網(wǎng)友討論：美國窮人是世界上最富有的窮人嗎?
Do you agree with me that the American poor are the richest poor in the world?
譯文簡介
不，美國的窮人絕不是世界上最富有的窮人。
正文翻譯
Here are poor people in America:
下面是美國的窮人:
下面是美國的窮人:
Here are poor people in Britain:
下面是英國的窮人:
No, the American poor are, by no means, the richest poor in the world.
不，美國的窮人絕不是世界上最富有的窮人。
America is the wealthiest country in the world, in terms of GDP, it’s one of the richest in the world, in terms of average income, and it has more billionaires than any country by far.
就國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值而言，美國是世界上最富有的國家之一，就平均收入而言，美國是世界上最富有的國家之一，它擁有的億萬富翁比目前任何國家都多。
就國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值而言，美國是世界上最富有的國家之一，就平均收入而言，美國是世界上最富有的國家之一，它擁有的億萬富翁比目前任何國家都多。
But the US also has disturbingly high levels of inequality, and an upsettingly high level of poverty, compared to other wealthy countries (American has twice as many people per capita living on less that $5.50 per day than Canada or the UK, and ten times as many as France or Germany). And we don’t tend to fund as comprehensive social services and social programs for the poor.
但與其他富裕國家相比，美國的不平等程度也高得令人不安，貧困程度也高得令人不安(美國人均每天生活費不足5.5美元的人數(shù)是加拿大或英國的兩倍，是法國或德國的十倍)。我們并不傾向于為窮人提供全面的社會服務和社會項目。
但與其他富裕國家相比，美國的不平等程度也高得令人不安，貧困程度也高得令人不安(美國人均每天生活費不足5.5美元的人數(shù)是加拿大或英國的兩倍，是法國或德國的十倍)。我們并不傾向于為窮人提供全面的社會服務和社會項目。
The poorest Americans are presumably better off than the poorest people in the DRC, or even India or Brazil.But compared to the the poorest people in Canada, Australia or Western Europe? We probably don’t look so good.
最貧窮的美國人可能比剛果民主共和國、甚至印度或巴西最貧窮的人生活得更好。但與加拿大、澳大利亞或西歐最貧窮的人相比呢?我們可能看起來不太好。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
最貧窮的美國人可能比剛果民主共和國、甚至印度或巴西最貧窮的人生活得更好。但與加拿大、澳大利亞或西歐最貧窮的人相比呢?我們可能看起來不太好。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 1 )
收藏
I think the question itself is misguided, but you’re comparing a little boy who seems to be in some sort of government subsidized housing to a woman who decided to live in a tent near a pile of trash.
According to the United States Census Bureau over 30 million Americans live in poverty. Poverty is defined as reported income below $21,960 for a family of 3 in 2021.
However this figure does not include the social benefits received:
free medical coverage (Medicaid).
free college or university education.
free or subsidized housing (section 8). These are normal private sector rentals where the government simply pays part or all of the rent.
free food (SNAP ~ $200 / month) + food pantries for anyone who runs out.
The average American family defined as poor lives in an private, air conditioned, centrally heated house or apartment, in good repair.
They own a vehicle. Slightly less than half of poor families have two or more cars.
At least one TV with cable or satellite, computer or tablet with internet and a smartphone.
They shop at regular stores like Walmart for everyday stuff and have all the household amenities of the middle class with the “poverty” status being defined only as their official income figure which they report to the IRS.
我認為這個問題本身就被誤導了，但是你把一個似乎住在政府補貼住房里的小男孩和一個決定住在一堆垃圾旁邊帳篷里的女人做了比較。
根據(jù)美國人口普查局的數(shù)據(jù)，超過3000萬美國人生活在貧困中。貧困的定義是2021年一個三口之家的報告收入低于21960美元。
但這一數(shù)字不包括所獲得的社會福利:
免費醫(yī)療保險(醫(yī)療補助)。
免費的大學教育。
免費或補貼住房(第8條)。這些是正常的私營部門租金，政府只支付部分或全部租金。
免費食物(SNAP ~ 200美元/月)+任何人都可以用完的食品儲藏室。
被定義為貧困的美國家庭一般生活在私人的、有空調(diào)的、中央供暖的、維修良好的房子或公寓里。
他們有一輛車。略少于一半的貧困家庭擁有兩輛或兩輛以上的汽車。
至少有一臺有線電視或衛(wèi)星電視，一臺可以上網(wǎng)的電腦或平板電腦和一部智能手機。
他們在沃爾瑪?shù)瘸Ｒ?guī)商店購買日常用品，擁有中產(chǎn)階級的所有家庭設施，“貧困”狀態(tài)僅被定義為他們向國稅局報告的官方收入數(shù)據(jù)。
Excellent comment. Poverty is often judged relative to a local standard. There's absolutely no comparison btw bottom 1% in USA and India for example. And someone 100 years ago who had a car, a/c, access to free education, even to university, and health care would be considered wealthy.
優(yōu)秀的評論。貧窮通常是根據(jù)當?shù)氐臉藴蕘砼袛嗟?。順便說一句，在美國和印度，收入最低的1%絕對沒有可比性。100年前，如果一個人有一輛車，一臺空調(diào)，可以享受免費教育，甚至上大學，還有醫(yī)療保健，他就會被認為是富人。
That might be the American dream now in many cities living in a house with many cities facing housing affordability crisis.
這可能是現(xiàn)在許多城市的美國夢，許多城市面臨住房負擔能力危機。
High housing prices just mean that there are enough people who can afford to pay them. Like.. an entire city of people! Yes, not everyone can afford to live on any income in every part of every city, but this has been true throughout human history, and people who see this as a problem define it as a “crisis”.
高房價只是意味著有足夠多的人能夠支付得起。像. .整座城市的人!是的，不是每個人都能在每個城市的每個地方靠任何收入生活，但這在人類歷史上一直是事實，把這視為一個問題的人把它定義為“危機”。
You used a picture of someone that is most likely drug addicted or mentally ill to represent homelessness in the USA and then you used a picture of a poor person to represent Europe. Enjoy your European up votes I guess.
Plenty of people live on the streets in tents and shanty towns in Europe and plenty of people live in public housing in the USA.
Here is homelessness in Britain not just poor:
你用一張很可能吸毒或有精神疾病的人的照片來代表美國的無家可歸者，然后你用一張窮人的照片來代表歐洲。我想你享受你的歐洲投票吧。
在歐洲，很多人住在街頭的帳篷和棚戶區(qū)，在美國，很多人住在公共住房里。
英國無家可歸者不僅僅是窮人:
The picture you used is from Alameda County and indeed that is an expensive place to live, as a matter of fact more than half of all unsheltered homeless people in the U.S. - some 51 percent - are in California.
That begs the question, “why”. The answer is pretty simple and is evident from reading many answers and comments right here on quora. They are either in the above mentioned addicted and mentally ill category or they just refuse to move somewhere else where it is not as expensive with more jobs but has weather they dont want to live in.
if you can pass a ged test and are mentally and physically fit there are jobs all over the country in places “not California” that will support you.
紐約州的全部基本福利現(xiàn)在價值38,004美元。比我當兵時掙的還多。如果你沒有申請并得到那筆錢，那要么是因為你有毒癮，要么是因為你有精神疾病，要么是因為你只是不想生活在社會上。
你使用的圖片來自阿拉米達縣，那里確實是一個生活成本很高的地方，事實上，美國一半以上的無家可歸者(約51%)都在加州。
這就引出了一個問題，“為什么”。答案很簡單，從quora上的許多回答和評論中就能看出來。他們要么是上面提到的癮君子和精神病患者，要么就是拒絕搬到其他地方，因為那里沒有那么貴，有更多的工作，但有他們不想住的天氣。
如果你能通過ged考試（驗證個人是否擁有美國或加拿大高中級別學術技能而設立的考試），精神和身體都很健康，那么全國各地都有工作機會，而不是加州。
The next greatest invention surely is not another cool gadgets, but a simple way to distribute the wealth and a total eradication of hardcore poverty. Wait, country like Norway has done it, how?
Answer: Managed your country's resources, taxed the rich and use the money to provide top infrastructures and support system to the poor. Simple enough?
下一個最偉大的發(fā)明肯定不是另一個很酷的小玩意，而是一種分配財富的簡單方法，以及徹底消除赤貧的方法。等等，像挪威這樣的國家已經(jīng)做到了，怎么做到的?
答案:管理你國家的資源，向富人征稅，用這些錢為窮人提供頂級的基礎設施和支持系統(tǒng)。夠簡單嗎？
I don’t know how does it look now, but when my parents went on a trip to the US in the late 90s they returned shocked at the levels of poverty in some areas. They have never seen anything like it. And they travelled from Poland just after transformation from Com...ism and before the European unx membership (which was single most important factor for Poland’s development). They have also previously traveled Romania, Bulgaria during the 1980s and still it was the US that shocked them.
我不知道現(xiàn)在情況如何，但當我的父母在90年代末去美國旅行時，他們回來時震驚于一些地區(qū)的貧困程度。他們從未見過這樣的景象。他們是從波蘭出發(fā)的，當時波蘭剛剛從共產(chǎn)主義轉型，還沒有加入歐盟(這是波蘭發(fā)展最重要的一個因素)。在20世紀80年代，他們還去過羅馬尼亞和保加利亞，但令他們震驚的是美國。
China actually has more billionaires than the US, on a PPP basis is richer… and has poorer poor people.
中國的億萬富翁實際上比美國多，按購買力平價計算，中國更富有，窮人更窮。
On a PPP basis China is not richer than the USA, at least not on a per capita basis. In PPP China is only slightly richer than Brazil (again, per capita is what matters to discuss poverty or lack thereof), so very far from the USA.
按購買力平價計算，中國并不比美國富有，至少按人均計算是這樣。按購買力平價計算，中國只比巴西富裕一點(同樣，人均是討論貧困或缺乏貧困的重要因素)，與美國相差甚遠。
Pretty much what Ygor said; discussing GDP as a whole, China’s GDP PPP is larger than the US though the US has a larger GDP flat.
In terms of GDP PPP per capita which matters when comparing quality of life, China is lacking. They’re expected to grow to offer similar median wealth per adult adjusted for PPP by 2050–2060 however, if the US doesn’t drastically improve.
和Ygor說的差不多;從整體上討論GDP，中國的GDP購買力平價比美國大，盡管美國的GDP水平更大。
就比較生活質(zhì)量時很重要的人均GDP購買力平價而言，中國是欠缺的。然而，如果美國沒有大幅改善，預計到2050-2060年，這些國家的人均財富中值將持平。
Even GDP per capita does not take account of distribution within the country. The US has become vastly more unequal over the last 40 years.
即使是人均GDP也沒有考慮到國內(nèi)的分配情況。在過去40年里，美國的不平等程度大幅提高。
Yes; that's probably the most major reason as to why the average American adult is so relatively poor. Other reasons include poor or inefficient support for individual wellbeing, lacklustre intergenerational mobility, low income efficiency, and honestly just low real disposable income. I say real disposable income, as measurements on US disposable income are inflated compared to more “socialist” countries.
Industrialisation is also something major to take into account, though wouldn't be too handy when comparing two first-world countries.
是的,這可能是美國成年人平均相對貧窮的最主要原因。其他原因包括對個人福祉的支持不足或效率低下，代際流動性缺乏，收入效率低，老實說，實際可支配收入很低。我說的實際可支配收入，是因為與更“社會主義”的國家相比，美國可支配收入的衡量標準被夸大了。
工業(yè)化也是需要考慮的主要因素，盡管在比較兩個第一世界國家時并不太方便。
While I largely agree with your sentiment, cherry picking images to propagate your point is disingenuous.
The top photo is likely one of the worst circumstances you’ll find in the US in regards to being destitute, and the woman pictured likely is chemically addicted, mentally ill, or both.
I’m 100% certain you can find people living in these conditions in most every major metropolitan area in the world, likely for the reasons I cited above.
The bottom photo is one of the better outcomes illustrating the circumstances involved in being “poor.” Healthy children playing, ostensibly at a school or other publicly funded institution .
I’m 100% certain you can find “poor” children living in these conditions in most every major metropolitan area.
雖然我在很大程度上同意你的觀點，但挑選圖片來宣傳你的觀點是不真誠的。
最上面的照片可能是你在美國能找到的最貧窮的情況之一，照片中的女人可能對化學物質(zhì)上癮，有精神疾病，或者兩者兼而有之。
我百分之百確定，在世界上大多數(shù)大都市地區(qū)，你都能找到生活在這種條件下的人，可能是我上面提到的原因。
下面的照片是一個比較好的結果，說明了“貧窮”所涉及的情況。健康的孩子在玩耍，表面上是在學?；蚱渌操Y助機構。
我百分百確定，在大多數(shù)大都市地區(qū)，你都能找到生活在這種條件下的“貧窮”兒童。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
you used a picture of a homeless person in the first and then a child from an estate but not even the worst looking estate fyi.
maybe try using pictures that are a bit more like for like
您首先使用了一張無家可歸者的照片，然后是一個來自住宅區(qū)的孩子，但甚至不是看起來最糟糕的住宅區(qū)作為參考
也許可以嘗試使用更像的圖片，像