在家工作歷史悠久,大有益處大綱
The shift from offices to kitchen tables among white-collar workers in 2020 seems unprecedented, and only possible with Slack and Zoom. But it is nothing new. Indeed, the history of home-working suggests some surprising parallels with today.
2020年，白領從辦公室到餐桌的工作模式轉變似乎是前所未有的，且多虧了Slack和Zoom這兩個軟件才得以實現。但這並不是什麼新鮮事。事實上，在家工作的歷史與今天有一些驚人的相似之處。
The emergence of capitalism in Britain and elsewhere from the 1600s to the mid-19th century did not take place primarily in factories, but in people's houses. Workers made everything from dresses to shoes to matchboxes in their kitchens or bedrooms. When Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776, it was perfectly common to work from home. Smith famously described the operation of the division of labour in pin-making, but not in a dark, satanic mill. He was describing a "small manufactory" of perhaps ten people—which could well have been in or attached to somebody's house.
從17世紀到19世紀中葉，資本主義在英國和其他地方的產生主要不是在工廠裏，而是人們的家裏。工人們在他們的廚房或臥室裏製作各種東西，從衣服到鞋子、火柴盒。亞當·斯密在1776年寫下《國富論》時，在家工作是非常普遍的。他對於針製造中的勞動分工描述尤爲著名，但不是在黑暗、邪惡的作坊中。根據他的描述，是大約有十個人的“小工廠”——它很可能在某人的房子裏，或者是某人房子的一部分。
It is not easy to put exact numbers on how many people have worked from home during different historical periods. Even in Britain, where economic data reach farther back than in any other country, little reliable labour-force data exist until the mid-1800s. Other sources left clues, however. One relates to the meaning of the word "house". Today it connotes domesticity. But up until the 19th century it had a much broader definition, with the suffix "-house" encompassing economic production, too. In "A Christmas Carol", Scrooge works in a "counting-house". Architecture offers other hints. In Britain, many 18th-century houses still have unusually large upstairs windows; cloth-weavers, who worked there, needed as much light as they could get.
在不同的歷史時期，很難準確統計有多少人在家工作。即使在英國，經濟數據比其他任何國家都要久遠，到19世紀中葉，可靠的勞動力數據還很少。然而，其他資源留下了線索。其中一個與“房子”一詞的含義有關。今天它意味着家庭生活。但在19世紀，它有了更廣泛的定義， “XX房子”也包括經濟生產活動。在《聖誕頌歌》中，斯克魯奇在一個“帳房”工作。建築給了我們其他提示。在英國，許多18世紀的房子上層窗戶依然非常大；在那裏工作的織布工需要儘可能多的光線。
The emergence of an at-home industrial workforce had two main causes. The growth of global trade and the rise in per-person income from the 1600s onwards raised demand for manufactured goods such as woollens and watches.
在家工作這種工業勞動力的出現有兩個主要原因。自17世紀以來，全球貿易增長和人均收入增加提高了對羊毛和手錶等製成品的需求
Home-workers may have been poorly paid relative to factory folk, but they could earn income by other means. That was not the only advantage. Home-workers in rural or semi-rural areas could forage for fuel and food, and so boost their meagre incomes. Home-workers also had more control over their time. So long as the work was done to the required standard and on time, they were not told exactly when or how to do it. That was in sharp contrast to the factory, where every aspect of life was planned in advance and workers were closely monitored. And home-workers could decide on the exact mix between work and leisure—in contrast to factory workers, who either worked the 12- or 14-hour days stipulated by the factory owner or none at all. People also got more sleep. This greater autonomy was especially important for mothers. In a world where men did little by way of family work, women could combine child care with contributing to the family income. It was far from easy. Sometimes women would give their infants "Godfrey's Cordial", a mixture of sugar syrup and laudanum, to knock them out for a while. But home-working allowed for the combination of paid work and family work in a way that the factory system did not. As factories spread, female labour-force participation fell.
相對於工廠工人來說，在家工作的人可能收入較低，但他們可以通過其他方式賺取收入。這不是唯一的有點。生活在農村或郊區的工人可以尋找燃料和食物，從而增加他們微薄的收入。在家工作的人也能更好地控制自己的時間。只要工作按照要求的標準按時完成就行，不會對工作完成的時間和方式做出要求。這與工廠形成了鮮明的對比，在工廠裏，生活的每個方面都是計劃好的，工人們受到密切監視。在家工作的人靈活結合休閒和工作——與工廠工人相反，工廠工人要麼按照工廠老闆的規定每天工作12或14小時，要麼根本不工作。在家工作的工人們也得到更多的睡眠。這種更大的自主權對母親來說尤其重要。在一個男人幾乎不做家務的世界裏，女人可以兼顧照顧孩子和賺錢。這一點也不容易。有時候，女人會給她們的嬰兒喝“戈弗雷甜酒”，這是一種糖漿和鴉片酊的混合物，讓他們昏迷一段時間。但是在家工作允許工作和家庭相結合，這是工廠體系所不允許的。隨着工廠的擴張，女性勞動率下降。
In 1920 Max Weber, a German sociologist, argued that the separation of the worker's place of work from their home had "extraordinarily far-reaching" consequences. The factory was more efficient than the home-based system which had preceded it—but it was also a space in which workers had less control over their lives, and where they had much less fun. Today's pandemic-induced shift back to the home could have similarly far-reaching effects.
1920年，德國社會學家馬克斯·韋伯(Max Weber)認爲，工人的工作場所與他們的家分開會產生“極其深遠”的後果。與之前在家工作相比，在工廠工作更高效——但它也是一個工人對自己的生活控制力更弱、樂趣更少的地方。取決於它被證明有多持久，今年由疫情引發的回家工作潮可能會有同樣深遠的影響。
