《就业、利息和货币通论》中英文对照版本第19章

BOOK V MONEY-WAGES AND PRICES 第五编 货币工资 CHAPTER 19 CHANGES IN MONEY-WAGES 第十九章 货币工资的决定 I IT would have been an advantage if the effects of a change in money-wages could have been discussed in an earlier chapter. For the Classical Theory has been accustomed to rest the supposedly self-adjusting character of the economic system on an assumed fluidity of money-wages; and, when there is rigidity, to lay on this rigidity the blame of maladjustment. 如果能在较前的章节中讨论货币工资变动的影响，那会带来有利之处。因为古典学派的理论一直假设的经济体系具有自动调节的特点依赖于他们所假设的货币工资的自由伸缩性。而货币工资一旦表现出刚性，他们就把经济体系不能自动调节的过失推倒工资刚性身上。 It was not possible, however, to discuss this matter fully until our own theory had been developed. For the consequences of a change in money-wages are complicated. A reduction in money-wages is quite capable in certain circumstances of affording a stimulus to output, as the classical theory supposes. My difference from this theory is primarily a difference of analysis; so that it could not be set forth clearly until the reader was acquainted with my own method. 然而，只有当我们的理论充分展开之后才有可能讨论这个问，因为货币工资变动的后果是复杂的。正像古典学派理论所假设的那样，货币工资的减少很可能刺激产量，我和古典学派理论的主要分歧在于方法上的不同。因此，在读者还没有熟悉我的方法之前，是无法阐明这个分歧的。 The generally accepted explanation is, as I understand it, quite a simple one. It does not depend on roundabout repercussions, such as we shall discuss below. The argument simply is that a reduction in money-wages will cet. par. stimulate demand by diminishing the price of the finished product, and will therefore increase output and employment up to the point where the reduction which labour has agreed to accept in its money-wages is just offset by the diminishing marginal efficiency of labour as output (from a given equipment) is increased. 根据我的理解，通常被接受的解释是非常简单的。它并不依靠像我们在下文将要论述的那样迂回反复，它的论点不过是：货币工资的降低，会通过产成品价格的降低而刺激需求，并因而使产量和就业量增加到这样一点，即：劳动者愿意接受的货币工资的减少正好抵消由于产量的增加而带来的劳动边际效率的降低。 In its crudest form, this is tantamount to assuming that the reduction in money-wages will leave demand unaffected. There may be some economists who would maintain that there is no reason why demand should be affected, arguing that aggregate demand depends on the quantity of money multiplied by the income-velocity of money and that there is no obvious reason why a reduction in money-wages would reduce either the quantity of money or its income-velocity. Or they may even argue that profits will necessarily go up because wages have gone down. But it would, I think, be more usual to agree that the reduction in money-wages may have some effect on aggregate demand through its reducing the purchasing power of some of the workers, but that the real demand of other factors, whose money incomes have not been reduced, will be stimulated by the fall in prices, and that the aggregate demand of the workers themselves will be very likely increased as a result of the increased volume of employment, unless the elasticity of demand for labour in response to changes in money-wages is less than unity. Thus in the new equilibrium there will be more employment than there would have been otherwise except, perhaps, in some unusual limiting case which has no reality in practice. 从古典学派理论最粗陋的形式来看，这无异于假设货币工资减少时，对产品的需求不变。可能有一些经济学家会指出没有理由认为这种需求会受到影响。他们主张总需求取决于货币数量乘以货币的收入流通速度；并争辩说，没有明显的理由说明为什么货币工资的减少会减少货币数量或者货币的收入流通速度，或者，他们甚至会争辩说，由于工资的降低，利润必然上升。但是，我认为，更普遍认同的观点是：货币工资的减少通过减少工人的购买而可能对总需求产生某些影响。但是，那些货币收入并没有减少的其他生产要素却由于价格的下降而受到刺激；而且，除非由于货币工资的改变而导致对劳动的需求弹性小于1，否则，工人们自己的总需求，很可能由于就业量的增加而增加。这样，在新的均衡状态，除去那些在现实中或许根本不会存在的非同寻常的极端情形，就业量一般会比以前更高。 It is from this type of analysis that I fundamentally differ; or rather from the analysis which seems to lie behind such observations as the above. For whilst the above fairly represents, I think, the way in which many economists talk and write, the underlying analysis has seldom been written down in detail. 我根本不赞同这种形式的分析，或者更确切地说，我根本不赞同的是存在于上述论证过程背后的分析。其原因在于，虽然以上论述能相当准确地表达许多经济学者们的口头或面的观点，但他们很少把这个观点背后的分析方法详细地用文字表达出来。 It appears, however, that this way of thinking is probably reached as follows. In any given industry we have a demand schedule for the product relating the quantities which can be sold to the prices asked; we have a series of supply schedules relating the prices which will be asked for the sale of different quantities on various bases of cost; and these schedules between them lead up to a further schedule which, on the assumption that other costs are unchanged (except as a result of the change in output), gives us the demand schedule for labour in the industry relating the quantity of employment to different levels of wages, the shape of the curve at any point furnishing the elasticity of demand for labour. This conception is then transferred without substantial modification to industry as a whole; and it is supposed, by a parity of reasoning, that we have a demand schedule for labour in industry as a whole relating the quantity of employment to different levels of wages. It is held that it makes no material difference to this argument whether it is in terms of money-wages or of real wages. If we are thinking in terms of money-wages, we must, of course, correct for changes in the value of money; but this leaves the general tendency of the argument unchanged, since prices certainly do not change in exact proportion to changes in money-wages. 然而，他们的思维方式似乎可以表述如下：任何既定的行业中，有一条体现产品出售的数量和价格的关系的需求曲线（或者表）；我们还有一系列体现以不同成本为基础的出售的价格和相应的产量之间关系的供给曲线（或者表），这些曲线（或者表）共同导出一条新的曲线，这条曲线在其他成本不变（除去产量改变所引起的成本改变以外）的假定条件下，代表该行业对劳动的需求曲线，它把就业量和相应的工资水平联系起来。在任何一点的曲线的形状都表示对劳动需求的弹性。于是，这一概念在未经实质性修改的情况下，被转而用于整个行业。并且还可以设想，根据同样的理由，我们还有一条全行业的劳动需求曲线（或者表），把就业量和不同的工资水平联系起来。可以认为这里的工资指的是货币工资还是实际工资是无关紧要的。如果我们认为是货币工资，那么，我们当然要对货币价值的变动加以矫正。但是，由于价格的变动肯定不会和货币工资的变动正好保持相同的比例，从而使论证的倾向性结果不会发生改变。 If this is the groundwork of the argument (and, if it is not, I do not know what the groundwork is), surely it is fallacious. For the demand schedules for particular industries can only be constructed on some fixed assumption as to the nature of the demand and supply schedules of other industries and as to the amount of the aggregate effective demand. It is invalid, therefore, to transfer the argument to industry as a whole unless we also transfer our assumption that the aggregate effective demand is fixed. Yet this assumption reduces the argument to an ignoratio elenchi. For, whilst no one would wish to deny the proposition that a reduction in money-wages accompanied by the same aggregate effective demand as before will be associated with an increase in employment, the precise question at issue is whether the reduction in money-wages will or will not be accompanied by the same aggregate effective demand as before measured in money, or, at any rate, by an aggregate effective demand which is not reduced in full proportion to the reduction in money-wages (i.e. which is somewhat greater measured in wage-units). But if the classical theory is not allowed to extend by analogy its conclusions in respect of a particular industry to industry as a whole, it is wholly unable to answer the question what effect on employment a reduction in money-wages will have. For it has no method of analysis wherewith to tackle the problem. Professor Pigou's Theory of Unemployment seems to me to get out of the Classical Theory all that can be got out of it; with the result that the book becomes a striking demonstration that this theory has nothing to offer, when it is applied to the problem of what determines the volume of actual employment as a whole . 如果这是他们论证的依据（如果不是这样，我也不知道他们论证的基础是什么），那肯定是错误的。因为一个特定行业的需求曲线（或者表）只能建立在对其他行业的需求与供给曲线（或者表）的性质以及总有效需求量不变的假设基础上。所以，把有关个别行业的观点转而用于所有行业整体上去是错误的做法，除非把总有效需求量固定不变的假设也转而运用到所有行业整体上去。然而，这个假设会使得论证变成用歪曲对方观点的做法来驳斥对方。因为，虽然没有人会反对伴随着总有效需求不变而货币工资减少会相应地增加就业量的命题，但是，这里所争论的问题恰恰是：减少货币工资能够还是不能够改变用货币积累的总有效需求；或者争论的问题至少是：减少货币工资能够还是不能够使总有效需求的减少与货币工资的减少不完全同比例变动（也即，用工资单位计量的总有效需求多少要大一些）。但是，如果不允许古典学派理论用类推的方法把特定行业的结论扩大到整个行业全体，那么，该理论就完全不能回答货币工资的减少对就业量有何影响的问题，因为它不具备解决这个问题的分析方法。在我看来，庇古教授的《失业论》从古典学派的理论中得到了所能得到的一切，结果是：该书成了一个显著的事例说明，当该理论被应用于是什么决定整个社会的实际就业量的问题时，它毫无用处 。 II Let us, then, apply our own method of analysis to answering the problem. It falls into two parts. (I) Does a reduction in money-wages have a direct tendency, cet. par., to increase employment, "cet. par." Being taken to mean that the propensity to consume, the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital and the rate of interest are the same as before for the community as a whole? And (2) does a reduction in money-wages have a certain or probable tendency to affect employment in a particular direction through its certain or probable repercussions on these three factors? 那么，让我们用我们自己的分析方法来回答这个问题。问题可以分成两部分：（1）其他条件不变，货币工资的减少是否具有直接增加就业量的倾向？所谓“其他条件不变”，这里是指：消费倾向、资本边际效率表和利息率，就整个社会而言是不变的。（2）货币工资的减少通过它对上述三个因素的某些影响或可能具有的影响，是否会对就业量在特定方向上产生某些影响或可能具有的影响？ The first question we have already answered in the negative in the preceding chapters. For we have shown that the volume of employment is uniquely correlated with the volume of effective demand measured in wage-units, and that the effective demand, being the sum of the expected consumption and the expected investment, cannot change, if the propensity to consume, the schedule of marginal efficiency of capital and the rate of interest are all unchanged. If, without any change in these factors, the entrepreneurs were to increase employment as a whole, their proceeds will necessarily fall short of their supply-price. 对于第一部分的问题，我们已经在前面几章做了否定的回答。我们曾经指出：就业量和以工资单位计量的有效需求具有唯一的相互关系；我们还曾指出，由于有效需求是预期消费和预期投资之和，如果消费倾向、资本边际效率表和利息率三者都不变，则有效需求也不变。在这三个因素都不变的情形下，如果企业家们还要从总体上增加就业量，则他们的收益就必然小于他们的供给价格。 Perhaps it will help to rebut the crude conclusion that a reduction in money-wages will increase employment "because it reduces the cost of production", if we follow up the course of events on the hypothesis most favourable to this view, namely that at the outset entrepreneurs expect the reduction in money-wages to have this effect. It is indeed not unlikely that the individual entrepreneur, seeing his own costs reduced, will overlook at the outset the repercussions on the demand for his product and will act on the assumption that he will be able to sell at a profit a larger output than before. If, then, entrepreneurs generally act on this expectation, will they in fact succeed in increasing their profits? Only if the community's marginal propensity to consume is equal to unity, so that there is no gap between the increment of income and the increment of consumption; or if there is an increase in investment, corresponding to the gap between the increment of income and the increment of consumption, which will only occur if the schedule of marginal efficiencies of capital has increased relatively to the rate of interest. Thus the proceeds realised from the increased output will disappoint the entrepreneurs and employment will fall back again to its previous figure, unless the marginal propensity to consume is equal to unity or the reduction in money-wages has had the effect of increasing the schedule of marginal efficiencies of capital relatively to the rate of interest and hence the amount of investment. For if entrepreneurs offer employment on a scale which, if they could sell their output at the expected price, would provide the public with incomes out of which they would save more than the amount of current investment, entrepreneurs are bound to make a loss equal to the difference; and this will be the case absolutely irrespective of the level of money wages. At the best, the date of their disappointment can only be delayed for the interval during which their own investment in increased working capital is filling the gap. 这也许有助于我们反驳这样一个粗略的结论，即：货币工资的减少会增加就业量，“因为它会减少生产成本。”对于该结论，我们可以按照对它最有利的方式加以解释，也就是说，企业家们开始时预计降低货币工资会有此后果。当然，在看到他自己的成本降低之后，单个企业家很可能起初会忽视货币工资的减少对其产品需求的反作用，并按照在获取一定利润的前提下能比过去销售更多产品的设想行事。然而，如果企业家们都照此行事，那么，他们实际上还能够成功地增加他们的利润吗？不能，除非社会的边际消费倾向等于1，从而收入增量和消费增量之间没有任何差额；或者除非投资量增加，并且正好弥补收入增量与消费增量之间的差额。而投资量的增加又只能在资本的边际效率表相对于利息率有所增加时才能发生。这样，除非边际消费倾向等于1，或者货币工资的减少使得资本边际效率表相对于利息率有所增加，从而使投资量增加，否则，企业家们对从产量的增加中所获取的收益会感到失望，而且就业量又将回落以前的水平。这是因为，当企业家们根据他们的产品能卖掉的价格而提供一定规模的就业量时，会给公众一笔收入，使得公众从这笔收入中进行储蓄的量大于当期投资量。二者的差额就构成企业家们的亏损。对于这种情形，不论货币工资的水平如何，都肯定会存在的。因而，企业家们顶多只能推迟他们失望日期的到来，在这个时期，要用周转资本代替投资以填补储蓄大于投资的差额。 Thus the reduction in money-wages will have no lasting tendency to increase employment except by virtue of its repercussions either on the propensity to consume for the community as a whole, or on the schedule of marginal efficiencies of capital, or on the rate of interest. There is no method of analysing the effect of a reduction in money-wages, except by following up its possible effects on these three factors. 由此可见，除去通过对整个社会的消费倾向、资本边际效率表和利息率的影响之外，减少货币工资不会持续增加就业量。要想探求减少货币工资对就业量的影响，只能继续考察它对这三个因素可能产生的影响。 The most important repercussions on these factors are likely, in practice, to be the following: 在实践中，对这三种因素最主要的影响很可能如下所述： (1) A reduction of money-wages will somewhat reduce prices. It will, therefore, involve some redistribution of real income (a) from wage-earners to other factors entering into marginal prime cost whose remuneration has not been reduced, and (b) from entrepreneurs to rentiers to whom a certain income fixed in terms of money has been guaranteed. （1）货币工资的减少或多或少地会降低价格。所以，它会引起实际收入两方面的再分配：（a）收入从工资劳动者那里转移到边际直接成本中的那些报酬未被削减的生产要素那里；（b）收入从企业家们那里转移到那里获取租金和利息的食利者们那里，食利者们的货币收入因为契约的规定是固定不变的。 What will be the effect of this redistribution on the propensity to consume for the community as a whole? The transfer from wage-earners to other factors is likely to diminish the propensity to consume. The effect of the transfer from entrepreneurs to rentiers is more open to doubt. But if rentiers represent on the whole the richer section of the community and those whose standard of life is least flexible, then the effect of this also will be unfavourable. What the net result will be on a balance of considerations, we can only guess. Probably it is more likely to be adverse than favourable. 这种再分配对整个社会的消费倾向的影响如何？收入从工资劳动者那里转移到其他生产要素那里，可能会降低消费倾向。至于收入从企业家们到食利者们的转移就成问题了。但是，如果食利者们从总体上看属于社会的富有者，他们的生活水平很少发生变动，那么这种收入的转移也会降低消费倾向。考虑了各个方面的平衡之后，我们只能猜想净结果如何。或许很可能的是消费倾向的降低而不是提高。 (2) If we are dealing with an unclosed system, and the reduction of money-wages is a reduction relatively to money-wages abroad when both are reduced to a common unit, it is evident that the change will be favourable to investment, since it will tend to increase the balance of trade. This assumes, of course, that the advantage is not offset by a change in tariffs, quotas, etc. The greater strength of the traditional belief in the efficacy of a reduction in money-wages as a means of increasing employment in Great Britain, as compared with the United States, is probably attributable to the latter being, comparatively with ourselves, a closed system. （2）如果我们所研究的是一个开放的经济体系，而且货币工资的减少又是相对于外国货币工资的减少（两种货币工资的减少均以相同的单位计量）而言，那么，这种变动显然有利于投资量，因为它会趋于增加贸易顺差。当然，假设这种有利之处不会被关税、限额等方面的变动所抵消。认为减少货币工资是增加就业量的一种手段，这种传统观念在英国比在美国具有更大的力量。这可能是因为，相对于英国而言，美国是一个较封闭的经济体系。 (3) In the case of an unclosed system, a reduction of money-wages, though it increases the favourable balance of trade, is likely to worsen the terms of trade. Thus there will be a reduction in real incomes, except in the case of the newly employed, which may tend to increase the propensity to consume. （3）在一个开放的经济体系中，货币工资的削减虽然可以增加贸易顺差，但也可能恶化贸易条件，从而将会降低实际收入。而这除去新增雇员之外，还会降低就业者的实际收入，从而可能趋于提高消费倾向。 (4) If the reduction of money-wages is expected to be a reduction relatively to money-wages in the future, the change will be favourable to investment, because as we have seen above, it will increase the marginal efficiency of capital; whilst for the same reason it may be favourable to consumption. If, on the other hand, the reduction leads to the expectation, or even to the serious possibility, of a further wage-reduction in prospect, it will have precisely the opposite effect. For it will diminish the marginal efficiency of capital and will lead to the postponement both of investment and of consumption. （4）如果货币工资的减少是预期相对于未来货币工资的减少，则这种变动有利于投资。因为正像我们上文已经看到的，它会增加资本的边际效率；与此同时，基于相同的理由，它还可能有利于消费。另一方面，如果这种减少导致货币工资预期的或者甚至有极大可能性的进一步降低，那么，它会有更确切的负面影响，因为它会降低资本边际效率，并推迟消费和投资行为。 (5) The reduction in the wages-bill, accompanied by some reduction in prices and in money-incomes generally, will diminish the need for cash for income and business purposes; and it will therefore reduce pro tanto the schedule of liquidity-preference for the community as a whole. Cet. par. this will reduce the rate of interest and thus prove favourable to investment. In this case, however, the effect of expectation concerning the future will be of an opposite tendency to those just considered under (4). For, if wages and prices are expected to rise again later on, the favourable reaction will be much less pronounced in the case of long-term loans than in that of short-term loans. If, moreover, the reduction in wages disturbs political confidence by causing popular discontent, the increase in liquidity-preference due to this cause may more than offset the release of cash from the active circulation. （5）工资总支出的减少。再加上物价某种程度的下降以及工资收入的普遍减少，会减少为取得收入和基于企业经营目的的现金需求，因而会依据这个减少量降低整个社会的流动性偏好表（或者曲线）。假设其他条件不变，这会降低利息率，从而有利于投资。然而，在这种情形，对未来的预期与刚刚考察过的第（4）点会呈现出相反的趋势。因为如果预期工资和价格以后还会上升，则对长期贷款的有利作用远小于短期贷款。此外，如果因为工资的减少引起公众的不满而扰乱政治信心，则由于这个原因而引起的流动性偏好的增加可能会大于实际流通中现金需求量的减少所能抵消的部分。 (6) Since a special reduction of money-wages is always advantageous to an individual entrepreneur or industry, a general reduction (though its actual effects are different) may also produce an optimistic tone in the minds of entrepreneurs, which may break through a vicious circle of unduly pessimistic estimates of the marginal efficiency of capital and set things moving again on a more normal basis of expectation. On the other hand, if the workers make the same mistake as their employers about the effects of a general reduction, labour troubles may offset this favourable factor; apart from which, since there is, as a rule, no means of securing a simultaneous and equal reduction of money-wages in all industries, it is in the interest of all workers to resist a reduction in their own particular case. In fact, a movement by employers to revise money-wage bargains downward will be much more strongly resisted than a gradual and automatic lowering of real wages as a result of rising prices. （6）由于局限于某一企业或某一行业的货币工资的削减总是有利于该企业或行业，于是货币工资的普遍减少（虽然它的实际影响各不相同），也可能在企业家们的心中产生一种乐观情绪，因而可以破除对资本边际效率做出过分悲观估计的恶性循环，使得事态再次按照更加正常的预期发展。另一方面，如果工人们像他们的雇主们那样对工资的普遍减少做出同样错误的估计时，则劳资纠纷可能抵消这一有利因素。除此以外，由于通常没有一个在所有行业中使得货币工资同时和等量减少的手段；而且，由于每一行业的劳动者会坚决抵制属于自己行业范围内的工资削减，所以这会使所有行业的货币工资的削减非常困难。事实上，在劳资双方进行工资谈判时，对雇主们削减货币工资的抵抗要比对物价上升所造成的实际工资逐渐和自动下降的抵抗更为强烈。 (7) On the other hand, the depressing influence on entrepreneurs of their greater burden of debt may partly offset any cheerful reactions from the reduction of wages. Indeed if the fall of wages and prices goes far, the embarrassment of those entrepreneurs who are heavily indebted may soon reach the point of insolvency, --with severely adverse effects on investment. Moreover the effect of the lower price-level on the real burden of the National Debt and hence on taxation is likely to prove very adverse to business confidence. （7）另一方面，由于债务负担的加重而对企业家造成的压抑作用可以部分地抵消削减工资带来的欢快心情。确实，如果工资和价格可以下降很大的幅度，那么，大量负债的企业家的财务困境很快就会到达破产的程度————这对投资具有极为不利的影响。此外，较低的价格水平对国债，因而对实际赋税负担的影响，可能会对企业经营的信心产生十分不利的影响。 This is not a complete catalogue of all the possible reactions of wage reductions in the complex real world. But the above cover, I think, those which are usually the most important. 以上所述并不是在这个复杂的现实世界中，减少工资可能造成的全部的影响。但是，我认为，它还是概括了通常所认同的一些最重要的影响。 If, therefore, we restrict our argument to the case of a closed system, and assume that there is nothing to be hoped, but if anything the contrary, from the repercussions of the new distribution of real incomes on the community's propensity to spend, it follows that we must base any hopes of favourable results to employment from a reduction in money-wages mainly on an improvement in investment due either to an increased marginal efficiency of capital under (4) or a decreased rate of interest under (5). Let us consider these two possibilities in further detail. 所以，如果我们把我们的论证限制在封闭的经济体系内，并假定实际收入的重新分配对社会的消费倾向没有多大的影响，即使有，也只是起相反的即不利的影响。因而，我们必须把对减少货币工资有利于就业的希望主要寄托于投资的改善上，而投资的改善既可能起因于第（4）点的资本边际效率的增加，也可能起因于第（5）点的利息率的降低。现在让我们对这两种可能性作进一步的详细考察。 The contingency, which is favourable to an increase in the marginal efficiency of capital, is that in which money-wages are believed to have touched bottom, so that further changes are expected to be in the upward direction. The most unfavourable contingency is that in which money-wages are slowly sagging downwards and each reduction in wages serves to diminish confidence in the prospective maintenance of wages. When we enter on a period of weakening effective demand, a sudden large reduction of money-wages to a level so low that no one believes in its indefinite continuance would be the event most favourable to a strengthening of effective demand. But this could only be accomplished by administrative decree and is scarcely practical politics under a system of free wage-bargaining. On the other hand, it would be much better that wages should be rigidly fixed and deemed incapable of material changes, than that depressions should be accompanied by a gradual downward tendency of money-wages, a further moderate wage reduction being expected to signalise each increase of, say, I per cent. in the amount of unemployment. For example, the effect of an expectation that wages are going to sag by, say, 2 per cent. in the coming year will be roughly equivalent to the effect of a rise of 2 per cent. in the amount of interest payable for the same period. The same observations apply mutatis mutandis to the case of a boom. 有利于增进资本边际效率的情况是：相信货币工资已经到达最低点，因而只能预期进一步的变动是向上的方向。最不利的情形是：货币工资会逐渐慢慢下降，而每一次的削减都会削弱将来是否能维持工资水平的信心。当我们进入一个有效需求衰弱时期，如果货币工资突然很快地下降到如此之低的水平，以致没有人相信工资会无限制地继续下降，这种事态会有利于加强有效需求，但这只有政府法令才能做得到。而在一个工资自由谈判的制度中，这是很难行得通的。既然做不到这一点，那么，严格固定工资，而且使人们相信工资不会再有多大的变化，远比伴随着货币工资呈逐渐下降态势的萧条状态为好，因为在萧条状态下，工资进一步的轻微下降会被当作一个信号向人们表明：失业又增加了，譬如说1％。如果预期工资在来年要下降2％，它的影响大致相当于在同一时期应付的利息率上涨2％。在经过相应的修正后，以上所说也适用于经济繁荣状态。 It follows that with the actual practices and institutions of the contemporary world it is more expedient to aim at a rigid money-wage policy than at a flexible policy responding by easy stages to changes in the amount of unemployment;--so far, that is to say, as the marginal efficiency of capital is concerned. But is this conclusion upset when we turn to the rate of interest? 根据以上所述，在当代世界的现实实践和现实制度下，以固定货币工资为目标的政策比随着失业量的变化而增减货币工资的政策更为有利———这是就资本边际效率而言，政策应该如此。但是，当我们就利息率而言时，这个结论是否还能成立呢？ It is, therefore, on the effect of a falling wage- and price-level on the demand for money that those who believe in the self-adjusting quality of the economic system must rest the weight of their argument; though I am not aware that they have done so. If the quantity of money is itself a function of the wage- and price-level, there is indeed, nothing to hope in this direction. But if the quantity of money is virtually fixed, it is evident that its quantity in terms of wage-units can be indefinitely increased by a sufficient reduction in money-wages; and that its quantity in proportion to incomes generally can be largely increased, the limit to this increase depending on the proportion of wage-cost to marginal prime cost and on the response of other elements of marginal prime cost to the falling wage-unit. 所以，很明显，那些相信我们的经济体系能够自我调节的人们不能不把他们论证的重点放在工资和物价的下降对货币需求的影响上，虽然我不清楚他们是否已经这样做了。如果货币数量本身是工资和物价水平的函数，那么，按照这一思路，他们就没有希望取得成果。但是，如果货币数量几乎是固定不变的，那么很显然，它的用工资单位衡量的数量就会由于货币工资足够程度的降低而无限制地增加。同时，它的数量与国民收入之间的比例一般也会大大增加。增加的程度取决于工资在边际直接成本中所占的比重，并取决于边际直接成本中的其他因素对工资单位下降的反应。 We can, therefore, theoretically at least, produce precisely the same effects on the rate of interest by reducing wages, whilst leaving the quantity of money unchanged, that we can produce by increasing the quantity of money whilst leaving the level of wages unchanged. It follows that wage reductions, as a method of securing full employment, are also subject to the same limitations as the method of increasing the quantity of money. The same reasons as those mentioned above, which limit the efficacy of increases in the quantity of money as a means of increasing investment to the optimum figure, apply mutatis mutandis to wage reductions. Just as a moderate increase in the quantity of money may exert an inadequate influence over the long-term rate of interest, whilst an immoderate increase may offset its other advantages by its disturbing effect on confidence; so a moderate reduction in money-wages may prove inadequate, whilst an immoderate reduction might shatter confidence even if it were practicable. 因此，我们至少在理论上可以用两种方法对利息率造成同样的影响：一是降低工资，而保持货币数量不变；二是增加货币数量而保持工资不变。因此，削减工资和增加货币数量作为获得充分就业的手段，都会受到同样的限制。上面列举的限制货币数量的增加能够使投资量增加到适度水平的种种理由，经过相应的修改后，也适用于工资降低的情形。如果货币数量只是轻微地增加，那么，它对长期利息率的影响可能不够大，而如果货币数量增加很多，则又可能通过影响信心而抵消它在其他方面的影响。同样，货币工资轻微地削减也可能难以产生什么影响。而货币工资大幅度的削减，即使能行得通，也会动摇信心。 There is, therefore, no ground for the belief that a flexible wage policy is capable of maintaining a state of continuous full employment;--any more than for the belief than an open-market monetary policy is capable, unaided, of achieving this result. The economic system cannot be made self-adjusting along these lines. 所以，没有理由相信，一种弹性工资政策能够维持充分就业的状态；————正像没有理由相信，通过公开市场业务的货币政策，在没有其他辅助方法的情况下，也能达到这个结果一样。弹性货币工资政策和改变货币数量的政策，二者都不能使经济发挥自我调节的功能。 If, indeed, labour were always in a position to take action (and were to do so), whenever there was less than full employment, to reduce its money demands by concerted action to whatever point was required to make money SO abundant relatively to the wage-unit that the rate of interest would fall to a level compatible with full employment, we should, in effect, have monetary management by the Trade Unions, aimed at full employment, instead of by the banking system. 的确，如果劳动者总是处于能够采取有效行动的地位（并且也这样做的话），则一旦出现低于充分就业的状态，劳动者们便一致采取行动，削减货币工资到所要求的程度，即以工资单位计量的货币数量多到使利息率下降到符合充分就业的水平。如果是这样，我们就应该让工会而不是让银行系统去从事旨在实现充分就业的货币管理。 Nevertheless while a flexible wage policy and a flexible money policy come, analytically, to the same thing, inasmuch as they are alternative means of changing the quantity of money in terms of wage-units, in other respects there is, of course, a world of difference between them. Let me briefly recall to the reader's mind the three outstanding considerations. 弹性工资政策和弹性货币政策，在理论分析上，虽然同样都是可供选择的改变用工资单位计量的货币数量的手段，但是，二者在其他方面当然有天壤之别。现在我们提出四个值得突出考虑之处供读者回忆。 (i) Except in a socialised community where wage-policy is settled by decree, there is no means of securing uniform wage reductions for every class of labour. The result can only be brought about by a series of gradual, irregular changes, justifiable on no criterion of social justice or economic expediency, and probably completed only after wasteful and disastrous struggles, where those in the weakest bargaining position will suffer relatively to the rest. A change in the quantity of money, on the other hand, is already within the power of most governments by open-market policy or analogous measures. Having regard to human nature and our institutions, it can only be a foolish person who would prefer a flexible wage policy to a flexible money policy, unless he can point to advantages from the former which are not obtainable from the latter. Moreover, other things being equal, a method which it is comparatively easy to apply should be deemed preferable to a method which is probably so difficult as to be impracticable. （1）除去社会主义社会用法令规定工资政策之外，没有任何手段能统一削减每一阶层的劳动者的工资水平。工资削减只能通过一系列渐进的和不规则的工资变动得以实现。这些变动不是以社会正义和经济利益为准则，而且可能只是通过浪费性的和灾难性的斗争得以完成。在斗争中，相对于其余的人们来说，那些处于谈判最弱势地位的人们遭受的损失是最大的。但另一方面，货币数量的变化早已进入多数政府的权限之内，例如公开市场业务政策或者类似的手段。考虑到人类的本性和我们的制度，除非有人能指出弹性工资政策优于弹性货币政策，否则，只有愚蠢的人才会偏爱前者。此外，一种相对易于应用的方法，应该优于一种可能难以实行的政策。 (ii) If money-wages are inflexible, such changes in prices as occur (i.e. apart from "administered" or monopoly prices which are determined by other considerations besides marginal cost) will mainly correspond to the diminishing marginal productivity of the existing equipment as the output from it is increased. Thus the greatest practicable fairness will be maintained between labour and the factors whose remuneration is contractually fixed in terms of money, in particular the rentier class and persons with fixed salaries on the permanent establishment of a firm, an institution or the State. If important classes are to have their remuneration fixed in terms of money in any case, social justice and social expediency are best served if the remunerations of all factors are somewhat inflexible in terms of money. Having regard to the large groups of incomes which are comparatively inflexible in terms of money, it can only be an unjust person who would prefer a flexible wage policy to a flexible money policy, unless he can point to advantages from the former which are not obtainable from the latter. （2）如果货币工资是非弹性的，那么，一部分价格（即除去“被管制”的价格或者由于边际成本之外其他的考虑所决定的垄断价格之外）的变动将主要对应于当期设备由于增加产量而导致的边际生产率的下降。这样，在劳动者和其他生产要素之间将保持一种实际上最理想的关系。其他生产要素所有者的报酬是由契约用货币规定的，特别是食利者阶层和那些在永久性企业、机关或者政府里领取固定薪金的人们。如果主要阶层的报酬在任何场合都用货币加以固定，从而所有生产要素的报酬用货币计量都没有什么弹性，那么，这就是最合乎社会正义和社会权宜之计的。考虑到大批不同的社会阶层已经在领取没有弹性的货币收入，只有无正义感的人才会选择有弹性的工资政策，而不是弹性货币政策，除非他能指出前者具有后者所没有的优越之处。 (iii) The method of increasing the quantity of money in terms of wage-units by decreasing the wage-unit increases proportionately the burden of debt; whereas the method of producing the same result by increasing the quantity of money whilst leaving the wage-unit unchanged has the opposite effect. Having regard to the excessive burden of many types of debt, it can only be an inexperienced person who would prefer the former. （3）通过降低工资单位来增加用工资单位计量的货币数量的方法，会按比例地加重债务人的债务负担；然而用增加货币数量同时保持工资单位不变的方法，会得到相同的货币增量，但影响正好相反。考虑到多种类型的债务加重，只有缺乏经验才会选择降低工资的方法。 (iv) If a sagging rate of interest has to be brought about by a sagging wage-level, there is, for the reasons given above, a double drag on the marginal efficiency of capital and a double reason for putting off investment and thus postponing recovery. （4）如果利息率的下降是通过降低工资水平的方法取得的。那么，基于上面已经说过的理由，这会从两个方面压低资本边际效率，从而也就构成推迟投资、延缓经济复苏的双重理由。 III It follows, therefore, that if labour were to respond to conditions of gradually diminishing employment by offering its services at a gradually diminishing money-wage, this would not, as a rule, have the effect of reducing real wages and might even have the effect of increasing them, through its adverse influence on the volume of output. The chief result of this policy would be to cause a great instability of prices, so violent perhaps as to make business calculations futile in an economic society functioning after the manner of that in which we live. To suppose that a flexible wage policy is a right and proper adjunct of a system which on the whole is one of laissez-faire, is the opposite of the truth. It is only in a highly authoritarian society, where sudden, substantial, all-round changes could be decreed that a flexible wage-policy could function with success. One can imagine it in operation in Italy, Germany or Russia, but not in France, the United States or Great Britain. 因此，可以推知，如果对于就业量的逐渐减少，劳动者在货币工资逐步削减的情形下提供劳务，这一般不会导致实际工资的下降，甚至还可能通过对产量的反向影响而增加实际工资。这种政策的主要后果是造成价格的剧烈波动，以致在我们生活于其中的依靠企业核算才能运行的社会中，企业核算成为多余的事情。把弹性工资政策当作一个自由放任经济体系所应有的正确的、合理的附属品的设想，与真实情况是相反的。只有在一个高度集权的社会中，突然的、巨大的和全面的变革都依靠法令来规定，只有在这种社会中，弹性工资政策才能成功地运行。我们可以想像，这种政策在意大利、德国或者俄国可以运行，但在法国、美国或者英国不可能实行。 If, as in Australia, an attempt were made to fix real wages by legislation, then there would be a certain level of employment corresponding to that level of real wages; and the actual level of employment would, in a closed system, oscillate violently between that level and no employment at all, according as the rate of investment was or was not below the rate compatible with that level; whilst prices would be in unstable equilibrium when investment was at the critical level, racing to zero whenever investment was below it, and to infinity whenever it was above it. The element of stability would have to be found, if at all, in the factors controlling the quantity of money being so determined that there always existed some level of money-wages at which the quantity of money would be such as to establish a relation between the rate of interest and the marginal efficiency of capital which would maintain investment at the critical level. In this event employment would be constant (at the level appropriate to the legal real wage) with money-wages and prices fluctuating rapidly in the degree just necessary to maintain this rate of investment at the appropriate figure. In the actual case of Australia, the escape was found, partly of course in the inevitable inefficacy of the legislation to achieve its object, and partly in Australia not being a closed system, so that the level of money-wages was itself a determinant of the level of foreign investment and hence of total investment, whilst the terms of trade were an important influence on real wages. 如果像在澳大利亚那样，试图用立法来规定实际工资，就有一个既定的就业水平与这种实际工资相对应。在一个封闭的经济体系中，实际就业量会在该就业水平和完全无就业之间剧烈地波动。而实际就业量取决于投资量是否同对应于该就业水平的投资量相匹配。当投资量同该就业水平的投资量相匹配时，价格就处于非稳定的均衡状态；当投资量低于这个投资水平时，价格会急剧下降为零；当投资量高于这个投资水平时，价格会上升到无穷大。要想在这当中找出一个稳定的因素，这就是那些控制货币数量的因素。货币数量的决定总是与某种货币工资的水平相联系。在该货币工资水平下，货币数量要能在利息率和资本边际效率之间建立起一种关系，使得投资量保持在恰到好处的水平。果真如此，则就业量不变（对应于法定实际工资水平），而货币工资和价格急剧变动，达到正好维持恰到好处的投资量所必需的程度。在澳大利亚的实际情况中，之所以没有产生这种不稳定状态，当然部分地是由于立法手段总是难以完全达成既定目标，部分地还因为澳大利亚不是一个封闭经济体系，其货币工资水平本身就是一个对外投资水平的决定因素，从而也就是决定投资总量的一个因素。与此同时，贸易条件对于实际工资也有着重要影响。 In the light of these considerations I am now of the opinion that the maintenance of a stable general level of money-wages is, on a balance of considerations, the most advisable policy for a closed system; whilst the same conclusion will hold good for an open system, provided that equilibrium with the rest of the world can be secured by means of fluctuating exchanges. There are advantages in some degree of flexibility in the wages of particular industries so as to expedite transfers from those which are relatively declining to those which are relatively expanding. But the money-wage level as a whole should be maintained as stable as possible, at any rate in the short period. 根据上述考虑，我现在的观点是：在权衡各种考虑的得失之后，对于一个封闭经济体系来说，维持一个稳定的一般货币工资水平是最可取的政策。对于一个开放经济体系来说，如果该国同世界其余国家通过外汇比价的改变而能够达到国际收支平衡的话，这个结论同样适用。对于某些特定行业，工资具有一定程度的弹性是有好处的。它有助于劳动者从那些相对衰落的行业转移到那些相对兴旺的行业。但是，货币工资的总体水平应尽可能地维持稳定，至少在短期内应该如此。 This policy will result in a fair degree of stability in the price-level;--greater stability, at least, than with a flexible wage policy. Apart from "administered" or monopoly prices, the price-level will only change in the short period in response to the extent that changes in the volume of employment affect marginal prime costs; whilst in the long period they will only change in response to changes in the cost of production due to new technique and new or increased equipment. 这种政策会使价格水平具有相当程度的稳定性——至少比弹性工资政策有更大的稳定性。除“管制的”物价或者垄断价格之外，总体价格水平短期内在这个限度内反映了就业量的变动对边际直接成本的影响；长期内在这个限度内的变动则反映了由于新技术、新设备或新增设备所带来的生产成本的变动。 It is true that, if there are, nevertheless, large fluctuations in employment, substantial fluctuations in the price-level will accompany them. But the fluctuations will be less, as I have said above, than with a flexible wage policy. 尽管如此，实际情形是：如果就业量有大幅度波动，价格水平也将随之产生相当大的波动。但是，正像我在上文已经指出的，其波动要小于执行弹性工资政策时的波动。 Thus with a rigid wage policy the stability of prices will be bound up in the short period with the avoidance of fluctuations in employment. In the long period, on the other hand, we are still left with the choice between a policy of allowing prices to fall slowly with the progress of technique and equipment whilst keeping wages stable, or of allowing wages to rise slowly whilst keeping prices stable. On the whole my preference is for the latter alternative, on account of the fact that it is easier with an expectation of higher wages in future to keep the actual level of employment within a given range of full employment than with an expectation of lower wages in future, and on account also of the social advantages of gradually diminishing the burden of debt, the greater ease of adjustment from decaying to growing industries, and the psychological encouragement likely to be felt from a moderate tendency for money-wages to increase. But no essential point of principle is involved, and it would lead me beyond the scope of my present purpose to develop in detail the arguments on either side. 这样，在执行刚性工资政策时，短期内要稳定价格就必须避免就业量的波动。另一方面，我们在长期内仍有两种政策选择：一种是随着技术进步和设备升级而允许价格的缓慢下降，但同时保持工资稳定。另一种是允许工资缓慢上升，但同时保持物价稳定。总的来说，我偏向于后一种政策选择。其原因是，预期未来的工资较高比预期未来的工资较低更容易使实际就业量维持在充分就业的一定范围内。另一原因在于：逐渐减少债务人负担带来的社会收益，从衰落的行业调整到兴旺的行业很方便，货币工资轻微上升的趋势可能给人们带来心理上的鼓舞。这些考虑不涉及经济学的主要原理，而且对这两种政策详加论述也超出我现在的论述目的。 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 19 PROFESSOR PIGOU'S "THEORY OF UNEMPLOYMENT" 第十九章附录 关于庇古教授的《失业论》 PROFESSOR PIGOU in his Theory of Unemployment makes the volume of employment to depend on two fundamental factors, namely (1) the real rates of wages for which workpeople stipulate, and (2) the shape of the Real Demand Function for Labour. The central sections of his book are concerned with determining the shape of the latter function. The fact that workpeople in fact stipulate, not for a real rate of wages, but for a money-rate, is not ignored; but, in effect, it is assumed that the actual money-rate of wages divided by the price of wage-goods can be taken to measure the real rate demanded. 庇古教授在其《失业论》中指出，就业量取决于两个基本因素：（1）工人们所要求的实际工资率；（2）劳动实际需求函数的形状。该书的中心章节是关于该函数形状的决定问题。工人们所要求的并不是实际工资率而是货币工资率。这个事实并未被忽视，但是它假设，货币工资率除以工资品价格就可以计量实际工资率。 The equations which, as he says, " form the starting point of the enquiry" into the Real Demand Function for Labour are given in his Theory of Unemployment, p. 90. Since the tacit assumptions, which govern the application of his analysis, slip in near the outset of his argument, I will summarise his treatment up to the crucial point. 《失业论》的第90页给出了两个方程式。按照庇古教授的说法，该方程式是对劳动实际需求函数的“研究的出发点”，但由于有几个隐含的假设而影响了他的分析的应用，这些假设一开始就混入了他的论证之中。因此，我将对他的处理方法直至争论的关键之处做一概述。 Professor Pigou divides industries into those "engaged in making wage-goods at home and in making exports the sale of which creates claims to wage-goods abroad" and the "other" industries: which it is convenient to call the wage-goods industries and the non-wage-goods industries respectively. He supposes x men to be employed in the former and y men in the latter. The output in value of wage-goods of the x men he calls F(x); and the general rate of wages F'(x). This, though he does not stop to mention it, is tantamount to assuming that marginal wage-cost is equal to marginal prime cost . Further, he assumes that x +y = ø(x), i.e. that the number of men employed in the wage-goods industries is a function of total employment. He then shows that the elasticity of the real demand for labour in the aggregate (which gives us the shape of our quaesitum, namely the Real Demand Function for Labour) can be written Er={φ′(x)/ φ (x)}·{F′(x)/ F (x)} 庇古教授把所有行业区分为“从事制造满足国内需要的工资品和制造用以销往国外换回工资品的出口品”的行业，以及“其他”行业。为方便起见，可以分别将其称之为工资品行业和非工资品行业。他假设，前一行业雇佣x人，后一行业雇佣y人。他用F(x)表示x人生产的工资品产品的价值，用F′(x)表示该行业的一般工资率。这种做法相当于假设：边际工资成本等于边际直接成本 ，虽然他在行文中并没有加以说明。进而，他还假设x +y = ø(x)，也即总就业量是工资品行业雇佣人数的函数。于是，它又表示对劳动总量的实际需求函数（此弹性可以显示出我们所寻求的对劳动实际需求函数的形状）可以写成： Er = {φ′(x)/ φ (x)}·{F′(x)/ F (x)} So far as notation goes, there is no significant difference between this and my own modes of expression. In so far as we can identify Professor Pigou's wage-goods with my consumption-goods, and his "other goods" with my investment-goods, it follows that his {F(x)/ F′(x)} being the value of the output of the wage-goods industries in terms of the wage-unit, is the same as my Cw. Furthermore, his function ø is (subject to the identification of wage-goods with consumption-goods) a function of what I have called above the employment multiplier k'. For △x=k′△y, so that {φ′(x)=I+I/k′}. 仅就符号而论，他和我的表达方式没有重大区别。如果我们能够把庇古教授的工资品和我的消费品等同起来，把他的“其他物品”和我的投资品等同起来，那么，他用以表示由工资单位计量的工资品行业的产品价值{F(x)/ F′(x)}，就和我的Cw是相同的。此外，他的函数Ф（在工资品等同于消费品的限度内）是我称之为就业乘数k'的函数，因为 △, x =k′△, y* 因而， {φ′(x)=1+1/k′} Thus Professor Pigou's " elasticity of the real demand for labour in the aggregate" is a concoction similar to some of my own, depending partly on the physical and technical conditions in industry (as given by his function F) and partly on the propensity to consume wage-goods (as given by his function ø); provided always that we are limiting ourselves to the special case where marginal labour-cost is equal to marginal prime cost. 由此可见，庇古教授的“对劳动总量的实际需求弹性”是一个和我的某些概念相似的复合概念。它部分地取决于工资品行业的物质和技术条件（像他的函数F所表示的），部分地取决于工资品的消费倾向（像他的函数Ф所表示的）。以上所说当然总是要限制在一个特殊场合，即边际劳动成本等于边际直接成本。 To determine the quantity of employment, Professor Pigou then combines with his "real demand for labour", a supply function for labour. He assumes that this is a function of the real wage and of nothing else. But, as he has also assumed that the real wage is a function of the number of men x who are employed in the wage-goods industries, this amounts to assuming that the total supply of labour at the existing real wage is a function of x and of nothing else. That is to say, n =x(x), where n is the supply of labour available at a real wage F'(x). 为了决定就业量，庇古教授把他的“对劳动的实际需求”同一个对劳动的供给函数相结合。他假设劳动的供给只是实际工资的一个函数，而不包括任何其他的变量。但是像他所假设的那样，实际工资是工资品行业的就业人数x的函数，这就等于假设按照当期工资的劳动总供给是x的一个函数，而不包括任何其他变量。这就是说，n = x (x)，n是实际工资为F'(x)时的可能的劳动供给量。 Thus, cleared of all complication, Professor Pigou's analysis amounts to an attempt to discover the volume of actual employment from the equations x+y=φ(x) and n=x(x). But there are here three unknowns and only two equations. It seems clear that he gets round this difficulty by taking n =x +y. This amounts, of course, to assuming that there is no involuntary unemployment in the strict sense, i.e. that all labour available at the existing real wage is in fact employed. In this case x has the value which satisfies the equation φ(x)=x(x); and when we have thus found that the value of x is equal to (say) n1, y must be equal to X(n1)- n1, and total employment n is equal to X(n1). 这样，把所有的复杂情况排除掉，庇古教授的分析是试图从以下两个方程式中确定实际就业量： x+y=φ(x) 和 n=x(x) 这里，有两个方程和三个未知数。似乎可以清楚地看出，他规避这个困难的方法是使n =x +y。这样做相当于假设不存在严格意义上的非自愿失业，也即在当期实际工资下，所有可能的劳动者实际上都就业了，在这种情形，x具有满足这个方程式的取值： φ(x)=χ(x)； 当我们如此得出的x的取值等于（比如说）n1时，则y必须等于χ(n1)－n1，总就业量n等于χ(n1)。 It is worth pausing for a moment to consider what this involves. It means that, if the supply function of labour changes, more labour being available at a given real wage (so that n1 + dn1 is now the value of x which satisfies the equation ø(x) =X(x)), the demand for the output of the non-wage-goods industries is such that employment in these industries is bound to increase by just the amount which will preserve equality between ø(n1 + dn1) and X(n1 + dn1). The only other way in which it is possible for aggregate employment to change is through a modification of the propensity to purchase wage-goods and non-wage-goods respectively such that there is an increase of y accompanied by a greater decrease of x. 这里值得稍停片刻，以便考虑一下这一切的含义。其含义是说，如果劳动的供给函数发生变动，则对于一定的实际工资水平，劳动的可使用量增多（于是满足方程式φ(x)=χ(x)的x的取值，现在成为n1 + dn1），对非工资品行业的产出需求要达到这样的程度，即这些行业的就业增量足以使φ(n1 + dn1)和χ(n1 + dn1)保持相等。能使总就业量可能发生变化的另外唯一的一种方法是：分别改变工资品和非工资品的购买倾向，以使y的增加伴随着x较多的减少。 The assumption that n=x+y means, of course, that labour is always in a position to determine its own real wage. Thus, the assumption that labour is in a position to determine its own real wage, means that the demand for the output of the non-wage-goods industries obeys the above laws. In other words, it is assumed that the rate of interest always adjusts itself to the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital in such a way as to preserve full employment. Without this assumption Professor Pigou's analysis breaks down and provides no means of determining what the volume of employment will be. It is, indeed, strange that Professor Pigou should have supposed that he could furnish a theory of unemployment which involves no reference at all to changes in the rate of investment (i.e. to changes in employment in the non-wage-goods industries) due, not to a change in the supply function of labour, but to changes in (e.g.) either the rate of interest or the state of confidence. n=x+y这一假设当然意味着劳动者总是处于能决定自己实际工资的地位。而这个假定又意味着对非工资品行业产品的需求要服从与上述方程式有关的法则。换而言之，这等于假设：利息率按照这种方式自行调节它与资本边际效率表的关系，以维持充分就业。没有这个假设，庇古教授的分析就会崩溃，从而提不出如何决定就业量的方法。但的确奇怪得是，庇古教授竟设想他能提出一个失业理论，而根本不涉及就业量的变化（也即不涉及非工资品行业的就业量的变化）。这种变化不是由于劳动供给函数的变化，而（例如）既是由于利息率的变动，也是由于信心状态的变化。 His title the "Theory of Unemployment" is, therefore, something of a misnomer. His book is not really concerned with this subject. It is a discussion of how much employment there will be, given the supply function of labour, when the conditions for full employment are satisfied. The purpose of the concept of the elasticity of the real demand for labour in the aggregate is to show by how much full employment will rise or fall corresponding to a given shift in the supply function of labour. Or--alternatively and perhaps better--we may regard his book as a non-causative investigation into the functional relationship which determines what level of real wages will correspond to any given level of employment. But it is not capable of telling us what determines the actual level of employment; and on the problem of involuntary unemployment it has no direct bearing. 所以，他的书命名为《失业论》有点名不副实。他的这本书实际上并没有论及这个主题，而论述的是：当充分就业的条件得到满足，给定劳动的供给函数时，就业量将是多少。劳动总量的实际需求弹性这个概念的目的在于表明对应于劳动供给函数的给定移动，充分就业将上升或下降多少。或者——用另一种或许更好的说法——我们可以认为，他的那本书不过是一种非因果性的考察，考察对应于任何给定的就业量水平，决定实际工资水平取值的函数关系。但是，它不能告诉我们什么决定实际就业水平，并且也没有直接涉及非自愿失业的问题。 If Professor Pigou were to deny the possibility of involuntary unemployment in the sense in which I have defined it above, as, perhaps, he would, it is still difficult to see how his analysis could be applied. For his omission to discuss what determines the connection between x and y, i.e. between employment in the wage-goods and non-wage-goods industries respectively, still remains fatal. 如果庇古教授否定我在前面定义的那种意义上的非自愿失业的可能性，则仍然难以看出他的分析如何能被运用于现实。因为他疏忽了关于什么决定x和y之间联系的讨论，也即工资品和非工资品行业各自就业量之间的联系，这是一个致命伤。 Moreover, he agrees that within certain limits labour in fact often stipulates, not for a given real wage, but for a given money-wage. But in this case the supply function of labour is not a function of F'(x) alone but also of the money-price of wage-goods;--with the result that the previous analysis breaks down and an additional factor has to be introduced, without there being an additional equation to provide for this additional unknown. The pitfalls of a pseudo-mathematical method, which can make no progress except by making everything a function of a single variable and assuming that all the partial differentials vanish, could not be better illustrated. For it is no good to admit later on that there are in fact other variables, and yet to proceed without re-writing everything that has been written up to that point. Thus if (within limits) it is a money-wage for which labour stipulates, we still have insufficient data, even if we assume that n =x + y, unless we know what determines the money-price of wage-goods. For, the money-price of wage-goods will depend on the aggregate amount of employment. Therefore we cannot say what aggregate employment will be, until we know the money-price of wage-goods; and we cannot know the money-price of wage-goods until we know the aggregate amount of employment. We are, as I have said, one equation short. Yet it might be a provisional assumption of a rigidity of money-wages, rather than of real wages, which would bring our theory nearest to the facts. For example, money-wages in Great Britain during the turmoil and uncertainty and wide price fluctuations of the decade 1924-1934 were stable within a range of 6 per cent., whereas real wages fluctuated by more than 20 per cent. A theory cannot claim to be a general theory, unless it is applicable to the case where (or the range within which) money-wages are fixed, just as much as to any other case. Politicians are entitled to complain that money-wages ought to be highly flexible; but a theorist must be prepared to deal indifferently with either state of affairs. A scientific theory cannot require the facts to conform to its own assumptions. 此外，他同意在一定限度内，劳动者事实上所要求的不是给定的实际工资水平，而是给定的货币工资水平。但是，在这种情形，劳动的供给函数就不单是F'(x)的函数，也还是工资品货币价格的函数，这样一来，他前面的分析就崩溃了，并且引进了一个追加因素，却没有引进一个追加的方程式来解决这个追加的未知数。一种虚假的数学方法除了使得每件事物只是单一变量的函数，并假定所有的偏微分都不存在之外，不可能在问题的分析上取得什么进展。对这种潜在的危险，没有比庇古教授的分析更好的例证了，因为后者虽然承认事实上还有许多其他变量，但仍然按照原来的方式进行研究，对已经取得的成果不作修改，因而这种承认是没有用的。因此，如果（在某种限度内）劳动者所要求的是货币工资，那么，除非我们知道是什么决定工资品的货币价格，否则即使我们假定n =x + y，我们仍会感到不足，因为工资品的价格取决于就业总量。所以，直至我们知道工资品的货币价格之前，我们无法断定就业总量是多少。同时，直至我们知道就业总量之前，我们也不能知道工资品的货币价格。这正像我已经说过的，我们缺少一个方程式。然而，暂时假定货币工资而不是实际工资有刚性，就可能使我们的理论更接近于事实。例如，在英国1924－1934年动荡、不确定和物价大幅波动的十年间，货币工资稳定在6％的波动幅度内，而实际工资的波动幅度在20％以上。一个理论，除非它在货币工资固定不变（或者在一定范围内不变）或者在改变的情形中都能运用时，才能说是普适性理论。政治家们有资格抱怨货币工资应该具有高度的弹性。但是，一个理论家应该能毫无偏见地处理货币工资不具有高度弹性的问题。一个科学的理论不能要求事实迎合它的假设。 When Professor Pigou comes to deal expressly with the effect of a reduction of money-wages, he again, palpably (to my mind), introduces too few data to permit of any definite answer being obtainable. He begins by rejecting the argument (op. cit. p. 101) that, if marginal prime cost is equal to marginal wage-cost, non-wage-earners' incomes will be altered, when money-wages are reduced, in the same proportion as wage-earners', on the ground that this is only valid, if the quantity of employment remains unaltered--which is the very point under discussion. But he proceeds on the next page (op. cit. p. 102) to make the same mistake himself by taking as his assumption that "at the outset nothing has happened to non-wage-earners' money-income", which, as he has just shown, is only valid if the quantity of employment does not remain unaltered--which is the very point under discussion. In fact, no answer is possible, unless other factors are included in our data. 当庇古教授专门处理货币工资减少的影响时，他再次引入了显然（在我心目中是这么认为的）很少的资料以得到任何具体的答案。他从一开始就反对这样一个论点（同上所引，第101页），即：如果边际直接成本等于边际工资成本，则当货币工资减少时，非工资劳动者的收入将和工资劳动者的收入同比例变化。他反对的理由是：如果就业量不变，这个观点才能成立——就业量是否不变，正是需要讨论的问题。但是，到下一页（同上所引，第102页），他自己又犯了同样的错误，即假定：“在初始时，非工资劳动者的货币收入不变”；而他刚刚说过，如果就业量并非保持不变，这一点才能成立；就业量是否维持不变正是要讨论的问题。事实上，除非我们的资料加进其他因素，否则不可能为这个问题提供答案。 The manner in which the admission, that labour in fact stipulates for a given money-wage and not for a given real wage (provided that the real wage does not fall below a certain minimum), affects the analysis, can also be shown by pointing out that in this case the assumption that more labour is not available except at a greater real wage, which is fundamental to most of the argument, breaks down. For example, Professor Pigou rejects (op. cit. p. 75) the theory of the multiplier by assuming that the rate of real wages is given, i.e. that, there being already full employment, no additional labour is forthcoming at a lower real wage. Subject to this assumption, the argument is, of course, correct. But in this passage Professor Pigou is criticizing a proposal relating to practical policy; and it is fantastically far removed from the facts to assume, at a time when statistical unemployment in Great Britain exceeded 2,000,000 (i.e. when there were 2,000,000 men willing to work at the existing money-wage), that any rise in the cost of living, however moderate, relatively to the money-wage would cause the withdrawal from the labour market of more than the equivalent of all these 2,000,000 men. 事实上，劳动者所要求的是给定的货币工资量，而不是给定的实际工资量（只要实际工资不降至低于某一最低点）。承认这一点会影响整个分析，即：如果承认这一点，则作为论证主要基础的那个假设就会崩溃，这个假设就是：只有实际工资比较高，才有可能供给更多的劳动量。例如，庇古教授用以反对（同上所引，第75页）乘数理论的假设是：实际工资率是给定的，也就是，既然已经达到了充分就业，即使实际工资率较低也不会增加劳动供给量。依据这样的假设条件，庇古教授的论点当然是正确的。但是，在这个段落中，庇古教授批评的是关系到实际政策的一种。在方案所涉及的时期内，英国的失业据统计超过了200万人（即有200万人愿意在当期货币工资下工作），而庇古教授竟假设，只要生活费用相对于货币工资有所上升，不管升幅多么微弱，也会使得工人退出劳动市场，而且退出的人数还会超过200万人。这种假设离事实如此之远，简直是想入非非。 It is important to emphasise that the whole of Professor Pigou's book is written on the assumption that any rise in the cost of living, however moderate, relatively to the money-wage will cause the withdrawal from the labour market of a number of workers greater than that of all the existing unemployed. 重要的是应该着重指出这样一点，即庇古教授的整本书都建立在这个假设的基础之上：相对于货币工资的生活费用的任何上升，不论升幅如何微小，都会使得为数比当期失业量还要多的大量工人退出劳动力市场。 Moreover, Professor Pigou does not notice in this passage (op. cit. p. 75) that the argument, which he advances against "secondary" employment as a result of public works, is, on the same assumptions, equally fatal to increased "primary" employment from the same policy. For if the real rate of wages ruling in the wage-goods industries is given, no increased employment whatever is possible--except, indeed, as a result of non-wage-earners reducing their consumption of wage-goods. For those newly engaged in the primary employment will presumably increase their consumption of wage-goods which will reduce the real wage and hence (on his assumptions) lead to a withdrawal of labour previously employed elsewhere. Yet Professor Pigou accepts, apparently, the possibility of increased primary employment. The line between primary and secondary employment seems to be the critical psychological point at which his good common sense ceases to overbear his bad theory. 此外，庇古教授在同一段落中（同上所引，第75页），还没有注意到，他提出用以反对作为公共工程结果的“第二轮”就业的论点，也可以用来反对在相同的假设条件下，同一种政策导致的“第一轮”就业量增加的论点，因为如果在工资品行业中的总体实际工资率是给定的，则除非非工资劳动者减少他们的工资品消费，就业量就无论如何都不能增加，因为参加“第一轮”就业的新增劳动者会增加工资品的消费，从而会降低实际工资，因而又会（按庇古教授的假设）导致原来在其他地方已经就业的人们退出劳动力市场。然而，庇古教授显然承认第一轮就业量增加的可能性。第一轮就业和第二轮就业之间的分界线似乎成了庇古教授心理上的关键之处，在该处，他良好的常识见解不再能支配他拙劣的理论。 The difference in the conclusions to which the above differences in assumptions and in analysis lead can be shown by the following important passage in which Professor Pigou sums up his point of view: "With perfectly free competition among workpeople and labour perfectly mobile, the nature of the relation (i.e. between the real wage-rates for which people stipulate and the demand function for labour) will be very simple. There will always be at work a strong tendency for wage-rates to be so related to demand that everybody is employed. Hence, in stable conditions everyone will actually be employed. The implication is that such unemployment as exists at any time is due wholly to the fact that changes in demand conditions are continually taking place and that frictional resistances prevent the appropriate wage adjustments from being made instantaneously." 由于假设条件和分析方法的差异而得出的不同结论，可以用庇古教授用以概括其观点的下述重要段落予以说明：“在工人们相互存在完全地自由竞争和劳动者完全自由流动的情形，这种关系（即人们所要求的实际工资率和对劳动的需求函数之间的关系）的性质是很简单的。强烈的倾向总是在发生作用，使得工资率和需求存在这样的关系，即每个劳动者都能就业。因此在稳定状态下，每个人都会就业。其含义是：任何时候都存在的失业，其原因完全在于需求状况继续在改变，而摩擦力使得工资不能及时调整。” He concludes (op. cit. p. 253) that unemployment is primarily due to a wage policy which fails to adjust itself sufficiently to changes in the real demand function for labour. 他得出的结论是（同上所引，第253页）：失业主要是由于一种工资政策，这种政策使工资不能做出足够的调整，以适应劳动实际需求函数的变动。 Thus Professor Pigou believes that in the long run unemployment can be cured by wage adjustments ; whereas I maintain that the real wage (subject only to a minimum set by the marginal disutility of employment) is not primarily determined by "wage adjustments" (though these may have repercussions) but by the other forces of the system, some of which (in particular the relation between the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital and the rate of interest) Professor Pigou has failed, if I am right, to include in his formal scheme. 由此可见，庇古教授相信，在长期中，失业能够通过工资的调整加以解决 。而我认为，实际工资（只有它的最低水平才由就业的边际负效用来决定）的水平，主要并不是由“工资调整”来决定（虽然调整也可能引起一系列反应），而是由这个经济体系的其他因素来决定。如果我的理解是对的，庇古教授未能将其中某些因素（特别是资本边际效率表和利息率的关系）纳入他的理论框架之中。 Finally, when Professor Pigou comes to the "Causation of Unemployment" he speaks, it is true, of fluctuations in the state of demand, much as I do. But he identifies the state of demand with the Real Demand Function for Labour, forgetful of how narrow a thing the latter is on his definition. For the Real Demand Function for Labour depends by definition (as we have seen above) on nothing but two factors, namely (1) the relationship in any given environment between the total number of men employed and the number who have to be employed in the wage-goods industries to provide them with what they consume, and (2) the state of marginal productivity in the wage-goods industries. Yet in Part V. of his Theory of Unemployment fluctuations in the state of "the real demand for labour" are given a position of importance. The "real demand for labour" is regarded as a factor which is susceptible of wide short-period fluctuations (op. cit. Part V. chaps. vi.-xii.), and the suggestion seems to be that swings in "the real demand for labour" are, in combination with the failure of wage policy to respond sensitively to such changes, largely responsible for the trade cycle. To the reader all this seems, at first, reasonable and familiar. For, unless he goes back to the definition, "fluctuations in the real demand for labour" will convey to his mind the same sort of suggestion as I mean to convey by "fluctuations in the state of aggregate demand". But if we go back to the definition of the "real demand for labour", all this loses its plausibility. For we shall find that there is nothing in the world less likely to be subject to sharp short-period swings than this factor. 最后，当庇古教授论述“失业的原因”时，他确实和我一样讨论过需求波动。但是，他把需求状况和对劳动的实际需求函数等同起来，因而忘记了按照他的定义，后者是含义如何狭小的概念，因为按照他的定义（如我们在上文所见），对劳动的实际需求函数仅仅取决于两个因素，即：（1）在任何给定情形下，就业总量和必须为就业总量提供消费所需的工资品行业的就业量二者之间的关系；（2）工资品行业的边际生产率状况。然而，在他的《失业论》第5编中，“对劳动的实际需求”被认为是一个在短期内容易大幅波动的因素（同上所引，第5编，第6－12章）；并且他似乎认为，“对劳动的实际需求”的波动与工资政策未能对这种波动敏锐地做出反应结合在一起，成为经济周期的主要诱因。对读者来说，乍一看来，所有这一切似乎是合理的，是人们所熟悉的，因为除非他又回到原来的定义，否则“对劳动的实际需求的波动”在他心目中似乎具有和我所说的“总需求状况的波动”有类似的含义。但是，如果我们回到庇古教授的“对劳动的实际需求”的定义上，那么庇古教授的这一切就无法令人信服，因为我们会发现，世界上没有任何东西会比这一因素更难以在短期内发生剧烈波动。 Professor Pigou's "real demand for labour" depends by definition on nothing but F(x), which represents the physical conditions of production in the wage-goods industries, and ø(x), which represents the functional relationship between employment in the wage-goods industries and total employment corresponding to any given level of the latter. It is difficult to see a reason why either of these functions should change, except gradually over a long period. Certainly there seems no reason to suppose that they are likely to fluctuate during a trade cycle. For F(x) can only change slowly, and, in a technically progressive community, only in the forward direction; whilst ø(x) will remain stable, unless we suppose a sudden outbreak of thrift in the working classes, or, more generally, a sudden shift in the propensity to consume. I should expect, therefore, that the real demand for labour would remain virtually constant throughout a trade cycle. I repeat that Professor Pigou has altogether omitted from his analysis the unstable factor, namely fluctuations in the scale of investment, which is most often at the bottom of the phenomenon of fluctuations in employment. 根据定义，庇古教授的“对劳动的实际需求”仅仅取决于F(x)和ø(x)。前者代表工资品行业生产的物质条件；后者代表就业总量和与之相应的工资品行业中就业量之间的函数关系。除了长期中的逐渐变动之外，很难找到理由解释为什么这两个函数中的任何一个会有变动。可以肯定，没有理由假设它们可能会产生周期性的波动，因为F(x)只能慢慢地变动，而且在一个存在技术进步的社会中只能向前变动。而ø(x)除非工人阶级突然倾向于节俭，或者更一般地说，除非消费倾向发生突然变动，否则它将保持稳定。所以，我预期在整个经济周期中，对劳动的实际需求几乎会维持不变。我再重复一遍：庇古教授在他的分析中完全消除了不稳定因素，即投资量的变动，而这一变动往往是就业量波动现象的根源。 I have criticised at length Professor Pigou's theory of unemployment not because he seems to me to be more open to criticism than other economists of the classical school; but because his is the only attempt with which I am acquainted to write down the classical theory of unemployment precisely. Thus it has been incumbent on me to raise my objections to this theory in the most formidable presentment in which it has been advanced. 我之所以如此详尽的批判庇古教授地失业理论，并不是因为对我来说，他比其他的古典学派经济学家更值得批判，而是因为据我所知，他的理论是唯一试图精确阐述古典学派失业理论的陈述。因此，对于古典理论的这一最难以驳倒的陈述，我不得不提出我的反对意见。 � In an appendix to this chapter Professor Pigou's Theory of Unemployment is criticised in detail. � 本章的附录将对庇古教授的《失业论》给予详细的批评。 � The source of the fallacious practice of equating marginal wage-cost to marginal prime cost may, perhaps, be found in an ambiguity in the meaning of marginal wage-cost. We might mean by it the cost of an additional unit of output if no additional cost is incurred except additional wage-cost; or we might mean the additional wage-cost involved in producing an additional unit of output in the most economical way with the help of the existing equipment and other unemployed factors. In the former case we are pre cluded from combining with the additional labour any additional entrepreneurship or working capital or anything else other than labour which would add to the cost; and we are even precluded from allowing the additional labour to wear out the equipment any faster than the smaller labour force would have done. Since in the former case we have forbidden any element of cost other than labour cost to enter into marginal prime-cost, it does, of course, follow that marginal wage-cost and marginal prime-cost are equal. But the results of an analysis conducted on this premiss have almost no application, since the assumption on which it is based is very seldom realised in practice. For we are not so foolish in practice as to refuse to associate with additional labour appropriate additions of other factors, in so far as they are available, and the assumption will, therefore, only apply if we assume that all the factors, other than labour, are already being employed to the utmost. � 把边际工资成本和边际直接成本等同起来的错误或许是因为边际工资成本的意义含糊不清。我们可以把它当作：追加一个单位产品的成本，如果除去追加的工资成本外，没有任何其它追加成本。或者，我们也可以把它当作：在现有设备和其它未被雇佣的生产要素的辅助下，用最经济的方法生产追加一个单位的产品所引致的追加的工资成本。在前一种情形，不可能在追加劳动的同时也追加任何企业经营能力或者经营资本或者劳动之外的任何会增加成本的东西。甚至不可能让追加的劳动比较少的劳动所能做到的那样更快地损耗设备，因为在前一种情形，不容许劳动成本之外的任何其它成本因素进入边际直接成本，这样，边际工资成本当然就等于边际直接成本。但是，根据这一前提所得到的分析结果几乎没有什么运用价值，因为它赖以成立的假设在现实中很少能实现，在现实中，我们不会愚蠢到如此地步，以致不把追加的劳动和适当追加的其它生产要素（如果它们在现实中存在的话）一起使用。所以，只有假设除劳动之外的所有生产要素都已得到最大限度的使用，这个假设的前提条件才得以成立。 � Op. cit. p. 252. � 参见《失业论》第252页。 � There is no hint or suggestion that this comes about through reactions on the rate of interest. � 他并没有做出这样的暗示或建议，即这一结果是来自对利息率的反应。