About 15 years ago, when Alan Clark was still alive and when he was Britain’s only entertaining MP, I rang him up and asked if I could interview him.

大约15年前，当艾伦·克拉克(Alan Clark)仍然在世的时候——当时他是英国仅有的一名具有娱乐效应的国会议员——我给他打了一个电话，问他是否愿意接受我的采访。

He said he’d be delighted, but I would need to pay him for his time. Oh no, I said, all prissy and shocked. The Financial Times would never consider such a thing. In that case, he replied, no dice. Saltwood Castle, his medieval family home in Kent, needed a new roof, and there was no way he was going to work for nothing.

他表示很高兴接受采访，但我需要就采访占用的时间向他支付报酬。哦不，我说道——心中感觉既紧张又震惊。英国《金融时报》绝不会考虑这种要求。他答道，既然如此，那我拒绝采访。Saltwood城堡——他位于肯特郡的具有中世纪风格的家族住所——需要翻新屋顶，因此他绝不会分文不取地无偿工作。

At the time I took this as evidence of Clark’s solipsism and greed. But now I have changed my mind. For him to ask for money was so reasonable there was no need for him to invoke the leaking roof. He was selling his time and his opinions, and he had the same right to charge for them as someone selling soap powder.

当时，我把此事视为克拉克唯我主义以及贪婪的证据。但现在，我已改变了自己的看法。克拉克要求获得报酬是很合理的，因此他其实不需要提到屋顶漏水这件事。他出售的是自己的时间及观点，他与那些卖肥皂粉的人一样有权就自己出售的东西收取费用。

I’m not suggesting that everyone who is interviewed by this newspaper should immediately slap in a bill. It is clearly such a great honour to be featured in the FT that no payment is needed. Instead I am talking more generally about all the things people routinely and increasingly do for nothing, flouting the labour supply curve that says that when no wage is offered, no labour ought to be supplied.

我并不是在说每一个接受英国《金融时报》采访的人都应立刻拍出一张账单。毫无疑问，获得英国《金融时报》的专访是一份巨大的荣誉，根本无需酬劳。我这里是在说人们日常所做的那些越来越多的不计回报的事。这种情形与劳动供给曲线的结论相矛盾：该曲线指出，在报酬为零的情况下，劳动的供给也应为零。

There are, of course, the interns who slog away for no payment. This system is exploitative, discriminates against those who don’t have rich parents and is often illegal; but even so, it isn’t altogether senseless from the intern’s point of view – they gain experience and doors may open.

当然，辛勤工作的实习生们也没有任何报酬。这套体制具有剥削性，对那些不是富二代的人是一种歧视，而且常常是非法的。但即便如此，这套体制在实习生看来也并非完全不合理——他们收获了经验，而且机会之门可能会为他们打开。

More of a mystery is the explosion in the unpaid work done by professional people with lots of experience and with satisfying day jobs but who still insist on filling their spare time with extra work for which they are paid zilch. They blog and tweet for nothing. They talk on panels, go to conferences, give advice and even write books – all for nothing. But why?

令人难以理解的是，近年来由经验丰富的专业人士完成的无偿工作越来越多；这些专业人士已经有了一份令人满意的日间工作，却仍坚持把自己的闲暇时间用于完成毫无报酬的额外工作。他们撰写博客以及推文(tweet)供人免费阅读。他们在小组讨论中发言、参加会议、提供建议、甚至写书——所有这些都不要酬劳。但他们为什么要这么做呢？

With Clark as my role model, I have taken to refusing all such things. Would I like to go and give a talk to students at Oxford? No thank you. Would I like to talk on a panel about corporate governance? No, I wouldn’t. Would I like to write a blog for the Huffington Post? Certainly not.

由于我把克拉克当作榜样，因此一直拒绝参与上述各种事务。请问您是否愿意给牛津大学(Oxford)的学生做一场演讲？不，谢谢。请问您是否愿意在一个有关公司治理的小组讨论上发言？不，我不愿意。请问您是否愿意为赫芬顿邮报(Huffington Post)写个博客？当然不愿意。

To all these invitations I explain that I don’t approve of working unpaid, and invariably I get the same response I gave Alan Clark all those years ago. How greedy and selfish, I can hear them thinking as they bustle off to find someone happier to oblige.

对于所有这些邀请，我会解释称我不赞同无偿工作的理念。如此一来，我得到的就总是多年前我曾对艾伦·克拉克做出过的那种反应。当这些人匆匆忙忙去寻找其他愿意效劳的人时，我甚至能听到他们心中在说“这是一个多么贪婪而自私的人”。

I can think of only three situations in which it makes sense for professionals to work for nothing. The first is when it’s for a good cause. But then it’s voluntary work and the whole point is that you don’t get paid. The second is if the work is truly fascinating or is something you’ve always wanted to do but couldn’t do otherwise. Recently I was asked to talk on a panel in a West End theatre, and as it’s not looking likely that I’m ever going to make it as an actress, I snatched at my only chance to tread the boards on St Martin’s Lane.

我能想到的只有三种情况，在这些情况之下专业人士无偿工作是合理的。第一种情况是为了一项高尚的事业而工作。但此时工作的性质就变成了志愿劳动，而不计报酬是其天然属性。第二种情况是工作本身真的很有意思，或者是你一直想做但没有办法去做的事。最近我被邀请在伦敦西区一家剧院的小组讨论上发言。我这辈子看起来不太可能成为一名女演员了，因此我忙不迭地答应下来，这可能是我涉足圣马丁巷(St Martin’s Lane)的唯一机会。

The third reason is that it’s good publicity. This is why most people work for nothing – they think it will help them sell books, or build their brands, or be good for networking. I can see that if you are trying to be better known and you get invited on Oprah, then you must go along with it. Or if you are asked to be interviewed in the FT – that, as I’ve already pointed out, is gold dust. But many things people do to help sell books or sell themselves are not obviously effective at all. In this age of big data, it ought to be possible to calculate precisely what works and what doesn’t. Most of the bloggers on HuffPo seem to have almost no comments, so one can’t see them shifting many books as a result.

第三种情况是这么做能带来良好的公关宣传效应。而这正是绝大多数人无偿工作的原因——他们认为此举能帮助他们销售著作、打造自己的品牌，或者有助于搭建人际关系网。如果你想提高知名度、并获得了奥普拉·温弗瑞(Oprah Winfrey)的邀请，那么你必须接受下来，这种情况我可以理解。或者你接到英国《金融时报》的采访请求——正如我已经指出过的，这是非常难得的机会。但人们为了帮助推销著作或宣传他们自己而做的很多事情明显缺乏效果。在这个大数据的时代，精确计算哪些事情有效而哪些事情无效应该是可以实现的。赫芬顿邮报上的绝大多数博客作者几乎未得到过任何评论，因此他们所写的书也不太可能大卖。

There is one more reason people agree to unpaid work: because it feels good to be in demand. But this is irrational, as to value yourself at nothing should make you feel very bad indeed.

还有一个原因促使人们接受无偿工作：因为被人需要的感觉棒极了。但这种感觉是非理性的，把自己视为一文不值的人其实应让你感觉极其糟糕。

If we all did a Clark and refused most unpaid work, I predict it would lead to a rise in happiness-adjusted GNP. There would be far fewer pointless events, which would mean everyone could go to the pub or see their children rather than sit through an evening event on corporate governance. Moreover, the quality of output would rise. Money isn’t perfect, but it is the best way we have of rationing effort. If you are paying someone to do something and it’s no good, then you can tell them to do it better.

如果我们都像克拉克一样行事、拒绝掉绝大部分无偿工作，我认为会推升经幸福程度调节的国民生产总值。毫无意义的活动将大幅减少，这意味着大家可以去泡泡酒吧或者看望自己的孩子，而不是整晚枯坐在一场关于公司治理的活动现常此外，产出的质量也将提升。金钱并不完美，但它是指导我们供给劳动的最佳方式。如果你要求某人完成某事并向其支付报酬、但完成情况不够理想，你可以要求他们做出改进。

And finally it would mean that those old-fashioned organisations that still pay people a salary in return for labour would get better value, as people would stop spending their lives moonlighting and get on with what they were paid for.

最后，对于那些仍支付报酬请人做事的老派机构来说，这将意味着它们能收获更高的价值，因为人们将不会再把精力花在兼差上面，而是会致力于给他们带来报酬的工作。