人们曾经希望全球化和技术进步可以推动社会创造一个更加公平的世界,让各个地方都拥有平等的机会,而如今却只能够接受这样的现实:全球化和技术变革远非消除了距离,而是使得地点比以往任何时候都更加重要。世界并不公平,而且越来越不公平。
法律、金融、咨询及相关行业的高薪工作集中分布在少数城市里。这些城市的生活让普通人难以负担,他们正在因为市中心贫民区的士绅化而被挤出城市。过去,由于产业和公司都聚集在水道、煤矿厂或农业中心等自然资源丰富的地方附近,高薪工作的分布往往与地理位置相关。如今,这些自然特质变得不再重要,因为公司都被吸引到了自由流动的知识工作者聚集的城市。而知识工作者喜欢聚集在士绅化的市中心区域或城郊社区,那里住着年龄相仿且志同道合的专业人士,并且提供丰富的娱乐、餐饮、健康和其他服务。这就导致了巨大的颠倒:穷人和手工企业的住房和作坊被改造成为年轻专业人士的家,而他们自身则被迫离开市中心贫民区。这些以知识为基础的超级明星城市的内核已然蓬勃发展。通过聚集专业服务繁荣起来的城市(例如新加坡和迪拜)亦是如此。
然而,远程办公打破了这些趋势。虽然远程办公早已成为可能,但因为新冠疫情的爆发,固定工作时间的旧规则才得以摒弃。在美国、英国和欧洲大的部分地区,那些无需到工作场所办公的人现在平均每周通勤三天,通常是周二到周四。事实证明,员工使用办公室时间的减少对城市的发展极具破坏性。目前,商业房地产行业正在遭受损失,城市税收削减,依赖高客流量的商店(从理发店到咖啡店)的生存能力也在下降。公共交通系统的处境也同样岌岌可危,正在大量流失资金。
远程办公的好处显而易见,它给员工带来了更大的灵活性,并且可以减少数十亿小时的通勤时间和碳排放。不过,短期内的生产率提高很可能是一场幻觉。创造力源于面对面互动和意外的碰撞。大多数工作实际上都是学徒制的。技能、行为举止和商业文化需要通过非正式互动来习得,而不是在Zoom或Teams上开视频会议就能够学习到的。由于将各种各样的人汇聚一堂,工作场所还有助于加强社会凝聚力和缓解人们孤立无助的感觉。灵活的工作时间让人们可以投入工作以外的事情,更好地实现工作与生活的平衡、减少通勤压力,以及获得其他潜在好处。然而,公司需要更谨慎地管理远程办公,以确保这种制度不会损害个人、公司和所有人赖以生存的城市的长远前景。
一座城市如果缺乏活力,生产率、凝聚力和创造力就都会下降。繁荣兴旺的城市是经济增长的引擎,也是应对巨大挑战的阵地。为了让更广泛的群体享受到这些城市的好处,我们需要更多负担得起的住房和有效的公共交通系统、学校和其他服务设施。然而,随着高薪阶层的薪资和财富持续飙升,住房竞争日益激烈,繁荣城市的生活变得越来越难以负担。
由于买不起住房、通勤时间和成本增加以及学校和养老院数量不足,繁荣城市对许多工薪族来说变得遥不可及。因为从一个城市搬到另一个城市不易,当代人比上一代人的流动性减半,所以一些个人和群体只能够困在前景黯淡的地方。
生成式人工智能的兴起可能会加剧不平等,因为越来越多重复性的人类工作正在日益被自动化系统取代,而那些从事前沿技术、法律和金融服务行业的人的财富却在增加。收入的增加和人口结构的改变将加速消费和选择的变化。随着支出对象从汽车和炉灶等制成品转变为按摩和餐馆等服务,人口密集且多姿多彩的城市变得越来越具有吸引力。由于婚育年龄推迟,如今人们将更多的收入和时间用于享受充满活力的城市社区里丰富多样的休闲活动。
富有活力的城市与其他城市内部及它们之间的不平等不断加剧,导致这些城市里的都市精英成为民粹主义者日益反对的对象。要缩小日益扩大的差距,并非要破坏活力城市的成功,而是要让这些城市的生活变得更加容易负担和企及。这意味着当局应该把资金用于建设公共住房和交通设施,以及创造更清洁和适宜步行的城市。我们需要抛弃过时的模式,即建造在夜晚闲置的毫无生气的中心商业办公区,转为打造集住房、办公室和休闲娱乐设施于一体的充满生机的社区。将多余的办公室改造成住宅或许可以加速这些发展过程。许多城市都经历过特大洪水、火灾和高温,这也凸显了将城市转变为未来可持续的家园的迫切需要。
城市拥有无限的创造潜力,给未来发展提供了源源不断的希望。通过携手改善城市环境,我们能够激发城市的潜能,为所有人创造更美好的生活。(财富中文网)
伊恩·戈尔丁(Ian Goldin)是牛津大学(Oxford University)的教授,与汤姆·李-德夫林(Tom Lee-Devlin)合著了《城市时代:为什么人类未来休戚与共》(Age of the City: Why Our Future Will be Won or Lost Together)一书。
Fortune.com上发表的评论文章中表达的观点,仅代表作者本人的观点,不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。
译者:中慧言-刘嘉欢
人们曾经希望全球化和技术进步可以推动社会创造一个更加公平的世界,让各个地方都拥有平等的机会,而如今却只能够接受这样的现实:全球化和技术变革远非消除了距离,而是使得地点比以往任何时候都更加重要。世界并不公平,而且越来越不公平。
法律、金融、咨询及相关行业的高薪工作集中分布在少数城市里。这些城市的生活让普通人难以负担,他们正在因为市中心贫民区的士绅化而被挤出城市。过去,由于产业和公司都聚集在水道、煤矿厂或农业中心等自然资源丰富的地方附近,高薪工作的分布往往与地理位置相关。如今,这些自然特质变得不再重要,因为公司都被吸引到了自由流动的知识工作者聚集的城市。而知识工作者喜欢聚集在士绅化的市中心区域或城郊社区,那里住着年龄相仿且志同道合的专业人士,并且提供丰富的娱乐、餐饮、健康和其他服务。这就导致了巨大的颠倒:穷人和手工企业的住房和作坊被改造成为年轻专业人士的家,而他们自身则被迫离开市中心贫民区。这些以知识为基础的超级明星城市的内核已然蓬勃发展。通过聚集专业服务繁荣起来的城市(例如新加坡和迪拜)亦是如此。
然而,远程办公打破了这些趋势。虽然远程办公早已成为可能,但因为新冠疫情的爆发,固定工作时间的旧规则才得以摒弃。在美国、英国和欧洲大的部分地区,那些无需到工作场所办公的人现在平均每周通勤三天,通常是周二到周四。事实证明,员工使用办公室时间的减少对城市的发展极具破坏性。目前,商业房地产行业正在遭受损失,城市税收削减,依赖高客流量的商店(从理发店到咖啡店)的生存能力也在下降。公共交通系统的处境也同样岌岌可危,正在大量流失资金。
远程办公的好处显而易见,它给员工带来了更大的灵活性,并且可以减少数十亿小时的通勤时间和碳排放。不过,短期内的生产率提高很可能是一场幻觉。创造力源于面对面互动和意外的碰撞。大多数工作实际上都是学徒制的。技能、行为举止和商业文化需要通过非正式互动来习得,而不是在Zoom或Teams上开视频会议就能够学习到的。由于将各种各样的人汇聚一堂,工作场所还有助于加强社会凝聚力和缓解人们孤立无助的感觉。灵活的工作时间让人们可以投入工作以外的事情,更好地实现工作与生活的平衡、减少通勤压力,以及获得其他潜在好处。然而,公司需要更谨慎地管理远程办公,以确保这种制度不会损害个人、公司和所有人赖以生存的城市的长远前景。
一座城市如果缺乏活力,生产率、凝聚力和创造力就都会下降。繁荣兴旺的城市是经济增长的引擎,也是应对巨大挑战的阵地。为了让更广泛的群体享受到这些城市的好处,我们需要更多负担得起的住房和有效的公共交通系统、学校和其他服务设施。然而,随着高薪阶层的薪资和财富持续飙升,住房竞争日益激烈,繁荣城市的生活变得越来越难以负担。
由于买不起住房、通勤时间和成本增加以及学校和养老院数量不足,繁荣城市对许多工薪族来说变得遥不可及。因为从一个城市搬到另一个城市不易,当代人比上一代人的流动性减半,所以一些个人和群体只能够困在前景黯淡的地方。
生成式人工智能的兴起可能会加剧不平等,因为越来越多重复性的人类工作正在日益被自动化系统取代,而那些从事前沿技术、法律和金融服务行业的人的财富却在增加。收入的增加和人口结构的改变将加速消费和选择的变化。随着支出对象从汽车和炉灶等制成品转变为按摩和餐馆等服务,人口密集且多姿多彩的城市变得越来越具有吸引力。由于婚育年龄推迟,如今人们将更多的收入和时间用于享受充满活力的城市社区里丰富多样的休闲活动。
富有活力的城市与其他城市内部及它们之间的不平等不断加剧,导致这些城市里的都市精英成为民粹主义者日益反对的对象。要缩小日益扩大的差距,并非要破坏活力城市的成功,而是要让这些城市的生活变得更加容易负担和企及。这意味着当局应该把资金用于建设公共住房和交通设施,以及创造更清洁和适宜步行的城市。我们需要抛弃过时的模式,即建造在夜晚闲置的毫无生气的中心商业办公区,转为打造集住房、办公室和休闲娱乐设施于一体的充满生机的社区。将多余的办公室改造成住宅或许可以加速这些发展过程。许多城市都经历过特大洪水、火灾和高温,这也凸显了将城市转变为未来可持续的家园的迫切需要。
城市拥有无限的创造潜力,给未来发展提供了源源不断的希望。通过携手改善城市环境,我们能够激发城市的潜能,为所有人创造更美好的生活。(财富中文网)
伊恩·戈尔丁(Ian Goldin)是牛津大学(Oxford University)的教授,与汤姆·李-德夫林(Tom Lee-Devlin)合著了《城市时代:为什么人类未来休戚与共》(Age of the City: Why Our Future Will be Won or Lost Together)一书。
Fortune.com上发表的评论文章中表达的观点,仅代表作者本人的观点,不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。
译者:中慧言-刘嘉欢
The hope that globalization and technological progress would generate a world that is flat, in which opportunity is spread more evenly, has given way to a realization that far from the death of distance, globalization and technological change have made place more important than ever. The world is not flat–it is increasingly spiky.
Highly paid jobs in legal, financial, consulting, and associated professions are clustered in a small number of cities. These are unaffordable to ordinary people, who are being squeezed out by gentrified inner cities. In the past, well-paid jobs were more distributed geographically, as industries and firms clustered around natural resources such as waterways, coal mines, or agricultural centers. These natural attributes no longer matter as firms are attracted to cities where footloose knowledge workers congregate. And knowledge workers want to congregate where similarly aged like-minded professionals live, in gentrified downtown areas or suburban neighborhoods that offer an abundance of entertainment, food, health, and other options. This is leading to a great inversion, in which poor people and artisanal businesses are being pushed out of inner cities with their homes and workshops being converted into homes for young professionals. The inner cores of these superstar knowledge-based cities have flourished. So too have the cities that have thrived by connecting professional services, such as Singapore or Dubai.
Remote work has disrupted these trends. While this has long been possible, the pandemic allowed old rules around regular hours to be jettisoned. In the U.S., U.K., and much of Europe, those not required at a workplace now commute on average three days a week, typically Tuesday to Thursday. The collapsing commitment to offices is proving to be highly disruptive for cities. Commercial real estate is suffering, municipal taxes are declining, and the viability of businesses that depend on intense footfall–from barbers to baristas–is being undermined. Public transport systems are in a similarly precarious position, hemorrhaging cash.
The benefits of remote work were immediately apparent in greater flexibility and billions of hours in saved commuting time and carbon emissions. However, the short-term productivity gains may well be illusory. Creativity thrives on physical interactions and serendipitous encounters. Most jobs are really apprenticeships. Skills, behaviors, and business cultures are learned through informal interactions which cannot be taught on Zoom or Teams. By bringing diverse people together, workplaces also help build social cohesion and reduce isolation and loneliness. Flexible hours can enable people to meet commitments outside of work and enjoy a better work-life balance and less stressful commuting, among other potential benefits. However, remote work needs to be managed more carefully to ensure that it does not undermine the longer-term prospects for individuals, firms, and the cities on which we all depend.
A society without dynamic cities would be less productive, less cohesive, and less creative. Thriving cities are the engines of our economies and the places where the solutions to our greatest challenges are to be found. To ensure that the benefits of these cities are more widely shared, we need more affordable homes and effective public transport systems, schools, and other services. However, successful cities are becoming unaffordable, due to the soaring salaries and wealth of those who have high-paid jobs and increasing competition for accommodation.
The inability to afford homes, the time and cost of commuting, and the shortage of school and elderly care places have put flourishing cities out of reach for many working people. The difficulties of moving from one city to another means that people are half as mobile as they were a generation ago, locking individuals and communities into places that have fading prospects.
The rise of generative AI is likely to compound this divide as automated systems increasingly substitute for a widening range of repetitive human tasks and increase the wealth for those at the frontier of technology, law, and financial services. Rising incomes and changing demographics will accelerate changes in consumption and choices. As expenditure shifts from manufactured goods, such as cars and stoves, to services such as massages and restaurants, the magnetism of dense and diverse cities grows. As the age of marriage and having children rises, a greater share of income and time is spent enjoying the diverse pastimes that dynamic city neighborhoods offer in abundance.
The growing inequality within and between dynamic cities and other places means they are the target of a growing populist backlash against metropolitan elites. The answer to the growing divide is not to undermine the success of dynamic cities. Rather, it is in making them more affordable and accessible. This means investing in public housing and transport and in creating cleaner, walkable cities. We need to move away from the outdated model of sterile central business districts of offices that lay empty at night to create vibrant mixed residential, office, and entertainment neighborhoods. The conversion of surplus offices into residential accommodation offers an opportunity to fast-track these developments. The experience of extreme floods, fires, and heat in many cities also highlights the urgent need for transforming cities into our sustainable homes for the future.
Cities, with their unbounded creative potential, provide a source of hope for the future. By working together to improve them, we can realize their potential to create a better life for all.
Ian Goldin is a professor at Oxford University and together with Tom Lee-Devlin a co-author of Age of the City: Why Our Future Will be Won or Lost Together.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.