题⽬：贫穷的本质 Poverty isn't a lack of character; it's a lack of cash
作者: Rutger Bregman
I'd like to start with a simple question: Why do the poor make so many poor decisions? I know it's a harsh question, but take a look at the data. The poor borrow more, save less, smoke more, exercise less, drink more and eat less healthfully. Why?Well, the standard explanation was once summed up by the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. And she called poverty "a personality defect." A lack of character, basically.
让我们从⼀个简单的问题开始： 为什么穷⼈总是做出不好的决策？ 我知道这是⼀个残酷的问题， 但是让我们看看数据。 穷⼈借钱越多，积蓄越少， 抽烟越多，锻炼越少，喝酒越多， 饮⾷越不健康。 为什么呢？标准的解释 是由英国⾸相Margaret Thatcher总结的。 她将贫穷称为“⼀种⼈格缺陷”简⽽⾔之，就是缺少⼀种品格。
Now, I'm sure not many of you would be so blunt. But the idea that there's something wrong with the poor themselves is not restricted to Mrs. Thatcher. Some of you may believe that the poor should be held responsible for their own mistakes. And others may argue that we should help them to make better decisions. But the underlying assumption is the same: there's something wrong with them. If we could just change them, if we could just teach them how to live their lives, if they would only listen. And to be honest, this was what I thought for a long time. It was only a few years ago that I discovered that everything I thought I knew about poverty was wrong.
我知道你们⼤部分⼈不会这么直接。 但是，不⽌Thatcher夫⼈⼀个⼈持有这种观点—— 穷⼈之所以贫穷是因为他们⾃⼰有问题。 ⼀些⼈会认为 穷⼈应该为他们⾃⼰的错误买单。 另⼀些⼈会反驳，我们应该帮助他们去做正确的决定。 但是潜在的假设是相同的： 穷⼈⼀定有问题。 如果我们能改变他们， 如果我们能教他们去正确地⽣活， 如果他们能听从我们的劝告。 坦诚地说， 长期以来，我也是这么认为的。 然⽽，就在⼏年前，我才发现 我对于贫困的⼀切看法都是错误的。
It all started when I accidentally stumbled upon a paper by a few American psychologists. They had traveled 8,000 miles, all the way to India, for a fascinating study. And it was an experiment with sugarcane farmers. You should know that these farmers collect about 60 percent of their annual income all at once, right after the harvest. This means that they're relatively poor one part of the year and rich the other. The researchers asked them to do an IQ test before and after the harvest. What they subsequently discovered completely blew my mind. The farmers scored much worse on the test before the harvest. The effects of living in poverty, it turns out, correspond to losing 14 points of IQ. Now, to give you an idea, that's comparable to losing a night's sleep or the effects of alcoholism.
⼀切都源于⼀次偶然的机会，我发现了⼀篇 由⼏位美国⼼理学家发表的⽂章。 他们前往印度，跋涉8000英⾥， 去进⾏⼀项有趣的研究。 这是⼀个针对⽢蔗种植者的实验。 你们应该知道，农民们60%的年收⼊ 都来⾃于 丰收之后。 这意味着他们每年有⼀段时间相对贫穷 另⼀段时间相对富裕。 研究⼈员分别在丰收前和丰收后对农民们进⾏智商测试。 他们随后的发现令我震惊。 测试表明，农民们在丰收前的智商较低。 在贫困中⽣活的结果就是—— 智商降低14点。 现在，再讲⼀个 能让你们彻底失眠的观点， 甚⾄连酗酒也不管⽤。
A few months later, I heard that Eldar Shafir, a professor at Princeton University and one of the authors of this study, was coming over to Holland, where I live. So we met up in Amsterdam to talk about his revolutionary new theory of poverty. And I can sum it up in just two words: scarcity mentality. It turns out that people behave differently when they perceive a thing to be scarce. And what that thing is doesn't much matter -- whether it's not enough time, money or food.
⼏个⽉后，我听说 普林斯顿⼤学的教授、该研究的作者之⼀Eldar Shafir将要来到我所在的荷兰。 于是我们在阿姆斯特丹见⾯ 谈到了他那⾰命性的贫困新理论。 我将这个理论总结为⼏个字： 匮乏⼼态。 当⼈们察觉到缺乏某种东西时 他们的⾏为就会发⽣变化。 ⽆论这个“东西”是什么—— 缺时间、缺钱或缺⾷物。
You all know this feeling, when you've got too much to do, or when you've put off breaking for lunch and your blood sugar takes a dive. This narrows your focus to your immediate lack -- to the sandwich you've got to have now, the meeting that's starting in five minutes or the bills that have to be paid tomorrow. So the long-term perspective goes out the window. You could compare it to a new computer that's running 10 heavy programs at once. It gets slower and slower, making errors. Eventually, it freezes -- not because it's a bad computer, but because it has too much to do at once. The poor have the same problem. They're not making dumb decisions because they are dumb, but because they're living in a context in which anyone would make dumb decisions.
你们都知道这种感觉， 当你有太多事情要做时， 或者当你没吃早餐时你的⾎糖骤降。 你满脑⼦都是你所缺乏的东西—— 你现在必须得吃的三明治（缺乏⾷物）， 将在5分钟内开始的会议（缺少时间） 或是必须于明天前⽀付的账单（缺钱）。 这就导致你⽆法从长远的⾓度去思考。就像⼀台新电脑 ⼀次性运⾏10个庞杂的程序。 它会变得越来越慢，出现错误。 最终，死机了—— 不是因为它是⼀台坏电脑， ⽽是因为它⼀次性要处理太多程序。 穷⼈⾯临着同样的问题。 他们做出不好的决定，不是因为他们是蠢⼈， ⽽是因为他们⽣活在⼀个 任何⼈都会做出愚蠢的决定的环境中。
So suddenly I understood why so many of our anti-poverty programs don't work. Poverty is not a lack of knowledge. A recent analysis of 201 studies on the effectiveness of money management training came to the conclusion that it has almost no effect at all. Now, don't get me wrong -- this is not to say the poor don't learn anything -- they can come out wiser for sure. But it's not enough. Or as Professor Shafir told me, "It's like teaching someone to swim and then throwing them in a stormy sea."
瞬间我明⽩了 为什么这么多反贫穷计划都不管⽤。 贫穷不是因为知识匮乏。 最近，⼀项针对201起 ⾦钱管理训练的有效性分析表明 这种训练完全⽆效。 请不要误解了我的意思—— 我不是说穷⼈不学⽆术—— 他们当然可以变得更加聪明。 但这还不够。 或者说，就像Shafir教授所说， “就像是刚开始教⼀个⼈游泳 却⽴马把他们扔进波涛汹涌的⼤海。”
I still remember sitting there, perplexed. And it struck me that we could have figured this all out decades ago. I mean, these psychologists didn't need any complicated brain scans; they only had to measure the farmer's IQ, and IQ tests were invented more than 100 years ago. Actually, I realized I had read about the psychology of poverty before. George Orwell, one of the greatest writers who ever lived, experienced poverty firsthand in the 1920s. "The essence of poverty," he wrote back then, is that it "annihilates the future." And he marveled at, quote, "How people take it for granted they have the right to preach at you and pray over you as soon as your income falls below a certain level."
我仍然记得，我坐在那， 困惑不解。 教授的话给我带来了巨⼤的冲击 —— 我们本应在⼏⼗年前就想明⽩。 我的意思是说，这些⼼理学家不需要任何复杂的⼤脑扫描； 他们只需要测量⼀下农民们的智商， ⽽智商测试在100多年前就被发明出来了。 事实上，我意识到我以前读过关于贫穷⼼理学的书籍。 世界上最著名的作家之⼀George Orwell 在1920年代曾亲⾝经历过贫穷。 他在书中写到：“贫穷的本质， 是摧毁未来。” 他感叹道： “⼈们理所应当地认为 当你的收⼊在贫困线以下时 他们有权教导你并为你祈祷。”
Now, those words are every bit as resonant today. The big question is, of course: What can be done? Modern economists have a few solutions up their sleeves. We could help the poor with their paperwork or send them a text message to remind them to pay their bills. This type of solution is hugely popular with modern politicians, mostly because, well, they cost next to nothing. These solutions are, I think, a symbol of this era in which we so often treat the symptoms, but ignore the underlying cause.
如今，这些话仍然能引起共鸣。 当然，最⼤的问题是： 我们能做些什么？ 现代经济学家已经想出⼀些解决办法。 我们可以帮助穷⼈做⼀些⽂书⼯作 或者给他们发消息提醒他们⽀付账单。 这种类型的解决办法颇受当代政客欢迎， 主要是因为， 这⼏乎没有成本。 我认为，这种解决办法是这个时代的⼀个标签—— 我们往往只关注表象， 却忽略深层原因。
So I wonder: Why don't we just change the context in which the poor live? Or, going back to our computer analogy: Why keep tinkering around with the software when we can easily solve the problem by installing some extra memory instead? At that point, Professor Shafir responded with a blank look. And after a few seconds, he said, "Oh, I get it. You mean you want to just hand out more money to the poor to eradicate poverty. Uh, sure, that'd be great. But I'm afraid that brand of left-wing politics you've got in Amsterdam -- it doesn't exist in the States."
试问： 我们为什么不去改变穷⼈的⽣活环境？ 让我们回到前⾯提到的电脑类⽐： 与其⼀直纠结于⼀点点改进软件， 为什么我们不简单地直接增加⼀些额外的内存呢？ 这时，Shafir教授露出⼀副茫然的表情。 ⼏秒钟后，他说： “噢，我知道了。 你的意思是你想给穷⼈发钱 以根除贫困。 额，当然，这是个好想法。 但是，恐怕你在阿姆斯特丹提出的这种左翼政策的想法—— 在美国并不存在。”
But is this really an old-fashioned, leftist idea? I remembered reading about an old plan -- something that has been proposed by some of history's leading thinkers. The philosopher Thomas More first hinted at it in his book, "Utopia," more than 500 years ago. And its proponents have spanned the spectrum from the left to the right, from the civil rights campaigner, Martin Luther King, to the economist Milton Friedman. And it's an incredibly simple idea: basic income guarantee. What it is? Well, that's easy. It's a monthly grant, enough to pay for your basic needs: food, shelter, education. It's completely unconditional, so no one's going to tell you what you have to do for it, and no one's going to tell you what you have to do with it.
但这真的是⼀个过时的左派想法吗？ 我记得我看到过⼀个以前的计划 —— 由⼀些历史上重要的思想家提出。 500多年前，哲学家Thmas More在他的著作“乌托邦” 最先提及了这个计划。 它的⽀持者遍布左翼和右翼， 包括⼈权运动者Martin Luther King， 及经济学家Milton Friedman。 这个计划简单得不可置信： 保障基本收⼊。什么意思呢？ 很简单。 就是每⽉的补助⾦，保障基本开⽀： ⾷物，住宿，教育。 这是⽆条件给予的， 没有⼈会告诉你如何去得到它， 没有⼈会告诉你如何去使⽤它。。
The basic income is not a favor, but a right. There's absolutely no stigma attached. So as I learned about the true nature of poverty, I couldn't stop wondering: Is this the idea we've all been waiting for? Could it really be that simple? And in the three years that followed, I read everything I could find about basic income. I researched the dozens of experiments that have been conducted all over the globe, and it didn't take long before I stumbled upon a story of a town that had done it -- had actually eradicated poverty. But then ... nearly everyone forgot about it.
这个基本收⼊不是⼀种恩惠，⽽是⼀种权利这绝对不是什么见不得⼈的事。 正如我对贫穷本质的理解⼀样。 我⽌不住在想： 这是我们⼀直都在期待的想法吗？ 它真的就这么简单吗？ 随后的三年中， 我阅读了⼀切我能找到的关于基本收⼊的书籍。 我研究了⼏⼗个 遍布全球进⾏的实验， 很快我发现了⼀个镇⼦的故事—— 真正根除了贫困。 然⽽... ⼏乎没有⼈记得。
This story starts in Dauphin, Canada. In 1974, everybody in this small town was guaranteed a basic income, ensuring that no one fell below the poverty line. At the start of the experiment, an army of researchers descended on the town. For four years, all went well. But then a new government was voted into power, and the new Canadian cabinet saw little point to the expensive experiment. So when it became clear there was no money left to analyze the results, the researchers decided to pack their files away in some 2,000 boxes. Twenty-five years went by, and then Evelyn Forget, a Canadian professor, found the records.
这个故事开始于加拿⼤Dauphin。 1974年，这个镇⼦上的每个⼈都得到了基本收⼊保障⾦， 没有⼈掉到贫困线以下。 在实验的开始， ⼀队研究学者空降在镇⼦上。 在随后的四年，⼀切都很顺利。 然⽽，新政府掌权， 加拿⼤新内阁认为这项昂贵的实验没有任何意义。 所以，很明显，没有⾜够的资⾦去⽀撑结果分析⼯作， 学者们将这些⽂件打包装进2000个箱⼦⾥并带⾛。 25年过去了， ⼀位加拿⼤教授Evelyn Forget发现了这些记录。
For three years, she subjected the data to all manner of statistical analysis, and no matter what she tried, the results were the same every time: the experiment had been a resounding success.
三年间，她⽤尽各种⽅法对这些数据进⾏统计分析， 不管何种⽅法，每⼀次的结果都是⼀样的： 这是⼀个彻彻底底成功的实验。
Evelyn Forget discovered that the people in Dauphin had not only become richer but also smarter and healthier. The school performance of kids improved substantially. The hospitalization rate decreased by as much as 8.5 percent. Domestic violence incidents were down, as were mental health complaints. And people didn't quit their jobs. The only ones who worked a little less were new mothers and students -- who stayed in school longer. Similar results have since been found in countless other experiments around the globe, from the US to India.
Evely Forget发现 在Dauphin，⼈们不仅变得更加富有， 还变得更加聪明且健康。 孩⼦们在学校的表现有了⼤幅度进步。 就医率下降了8.5%。 家庭暴⼒事件减少了， 精神健康问题也减少了。 ⽽且⼈们都去⼯作。 只有新晋母亲和学⽣们⼯作得少⼀些—— 学⽣们在学校的时间增加。 从美国到印度，全球范围内， 不计其数的其他实验 也得到了相似的结论。
So ... here's what I've learned. When it comes to poverty, we, the rich, should stop pretending we know best. We should stop sending shoes and teddy bears to the poor, to people we have never met. And we should get rid of the vast industry of paternalistic bureaucrats when we could simply hand over their salaries to the poor they're supposed to help.
所以... 我得到了如下结论。 当贫困出现时， 我们这些富有的⼈，应该停⽌我们假装最了解穷⼈。 我们应该停⽌给穷⼈们、我们没见过的⼈们送去鞋⼦和泰迪熊。 我们应该根除⼤张旗⿎式的专断官僚主义， 我们可以把⼯资 给那些应该受到帮助的穷⼈们。
Because, I mean, the great thing about money is that people can use it to buy things they need instead of things that self-appointed experts think they need. Just imagine how many brilliant scientists and entrepreneurs and writers, like George Orwell, are now withering away in scarcity. Imagine how much energy and talent we would unleash if we got rid of poverty once and for all. I believe that a basic income would work like venture capital for the people. And we can't afford not to do it, because poverty is hugely expensive. Just look at the cost of child poverty in the US, for example. It's estimated at 500 billion dollars each year, in terms of higher health care spending, higher dropout rates, and more crime. Now, this is an incredible waste of human potential.
因为，我认为，钱应该花在 穷⼈们需要的地⽅ ⽽不是专家们认为他们需要的地⽅。 想象⼀下有多少杰出的科学家、企业家和作家， 例如GeorgeOrwell， 因为缺钱⽽陨落。 想象⼀下，如果我们能⼀次性让所以⼈彻底摆脱贫困 有多少能量和天赋能够被释放。 我认为，保障基本收⼊是对⼈们的⼀项风险投资。 ⽽且我们不得不这么做， 因为贫穷的代价太昂贵了。 ⽐如，让我们看看在美国⽤于⼉童贫困的⽀出。 每年估计有5000亿美元 ⽤于解决越来越⾼的卫⽣保健开⽀，越来越⾼的辍学率 及越来越多的犯罪。 现在看来，这是对于⼈类潜能的⼀种不可置信的浪费。
But let's talk about the elephant in the room. How could we ever afford a basic income guarantee? Well, it's actually a lot cheaper than you may think. What they did in Dauphin is finance it with a negative income tax. This means that your income is topped up as soon as you fall below the poverty line. And in that scenario, according to our economists' best estimates, for a net cost of 175 billion -- a quarter of US military spending, one percent of GDP -- you could lift all impoverished Americans above the poverty line.
让我们讨论⼀下最关键的问题。 我们是否能够承担基本收⼊保障？ 其实这⽐你们想象的要便宜得多。 在Dauphin，政府给予⼈民最低收⼊补贴。 这意味着只要你掉到贫困线以下 你的收⼊就会提⾼。 在这种情形下， 据我们的经济学家最乐观的估计， 净⽀出1750亿美⾦—— 美国军费⽀出的四分之⼀，全国GDP的百分之⼀—— 你就可以将美国所有的贫困⼈⼜拉⾄贫困线以上。
Now, that should be our goal.The time for small thoughts and little nudges is past. I really believe that the time has come for radical new ideas, and basic income is so much more than just another policy. It is also a complete rethink of what work actually is. And in that sense, it will not only free the poor, but also the rest of us.
现在来看，这应该是我们共同的⽬标。前⾯所讲都是⼀些琐碎的想法和说服... 现在到了最根本的新想法的时间， 保障基本收⼊不仅仅是⼀个新政策。 它还是关于对于“⼯作”本质的全⾯的再思考。 就其意义⽽⾔， 它不仅将解放穷⼈， 还将解放我们其余的⼈。
Nowadays, millions of people feel that their jobs have little meaning or significance. A recent poll among 230,000 employees in 142 countries found that only 13 percent of workers actually like their job. And another poll found that as much as 37 percent of British workers have a job that they think doesn't even need to exist. It's like Brad Pitt says in "Fight Club," "Too often we're working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need."
现如今，成千上万的⼈认为 他们的⼯作没有任何意义或并不重要。 最近的⼀个针对142个国家共23,0000员⼯ 的问卷调查发现 只有13%的员⼯真正热爱他们的⼯作。 另⼀项调查发现英国37%的员⼯ 认为他们的⼯作根本没有存在的价值。 就像Brad Pitt在搏击俱乐部中所说 “我们总是在做着那些我们憎恨的⼯作， 买着那些我们根本不需要的东西。”
Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not talking about the teachers and the garbagemen and the care workers here. If they stopped working, we'd be in trouble. I'm talking about all those well-paid professionals with excellent résumés who earn their money doing ... strategic transactor peer-to-peer meetings while brainstorming the value add-on of disruptive co-creation in the network society.
现在，请不要误解我—— 在这⾥我不是说⽼师、清洁⼯ 及看护⼯作者。 如果他们停⽌⼯作， 那⿇烦可就⼤了。 我是说那些所有的有着出⾊的履历、拿着⾼薪⽔的专家们 他们在社交⽹络中通过战略性的会议， 并努⼒想出创造性毁灭的附加价值 来赚钱。
Or something like that. Just imagine again how much talent we're wasting, simply because we tell our kids they'll have to "earn a living." Or think of what a math whiz working at Facebook lamented a few years ago: "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads."
或者类似的情况。 让我们想象⼀下我们浪费了多少天分， 仅仅因为我们告诉我们的孩⼦们他们不得不为了⽣存⽽⼯作。 或者，看看⼏年前在Facebook⼯作的⼀个数学天才抱怨的， “我这代最优秀的思想 是考虑如何让⼈们点击更多的⼴告。”
I'm a historian. And if history teaches us anything, it is that things could be different. There is nothing inevitable about the way we structured our society and economy right now. Ideas can and do change the world. And I think that especially in the past few years, it has become abundantly clear that we cannot stick to the status quo -- that we need new ideas.
我是⼀个历史学家。 如果历史教给我们任何东西， 那就是事情可以不⼀样。 我们建⽴起我们的社会和经济 不是只有⼀种⽅式。 思想可以并且正在改变世界。 我认为，特别是在过去⼏年， 我们不能安于现状，这变得越来越明确了—— 我们需要新的想法。
I know that many of you may feel pessimistic about a future of rising inequality, xenophobia and climate change. But it's not enough to know what we're against. We also need to be for something. Martin Luther King didn't say, "I have a nightmare."
我知道你们中的许多⼈对未来加剧的不平等、 仇外、 以及⽓候变化 感到悲观。 但是光知道我们反对什么是不够的。 我们需要做些什么。Martin Luther King没有说，“我有⼀个噩梦。”
So ... here's my dream: I believe in a future where the value of your work is not determined by the size of your paycheck, but by the amount of happiness you spread and the amount of meaning you give. I believe in a future where the point of education is not to prepare you for another useless job but for a life well-lived. I believe in a future where an existence without poverty is not a privilege but a right we all deserve. So here we are. Here we are. We've got the research, we've got the evidence and we've got the means.
所以... 这是我的梦想： 我相信在未来， 你⼯作的价值 不由你赚的钱决定， ⽽是由你传播的快乐和 你创造的意义决定。 我相信在未来， 教育的⽬的不在于为⼀个⽆意义的⼯作做好准备， ⽽在于为有意义的⼀⽣做好准备。 我相信在未来， 脱离贫困不是⼀项特权， ⽽是我们应得的⼀项权利。 所以有我们。 有我们。 我们进⾏研究，我们得到证据，我们创造意义。
Now, more than 500 years after Thomas More first wrote about a basic income, and 100 years after George Orwell discovered the true nature of poverty, we all need to change our worldview, because poverty is not a lack of character. Poverty is a lack of cash.
现在，在Thomas More第⼀次描述基础收⼊500年之后 以及在George Orwell发现贫穷的实质100年之后， 我们需要改变我们的世界观， 因为贫穷不是缺少⼀种⼈格。 贫穷就是缺少⾦钱。
以上是我今天所学习到的内容和翻译，如果你也想每天学习英文，欢迎关注我并在下方留下你的邮箱地址，一旦我上传了最新的英文笔记，会马上给你发邮箱通知。
____________________________________________________________________________
*如果你也有兴趣和小篇一起挑战学习英文，欢迎留言或WhatsApp小篇获取100篇的TED演讲视频和演讲稿。
我是一只维尼，喜欢分享心理学、英文笔记、理财和自我成长的内容。我们下期见 拜拜 ！！
欢迎关注：
Instagram: 一只维尼
Facebook: 一只维尼
Comments
Post a Comment