2012年12月，當我遇見威利?卡特的時候，我還在為奧巴馬總統撰寫演講稿。當時，奧巴馬即將參觀密歇根州雷德福一家生產廠，我在為他準備此行的演說，需要寫個結尾。

奧巴馬的演講結尾常常會講講某個人的故事，這個人的經歷可以恰好契合當下美國的社會背景。在我打了幾通電話以后，我意識到，那篇演講稿的結尾應該講講威利。

威利無疑是那家工廠歡慶成立60周年的熱門人物。幾十年中他只遲到過一次，那還是1977年的事了。他也只是因為服役參加朝鮮戰爭而中斷過工作。

威利不僅僅將這份工作視為收入來源，還懷有強烈的自豪感。正是這份工作讓他過上中產階級的生活，為家人奠定了幸福生活基石，他的兒子可以施展遠大抱負，孫輩可以進一步爭取更大成就。

威利的故事之所以能作為總統演講的“豹尾”，是因為他的經歷是美國夢的體現。美國夢認為，只要身在美國，無論是何膚色、出身如何、愛什么人或是何種信仰，只要有足夠的才華和毅力，每個人都有機會實現自己的夢想，經過一段積累實現整個家庭的夢想。

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.

至少每個美國人都應該有機會嘗試。可實際上并不是。起碼現在不是。

我們眼睜睜地看著中產階級數量減少，過去至少四十年來都沒這么少過，中產階級已經不再是美國的主流群體。上流社會和底層人民日漸增多，富豪和平民之間本就巨大的差距也日益加深。

認真看看平民家庭的孩子就會發現情況更令人擔憂。因為貧富收入差距限制了階層流動性——也就是美國夢不那么正式的代稱。對平民家的孩子，尤其是寒門子弟來說，出身家庭的收入不僅決定了個人的成長環境和受教育水平，還真正影響到他們長大后能獲得的機會。

我們生活的美國正在走向一個收入變成遺傳特性的國家，上一代的收入水平直接決定下一代。這意味著孩子未來是成功還是困苦早已注定，也意味著成年人的小圈子化，身邊一起工作、生活、包括婚嫁對象都是學歷和收入相當的人。

這種傾向是足以令所有人恐慌，至少已經嚇到我了。幾個月前，我決定改變職業方向，找一份可以“復興美國夢”的新工作。當時為接手一份新媒體的工作，我剛剛舉家從華盛頓搬到舊金山。

事實證明，這樣的工作的確存在。

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.

在美國開拓機會是一項目復雜又艱巨的挑戰。它涉及到社會的方方面面，從兒童的早教機會到成人有能力負擔的高等教育，再到職業教育，甚至是城鎮居民的多層次收入規劃，無所不包。開拓機會還關乎如何推行醫療衛生服務，如何提供金融服務，如何支持最需要幫助的群體。它受到全球貿易和本土稅法等多方面影響，是牽一發動全身的大問題。

幸運的是，正在崛起的硅谷創業者認為這些緊迫的問題可以用技術解決。在他們熟知的數字世界里，效率低下和過時的體系是讓人完全不可忍受甚至憤怒的。而現實世界里，低效的過時體系正在極大限制美國夢。

更幸運的是，許多硅谷人士致力于優秀企業家共同選擇的道路——他們的產品不但要賺很多錢，也要提高美國貧民、工人階級和中產階級的生活水平。在他們心目中，成功不只是獲得個人回報、或者讓股東得到回報，還要有廣泛的社會影響。

求職期間，我曾經和一些初創公司的首席執行官面談，比如醫療保健交易公司Stride Health的諾亞?朗、貸款平臺Expedite的杰夫?福斯特和網上投資平臺Aspiration的安德烈?徹尼。他們向普通美國民眾提供全面的平價的信息，比如購買醫療保險、買房或者選擇投資計劃時。我也遇到過像職業培訓公司Learn Up首席執行官亞歷克西斯?林沃德那樣的創業者，他們在幫助失業人士找工作，掌握新技能。我還見到一些向教師提供個性化教育工具并注重提升“軟實力”，即未來職業所需技能的企業家，比如開發新型教學社區的Class Dojo的首席執行官山姆?秋德瑞。最終，令我最受啟發的還是普雷斯頓?西爾弗曼領導的Raise.me，他們的產品讓更多人有機會享受高等教育。

對以上所有公司而言，廣泛的社會影響并不是獲利的手段和前提條件。這種理念植根于產品，與逐利同時存在。這也是推動資本介入公益活動的方式。

問題是，其他科技企業會不會追隨他們的腳步？

在硅谷，幾乎人人都自稱在改變世界。任務管理軟件？改變世界。開發送餐應用？改變世界。約會服務？不用說，也是要改變世界。

這種雄心值得欽佩。但事實是，大部分企業并沒有真正想改變世界。他們只想努力做出好產品賺大錢，而賺錢這件事其實就算不考慮社會影響都很不容易。至于立志積極影響社會的企業，很少真正有機會賺到真金白銀。對私營企業來說，能賺到錢活下去最重要，更別說獲得成功了。

所以，如果你開始在舊金山求職，并且將“社會影響”列為必須考慮的因素，聯系的公司會讓你認識到殘酷的現實，因為現實就是二選一：要么找一家非營利機構（比如對你說：“你聽說過Kahn Academy嗎？快查查看，老實說，別考慮這兒了，現在就開車去吧。”），要么降低你對社會影響期望值，成立一家以盈利為目的的公司（“聽著，這些人在打晚飯的主意。那可是一片藍海，誰不吃晚飯呢？”）

公平地說，不僅大多數硅谷人士這樣想，大部分美國人都是這么想的。一談到廣泛的社會影響，多數人都會想到政府和非營利組織。私營機構？肯定不行！當然，有時私營機構也可以做公益（比如美國鞋履品牌Tom’s Shoes），或者先實現大量盈利再投身慈善事業（參考谷歌旗下的Google.org）。但要做好公司，企業家必須想著盈利，別的什么都不應該管。

這就是問題所在。雖然政府承擔了大量公益工作，但就像所有大型組織一樣，存在效率低下和創新進程緩慢的先天缺陷。至于非營利組織，由于需要不斷找資金，即便能正常運轉也很難吸引優秀人才，不敢輕易冒風險，規模也很難擴張。

所以，假如我們只依靠政府和非營利組織傳播廣泛的社會影響，很可能會嚴重影響最終效果?？蛇@就是美國的現狀，已經持續多年。

是時候讓美國經濟的引擎——私營機構肩負更多職責了，不能局限于創造就業和財富了。自由市場是美國最令人嘆服的特征，在這樣的市場里，產品可以不斷完善，創意可以孕育新行業，美國例外主義的例子比比皆是。對美國的貧民、工人階級和中產階級來說，除了追求中低水平薪資的工作、廉價的服務、甚至更低價的產品，為什么不能在其他方面有所突破？

我認為一定可以實現突破，最有潛力的非科技企業莫屬。

我們一直聽說，科技會全面顛覆人類的生活方式。此刻，科技革命看來還只是小打小鬧。想坐別人的車出行或者住進別人的房子，想讓日常雜貨送貨上門，或是代取洗好的衣物，這些現在都可以通過應用實現。

隨著科技進步，人類的聯系從未如此密切。更多美國人的消費選擇日漸廣泛，收入來源也增加了。然而，真正的革命——真真切切影響大多數美國人生活的革命并沒有到來。

我花了整整兩個月找到了一份自認為能開拓美國機遇的工作。我是幸運的，因為我既有時間也有能力尋找這樣的工作。在求職期間，我對美國的機會更有信心了，也非常感激能在灣區（即硅谷）順利落腳。

不過話說回來，我在硅谷碰到的有社會使命感的創業者一般都是異類。有社會使命感的投資人也顯得格格不入。硅谷或許是充斥著創新和理想主義的地方，但潛藏的暗流中摻雜著憤世嫉俗和守舊的心態，尤其是在賺錢方面。

想象一下，假如這種情形出現變化，更多的投資者增加投資，支持更多追求廣泛社會影響的企業，美國會怎樣？假如更多創業者和程序員、更多像我一樣的求職者開始考慮階層流動性問題，美國又會怎樣？

這樣做經濟回報可能沒有做晚餐生意大，其實也未必。但無論怎樣，產生的社會效益是巨大的。

硅谷能否拯救美國夢？能——只要想做。（財富中文網）

作者安尼施?拉曼是奧巴馬總統的前任演講撰稿人，現任教育類初創公司Raise.me副總，主管成長戰略。

譯者：Pessy

審校：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.