点。

We wrote this book in eight months over the pandemic year, distinctly away from each other, partially because there were no distractions, and all that was good.

我们在流感大流行的一年里花了八个月的时间写了这本书，彼此分开，部分原因是没有干扰，一切都很好。

If work from a distance goes fine in the short run, what’s the cross-sectional prediction about where it will persist in the future?

如果远程工作在短期内进展顺利，那么对未来它将持续存在的横截面预测是什么？

Is it firms facing bankruptcy, firms with immediate projects now, possibly start-ups who will then later transition to all being together in one big happy family, but they’re afraid they’re going to fail before then?

是面临破产的公司、现在正在开展项目的公司，还是可能是初创企业，这些公司后来将过渡到一个幸福的大家庭，但他们担心在那之前他们会失败？

What should we expect?

我们应该期待什么？

I think we should expect young workers to be more likely to be brought together.

我认为我们应该期待年轻工人更有可能聚集在一起。

Young firms, as well, because you’re very much at this learning, creative phase.

年轻的公司也是如此，因为你正处于这个学习、创造的阶段。

I think the optimal work-from-home strategy is a couple of partners who are in an accounting practice and have decided they know each other perfectly well and are delighted to Zoom it in from wherever they are.

我认为最佳的在家工作策略是几个从事会计业务的合作伙伴，他们认为彼此非常了解，并且很高兴从任何地方放大它。

So, which countries will benefit the most from this?

那么，哪些国家将从中受益最大呢？

If a Silicon Valley firm can now hire top talent from Mumbai or Delhi, and everyone’s used to the Zoom call, even if most of the people in the home office are back to being together, what’s that going to matter for geopolitically?

如果一家硅谷公司现在可以从孟买或德里聘请顶尖人才，而且每个人都习惯了 Zoom 通话，即使总部的大多数人又回到了一起，这对地缘政治有何影响？

So, for sure, this is going to continue the rise of places like Bangalore.

因此，可以肯定的是，这将继续推动班加罗尔等地的崛起。

The ability to connect over long distances helps really educated people in India.

远距离连接的能力有助于印度真正受过教育的人们。

It doesn’t necessarily help the bulk of 1.1 billion Indians who do not sit with computers on their desk and are not going to be natural software programmers.

它不一定能帮助 11 亿印度人，因为他们办公桌上没有电脑，也不会成为天生的软件程序员。

In general, you’d think educated areas will benefit from this more than less educated areas would.

一般来说，您可能认为受教育程度较高的地区比受教育程度较低的地区更能从中受益。

And this helps Britain and Ireland because of the English language?

这对英国和爱尔兰有帮助是因为英语吗？

Or not?

或不？

Cements English as a global language?

巩固英语作为全球语言的地位？

Absolutely.

绝对地。

Once we get past the chaos related to Brexit, sure.

当然，一旦我们摆脱了与英国脱欧相关的混乱。

Why not?

为什么不呢？

Ireland is both a very attractive place to live, and it has lots of great English speakers and is very technologically savvy.

爱尔兰不仅是一个非常有吸引力的居住地，而且拥有许多英语说得很好的人，并且非常精通技术。

Now, if I walk around Paris, London, New York, Dublin — almost any city you care to name — I see beautiful, older urban neighborhoods, not everywhere, but really quite a few of them if the city has not been bombed into oblivion.

现在，如果我在巴黎、伦敦、纽约、都柏林——几乎所有你能说出名字的城市走一圈——我会看到美丽、古老的城市街区，虽然不是到处都有，但如果这座城市没有被炸毁的话，确实有不少这样的街区。

But I don’t see newly created, wonderful, beautiful urban neighborhoods really anywhere.

但我在任何地方都看不到新建的、美妙的、美丽的城市社区。

Why is that?

这是为什么？

I’m not sure that I agree with you.

我不确定我是否同意你的观点。

Certainly, the older cities of this country have regulated themselves into stasis.

当然，这个国家的老城市已经自我调节到停滞状态。

We don’t get beautiful new neighborhoods because historic preservation is a completely binding rule in London, in Paris, and in New York.

我们得不到美丽的新社区，因为在伦敦、巴黎和纽约，历史保护是一条完全具有约束力的规则。

It’s just very difficult to change the neighborhood in a way that works.

以有效的方式改变社区是非常困难的。

But there have been plenty of buildings, say, outside of the central core of Paris, sometimes even in the Paris region, but all sorts of other parts of France, and it’s never beautiful.

但是，在巴黎市中心之外，有时甚至在巴黎地区，但在法国的所有其他地方，都有很多建筑物，而且从来都不是美丽的。

The French have an incredible culture, an amazing eye, highly sophisticated, maybe willing to sacrifice cheapness for beauty.

法国人拥有令人难以置信的文化，令人惊叹的眼睛，高度复杂，也许愿意为了美丽而牺牲廉价。

Yet, they seem incapable of building new, beautiful neighborhoods, whether they’re walkable.

然而，他们似乎无法建造新的、美丽的社区，无论它们是否适合步行。

We have old people’s homes which are completely walkable.

我们有完全适合步行的老人之家。

They’re never beautiful.

他们从来都不是美丽的。

Nothing’s beautiful.

没有什么是美丽的。

My father was an architectural historian, Tyler.

我的父亲泰勒是一位建筑历史学家。

He was a curator of the Museum of Modern Art.

他是现代艺术博物馆的馆长。

So, I have a certain feeling that we as economists are not necessarily the best judges of the beautiful.

所以，我有一种感觉，作为经济学家，我们不一定是美的最佳评判者。

What’s your view of the Centre Pompidou?

您对蓬皮杜艺术中心有何看法？

Do you think beautiful or not beautiful?

你觉得美还是不美？

What’s your view on Renzo Piano?

您对伦佐·皮亚诺有何看法？

I think there are many excellent individual buildings.

我认为有很多优秀的单体建筑。

Bilbao Guggenheim.

毕尔巴鄂古根海姆。

There’s a long list, but neighborhoods is where we’re falling short, not individual buildings.

名单很长，但我们的不足之处是社区，而不是个别建筑。

Renzo Piano — amazing.

伦佐·皮亚诺——太棒了。

Zumthor — go all the way down the list.

卒姆托 — 一直沿着列表往下走。

But neighborhoods — I don’t see them.

但街区 —— 我看不到它们。

How about Barcelona, the parts of Barcelona that were built after the Olympics?

巴塞罗那怎么样，奥运会后建造的巴塞罗那部分？

That’s a perfectly walkable neighborhood and not a terribly unpleasant place.

这是一个完全适合步行的社区，而不是一个非常不愉快的地方。

“Great to live in, not terribly unpleasant” is a wonderful description of it.

“住得很舒服，不是很不愉快”是对它的精彩描述。

That’s the best we can do?

这是我们能做的最好的事情吗？

We’re so much wealthier.

我们非常富有。

It’s crazy.

太疯狂了。

I don’t get it.

我不明白。

It’s an interesting question.

这是一个有趣的问题。

What about areas in Asia?

那么亚洲地区呢？

All of Seoul is new.

首尔的一切都是新的。

There are no blocks in Seoul that you find inspiring?

首尔有没有让你觉得振奋的街区？

I like them.

我喜欢他们。

I enjoy Seoul, but the really beautiful parts of Seoul seem to be the older remnants, which are not many at this point.

我喜欢首尔，但首尔真正美丽的部分似乎是古老的遗迹，目前并不多。

I will say, one of my favorite architectural moments in Boston is where H.H.

我想说，我在波士顿最喜欢的建筑时刻之一是 H.H.

Richardson’s Trinity Church abuts against the Hancock Tower.

理查森三一教堂毗邻汉考克塔。

Agree, I love it.

同意，我喜欢它。

I actually think that that juxtaposition is stunning, and it’s exactly when you get this dialogue between an architect of the past and an architect of the present when really magical things happen.

事实上，我认为这种并置是令人惊叹的，而正是当你在过去的建筑师和现在的建筑师之间进行对话时，真正神奇的事情发生了。

Which global city of any age is most underrated for its beauty?

哪个时代的全球城市因其美丽而被最低估？

For its beauty.

为了它的美丽。

Again, you want me to make beauty statements —

再说一次，你想让我发表美丽的言论 ——

Beauty statements.

美丽的陈述。

— that are —

— 那是 —

This is a podcast.

这是一个播客。

If we want to talk about the most efficient, we can all agree on Singapore.

如果我们要谈论效率最高的国家，我们都会同意新加坡。

Now, I don’t know how underrated it is, but the last place I saw you live is a particular favorite of mine, which is Edinburgh.

现在，我不知道它被低估了多少，但我最后一次见到你居住的地方是我特别喜欢的一个地方，那就是爱丁堡。

I don’t know whether it’s underrated or not, but it’s certainly spectacular.

我不知道它是否被低估，但它确实很壮观。

I would say, actually, there are parts of Glasgow which are definitely underrated, but the physical bones of Glasgow are magnificent.

我想说，实际上，格拉斯哥的某些部分绝对被低估了，但格拉斯哥的物质骨头是宏伟的。

Your father was an architectural historian.

你的父亲是一位建筑历史学家。

What did you learn from him about the economics of building that has fed into your work?

您从他那里学到了哪些关于建筑经济学的知识并融入到了您的工作中？

I learned nothing .

我什么也没学到。

.

。

.

。

Well, the only thing I remember about my father telling me was, he had a model of housing cycles, which was not particularly rational, but it was a model that said that you always started buildings during the boom, which means you always ended up completing them during the bust, which means you always ended up losing money on the buildings because you got the timing all wrong.

好吧，我父亲告诉我的唯一一件事是，他有一个住房周期模型，这不是特别合理，但这个模型说，你总是在繁荣时期开始建造建筑物，这意味着你总是在萧条时期完成它们，这意味着你总是在建筑物上赔钱，因为你把时机搞错了。

Can larger cities succeed over the longer term with dysfunctional public schools?

从长远来看，大城市能否通过功能失调的公立学校取得成功？

It is amazing how underperforming cities are for providing upward mobility for poor kids.

令人惊讶的是，城市在为贫困儿童提供向上流动性方面表现不佳。

It is the facts that came out of Raj Chetty and Nathan Hendren and John Friedman’s Opportunity Atlas.

这是来自 Raj Chetty、Nathan Hendren 和 John Friedman 的机会地图集的事实。

At the metropolitan area level, density and size are both negatively associated with performance.

在大都市区层面，密度和规模都与绩效呈负相关。

Within metropolitan areas, density and proximity to a city center are both negatively correlated with upward mobility.

在大都市区内，密度和距市中心的距离都与向上流动性呈负相关。

What’s your political economy model of the persistence of that problem?

对于这个问题的持续存在，你的政治经济学模型是什么？

Why doesn’t the median voter in the city just fix that?

为什么该市的中位选民不解决这个问题呢？

We all want better schools.

我们都想要更好的学校。

I think it’s very hard to change things because there are very powerful entrenched interests in schools and because schools are somewhat complicated.

我认为改变事情是非常困难的，因为学校里有非常强大的根深蒂固的利益，而且学校有些复杂。

Unlike policing, principals cannot immediately tell teachers how to change their behavior, whereas police chiefs can actually change what their officers do on a dime.

与治安不同，校长不能立即告诉老师如何改变他们的行为，而警察局长实际上可以立即改变警察的行为。

It’s very, very hard to get teachers to change.

让老师改变是非常非常困难的。

Consequently, working change in the schools is incredibly hard.

因此，学校的变革工作非常困难。

Are cities, as a result, just population sinks?

结果，城市只是人口下降吗？

If you think of population shrinkage as a major problem in parts of the developed world — obviously Japan, Italy, Singapore, South Korea, maybe the United States — and fertility in cities is below replacement level.

如果你认为人口萎缩是发达国家部分地区的一个主要问题——“显然是日本、意大利、新加坡、韩国，也许还有美国”——而且城市的生育率低于更替水平。

Aren’t cities a big problem, and our founding fathers were right?

城市不是一个大问题吗？我们的开国元勋是对的吗？

We should be suspicious of cities?

我们应该对城市持怀疑态度吗？

They can’t fix their own schools.

他们无法修复自己的学校。

Education is super important.

教育非常重要。

They’re taking away people, which is also a fiscal problem.

他们正在带走人员，这也是一个财政问题。

Unlike many of our colleagues, Tyler, I think I am actually with you in that.

与我们的许多同事不同，泰勒，我想我实际上同意你的观点。

I’m, in my heart, a natalist, just to be entirely clear.

需要明确的是，在我内心深处，我是一个自然论者。

It’s part of believing in agglomeration economies that I just like having more people.

我喜欢拥有更多的人，这是我相信集聚经济的一部分。

Even if I weren’t worried about Social Security paying for itself, I think each new human on this planet is a new source of creativity that can work some magic.

即使我不担心社会保障本身的费用，我认为这个星球上的每一个新人类都是一个新的创造力源泉，可以发挥一些魔力。

Why does it seem that urban crime has moved upward again?

为什么城市犯罪似乎又上升了？

And, at least possibly, this seems to predate the pandemic.

而且，至少有可能，这似乎早于大流行之前。

What’s our best model of that?

我们最好的模型是什么？

Most of the changes in crime are very hard to explain with very much.

犯罪的大多数变化都很难解释。

I wrote a paper almost 30 years ago now, called “Crime and Social Interactions,” that goes back to observations that early 19th-century French social scientists made, basically that the existence of pure effects in crime means that you just get lots of variation that’s not very easy to explain.

大约 30 年前，我写了一篇论文，名为《犯罪与社会互动》，该论文可以追溯到 19 世纪初法国社会科学家的观察，基本上认为，犯罪中纯粹效应的存在意味着你会得到很多不容易解释的变异。

Will NIMBY come to dominate the American Southeast?

邻避（NIMBY）会统治美国东南部吗？

Is that the political equilibrium everywhere once you get enough development?

一旦获得足够的发展，这就是政治均衡吗？

This is the worry, Tyler.

这就是担心，泰勒。

The beauty of the Southeast has been, it has been the land of free development, where ordinary Americans can buy a home at a reasonable price because you haven’t fettered the developers.

东南部的美妙之处在于，它一直是自由开发的土地，普通美国人可以以合理的价格购买房屋，因为你没有束缚开发商。

Yet, in place after place, in Austin, Texas, in central Atlanta, we’re seeing the NIMBY walls go up.

然而，在德克萨斯州奥斯汀和亚特兰大市中心，我们看到邻避墙在一个又一个地方拔地而起。

We’re seeing more and more barriers to tearing down and rebuilding.

我们看到拆除和重建的障碍越来越多。

If cities can’t fix their schools, and can’t fix their NIMBY problems, and are super expensive, and don’t produce enough human beings, isn’t there a funny second-best defense of “let’s keep people out of the cities”?

如果城市无法修复他们的学校，无法解决邻避问题，而且成本非常高，并且不能产生足够的人口，那么难道没有一个有趣的第二最佳辩护“让我们把人们赶出城市”吗？

The NIMBY is okay, keeps them in the suburbs, better for them anyway.

邻避还好，让他们留在郊区，无论如何对他们更好。

There’ll be a higher birth rate.

出生率将会更高。

You need to have someone keep those cities going, but write them off a bit.

你需要有人让这些城市继续运转，但也要把它们注销掉。

Maybe they’re just not fixable.

也许它们只是无法修复。

Remember, I’m an economist, which means that, like you, I believe that the real desiderate is choice.

请记住，我是一名经济学家，这意味着，像你一样，我相信真正的愿望是选择。

What we want is to make sure that people have options.

我们想要的是确保人们有选择。

And there are some Americans that want to live in cities, and some are going to want to live in suburbs, and some are going to want to live in low-density rural areas, and that’s just great.

有些美国人想要住在城市，有些人想要住在郊区，有些人想要住在低密度的农村地区，这很好。

We don’t, in any sense, want to do away with any of that.

从任何意义上说，我们都不想消除这些。

I don’t want to give any sense in which that’s not at the heart of what I believe.

我不想给出任何不是我所信仰的核心的意义。

What’s your underlying political model of why so many cities, especially coastal ones, have become so politically clustered along some particular dimensions.

为什么这么多城市，尤其是沿海城市，在某些特定维度上变得如此政治聚集，你的基本政治模式是什么？

It didn’t use to be this way, right?

以前不是这样的，对吧？

The model I have of this is “Strategic Extremism,” which I published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2005.

我的模型是“战略极端主义”，我于 2005 年在《经济学季刊》上发表了它。

That model emphasizes communication.

该模型强调沟通。

In that model, you had people clustering all along religion — as opposed to other cultural dimensions — on the right because there were people who were speaking to Republican voters who had religiously oriented microphones.

在该模型中，人们沿着宗教 （与其他文化维度相反）聚集在右侧，因为有人正在向持有宗教导向麦克风的共和党选民讲话。

By contrast, the left tended to be more dominated by economic issues because the left had the unions, and the unions were the primary communication device.

相比之下，左派往往更受经济问题的支配，因为左派有工会，而工会是主要的沟通工具。

What do you predict is the final equilibrium?

您预测最终的平衡是什么？

Is it self-reversing, or does it just keep on going and going?

它是自我逆转，还是一直持续下去？

Which could give you another reason to be skeptical of cities.

这可能会给你另一个对城市持怀疑态度的理由。

I don’t think this is just cities.

我不认为这只是城市。

Were you asking a question — I missed you for a second — about partisan divides or about geographic divides in partisanship?

你问的问题是 —— 我有一瞬间想念你 —— 关于党派分歧还是关于党派之争的地理分歧？

Well, I think it’s better for states and cities if they have two political parties and the two parties compete no matter what your particular views may be.

嗯，我认为，如果州和城市有两个政党，并且无论您的具体观点是什么，两个政党都会竞争，这对州和城市来说更好。

So if cities don’t give us this, isn’t that another problem with cities?

那么，如果城市不给我们这个，这难道不是城市的另一个问题吗？

And if they keep people out, maybe that’s not a terrible thing.

如果他们把人们拒之门外，也许这并不是一件可怕的事情。

I believe very strongly that some form of competition — That’s a major theme in this book, that in fact, cities are more vulnerable than ever, even if face-to-face learning comes back.

我坚信，某种形式的竞争 ——这是本书的一个主题，事实上，即使面对面的学习回归，城市也比以往任何时候都更加脆弱。

It’s never been easier for people to leave the city.

人们离开这座城市从未如此简单。

Treating your rich, treating your businesses like they’re a piggy bank is a terrible mistake.

像对待存钱罐一样对待你的富人、你的企业是一个可怕的错误。

Putting aside COVID policy, which of course is important, what else can we do to make our cities healthier?

抛开新冠肺炎政策（这当然很重要），我们还能做些什么来让我们的城市变得更健康？

In terms of the things that we talked about primarily in the book, around housing and policing and schools, which we have already discussed — we do not do a lot in the book on transportation, but I certainly join the crowd of economists who have argued that congestion pricing is the best way to deal with urban traffic jams.

就我们在​​书中主要讨论的问题而言，围绕住房、治安和学校，我们已经讨论过——我们在书中并没有对交通做太多讨论，但我当然加入了经济学家的行列，他们认为拥堵收费是应对城市交通拥堵的最佳方式。

There’s no reason not to charge people for the social cost of their actions on that.

没有理由不向人们收取其行为的社会成本。

And giving away street space for free is just crazy, especially since we now have technologies that can handle this.

免费赠送街道空间简直是疯狂，特别是因为我们现在拥有可以处理这个问题的技术。

I’ve seen the 1959 Brazilian movie, Black Orpheus, set in Rio de Janeiro, and the hills are empty and the city is beautiful.

我看过 1959 年的巴西电影《黑色奥菲斯》，以里约热内卢为背景，山上空无一人，城市却很美丽。

Now, if you fast-forward to Rio today, it’s a war zone, and it’s extremely densely populated.

现在，如果你快进到今天的里约，那是一个战区，而且人口极其稠密。

Is Brazil a good example of failed YIMBY policy?

巴西是 YIMBY 政策失败的一个很好的例子吗？

No, no. I think that those favelas are providing upward mobility for millions and millions of Brazilians.

不，不。我认为这些贫民窟正在为数以百万计的巴西人提供向上流动的机会。

The overall track record of cities as a tool for turning poor farmers into middle-class urbanites is phenomenal.

城市作为将贫困农民转变为城市中产阶级的工具的总体记录是惊人的。

The one failure of Brazil’s cities is that their police have failed, and that’s the one failure that I would say.

巴西城市的一个失败就是他们的警察失败了，这就是我要说的一个失败。

But think of your own earlier paper on “Urban Giants” from 1995.

但想想你自己 1995 年发表的关于“城市巨人”的早期论文。

A major city can be too densely populated for rent-seeking reasons.

出于寻租的原因，大城市可能人口过于稠密。

Mexico City, arguably, is too large.

可以说，墨西哥城太大了。

You’d rather have more people in Monterrey and Guadalajara.

你宁愿在蒙特雷和瓜达拉哈拉有更多的人。

Rio, arguably, is too large.

可以说，里约太大了。

Shouldn’t Brazil, many other countries, Austria, have a more even distribution of city sizes, more like Zipf’s law, which sometimes they don’t have?

巴西、许多其他国家、奥地利难道不应该有更均匀的城市规模分布吗？更像齐普夫定律，但有时他们却没有？

I don’t think there’s anything normative about Zipf’s law.

我认为齐普夫定律没有任何规范性。

I think, in general, we should fight against the tendency to distribute extra rents to particular localities.

我认为，总的来说，我们应该反对向特定地区分配额外租金的倾向。

That is certainly right.

这当然是对的。

It was almost surely a good thing that Rio stopped being the capital of Brazil about 60 years ago, and that those rents went to Brasilia, which is now, currently, too large, relative to its economic functioning because it’s a political hub.

大约 60 年前，里约热内卢不再是巴西的首都，而这些租金流向了巴西利亚，这几乎肯定是一件好事，而巴西利亚现在相对于其经济功能来说太大了，因为它是一个政治中心。

If we think of the United States — as you know, in 1910, there’s a high degree of immigrant segregation.

如果我们想想 1910 年的美国——正如你所知，移民隔离程度很高。

People from the same country living next to each other — lower East Side, wherever.

来自同一个国家的人们彼此相邻——无论在下东区，无论在哪里。

That declines throughout most of the 20th century, and now it’s come back.

在 20 世纪的大部分时间里，这一数字都在下降，现在又回来了。

Why is that?

这是为什么？

Why the change?

为什么要改变？

Immigration has come back .

移民回来了。

.

。

.

。

Even adjusting for numbers, it seems there’s more clustering.

即使根据数字进行调整，似乎也有更多的聚类。

How you adjust for numbers — it’s never entirely clear.

如何根据数字进行调整 — 从来都不是完全清楚的。

Remember, David and I struggled with this in our 100 years of American segregation.

请记住，大卫和我在美国 100 年的种族隔离中一直在为此奋斗。

It’s very hard to know exactly how to adjust for numbers.

很难确切地知道如何根据数字进行调整。

How dense should Los Angeles become?

洛杉矶应该变得多稠密？

I don’t have a view about how dense it should be.

我不知道它应该有多密集。

I have a view about how regulated it should be, Tyler, and I think it should be less regulated.

我对应该如何监管有自己的看法，泰勒，我认为应该减少监管。

How dense would it then become?

那么它的密度会是多少？

What would it look like?

它会是什么样子？

Would it all look like Culver City?

这一切看起来会像卡尔弗城吗？

This is exactly the same point as Marty Feldstein made, starting in the 1970s, that for many public policy problems, you don’t need to know where you want things to end up because it’ll never end up close to where you want it to end up.

这与 Marty Feldstein 从 20 世纪 70 年代开始提出的观点完全相同，即对于许多公共政策问题，你不需要知道你希望事情的结果如何，因为它永远不会接近你希望的结果。

All you need to know is the right direction.

您需要知道的只是正确的方向。

I feel entirely confident, given how much demand there is for Los Angeles, given how productive Los Angeles is, that we should have more homes in Los Angeles.

考虑到洛杉矶的需求量和洛杉矶的生产力，我完全有信心我们应该在洛杉矶拥有更多的住房。

As you know, there are quantitative attempts to estimate the cost of NIMBY policies, most notably by Moretti among others, but those attempts don’t typically take into account the fact that the US is uniquely bad at building cheap infrastructure.

如您所知，有人尝试对邻避政策的成本进行定量估算，尤其是莫雷蒂等人，但这些尝试通常没有考虑到美国在建设廉价基础设施方面的独特劣势。

If we made New York, San Francisco, LA, other cities much larger, we would have to expand infrastructure, but that’s one of the things we’re worst at.

如果我们让纽约、旧金山、洛杉矶和其他城市变得更大，我们就必须扩大基础设施，但这是我们最不擅长的事情之一。

To what extent would the potential gains from YIMBY dwindle if we take costly infrastructure into account?

如果我们考虑到昂贵的基础设施，YIMBY 的潜在收益会减少到什么程度？

I agree with you in terms of the cost of American infrastructure.

我同意你关于美国基础设施成本的看法。

It’s a shocking thing how expensive it is to build.

建造它的成本是多么令人震惊。

In some cases, for example, if you expand density in core areas of Manhattan, many of those people can commute to work by walking and the sidewalks are not overburdened.

例如，在某些情况下，如果扩大曼哈顿核心区域的密度，其中许多人可以步行上班，人行道也不会负担过重。

How much, right now, are we exporting American poverty to American suburbs?

目前，我们正在向美国郊区输出多少美国贫困？

And are our suburbs capable of handling that?

我们的郊区有能力处理这个问题吗？

That’s just not at all the way that I think.

这根本不是我想的那样。

Say there’re some people who just aren’t that productive.

假设有些人的工作效率不高。

They’re priced out of cities.

它们的价格超出了城市。

They move to suburban or exurban areas.

他们搬到郊区或远郊地区。

Social services are weaker, the bus network doesn’t work so well, there are problems getting your car fixed at an affordable price, and in some ways, their poverty problems become worse.

社会服务较弱，公交网络运行不佳，以实惠的价格修理汽车也存在问题，在某些方面，他们的贫困问题变得更加严重。

Should we build suburbs to be better geared to handle people who will have low incomes?

我们是否应该建设郊区以更好地适应低收入人群？

Ideally, the answer is you want political or public policy-based reasons to relocate, but I don’t have a view beyond that in where I want poor people or rich people to locate.

理想情况下，答案是你希望基于政治或公共政策的原因进行搬迁，但除此之外我没有其他观点，即我希望穷人或富人搬到哪里。

I think, in general, it’s a matter for their individual choice.

我认为，总的来说，这是他们个人选择的问题。

Every day, I get a spammy phone call.

每天我都会接到垃圾电话。

Someone wants to buy my house.

有人想买我的房子。

BlackRock, more seriously, is buying up a lot of housing.

更严重的是，贝莱德正在购买大量住房。

Is this a worry?

这是一个担忧吗？

Or is this just the market working?

或者这只是市场在起作用？

It’s not something I worry about very much.

这不是我很担心的事情。

I don’t necessarily see a market failure in here in any way or the other.

我并不一定认为这里存在任何形式的市场失灵。

What do you think BlackRock is going to do with your house?

您认为贝莱德将如何处理您的房子？

They’re going to rent it out, or they’re going to tear it down and build something even fancier than the Cowen homestead?

他们要把它租出去，还是把它拆掉，建造比考恩庄园更豪华的东西？

If they’re allowed to, they would build a much nicer structure.

如果允许的话，他们会建造一个更好的结构。

I won’t do that because I have to worry about where do I put my things in the meantime, and I’m focused on the short run.

我不会这样做，因为我必须担心同时把东西放在哪里，而且我专注于短期。

I’m not worried about it.

我并不担心。

My worry is that no one wants to buy my house, right?

我担心的是没有人愿意买我的房子，对吗？

That seems right.

看来是对的。

No, I certainly don’t worry about someone wanting to buy your house, whether it’s a company or an individual.

不，我当然不担心有人想买你的房子，无论是公司还是个人。

I just didn’t know if there was some externality in the back of your mind on this that I wasn’t aware of, but given that I’m not hearing any, I don’t know why I should worry about it.

我只是不知道你内心深处是否有一些我没有意识到的外部因素，但考虑到我没有听到任何外部因素，我不知道为什么我应该担心它。

Parking minimums — how much do they matter?

最低停车位 — 它们有多重要？

Maybe BlackRock wanted to put lots of sewage treatment plants in your area that were going to spew particulate things on your neighbors, and maybe we might want to have a policy controlling that.

也许贝莱德想在您所在的地区建立大量污水处理厂，这些处理厂会向您的邻居排放颗粒物，也许我们可能希望制定一项政策来控制这一点。

Some people say it’ll be a new housing bubble.

有人说这将是一个新的房地产泡沫。

Some, if it’s like the Airbnb complaints, that you have buyers who then rent, and there’s a positive externality from homeowners.

有些人，比如 Airbnb 的投诉，是有买家然后租房的，房主有积极的外部性。

That’s possible.

这是可能的。

I don’t dismiss those arguments.

我并不否认这些论点。

I’m not personally worried, but you’re the urban economist.

我个人并不担心，但你是城市经济学家。

I’m asking you.

我问你。

Can I proceed in my blind state of unworry?

我可以在盲目无忧的状态下继续前进吗？

The area where you hear this most is when you get the absentee buyers in places like Vancouver.

您最常听到这种说法的地方是当您在温哥华等地遇到缺席买家时。

That’s when you hear that.

那就是你听到的时候。

“You build these fancy towers .

“你建造这些奇特的塔楼。

.

。

.” It’s often used as an argument against new construction.

”。它经常被用作反对新建筑的论据。

“We built this sparkling new tower in Vancouver or New York, and it’s just being owned by Russian oligarchs who aren’t even there.”

“我们在温哥华或纽约建造了这座闪闪发光的新塔，但它的所有者却是根本不在那里的俄罗斯寡头。”

Let’s say we abolished all parking minimums.

假设我们废除了所有停车最低标准。

How big would the gains be?

收益会有多大？

Are there potential problems from parking overflow?

停车位溢出是否存在潜在问题？

Not if you’re charging for the use of city streets, there isn’t.

如果您对城市街道的使用收费，则不会。

The problem is here, we’ve had some starting point, which we think people should have the right to park anywhere they want for no cost or for some severely subsidized amount.

问题就在这里，我们已经有了一些出发点，我们认为人们应该有权在他们想要的任何地方停车，而无需支付任何费用或获得一些严格的补贴。

Let’s say it’s a suburban development.

假设这是一个郊区开发项目。

It’s Tysons Corner.

这是泰森斯角。

Someone wants to open some kind of big-box store, and you tell them, “You have to have X number of parking spaces because otherwise, people will park in front of homes.” Maybe there’s some abstract equilibrium where all parking is charged for, but practically speaking, that’s not going to happen, right?

有人想开一家大型商店，你告诉他们，“你必须有 X 个停车位，否则，人们会把车停在家门口。”也许存在某种抽象的平衡，即所有停车收费，但实际上，这不会发生，对吗？

I am not very worried.

我不太担心。

In fact, I don’t think big-box stores really need much of an incentive on this, as they seem to be pretty good at recognizing that their customers demand parking close by, and they seem to be pretty good at imposing it on their own.

事实上，我认为大型商店实际上并不需要太多的激励措施，因为他们似乎非常善于认识到客户需要在附近停车，而且他们似乎非常善于自行实施。

Some of your best-known and most cited pieces — they’re from the 1990s, and they’re on institutions and legal origins.

您的一些最著名和被引用次数最多的文章 ——它们来自 20 世纪 90 年代，并且涉及制度和法律起源。

Since that time, how have you changed or developed your mind on those issues compared to what you thought back then?

从那时起，与您当时的想法相比，您对这些问题的看法有何变化或发展？

I don’t know.

我不知道。

That stuff is 1999, 2001.

那是1999年、2001年的事。

I don’t know if they’ve changed a huge amount.

我不知道他们是否改变了很多。

I thought more just about cities per se.

我更多地考虑的是城市本身。

If we look at, say, Latin America, maybe Curitiba, Monterrey would be some of the more successful cities.

如果我们看看拉丁美洲，也许库里蒂巴和蒙特雷会是一些更成功的城市。

You bet.

你打赌。

What is city success correlated with institutionally in Latin America?

拉丁美洲的城市成功与制度有何相关性？

I have rarely seen things that are good quantitative studies.

我很少看到好的定量研究的东西。

I can tell you things that I’ve certainly seen in Monterrey.

我可以告诉你我在蒙特雷亲眼所见的事情。

The Medellín story is amazing.

麦德林的故事令人惊叹。

If you think about Medellín going from the city of Pablo Escobar to today, a lot of it often has to do with relatively pragmatic business leaders who wanted a safe and competent public sector that could enable their business growth.

如果你想到麦德林从巴勃罗·埃斯科瓦尔市发展到现在，很大程度上往往与相对务实的商业领袖有关，他们希望有一个安全、有能力的公共部门来促进他们的业务增长。

I think that’s a lot of the Monterrey story.

我想这就是蒙特雷故事的大部分内容。

Do you hold out any hope for charter cities like Próspera in Honduras?

您对洪都拉斯普罗斯佩拉这样的特许城市抱有希望吗？

Can that work, or is it futile?

这能行吗，还是没用？

I think it’s very hard for governments to keep their hands off the golden egg.

我认为政府很难不去碰金蛋。

The beauty of Hong Kong was it had the British Navy protecting it for most of its history, so there was no way that China or anyone else was going to grab it.

香港的美妙之处在于，它在其历史的大部分时间里都受到英国海军的保护，因此中国或其他任何人都无法夺取它。

It worked for UAE.

它对阿联酋有效。

Dubai is massively successful.

迪拜取得了巨大成功。

UAE allows it to continue.

阿联酋允许其继续下去。

That’s all quite —

这一切都相当 ——

Yes, but the rest of UAE is incredibly rich, too.

是的，但阿联酋其他地区也非常富有。

I don’t think generalizing from UAE is very easy, Tyler.

泰勒，我认为从阿联酋进行概括并不容易。

It’s not wealthy only because of oil.

它不仅仅因为石油而富有。

It’s a banking center, service center.

这是一个银行中心、服务中心。

Someone let that happen.

有人让这种事发生了。

UAE could have gone much worse under our normal rent-seeking institutionalist story, and it didn’t.

在我们正常的寻租制度主义故事下，阿联酋的情况可能会变得更糟，但事实并非如此。

So, if there’s hope for UAE, is there hope for charter cities?

那么，如果阿联酋有希望，那么特许城市也有希望吗？

Or is there some difference that makes one more plausible than the other?

或者是否存在某种差异使得其中一个比另一个更可信？

There is always hope, but everything is easier if you have trillions and trillions of dollars in oil wealth.

希望总是存在的，但如果你拥有数万亿美元的石油财富，一切都会变得更容易。

But it’s also harder, right?

但这也更难，对吧？

There’s a resource curse.

有一个资源诅咒。

If you’re not Norway, the resource curse seems like a negative.

如果你不是挪威，资源诅咒似乎是负面的。

My view is the resource curse tends to be in the intermediate levels, that once you have just an unbelievable amount of it, it tends to be much less of an actual resource curse.

我的观点是，资源诅咒往往处于中间水平，一旦你拥有令人难以置信的数量，它往往就不是真正的资源诅咒。

Will there be a new major American city started in this century?

本世纪会出现一个新的美国主要城市吗？

Assuredly, but I have no idea where.

当然可以，但我不知道在哪里。

Let’s say you’re investing.

假设您正在投资。

Where would you put your money?

你会把钱放在哪里？

I think there’s a lot to like in the highly educated pro-business cities of the South.

我认为南方受过高等教育的亲商城市有很多值得喜欢的地方。

Traditionally, this was Austin.

传统上，这里是奥斯汀。

Again, I worry about NIMBYists in Austin, but I think the place to combine education .

我再次担心奥斯汀的邻避主义者，但我认为这是一个将教育结合起来的地方。

.

。

.

。

Atlanta is about as well educated as Boston is, but on the other hand, they just have a very different atmosphere towards free enterprise than Boston does.

亚特兰大的教育程度与波士顿差不多，但另一方面，他们对自由企业的氛围与波士顿截然不同。

Can Miami become a tech hub?

迈阿密能成为科技中心吗？

They have a bunch of schools; you might say none are quite top-notch.

他们有很多学校；你可能会说没有一个是一流的。

Sympathetic mayor, right?

市长很有同情心吧？

Sure.

当然。

It’s certainly possible.

这当然是可能的。

There appear to be certain weather issues with Miami, which I’m not going to have any strong views on…

迈阿密似乎存在某些天气问题，我不会对此有任何强烈的看法......

There are earthquakes in San Francisco.

旧金山发生地震。

They’re surrounded by raging fires.

他们被熊熊大火包围。

They’re in a desert.

他们在沙漠里。

The Colorado River is problematic.

科罗拉多河有问题。

So why not be more bullish on Miami?

那么为什么不更加看好迈阿密呢？

It’s not my business to predict the climate, but yes, there’s a lot to like about being this connected to all of Latin America.

预测气候不是我的事，但是，是的，与整个拉丁美洲的联系有很多值得高兴的地方。

Of course, but you don’t sound onboard.

当然可以，但你听起来并不认同。

I don’t think at all it’s impossible.

我认为这根本不是不可能的。

I’m just resisting the urge to be confident about this.

我只是抵制对此充满信心的冲动。

Putting aside Boston and Cambridge, which are doing great, what can the rest of New England do to stay vibrant?

撇开表现出色的波士顿和剑桥不谈，新英格兰其他地区可以做些什么来保持活力呢？

Same mantra as everyplace else.

和其他地方一样的咒语。

Attract and train smart people and get out of their way.

吸引和培训聪明人，并为他们让路。

Won’t they just leave for Boston and Cambridge?

他们不会直接去波士顿和剑桥吗？

No. Anyway, the pandemic has been good for low density in New England in terms of quality of life.

不。无论如何，就生活质量而言，这场大流行有利于新英格兰低密度地区的生活。

You need a little bit less regulation and lots of spaces.

你需要更少的监管和更多的空间。

You need to make it easier to make fun in these areas, to be an entrepreneur of entertainment, which means starting restaurants, bars, food trucks, et cetera.

你需要让在这些领域更容易获得乐趣，成为一名娱乐企业家，这意味着开办餐馆、酒吧、餐车等等。

It’s hard, the further you get north.

越往北走，越难。

The climate is again holding detriment in parts of Maine or parts of northern New Hampshire, but I think most of New England is doing pretty well.

缅因州部分地区或新罕布什尔州北部部分地区的气候再次受到损害，但我认为新英格兰大部分地区的情况还不错。

Now we’re almost out of time, but two closing questions, and this one I asked David also.

现在我们快没时间了，还有两个结束语，这个问题我也问过大卫。

If you take your book with him, Survival of the City: Living and Thriving in an Age of Isolation, I’m not necessarily looking for a disagreement, though that would be okay, but an area where you and he still see things differently — in the book, from the book.

如果你带着你的书《城市的生存：孤立时代的生存与繁荣》，我不一定是在寻找分歧，尽管那没关系，但在一个领域，你和他仍然以不同的方式看待事物——在书中，与书中。

What would that be?

那会是什么？

He has still not convinced me on single payer healthcare.

他仍然没有说服我接受单一付款人医疗保健。

We do not say anything about that, deliberately, so that’s an area we certainly had not yet come eye to eye.

我们故意没有对此发表任何言论，因此我们在这个领域当然还没有达成共识。

I should say he’s a great expert on this, and I’m not, so I’m not trying to convince anyone that he’s wrong.

我应该说他是这方面的伟大专家，而我不是，所以我不想让任何人相信他错了。

I’m just saying that in 30 years of friendship, he has not yet persuaded me on this.

我只是说，在30年的友谊中，他还没有在这一点上说服我。

Last question — what will you be doing next?

最后一个问题 — 你接下来要做什么？

I am going to be serving as the chair of my department and enjoying all the fun of administrative meetings on end for the next three years.

我将担任我所在部门的主席，并在接下来的三年里享受连续不断的行政会议的所有乐趣。

Ed Glaeser, thank you very much.

艾德·格莱泽，非常感谢你。

Again, Ed’s book with David Cutler: Survival of the City: Living and Thriving in an Age of Isolation.

再次，埃德与大卫·卡特勒合着的书：城市的生存：孤立时代的生活和繁荣。

Thank you so much for doing this, Tyler.

非常感谢你这么做，泰勒。

Very much appreciate it.

非常感谢。