想象一下瓦肯星（Vulcan，影片《星际迷航》中的星球，该星球居民摒弃感情，只讲纯粹逻辑——译者注）出现了衰退。由于需求疲弱，一名勤勉能干的瓦肯员工干的活，实在配不上他的薪水。
这名瓦肯人的老板把他叫到了办公室，开诚布公且符合逻辑地与他探讨了几种选择。他们一致认同，继续现有协议不合逻辑，这名雇员将接受暂时减薪20%的安排。双方都庆幸避免了人类解雇用处不大的员工、而不是调整其薪酬的奇怪行为。
而在地球上，一出现衰退，企业就会裁员，在常人看来，这是因为工资无法调整。一些经济学家称之为“自愿失业”。这个古怪的术语让人假想到这种场景：那名瓦肯员工决定，自己宁可在海滩上打发时间，也不愿接受减薪。还有一些经济学家提出了“工资刚性”的说法。无论我们把它称作什么，缺乏弹性的工资令人费解，而瓦肯人的做法看起来确有其合理之处。
但话虽如此，许多经济学家都表示，经济衰退期间工资水平调整不大，而这一事实有助于解释为何失业数据受到了影响，会随着经济周期大起大落。
不过，即使顽固的人类拒绝重新商定工资，仍可能存在调整工资的空间，因为人们在不断地获得和丢掉工作。如果雇主在经济繁荣时期提供丰厚的待遇，而在衰退期间抠门一些，在经济的兴衰转换中，工资的弹性应该会更大，失业率的波动则会减小。但我们并没有这样做。
难道我们这样做了吗？伦敦政治经济学院(LSE)的克里斯托弗•比萨利兹(Christopher Pissarides)指出，研究表明，在经济繁荣时期跳槽的人实际得到的工资会大幅增加，而在衰退期跳槽的人则不然。比萨利兹称，这表明工资（至少是新员工的工资）水平比许多经济理论家猜想的更为灵活。
先别急着下结论，那些理论家回应道。马克•格特勒(Mark Gertler)和安托里娜•特里加里(Antonella Trigari)在最近一篇文章中解释了，比萨利兹提到的研究的本意，为何有可能与他所以为的意思不一样：“例如，假设一名技术高超的机械师在危机期间成为低收入的出租车司机，而在繁荣时期又再次成为高收入的机械师。”的确如此：一个人有可能通过在两种自身工资水平僵化的职业中进行转换，导致收入出现周期性变化。
这真是个无伤大雅的有趣说法，我肯定你们都会同意这一点。在皇家经济学会(Royal Economic Society)不久前的会议上，我读到了加里•索隆(Gary Solon)关于这场辩论的投稿。索隆一直与佩德罗•马丁斯(Pedro Martins)和乔纳森•托马斯(Jonathan Thomas)研究数据，观察一次又一次招募（一年可能有很多次）同一入门级别岗位的公司。索隆提供的来自葡萄牙的数据，清楚地显示了令那些经济理论家惊讶的现象：衰退期间工资水平确实会下降。失业率每上升一个百分点，新员工拿到的实际工资似乎就会被压低1.8个百分点。换言之，失业率从6%升至9%，新员工工资就会下降5%以上。
这并不意味着工资弹性达到了预期水平。瓦肯人可能会指着我们大幅波动的失业率，告诉我们工资水平仍未充分消化经济低迷带来的压力。说到底，减薪总会有伤害，但丢掉工作的伤害更大。
译者/何黎
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001032507
Imagine a recession on Planet Vulcan. Thanks to weak demand, an able and hard-working Vulcan subordinate is simply not doing enough business to justify his salary.
The Vulcan boss calls his subordinate into the corner office for a frank and logical discussion of the options. They agree that it would be illogical to continue under the present arrangements, and that the Vulcan employee will accept a pay cut of 20 per cent for the time being. Both congratulate themselves on avoiding the bizarre human practice of sacking marginally profitable workers rather than adjusting their salaries.
Back on Earth, people do get sacked in recessions, and the received wisdom is that this is because wages don't adjust. Some economists talk about “voluntary unemployment”. This odd term calls to mind the scenario of the Vulcan deciding he would prefer to spend some time on the beach rather than take the pay cut. Other economists speak of “wage rigidity”. Whatever we call it, inflexible wages are a puzzle, as the Vulcan approach does seem to have logic on its side.
But still, the story many economists tell is that wages don't adjust much in recessions, and this fact helps to explain why unemployment takes the strain, plunging and soaring with the economic cycle.
Nevertheless, even if stubborn humans refuse to allow their wages to be renegotiated, there could still be room for wage adjustment because people are always gaining and losing jobs. If employers make generous offers during booms and stingy offers during recessions, we should see more wage flexibility and smaller fluctuations in unemployment as the economy booms and busts. But we don't.
Or do we? Christopher Pissarides of the London School of Economics points to research showing that workers who hop from one job to another during a boom enjoy a hefty jump in take-home pay, while workers who change jobs during a recession do not. That suggests, claims Pissarides, that wages (or at least the wages offered to new hires) are more flexible than many economic theorists assume.
Not so fast, respond those theorists. In a recent article, Mark Gertler and Antonella Trigari explained why the studies to which Pissarides points might not mean what he thinks they mean: “Suppose, for example, that a highly skilled machinist takes a job as a low-paid cab driver in a recession and then is re-employed as a high-paid machinist in a boom.” Quite so: it is possible for an individual to experience cyclical wages by switching between two professions which themselves might have rigid wages.
This is all good clean fun, as I am sure you will all agree. And I saw the latest contribution to the debate presented by Gary Solon at the recent Royal Economic Society conference. Solon (with Pedro Martins and Jonathan Thomas) has been looking at data that allow him to observe the same companies recruiting over and over again – perhaps many times in a year – for the same entry-level positions. Solon's data, from Portugal, clearly show something to surprise the economic theorists: wages do fall in recessions after all. An increase in the unemployment rate by one percentage point seems to suppress the real wages offered to new employees by 1.8 per cent. In other words, an increase in unemployment from 6 per cent to 9 per cent would depress the wages for new hires by just over 5 per cent.
This does not mean that wages are as flexible as they should be. The Vulcans might point to our wildly fluctuating unemployment rates and suggest that wages are still not absorbing enough of the strain of economic downturns. After all, a wage cut hurts. Losing your job hurts more.
没有评论:
发表评论