【11.03.21 纽约时报】不真实的生活之读者评论
本帖最后由 下个月 于 2011-4-7 22:03 编辑【标题】这是《不真实的生活》的读者评论，选择推荐数过百的评论，【原译文地址】：《不真实的生活》http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-316161-1-1.html【译者】yangfuguang【声明】 本翻译供Anti-CNN使用，未经AC或译者许可，不得转载。
评论SocratesVerona New JerseyMarch 22nd, 2011 11:46 amGeneral ignorance and weak journalism accounts for most of this phenomenon, combined with the peculiarly American phenomenon that lets poor and middle-class people think that they are somehow one day away from being rich themselves.
The press needs to print more detailed articles showing the true total tax burden on the rich versus the non-rich; this will help illustrate the successful 30-year war the rich have waged against the poor.Recommend Recommended by 906 ReadersReport as inappropriateSocrates公众的无知和媒体的孱弱对此现象应负主要责任，还有一种美国一种独有的古怪现象：让穷人和中产阶级相信，有一天他们也会成为有钱人。媒体需要刊载更多的展示细节文章，来衡量一下富人的税负和穷人的税负；这会有助于证明富人这三十年对穷人的战争是取得胜利的。
paulCAMarch 22nd, 2011 11:47 amYou fail to mention that while people may not envy the rich they do envy those with much smaller advantages relative to them. A neighbor with a larger car. Or, more tellingly at this moment, people with better pensions and health care plans. Indeed, public employees appear to be the main target of envy and anger right now, at a time when bankers may be pocketing hundreds of millions.Recommend Recommended by 825 ReadersReport as inappropriatepaul你忘记提及这样一个事实：人们不嫉妒富人，但却嫉妒那些比他们稍稍有点优势的人。拥有跟好的车子的邻居。或者，更加明显的是在这样一种情况，那些拥有跟好养老金和健康保险的人。实际上，政府雇员目前似乎是最主要的羡慕嫉妒恨的目标，特别在当下，银行家可能囤积了好多亿的金钱时。
15.Don DuvalNorth CarolinaMarch 22nd, 2011 12:23 pmWhy aren't Americans more upset about the increasing concentration of wealth?
Good question.
I'll venture to offer a few reasons.
First and foremost, I'm not sure "most" Americans are aware that the top 1% has been hoovering up an ever greater share of the nation's wealth for the last 30 years--in no small part I suspect because a width swath of the news media is owned by large corporations which are in large part (85% of all the publicly traded stock in the U.S. is controlled by the top 1%) and hasn't reported itSecondly, width swath of Americans--despite all evidence to the contrary--remains convinced that somehow, someday, they'll be rich too.
Last, but not least, there has been an aggressive effort by the apologists for the rich to blur the perceptual line between the rich and the rest of us--in order to make most people wonder--when somebody says "We need to tax the rich"--do they mean me?
Three last points:
Up until the 1980's--bans defined "millionaires" as people who had more than a million dollars in assets. No more--if you walk into J.P. Morgan--unless you're making at least a million dollars every year, you're not a millionaire.
The gap between the well-off--people making more than $150,000 and less than $300,000 and the really rich--see above--has grown so wide, it would be easier to jump across the Grand Canyon on a child's trike than to bridge the gap.
Last--but not least--there is no economic, social or moral justification for billionaires A one time wealth tax of 50% on all fortunes over $10 million in the US would raise enough revenue to halve the national debtpaul为何美国人对财富的日益集中更加敏感？好问题！小子不才，愿一窥其中之原因：首先，也是最重要的是，我不确定，“多数”美国人是不是知道最上层的1%的有钱人在过去三十年卷走了国家财富的相当大的比例——我怀疑这个比例很大，因为媒体很大部分有大公司拥有（公众交易的85%的股票有这1%的人提供的），这些媒体对此报道很少。第二，很多的美国人——尽管有那么多负面的证据——他们依旧认为有天他们能成为有钱人。最后，有些听命于富人的“砖家”极力模糊有钱人和其他人的界限，这就给了我们一个错觉，当有人说，我们需要向有钱人收税，他们是在说我们吗？最后三点：到1980年代，法律这样定义百万富翁：有超过一百万美元的资产。超过一百万就可以了——但是当你走进摩根银行——你会发现除非你每年挣一亿，否则你丫的就不是百万富翁。在那些可以赚十五万到三十万美元之间的人和真正有钱人之间的收入差距很大，缩小这个差距比骑着小孩子玩的三轮车飞跃科罗拉多大峡谷还要难。最后——不知最重要的——对于富翁，没有经济的、社会的、道德的公正，或许对所有有钱人施行50%的财产税可以有助于消除国家的债务问题。
Recommend Recommended by 732 ReadersReport as inappropriate16.koiOrem, UTMarch 22nd, 2011 12:25 pmWell, we're talking ignorance and lack of education here. Together with ferocious disinformation machine by Fox News and the like aimed at convincing people to vote against their financial interests.Recommend Recommended by 590 ReadersReport as inappropriatekoi好吧，我们这里讨论一下无知和缺乏教育吧。还有极度作假的福克斯新闻之流，它们在说服民众支持对自己（指民众）不利的政策。
19.JMDUpstate, NYMarch 22nd, 2011 12:37 pmAnd where does this belief in social mobility come from if it doesn't exist?We are told true life fairy-tales of those who moved from rags to riches without being told how rare that actually is. The myth is furthered by game shows and lottery ticket winners.The battle of American has always been about the rich and the poor, whether the rich has been George Bush or George III.The true question is what motivates the top 20% into believing that they deserve so much more for contributing so little.What is most upsetting is when computing their wealth, they are richer than the pharoahs of old. With my paycheck, it would take me 20 years to earn a million dollars. It would take me 200 to earn 10 million, and 20,000 years to take home what some on Wall Street earned in one year ($1 billion). There is no way anyone would every convince me that a trader contributes enough in one year to ballance that of 20,000 police officers, teachers, nurses, or firefighters.Recommend Recommended by 588 ReadersReport as inappropriateJMD如果这种情况不存在，那么为何在社会流动方面会有这样的想法呢？我们都知道这样的童话故事：个人通过奋斗成为有钱人，但是我们却没有被告知，这样情况是很少发生的。这种神话被娱乐节目以及中彩票者强化了。美国的战争已经变为穷人和富人的战争，不论这些富人是乔治•布什还是布什三世。问题是，处于金字塔最顶层的20%的人士为何认为他们在贡献如此少的情况下，占有如此巨额的财富。最让人烦忧的是，他们的财富比古代法老们的还有多。按照我的薪水，我要二十年才可以挣一百万美元。我需要两百年来赚取一千万，需要两万年才能赚到和那些华尔街的家伙一年赚的钱（一亿美元）。恐怕没有人能说服我，一个交易者在一年的贡献要比20000名警察，老师，护士或者消防员的贡献要大。
12.Sic Semper TyrannisBack of the board roomMarch 22nd, 2011 12:11 pmAs the American talent for self-deception and mindless consumerism continues unabated, it's useful to look at the lifestyles of the still vibrant European middle class. Much lower personal debt, along with less 'stuff'. Percentages of home and car ownership are lower, but their quality of life, longevity and happiness are higher. Possibly because they watch less TV and are more inclined to purchase fewer but higher quality items that LAST longer. No one fills up more landfills with useless consumption than Americans.Recommend Recommended by 494 ReadersReport as inappropriateSic Semper Tyrannis美国人自欺欺人的天赋以及无知的消费主义依旧没有减退，来看看欧洲中产者的生活方式是很有必要的。更低的个人负债，当然财产也更少。拥有房子及车子的百分比也更低，但是他们的生活质量，寿命及幸福度更高。也许是因为他们看电视比较少，购买那些质量好，可以长久使用的物品。人们从来不像美国人那样用无用的消费品填满垃圾箱。
14.bogus14New York, NYMarch 22nd, 2011 12:21 pmMost of the money the rich accumulate is hoarded- it is taken out of circulation as a hedge bet against our economy failing as most rich people do not truly believe in our economic system. Our economy only works when money is moving, I pay you, you pay someone else etc. Obviously, our economy has stopped working. Money is bottled up at the top- the only successful leader will be one that takes a plunger to the clog. The verdict is in- Reaganism and Bushism has failed. Not that I want to sound partisan- the fault is with Jann Wenner, Howard Stern or any other Hamptons quiche-eating liberal as much as it is with the Bushes, the Koch Brothers etc. It's time these people came out of their guarded fortresses and worked for the good of mankind with the short time they have left.Recommend Recommended by 346 ReadersReport as inappropriatebogus14富人累积的钱是存起来的，它是处于流通之外，以防止经济走势的低潮，因为很多富人不相信现在的经济体制。我给你钱，你给他人等等。显然，我们的经济停滞了。
18.scientellaNorthern CaliforniaMarch 22nd, 2011 12:35 pmGreat stats. I am not sure I agree with the oft speculated reason why the poor vote against their own best interests which would be more socialism and less leave it alone. I think it is simply because the unscrupulous right wing (and I dont include a suprising number of happy to pay higher tax billionaires living right here in Silicon Valley) has most to lose by leveling the playing field and so spend a huge amount of money and effort, eg Fox, indoctrinating the masses and confusing them then providing simple slogans like small government or anti-abortion of whatever that they can latch onto.
Its just propagandascientella伟大的统计学。我不确定我会同意经常提及的穷人为何反对对他们有利的政策，这种政策看来是更加社会主义，而且不能忽视。我认为这很简单。无耻的右翼人士（不包括硅谷中那些欣然接受高税率的人士）花费巨大来构建像福克斯这样的宣传网络，使得竞争看起来平等了。迷惑大众，然后再提出一些口号，比如小政府或者反堕胎之类的他们所能用的上的东西。这仅仅是宣传
Recommend Recommended by 279 ReadersReport as inappropriate5.richardtucson, azMarch 22nd, 2011 11:30 amwhy don't we hate the rich is the real question?richard为啥我们不恨富人，这是问题的关键吗？
Recommend Recommended by 247 ReadersReport as inappropriate36.ScottSeattleMarch 22nd, 2011 3:33 pmSocialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. ~ John SteinbeckScott社会主义不会在美国生根，因为美国人不认为他们是无产者，他们只是窘迫的百万富翁。——~ John Steinbeck（美国作家，1962年获诺贝尔奖）
Recommend Recommended by 227 ReadersReport as inappropriate
13.SuzanneNaples, FloridaMarch 22nd, 2011 12:16 pmNone of the debaters has mentioned a factor that I think plays a role in people's seeming indifference to wealth inequality and their aversion to income redistribution: racism. Yes, the American wealth gap cuts across racial, gender, geographical and other lines. But those at the bottom of the heap are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic. In the bad old days of explicit racism, people of color in this demographic used to be called "shiftless" and hence "undeserving" of support. These days, the Tea Party rhetoric is a bit more subtle. It's "Stop taxing Us (subtext: to pay for things that We don't need)". Or am I being too cynical?Recommend Recommended by 214 ReadersReport as inappropriateSuzanne辩论者都没有提到一个在我看来是很重要的关系到人民对财富不公冷漠以及财富再分配很反对的原因：种族主义。是的，美国的财富鸿沟横亘在不同种族，性别和区域或者其它限制之间。但是，在底层的永远是非裔美国人以及西班牙族裔。在种族主义盛行的糟糕过去，有色人种在统计中被这样描述：懒得的不值得支持的。茶党的宣传更精妙。它说，停止美国人收税，潜台词是我们没必要去为我们不需要的付钱。或者是我太愤世嫉俗了？
6.ScottsvilleChicagoMarch 22nd, 2011 11:31 amI don't need to be educated as to why we have wealth inequality. The causes are very simple...single parent households, lack of a high school education, the first generation of illegal immigrants (I have seen this up close), and those who have learned how to game the system via disability or other "injuries at work". The real problem is that the underclass knows how to use the system - don't need to work....system will take care of me! The authors want to look at the wealthly as the problem, but the problem is the underclass......"yes I am blaming the victim". I grew up poor, single parent household, joined the army and put myself through college and grad schoold and make almost more money than I can spend. I do however keep in touch with my high school peers, and they keep trying to "work the welfare system".Recommend Recommended by 209 ReadersReport as inappropriateScottsville我不需要被告知为何我们会有财富不均的现象。原因很简单……单亲家庭，缺乏教育，贫穷的第一代非法移民（我曾近距离观察过），那些人学会了如果钻空子，通过不利的境遇或者所谓的工伤。问题是，下层人士知道如何利用制度漏洞。不需要工作。体制会照顾我！是的，我在责怪犯罪。我来自贫穷的单亲家庭，加入军队，通过教育使我赚到了我花不完的钱。然而，我和高校的同辈们保持联系，他们在努力达到为福利体制工作。
2.JS MillLondon, UKMarch 22nd, 2011 11:15 amWhen a country has no common binding history or myths but only the opportunity for self aggrandizement, there isn't much else to do for your children but get as much as you can now.JS Mill当一个国家没有共同的历史感，只有自我膨胀的机会，那么我们能为下一代做的事情就很少，就只能想着如何让自己得到更多了。
Recommend Recommended by 192 ReadersReport as inappropriate11.Sbella BiancaHendersonville, NCMarch 22nd, 2011 11:55 amEvery time academics discuss this issue they seem to ignore the role of feminism in the redistribution of wealth in this country. Women have made enormous income strides in the last 40 years. When doctors marry doctors and lawyers marry lawyers you effectively double one family's income. And now the secretary and the nurse, who in my mother's generation had a chance to improve their lot through marriage, don't.
When marriage prospects were based on looks and personality, women from poorer families had a better shot at upward mobility. But now the upper classes guarantee their daughters' financial success because they can afford to pay for their college and graduate educations.Reducing disparities in education is another academic pipe dream. The upper classes teach their children lessens very early in life, lessons that no government funded 'head start' would dare to parrot. Why? Because you would have to start defining 'class', a very touchy subject in America, and start explaining why the values of one class leads to wealth, and the values of other classes lead to zero net worth.Recommend Recommended by 173 ReadersReport as inappropriateSbella Bianca每次专家讨论这个问题，他们看来忽视了女权主义在财富分配的重要作用。女人们在过去四十年在财富收入上进步很大。当医生和医生结合，律师和律师结婚，这样就增加了家庭的收入。现在的秘书和护士却不能通过婚姻来达到这个效果了，尽管他们在我母亲的那个时代可以这样。当婚姻的前景是建立在外貌和人品上，来自下层的女性有更多的机会往上走 。但现在上层家庭都在确保他们的女儿在财政上独立，这样可以使得他们付得起大学的教育费和毕业后的教育费。在教育上减少不公是个学术理想。上层人士在很小的时候就教育他们的孩子了，没有政府支持的教育更加敢于去墨守成规。为何，因为你要解释阶层这个词，在美国是很感人的词汇，再解释为何一个阶层的人有钱，而另一些却是零财富值。
1.RichardStateline, NVMarch 22nd, 2011 9:39 amWhy aren't American's clamoring for wealth redistribution? Most of are smart enough to know that this is about finding more money for the State and Federal governments to take from individuals and waste. Most of us trust the rich to be less wasteful with their own money than we do the government. Experience has proven us right time after time and a poor person has never hired me, not even once.So if you feel the country would be better off with redistribution do it without letting the government handle the money.
Recommend Recommended by 169 ReadersReport as inappropriateRichard为何美国人不大声疾呼要财富再分配？很多人很聪明的意识到，这是个关于如何通过个人给政府寻找更多财富让他们浪费的过程。我们中的多数人相信，富人拥有财富比政府更加节省。经验告诉我们这是好时机，而穷人从来没有雇佣我们，一次也没有。如果你认为财富再分配就好，那么久不要让政府管理这笔财富吧。
59.XLibraUSAMarch 22nd, 2011 6:06 pmThe wealthiest Americans are "out of sight" wealthy - the average person doesn't know who they are. They average person works for other people and spends money at the big corporations the wealthy own. Americans are fascinated by big money and royalty. Now we have a monied aristocracy of our own, people don't understand that. Most news outlets are right wing owned and so is the news: keeping the nation distracted with wars, gay rights, immigration policy, sports championships, the Academy Awards, etc., on the front pages. Things that actually don't have a huge impact on most people's daily lives. Never anything about income inequality and what that means for an individual and their kids' limited chances in life. If people realized most of them are just modern day serfs, they'd think twice. Sure they can change jobs, but their earning power is limited, their housing costs too high. Wages and housing costs are set by the wealthy. They won't pay more than a certain amount for a job and housing costs a certain amount - not primarily due to supply and demand, but to maximize profits at the expense of the workers. The wealthy see how little the rest of the country will settle for.People in over 20 nations live FAR better than we do: better education, better health care, easier social mobility, greater longevity and more time off work. Americans don't seem to realize it or don't care. They are consumed with trivia, not the future of themselves or their progeny. It worked for the British monarchy, wealthy Americans are finding it works here. Take all they want from the people, then dole out pittances back to the people, pretending it's generosity and charity. While increasing militarism, right wing Christianity and faux patriotism, pretending the US is the greatest country in the world (wrong, we just have the biggest military) all promoting a "America, love it or leave it" mentality. People fall for it every time. Meanwhile the wealthy are the least patriotic Americans. They ship jobs and their money to other countries, maximizing profits and illegally evading taxes. They are criminals and should be treated as such.Recommend Recommended by 149 ReadersReport as inappropriateXLibra最富有的美国人视财富如浮云了，普通人不知道他们是谁。普通人为其他人工作，然后把钱花给这些大公司。美国人被金钱和尊贵吸引。现在美国人被有钱的贵族阶层吸引，人们不理解这个。很多消息来自右翼拥有的媒体，因此新闻是，让这个国家被战争，同性恋权利移民政策，体育冠军，学术成就等占据头条。这些对大多数人的日常生活不会产生影响。不会有关于财富不均，以及这些对个人和他们的孩子意味着什么是不会有的。如果他们意识到他们是现代的农奴，当然他们可以换工作，他们的挣钱力是有限的，他们得三思。工资和房子价格有富人定的，他们不会为一份工作提供更高的工资，而房价却是那样的，不是基于需求和供给，而是为了最大化利润，最大限度剥削工人。富人看到了余下那些人的消费能力该有多底下。有二十多个国家的人们比我们要幸福的多：更好的教育，医疗，社会流动，更长的寿命以及更多的假期。美国人好像没有意识到，或者是不关心。他们忙于琐事，而不是他们及子孙的未来。他们为英格兰银行家工作，有钱的美国人发现这很有效。把人们需要的从他们身边拿走，然后给人们发放一点点，假装他们慷慨和慈善。军力的增加，右翼基督徒和人造的爱国主义，把美国伪装成世界上最好的国家（错了，我们只是有最好的军备），不停宣传美国，爱她还是离开她的论调。他们把工作和钱给其他国家，最大化利润以及非法逃税。他们是罪犯，并且应该受到惩罚。
3.MGSacramento, CAMarch 22nd, 2011 11:20 amI would assume that most of the wealthy in the USA have created wealth rather than inherited it.If the idea is to "redistribute" this wealth, what is the incentive for creating a successful business that leads to this wealth or to put it differently, what will be the incentive for the poor to work harder and aimto move up the net worth ladder.Recommend Recommended by 138 ReadersReport as inappropriateMG我宁愿假设美国的有钱人创造了财富，而不是继承的。如果这种再分配这种财富，那么谁来刺激人们创造成功的商业来产出这样的财富，拿什么刺激穷人好好努力赚钱来提升他们的财富值？
9.Ordinary AmericanNJMarch 22nd, 2011 11:50 amOrdinary Americans care.
But the elites who run this country (including NY Times editors) shamefully seem far more interested in the needs of Muslims and illegal migrants than the needs of the great American middle class.Recommend Recommended by 128 ReadersReport as inappropriateOrdinary American平常的美国人在乎。但是掌管这个国家的精英们（包含纽约时报的编辑们）看起来他们更加体谅穆斯林以及非法移民的需要，而不是大多数美国的中产者。
4.K.B.SW AsiaMarch 22nd, 2011 11:30 amSocial Mobility remains possible, but only if one has knowledge of their position and is willing to make sacrafices. This usually means giving up most of your friends and sidelining your family go to a fairly high end college for a marketable degree, and moving to an area where you can make good connections. You have to set high goals and fight to achieve them, and leave behind negative influences in your life, which in this case would be anyone making less than you want to earn.
Most people who grow up in a poor background tend to be risk adverse and want to stay with familiar things. They feel that family connections and approval are more important that success, and are not willing to sacrafice everything to climb the social and economic ladder. So they work a so-so job and don't set their goals high, and remain in the poverty trap.Recommend Recommended by 122 ReadersReport as inappropriateK.B.社会流动依旧是可能的，但是只有那些承认自己地位并且愿意去做出牺牲的。中通常意味着放弃你多数朋友，弱化你的家人通过更多的教育来提升你的市场价值，去那些你能够有更好的体验的地方，在这种情况下，每人都比你想要赚的钱赚得更少。多数长在贫穷家庭的人倾向于不利的冒险，想要和家庭在一起。他们认为家庭关系和认可比成功更加有意义，不愿意牺牲一切来攀上社会和经济的上层。因此他们做了个一般的工作，不把目标订的很高，依旧在贫穷的地界。
10.DaveWTempe, AZMarch 22nd, 2011 11:52 amFanning the flames of class and race warfare is deplorable. As a middle-class professional, I envy my less well off friends who've learned to live without all the striving and materialism. If someone wants to make a billion dollars and then at the age of 80 create a foundation that ends up helping far more people than any government agency ever has, so be it.
Also, you asked a loaded question. "How *should* wealth be distributed" assumes that wealth should be distributed and its just a matter of how.Recommend Recommended by 103 ReadersDaveW鼓吹阶层和种族对立是悲剧。作为一个中产者职业人士，我羡慕不那么富有的朋友，他们已经挣得了全部需要，不需要全力以赴。如果有人愿意赚一亿美元，然后在八十岁创立一个基础，可以帮助更多人比任何政府机关帮助的更多，那么久这样去做吧。你也问了个贷款的问题。财富该怎么样分配假设财富该被分了，这才是个问题。 【纽约时报】不真实的生活
【原文标题】Living Beyond Your Means【中文标题】不真实的生活
【登载媒体】纽约时报
【来源地址】http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/03/21/rising-wealth-inequality-should-we-care/living-beyond-your-means-when-youre-not-rich【译者】 yangfuguang
【原文库链接】http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-315237-1-1.html
【声明】 本翻译供Anti-CNN使用，未经AC或译者许可，不得转载。
【译文】
Living Beyond Your MeansUpdated March 22, 2011, 12:18 PMMichael I. Norton is an associate professor at the Harvard Business School. He is currently co-writing a book on money and happiness. 迈克·诺顿是哈佛商学院的副教授，最近他在和别人共同完成一本书，关于钱和幸福关系的书。
In a recent survey of Americans, my colleague Dan Ariely and I found that Americans drastically underestimated the level of wealth inequality in the United States. While recent data indicates that the richest 20 percent of Americans own 84 percent of all wealth, people estimated that this group owned just 59 percent – believing that total wealth in this country is far more evenly divided among poorer Americans. 在最近的一个对美国人的调查中，我的同事Dan Ariely和我发现，美国人民严重低估了美国财富不均的水平。尽管最近的数字显示最富有的20%的群体拥有全国84%的财富，人们却估计这些群体只有全国59%的财富，人们相信社会总财富在穷人间是更加均衡地分配着。
What’s more, when we asked them how they thought wealth should be distributed, they told us they wanted an even more equitable distribution, with the richest 20 percent owning just 32 percent of the wealth. This was true of Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor – all groups we surveyed approved of some inequality, but their ideal was far more equal than the current level.而且当被问及他们愿意财富以怎样的方式分配，他们告诉我们想要一种更加平等的分配方式，让20%最富有的人士占有全部财富的32%。这个结论无论是对于民主党、共和党，穷人还是富人——所以我们调查的集体都持有这种观点，但是他们的想法比现在的要公平得多得多。
Why then, given the consensus on this more equal America, are Americans not clamoring for redistribution?那么，面对这个调查揭示的结果，美国人就不想要财富再分配吗?
First, the expansion of consumer credit in the United States has allowed middle class and poor Americans to live beyond their means, masking their lack of wealth by increasing their debt. We might think that people who have "zero net worth” have nothing. But in fact, having zero net worth increasingly means owning a lot (cars, televisions, even houses) – but also owing a lot. As a result people with zero net worth, and even negative net worth, can still feel that they are living the American dream, doing “better” than their parents did while keeping up with the Joneses. 首先，消防信贷的扩张，使得美国的中产阶级和穷人能生活在他们实际生活水平线之上，通过不断膨胀的债务掩盖他们贫穷的真面目。我们可以说这些资产零净值的人一无所有，但是零净值却意味着拥有跟多（车子，电视，甚至房子）——也拥有了很多东西。
Second, poorer Americans’ belief in social mobility – despite strong evidence of its rarity – causes negative reactions to policies that would seem to benefit them, like raising taxes on those who earn and own a lot more. Why would the poor oppose taxes on the wealthy? Because many believe that they, or at least their children, will eventually be wealthy, voting for taxes on the rich may feel like voting for taxes on themselves. As a result, even the word “redistribution” has negative connotations.其次，贫穷滴美国人相信社会流动——尽管证据表明这是很不靠谱的——这使得原本对他们有利的政策反而会引起他们的反对，比如增加富人的税收。为何穷人也反对向富人征税？因为他们中的很多人相信，他们或者他们的至少他们的孩子，会最终成为有钱人，支持收税感觉就像在收自己的一样。结果就是，就连“再分配”这个词都显得邪恶了。
My colleagues and I are now exploring whether educating Americans about the current level of wealth inequality (by showing them charts and pictures) might increase their support for policies that reduce this inequality. In addition, we are assessing whether different forms of redistribution – for example, raising the minimum wage, or longer term interventions like reducing disparities in education – are less likely to evoke heated opposition, and perhaps increase advocacy for greater wealth equality.我的同事和我是不是该向美国人民普及现在财富不均的知识（把那些图表和图片给他们看看），也许这会增加他们支持那些可以减少这些不公的政策。另外，我们也在考虑不同的再分配的方式——例如，增加最低工资标准，或者长期的介入，比如减少不等的教育——会不会更多地激发他们支持的热情，这或许会使他们呼吁要求得到更加平等的财富分配方式。
不知道有美国人信吗 这篇翻译很好，反应了美国很少被人察觉的另一面，译者辛苦了 Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. ~ John Steinbeck
社会主义不会在美国生根，因为美国人不认为他们是无产者，他们只是窘迫的百万富翁。
——~ John Steinbeck（美国作家，1962年获诺贝尔奖） {:12_547:}
页:
[1]