2012年12月，當(dāng)我遇見威利?卡特的時(shí)候，我還在為奧巴馬總統(tǒng)撰寫演講稿。當(dāng)時(shí)，奧巴馬即將參觀密歇根州雷德福一家生產(chǎn)廠，我在為他準(zhǔn)備此行的演說，需要寫個(gè)結(jié)尾。

奧巴馬的演講結(jié)尾常常會(huì)講講某個(gè)人的故事，這個(gè)人的經(jīng)歷可以恰好契合當(dāng)下美國(guó)的社會(huì)背景。在我打了幾通電話以后，我意識(shí)到，那篇演講稿的結(jié)尾應(yīng)該講講威利。

威利無疑是那家工廠歡慶成立60周年的熱門人物。幾十年中他只遲到過一次，那還是1977年的事了。他也只是因?yàn)榉蹍⒓映r戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)而中斷過工作。

威利不僅僅將這份工作視為收入來源，還懷有強(qiáng)烈的自豪感。正是這份工作讓他過上中產(chǎn)階級(jí)的生活，為家人奠定了幸福生活基石，他的兒子可以施展遠(yuǎn)大抱負(fù)，孫輩可以進(jìn)一步爭(zhēng)取更大成就。

威利的故事之所以能作為總統(tǒng)演講的“豹尾”，是因?yàn)樗慕?jīng)歷是美國(guó)夢(mèng)的體現(xiàn)。美國(guó)夢(mèng)認(rèn)為，只要身在美國(guó)，無論是何膚色、出身如何、愛什么人或是何種信仰，只要有足夠的才華和毅力，每個(gè)人都有機(jī)會(huì)實(shí)現(xiàn)自己的夢(mèng)想，經(jīng)過一段積累實(shí)現(xiàn)整個(gè)家庭的夢(mèng)想。

I met Willie Carter back in December 2012. At the time, I was a speechwriter for President Obama and, as I prepared remarks for an upcoming trip to a manufacturing plant in Redford, Mich., I needed an ending.

The President often finishes his speeches with someone whose personal story embodies some part of the larger American story. After a few calls, I realized it had to be Willie.

Willie was on the cusp of celebrating 60 years at the manufacturing plant. In all those decades, he’d been late to work once, in 1977, and he’d been away from the plant once, to serve in the Korean War.

Willie took enormous pride in his job and saw it as more than a paycheck. It was a way into the middle class. It was a way to build a foundation for his family so that his kids could do bigger things with their lives and his grandkids even bigger things with their lives.

What made Willie a great ending was that he embodied the American Dream. The idea that here – uniquely here – no matter what color our skin is or which side of the tracks we grow up on, no matter the person we love or the faith we practice, we all have a shot, on our own and over time with our family, to go as far as our talents and tenacity will take us.

至少每個(gè)美國(guó)人都應(yīng)該有機(jī)會(huì)嘗試。可實(shí)際上并不是。起碼現(xiàn)在不是。

我們眼睜睜地看著中產(chǎn)階級(jí)數(shù)量減少，過去至少四十年來都沒這么少過，中產(chǎn)階級(jí)已經(jīng)不再是美國(guó)的主流群體。上流社會(huì)和底層人民日漸增多，富豪和平民之間本就巨大的差距也日益加深。

認(rèn)真看看平民家庭的孩子就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)情況更令人擔(dān)憂。因?yàn)樨毟皇杖氩罹嘞拗屏穗A層流動(dòng)性——也就是美國(guó)夢(mèng)不那么正式的代稱。對(duì)平民家的孩子，尤其是寒門子弟來說，出身家庭的收入不僅決定了個(gè)人的成長(zhǎng)環(huán)境和受教育水平，還真正影響到他們長(zhǎng)大后能獲得的機(jī)會(huì)。

我們生活的美國(guó)正在走向一個(gè)收入變成遺傳特性的國(guó)家，上一代的收入水平直接決定下一代。這意味著孩子未來是成功還是困苦早已注定，也意味著成年人的小圈子化，身邊一起工作、生活、包括婚嫁對(duì)象都是學(xué)歷和收入相當(dāng)?shù)娜恕?/p>

這種傾向是足以令所有人恐慌，至少已經(jīng)嚇到我了。幾個(gè)月前，我決定改變職業(yè)方向，找一份可以“復(fù)興美國(guó)夢(mèng)”的新工作。當(dāng)時(shí)為接手一份新媒體的工作，我剛剛舉家從華盛頓搬到舊金山。

事實(shí)證明，這樣的工作的確存在。

At least we all should have a shot. But we actually don’t. Not today.

The middle class is shrinking before our eyes, no longer the majority in America and smaller than at any point in at least four decades. The top tier is growing but so is the lower tier. And so is the already deep divide between the rich and the not-rich.

Even more concerning than all of that is what happens when you focus on the kids of the not-rich. That’s where income inequality is messing with economic mobility, which is the wonky term for the American Dream. Because for those kids – especially for poor kids – the income level they are born into doesn’t just shape how they are raised and taught but, in meaningful ways, what kind of opportunities they get – and don’t get – later in life.

We’re heading towards an America where, for some, income will be like a genetic trait, passed largely unchanged from one generation to the next. A trait that meaningfully sets kids up for success or hardship. A trait that leads adults to self-segregate – working with, living with and marrying only those with similar degrees and similarly sized bank accounts.、

This should scare us all. It scares me. So a few months ago, having just moved my family from Washington D.C. to San Francisco for a job in new media, I decided to shift careers and find a new job that had in its description “reviving the American Dream.”

Turns out, those jobs actually exist.

在美國(guó)開拓機(jī)會(huì)是一項(xiàng)目復(fù)雜又艱巨的挑戰(zhàn)。它涉及到社會(huì)的方方面面，從兒童的早教機(jī)會(huì)到成人有能力負(fù)擔(dān)的高等教育，再到職業(yè)教育，甚至是城鎮(zhèn)居民的多層次收入規(guī)劃，無所不包。開拓機(jī)會(huì)還關(guān)乎如何推行醫(yī)療衛(wèi)生服務(wù)，如何提供金融服務(wù)，如何支持最需要幫助的群體。它受到全球貿(mào)易和本土稅法等多方面影響，是牽一發(fā)動(dòng)全身的大問題。

幸運(yùn)的是，正在崛起的硅谷創(chuàng)業(yè)者認(rèn)為這些緊迫的問題可以用技術(shù)解決。在他們熟知的數(shù)字世界里，效率低下和過時(shí)的體系是讓人完全不可忍受甚至憤怒的。而現(xiàn)實(shí)世界里，低效的過時(shí)體系正在極大限制美國(guó)夢(mèng)。

更幸運(yùn)的是，許多硅谷人士致力于優(yōu)秀企業(yè)家共同選擇的道路——他們的產(chǎn)品不但要賺很多錢，也要提高美國(guó)貧民、工人階級(jí)和中產(chǎn)階級(jí)的生活水平。在他們心目中，成功不只是獲得個(gè)人回報(bào)、或者讓股東得到回報(bào)，還要有廣泛的社會(huì)影響。

求職期間，我曾經(jīng)和一些初創(chuàng)公司的首席執(zhí)行官面談，比如醫(yī)療保健交易公司Stride Health的諾亞?朗、貸款平臺(tái)Expedite的杰夫?福斯特和網(wǎng)上投資平臺(tái)Aspiration的安德烈?徹尼。他們向普通美國(guó)民眾提供全面的平價(jià)的信息，比如購(gòu)買醫(yī)療保險(xiǎn)、買房或者選擇投資計(jì)劃時(shí)。我也遇到過像職業(yè)培訓(xùn)公司Learn Up首席執(zhí)行官亞歷克西斯?林沃德那樣的創(chuàng)業(yè)者，他們?cè)趲椭I(yè)人士找工作，掌握新技能。我還見到一些向教師提供個(gè)性化教育工具并注重提升“軟實(shí)力”，即未來職業(yè)所需技能的企業(yè)家，比如開發(fā)新型教學(xué)社區(qū)的Class Dojo的首席執(zhí)行官山姆?秋德瑞。最終，令我最受啟發(fā)的還是普雷斯頓?西爾弗曼領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的Raise.me，他們的產(chǎn)品讓更多人有機(jī)會(huì)享受高等教育。

對(duì)以上所有公司而言，廣泛的社會(huì)影響并不是獲利的手段和前提條件。這種理念植根于產(chǎn)品，與逐利同時(shí)存在。這也是推動(dòng)資本介入公益活動(dòng)的方式。

問題是，其他科技企業(yè)會(huì)不會(huì)追隨他們的腳步？

在硅谷，幾乎人人都自稱在改變世界。任務(wù)管理軟件？改變世界。開發(fā)送餐應(yīng)用？改變世界。約會(huì)服務(wù)？不用說，也是要改變世界。

這種雄心值得欽佩。但事實(shí)是，大部分企業(yè)并沒有真正想改變世界。他們只想努力做出好產(chǎn)品賺大錢，而賺錢這件事其實(shí)就算不考慮社會(huì)影響都很不容易。至于立志積極影響社會(huì)的企業(yè)，很少真正有機(jī)會(huì)賺到真金白銀。對(duì)私營(yíng)企業(yè)來說，能賺到錢活下去最重要，更別說獲得成功了。

所以，如果你開始在舊金山求職，并且將“社會(huì)影響”列為必須考慮的因素，聯(lián)系的公司會(huì)讓你認(rèn)識(shí)到殘酷的現(xiàn)實(shí)，因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)實(shí)就是二選一：要么找一家非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)（比如對(duì)你說：“你聽說過Kahn Academy嗎？快查查看，老實(shí)說，別考慮這兒了，現(xiàn)在就開車去吧。”），要么降低你對(duì)社會(huì)影響期望值，成立一家以盈利為目的的公司（“聽著，這些人在打晚飯的主意。那可是一片藍(lán)海，誰不吃晚飯呢？”）

公平地說，不僅大多數(shù)硅谷人士這樣想，大部分美國(guó)人都是這么想的。一談到廣泛的社會(huì)影響，多數(shù)人都會(huì)想到政府和非營(yíng)利組織。私營(yíng)機(jī)構(gòu)？肯定不行！當(dāng)然，有時(shí)私營(yíng)機(jī)構(gòu)也可以做公益（比如美國(guó)鞋履品牌Tom’s Shoes），或者先實(shí)現(xiàn)大量盈利再投身慈善事業(yè)（參考谷歌旗下的Google.org）。但要做好公司，企業(yè)家必須想著盈利，別的什么都不應(yīng)該管。

這就是問題所在。雖然政府承擔(dān)了大量公益工作，但就像所有大型組織一樣，存在效率低下和創(chuàng)新進(jìn)程緩慢的先天缺陷。至于非營(yíng)利組織，由于需要不斷找資金，即便能正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)也很難吸引優(yōu)秀人才，不敢輕易冒風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，規(guī)模也很難擴(kuò)張。

所以，假如我們只依靠政府和非營(yíng)利組織傳播廣泛的社會(huì)影響，很可能會(huì)嚴(yán)重影響最終效果。可這就是美國(guó)的現(xiàn)狀，已經(jīng)持續(xù)多年。

是時(shí)候讓美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的引擎——私營(yíng)機(jī)構(gòu)肩負(fù)更多職責(zé)了，不能局限于創(chuàng)造就業(yè)和財(cái)富了。自由市場(chǎng)是美國(guó)最令人嘆服的特征，在這樣的市場(chǎng)里，產(chǎn)品可以不斷完善，創(chuàng)意可以孕育新行業(yè)，美國(guó)例外主義的例子比比皆是。對(duì)美國(guó)的貧民、工人階級(jí)和中產(chǎn)階級(jí)來說，除了追求中低水平薪資的工作、廉價(jià)的服務(wù)、甚至更低價(jià)的產(chǎn)品，為什么不能在其他方面有所突破？

我認(rèn)為一定可以實(shí)現(xiàn)突破，最有潛力的非科技企業(yè)莫屬。

我們一直聽說，科技會(huì)全面顛覆人類的生活方式。此刻，科技革命看來還只是小打小鬧。想坐別人的車出行或者住進(jìn)別人的房子，想讓日常雜貨送貨上門，或是代取洗好的衣物，這些現(xiàn)在都可以通過應(yīng)用實(shí)現(xiàn)。

隨著科技進(jìn)步，人類的聯(lián)系從未如此密切。更多美國(guó)人的消費(fèi)選擇日漸廣泛，收入來源也增加了。然而，真正的革命——真真切切影響大多數(shù)美國(guó)人生活的革命并沒有到來。

我花了整整兩個(gè)月找到了一份自認(rèn)為能開拓美國(guó)機(jī)遇的工作。我是幸運(yùn)的，因?yàn)槲壹扔袝r(shí)間也有能力尋找這樣的工作。在求職期間，我對(duì)美國(guó)的機(jī)會(huì)更有信心了，也非常感激能在灣區(qū)（即硅谷）順利落腳。

不過話說回來，我在硅谷碰到的有社會(huì)使命感的創(chuàng)業(yè)者一般都是異類。有社會(huì)使命感的投資人也顯得格格不入。硅谷或許是充斥著創(chuàng)新和理想主義的地方，但潛藏的暗流中摻雜著憤世嫉俗和守舊的心態(tài)，尤其是在賺錢方面。

想象一下，假如這種情形出現(xiàn)變化，更多的投資者增加投資，支持更多追求廣泛社會(huì)影響的企業(yè)，美國(guó)會(huì)怎樣？假如更多創(chuàng)業(yè)者和程序員、更多像我一樣的求職者開始考慮階層流動(dòng)性問題，美國(guó)又會(huì)怎樣？

這樣做經(jīng)濟(jì)回報(bào)可能沒有做晚餐生意大，其實(shí)也未必。但無論怎樣，產(chǎn)生的社會(huì)效益是巨大的。

硅谷能否拯救美國(guó)夢(mèng)？能——只要想做。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

作者安尼施?拉曼是奧巴馬總統(tǒng)的前任演講撰稿人，現(xiàn)任教育類初創(chuàng)公司Raise.me副總，主管成長(zhǎng)戰(zhàn)略。

譯者：Pessy

審校：夏林

Expanding opportunity in America is a big, complicated challenge. It involves everything from access to early childhood education to affordable higher education to worker retraining to mixed income urban planning. It’s tied to how we deliver healthcare, how we offer financial services, how we support those most in need. And it’s affected by everything from global trade to the local tax code. It’s an everything issue.

The good news: The rising generation of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs see these problems as imminently fixable with technology. They’ve only ever known a digital world and that feeds an unrelenting impatience – even anger – about ineffective, antiquated systems. And there are a bunch of ineffective, antiquated systems hampering the American Dream.

The better news: Many of these women and men are trying to do what all good entrepreneurs do – build solid products that make a lot of money – while also improving the lives of poor, working and middle class Americans. Their definition of success is not just individual return, or even shareholder return. It includes broad social impact.

Over the course of my job search, I met CEOs like Noah Lang of Stride Health, Jeff Foster of Expediteand Andrei Cherny of Aspiration, who are empowering everyday Americans to make more informed and affordable financial decisions, whether it’s signing up for healthcare or buying a home or choosing an investment plan. I met CEOs like Alexis Ringwald of LearnUp , who are helping the unemployed find jobs and learn new skills. I met CEOs like Sam Chaudhary of Class Dojo, who are giving teachers the tools to personalize education and focus on ‘soft skills’, which are the skills needed for the jobs of tomorrow. Ultimately, the idea that inspired me most was at Raise.me, a startup headed by Preston Silverman, which is expanding access to higher education.

With all of these companies, broad social impact isn’t conditional or sequential to profit. It’s built into the product, right alongside revenue. That’s how you create a for-profit movement.

The question is, will other technology companies follow suit?

Almost everyone in Silicon Valley says they’re changing the world. Task management software?Changing the world. Food delivery app? Changing the world. Dating service? You get the picture.

The impulse is admirable. But the truth is, most companies aren’t really trying to change the world. They’re trying to build a solid product and make a lot of money, which is tough enough without having to worry about social impact. And even among those that are trying, few have a real shot at earning real money, which is key to survival, let alone success, in the private sector.

So when you start a job search in San Francisco and list “social impact” as a must-have, the people you call to tell you hard truths often give you a binary choice: either look at a nonprofit (“Have you heard of Kahn Academy? Check out Kahn Academy. Seriously, leave here right now and drive to Kahn Academy.”) or downgrade your desire for social impact and go build a profitable business (“Listen, these guys are disrupting dinner. That’s a huge market. Who doesn’t eat dinner?”).

To be fair, that’s not just what most people in the Valley think. That’s what most Americans think. When it comes to broad social impact, we leave that to government and nonprofits. The private sector? No way! Sure, sometimes you can tie your product to a good deed (see Tom’s Shoes) or make a lot of money and then engage in philanthropy (seeGoogle.org). But to do well in the private sector you have to be about profits and only profits.

Here’s the problem with that. While the government does a tremendous amount of good, it’s inherently inefficient like any big organization and innovation chugs along slowly, if at all. As for nonprofits, given the constant chase for funding, they often have a hard time attracting talent, taking risks and expanding when things start to work.

So if we leave broad social impact to governments and nonprofits, we’re severely limiting our chances for impact. But that’s what we’ve been doing. For years.

It’s time for the engine of our economy – the private sector – to do more than create jobs and wealth. The free market is one of the most awe-inspiring parts of America. It’s where products are perfected; where ideas become industries; where exceptionalism abounds. For poor, working and middle class Americans, why can’t that exceptionalism be about more than low-to-mid wage jobs, cheap services and even cheaper products?

I think it can. And nowhere is that more possible than with technology companies.

We’ve been told time and again that technology is going to revolutionize our entire way of life. Well, at the moment, that revolution seems small and retail.Want to get a ride in someone else’s car or a room that’s not your own? Want to have your groceries delivered or your laundry picked up? There are apps for all of that.

Thanks to technology we’re more connected and engaged than ever before. And it’s providing more Americans with greater consumer choice and new avenues for income. But the real revolution – a revolution that will meaningfully affect the lives of the majority of Americans – is still lying in wait.

It took me exactly two months to find a job where I felt like I was doing something to expand opportunity in America. I’m fortunate to have had the time and ability to seek out such work. And along the way, I grew more hopeful about our chances and more thankful that I’d ended up in the Bay Area.

That said, the socially-minded entrepreneurs I met with are the outliers out here. The socially-minded investors I met with are the outliers out here. Silicon Valley may be awash in innovation and idealism but it also has an undercurrent of cynicism and conformity ?– especially when it comes to making money.

Imagine if that changed. Imagine if more investors put more money behind more companies that had a goal of broad social impact. Imagine if more founders, and more coders, and more people like me focused their careers on big issues like economic mobility.

The financial returns may be less than disrupting dinner. But maybe not. And no matter what, the returns for society would be enormous.

Can Silicon Valley save the American Dream? Yep – if it wants to.

Aneesh Raman is a former presidential speechwriter for the Obama administration and the current VP of Growth at Raise.me.