网友讨论：美国穷人是世界上最富有的穷人吗?
Do you agree with me that the American poor are the richest poor in the world?
译文简介
不，美国的穷人绝不是世界上最富有的穷人。
正文翻译
Here are poor people in America:
下面是美国的穷人:
下面是美国的穷人:
Here are poor people in Britain:
下面是英国的穷人:
No, the American poor are, by no means, the richest poor in the world.
不，美国的穷人绝不是世界上最富有的穷人。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
就国内生产总值而言，美国是世界上最富有的国家之一，就平均收入而言，美国是世界上最富有的国家之一，它拥有的亿万富翁比目前任何国家都多。
就国内生产总值而言，美国是世界上最富有的国家之一，就平均收入而言，美国是世界上最富有的国家之一，它拥有的亿万富翁比目前任何国家都多。
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.
但与其他富裕国家相比，美国的不平等程度也高得令人不安，贫困程度也高得令人不安(美国人均每天生活费不足5.5美元的人数是加拿大或英国的两倍，是法国或德国的十倍)。我们并不倾向于为穷人提供全面的社会服务和社会项目。
但与其他富裕国家相比，美国的不平等程度也高得令人不安，贫困程度也高得令人不安(美国人均每天生活费不足5.5美元的人数是加拿大或英国的两倍，是法国或德国的十倍)。我们并不倾向于为穷人提供全面的社会服务和社会项目。
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.
最贫穷的美国人可能比刚果民主共和国、甚至印度或巴西最贫穷的人生活得更好。但与加拿大、澳大利亚或西欧最贫穷的人相比呢?我们可能看起来不太好。
最贫穷的美国人可能比刚果民主共和国、甚至印度或巴西最贫穷的人生活得更好。但与加拿大、澳大利亚或西欧最贫穷的人相比呢?我们可能看起来不太好。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 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.
我认为这个问题本身就被误导了，但是你把一个似乎住在政府补贴住房里的小男孩和一个决定住在一堆垃圾旁边帐篷里的女人做了比较。
根据美国人口普查局的数据，超过3000万美国人生活在贫困中。贫困的定义是2021年一个三口之家的报告收入低于21960美元。
但这一数字不包括所获得的社会福利:
免费医疗保险(医疗补助)。
免费的大学教育。
免费或补贴住房(第8条)。这些是正常的私营部门租金，政府只支付部分或全部租金。
免费食物(SNAP ~ 200美元/月)+任何人都可以用完的食品储藏室。
被定义为贫困的美国家庭一般生活在私人的、有空调的、中央供暖的、维修良好的房子或公寓里。
他们有一辆车。略少于一半的贫困家庭拥有两辆或两辆以上的汽车。
至少有一台有线电视或卫星电视，一台可以上网的电脑或平板电脑和一部智能手机。
他们在沃尔玛等常规商店购买日常用品，拥有中产阶级的所有家庭设施，“贫困”状态仅被定义为他们向国税局报告的官方收入数据。
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.
优秀的评论。贫穷通常是根据当地的标准来判断的。顺便说一句，在美国和印度，收入最低的1%绝对没有可比性。100年前，如果一个人有一辆车，一台空调，可以享受免费教育，甚至上大学，还有医疗保健，他就会被认为是富人。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
That might be the American dream now in many cities living in a house with many cities facing housing affordability crisis.
这可能是现在许多城市的美国梦，许多城市面临住房负担能力危机。
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”.
高房价只是意味着有足够多的人能够支付得起。像. .整座城市的人!是的，不是每个人都能在每个城市的每个地方靠任何收入生活，但这在人类历史上一直是事实，把这视为一个问题的人把它定义为“危机”。
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:
你用一张很可能吸毒或有精神疾病的人的照片来代表美国的无家可归者，然后你用一张穷人的照片来代表欧洲。我想你享受你的欧洲投票吧。
在欧洲，很多人住在街头的帐篷和棚户区，在美国，很多人住在公共住房里。
英国无家可归者不仅仅是穷人:
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.
纽约州的全部基本福利现在价值38,004美元。比我当兵时挣的还多。如果你没有申请并得到那笔钱，那要么是因为你有毒瘾，要么是因为你有精神疾病，要么是因为你只是不想生活在社会上。
你使用的图片来自阿拉米达县，那里确实是一个生活成本很高的地方，事实上，美国一半以上的无家可归者(约51%)都在加州。
这就引出了一个问题，“为什么”。答案很简单，从quora上的许多回答和评论中就能看出来。他们要么是上面提到的瘾君子和精神病患者，要么就是拒绝搬到其他地方，因为那里没有那么贵，有更多的工作，但有他们不想住的天气。
如果你能通过ged考试（验证个人是否拥有美国或加拿大高中级别学术技能而设立的考试），精神和身体都很健康，那么全国各地都有工作机会，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?
下一个最伟大的发明肯定不是另一个很酷的小玩意，而是一种分配财富的简单方法，以及彻底消除赤贫的方法。等等，像挪威这样的国家已经做到了，怎么做到的?
答案:管理你国家的资源，向富人征税，用这些钱为穷人提供顶级的基础设施和支持系统。够简单吗？
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 communism 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.
我不知道现在情况如何，但当我的父母在90年代末去美国旅行时，他们回来时震惊于一些地区的贫困程度。他们从未见过这样的景象。他们是从波兰出发的，当时波兰刚刚从共产主义转型，还没有加入欧盟(这是波兰发展最重要的一个因素)。在20世纪80年代，他们还去过罗马尼亚和保加利亚，但令他们震惊的是美国。
China actually has more billionaires than the US, on a PPP basis is richer… and has poorer poor people.
中国的亿万富翁实际上比美国多，按购买力平价计算，中国更富有，穷人更穷。
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.
按购买力平价计算，中国并不比美国富有，至少按人均计算是这样。按购买力平价计算，中国只比巴西富裕一点(同样，人均是讨论贫困或缺乏贫困的重要因素)，与美国相差甚远。
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说的差不多;从整体上讨论GDP，中国的GDP购买力平价比美国大，尽管美国的GDP水平更大。
就比较生活质量时很重要的人均GDP购买力平价而言，中国是欠缺的。然而，如果美国没有大幅改善，预计到2050-2060年，这些国家的人均财富中值将持平。
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也没有考虑到国内的分配情况。在过去40年里，美国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,这可能是美国成年人平均相对贫穷的最主要原因。其他原因包括对个人福祉的支持不足或效率低下，代际流动性缺乏，收入效率低，老实说，实际可支配收入很低。我说的实际可支配收入，是因为与更“社会主义”的国家相比，美国可支配收入的衡量标准被夸大了。
工业化也是需要考虑的主要因素，尽管在比较两个第一世界国家时并不太方便。
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.
虽然我在很大程度上同意你的观点，但挑选图片来宣传你的观点是不真诚的。
最上面的照片可能是你在美国能找到的最贫穷的情况之一，照片中的女人可能对化学物质上瘾，有精神疾病，或者两者兼而有之。
我百分之百确定，在世界上大多数大都市地区，你都能找到生活在这种条件下的人，可能是我上面提到的原因。
下面的照片是一个比较好的结果，说明了“贫穷”所涉及的情况。健康的孩子在玩耍，表面上是在学校或其他公共资助机构。
我百分百确定，在大多数大都市地区，你都能找到生活在这种条件下的“贫穷”儿童。
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
您首先使用了一张无家可归者的照片，然后是一个来自住宅区的孩子，但甚至不是看起来最糟糕的住宅区作为参考
也许可以尝试使用更像的图片，像