硅谷能不能拯救美国梦？

2012年12月，当我遇见威利•卡特的时候，我还在为奥巴马总统撰写演讲稿。当时，奥巴马即将参观密歇根州雷德福一家生产厂，我在为他准备此行的演说，需要写个结尾。

奥巴马的演讲结尾常常会讲讲某个人的故事，这个人的经历可以恰好契合当下美国的社会背景。在我打了几通电话以后，我意识到，那篇演讲稿的结尾应该讲讲威利。

威利无疑是那家工厂欢庆成立60周年的热门人物。几十年中他只迟到过一次，那还是1977年的事了。他也只是因为服役参加朝鲜战争而中断过工作。

威利不仅仅将这份工作视为收入来源，还怀有强烈的自豪感。正是这份工作让他过上中产阶级的生活，为家人奠定了幸福生活基石，他的儿子可以施展远大抱负，孙辈可以进一步争取更大成就。

威利的故事之所以能作为总统演讲的“豹尾”，是因为他的经历是美国梦的体现。美国梦认为，只要身在美国，无论是何肤色、出身如何、爱什么人或是何种信仰，只要有足够的才华和毅力，每个人都有机会实现自己的梦想，经过一段积累实现整个家庭的梦想。

I met Willie Carter back in December 2012. At the time, I was a speechwriter for President Obama and, as I prepared remarks for an upcoming trip to a manufacturing plant in Redford, Mich., I needed an ending.

The President often finishes his speeches with someone whose personal story embodies some part of the larger American story. After a few calls, I realized it had to be Willie.

Willie was on the cusp of celebrating 60 years at the manufacturing plant. In all those decades, he’d been late to work once, in 1977, and he’d been away from the plant once, to serve in the Korean War.

Willie took enormous pride in his job and saw it as more than a paycheck. It was a way into the middle class. It was a way to build a foundation for his family so that his kids could do bigger things with their lives and his grandkids even bigger things with their lives.

What made Willie a great ending was that he embodied the American Dream. The idea that here – uniquely here – no matter what color our skin is or which side of the tracks we grow up on, no matter the person we love or the faith we practice, we all have a shot, on our own and over time with our family, to go as far as our talents and tenacity will take us.

至少每个美国人都应该有机会尝试。可实际上并不是。起码现在不是。

我们眼睁睁地看着中产阶级数量减少，过去至少四十年来都没这么少过，中产阶级已经不再是美国的主流群体。上流社会和底层人民日渐增多，富豪和平民之间本就巨大的差距也日益加深。

认真看看平民家庭的孩子就会发现情况更令人担忧。因为贫富收入差距限制了阶层流动性——也就是美国梦不那么正式的代称。对平民家的孩子，尤其是寒门子弟来说，出身家庭的收入不仅决定了个人的成长环境和受教育水平，还真正影响到他们长大后能获得的机会。

我们生活的美国正在走向一个收入变成遗传特性的国家，上一代的收入水平直接决定下一代。这意味着孩子未来是成功还是困苦早已注定，也意味着成年人的小圈子化，身边一起工作、生活、包括婚嫁对象都是学历和收入相当的人。

这种倾向是足以令所有人恐慌，至少已经吓到我了。几个月前，我决定改变职业方向，找一份可以“复兴美国梦”的新工作。当时为接手一份新媒体的工作，我刚刚举家从华盛顿搬到旧金山。

事实证明，这样的工作的确存在。

At least we all should have a shot. But we actually don’t. Not today.

The middle class is shrinking before our eyes, no longer the majority in America and smaller than at any point in at least four decades. The top tier is growing but so is the lower tier. And so is the already deep divide between the rich and the not-rich.

Even more concerning than all of that is what happens when you focus on the kids of the not-rich. That’s where income inequality is messing with economic mobility, which is the wonky term for the American Dream. Because for those kids – especially for poor kids – the income level they are born into doesn’t just shape how they are raised and taught but, in meaningful ways, what kind of opportunities they get – and don’t get – later in life.

We’re heading towards an America where, for some, income will be like a genetic trait, passed largely unchanged from one generation to the next. A trait that meaningfully sets kids up for success or hardship. A trait that leads adults to self-segregate – working with, living with and marrying only those with similar degrees and similarly sized bank accounts.、

This should scare us all. It scares me. So a few months ago, having just moved my family from Washington D.C. to San Francisco for a job in new media, I decided to shift careers and find a new job that had in its description “reviving the American Dream.”

Turns out, those jobs actually exist.

在美国开拓机会是一项目复杂又艰巨的挑战。它涉及到社会的方方面面，从儿童的早教机会到成人有能力负担的高等教育，再到职业教育，甚至是城镇居民的多层次收入规划，无所不包。开拓机会还关乎如何推行医疗卫生服务，如何提供金融服务，如何支持最需要帮助的群体。它受到全球贸易和本土税法等多方面影响，是牵一发动全身的大问题。

幸运的是，正在崛起的硅谷创业者认为这些紧迫的问题可以用技术解决。在他们熟知的数字世界里，效率低下和过时的体系是让人完全不可忍受甚至愤怒的。而现实世界里，低效的过时体系正在极大限制美国梦。

更幸运的是，许多硅谷人士致力于优秀企业家共同选择的道路——他们的产品不但要赚很多钱，也要提高美国贫民、工人阶级和中产阶级的生活水平。在他们心目中，成功不只是获得个人回报、或者让股东得到回报，还要有广泛的社会影响。

求职期间，我曾经和一些初创公司的首席执行官面谈，比如医疗保健交易公司Stride Health的诺亚•朗、贷款平台Expedite的杰夫•福斯特和网上投资平台Aspiration的安德烈•彻尼。他们向普通美国民众提供全面的平价的信息，比如购买医疗保险、买房或者选择投资计划时。我也遇到过像职业培训公司Learn Up首席执行官亚历克西斯•林沃德那样的创业者，他们在帮助失业人士找工作，掌握新技能。我还见到一些向教师提供个性化教育工具并注重提升“软实力”，即未来职业所需技能的企业家，比如开发新型教学社区的Class Dojo的首席执行官山姆•秋德瑞。最终，令我最受启发的还是普雷斯顿•西尔弗曼领导的Raise.me，他们的产品让更多人有机会享受高等教育。

对以上所有公司而言，广泛的社会影响并不是获利的手段和前提条件。这种理念植根于产品，与逐利同时存在。这也是推动资本介入公益活动的方式。

问题是，其他科技企业会不会追随他们的脚步？

在硅谷，几乎人人都自称在改变世界。任务管理软件？改变世界。开发送餐应用？改变世界。约会服务？不用说，也是要改变世界。

这种雄心值得钦佩。但事实是，大部分企业并没有真正想改变世界。他们只想努力做出好产品赚大钱，而赚钱这件事其实就算不考虑社会影响都很不容易。至于立志积极影响社会的企业，很少真正有机会赚到真金白银。对私营企业来说，能赚到钱活下去最重要，更别说获得成功了。

所以，如果你开始在旧金山求职，并且将“社会影响”列为必须考虑的因素，联系的公司会让你认识到残酷的现实，因为现实就是二选一：要么找一家非营利机构（比如对你说：“你听说过Kahn Academy吗？快查查看，老实说，别考虑这儿了，现在就开车去吧。”），要么降低你对社会影响期望值，成立一家以盈利为目的的公司（“听着，这些人在打晚饭的主意。那可是一片蓝海，谁不吃晚饭呢？”）

公平地说，不仅大多数硅谷人士这样想，大部分美国人都是这么想的。一谈到广泛的社会影响，多数人都会想到政府和非营利组织。私营机构？肯定不行！当然，有时私营机构也可以做公益（比如美国鞋履品牌Tom’s Shoes），或者先实现大量盈利再投身慈善事业（参考谷歌旗下的Google.org）。但要做好公司，企业家必须想着盈利，别的什么都不应该管。

这就是问题所在。虽然政府承担了大量公益工作，但就像所有大型组织一样，存在效率低下和创新进程缓慢的先天缺陷。至于非营利组织，由于需要不断找资金，即便能正常运转也很难吸引优秀人才，不敢轻易冒风险，规模也很难扩张。

所以，假如我们只依靠政府和非营利组织传播广泛的社会影响，很可能会严重影响最终效果。可这就是美国的现状，已经持续多年。

是时候让美国经济的引擎——私营机构肩负更多职责了，不能局限于创造就业和财富了。自由市场是美国最令人叹服的特征，在这样的市场里，产品可以不断完善，创意可以孕育新行业，美国例外主义的例子比比皆是。对美国的贫民、工人阶级和中产阶级来说，除了追求中低水平薪资的工作、廉价的服务、甚至更低价的产品，为什么不能在其他方面有所突破？

我认为一定可以实现突破，最有潜力的非科技企业莫属。

我们一直听说，科技会全面颠覆人类的生活方式。此刻，科技革命看来还只是小打小闹。想坐别人的车出行或者住进别人的房子，想让日常杂货送货上门，或是代取洗好的衣物，这些现在都可以通过应用实现。

随着科技进步，人类的联系从未如此密切。更多美国人的消费选择日渐广泛，收入来源也增加了。然而，真正的革命——真真切切影响大多数美国人生活的革命并没有到来。

我花了整整两个月找到了一份自认为能开拓美国机遇的工作。我是幸运的，因为我既有时间也有能力寻找这样的工作。在求职期间，我对美国的机会更有信心了，也非常感激能在湾区（即硅谷）顺利落脚。

不过话说回来，我在硅谷碰到的有社会使命感的创业者一般都是异类。有社会使命感的投资人也显得格格不入。硅谷或许是充斥着创新和理想主义的地方，但潜藏的暗流中掺杂着愤世嫉俗和守旧的心态，尤其是在赚钱方面。

想象一下，假如这种情形出现变化，更多的投资者增加投资，支持更多追求广泛社会影响的企业，美国会怎样？假如更多创业者和程序员、更多像我一样的求职者开始考虑阶层流动性问题，美国又会怎样？

这样做经济回报可能没有做晚餐生意大，其实也未必。但无论怎样，产生的社会效益是巨大的。

硅谷能否拯救美国梦？能——只要想做。（财富中文网）

作者安尼施•拉曼是奥巴马总统的前任演讲撰稿人，现任教育类初创公司Raise.me副总，主管成长战略。

译者：Pessy

审校：夏林

Expanding opportunity in America is a big, complicated challenge. It involves everything from access to early childhood education to affordable higher education to worker retraining to mixed income urban planning. It’s tied to how we deliver healthcare, how we offer financial services, how we support those most in need. And it’s affected by everything from global trade to the local tax code. It’s an everything issue.

The good news: The rising generation of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs see these problems as imminently fixable with technology. They’ve only ever known a digital world and that feeds an unrelenting impatience – even anger – about ineffective, antiquated systems. And there are a bunch of ineffective, antiquated systems hampering the American Dream.

The better news: Many of these women and men are trying to do what all good entrepreneurs do – build solid products that make a lot of money – while also improving the lives of poor, working and middle class Americans. Their definition of success is not just individual return, or even shareholder return. It includes broad social impact.

Over the course of my job search, I met CEOs like Noah Lang of Stride Health, Jeff Foster of Expediteand Andrei Cherny of Aspiration, who are empowering everyday Americans to make more informed and affordable financial decisions, whether it’s signing up for healthcare or buying a home or choosing an investment plan. I met CEOs like Alexis Ringwald of LearnUp , who are helping the unemployed find jobs and learn new skills. I met CEOs like Sam Chaudhary of Class Dojo, who are giving teachers the tools to personalize education and focus on ‘soft skills’, which are the skills needed for the jobs of tomorrow. Ultimately, the idea that inspired me most was at Raise.me, a startup headed by Preston Silverman, which is expanding access to higher education.

With all of these companies, broad social impact isn’t conditional or sequential to profit. It’s built into the product, right alongside revenue. That’s how you create a for-profit movement.

The question is, will other technology companies follow suit?

Almost everyone in Silicon Valley says they’re changing the world. Task management software?Changing the world. Food delivery app? Changing the world. Dating service? You get the picture.

The impulse is admirable. But the truth is, most companies aren’t really trying to change the world. They’re trying to build a solid product and make a lot of money, which is tough enough without having to worry about social impact. And even among those that are trying, few have a real shot at earning real money, which is key to survival, let alone success, in the private sector.

So when you start a job search in San Francisco and list “social impact” as a must-have, the people you call to tell you hard truths often give you a binary choice: either look at a nonprofit (“Have you heard of Kahn Academy? Check out Kahn Academy. Seriously, leave here right now and drive to Kahn Academy.”) or downgrade your desire for social impact and go build a profitable business (“Listen, these guys are disrupting dinner. That’s a huge market. Who doesn’t eat dinner?”).

To be fair, that’s not just what most people in the Valley think. That’s what most Americans think. When it comes to broad social impact, we leave that to government and nonprofits. The private sector? No way! Sure, sometimes you can tie your product to a good deed (see Tom’s Shoes) or make a lot of money and then engage in philanthropy (seeGoogle.org). But to do well in the private sector you have to be about profits and only profits.

Here’s the problem with that. While the government does a tremendous amount of good, it’s inherently inefficient like any big organization and innovation chugs along slowly, if at all. As for nonprofits, given the constant chase for funding, they often have a hard time attracting talent, taking risks and expanding when things start to work.

So if we leave broad social impact to governments and nonprofits, we’re severely limiting our chances for impact. But that’s what we’ve been doing. For years.

It’s time for the engine of our economy – the private sector – to do more than create jobs and wealth. The free market is one of the most awe-inspiring parts of America. It’s where products are perfected; where ideas become industries; where exceptionalism abounds. For poor, working and middle class Americans, why can’t that exceptionalism be about more than low-to-mid wage jobs, cheap services and even cheaper products?

I think it can. And nowhere is that more possible than with technology companies.

We’ve been told time and again that technology is going to revolutionize our entire way of life. Well, at the moment, that revolution seems small and retail.Want to get a ride in someone else’s car or a room that’s not your own? Want to have your groceries delivered or your laundry picked up? There are apps for all of that.

Thanks to technology we’re more connected and engaged than ever before. And it’s providing more Americans with greater consumer choice and new avenues for income. But the real revolution – a revolution that will meaningfully affect the lives of the majority of Americans – is still lying in wait.

It took me exactly two months to find a job where I felt like I was doing something to expand opportunity in America. I’m fortunate to have had the time and ability to seek out such work. And along the way, I grew more hopeful about our chances and more thankful that I’d ended up in the Bay Area.

That said, the socially-minded entrepreneurs I met with are the outliers out here. The socially-minded investors I met with are the outliers out here. Silicon Valley may be awash in innovation and idealism but it also has an undercurrent of cynicism and conformity ¬– especially when it comes to making money.

Imagine if that changed. Imagine if more investors put more money behind more companies that had a goal of broad social impact. Imagine if more founders, and more coders, and more people like me focused their careers on big issues like economic mobility.

The financial returns may be less than disrupting dinner. But maybe not. And no matter what, the returns for society would be enormous.

Can Silicon Valley save the American Dream? Yep – if it wants to.

Aneesh Raman is a former presidential speechwriter for the Obama administration and the current VP of Growth at Raise.me.