民建聯計劃將「港式茶餐廳文化」申請列入「人類非物質文化遺產」，令茶怪「O咀」。想不到每日必到的地方，其文化將可能成為「遺產」! 「國家地理雜誌」會否用港式茶餐廳為封面，呼籲世界保護這種頻臨絕種的文化? 以後每次到樓下發記食早餐A配「茶走」，豈不是身處周圍都係恐龍化石的博物館?
茶餐廳不是頻臨絕種，而係行落街就有。又不是遺產，因為持有人老闆娘未死。既然不是甚麼熊貓珍禽，哪何須加以保護? 茶怪想，茶餐廳文化反而是最有生命力的文化。
它不停地變，幾十年前的茶餐廳除了賣奶茶咖啡和蛋撻糕點之外沒有別的。現在的茶餐廳有魚蛋粉、雲吞麫、义燒飯、牛扒餐，正式要乜有乜。個個客人都想坐卡位，但一般茶餐廳卡位不多，最近到過有間全間100%卡位。很多人喜歡吃出前一丁，一般要加錢，有間專做出前一丁，有很多款式，作為招徠。茶餐廳文化不像歌劇、木偶表演，它沒有任何造手功架的規章要遵守，沒有固定的格式，因應地點、人流、客路和附近的對手，真正各出其招，也不斷從自己的經驗嘗試改進。
如果民建聯申請成功，必須制定很多規章以界定誰有資格被認可為「茶餐廳」，例如指定要賣甚麼食品。也有很多限制以保留其「傳統」，例如叫檸樂，落單哥仔一定要在紙仔上寫「06」，不得電腦化落單。這樣，茶餐廳就失去了賴以為生的靈活性，很快就變成只吃竹葉的熊貓一樣頻臨絕種，到時就名副其實是遺產。雖然民建聯希望幫香港谷旅遊用心良苦，但「人類非物質文化遺產」的設立是為了記錄人類文明，不是為誰賺錢的。
2007/04/27
走向自由之路
多謝 leo 在前文的留言，問茶怪對「通往奴役之路」(The Road to Serfdom) 一書的看法。
茶怪從這本書上得到很多啟發，亦在此向大家推介。作者海耶克是位經濟學家兼政治哲學家，也是在英語世界的奧國學派代言人。經濟學之中有所謂非主流的奧國學派，原於奧地利，他們跟隨傳統阿當史密斯的自然市場理論，政府愈小干擾愈好，與現時主流之別，在於奧國學派反對以數學抽象方式去研究經濟學，其認為經濟行為是人性的多變之結果，難以代入公式，他們的理論著重經濟活動的過程，由於承認人的個性，他們亦專重人的選擇權利。
「通往奴役之路」就是以追求自由為旨的書，在海耶克筆下，資本主義由很多人抗拒的「市儈」「俗套」學問，變成追求自由的哲學。於1944年出版，此書的針對英國讀者，警告英人社會主義最終走向獨裁，步德國和意大利的後塵。戰後，英國沒有採納海耶克的意見，擴大政府規模以主導經濟發展。較為人熟識的凱恩斯學派是奧國學派的宿敵，兩者差不多同時興起，凱恩斯學派提倡政府帶頭攪活經濟，成為當時經濟學的主流，派頭凱恩斯名言: 「In the long run, we are all dead.」激到奧國學派紮紮跳，兩派之爭，茶怪覺得奧國學派蝕底在於其起源地為非英語世界。 後來的歷史演變卻傾向奧國學派的一方，海耶克在1974年獲得諾貝爾經濟學獎。1970年代全球經濟衰退，英國國企霸佔市場，美國徵重稅，英美在80年代進行經濟改革，朝自由市場方向，將國企私有化和減稅，經濟才復甦。
「通往奴役之路」是海耶克最暢銷的書，其中講，基於平等的法律，人的利益純粹由市場決定，人的制遇固然有得有失，也有幸有不幸，但由市場去決定總好過由別人決定，誰是「別人」? 就是社會主義的政府，其根據所謂道德價值去決定資源的分配，但道德價值是主觀的取捨，同時各種價值亦互相排斥，即使政治領導是民選的，他也不可能滿足所有道德價值的要求，不由市場話事，就甚麼都關政府事，令政府有過大權力，最後，權力使人腐化，希特勒就是這樣誕生。
今日，很少人質疑自由市場的好處 (博友量子例外，但這是好的。)，但海耶克所謂的「計劃經濟」仍然有「市場」，以香港為例，市民有甚麼不如意的事都歸咎政府，助長風氣的，又是政治領袖自己，他們將經濟發展的功勞都歸功政府，這樣，有起事上來，市民不找政府找誰? 事實上，人民是信任他們支持的領袖的，而領袖就自己也一定充滿信心，為自己仕途也好，為造福人民也好，總希望憑自己的信念以振興經濟，茶怪認為，他們應先參考這本書。
茶怪從這本書上得到很多啟發，亦在此向大家推介。作者海耶克是位經濟學家兼政治哲學家，也是在英語世界的奧國學派代言人。經濟學之中有所謂非主流的奧國學派，原於奧地利，他們跟隨傳統阿當史密斯的自然市場理論，政府愈小干擾愈好，與現時主流之別，在於奧國學派反對以數學抽象方式去研究經濟學，其認為經濟行為是人性的多變之結果，難以代入公式，他們的理論著重經濟活動的過程，由於承認人的個性，他們亦專重人的選擇權利。
「通往奴役之路」就是以追求自由為旨的書，在海耶克筆下，資本主義由很多人抗拒的「市儈」「俗套」學問，變成追求自由的哲學。於1944年出版，此書的針對英國讀者，警告英人社會主義最終走向獨裁，步德國和意大利的後塵。戰後，英國沒有採納海耶克的意見，擴大政府規模以主導經濟發展。較為人熟識的凱恩斯學派是奧國學派的宿敵，兩者差不多同時興起，凱恩斯學派提倡政府帶頭攪活經濟，成為當時經濟學的主流，派頭凱恩斯名言: 「In the long run, we are all dead.」激到奧國學派紮紮跳，兩派之爭，茶怪覺得奧國學派蝕底在於其起源地為非英語世界。 後來的歷史演變卻傾向奧國學派的一方，海耶克在1974年獲得諾貝爾經濟學獎。1970年代全球經濟衰退，英國國企霸佔市場，美國徵重稅，英美在80年代進行經濟改革，朝自由市場方向，將國企私有化和減稅，經濟才復甦。
「通往奴役之路」是海耶克最暢銷的書，其中講，基於平等的法律，人的利益純粹由市場決定，人的制遇固然有得有失，也有幸有不幸，但由市場去決定總好過由別人決定，誰是「別人」? 就是社會主義的政府，其根據所謂道德價值去決定資源的分配，但道德價值是主觀的取捨，同時各種價值亦互相排斥，即使政治領導是民選的，他也不可能滿足所有道德價值的要求，不由市場話事，就甚麼都關政府事，令政府有過大權力，最後，權力使人腐化，希特勒就是這樣誕生。
今日，很少人質疑自由市場的好處 (博友量子例外，但這是好的。)，但海耶克所謂的「計劃經濟」仍然有「市場」，以香港為例，市民有甚麼不如意的事都歸咎政府，助長風氣的，又是政治領袖自己，他們將經濟發展的功勞都歸功政府，這樣，有起事上來，市民不找政府找誰? 事實上，人民是信任他們支持的領袖的，而領袖就自己也一定充滿信心，為自己仕途也好，為造福人民也好，總希望憑自己的信念以振興經濟，茶怪認為，他們應先參考這本書。
2007/04/24
添叔
十幾年來首次回鄉探親，滄海桑田。少時數度回鄉，每次出門阿爸都說:「去找阿添，佢大你幾歲，你應叫佢...佢係你...阿叔。」就這樣，茶怪與添叔相識多年，阿爺個兄弟個仔就是他，這個家族關係flow chart，茶怪最近才敲得清楚。
阿爸口中的老家沒有一個是壞人，但對於年少的茶怪可不是。小茶怪覺得鄉下人都很貪心，總是要求你送甚麼，從舊衣服到彩色電視機，有次阿爸買了一雙新波鞋給一位小朋友，小茶怪氣壞了，他們那麼貪心，老是要人家的東西，為何還送波鞋給他們 ! 添叔帶小茶怪到處玩，小茶怪都不太在乎，反正回鄉只是阿爸吩咐的例行公事。上次臨走，添叔問茶怪可否把隨身的walkman留給他，茶怪斷言拒絕，心想，是我的為什麼要給你!
一轉眼就十幾年，週六茶怪帶茶太和弟弟回鄉祭祖，想不到當年劉華「天長地久」長毛look的添叔已變了平頭裝黎智英look，是一家小型工廠的老闆。添叔帶茶怪三人到處走，四驅車取代了已往的單車，全程三餐膳食由他結帳，不是很豪華的餐館，但食物和節目悉心安排，談做生意、投資、信用卡、講教育理想等，walkman的事沒有再提。
臨別時茶怪感到不好意思麻煩了添叔一個週末，邀請他到香港旅遊，說冒必盡地主之誼，好好安排，誰不知他對這邊的購物商店和主題公園不為所動，答: 「生意很忙，走不開。」還道: 「再回來吧，我們都是一家人。」
阿爸口中的老家沒有一個是壞人，但對於年少的茶怪可不是。小茶怪覺得鄉下人都很貪心，總是要求你送甚麼，從舊衣服到彩色電視機，有次阿爸買了一雙新波鞋給一位小朋友，小茶怪氣壞了，他們那麼貪心，老是要人家的東西，為何還送波鞋給他們 ! 添叔帶小茶怪到處玩，小茶怪都不太在乎，反正回鄉只是阿爸吩咐的例行公事。上次臨走，添叔問茶怪可否把隨身的walkman留給他，茶怪斷言拒絕，心想，是我的為什麼要給你!
一轉眼就十幾年，週六茶怪帶茶太和弟弟回鄉祭祖，想不到當年劉華「天長地久」長毛look的添叔已變了平頭裝黎智英look，是一家小型工廠的老闆。添叔帶茶怪三人到處走，四驅車取代了已往的單車，全程三餐膳食由他結帳，不是很豪華的餐館，但食物和節目悉心安排，談做生意、投資、信用卡、講教育理想等，walkman的事沒有再提。
臨別時茶怪感到不好意思麻煩了添叔一個週末，邀請他到香港旅遊，說冒必盡地主之誼，好好安排，誰不知他對這邊的購物商店和主題公園不為所動，答: 「生意很忙，走不開。」還道: 「再回來吧，我們都是一家人。」
2007/04/19
Kurt Vonnegut
"The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal..." This science fiction dated 1961 tells something about equality. The author Kurt Vonnegut died last week.
2007/04/17
M-shaped society: Inequality?
Living in a city like Hong Kong, i have endless reasons for getting paranoid. At home, i get brown tap water. My share of frozen oil fish still sits in the fridge since news reports said the fish could cause health problem. What more fearful takes place at work -- the fear of losing my job. Recent job statistics from the government seems to tell a spine-chilling story about my future -- "Get rich, or you have to be poor. There is no middle ground!"
In the so-called M-shaped society, the distribution of income has polarized. The number of people who earn monthly income of less than HK$6,000 increased by 17% during the decade from 1996 to 2006. Payrolls for more than HK$10,000 rose 21%. However, the group of people who earn between HK$6,000 and HK$10,000 contracted by 8%. Academics pulled out the jargon called Gini Coefficient and said that inequality in Hong Kong is now scoring high relative to other comparable cities in the world. The situation is getting worse year after year, they said. Social groups warned that the middle class is disappearing and the society is going out of balance. Some people must be taking advantages over others, they claimed.
Worse, the unemployment rate remains buoyant, above 4%, compared with 1-3% during the decade from 1986 to 1995. Even top financial official Henry Tang threw cold water on hopes that the job market could recover, saying the jobless rate won't come down to the heyday level until we die. Is the city losing jobs? Many people say yes. They pointed to cheap labors across the border for taking away low-paying jobs. The others blamed former chief Tung Chee-hwa for leading the economic development to nowhere.
Even well educated people cannot escape from the misery, it seems. The job market is getting increasingly competitive when university graduates are accepting salaries low enough to make their elder alumni laugh. An average high school graduate is doing much worse than that 30 years ago. Some people said it was a rat race for academic qualifications in which everyone is struggling but no one gains at all.
Are we coming to the end of the world? No. Far from it.
From this paragraph onward, i am going to cheer you up. i am going to tell you the truth behind the numbers. The M shape, jobless rate and even fresh graduate income are irrelevant as an indicator of inequality and job opportunities. None of them means anything miserable. Instead, they are the outcomes of natural progress of our society.
i am not going to bore you with number crunching and twisting. i just want to point out a simple fact -- people follow different paths along their lifetime.
Randomly take two fresh graduates from university. They would likely start with monthly income more or less the same, say HK$9,000. Ten years later, their income could be anywhere between HK$20,000 to HK$50,000. Another ten years later, one of them might possible become a successful businessman while the other might possibly have problem to earn a living. Further ten years later, the successful businessman could unfortunately go broke and the other catch a second wind to become a billionaire.
That's natural. In a marathon, ten athletes who start at the same line could end up miles apart. How does that relate to the M-shape situation?
A wave of new birth kicked in during the decade following the end of World War II. See the longest pair of bars, for men and women, in the following chart and you know the size of the so-called baby-boomers. Baby-boomers, men and women aged between 40 and 50, amounted to roughly 1.3 million in 2006.
In 1996, the baby-boomers of course were 10 years younger than now. See the following chart.
The widening of income distribution over the past decades was resulted from the fact that the baby-boomers were explored their fortune. Twenty years ago, they just started their career and received similar incomes. As time went by, some did better than the others. In their forties, in 2006, the baby-boomers made various levels of achievements. They are not necessarily going to extremes. There could be a lot of middle-range performers. Merely the dispersed spread of personal performance is enough to make the statistics take its present shape.
Compare two hypothetical societies -- one comprising mostly 20-year-old people and the other comprising mostly 40-year-old. Can we say that the younger society is more equal than the older one simply because the younger society has more evenly distributed income? No, we can't.
To make Hong Kong a better place to live, we must distinguish "inequality of outcomes" from "inequality of opportunities". The Gini Coefficient and any other measurement of income distribution measure the degree of "inequality of outcomes" only. We are barking the wrong tree if we focus on "inequality of outcomes". A communistic society has absolute equality of outcomes. Everyone earns the same level of income. Is it a utopia? Some people might say: "Yes, those poor people contribute to the society just as much as the rich. Let them share the fruit of the economic development." However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. History tells us that, if we focus on equality of outcome, we won't help the poor at all. Instead, everyone would end up being in poverty.
"Inequality of opportunities" is more important than "inequality of outcomes". That is to ensure that everyone plays in level field.
i will try to assess the inequality of opportunities in Hong Kong in future entries. Before that, we would take a few more steps to clarify the general perceptions and confusions. Next time, i will continue to show why worries about the buoyant unemployment rate and the struggle of rat race are exaggerated.
Copyright Quam
In the so-called M-shaped society, the distribution of income has polarized. The number of people who earn monthly income of less than HK$6,000 increased by 17% during the decade from 1996 to 2006. Payrolls for more than HK$10,000 rose 21%. However, the group of people who earn between HK$6,000 and HK$10,000 contracted by 8%. Academics pulled out the jargon called Gini Coefficient and said that inequality in Hong Kong is now scoring high relative to other comparable cities in the world. The situation is getting worse year after year, they said. Social groups warned that the middle class is disappearing and the society is going out of balance. Some people must be taking advantages over others, they claimed.
Worse, the unemployment rate remains buoyant, above 4%, compared with 1-3% during the decade from 1986 to 1995. Even top financial official Henry Tang threw cold water on hopes that the job market could recover, saying the jobless rate won't come down to the heyday level until we die. Is the city losing jobs? Many people say yes. They pointed to cheap labors across the border for taking away low-paying jobs. The others blamed former chief Tung Chee-hwa for leading the economic development to nowhere.
Even well educated people cannot escape from the misery, it seems. The job market is getting increasingly competitive when university graduates are accepting salaries low enough to make their elder alumni laugh. An average high school graduate is doing much worse than that 30 years ago. Some people said it was a rat race for academic qualifications in which everyone is struggling but no one gains at all.
Are we coming to the end of the world? No. Far from it.
From this paragraph onward, i am going to cheer you up. i am going to tell you the truth behind the numbers. The M shape, jobless rate and even fresh graduate income are irrelevant as an indicator of inequality and job opportunities. None of them means anything miserable. Instead, they are the outcomes of natural progress of our society.
i am not going to bore you with number crunching and twisting. i just want to point out a simple fact -- people follow different paths along their lifetime.
Randomly take two fresh graduates from university. They would likely start with monthly income more or less the same, say HK$9,000. Ten years later, their income could be anywhere between HK$20,000 to HK$50,000. Another ten years later, one of them might possible become a successful businessman while the other might possibly have problem to earn a living. Further ten years later, the successful businessman could unfortunately go broke and the other catch a second wind to become a billionaire.
That's natural. In a marathon, ten athletes who start at the same line could end up miles apart. How does that relate to the M-shape situation?
A wave of new birth kicked in during the decade following the end of World War II. See the longest pair of bars, for men and women, in the following chart and you know the size of the so-called baby-boomers. Baby-boomers, men and women aged between 40 and 50, amounted to roughly 1.3 million in 2006.
In 1996, the baby-boomers of course were 10 years younger than now. See the following chart.
The widening of income distribution over the past decades was resulted from the fact that the baby-boomers were explored their fortune. Twenty years ago, they just started their career and received similar incomes. As time went by, some did better than the others. In their forties, in 2006, the baby-boomers made various levels of achievements. They are not necessarily going to extremes. There could be a lot of middle-range performers. Merely the dispersed spread of personal performance is enough to make the statistics take its present shape.
Compare two hypothetical societies -- one comprising mostly 20-year-old people and the other comprising mostly 40-year-old. Can we say that the younger society is more equal than the older one simply because the younger society has more evenly distributed income? No, we can't.
To make Hong Kong a better place to live, we must distinguish "inequality of outcomes" from "inequality of opportunities". The Gini Coefficient and any other measurement of income distribution measure the degree of "inequality of outcomes" only. We are barking the wrong tree if we focus on "inequality of outcomes". A communistic society has absolute equality of outcomes. Everyone earns the same level of income. Is it a utopia? Some people might say: "Yes, those poor people contribute to the society just as much as the rich. Let them share the fruit of the economic development." However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. History tells us that, if we focus on equality of outcome, we won't help the poor at all. Instead, everyone would end up being in poverty.
"Inequality of opportunities" is more important than "inequality of outcomes". That is to ensure that everyone plays in level field.
i will try to assess the inequality of opportunities in Hong Kong in future entries. Before that, we would take a few more steps to clarify the general perceptions and confusions. Next time, i will continue to show why worries about the buoyant unemployment rate and the struggle of rat race are exaggerated.
Copyright Quam
2007/04/15
2007/04/08
Who killed Silly Keung?
鬼佬版與原裝港版無間道，人們對鬼佬版沒有了"傻強"一角感到失望，認為親切感大減。茶怪想，傻強一角的作用，除了攪笑，更重要是用來襯托梁朝偉的機智。在編劇悉心安排下，無間道的四個主角，都各有四個配角作為襯托，梁朝偉有傻強，劉德華有衝動的同事吳廷華，黃sir有悶蛋同事葉sir，大奸角韓森有周圍差人亦茫然不知泰國毒梟。有這些配角，才顯出主角的過人之處。
原裝無間道說忠義者最終得到解脫，背叛者永不超生，要加強覆蓋面，當中的主角要是卓越非凡的人，暗示卓越的人如是得到報應，更何況普通人。鬼佬版無間道不行這套。除了有班不知「江湖規矩」的中國幫，去顯出Jack Nicholson的老練之外，沒有其他的襯托角色，傻強亦不例外，原因是如茶怪在前文"Three years, three years and three years!"中指出，鬼佬版並不歌頌英雄，不著重正邪，沒有善惡因果。所有角色皆為棋子，為自己的私利各出奇謀。
傻強是儒家文化的產物，也適合階級制度的需要，他忠心、卑微、傻，他令上級感到安全，傻強之上又有傻強，一級一級上。但西方的文化看不見傻強，即使看見，也不用不著，即使有用，也不相信他是傻的。令西人有安全感的，是權力的制衡，Nicholson「收靚」不問甚麼，只要有collateral，抵押品可以是親人或甚麼，只要有「痛腳」，威脅就是指令的力量，這就是權力的制衡。
在國際關係裡，中國幾千年來一直以為日本和其他鄰近的國家都是傻強，將來，中國將繼續相信她有很多傻強。日本是西方的傻強，但在九十年代，當日本經貿強勁，引起美國的保護主義，並有學者懷疑終有一日，日本回歸成為中國的傻強，西方就是不信傻強是傻的，西方在歐洲歷史上行權力制衡這一套，面對中國的日益強大，將循權力制衡方面著手。
原裝無間道說忠義者最終得到解脫，背叛者永不超生，要加強覆蓋面，當中的主角要是卓越非凡的人，暗示卓越的人如是得到報應，更何況普通人。鬼佬版無間道不行這套。除了有班不知「江湖規矩」的中國幫，去顯出Jack Nicholson的老練之外，沒有其他的襯托角色，傻強亦不例外，原因是如茶怪在前文"Three years, three years and three years!"中指出，鬼佬版並不歌頌英雄，不著重正邪，沒有善惡因果。所有角色皆為棋子，為自己的私利各出奇謀。
傻強是儒家文化的產物，也適合階級制度的需要，他忠心、卑微、傻，他令上級感到安全，傻強之上又有傻強，一級一級上。但西方的文化看不見傻強，即使看見，也不用不著，即使有用，也不相信他是傻的。令西人有安全感的，是權力的制衡，Nicholson「收靚」不問甚麼，只要有collateral，抵押品可以是親人或甚麼，只要有「痛腳」，威脅就是指令的力量，這就是權力的制衡。
在國際關係裡，中國幾千年來一直以為日本和其他鄰近的國家都是傻強，將來，中國將繼續相信她有很多傻強。日本是西方的傻強，但在九十年代，當日本經貿強勁，引起美國的保護主義，並有學者懷疑終有一日，日本回歸成為中國的傻強，西方就是不信傻強是傻的，西方在歐洲歷史上行權力制衡這一套，面對中國的日益強大，將循權力制衡方面著手。
2007/04/04
讀書樂
常聽說「滿街碩士」，工餘時進修，取得好學歷也找不到一份高薪厚職。為甚麼？是競爭太激烈嗎？茶怪想，兩者未必有關係，首先，進修如果作為投資，是屬於高成本、低回報、高風險、低流通性的。
高成本 -- 時間金錢不在話下。低回報 -- 進修得來的知識技能未必可應用於工作上以提升工作效率。以金融業為例，工作效率主要來自兩方面，投資眼光和人脈關係，兩樣都差不多冇得學，要求的基本知識如數學和語言，都在中學有教，要培養好投資眼光和人脈關係，更重要的是實務經驗。高風險 -- 投資期長，很難預見幾年後，你所修讀的專科的人才需求，很多時間，市場有週期，當某個專業好景，人人爭相進修，誰不知完成課程後，該專業的週期已轉淡，市面上出現大批拿著該專業資格的求職者，工資待遇一定被壓低。低流通性 -- 股票買錯了可即日沽售，換碼，但專業資格不能隨時轉換。
專業資格只限於政府、非牟利機構或絕對排他性的專業，如會計師和律師，發揮利益功效，在市場經濟則不能，工資待遇取決於工作效率，好簡單，考慮聘請你的雇主本身都是打工仔，自己管理的部門也有表現目標。普遍人的認知是: 「一個中五畢業，另一個大學畢業，雇主一定請大學生吧。」對，這是因為有能力的人多入大學大專，這是常規教育選拔機制下所產生的標籤效應。但投身社會之後工餘時間進修，所得的資格已失去標籤效應。
讀書為讀書，搵錢為搵錢，讀書為搵錢是錯配。讀書、進修以提升個人修養，茶怪想，是最快樂和自然的結果，希望搵錢的，最有效的方法是從工作中學習、拼搏，以提升自己的效率。人們不是愚的，為何他們從切身利益考量，都寧願選擇持續進修這項「劣質投資」？可能是因為已沒有更好的投資選擇了，「從工作中學習、拼搏」，回報更低，為甚麼？ 茶怪未有答案。
高成本 -- 時間金錢不在話下。低回報 -- 進修得來的知識技能未必可應用於工作上以提升工作效率。以金融業為例，工作效率主要來自兩方面，投資眼光和人脈關係，兩樣都差不多冇得學，要求的基本知識如數學和語言，都在中學有教，要培養好投資眼光和人脈關係，更重要的是實務經驗。高風險 -- 投資期長，很難預見幾年後，你所修讀的專科的人才需求，很多時間，市場有週期，當某個專業好景，人人爭相進修，誰不知完成課程後，該專業的週期已轉淡，市面上出現大批拿著該專業資格的求職者，工資待遇一定被壓低。低流通性 -- 股票買錯了可即日沽售，換碼，但專業資格不能隨時轉換。
專業資格只限於政府、非牟利機構或絕對排他性的專業，如會計師和律師，發揮利益功效，在市場經濟則不能，工資待遇取決於工作效率，好簡單，考慮聘請你的雇主本身都是打工仔，自己管理的部門也有表現目標。普遍人的認知是: 「一個中五畢業，另一個大學畢業，雇主一定請大學生吧。」對，這是因為有能力的人多入大學大專，這是常規教育選拔機制下所產生的標籤效應。但投身社會之後工餘時間進修，所得的資格已失去標籤效應。
讀書為讀書，搵錢為搵錢，讀書為搵錢是錯配。讀書、進修以提升個人修養，茶怪想，是最快樂和自然的結果，希望搵錢的，最有效的方法是從工作中學習、拼搏，以提升自己的效率。人們不是愚的，為何他們從切身利益考量，都寧願選擇持續進修這項「劣質投資」？可能是因為已沒有更好的投資選擇了，「從工作中學習、拼搏」，回報更低，為甚麼？ 茶怪未有答案。
2007/04/03
沙士紀念日 II
多謝meta的回應。
董落曾上的意義，茶怪想，不在於新人勝舊人，而在於「炒魷」機制的彰顯。
很多人說，董落的原因是中央改朝換代，但澳門特首豈不是，為什麼他又能通過新老板的面試? 董在位期間，經濟衰退，疫症處理不周，政府財政嚴重赤字，曾上，赤字消失，幸運地再沒有沙士，整體經濟復甦。至於貧富懸殊和政制改革問題，尚待處理。
經濟和財赤是週期性的，疫症亦不知何時會來，曾上的時間剛好順風順水，是好幸? 成功總帶幸運成份，最重要是個結果，結果影響民心。老董輕民心重效率，例如中藥港、數碼港和八萬五建屋計劃，老董以為任期五年又五年，不怕你罵、上街。誰不知中央冇面俾，民心關乎社會穩定，穩定第一，原來不攪好民心會遭「炒魷」。
老曾重民心輕效率，競選前攪咁多show，有甚麼計劃，是真是假都做公開咨詢。茶怪想，怕被「炒魷」是特首最大的動力去「做好呢份工」。
董落曾上的意義，茶怪想，不在於新人勝舊人，而在於「炒魷」機制的彰顯。
很多人說，董落的原因是中央改朝換代，但澳門特首豈不是，為什麼他又能通過新老板的面試? 董在位期間，經濟衰退，疫症處理不周，政府財政嚴重赤字，曾上，赤字消失，幸運地再沒有沙士，整體經濟復甦。至於貧富懸殊和政制改革問題，尚待處理。
經濟和財赤是週期性的，疫症亦不知何時會來，曾上的時間剛好順風順水，是好幸? 成功總帶幸運成份，最重要是個結果，結果影響民心。老董輕民心重效率，例如中藥港、數碼港和八萬五建屋計劃，老董以為任期五年又五年，不怕你罵、上街。誰不知中央冇面俾，民心關乎社會穩定，穩定第一，原來不攪好民心會遭「炒魷」。
老曾重民心輕效率，競選前攪咁多show，有甚麼計劃，是真是假都做公開咨詢。茶怪想，怕被「炒魷」是特首最大的動力去「做好呢份工」。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)