Are you struggling to get by or do you feel like you're living within your means? Do you feel 'poor' or 'rich'?
你是在挣扎过活,还是量入为出?你感觉"贫穷"还是"富有"?
For most of us, the answer may be all in our heads.
对于我们大多数人来说,答案可能已在脑子里了。
Yesterday, a few of you hijacked Sue's post to discuss a WSJ
column that offers advice to the 'poor rich,' those making
upwards of a quarter-million dollars a year, who feel like they're struggling to get by.
一些读者在"工作•家"专栏作家苏•席兰伯格(Sue Shellenbarger)的文章后发表评论,讨论起了向"贫穷的有钱人"提供建议的另一篇专栏文章。"贫穷的有钱人"指那些年薪25万美元左右的人,他们觉得自己生计艰难。
The
column, by Brett Arends, was written in
response to this post by University of Chicago law professor Todd Henderson, entitled 'We Are the Super Rich,' in which he says that those in his
incomebracket (
upwards of $250,000) are by no means 'rich,' and shouldn't have their taxes raised. After paying his
mortgage, private-school bills, taxes, insurance, doctors, groceries, cellphones, cable, gas, etc., Henderson says that there's not much left. With a tax increase he fears he'll have to get rid of the guy who cuts his lawn or his daughter's art classes. If that doesn't work, he would sell his house or cars, he says.
由阿伦兹(Brett Arends)撰写的这篇文章是回应芝加哥大学(University of Chicago)法学教授亨德森(Todd Henderson)的一个帖子,名为"我们是超级富豪"。亨德森在帖子里写道,他的收入档次(在25万美元左右)根本就不"富有",不应该提高对他们的税收。亨德森说,在支付抵押贷款、私立学校学杂费、税收、保险、医疗、食品、手机、有线电视和汽油钱等等之后,就剩不下什么了。如果再提高税收,他担心将不得不解雇修剪草坪的工人或取消女儿的艺术课,如果这还没用,他就得出售房屋或汽车了。
Setting aside Henderson's political
argument, Arends counsels him to 'adjust his expectations.' Henderson
obviously doesn't think he's rich, but he's still expecting a certain standard of living that he seems
essentially" target="_blank" title="ad.本质上,基本上">
essentiallyunable to afford. 'The real
challenge is tackling the psychology,' Arends adds.
阿伦兹没有理会亨德森的政治讨论,只是建议他"调整自己的预期"。 亨德森显然认为自己不富裕,但他仍在期待某种他似乎根本负担不起的生活标准。阿伦兹补充说,真正的挑战在于解决心理问题。
That's a lesson I've
learned slowly amid the trade-offs I've made as a parent, giving up things that I once thought were
essential, but have come to realize were luxuries.
这是我作为母亲不断采取折衷手段而慢慢学到的一个经验,放弃一些东西,我曾经认为那些是必须的,但逐渐认识到它们其实是奢侈品。
When my son was born, we became a single-earner household and made the
requisite 'sacrifices' to do it. No more cable TV. No landline. One cellphone shared between my husband and me. No more takeout lunch or dinner, no more dining out-barring very special occasions. No fancy vacations. We live in an
apartment that is small, but that we can afford. We
rarely hire babysitters. A recovering clothes-horse, I rely heavily on hand-me-downs. Many of these cutbacks are on Arends' list of advice for Henderson.
当我儿子出生的时候,我们家里只有一个人挣钱,因此做出了一些必须的"牺牲"。我们不再看有线电视,撤销了固定电话,我丈夫和我共用一部手机。除非有非常特殊的情况,否则午饭和正餐不再叫外卖,不再外出吃饭。奢侈的度假也不复存在。我们住着一套能够负担的小公寓里。我们很少请人照看孩子。晾衣架是翻新的,我非常依赖这些旧东西。许多减少开支的方法在阿伦兹为亨德森提供的建议中都有提及。
The way I've come to see it, I've given up small luxuries for two big ones: The best child care we can afford and the
privilege of living in one of the best cities in the world (New York) - with
incidentally a lot of free great stuff to do. Whether I'm rich or poor seems pretty subjective-compared to whom?
在我看来,我已经放弃了在两件大事上的小小奢侈:一个是我们能负担得起的给孩子的最好照顾,另一个是生活在
世界上最好城市之一(纽约)的特权,顺便说一句,还有许多免费的活动。我是富有还是贫穷,似乎是相当主观的事情,就看跟谁比了。
Readers, are your expectations for your standard of living in line with how you live? What
financial trade-offs have you made to
achieve your particular style of juggle?
读者们,你们对生活标准的预期与你的实际生活水平相符吗?你在财务上做了什么折衷以实现自己特定的生活方式?