上周四發表的一篇新報告指出，機器人有可能使女性的同工不同酬問題變得更糟糕，這讓縈繞在自動化概念周圍的顧慮和不確定性變得更加突出。

該報告題為《管理數字時代的自動化就業、收入差距和倫理》（Managing automation Employment, inequality and ethics in the digital age），由英國公共政策研究所（IPPR）撰寫。這家研究所在報告中指出，在女性從事的工作中，46.8%的工作具有實現自動化的技術潛力，高于男性的40.9%，原因是女性更有可能進入技術水平低的“可自動化”崗位。再加上女性在有望獲得科技完善的技術工種中占比偏低，自動化有可能擴大男女收入差距。

IPPR認為：“自動化不一定帶來大規模失業，但讓財富和收入差距加速擴大的可能性更高。”

它指出，由于自動化所取代的往往是收入低于平均線的女性勞動者，所以剛開始有可能縮小性別收入差距，（經合組織最新數據表明，英國的男女收入差距為17.1%，美國為18.9%）。但要繼續縮小男女收入差距，這些被取代的女性勞動者再就業時的收入就得接近其他已就業女性的平均薪酬。在IPPR看來，不大可能出現這樣的情況。一些由女性主導的行業（如零售店、托兒所和養老院）在提高生產率方面的投資不斷減少，原因可能是目前的勞動力成本是如此之低。

這就意味著這些行業可能不會遭到顛覆，從而讓現有女性勞動者一直從事低報酬工作，而且有可能從其他實現自動化的行業吸收女性就業者。IPPR指出，此外，完善人類工作的技術有可能提高部分頂薪勞動者的工資，而這些人較有可能是男性，從而“造成更大的收入差距”。

2017年早些時候普華永道曾發表過一篇研究報告。IPPR這篇探討英國就業市場的報告提出了和前者相反的觀點。普華永道分析認為，受自動化影響較大的是男性，而非女性。

普華永道的這篇報告名為《機器人會偷走我們的就業機會嗎？自動化對英國及其他主要經濟體的影響》（Will robots steal our jobs? The potential impact of automation on the U.K. and other major economies）。該公司在報告中稱：“我們發現，平均而言男性面臨的崗位自動化風險較大，特別是那些文化程度低的男性。” 普華永道得出此項結論的理由是在男性勞動者集中的交通運輸、倉儲和制造業，技術顛覆的時機已經成熟。總的來說，普華永道發現35%的男性勞動者面臨的自動化風險較高，女性為26%。

IPPR呼吁通過政策干預來解決它所說的這場不斷迫近的危機。否則，“自動化帶來的生產率紅利就可能引發‘富足悖論’，也就是說，我們生產的越多，公平分享的就越少”。（財富中文網）

譯者：Charlie

審校：夏林

A new report published Thursday suggests that robots could make the gender pay gap even worse, stoking existing fears and uncertainty around the concept of automation.

In a paper titled “Managing automation Employment, inequality and ethics in the digital age,” the Institute for Public Policy Research argued that a greater share of jobs that women hold—46.8% versus 40.9% for men—have the technical potential to be automated since female workers are more likely to hold low-skill “automatable” occupations. Paired with women’s underrepresentation in high-skill occupations that may be complemented by technology, that means that automation could exacerbate gender inequality.

“Automation,” IPPR says, “is more likely to accelerate inequalities of wealth and income than create a future of mass joblessness.”

Initially, IPPR says, automation could narrow the gender pay gap since it would displace women from jobs that tend to earn below-average pay. (According to the latest OECD data, the gender wage gap in the U.K. is 17.1%; in the U.S., it’s 18.9%.) But that progress would remain only if displaced women re-entered the labor market at around the new average salary for their gender. That’s unlikely, IPPR says. Some industries dominated by women (such as retail or child and elderly care) are seeing less investment in productivity-raising technology, perhaps because the current human labor is so cheap.

That means those sectors may not be disrupted, leaving existing female workers in the low-paying positions and potentially absorbing female workers from other automating industries. On top of that, technology that complements human work is likely to raise wages of some of the highest earners—who are more likely to be men—”leading to greater wage disparity,” according to IPPR.

The report, which examined the U.K. labor market, serves as a sort of counterpoint to a study published earlier this year by PricewaterhouseCoopers. In its analysis, PwC argued the opposite: that men, rather than women, would bear the brunt of automation.

“On average, we find that men and, in particular, those with lower levels of education…are at greater risk of job automation,” PwC said in its report titled, “Will robots steal our jobs? The potential impact of automation on the U.K. and other major economies.” In drawing its conclusion, PwC cited men’s concentration in transportation and storage and manufacturing jobs that are ripe for technological disruption. All told, PwC found that 35% of men’s jobs had a high risk of automation compared to 26% of women’s.

The IPPR, for its part, called for policy intervention to address the looming crisis it has identified. Without it, “the productivity dividends of automation could create a ‘paradox of plenty,’ in which we produce more, yet it is less equally share.”