如果美國的經(jīng)濟(jì)這么好，為什么還有那么多美國人在苦苦掙扎呢?

原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：魏晉余孽 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Banh Dau
“Struggling” is a relative term. Someone “struggling” in the US is not the same as struggling elsewhere. Struggling in the US may mean “can’t afford a car”, while struggling somewhere else may mean “try to have enough food everyday”

“掙扎”是一個相對的詞。在美國掙扎的人和在其他地方掙扎的人是不一樣的。在美國苦苦掙扎可能意味著“買不起車”，而在其他地方苦苦掙扎可能意味著“盡量每天能有足夠的食物”。

Sadie Jacob, Mother, ex wife, single and over 40, dog mom
I don’t know the answer to this question, but my personal story may offer some insight.
Twleve years ago, my then husband and I bought a house. The house cost $229,900. Three bedroom, 2.5 bath and 1380 square feet. Little tiny yard and a two car garage. The house was tucked behind another house and was about 15 years old. It was a great starter home for our little family of three. Two income household, we were young and moving up in the world. The house was a tight fit for our budget, but we made it work.
Fast forward to today. I’m divorced for a long time now. I make about the same as the combined income of twelve years ago. Unfortunately, that will no longer allow me to buy a home. Not even close. I still live in the same town. That same nice little starter home sold last year for $389,500. There are only three homes on the market in my town that are listed for less than $300k and they need pretty significant work to be move in ready. Soooo…..home ownership isn’t really an option. I can’t move to a different area unless I want to take a significant pay cut. The type of work I do is specific to the area I live. Also, moving, even into a different rental will cost a minimum of $3000, but more likely closer to $4500. I live 45 min outside of the closest big city, so I’m not in an expensive urban area. Even out here, my rent increased by $485 a month over 5 years.
I’m fortunate!!! I chased a career and increased my income dramatically over the last 5+ years. If I was at the same job (which was a good job, not entry level) that I had 5 years ago, I’d be making about $1.00 more per hour than I did then. Wage stagnation is insane. I was a cashier at a grocery store 20 years ago. Back then, I made $14.85/hr. That same job with the same experience doesn’t pay much more than that today. 20 years ago I could rent a brand new apartment for $680/month. That same apartment is 20 years old now and rents for $1450/mo.
So yes, the economy is great. Many, like me, have great jobs that are better than they’ve ever had before. Unfortunately, my lifestyle has not improved in any way over the last 5 years. Sure, I make more money, but life is so much more expensive now that it doesn’t seem any better than it was in the past.
And for all the judgmental penny pinchers out there:
My super fancy and unnessesary cell phone is paid by my employer.
The last new shoes I bought were purchased a year ago.
I spend a grand total of about $300 per year on clothes for myself. Just enough to keep my work clothes in decent shape.
I have very little debt. Just some lingering medical bills that I’m working on.
I do have a small car payment. Nothing fancy and it’ll be paid off in the near future.
My big splurge is weekend travel to watch my kid play sports and a couple super budget trips to see my best friend who moved to a different country.
Even if I didn’t spend any extra money on this stuff, I still couldn’t afford to buy a home.
If someone like me, who is comfortably middle class is struggling to get ahead, I can’t expect that individuals or (God forbid) families earning less than me are finding much more success with the American dream.

我不知道這個問題的答案，但我個人的故事可能會提供一些見解。
十二年前，我和當(dāng)時的丈夫買了一棟房子。這座房子價值229,900美元。有三間臥室，2.5間浴室，1380平方英尺。一個小院子和兩個車庫。這所房子緊挨著另一所房子，大約有15年的歷史。對我們這個三口之家來說，這個房子是一個很好的開始。兩個人都有收入的家庭，我們也年輕，在社會上不斷上升。這房子很適合我們的預(yù)算，我們把它建好了。
很快就到了今天。我離婚很久了。我現(xiàn)在的收入和十二年前的收入總和差不多。不幸的是，這將不再允許我買房子。甚至沒有買的希望。我仍然住在同一個鎮(zhèn)上。去年，這幢漂亮的小房子以389,500美元的價格售出。在我居住的鎮(zhèn)上，市場上只有三套掛牌價低于30萬美元的房子，搬進(jìn)去前還需要進(jìn)行大量的準(zhǔn)備工作。所以......擁有住房并不是一個真正的選項(xiàng)。除非我想大幅度減薪，否則我不能搬到別的地方去。我所做的工作是根據(jù)我所居住的地區(qū)而定的。此外，即使是搬到不同的地方，租金也至少要3000美元，但更有可能接近4500美元。我住在離最近的大城市45分鐘車程外，所以我不是住在物價昂貴的城區(qū)。即使在這里，我的月租在5年里也漲了485美元。
我很幸運(yùn)！在過去5年多的時間里，我一直在追求事業(yè)，收入也大幅增加。如果我做5年前同樣的工作(這是一份好工作，不是入門級的工作)，我每小時會比那時多賺1美元。工資停滯是瘋狂的。20年前我在一家雜貨店當(dāng)收銀員。那時，我每小時賺14.85美元。同樣的工作，同樣的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，沒有比今天的工資高多少。20年前，我可以每月花680美元租一套全新的公寓。那套公寓現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)20年了，月租1450美元。
是的，經(jīng)濟(jì)很好。很多人，像我一樣，擁有比以前更好的工作。不幸的是，我的生活方式在過去的5年里沒有任何改善。當(dāng)然，我掙了更多的錢，但是現(xiàn)在的生活比以前貴多了，看起來也不比以前好多少。
對于那些喜歡評頭論足的吝嗇鬼們:
1.我的超級豪華和不必要的手機(jī)是由我的雇主支付。
2.我上一雙新鞋是一年前買的。
3.我每年為自己買衣服總共花了300美元。剛好能讓我的工作服保持得體的狀態(tài)。
4.我的債務(wù)很少。只有一些我正在處理的醫(yī)療賬單。
5.我有一筆小轎車的貸款。沒什么特別的，很快就會還完。
我最大的揮霍就是周末去看我的孩子做運(yùn)動，還有幾次超預(yù)算的旅行是去看我最好的朋友，她搬到另一個國家去了。
即使我沒有在這些東西上多花一分錢，我還是買不起房子。
如果像我這樣的中產(chǎn)階級正在為出人頭地而奮斗，我就不能指望收入比我低的個人或家庭在實(shí)現(xiàn)美國夢的過程中獲得更大的成功。

Annie Brewer, Manager at a Grocery Store
I understand that I’m a bit of an outlier but I’m going to respond to this question anyway.
I bring in about $700 a month between my public job (I work part-time) and my writing business. My daughter is my roommate so we split the bills. We live in an small, inexpensive rental house, keeping our bills low. As a result, my half of the recurring expenses are $200 in summer but go up to $300-$350 during the winter due to heating expense.
I can walk to my public job so I don’t own a vehicle currently. I shop online for things I can’t find in town (and even heavier items that I can). That saves me a small fortune each month. I pay friends to take me places occasionally but that is rare.
We have clothes on our backs, food to eat, and never have to worry about utility bills being disconnected due to nonpayment. We’ve got money for extras.
I’ve got money left over each month, even in winter, that I save up to invest.
I am far from struggling, despite the fact that I live well below the official poverty line.
That said, many of my friends and acquaintances constantly struggle just to pay their bills, despite the fact that they make more money than I do, so I started asking questions.
They believe that a vehicle is a necessity, even if they live within walking distance to work. I personally disagree with this. In my personal situation I consider a vehicle to be a luxury, an expense I am unwilling to possess. I would rather use my money to increase my investments and add to my savings account each month instead of giving it to the government for taxes and tags; give more to the mechanic for maintenance and repairs, the gas stations for fuel, and the insurance companies for insurance to keep it legal and safe.
They believe that they HAVE to spend $100 or so a month for cable, whereas my daughter and I split an Amazon Prime account to watch movies on. We occasionally purchase a movie we can’t find on there or watch movies at the local theatre instead.
They believe that they have to own an expensive smartphone and pay $50 a month or more for phone service. I rarely travel, so I just use Google Voice on my iPad to make and receive phone calls while at home. That costs me nothing.
My friends tend to eat out a lot more frequently than I do. I eat out once or twice a month, depending upon circumstances. Other than that I eat at home.
The books I read are either scrounged from the giveaways at the local library or purchased used online or at thrift stores. Most of my friends rarely read, so they don’t have this expense at all.
I invested in a small twin-tub washing machine, hanging my laundry on drying racks instead of going to the laundromat. I save $30 or more a month compared to my friends by doing this. The washer cost me $70, so it paid for itself in less than three months.
I occasionally splurge. For the most part I only purchase items on sale if it is something I need at the time. I buy nonperishables in bulk when it makes financial sense. For instance, I go through 1–3 composition notebooks a month since I keep a Bullet Journal and have a lot going on in my life. Instead of paying $1 or more each, I stock up when WalMart has their back to school sale and offers them for 50 cents apiece. I do the same with paper and other items I use heavily.
For instance, I use OdoBan for cleaning, deodorizing, and keeping my home healthy since it kills germs and viruses. I can’t find it locally. Since it costs almost $20 a gallon to order it online, I waited until I found a five gallon bucket of the stuff for $47. That will last me for SEVERAL years at half of the cost I would normally pay.
Instead of paying $1 for two melamine cleaning erasers (Magic Erasers), I bought 100 of those things on Amazon for under $8.
My friends think me insane but the little things I do to save money and live beneath my means REALLY make a major difference. I was able to drop around $100 fetching my injured daughter home from the bus station two hours away without batting an eye, whereas just a few years ago that expense would have left me crying, if I could have afforded to pick her up at all.
I am far from a Spartan in my lifestyle. I indulge myself without guilt, yet I am still able to invest in the stock market and add to my savings accounts on a monthly basis.
Most of my friends don’t even have a week’s wage saved back for emergencies.
In Summary
I believe that the reason most Americans are struggling because they refuse to live within their means, look for creative ways to stretch their money, and insist upon spending every penny they receive instead of setting money aside for emergencies or to invest towards their financial future.
It makes a significant difference.

我知道我是一個局外人，但我還是要回答這個問題。
在我的公共工作(兼職)和寫作之間，我一個月能賺700美元。我女兒是我的室友，所以我們分?jǐn)傎M(fèi)用。我們住在一間租來的小房子里，費(fèi)用很低。因此，我在夏季的一半經(jīng)常性開支是200美元，但在冬季由于加熱費(fèi)用會上升到300美元- 350美元。
我可以步行上班，所以我現(xiàn)在沒有車。我在網(wǎng)上買我在城里找不到的東西(甚至能找到的更重的東西)。每個月都省下一筆錢。我偶爾花錢請朋友帶我去，但這種情況很少見。
我們有衣服穿在身上，有食物吃，而且從來不用擔(dān)心水電賬單因?yàn)橥锨范磺袛?。我們有多余的錢。
我每個月都有剩余的錢，即使在冬天，我也會存起來投資。
盡管我的生活水平遠(yuǎn)低于官方規(guī)定的貧困線，但我一點(diǎn)也不掙扎。
也就是說，我的許多朋友和熟人總是在為支付賬單而苦苦掙扎，盡管他們掙的錢比我多，所以我開始問問題。
他們認(rèn)為交通工具是必要的，即使他們住在步行上班的距離之內(nèi)。：我個人不同意這一點(diǎn)。就我個人而言，我認(rèn)為車是奢侈品，是我不愿意擁有的一種花費(fèi)。我寧愿用我的錢來增加我的投資，每個月增加到我的儲蓄賬戶，而不是把它付給政府的稅收;付給機(jī)械師更多的維護(hù)和修理，付給加油站更多的燃料，付給保險公司更多的保險來保證它的合法和安全。
他們認(rèn)為每個月要花100美元左右買有線電視，而我和女兒為了看電影而開了亞馬遜Prime賬戶。我們偶爾會買一部在網(wǎng)上找不到的電影，或者去當(dāng)?shù)氐碾娪霸嚎措娪啊?br /> 他們認(rèn)為，他們必須擁有一部昂貴的智能手機(jī)，每月支付50美元或更多的話費(fèi)。我很少旅行，所以我在家時只用iPad上的谷歌語音來打電話和接電話。那不花我一分錢。
我的朋友們比我更經(jīng)常在外面吃飯。我一個月出去吃一兩次，視情況而定。除此之外，我都在家里吃飯。
我讀的書要么是從當(dāng)?shù)貓D書館的贈書里借來的，要么是從網(wǎng)上或舊貨店買的。我的大多數(shù)朋友很少讀書，所以他們根本沒有這種花費(fèi)。
我買了一臺小的雙盆洗衣機(jī)，把要洗的衣服掛在晾衣架上，而不是去洗衣店。與我的朋友相比，我這樣做一個月可以節(jié)省30美元甚至更多。這臺洗衣機(jī)花了我70美元，所以不到三個月就收回成本了。
我偶爾揮霍。在大多數(shù)情況下，我只會在我需要的時候購買打折商品。只要經(jīng)濟(jì)上可行，我就會大量購買非易腐物品。例如，我一個月要用1-3本作文筆記本，因?yàn)槲矣幸粋€子彈日記，在我的生活中有很多事情要做。我沒有花1美元或更多的錢，而是在沃爾瑪返校大甩賣時囤積，并以每只50美分的價格出售。我用同樣的方法處理我經(jīng)常使用的紙張和其他物品。
例如，我用OdoBan來清潔，除臭，保持家里的健康，因?yàn)樗軞⑺兰?xì)菌和病毒。我在本地找不到。由于在網(wǎng)上訂購一加侖汽油幾乎要花20美元，所以我一直等到找到一桶5加侖的汽油才花了47美元。這將使我持續(xù)幾年的費(fèi)用只有我通常支付的一半。
我沒有花1美元買兩個三聚氰胺清潔橡皮，而是花了不到8美元在亞馬遜上買了100個這樣的東西。
我的朋友們都認(rèn)為我瘋了，但是我為了省錢和量入為出所做的一些小事情真的會產(chǎn)生很大的影響。我花了大約100美元，把受傷的女兒從兩個小時車程外的汽車站接回家，而沒有眨一下眼睛。而就在幾年前，如果我有能力去接她，這筆錢會讓我哭個不停。
我的生活方式遠(yuǎn)非斯巴達(dá)式的。我放縱自己，沒有罪惡感，但我仍然能夠投資股票市場，每月增加我的儲蓄。
我的大多數(shù)朋友甚至沒有存下一周的開支以備不時之需。
總之
我認(rèn)為，大多數(shù)美國人之所以陷入困境，是因?yàn)樗麄兙芙^量入為出，尋找富有創(chuàng)造性的方法來節(jié)省開支，堅(jiān)持把收到的每一分錢都花出去，而不是把錢存起來以備不時之需或投資于未來。
這有很大的不同。

Dan Holliday, lived in The United States of America
Because the economy isn’t so great. It’s good for some. It’s not for others. In the part of the country I’m from (the Midwest), it still sucks. The Midwest was the industrial heartland of the US where a kid could graduate high school and get a job at a steel mill or an auto manufacturer and have a family. That’s not the case any longer. Worse, for some, the sacrifice of chasing a higher income means moving a distance that would be more painful than struggling. So they make do with a lot less than the generation before.
There’s a flip side to this as well. We normalize whatever luxuries we have. Once normalized, they become a necessary component for existence.
WE think we’re not spoiled but we’re no different than —say— Paris Hilton going into a breakdown because her hair stylist made her late for her nail appointment. We all roll our eyes, “Cuz, when Paris suffers, we all suffer.” But the thing is, she’s simply normalized the luxuries to which she’s become accustomed. So do you. I know I am uncomfortable when my cable goes out. God forbid the electricity goes out for a few hours in summer and my AC isn’t running full blast.
This is us. Never mind that 95% of Americans live on more wealth with more “stuff” and more freedom than most of humanity. That doesn’t matter. Americans have normalized a big house, two cars, a family vacation, loads of presents under the tree every year and that’s our God-given right. Take that away, and it wouldn’t be much different than taking away Paris’ fancy meals at Le Cirque or the running water from a housewife in 1960. We’ve normalized our luxuries now and because they’re normalized, we want more. We always want more. That insatiable drive to have more has brought us all the social and technological advancements we enjoy but it can also be slavery to things we’ll never obtain.

因?yàn)榻?jīng)濟(jì)不是很好。對有些人好，對有些人不好。在我的家鄉(xiāng)(中西部)，情況仍然很糟糕。中西部是美國的工業(yè)中心，在那里，一個孩子可以從高中畢業(yè)，在鋼鐵廠或汽車制造廠找到工作，組建家庭。但現(xiàn)在不再是這樣了。更糟糕的是，對一些人來說，為了追求更高的收入而做出的犧牲意味著，與他人保持距離比苦苦掙扎更痛苦。所以他們用的比上一代少很多。
這也有不利的一面。我們使我們所擁有的任何奢侈品都正?；Ｒ坏?biāo)準(zhǔn)化，它們就成為生存的必要組成部分。
我們認(rèn)為自己沒有被寵壞，但這和帕麗斯.希爾頓精神崩潰沒什么區(qū)別，因?yàn)樗陌l(fā)型師讓她去美甲店約會遲到了。我們都翻白眼，“因?yàn)?，?dāng)巴黎遭殃時，我們都會遭殃?！钡珕栴}是，她只是把她已經(jīng)習(xí)慣的奢侈品常態(tài)化了。你也是。我知道當(dāng)我的電纜壞了的時候我很不舒服。上帝禁止在夏天停電幾個小時，而且我的空調(diào)沒有全速運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)。
這就是我們。別介意95%的美國人生活在比大多數(shù)人更多的財(cái)富、更多的“物質(zhì)”和更多的自由之中。這并不重要。美國人已經(jīng)將大房子、兩輛車、一次家庭度假、每年圣誕樹下的禮物都常態(tài)化了，這是上帝賦予我們的權(quán)利。如果把這些都拿走，這和1960年從一位家庭主婦那里拿走巴黎人在馬戲團(tuán)吃的大餐或自來水沒有多大區(qū)別。我們已經(jīng)將奢侈品標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化了因?yàn)樗鼈円呀?jīng)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化了，我們想要更多。我們總是想要更多。貪得無厭的欲望給我們帶來了我們所享受的社會和科技進(jìn)步，但它也可能成為我們永遠(yuǎn)得不到的東西的奴隸。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Al Nolf, former Senior Chief (E-8) at United States Navy (1968-1989)
“You can lead a horse to drink, but you can’t make him water.” Were you watching as 800,000 government employees who earn incomes considerably more than the average families in the US nearly “starved to death” after missing 30 days pay? Therein lies your answer.
I’d be willing to bet that their children all have the latest gaming systems, that none of them bothered to purchase a freezer and extra food stocks or establish an “Emergency fund for themselves. They play golf every weekend, drive a new car every year or two, and wear the best labels…none have ever shopped at a thrift store in their lives. When it came time to survive without soda, bottled water, and eating Micky D 3 times a week, they were unprepared.
There are people in the US who are really struggling, but you won’t read about them in the media or see them on TV. They don’t spent every dollar they make on weed, toys and junk food and then cry havoc. They sacrifice, make do, stay home, eat canned food, and they do what they have to do to survive. They are the elderly, the disabled, and those cast aside, and neglected by society.
For the first time in the US there are more jobs than workers to do them. The elderly, disabled, and homeless veterans are exempted from those jobs by circumstances that they cannot control. The economy is strong, people who have investments such as 401(k)s are making money. …again, the same destitute segment of our population is left behind.
Why are they struggling? because they always did, they always will. They have nothing to invest, can not work toward a better life & situation, and must face continued sacrifice.
That doesn’t apply to young, lazy, live-at-home people who feel that they are too important to accept employment positions that pay less than $100,000 a year with benefits. Those criers are “Brats” who insist on being accepted into a lifestyle beyond their ability. “There’s no jobs!” they cry… McDonald’s is hiring… “I’m not doing THAT!” they say. “I’m more of the..Executive Type” … and so they “Struggle”.

“你可以牽馬喝水，但不能強(qiáng)迫它喝水?！蹦闶欠窨吹剑?0萬名政府雇員的收入遠(yuǎn)高于美國普通家庭，他們在失去30天的工資后幾乎“餓死”?這就是你要的答案。
我敢打賭，他們的孩子都有最新的游戲系統(tǒng)，沒有人會費(fèi)心去買冰箱和額外的食物儲備，或者為自己建立一個“應(yīng)急基金”。他們每個周末都會去打高爾夫球，每一兩年就開一輛新車，穿最好的名牌……在他們的生活中，沒有人在舊貨店購物過。對沒有蘇打水、瓶裝水和每周吃三次米奇D的狀況，他們業(yè)毫無準(zhǔn)備。
在美國，有些人確實(shí)在苦苦掙扎，但你不會在媒體上讀到他們，也不會在電視上看到他們。他們不會把掙來的每一塊錢都花在大麻、玩具和垃圾食品上，然后大鬧一場。他們犧牲，湊合，呆在家里，吃罐頭食品，他們做他們必須做的來生存。他們是老人、殘疾人和被社會拋棄和忽視的人。
在美國，就業(yè)崗位首次超過工作人數(shù)。老年人、殘疾人和無家可歸的退伍軍人因無法控制的情況而被趕出這些工作崗位。而經(jīng)濟(jì)強(qiáng)勁，但是是那些在401(k)退休計(jì)劃上進(jìn)行投資的人正在賺錢。再一次，我們的貧困人口被甩在了后面。他們?yōu)槭裁磿暝?因?yàn)樗麄兛偸沁@樣，且他們總是會這樣。他們沒有任何東西可以投資，不能朝著更好的生活和處境努力，他們必須面對不斷的犧牲。
但這種情況并不適用于那些年輕、懶惰、宅的人，這批人覺得自己太重要了，不能接受年薪不到10萬美元的福利工作。這些哭哭啼啼的人是“頑童”，他們堅(jiān)持要接受超出他們能力的生活方式?！皼]有工作！“他們哭喊道……麥當(dāng)勞在招人時……他們又說”我不會做那種工作的!”......所以他們會“掙扎”。

Matthew Bates, Teacher (2009-present)
I’m going to give an honest answer based upon my personal experience. People are going to accuse me of being judgmental or lacking empathy or whatever, assuming that I’m saying these things are true for everyone. They are not. These things are true for the people I know who are “struggling.”
Also, the bar for “struggling” isn’t set very low in the United States. Plenty of people think they’re “struggling” who still have it better than most other people in the world. So there’s that.
Still, I know several people who are American-level “struggling.” Most of them are old high school friends who grew up poor, just like me. We were in the same boat when we were teens in the 1990s, and now, in their late 30s, they’re still “struggling.” Our life paths went in different directions somewhere in our mid teens.
The other people I know who are “struggling” are people whom I managed when I was in retail management years ago.
Every single one of them who are “struggling” did one of these two things in their teens:
Drugs.
Had a child before they were married/could afford one.
In other words, they made bad decisions in their teens or early 20s, the ramifications of which lingered well into their adult life.
Neither of those things were forced upon any of them. They were warned of the consequences of both of those things (I was in those classes with my classmates all through middle school, where we were warned over and over not to do those things.)
The drug users mostly struggle to hold down anything other than a minimum-wage job, because they’re unreliable, unmotivated, or they’ve been fired from other places for stealing. Once you’re fired from one place, particularly in a small town, the word gets around to the other potential employers.
Many larger employers won’t hire anyone with a criminal record. A lot of the people I know who are struggling as adults because of drugs got in trouble with the law in their late teens and early 20s.
The other people who I know who struggle the most… the teen parents who now have teenagers of their own… were unable to focus on their education or careers when the rest of us were, because they were busy being single parents of young children.
Not all of the young, single parents went down that path, though. Some of them did very well for themselves. They all had parents who could support them while their children were young. That is, the baby’s grandparents helped out a lot, so the mother could keep going to school/focus on her education and career. The people without those supportive parents are just now, as their children are more independent, getting back to their own education and career advancement.
Anyway, like I said, this isn’t about everyone. It’s just about the people in my life who seem to be “struggling.” I’m sure other people have other experiences.

根據(jù)我的個人經(jīng)驗(yàn)，我將給出一個誠實(shí)的回答。假設(shè)我說的對每個人都適用，人們又會指責(zé)我愛評判別人，或者缺乏同理心，或者別的什么。對于我認(rèn)識的那些正在“奮斗”的人來說，這些都是事實(shí)。
此外，在美國，“奮斗”的門檻并不低。很多人認(rèn)為他們在“掙扎”，但他們?nèi)匀槐仁澜缟洗蠖鄶?shù)人過得更好。這是這樣。
不過，我知道有幾個人也像美國人一樣在“掙扎”。他們大多是高中時的老朋友，和我一樣，也是在貧困中長大的。上世紀(jì)90年代，我們還是十幾歲的青少年，現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)30歲尾巴了，他們還在“掙扎”。在我們十幾歲的時候，我們的人生道路朝著不同的方向發(fā)展。
我認(rèn)識的其他“掙扎”的人是幾年前我在零售管理部門時管理過的人。
每一個“掙扎”的人在他們十幾歲的時候都做過這兩件事中的一件:
1.吸毒
2.在支付不起的結(jié)婚前，有了孩子
換句話說，他們在十幾歲或二十出頭的時候做出了錯誤的決定，其后果一直延續(xù)到他們的成年生活。
這兩件事都不是他們被強(qiáng)迫做的。他們被警告這兩件事的后果(我和我的同學(xué)在那些課堂上度過了整個中學(xué)，在那里我們被一次又一次警告不要做那些事)。
吸毒者除了一份最低工資的工作外，大多數(shù)人都很難保住其他工作，因?yàn)樗麄儾豢煽?，沒有動力，或者因?yàn)橥蹈`而被其他地方解雇。一旦在從一個地方被解雇了，特別是在一個小城鎮(zhèn)，這個消息就會傳到其他潛在雇主那里。
許多大公司不會雇傭任何有犯罪記錄的人。我認(rèn)識的很多人在成年后因?yàn)槎酒范鴴暝?，他們在十幾歲或二十幾歲時就觸犯了法律。
我認(rèn)識的其他最掙扎的人，是那些現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)有了自己孩子的十幾歲的父母，他們無法專注于自己的教育或事業(yè)，而我們其他人則專注于自己的教育或事業(yè)，因?yàn)樗麄兠τ谧鲇泻⒆拥膯紊砀改浮?br /> 然而，并不是所有年輕的單身父母都走上了這條路。他們有些人也做得很好。他們的父母都能在他們的孩子還小的時候支持他們。也就是說，嬰兒的祖父母幫了很多忙，所以母親可以繼續(xù)上學(xué)/專注于她的教育和事業(yè)。那些沒有父母支持的人現(xiàn)在的情況是，因?yàn)樗麄兊暮⒆痈营?dú)立，他們能回到自己的教育和職業(yè)發(fā)展。
不管怎樣，就像我說的，這不是針對所有人的。它只是關(guān)于我生活中那些似乎在“掙扎”的人。“我相信其他人也有其他的經(jīng)歷。

Michael DeBenedetti, Automotive Sales/Finance, Banking (2005-present)
I''''m going to offer an unpopular opinion, but please hear me out before blasting me. I have two thoughts on this subject, one being the transition of women entering the workforce in large numbers, and two being the availability of easy credit.
The US was built on a one income household basis. Generally, the husband worked and the wife stayed home yadda yadda yadda. With women''''s rights and more women wanting to work, we have transitioned to a near two income standard where both husband and wife work.
This is great for women, they are able to live up to their potential and do what they want to do rather than just stay at home raising kids as wax previously expected of them. Again, awesome. Also, men benefit because they don''''t have the stress of being the sole breadwinner, they get support from women so things are much more even. In theory, they should also get more time to enjoy their children, again another benefit.
Now, here''''s the thing that I never see discussed. When women started entering the workforce in droves, the supply of labor was effectively doubled (I know not quite doubled, just get the idea). What happens if there''''s a higher supply of people available to work with the same amount of work to do? Wages in that scenario have nowhere to go but down, which I believe has led to the wage stagnation that we are incessantly complaining about these days. Why would companies increase wages when they have a steady supply of cheap labor always available?
My next point is, look at jobs that have and still are traditionally done by men, construction, trades, the dangerous/dirty work. Those jobs are still paid very well and can support a family with one income. There is not as much supply for labor as with jobs that are more commonly unisex, and the work is physically demanding and hard. Why would someone do that when they could get a comfortable office job if the pay was the same? They wouldn''''t.
Suffice to say, our current economic model does not support a two income household, specifically because the amount of labor available is too high for companies to pay people incomes that enable them to support themselves financially, let alone a family. Add in the fall of the traditional family structure, and easy credit for college (more people graduating dilutes the pool of graduates further, lowering pay for people with advanced degree) and virtually everything else, we''''ve trapped our middle class into a lifetime of lower earnings while giving them easy access to credit, meaning they will spend their lives accruing debt to stay one step ahead of poverty, leaving the rich to continue to get richer collecting money on interest payments, while the middle/lower class never gets out of their debt cycle to create wealth.
I''''m not saying these changes to society are bad, I love the fact that women can and do work, and I would venture to say they can perform 99.9% of jobs the same as a man, but what''''s happened is that we haven''''t done anything to counteract these additions to the workforce and the wealthy have taken full advantage of that. They can pay lower wages, leaving more profit for themselves. They can give people access to easy credit (on the guise that they are doing people a favor), knowing they are just taking people''''s money in interest payments that they could be using to create wealth. Again, leaving more profits for themselves and essentially stealing any possible wealth from the working class for themselves.
If people didn''''t have access to easy money, they would be much more cognizant of their spending. There would be no $1,000 iPhones sold to people that make $1,000/mon. But there sure as shit are now as those folks can pay the phone off for $50/mon in perpetuity, always upgrading when the new model comes out and continuing to make that payment.
Here''''s a scenario that''''s done thousands of times a day at a car dealership: "Oh, you just bought your car two years ago with no money down and now you want to trade it for something new? You don''''t have any cash available to put down? No problem, we can "take care of you" by rolling the negative equity into the new loan. Oh, that would make the payment too high? No problem, we''''ll just extend the loan to 84 months so you can keep your payment down, because we care about you. See you again in two years!"
When meeting with a mortgage officer: "Oh, you want to buy a house but you don''''t have any cash? No problem, let''''s just liquidate your 401k to get the cash you need now, retirements not for a long time, you''''ll have plenty of time to reinvest. Also, we can take advantage of our low down payment/Grant programs so you can purchase and start building wealth with that house we are taking care of you with buying! Oh, you don''''t need any savings for this, the house will be your asset and they always gain value. If any problems come up with the house that you don''''t have cash for, just put it on a credit card. In a few years the house will have surely gained value, come see me and I''''ll help you with a cashout refinance so you can pay off all that debt and re-up into a new 30 year loan. And a few years after that, we can do it again! I''''m so glad we can take care of you, these options are so great you''''re lucky they''''re available!"
Too many people working for lower wages in an economy that allows for way too easy credit for low to moderate income people is the reason people are suffering. We''''re constantly inundated with things we are led to believe we need to buy while having easy financing pushed on us that permits us to believe we are still able to live "The American Dream", when in reality the working class is stuck in a constant debt cycle, never able to get out from underneath it, never able to create wealth to pass on or just to have as a buffer to protect them.
We are competing against ourselves for work, people are willing to work for lower and lower wages simply because other people are willing to. This is the best benefit of unxs. They don''''t allow people to work for less than what the unx wage scale permits. A move back to unxization would do great things to help increase wages in the US, but then we need to work on legislature that reduces the ability of unxs to be rampant with corruption.
Next, we need to reduce the availability of easy credit. Yes, those that don''''t make as much won''''t be able to buy as much. Good. They''''ll have more left over for themselves to actually live and survive and put something away. Sure, companies aren''''t going to be able to see the amount of growth they do now because not as many people are able to purchase their products. That''''s a good thing. Stock prices will suffer, and those that own them will take a tremendous hit. Oh well, they still have enough to survive. And those that don''''t will have more leftover to do so, needing less government help to survive, lowering what we need to collect in taxes, which will leave those with less with even more at the end of the day.

我要提出一個不受歡迎的意見，但請?jiān)谂u我之前先聽我說完。在這個問題上，我有兩個想法，一個是大量女性進(jìn)入勞動力市場的社會變化，另一個是容易獲得的信貸。
美國是建立在單收入家庭基礎(chǔ)上的。一般來說，丈夫工作，妻子則呆在家里干這干那。隨著婦女權(quán)利和越來越多的婦女想要工作，我們已經(jīng)過渡到丈夫和妻子都工作即有兩份收入的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
這對女性來說很好，她們能夠發(fā)揮自己的潛力，做自己想做的事情，而不是之前期望的那樣呆在家里撫養(yǎng)孩子。再說一次,這很好。此外，男性也從中受益，因?yàn)樗麄儧]有獨(dú)自養(yǎng)家糊口的壓力，他們得到了女性的支持，所以事情會更加平衡。從理論上講，他們也應(yīng)該有更多的時間來享受跟他們的孩子相處，這又是一個好處。
現(xiàn)在，這里是我從未見過的討論了。當(dāng)女性開始成群結(jié)隊(duì)地進(jìn)入勞動力市場時，勞動力的供應(yīng)實(shí)際上增加了一倍(我不知道是不是增加了一倍，我只是有這個想法)。如果有更多的人可以做相同數(shù)量的工作怎么樣?在這種情況下，工資只能下降，我認(rèn)為這導(dǎo)致了工資停滯，我們最近一直在抱怨工資停滯。當(dāng)公司有穩(wěn)定的廉價勞動力供應(yīng)時，為什么還要提高工資呢?
我的下一個觀點(diǎn)是，看看那些過去和現(xiàn)在仍然由男人做的工作，建筑，貿(mào)易，危險/骯臟的工作。這些工作的薪水仍然很高，可以支撐一個只有一份收入的家庭。勞動力的供給并不像通常男女通用的工作那么多，而且工作需要體力和艱苦。如果薪水一樣的話，當(dāng)人們可以找到一份舒適的辦公室工作時，他們?yōu)槭裁匆鲞@種工作呢?他們不會的。
可以這么說，我們目前的經(jīng)濟(jì)模式不支持兩份收入的家庭，特別是因?yàn)榭捎玫膭趧恿?shù)量太多，公司無法向人們支付足以讓他們在經(jīng)濟(jì)上自給自足的工資，更不用說養(yǎng)活一個家庭了。加上傳統(tǒng)家庭結(jié)構(gòu)的衰落，還有大學(xué)貸款更容易(更多的人畢業(yè)進(jìn)一步稀釋了畢業(yè)生的數(shù)量，降低了高學(xué)歷人群的工資)以及事實(shí)上我們把我們的中產(chǎn)階級困在了低收入的生活中，卻讓他們很容易獲得貸款，這意味著他們將終生負(fù)債以保持貧困，這讓富人通過收利息繼續(xù)變得更富，而中產(chǎn)階級和下層階級卻從未走出債務(wù)循環(huán)和創(chuàng)造財(cái)富。
我并不是說社會的這些變化是不好的，我喜歡女性可以工作，我敢說她們可以像男性一樣做99.9%的工作，但事實(shí)是，我們沒有采取任何措施來抵消這些勞動力的增加，而富人卻充分利用了這一點(diǎn)。他們可以支付更低的工資，為自己留下更多的利潤。它們可以讓人們輕易獲得信貸(打著幫別人的幌子)，知道他們只是用大家的錢來支付利息，他們可以用這些錢來創(chuàng)造財(cái)富，再一次把更多的利潤留給他們自己，從工人階級那里竊取任何可能的財(cái)富給他們自己。
如果人們沒有唾手可得的錢，他們會更清楚自己的支出。不會有1000美元的iphone賣給1000美元/月的人。但是現(xiàn)在肯定有很多垃圾，因?yàn)檫@些人可以永遠(yuǎn)支付50美元/月的手機(jī)，總是升級，當(dāng)新型號出來，就繼續(xù)支付。
這是一個每天在汽車經(jīng)銷商那里發(fā)生數(shù)千次的場景:“哦，你兩年前剛買了一輛車，沒有首付，現(xiàn)在你想換輛新車嗎?你沒有現(xiàn)金可以付帳嗎?沒問題，我們可以通過將負(fù)資產(chǎn)滾入新的貸款來‘照顧你’。噢，那樣的話付款就太高了。沒問題，我們只要把貸款延長到84個月，這樣你就可以少付一些，因?yàn)槲覀冴P(guān)心你。兩年后再見!”
當(dāng)你遇到一個抵押貸款官員:“哦，你想買房子，但你沒有現(xiàn)金?沒問題，讓我們把你的401k變現(xiàn)，拿到你現(xiàn)在需要的現(xiàn)金，退休時間不會太長，你有足夠的時間再投資。此外，我們可以利用我們的低首付/贈款項(xiàng)目，讓您可以購買和開始創(chuàng)造財(cái)富的房子，我們正在幫助您購買!哦，你不需要為此存錢，房子將是你的資產(chǎn)，它們總是增值的。如果房子出了什么問題，你沒有現(xiàn)金，就用信用卡支付。幾年后，房子肯定會增值，來找我吧，我會幫你用現(xiàn)金再融資，這樣你就能還清所有的債務(wù)，重新獲得30年的新貸款。再過幾年，我們可以再來一遍！我很高興我們能照顧到你，這些選擇太好了，你很幸運(yùn)有這些選擇!”
太多的人在低工資的經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境中工作，這使得低到中等收入的人很容易獲得貸款，這就是人們受苦的原因。我們總是被我們認(rèn)為需要購買的東西淹沒，而我們卻被輕易的融資推給我們，讓我們相信我們?nèi)匀荒軌驅(qū)崿F(xiàn)“美國夢”，在現(xiàn)實(shí)中，當(dāng)工人階級陷入持續(xù)的債務(wù)循環(huán)時，永遠(yuǎn)無法從中脫身，永遠(yuǎn)不能創(chuàng)造財(cái)富來傳承，或者只是作為緩沖來保護(hù)他們。
我們和自己競爭工作，人們愿意為越來越低的工資工作僅僅是因?yàn)槠渌嗽敢?。這是工會最大的利益。他們不允許人們以低于工會工資標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的工資工作?；貧w工會化對提高美國的工資水平大有裨益，但是，我們需要在立法方面努力，降低工會腐敗猖獗的能力。
其次，我們需要降低寬松信貸的可獲得性。是的，那些沒有賺到那么多錢的人將無法買到那么多東西。很好。當(dāng)然，公司將無法看到他們現(xiàn)在的增長，因?yàn)闆]有那么多的人能夠購買他們的產(chǎn)品。這是一件好事。股票價格將受到影響，持有股票的人將遭受巨大打擊。好吧，他們還有足夠的錢賴以生存。而那些沒有這樣做的國家將會有更多的盈余來做這些事情，需要更少的政府幫助來生存，降低我們需要征收的稅收，這將使那些擁有更少的人最終擁有更多。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Jerry Myers, works at Pine Island Storage
There is no prosperity for anyone except the very wealthy in the USA.
Workers are working for the same money that they got in 1978 dollars. The wealthy have sucked up all of the growth and profits and given none to the workers. Not only that they own our Government and their stooges in the GOP passed huge tax cuts to give them more money to save.
We need to eliminate the stranglehold that businesses have on their employees. In the past, the unxs were instrumental in setting the standards for the nation and our Government supported the unxs. Now the Government supports the “right to work” for slave labor rates as they fight unxs for their donors.
People are struggling because wages are so low that many have to work two jobs plus have their wife work just to support their family. The cost of medical coverage is so expensive that they struggle to pay it or risk no insurance and total economic collapse in the event of a life-threatening disease.
Those who are getting by feel fortunate, but they still face the ravage of a disease or work threatening accident where they would lose it all. Meanwhile, our banks and those with great investment capital wait for the opportunity to grab up the assets that the working man loses for dimes on the dollar.
These are not good times with a “Chicken in every pot!” Most people do not own a home and others do not own a pot.
Why are 12% of Americans existing below the poverty level and 14% of the children are not sure that they will get three meals a day? Because the wealthiest people reap all of the profits and profit gains and share nothing with the workers who produce those profits. The United States is a state of GREED!! It is controlled by the Greediest and the Government is bought to support them, the donors.

在美國，除了非常富有的人以外，沒有人能過上富裕的生活。
工人們的工資和1978年的工資是一樣的。富人吸收了所有的增長和利潤，卻沒有給工人任何好處。他們不僅擁有我們的政府，而且他們在共和黨的走狗們通過了巨大的減稅來帶給他們更多的錢。
我們需要消除企業(yè)對員工的束縛。
過去，工會在制定國家標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方面發(fā)揮了作用，我國政府支持工會?，F(xiàn)在，政府支持為奴工爭取“工作權(quán)”，而與工會斗爭。人們生活艱難，因?yàn)楣べY太低，很多人不得不做兩份工作，還要讓妻子工作來養(yǎng)家。醫(yī)療保險的費(fèi)用是如此之高，以致于一旦發(fā)生危及生命的疾病，他們要么難以支付，要么面臨沒有保險和經(jīng)濟(jì)全面崩潰的風(fēng)險。
那些勉強(qiáng)度日的人過的還算幸運(yùn)，但他們?nèi)匀幻媾R著疾病或威脅工作的事故的蹂躪，這種事會讓他們將失去一切。與此同時，我們的銀行和那些擁有大量投資資本的銀行，卻在等待機(jī)會，以攫取勞動者損失的每一美元資產(chǎn)。
現(xiàn)在不是“家家有雞吃”的好時候了。大多數(shù)人沒有自己的家，而其他人連自己的鍋碗瓢盆都沒有。
為什么有12%的美國人生活在貧困線以下，14%的孩子不確定他們是否能一日三餐?因?yàn)樽罡挥械娜双@得了所有的利潤和收益，而創(chuàng)造這些利潤的工人分享不到。美國是一個貪婪的國家!!它是由最貪婪的人控制的，而政府是用來支持他們的。

Margaret MacDonald, Nurse Practitioner
I work as a Nurse Practitioner in a rural health clinic in a poor area. I estimate 80–90% of our patients are on Medicaid and/or Medicare.
Some of these folks are poor due to unfortunate life circumstances - severe physical/mental disabilities, etc. Of course, the elderly in this area have limited incomes.
I do think that the de-industrialization of America, along with exporting so many jobs to countries like India and China, has hit the lower and lower middle classes very hard. In the past, a high school graduate could get a decent job in manufacturing that would allow them to purchase a home and provide a decent life for those families. Now, many such people have no option but to take minimum wage jobs.
Another factor is that the cost of higher education has escalated to ridiculous levels. When I first went to college, it was very common for students to work their way through college and graduate with very little to no student debt. That is simply not the case now, as the cost of education has risen far faster than incomes.
In addition, certain areas of the country have an absurd cost of living, like any coastal city in California. People who rent there often really have no way to save money to buy their own home or even build up emergency savings.
But the majority of poor people are poor due to bad choices:
Not getting an education beyond high school, some not even completing high school. A four year college degree is not necessary to make a decent living; there are lots of good vocational training programs available.
Having children at a very young age and out of wedlock, often with multiple fathers.
Having more children than one’s income can support.
Inability to manage one’s finances. I see people crying poverty who are obviously buying alcohol, eating out, and buying drugs.
Lack of a strong work ethic.
Refusing to move to a better area with more opportunity.
Culture of poverty being acceptable - living on welfare, claiming disability
Let me give you an example of what successful people do: my own brother, who only has a high school education, went through some difficult life circumstances when he was young. He started his own business, and at first had very little money. He and his family slept and lived in their business, which they could not afford to heat at night. They slept bundled up in all their coats and jackets in the winter. Fast forward 10 years: they had built a good solid small business and purchased a nice middle class home. Fast forward another 10 years: they had expanded their business and then purchased their “dream home.” In short, they made a lot of sacrifices to get started.
I was fortunate enough to go to college. My previous career was in business, and it was normal for new young professionals to live very thriftily - we shared living accommodations, usually with very little furniture. We drove basic cars. This was done to save money. When I got my first apartment of my own, the only furniture I had was a futon chair that unfolded into a bed. I only bought my work clothes (suits were required then) at sales or discount stores like Ross, etc. Yet, today, many young people expect to finish school and then immediately have an upscale life. They expect their first apartment to look like something out of Architectural Digest. They expect the same for the first (starter) home they purchase. God forbid they have to paint a room!

我在一個貧困地區(qū)的農(nóng)村衛(wèi)生所當(dāng)護(hù)士。我估計(jì)80-90%的病人都在用醫(yī)療補(bǔ)助和/或醫(yī)療保險。這些人中的一些是由于不幸的生活環(huán)境——嚴(yán)重的身體/精神殘疾等而導(dǎo)致貧窮的。當(dāng)然，這個地區(qū)的老人收入也有限。
我確實(shí)認(rèn)為，美國的去工業(yè)化，以及向印度和中國等國家輸出大量就業(yè)機(jī)會，對中下層階級造成了沉重打擊。在過去，一個高中畢業(yè)生可以在制造業(yè)找到一份體面的工作，這樣他們就可以買房子，為家庭提供體面的生活?，F(xiàn)在，許多這樣的人別無選擇，只能從事最低工資的工作。
另一個因素是高等教育的成本已經(jīng)上升到荒謬的水平。我剛上大學(xué)的時候，學(xué)生們靠自己的努力讀完大學(xué)，畢業(yè)時幾乎沒有學(xué)生貸款，這很常見。但現(xiàn)在的情況并非如此，因?yàn)榻逃杀镜脑鲩L遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)快于收入的增長。
此外，美國某些地區(qū)的生活成本高得離譜，就像加利福尼亞的任何海濱城市一樣。在那里租房的人通常真的沒有辦法存錢買自己的房子，甚至沒有應(yīng)急儲蓄。
但大多數(shù)窮人之所以貧窮，是因?yàn)樗麄冏龀隽隋e誤的選擇:
1.沒有接受過高中以上的教育，有些人甚至沒有完成高中學(xué)業(yè)。要過上體面的生活，四年的大學(xué)學(xué)歷沒有必要的;有很多好的職業(yè)培訓(xùn)項(xiàng)目。
2.在很年輕的時候就有了孩子，而且是非婚生子女，通常有多個父親。
3.一個人的收入不足以供養(yǎng)多個孩子。
4.無法管理自己的財(cái)務(wù)。我看到有人哭窮，但他們顯然是在買酒、下館子、買毒品。
5.缺乏強(qiáng)烈的職業(yè)道德。
6.拒絕搬到一個有更多機(jī)會的更好的地方。
7.接受貧困文化——靠福利生活，聲稱自己殘疾。
讓我給你一個成功人士的例子:我的弟弟，只有高中學(xué)歷，在他年輕的時候經(jīng)歷了一些困難的生活環(huán)境。他開始了自己的生意，一開始沒有多少錢。他和他的家人吃住都在他們自己的公司，他們無法負(fù)擔(dān)在晚上的暖氣費(fèi)。冬天他們裹著所有的大衣和夾克睡覺。10年后他們做成了一個不錯的穩(wěn)固的小企業(yè)，并購買了一個不錯的中產(chǎn)階級房子。又過了10年，他們擴(kuò)大了業(yè)務(wù)，然后買下了他們的“夢想之家”。簡而言之，他們?yōu)榱似鸩阶龀隽撕芏酄奚?br /> 我很幸運(yùn)上了大學(xué)。我之前的職業(yè)是經(jīng)商，年輕的職場新人生活節(jié)儉是很正常的----我們住在一起，通常只有很少的家具。我們開的是普通車。這樣做是為了省錢。當(dāng)我有了自己的第一套公寓時，我僅有的一件家具是一把蒲團(tuán)椅，它可以展開成一張床。我只在像羅斯這樣的大賣場或折扣店買工作服(那時需要西裝)。然而，今天，許多年輕人希望完成學(xué)業(yè)后立即過上高檔生活。他們希望自己的第一套公寓看起來像出自《建筑文摘》。他們對自己購買的第一套房子也有同樣的期待。但愿他們不用粉刷房間！

Rex Newborn, former Accountant, retired (1984-2004)
You can tell what a struggle it is to live in the US by the mass exodus of people out of the country. Our president is trying to build a wall on our southern border to keep us in.
There are people in the US who are struggling. Some cannot afford all the tattoos they want. Others have trouble staying current with designer jeans, jewelry, and whatever footwear their favorite NBA star says they need, not to mention the obligatory life sustaining phone contracts. Others have maxed out their credit and now can’t buy even a $4,000 set of custom wheels and tires to go on their ride. Some have gotten 100% financing on houses and been foreclosed on because they didn’t anticipate having to make all the payments.
I have plenty of money, and if I knew anyone who was hungry I’d feed them. There probably are some hungry kids, but I don’t know how to get to them. A very obese woman (250 lbs. or so) approached me for money in a parking lot and told me that she had 5 hungry children at home. My mouth went off before my brain engaged and I just blurted out. Why don’t you give them some of what you are eating? She called me names in English and some others I didn’t understand. Guess I deserved it, but I was giggling like a school girl by the time I got to my car.
I stopped donating to tax-exempt charity organizations years ago. What I do to offset my guilt is tip the shit out of stressed out looking waitstaff. And, since I live alone I eat out just about daily. I give generous bonuses to workers like the ones who recently re-roofed my house. It isn’t hard at all to get overpaid if you do good work for me. Plus, I’m currently carrying $13,000 on my books in loans due from friends and one relative.
I have a lot of sympathy for the underpaid. I used to be one of them. I don’t have much for the underworked. It isn’t that hard to get a job in the US, unless one is disabled or has a bad track record. Well, there are some who are so specialized they can only do one kind of work for a high rate of pay.
I would do more but I have some large expenses, too. The top 3 are federal income tax, insurance, and food. I eat well and I have a lot to insure. Still, the FIT is more than the food and insurance combined. Fortunately, my social security is enough to cover my taxes. I thought taxes would be lower when I was retired and over 65. Sheeeit. If you are planning retirement, better re-figure that one.
We all struggle with something.

你可以從大量人口的外流看出，在美國生活是多么艱難。我們的總統(tǒng)正試圖在我們的南部邊境建一堵墻，把我們關(guān)在里面。
在美國，有些人正在苦苦掙扎。有些人負(fù)擔(dān)不起所有他們想要的紋身。還有一些人很難跟上潮流，不買設(shè)計(jì)師設(shè)計(jì)的牛仔褲、珠寶和他們最喜歡的NBA球星說他們需要的任何鞋子，更不用說那些必須履行的維持生活的電話合同了。另一些人已經(jīng)透支了他們的信用額度，現(xiàn)在連一套價值4000美元的定制車輪和輪胎都買不起。有些人獲得了100%的房屋貸款，卻被取消贖回權(quán)，因?yàn)樗麄儧]有預(yù)料到要支付所有的貸款。
我有很多錢，如果我知道誰餓了，我就會養(yǎng)他們?？赡苡幸恍囸I的孩子，但我不知道怎么去找他們。一個非常胖的女人(250磅)。在一個停車場向我要錢，告訴我她家里有5個饑腸轆轆的孩子。我還沒來得及動腦筋，就脫口而出“你為什么不給他們一些你正在吃的東西呢?”她用英語罵我，還說一些我聽不懂的話。我想這是我應(yīng)得的，但是當(dāng)我上車的時候，我像個女學(xué)生一樣咯咯地笑。
我?guī)啄昵熬屯Ｖ瓜蛎舛惖拇壬平M織捐款了。我所做的彌補(bǔ)我內(nèi)疚的是給那些看起來很緊張的服務(wù)員小費(fèi)。而且，由于我獨(dú)自生活，我?guī)缀趺刻於荚谕饷娉燥?。我給工人們慷慨的獎金，就像最近給我重新蓋屋頂?shù)墓と艘粯?。如果你為我做好工作，得到超額報酬一點(diǎn)也不難。另外，我目前的帳面上還有1.3萬美元是朋友和一個親戚借給我的。
我很同情那些薪水低的人。我曾經(jīng)是他們中的一員。我沒有多少錢給那些工作不努力的人。在美國找工作并不難，除非你是殘疾人或有不良記錄。嗯，有一些人是如此專業(yè)，他們只能做高工資的工作。
我想多做一些，但我也有一些很大的開銷。排前三的分別是聯(lián)邦所得稅、保險和食品。我吃得很好，我有很多東西要保險。盡管如此，為了健康的花費(fèi)比食物和保險加起來還要多。幸運(yùn)的是，我的社會保險足以支付我的稅金。我認(rèn)為等我退休了，超過65歲的時候，稅收會更低。。如果你正在計(jì)劃退休，最好重新規(guī)劃一下。
我們都在為某些東西掙扎。

Edward Jameson, BA in Economics
I have a different take.
It used to be okay to be poor.
Years ago, there wasn’t something wrong with you if you were poor. Being poor was just a fact.
Of course, this does not apply to minorities. Our society deems minorities to be deficient no matter how successful they are.
Think I am wrong? Look at President Obama.
Obama is going to prove to be a middle-of-the-pack President. That still makes him more successful in politics than 99.99% of all politicians.
But yet, somehow President Obama was deficient. And while I can make obxtive criticisms of what he did, Yet someone else, making reading my critiques is going to think there was something “wrong” with President Obama.
But the larger symptom is that if you are poor, you must somewhow be defective.
This message is much more pervasive than we give it credit.
And the stress of not being poor is killing people.
As others have observed, being poor in the United States isn’t obxtively awful. I have been poor, and it was not that bad.
But the messaging that if you are poor you are diseased or broken is absolutely heinous.
Here is the the thing: people in earlier generations didn’t stay poor.
But now we have multi-generational poverty among even whites.
Is it due to poor decisions?
Fuck no.
It is due to internalizing the message of being broken or diseased.
That message hurts.
And that is why people are getting angrier and more violent. That is the real reason that people—especially men—are becoming mass shooters.
Because they fucking want to hurt people.
Why? Because people are hurting them all the time.
We do not think we’re doing it.
We do not believe we are being as judgmental as we are.
We don’t think that our judgmental attitudes are abusive and psychologically violent.
Even white people who explain black poverty by racism are adding to the problem.
It’s not that the argument is false. It is that white people who make this argument are telling black people that they are broken.
White people may not believe this.
This is why people hate liberals.
I’m not defending conservatives here. Conservatives are people who believe that some people are better than others and that the law should reflect that fact.
But in their lust to lift everyone out of poverty, liberals have made poverty into a disease.
I am not saying we should stop trying to lift people out of poverty.
But we should stop treating poverty as a disease. It is not a disease.
Poor people are not broken.
Or they weren’t until we started making them that way.

我有不同的看法。
過去，貧窮是可以接受的。
幾年前，如果你很窮，也沒有什么問題。貧窮只是一個事實(shí)。
當(dāng)然，這并不適用于少數(shù)群體。我們的社會認(rèn)為，無論少數(shù)人多么成功，他們都是有缺陷的。
你認(rèn)為我錯了嗎?看看奧巴馬總統(tǒng)。
奧巴馬將被證明是一位中庸的總統(tǒng)。但這仍然使他在政治上比99.99%的政治家更成功。
然而，某種程度而言，奧巴馬總統(tǒng)是有缺陷的。雖然我可以客觀地批評他的所作所為，但如果是其他人，讀了我的評論，就會認(rèn)為奧巴馬總統(tǒng)確實(shí)出了什么問題。
但是更大的癥狀是，如果你很窮，你一定有什么缺陷。
這種信息比我們想象的要普遍得多。
擺脫貧窮的壓力正在殺死人們。
正如其他人所觀察到的，在美國貧窮并不是客觀上的糟糕。我一直很窮，也沒那么糟糕。
但是，如果你很窮，那么生病或破產(chǎn)這樣的事是絕對令人發(fā)指的。
事情是這樣的:前幾代人并沒有一直貧窮下去。
但現(xiàn)在我們甚至在白人中也存在多代同堂的貧困。
是因?yàn)樵愀獾臎Q定嗎?
當(dāng)然他媽不是。
這是由于內(nèi)在的破壞或患病。
這就是為什么人們越來越憤怒，越來越暴力。這就是為什么人們——尤其是男人——正在成為的真正持槍罪犯原因。
因?yàn)樗麄兙褪窍雮e人。
為什么?因?yàn)槿藗円恢痹趥λ麄儭?br /> 我們不認(rèn)為我們正在這樣做。
我們不相信自己像現(xiàn)在這樣愛評判別人。
我們不認(rèn)為我們的判斷態(tài)度是虐待和心理暴力。
甚至用種族主義來解釋黑人貧困、白人也在加劇的這個問題。
這就是為什么人們討厭自由主義者。
我不是在為保守派辯護(hù)。保守派認(rèn)為有些人比其他人更好，法律應(yīng)該反映這一事實(shí)。
我并不是說我們應(yīng)該停止努力幫助人們擺脫貧困。
但是我們應(yīng)該停止把貧窮當(dāng)作一種疾病來對待。它不是一種疾病。
窮人沒有破產(chǎn)。
或者直到我們開始把他們搞成那樣。

Peter T Mayer, Founder | Designer | Creative
People struggling in the US > or = middle class in many other countries.
I spoke to a friend of mine in the US. He works in some government job. His wife works in telemarketing. They have two kids. They live in a two bedroom apartment that they rent.
He wants to buy a house but he said he can’t afford it. He thinks life is hard and it is difficult to get ahead financially.
I told him after he kept complaining that he is way wealthier than most of my friends back in Hungary. And Hungary is not a third world country. Think about all those poor souls living in third world countries in really poor conditions.
So struggling is relative.
On another note struggling has a sort of cultural or subcultural aspect. In Hungary many of my friends, even in their late 30s and early 40s don’t have kids, or have only one child. The reason is simple economics. If they cant afford a child, they won’t have one. Even though I’m Hungary education and healthcare is free.
Having a child or children is not cheap. And children need time for raising them up which means when you have kids you might have to put your dreams or goals on the shelf, either temporarily or even permanently. So ideally you have kids when your career is at least on its path, even if you just started.
One time I saw in CNN a man who had 20 something kids from more than a dozen women. How do you think these kids will grow up? Their father won’t help them for sure, especially with a low level job.
Finally, education needs to be mentioned here as well as part of struggling. Those who drop out of high school will have poor opportunities in life. In most cases lack of education and the “free” time that these dropouts find themselves in will make them make poor decisions and will get them attracted to the wrong crowd.
One last thing. Many immigrants come here and improve their lives gradually basically starting out with nothing. They start with cleaning and construction or factory jobs but then eventually find better paying jobs and maybe even start some school. This is a mentality question here.
Some people need to look in the mirror and find the cause. In themselves. Sometimes it is them and not the neighbor, the government, the system, the whatever else that is the root of the problem but their own mentality and way of thinking.
As an example, there is a shortage of truck drivers in the USA. They make decent money. You can work in it for two years save money and move on. Maybe you can start studying. Another option is work for a moving company. I did it for years. You can make 3000 dollars a month. Rent a cheap room, eat Ramens for two years and save.
There are opportunities for everyone in the US. With the right mentality and motivation of course.
On the other hand, most people in developing countries don’t have these same opportunities unfortunately. Just think about it.

在美國掙扎的人，在其他許多國家則是中產(chǎn)階級。
我和一個在美國的朋友談過。他在政府部門工作。他的妻子在電話銷售部門工作。他們有兩個孩子。他們住在租來的兩居室公寓里。
他想買一所房子，但他說他買不起。他認(rèn)為生活很艱難，很難在經(jīng)濟(jì)上獲得成功。
他比我在匈牙利大部分的朋友都要富有，還不停抱怨，然后我告訴他，匈牙利不是第三世界國家，想想那些生活在第三世界國家的窮人，他們的生活條件真的很差。
所以苦難是相對的。
另一方面，苦難掙扎本身也有一種文化或亞文化方面的關(guān)系。在匈牙利，我的很多朋友，甚至在30多歲、40出頭的時候都沒有孩子，或者只有一個孩子。原因很簡單，就是經(jīng)濟(jì)。如果他們養(yǎng)不起孩子，就不要了。盡管我們匈牙利人，教育和醫(yī)療都是免費(fèi)的。
有一個或多個孩子花費(fèi)并不便宜。孩子們需要時間來成長，這意味著當(dāng)你有了孩子，你可能不得不把你的夢想或目標(biāo)束之高閣，無論是暫時的還是永久的。所以理想的情況是，當(dāng)你的事業(yè)至少已經(jīng)走上正軌時，即使你才剛剛開始，你就有了孩子。
有一次，我在CNN上看到一個男人，他有20多個孩子，來自十幾個女人。你覺得這些孩子會怎么長大?他們的父親肯定不會幫助他們，尤其是在有份低水平工作的情況下。
最后，教育也是苦難的一部分。那些高中輟學(xué)的人在生活中會有很差的機(jī)會。在大多數(shù)情況下，缺乏教育和這些輟學(xué)者發(fā)現(xiàn)自己處于的“自由”時間會使他們做出錯誤的決定，并將他們引到錯誤的人群中。
最后一件事。許多移民來到這里，基本上是白手起家，逐漸改善他們的生活。他們開始從事清潔、建筑或工廠工作，但最終會找到薪水更高的工作，甚至可能會去上學(xué)。這是一個心態(tài)問題。
有些人需要照照鏡子找出原因。是在于自己。有時問題就在于自身，而不是在于鄰居、政府、系統(tǒng)、以及其他任何東西，根源就在于他們自己的心態(tài)和思考方式。
舉個例子，在美國卡車司機(jī)短缺。他們賺了不少錢。你可以在這工作兩年，存點(diǎn)錢，然后繼續(xù)進(jìn)步。也許你可以開始學(xué)習(xí)了。另一個選擇是為搬家公司工作。這個我就做了很多年。你一個月能掙3000美元。租一個便宜的房間，吃兩年的拉面，然后存錢。
在美國，人人都有機(jī)會。當(dāng)然要有正確的心態(tài)和動力。
另一方面，不幸的是，大多數(shù)發(fā)展中國家的人還沒有這樣的機(jī)會呢。自己想想看吧。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Rick Clark, Bachelor Military History and Wars , M:idea, School of Film & Media Studies, Ngee Ann Polytechnic (1968)
While studying the Gini Coefficient I came across a great example that explains a number of things. There is an island out in the Gulf, that island has 10 people working on a farm and they need people with experience to come down and work. The average salary is $100,000 a year. Several people answered the ad and went to the island to work. When they got there they found out that there were indeed 10 people who worked the farm. Nine of them were slaves and paid no salary, the owner made a million dollars a year. The farm owner didn’t lie, the average salary was indeed $100,000 per man.
The 64 richest people own over 50% of the world’s wealth. Here the top .01% own the majority of our wealth. The DOW is at 26,000, it’s up by thousands of points. How did that help the middle and lower class Americans?
A strange thing happens in the financial world. As income rises people borrow more money. Our debt load is probably more than can ever be paid back. Student loans alone total more than a trillion dollars. After graduation from college you expect to make a good salary. And as a rule you do, but waiting in the wings is a debt that may take you a lifetime to repay. Not only can it destroy your life but anyone who might have cosigned for you. Many parents have lost their homes trying to send their kids to school. Of all the major nations we are the only ones who do not ensure our children free education and healthcare.
Those people who are struggling know that as hard as times are now they are going to get worse. They see most of the wealth going to the richest. They see the mergers that cost jobs. To make ends meet they have to hold two jobs, They see the low employment rate as a cruel lie. Is it any wonder that so many people voted in November, 2016 for a candidate that was willing to promise anything that would get him a vote.
If you are a conservative and truly can’t understand why so many people complain about their struggles in what sounds like the good times…be warned. Every time a nation goes through this kind of divided situation a massive change comes, and it comes quite quickly. Here’s a couple examples, Germany in the 20s, Russia in the last part of the first decade of the 20th Century. Think of Italy in the 20s, The U S in the late 20s and 30s. You can go back further and look at the U S in the late 1850s. Politics is a pendulum, go to far in one direction and quite quickly you’ll find yourself to far in the other direction.
If you are a conservative, I hope you will understand that everyone dreams the same dream. They want to make a fair salary, they want their kids to be better of than themselves. The other dreams that you have for you and your family are shared by everyone, especially those that feel themselves struggling against a tide that washes them back into a nightmare of no hope.

在研究基尼系數(shù)時，我遇到了一個很好的例子，它解釋了很多事情。海灣里有個小島，島上有10個人在農(nóng)場工作，他們需要有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的人過來工作。平均年薪是10萬美元。幾個人看到招聘廣告，去島上工作了。當(dāng)他們到達(dá)那里時，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)確實(shí)有10個人在農(nóng)場工作。他們中有9人是奴隸，沒有工資，老板每年掙100萬美元。農(nóng)場主沒有撒謊，平均工資確實(shí)是每人10萬美元。
64位最富有的人擁有世界50%以上的財(cái)富。這里0.1%的富人擁有我們大部分的財(cái)富。道瓊斯指數(shù)目前為26000點(diǎn)，上漲了數(shù)千點(diǎn)。這對美國的中下層階級有什么幫助呢?
金融界發(fā)生了一件奇怪的事情。隨著收入的增加，人們會借更多的錢。我們的債務(wù)負(fù)擔(dān)可能永遠(yuǎn)都無法償還。單是學(xué)生貸款總額就超過了一萬億美元。大學(xué)畢業(yè)后，你希望有一份不錯的薪水。通常情況下等待你的會是可能需要你一生才能償還的債務(wù)。它不僅會毀了你的生活，也會毀了任何可能與你聯(lián)合署名的人。許多父母為了送孩子上學(xué)而失去了家園。在所有的主要國家中，我們是唯一不能確保我們的孩子得到免費(fèi)教育和醫(yī)療的國家。
那些正在掙扎的人知道，盡管現(xiàn)在的日子很艱難，但他們還會變得更糟。他們看到大部分的財(cái)富都流向了最富有的人。他們看到了以就業(yè)為代價的企業(yè)合并。為了維持生計(jì)，他們不得不做兩份工作，他們認(rèn)為低就業(yè)率是一個殘酷的謊言。難怪在2016年11月有那么多人投票給一位愿意承諾任何事情以獲得選票的候選人。
每當(dāng)一個國家經(jīng)歷這種分裂的局面，就會出現(xiàn)巨大的變化，而且變化的速度非常快。這里有幾個例子，20年代的德國，20世紀(jì)第一個十年的最后一個階段的俄羅斯。想想20年代的意大利，20年代末和30年代的美國。你可以追溯到更遠(yuǎn)的過去，看看19世紀(jì)50年代末的美國。政治是一個鐘擺，在一個方向上走得很遠(yuǎn)，很快你就會發(fā)現(xiàn)自己也在另一個方向上走得很遠(yuǎn)。
如果你是保守派，我希望你能明白，每個人都有同樣的夢想。他們想要一份公平的薪水，他們想讓自己的孩子比自己過得更好。你為你和你的家人做的其他夢，每個人都有，尤其是那些覺得自己在與潮水抗?fàn)?，把自己沖回沒有希望的噩夢的人。

Casey McNamara, Management in a Big Management Consulting Firm
There is a zone of null influence. This slows growth for many.
The western world masks this zone, but it exists, and is arguably one of the biggest threats to our long term economy.
Here’s what I mean:
A perfect economy would work something like this (these aren’t proven numbers, just illustrative).
The bottom 20% grow their income at 15% a year.
The 20–60% grow their income at 7% a year.
The 60–90% grow their income at 4% a year.
The 10% grow their income at 2% a year.
Under this economic model, the people constantly constrained for cash are increasing their ability to spend on goods and the money gets immediately returned back into the economy. The wealthy still grow their wealth at a gross rate still higher than anyone, just less so percentage wise.
Instead, this model is flipped. Because of the investment economy, the wealthiest grow their already existing wealth at a larger percentage. The middle to lower classes have a mostly stagnant income.
This will inevitably lead the collapse of our economy.
Why does this work out this way? Investments, or lack thereof for middle to lower class people.
Forget Bernie Sanders. Forget AOC. Forget socialism. Redistribution of wealth won’t solve this problem. What will solve the problem -Fighting the system rigged against people not born into wealth.
A) immediately get rid of investment incentives that the rich primarily leverage (ie in mortgage interest and capital gains tax deductions)
B) provide extra incentives to lower income investors (ie keep zero capital gains tax for investors with incomes less than $75k)
C) find a way to get companies to bump 401K matches up to (at least 10%) for lower income investors. This may not be something we should mandate, but it’s a worthy topic of discussion. Healthy retirement funds are critical to the longevity of our economy.
D) fix the stupidity that targets poor people. Why do student loans have a an interest rate 3x higher than mortgages ? Yeah yeah, I get that there is higher risk, but high interest rate loans are also a huge contributing factor as to why middle class earners never have spare money.
I am not a believer in socialism. But in order for capitalism to work efficiently, let the wolves take care of themselves while providing extra incentives for those who need it. And especially don’t feed the wolves at the expense of all others - as our current system is designed.

有一個無效影響區(qū)。這減緩了許多國家的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長。
西方世界掩蓋了這個區(qū)域，但它確實(shí)存在，可以說是對我們長期經(jīng)濟(jì)的最大威脅之一。
我的意思是:
一個完美的經(jīng)濟(jì)體應(yīng)該是這樣運(yùn)作的(這些都不是經(jīng)過驗(yàn)證的數(shù)字，只是說明性的)。
底層20%的人以每年15%的速度增長他們的收入。
20-60%的人以每年7%的速度增長他們的收入。
60% - 90%的人以每年4%的速度增長他們的收入。
10%的人以每年2%的速度增長他們的收入。
在這種經(jīng)濟(jì)模式下，現(xiàn)金不斷受限的人們增加了購買商品的能力，而錢又立即回到了經(jīng)濟(jì)體系中。富人的財(cái)富增長速度仍然高于所有人，只是百分比有所下降。
相反，我們的這個模型是翻轉(zhuǎn)過來的。由于投資經(jīng)濟(jì)，最富有的人以更大的比例增長他們現(xiàn)有的財(cái)富。中下層階級的收入基本停滯不前。
這將不可避免地導(dǎo)致我們經(jīng)濟(jì)的崩潰。
為什么會這樣呢?投資，或中下階層的人缺乏這種能力。
忘了伯尼·桑德斯吧。忘了AOC吧。忘了社會主義吧。財(cái)富的再分配不會解決這個問題。解決問題的辦法是，與針對非出生在富裕家庭的人的體制作斗爭。
A)立即取消富人主要利用的投資激勵(如抵押貸款利息和資本利得稅減免)
B)為低收入投資者提供額外的激勵(即對收入低于7.5萬美元的投資者免征資本利得稅)
C)想辦法讓公司為低收入投資者增加401K(至少10%)。這可能不是我們應(yīng)該強(qiáng)制要求的，但卻是一個值得討論的話題。健康的退休基金對我們經(jīng)濟(jì)的長久發(fā)展至關(guān)重要。
D)修正針對窮人的愚蠢行為。為什么學(xué)生貸款的利率是抵押貸款的3倍?是的，是的，我知道學(xué)生貸款有更高的風(fēng)險，但高利率的貸款也是一個巨大的影響因素，為什么中產(chǎn)階級的收入者從來沒有多余的錢。
我不相信社會主義。但為了讓資本主義有效運(yùn)作，讓狼群照顧好自己，同時要為那些需要的人提供額外的激勵。尤其是不要以犧牲其他所有人的利益來喂養(yǎng)狼——因?yàn)槲覀儺?dāng)前的制度就是這樣設(shè)計(jì)的。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Jackson Lawson, B.A. Political Science & History (1976)
An interesting list of responses to this question. I tend to side with those who believe that for most, living within your means, sharing resources with others in similar situations, and determining to find a path that works for you in the meantime is the only way out. Those who blame it on rising health and college costs have a point but the very entity that most seem to go to for a solution (government) is often a major sourse of the problem. When government pushes everyone towards college and tries to make it seem free with loans that the borrower doesn’t understand or has heard that he/she may not have to fully repay, everyone wants to play at student for a while. They may even borrow enough to cover their living expenses instead of working to meet basic needs. Health care costs have risen in direct proportion to government interference in health care. After Obamacare made it significantly worse, the left wants to double down. But insurance is first a matter of efficiency in claims handling and I trust private companies to be significantly more efficient than government.
In the end, I think the primary reason people seem to be struggling are two:
The first was alluded to in another answer. The workforce has grown significantly and greater supply tends to hold down wages when the number of jobs hasn’t caught up. Automation has had a huge impact here as more and more work is done by machines and fewer jobs are available. But as the economy has grown, the labor market is tight, and wage growth is beginning and will continue if the number of available jobs outpaces the supply of workers.
Secondly is a matter of attitude. What is it to struggle? Is it always a bad thing and something to be avoided? Can good come from it?
When people struggle and feel sorry for themselves, they become victims in their own minds and that mentality usually leads to a need for even greater struggles. A victim can’t see that many of their problems are their own doing. It’s so much easier to blame others. Always - it’s not MY fault… The political left has successfully created a lot of large groups of victims. I am NOT saying that the struggles of African-Americans, for example aren’t real. Just that they’re at an additional disadvantage if they believe that they’re victims and therefore cannot succeed no matter what they do. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.
When people struggle without feeling sorry for themselves, however, they learn, grow, and their potential begins to improve. They don’t blame someone else because they didn’t get that great new job. They try and figure out what they need to do differently to win a future opportunity. They don’t have a cadre of people in their lives or ‘leaders’ with an interest in ensuring that they keep their victim status. Or if they do, they see through them and push on forward anyway. They have learned that victims never win but that people who refuse to be victims have a real shot.
On the other hand, when people don’t struggle in real ways, they quickly become weaker. Of course most people believe they struggle, and even the wealthy think they’re victims fairly often. But they don’t often dwell on it. They find a way to get done what needs to be done anyway. Usually creatively, occasionally dishonestly (like all people). If they don’t, their wealth won’t last and likely would never have existed. It’s not at all rare for wealthy families to discover that one or two generations later, the wealth is largely gone.
Of course there are well meaning people who do get crapped on by life. Even they often fall into the same categories. Look at the soldiers who’ve come home with no legs. They can feel sorry for themselves and live miserably in a VA hospital someplace or on the streets. But many have refused to be victims and have done amazing things.

對這個問題有一系列有趣的回答。我傾向于支持這樣的觀點(diǎn):對于大多數(shù)人來說，量入為出，與處境相似的人分享資源，下定決心找到一條適合自己的道路是唯一的出路。那些將其歸咎于日益增長的醫(yī)療消費(fèi)和大學(xué)費(fèi)用的人有一定的道理，但大多數(shù)人尋求解決方案(政府)的實(shí)體往往是問題的主要根源。當(dāng)政府把每個人都推向大學(xué)，并試圖讓貸款看起來是免費(fèi)的，借款人不理解或聽說他/她可能不需要全部償還，每個人都想在學(xué)生時期玩一段時間。他們甚至可能借到足夠的錢來支付生活費(fèi)用，而不是工作來滿足基本需求。衛(wèi)生保健費(fèi)用的增加與政府對衛(wèi)生保健的干預(yù)成正比。在奧巴馬醫(yī)改讓事情變得更糟之后，左派想要加倍下注。但保險首先是索賠處理效率的問題，我相信私營公司會比政府效率高得多。
最后，我認(rèn)為人們陷入困境的主要原因有兩個:
第一個在另一個答復(fù)中有所提及。勞動力顯著增長，當(dāng)工作崗位數(shù)量沒有跟上時，更大的供應(yīng)往往會壓低工資。自動化在這里產(chǎn)生了巨大的影響，因?yàn)樵絹碓蕉嗟墓ぷ魇怯蓹C(jī)器完成的，而可用的工作卻越來越少。但是，隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長，勞動力市場吃緊，工資增長已經(jīng)開始，如果就業(yè)機(jī)會的數(shù)量超過工人的供應(yīng)，工資增長就將開始。
其次是態(tài)度問題。掙扎是什么?它總是一件壞事，需要避免嗎?它能帶來好處嗎?
當(dāng)人們掙扎并為自己感到難過時，他們就成了自己思想中的受害者，而這種思想通常會導(dǎo)致人們需要更大的掙扎。受害者看不到他們的許多問題正是他們自己造成的。責(zé)備別人要容易得多?？偸恰@不是我的錯……政治左派成功地制造了大量的受害者。我并不是說非洲裔美國人的掙扎不是真實(shí)的。如果他們認(rèn)為自己是受害者，因此無論做什么都不可能成功，那么他們就處于更不利的地位。這是失敗的自證應(yīng)驗(yàn)。
然而，當(dāng)人們努力奮斗而不自怨自艾時，他們就會學(xué)習(xí)、成長，他們的潛能就會開始提高。他們不會因?yàn)闆]有得到那份好工作而責(zé)怪別人。他們試圖找出自己需要做哪些不同的事情來贏得未來的機(jī)會。在他們的生活中，沒有一個核心的人或“領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者”有興趣確保他們保持受害者的地位。或者，即使他們這樣做了，他們也會看穿他們，繼續(xù)前進(jìn)。他們知道受害者永遠(yuǎn)不會贏，但那些拒絕成為受害者的人有真正的機(jī)會。
另一方面，當(dāng)人們不以真正的方式奮斗時，他們很快就會變得軟弱。當(dāng)然，大多數(shù)人認(rèn)為他們在掙扎，甚至富人也認(rèn)為他們經(jīng)常是受害者。但他們通常不會細(xì)想。他們總能找到一種方法來完成需要完成的事情。通常用創(chuàng)意，或偶爾不誠實(shí)的行為(像所有人一樣)。如果他們不這樣做，他們的財(cái)富就不會持久，也可能永遠(yuǎn)不會再存在。富有的家庭發(fā)現(xiàn)一兩代人之后，財(cái)富基本上消失了，這一點(diǎn)也不罕見。
當(dāng)然也有好心的人會被生活欺騙。甚至他們也常常屬于同一類別?？纯茨切]有腿的歸國士兵。他們會為自己感到難過，悲慘地生活在某個地方或街上的退伍軍人醫(yī)院里。但許多人拒絕成為受害者，并做出了驚人的事情。