《紐約時報》專欄作家大衛(wèi)·布魯克斯認為，社會經濟階層隔離將對美國造成巨大破壞。

“通過住房和建筑政策限制，窮人和受教育程度低的人基本無法進入好學校，也找不到好工作……這對全國經濟增長有破壞性影響。”布魯克斯7月11日的專欄文章中寫道，后來遭到猛烈抨擊。（文章被炮轟的原因倒不是其中表達的焦慮情緒，而是列出的種種證據，例如文中稱配搭意式冷切是美國中上階層的文化符號。）

布魯克斯有幾分道理。美國社會的貧富差距正在擴大。他指出，教育劃片和大城市里的分區(qū)居住限制強化了不公平的體制，統(tǒng)計數(shù)據支持這一觀點。

但這種論斷的真實性有多大？ 我們請城市規(guī)劃專家、作家、多倫多大學教授理查德·佛羅里達來衡量。（佛羅里達因提出“創(chuàng)意階層”這一概念而聞名。）以下是他的回答，內容經過縮編。

貧富差距問題起源于何時？

基本上說從上世紀80年代起，貧富差距就在迅速擴大，當然過去十年、十五年分化更快。

美國的貧富不均有多嚴重？

基尼系數(shù)顯示，美國的貧富收入差距約為0.45，比伊朗的差距水平還大。（基尼系數(shù)是衡量收入分配公平成都的指標，最平等情況下系數(shù)值為零，分配最不平等時系數(shù)值為1）

具體到各個城市情況怎樣？

按城市看貧富差距甚至更大。我寫的《新型城市危機》（Basic Books出版，售價28美元）里有個圖表就能證明。紐約市的貧富差距可以比肩斯威士蘭。邁阿密貧富差距類似贊比亞。洛杉磯與斯里蘭卡的貧富差距不相上下。我認真觀察了大城市里收入排在前5%的富有市民，以及收入排在末尾20%的貧民。在紐約市區(qū)，收入排前5%的年收入28.2萬美元，倒數(shù)20%的年收入為2.3萬美元。美國各地的貧富收入差距都很大，在城市情況更糟。

“知識型經濟”這個概念是什么意思？

這個概念誕生于上世紀50年代到60年代，由弗里茲·馬克盧普和彼得·德魯克首創(chuàng)。他們認為，與資源型和工業(yè)型經濟不一樣，知識型經濟發(fā)展的動力為知識、創(chuàng)意和人才。

要幫助貧困階層擺脫經濟困境，不是應該給不同階層的人同樣的教育機會并避免隔離彼此相通嗎？

其他經濟學家的研究的確顯示，在向社會上層流動方面，和住在廣大散亂的郊區(qū)相比，在紐約、舊金山或者波士頓等城市居住往往機會更多。然而現(xiàn)在情況也在惡化，因為中產階級社區(qū)正逐漸消失，這也是新型城市危機的主題。過去，不管是在城市還是在城郊，大部分美國國民都住在中產階級社區(qū)。上世紀70年代，中產階級社區(qū)聚集了約七成的美國人，現(xiàn)在已經降至不到四成。猜猜哪里的中產階級社區(qū)群少得最多？就是面積最大、人口最密集、知識型經濟的大都市區(qū)。

中產階級社區(qū)為什么會消失？

收入和財富差距擴大是一方面，隔離倒未必是根據種族和民族，那是另外一個問題，根本原因是社會經濟階層差距加大。富人搬到財富集中度更高的地區(qū)，周圍是弱勢群體集中的地區(qū)。于是富人和受過良好教育的人通過獨立社區(qū)與外界隔離開來。其實過去十年經濟隔離現(xiàn)象一直在增長。在美國，城市越大，中產階級減少越嚴重。貧富差距不單單出現(xiàn)在總體財富水平上，還表現(xiàn)為富人和受教育程度更高的人住在哪，弱勢群體又住得如何。

分區(qū)法律或者個人會不會維持經濟隔離？

我認為兩方面都會傾向維持。過去，郊區(qū)實際上的作用是把窮人和不夠富有的人排除在外。而現(xiàn)在，我認為關鍵在于富人希望搬回城里。不僅富人，當充滿創(chuàng)造力、小有資產和有趣的人聚集在城市里之后，所有人效率都會提高，創(chuàng)意也會迸發(fā)。

城市對高科技公司、創(chuàng)新型公司和有開創(chuàng)精神的組織開始更有吸引力。因此，有限空間內的競爭會更激烈。隨著競爭增加，土地就會升值。逐漸地，要想在城市里有立足之地就得有錢。我覺得，分區(qū)法律起了推動作用，但我發(fā)現(xiàn)有意思的是，紐約、洛杉磯和舊金山的貧富差距、隔離程度和住房負擔壓力最大很正常，而在休斯頓——一個基本沒有分區(qū)法律和建筑限制的城市，貧富差距之類指標也在美國名列前茅。

幾周前，大衛(wèi)·布魯克斯為《紐約時報》寫了一篇專欄文章，談到都市人的文化及與貧富差距和社區(qū)隔離有什么關系。布魯克斯談到社會精英如何打造阻礙社會經濟流動性的文化壁壘，有沒有道理呢？

我認為，很多人努力工作，認真選擇伴侶并努力維持美滿婚姻，為孩子投資，指責他們是不對的。美國夢不就應該是那樣的嗎？我想，這種壁壘不是隨隨便便設立的，是比較正式的而且是體制上的。

是貧富差距導致不同地區(qū)美國人社會經濟狀況存在差別，還是各地社會經濟狀況不同導致貧富差距不斷擴大？

兩者相互強化的。

創(chuàng)新活動集中在少數(shù)城市和州，其他沒那么依賴知識型經濟的地方會不會處于不利地位？

不注重創(chuàng)新的州會落后，會越來越憤怒。我稱之為美國資本主義的政治矛盾，即我們需要發(fā)展知識型經濟，然而美國越來越多地方并不想為之投資。

貧富差距對美國民眾有什么影響？

貧富差距使社會出現(xiàn)強烈的反建制派情緒，正是這種環(huán)境下唐納德·特朗普才能當上總統(tǒng)。美國不僅因為政治和階層而分裂，還因為不同生活的地區(qū)割裂。紐約、波士頓、舊金山灣區(qū)和洛杉磯之類沿海地區(qū)是民主黨的陣營，其他地方則越來越傾向共和黨。美國之所以出現(xiàn)反建制派興起，幕后推手就是日益擴大的貧富差距。

大城市和鄉(xiāng)村出現(xiàn)的貧富差距能扭轉嗎？

我稱之為空間地域不平等，這種不平等是知識型經濟根深蒂固的特色，因為知識型經濟的增長的根本動力就是在小范圍地區(qū)集中多樣化的人才。所以，聚集在紐約、舊金山或者其他任何城市的人越多，推動經濟增長的作用力就越大。創(chuàng)新越多，對空間的爭奪就越激烈，房價就越高。金融、傳媒、音樂之類產業(yè)都在這類地方扎堆。我認為，地域不平等問題很難解決。

怎樣才能解決問題？

我們必須承認，雖然都是美國人，但生活的地域并不相同。有些人想住在人口密集的知識型經濟地區(qū)。還有人希望住在郊區(qū)或者鄉(xiāng)村，納稅更少，教育支出也沒那么多。不同地方的美國人向往的東西各不相同。我們得改變高度中央化的聯(lián)邦體制，允許城市、郊區(qū)和大都會區(qū)充分利用本地的稅收制度打造理想的社區(qū)。通過政府地方化，各地可以充分發(fā)揮自己的優(yōu)勢。那樣一來，割裂的狀況會開始改善。

小結一下？

我認為，不平等會成為當代的大問題，階級和財富層面差距只是一部分，更嚴重的是地域不平等。（財富中文網）

譯者：Pessy

審校：夏林

According to New York Times columnist David Brooks, socioeconomic segregation is ruining America.

"Housing and construction rules that keep the poor and less educated away from places with good schools and good job opportunities...have a devastating effect on economic growth nationwide," Brooks wrote in a much-derided July 11 column. (Derided not for the sentiment outlined above so much as the evidence, which involved Italian cold cuts as a restrictive cultural signifier for the American upper middle class.)

Salami aside, Brooks has a point. There's an widening gulf in the United States between the haves and the have-nots. The columnist points to education and metropolitan zoning restrictions as reinforcement for this unequal system, with statistics to support the argument.

But how true is it? We asked urbanist, author, and University of Toronto professor Richard Florida to weigh in. (Florida is best-known for his concept of the "creative class.") Here's what he said, edited and condensed for clarity.

When did this wealth gap problem start?

Basically, this wealth gap that we see today is something that has really skyrocketed since about the 1980s and certainly in the past decade, decade and a half.

How bad is the wealth inequality we’re seeing in the United States?

The income inequality in the United States, according to the Gini coefficient (a measure of inequality where 0 is perfectly equal and 1 is perfectly unequal) is about 0.45, which is awful—worse than Iran.

How about in cities specifically?

In cities that inequality is even greater. There's a table in my book (The New Urban Crisis, Basic Books, $28) showing this. Inequality in New York City is like Swaziland. Miami’s is like Zimbabwe. Los Angeles is equivalent to Sri Lanka. I actually look at the difference between the 95th percentile of income earners in big cities and the lower 20%. In the New York metro area, the 95th percentile makes $282,000 and the 20th percentile makes $23,000. These gaps between the rich and the poor in income and wealth are vast across the country and even worse in our cities.

What is this idea of a “knowledge-based economy”?

First introduced in the 1950s and 1960s by Fritz Malchup and Peter Drucker, the idea is that the economy is powered by knowledge, ideas and talent as opposed to resources and industry.

Shouldn’t having access to the same schools and being in close proximity to different socioeconomic classes make it easier to move out of your financial situation?

The research of other economists do show that in terms of upward mobility, living in cities like New York or San Francisco or Boston tends to be better for upward mobility than living in sprawling, more suburban areas. That said, what makes it harder —and this is the core theme of The New Urban Crisis—is that middle class neighborhoods are disappearing. In the past, most Americans lived in middle class neighborhoods, whether that was in the city or the suburbs. In the 1970s about 70% Americans lived in middle class neighborhoods. Now less than 40% of us do. And guess where middle class neighborhoods declined the most? In our largest, the most densest, knowledge-based metropolitan areas.

Why have these middle class neighborhoods disappeared?

Not only has income inequality and wealth inequality grown, the segregation of people not necessarily by race or by ethnicity—that’s a separate question—but by socioeconomic class has grown. The wealthy have moved to much more concentrated areas of wealth. And those areas are surrounded by areas with much more concentrated disadvantage. The wealthy and the well educated and the more affluent have walled themselves off in separate neighborhoods. The growth in economic segregation really occurred in the last decade. In our biggest cities we see the biggest loss of the middle class. We see the biggest gaps not only between wealth in general, but where rich people and more educated knowledge workers live and where less advantaged people live.

Is the economic segregation perpetuated by zoning laws or individuals?

I think it’s both. In the past, exclusionary zoning in the suburbs really functioned to keep poor people, less affluent people out. Today, I think the key factor is simply that wealthy, affluent people wanted to move back to cities. That’s what happens not only when wealthy people but creative people, affluent people, interesting people live in cities—they become more productive and more innovative.

Cities become more attractive to high tech firms, innovative companies and creative organizations. So you have more competition for limited space. When you have more competition for limited space, the land value goes up. Then increasingly, you’ve got to be rich to afford space in a city. I think the zoning laws have contributed to it, but one thing I found interesting was that the biggest inequality, segregation and housing unaffordability occurred in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco—but Houston, a place that mostly doesn’t have zoning laws and building restrictions, is high on the list as well.

David Brooks wrote a column for The New York Times a few weeks ago touching on the culture of urbanites and how that relates to the wealth gap and segregated neighborhoods. Are Brooks’ assertions about how the elites have created cultural barriers to socioeconomic mobility valid?

I think it is a mistake to blame people who work hard, put work into selecting their partners and making sure their marriages work, and invest in their kids. Isn’t that what the American Dream is supposed to be about? I think the barriers are much more formal and institutional than informal.

Is the geographic divide of the American people based on socioeconomic status a result of the wealth gap or is it an underlying cause perpetuating the widening wealth gap?

They reinforce one another.

Doesn’t the clustering of innovation in a select few cities and states put places that depend less on knowledge-based economies at a disadvantage?

Well those states are going to get left behind and they’re going to grow angrier and angrier. This is what I like to call the political contradiction of American capitalism, where the things we need to grow in our economy, increasingly larger portions of the country don’t want to invest in.

How has the wealth gap affected the American people?

This gap between the rich and poor, the haves and the have-nots, is what produced the backlash that brought Donald Trump to power. Our country isn’t just divided by politics or class, it’s divided by where you live. The advantaged urban parts of the country by the coast—New York, Boston, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Los Angeles—they’re the blue areas, but the rest of America is increasingly red. The wealth gap that’s occurring in places is behind the political backlash we’re seeing in our country.

Can we reverse this divide that’s happening between large cities and rural areas?

I think this, what I call spatial geographic inequality, is a deep fundamental characteristic of knowledge-based economies because what drives economic growth is a clustering of diverse, talented people in small areas. That’s where the basic force of economic growth comes from, so the more we cluster in New York or San Francisco or wherever, the more we drive economic growth. The more innovation we create, the more we compete for space and those housing values. The finance industry, the media industry, the music industry all cluster in certain places. I think it’s going to be very hard to counter this geographic inequality.

How do we fix this?

We’re going to have to recognize that as Americans, we live in different places. Some want to live in dense, knowledge-based areas. Others will want to live in more suburban or rural parts of the country and pay less in taxes and spend less on schools. Across the country, people are going to want different things. We’re going to have to move from a highly centralized federal system to a system where our cities, suburbs and metropolitan areas can use their tax dollars to build the kinds of communities they want. By localizing governments, you can allow places to make the most of what they have. That way, we can begin to heal the divide in our country.

Any last words?

I think this inequality, not just between classes and wealth, but between locations is going to be the big issue of our time.