原本說起來，零工經(jīng)濟(jì)應(yīng)該成為人類未來的工作方式。每一代人都希望享受工作自由，短期合同制工作就是實(shí)現(xiàn)的新方式。

至少過去專家是這樣說的。而據(jù)《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》報(bào)道，兩位當(dāng)代最知名的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家現(xiàn)在表示，2015年發(fā)布的研究觀點(diǎn)是錯(cuò)的。普林斯頓大學(xué)教授艾倫·克魯格和哈佛大學(xué)教授勞倫斯·卡茨之所以改變看法，是因?yàn)閿?shù)據(jù)不全面，而且沒有考慮經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退的影響。

2015年克魯格和卡茨在論文中指出，工作的性質(zhì)在改變。借助Uber和TaskRabbit等智能手機(jī)平臺(tái)應(yīng)用，人們可以通過零工謀生。

但隨著時(shí)間推移，兩位經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家預(yù)期的趨勢(shì)變化并未出現(xiàn)。美國勞工統(tǒng)計(jì)局發(fā)現(xiàn)，2005年到2017年工作領(lǐng)域幾乎沒有變化。2017年，從事“非傳統(tǒng)工作”的勞動(dòng)者約占勞動(dòng)力總?cè)丝诘?0%。《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》指出，這一比例低于2015年的11%。

不僅如此，擁有固定職業(yè)的人還增加了。保守派智庫美國企業(yè)研究所的經(jīng)濟(jì)政策研究主管邁克爾·R·斯崔恩向《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》表示：“我認(rèn)為，大家言過其實(shí)了。”

的確如此。在克魯格和卡茨看來，零工經(jīng)濟(jì)蓬勃發(fā)展的原因是人們靠打臨時(shí)工維持生計(jì)。然而政府在追蹤身兼多職就業(yè)者相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)方面做得很差，導(dǎo)致情況更難判斷。

“我和勞倫斯·卡茨現(xiàn)在的結(jié)論是，過去十年，非傳統(tǒng)工作的勞動(dòng)者占比增長微弱，可能（增速）只有一兩個(gè)百分點(diǎn)，沒有達(dá)到我們最初估計(jì)的五個(gè)百分點(diǎn)。”克魯格對(duì)《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》表示。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：Pessy

審校：夏林

The gig economy was supposed to be the future of work. All generations wanted the freedom and short-term contract work was the new norm.

At least, that’s what the experts had said. But two of the most well-known economists—Alan Krueger of Princeton University and Lawrence Katz of Harvard—now say their influential 2015 study was wrong, as the Wall Street Journal reported. What threw them off was inadequate data and the recession.

Back then, Kreuger and Katz asserted that the nature of work was changing. People were creating a living out of odd jobs through smartphone platform apps such as Uber and TaskRabbit.

But over time, the expected changes didn’t come. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that between 2005 and 2017, virtually nothing had changed in the world of work. People in “alternative work arrangements” made up about 10% of the total workforce. As the New York Times pointed out, that was down from 11% in 2005.

Even more people held regular jobs. At the time, Michael R. Strain, director of economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute told the Times, “I think everybody’s narrative got blown up.”

Indeed. According to the two academics, the gig economy seemed to explode as people were taking part-time work to make ends meet. Compounding that factor was the poor way the government tracks people with multiple jobs.

“Larry Katz and I now conclude that there was a modest rise in the share of the workforce in nontraditional jobs over the last decade—probably on the order of one to two percentage points, instead of the five percentage point rise we originally reported,” Kreuger told the Journal.