加州貝克爾斯菲的32歲企業(yè)家凱文·莫尚，自成年后就把大部分的精力放在勸說志存高遠的技術(shù)精英留在這個城市。凱文·莫尚是這里土生土長的人。在圣何塞州立大學(xué)就讀計算機科學(xué)專業(yè)時，他選擇了退學(xué)并回到家鄉(xiāng)，此舉令他的一些摯友頗感詫異。自那時起，凱文·莫尚成為科恩創(chuàng)新技術(shù)社區(qū)（Kern Innovation and Technology Community）的代理主任，這個社區(qū)專注于在貝克爾斯菲市附近的科恩郡創(chuàng)立技術(shù)社區(qū)。同時，他還是致力于投資當(dāng)?shù)貏?chuàng)業(yè)公司的“從貝克爾斯菲市開始”（ Start With Bakersfield）風(fēng)投公司的管理合伙人。凱文·莫尚一直在宣揚留在貝克爾斯菲市的好處（房價便宜、有機會與當(dāng)?shù)氐臋?quán)力經(jīng)紀人打交道等）。然而，他還是不得不眼睜睜看著貝克爾斯菲市民背井離鄉(xiāng)，奔赴技術(shù)積淀更深的城市。這種現(xiàn)象的成因很矛盾，與那個經(jīng)典的問題如出一轍：究竟是先有雞還是先有蛋？由于很難在這里找到就業(yè)機會或創(chuàng)業(yè)公司的投資資金，技術(shù)型人才選擇不留在貝克爾斯菲市。而公司和投資者不把目光投向這個城市，則是因為他們發(fā)現(xiàn)這里的技術(shù)人才相當(dāng)稀缺。莫尚認為其他大城市技術(shù)的發(fā)展?jié)摿薮?，貝克爾斯菲市等城市注定要遠遠落后。他說：“想實現(xiàn)超越，難如登天?！?

莫尚針對這一問題的悲觀看法是有據(jù)可循的。最近，布魯金斯學(xué)會（Brookings Institution）開展了一項關(guān)于在不同工作領(lǐng)域使用計算機技能（從數(shù)據(jù)庫的錄入到使用編碼軟件）的數(shù)據(jù)庫研究，并編制了一張美國大都市的“數(shù)字化分數(shù)”分布圖。從這個圖上看來，貝克爾斯菲市與拉斯維加斯市打成平手，淪為平均分數(shù)最低的城市；而圣何塞市則拔得頭籌。有一點要指出的是：盡管許多人和莫尚一樣付出了數(shù)年的努力，試圖縮小諸如圣何塞市和貝克爾斯菲市的城市間的差距，不過他們的滿腔熱情似乎多半打了水漂。布魯金斯研究者自2002年開始給城市打分排名，分析這些城市截止到2016年的進步速度。據(jù)他們的發(fā)現(xiàn)，大體而言，之前分數(shù)最低的城市與之前分數(shù)更高的城市的差距已經(jīng)在漸漸縮小，原因是技術(shù)的影響滲透到各行各業(yè)，從護理工作到建筑施工一概如此。不過，當(dāng)焦點轉(zhuǎn)向計算機編程等數(shù)字化程度和薪資水平齊高的行業(yè)時，情況就不這么樂觀了。就就業(yè)人數(shù)而言，圣何塞市和舊金山市比起以前更是遙遙領(lǐng)先。

初創(chuàng)公司需要風(fēng)投的融資，而越來越多的投資都流向了硅谷。因此，初創(chuàng)公司傾向于在這里扎根成立，并開始招聘員工。同樣，由于初創(chuàng)公司和更知名的公司都需要雇傭小部分才能出眾、具有創(chuàng)新思維（其創(chuàng)新能力能為公司帶來盈利）的人才，他們傾向于在人才吸引力強的舊金山市和圣何塞市進行招聘工作。在這種雙重效應(yīng)的作用下，技術(shù)一躍成為一個“勝者為王”的市場。谷歌和蘋果等大公司稱霸的地位不斷得到鞏固，同時也為它們所在城市帶來積極效應(yīng)。布魯金斯學(xué)會高級研究員馬克·穆羅認為，“在合適的環(huán)境下生活和工作”，人們受益良多?！斑@是由來已久的定律，只是數(shù)字化技術(shù)真正將這種效應(yīng)擴大化了?！?

這個結(jié)論著實讓人難以心安。人們能理解這一現(xiàn)象：大量的高薪藍領(lǐng)工人和辦公室職員不知不覺就丟了飯碗。不過我們覺得這些變化將會為失業(yè)者提供就業(yè)機會，并借此安慰自己。布魯金斯的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)證實了這一觀點：盡管部分技術(shù)工作機會流向了業(yè)已中空的城市，然而最好的工作機會依然留在主要城市里。因此，莫尚開始覺得他應(yīng)該鼓勵貝克爾斯菲市最優(yōu)秀的居民走出這方天地，抓住更好的發(fā)展機會。他安慰自己，至少在送這些人才前往其他地方成為優(yōu)秀企業(yè)家之前，“始于貝克爾斯菲市”公司還有機會能在他們中的一部分人上注入投資。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

本文的另一版本登載在2018年1月1日出版的《財富》雜志，標題為“一場貧富之間的技術(shù)革命”。

譯者：Mr.

Kevin Mershon, a 32-year-old entrepreneur in Bakersfield, Calif., has spent much of his adult life trying to persuade ambitious, technically oriented friends to stay in Bakersfield. He was raised there, went to college at San Jose State University to study computer science, then dropped out and—to the puzzlement of some friends—came home. Since then, he has become the acting director of Kern Innovation and Technology Community, an organization trying to build a tech community in Kern County, Bakersfield’s home, and the managing partner of Start With Bakersfield, a venture capital firm that invests in local startups. Yet despite all his pro-Bakersfield arguments (cheaper housing! chances to network with local power brokers!), Mershon keeps watching people leave for techier cities. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem of the highest order. Technical people won’t stay in Bakersfield because not enough companies will hire them or invest in their startups, and companies and investors won’t come to Bakersfield because they find the local tech talent unimpressive. Other cities have so much momentum that Mershon has concluded that Bakersfield and similar places are bound to fall further behind. “It’s just insurmountable,” he says.

Mershon’s pessimism is borne out by evidence. The latest comes from the Brookings Institution, which studied a database of computer skills (from database entry to coding software) used in various occupations, then made a map of “digital scores” for U.S. metropolitan areas. Bakersfield tied with Las Vegas for the lowest average score among large cities, while San Jose scored the highest. What is most striking is that, though people like Mershon have been laboring for years to bridge the digital gap between cities like San Jose and those like Bakersfield, it doesn’t seem to be fully working. The Brookings researchers ranked cities’ scores from 2002, then looked at how much each of those cities had improved as of 2016. They found that, in general, the cities whose scores used to be lowest have been closing the gap with the ones that used to be stronger, as technology infiltrates all kinds of occupations, from nursing to construction work. But when it comes to the highly digital employment that tends to be well-paid, like computer programming, San Jose and San Francisco are even further ahead now than they used to be.

Startups depend on venture capital funding, and that kind of investment is getting more concentrated in Silicon Valley—so that’s where startups tend to put their roots and start hiring. Also, because both startups and more established tech companies hire a relatively small number of super-talented, creative employees—the kind who can come up with moneymaking innovations—they tend to hire in the places, like San Francisco and San Jose, where those would-be employees are known to gravitate. Both these effects are compounded by the fact that tech has become a winner-take-all market, with companies like Google and Apple consolidating their power—giving an advantage to the cities where they’re based. People benefit from “l(fā)iving and working in the right place,” says Mark Muro, a senior fellow at Brookings. “That’s always been true, but digital technologies have really amplified that effect.”

It’s an unsettling conclusion. People understand that a lot of well-paid blue-collar laborers and office workers have found their jobs automated into extinction, but we have consoled ourselves with the thought that all this change will create new jobs for the people who have been displaced. The Brookings finding confirms that while some technical jobs are going to some of the cities that have been most hollowed out, the best ones aren’t. Mershon, in Bakersfield, has started to feel that he should be encouraging the city’s brightest residents to leave town after all, to give them a shot at doing well. He consoles himself with the thought that Start With Bakersfield could at least invest in some of them before sending them off to become successful entrepreneurs elsewhere.

A version of this article appears in the Jan. 1, 2018 issue of Fortune with the headline, “A Revolution of Have and Have-Nots.”