如果將制造業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)移回美國會導(dǎo)致商品價格大幅上漲，那么當(dāng)所有商品都在美國制造時，人們?nèi)绾文苜I的起這些商品呢？

一、Ted Smith
I’m amazed at the level of ignorance and lack of simple logic in this question.
Ask yourself, what is missing today in American industry that was there back in the 50s and 60s?

我對這個問題中所表現(xiàn)出的無知和缺乏基本邏輯感到震驚。你可以問問自己：如今美國工業(yè)缺少的是什么？而這些東西在上世紀(jì)50到60年代是否存在？

Give up? Think factories! Manufacturing. The basic ingredient of your premise. Things were cheaper because we had the capacity right here, in a post-WWII era that had tons of factories and a multitude of opportunities. And workers were paid a living wage so essentials were affordable and luxury items were not priced through the roof.

放棄？答案是——工廠！制造業(yè)。這就是你觀點中的基本要素。過去東西便宜是因為我們在二戰(zhàn)后的美國擁有強大的生產(chǎn)能力，全國到處都是工廠，機會眾多。而且工人們得到的是足以養(yǎng)家糊口的工資，所以生活必需品是負(fù)擔(dān)得起的，奢侈品也沒有被標(biāo)上離譜的價格。

Forward 25 years and we have Reagan administration which clears the way for manufacturing to move overseas and practically overnight factories all over the country move production overseas, close factories and kill jobs and the middle class starts a slow and steady descent into poverty. Meanwhile, costs of goods and services goes up in a global market and those costs get passed on to consumers.

再往前走25年，到了里根政府時期，他為制造業(yè)向海外轉(zhuǎn)移打開了大門。一夜之間，全國各地的工廠紛紛將生產(chǎn)搬到海外，關(guān)閉本地工廠，裁員，中產(chǎn)階級從此開始了緩慢而穩(wěn)定的衰退。與此同時，在全球市場中，商品和服務(wù)的成本上升，并且這些成本最終轉(zhuǎn)嫁給了消費者。

So what would it take to get manufacturing back to the US. Trillions of dollars. It means buying property, building new or refurbishing existing plants. Building or updating infrastructure to support that new plant. Purchasing new equipment and training workers to use it. Finding and securing resources, parts and supplies and paying to have them shipped here. Add to that, it would take 5 or more years to get all that done. And all that comes out of private pockets; even with government subsidies, it’s still a hugely expensive proposition. In a country that has conditioned itself on short term profit above all else, spending that kind of money and time is never going to happen.

那么要把制造業(yè)重新帶回美國需要什么？數(shù)萬億美元的資金。這意味著要購買土地、新建或翻新現(xiàn)有工廠、建設(shè)或升級支持該工廠的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、購買新設(shè)備并培訓(xùn)工人使用它、尋找并確保原材料、零部件和供應(yīng)品的來源，并支付運輸費用。再加上，完成這一切至少需要五年以上的時間。而所有這些資金都要來自私人資本；即使有政府補貼，這也是一項極其昂貴的工程。在一個已經(jīng)習(xí)慣了短期利潤至上的國家，花這么多錢和時間是不可能實現(xiàn)的事情。

EDIT 4/5: Think manufacturing is coming back to America? The recent tariffs imposed by trump just ERASED $9 TRILLION dollars in wealth. Where was that money coming from? The rich and corporations who would have been the backers for any repatriation of manufacturing. Even if they wanted to, they don’t have that money now.

更新： 您覺得制造業(yè)正在回歸美國嗎？特朗普最近征收的關(guān)稅剛剛抹去了9萬億美元的財富。這筆錢原本是從哪里來的？來自于那些本應(yīng)資助制造業(yè)回流的富人和大公司。即使他們愿意投資，現(xiàn)在他們也沒有這筆錢了。

EDIT 4/14: I think it's time to close this discussion down. Since it was featured in a particular group, the upvotes and comments have grown considerably. I have tried to respond to many of them, whether they agreed with me or not, but it is taking too much of my time and effort. Unfortunately,the comments have become either repetitive; anecdotal; immaterial to the topic; or, in typical Quora fashion, just plain insulting, filled with not just derogatory remarks but hateful personal attacks. I particularly enjoyed the one from the supposed economics instructor, who not just disagreed with my opinion, but felt it necessary to include in his typo ridden screed religious invectives and homophobic slurs. There were only two comments I dexed, the above being one of them, and I had to block three individuals who were particularly hateful. No doubt there will be those who think this cowardly and a vindication of their particular philosophy or delusion. I don’t care. Fuck off.

更新： 我覺得是時候結(jié)束這場討論了。自從這篇回答被某個小組推薦后，點贊和評論數(shù)量顯著增加。我盡可能的回應(yīng)了許多評論，無論是同意我的觀點還是反對我的觀點，但這耗費了我太多時間和精力。不幸的是，評論變得越來越重復(fù)、主觀、與主題無關(guān)，或者像典型的Quora風(fēng)格一樣，充滿了侮辱性的語言，甚至有人進行人身攻擊和仇恨言論。特別讓我印象深刻的是一個自稱經(jīng)濟學(xué)講師的人，他在回復(fù)中不僅不同意我的觀點，還特意加入宗教攻擊和恐同言論。這兩條評論是我唯一刪除的，我也屏蔽了三個特別具有攻擊性的人。無疑會有人認(rèn)為這是我懦弱的表現(xiàn)，或者證明他們的某種哲學(xué)觀或幻想是對的。我不在乎，你們?nèi)ニ腊伞?br />
It has been an interesting discussion and many have made some very interesting and salient points some of which I touched upon in further comments. You might be interested in reading some of the other comments and not just my answer. Even some of the more absurd comments which I left up are entertaining.
So thanks again and best to all, “even the haters and losers” to quote our ignominious leader.

這是一場有趣的討論，很多人提出了非常有趣和中肯的觀點，有些我在后續(xù)評論中也有提到。也許你會有興趣閱讀其他評論，而不僅僅是我的回答。甚至一些我認(rèn)為荒謬的評論也很有意思。借用我們那位無恥領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的話，再次感謝大家，祝所有人好運，包括那些“噴子和失敗者”。

二、Susan Lippy
Well take a trip back in time. Your home, no A/C. No one had it. Your family 1 car. You were sharing that puppy. Your clothes; hand me downs. Ever wonder why closets were so small? Because you didn't own enough stuff to fill giant walk in closets. You owned 1 TV if lucky if not one radio. Eating out was a luxury for big events not something done frequently. All those fancy kids sports teems that cost hundreds, yeah no you played on the street. With the neighborhood kids. A good day was when you saved up enough chore money to ride over to the five and dime and buy some candy. Things were saved, everything. Ziplock bags got washed, paper grocery sacks became book covers, wonder bags were used to keep your feet dry inside your boots. Things got fixed at home. Not replaced. The roof needs reshingled? Dad and buddies did it. Car needs fixed? Same. My grandpa would drive from New Philadelphia to Columbus just to help Dad fix a car. In the 70’s when moms went to work it was to increase standard of living. You have a standard of living that didn't exist before the 70’s. A/C and central heat! Indoor restrooms! More than 1! Walk in closets and multiple car households. Magic computers you carry in your pocket. Movies on demand and home theaters. You cannot compare life now to then. It's apples to oranges.

不如來一次時光旅行吧：你家沒有空調(diào)。其他人也沒有。你家只有一輛車，還要全家人共用。你的衣服是哥哥姐姐穿剩下的。你有沒有想過為什么過去的衣柜那么?。恳驗槟愀緵]那么多衣服填滿一個步入式大衣柜。如果你家里有一臺電視機就算幸運了，普通家庭就只有一臺收音機。外出吃飯是一種奢侈，只有重大場合才會去，而且不是經(jīng)常的事。那些動輒花費數(shù)百美元的孩子運動隊？不存在的。你只是在街上和鄰居的孩子一起玩。快樂的一天是你攢夠做家務(wù)賺的錢，騎車去五毛店買點糖果。
那時候人們把什么東西都留下來使用。Ziplock袋洗了又用，紙袋用來包書，Wonder面包袋用來防水靴。東西壞了就自己修，而不是換新的。屋頂需要換瓦片？爸爸和朋友們一起搞定。汽車壞了？同樣的方法。70年代我爺爺會從New Philadelphia開車到Columbus，只為幫我爸修車。
到了70年代，媽媽們開始工作是為了提高生活水平。你現(xiàn)在的生活水平在70年代之前是不存在的。比如空調(diào)和中央空調(diào)、多個室內(nèi)衛(wèi)生間、步入式衣柜、多輛車的家庭、可以隨身攜帶的智能電腦、隨時觀看的電影和家庭影院。你不能把現(xiàn)在的生活和過去相比。那是蘋果和橙子的區(qū)別。

三、Jay Dee
One of my first summer jobs at 18 was in a factory. I was paid $14/hour in 1972. Accounting for ONLY inflation and changes in dollar value, $14 in 1972 should equal about $110 today. How many US factory workers in 2025 are being paid $110/hr? (EDIT: a commenter pointed out to me that my experience may not be typical. AI research says that the average hourly wage of all blue collar workers, which is everybody who was not a white collar salaried worker, was only $4/hr. in 1970. Even if we accept that number, it should equate to $31/hr. today. That's still a lot more than such workers are actually paid, today)

我18歲時的第一個暑期工作是在一家工廠。1972年，我每小時掙14美元。僅考慮通貨膨脹和貨幣價值的變化，1972年的14美元相當(dāng)于今天的約110美元。今天有多少美國工廠工人每小時能掙到110美元？（編輯：有讀者指出我的經(jīng)歷可能并不典型。AI研究顯示，1970年藍(lán)領(lǐng)工人的平均時薪僅為4美元。即使接受這個數(shù)字，按通脹計算，今天也應(yīng)該等于31美元。而這仍然遠(yuǎn)高于今天工人的實際收入）

The average unskilled factory worker in the US today is paid $17/hr.
In 1975, my dad's salary*, as a white collar middle manager, was $30,000 *(I meant to say his net, take home pay, after deductions). That would be equal to $180,000 today.

今天美國普通非技術(shù)工廠工人的時薪是17美元。1975年，我父親作為一名白領(lǐng)中層管理人員的薪水是3萬美元（我原意是指稅后凈收入）。按通脹計算，這相當(dāng)于今天的18萬美元。

And in the late 1940s the highest tax bracket on multimillionaires was 91%

而在1940年代末，對百萬富翁的最高稅率是91%。

四、Steven Haddock
In fact, the United States still does a lot of manufacturing.
事實上，美國仍然進行大量制造業(yè)生產(chǎn)。



The U.S. does more manufacturing than Japan, German, South Korea, India and Mexico combined.

美國的制造業(yè)產(chǎn)出比日本、德國、韓國、印度和墨西哥加起來還要多。

The problem is that more U.S. manufacturing does not mean more U.S. manufacturing JOBS. Manufacturing employment in the United States keeps going down while manufacturing output goes up.

但問題在于，“更多的制造業(yè)”并不等于“更多的制造業(yè)工作崗位”。美國的制造業(yè)就業(yè)人數(shù)持續(xù)下降，而制造業(yè)產(chǎn)出卻在上升。

And it’s not “foreigners”, it’s “automation”. Most of the work that used to be done by human beings is now done by machines. Just as well because often that work is repetitive, dangerous, or has long term health effects. U.S. workers remain incredibly productive compared to those in other countries.

造成這種情況的原因不是“外國人”，而是“自動化”。過去由人類完成的工作，現(xiàn)在大多由機器完成。這其實是一件好事，因為這些工作通常重復(fù)性強、危險性高，或者對健康有長期影響。與其它國家相比，美國工人依然非常高效。

Not only that, U.S. workers work longer hours than the countries with higher productivity. Greeks, South Koreans and Mexicans all work longer hours than Americans, but are far, far less productive.

不僅如此，美國工人的工作時間也比許多生產(chǎn)力更高的國家更長。希臘人、韓國人和墨西哥人比美國人工作的時間更長，但他們的生產(chǎn)力卻低得多。

And this is a good thing. One of the reasons Singapore is doing so well is that the government has traded “full employment” for “well paying jobs”.

這其實是一件好事。新加坡之所以發(fā)展得這么好，是因為政府用“充分就業(yè)”換來了“高薪崗位”。

However, Singapore also has high taxes and high government spending so if you’re a citizen you probably have a place to live and enough food to eat. That’s not the case in the United States - excess value from labour pretty much goes to capitalists and not to people who can’t find a job in a world where work is not available unless you have a lot of skills. By many measures, the United States has “full employment” and the only unemployed people are people lacking skills to do the jobs available. Getting those skills is too expensive as the usual requirement is that you have to pay to acquire those skills.

然而，新加坡也有高額稅收和政府支出，所以如果你是新加坡公民，你很可能有房住、有飯吃。但美國的情況并非如此——勞動創(chuàng)造的剩余價值幾乎全部流向了資本家，而不是那些在這個工作機會稀缺的世界里找不到工作的人。從很多標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來看，美國已經(jīng)實現(xiàn)了“充分就業(yè)”，唯一失業(yè)的是那些缺乏技能去從事現(xiàn)有崗位的人。而獲取這些技能的成本又太高，因為你必須自己花錢去學(xué)習(xí)這些技能。

So maybe Apple could hire some smart people and build a factory where one American guy is doing the same work as ten Chinese guys while machines do the rest of the work. That could be doable (but expensive and with an uncertain outcome) but it’s what made America great.

所以也許蘋果可以雇一些聰明人，在一個工廠里讓一個美國人完成相當(dāng)于十個中國工人做的工作，其余的都由機器完成。這雖然可行（但昂貴且結(jié)果不確定），但正是這種模式讓美國變得強大。

The cotton gin (short for “engine”) made separating cotton fiber from seeds easier so one person (okay one slave) could separate dozens of pounds of fiber with a machine every day rather than the one pound that was possible without it. However, it wasn’t long before bigger gins were made that were run by water power, and then steam power.

就像棉花脫籽機（“發(fā)動機”的縮寫）一樣，它讓一個人（好吧，當(dāng)時是一個奴隸）每天能用機器分離出幾十磅棉纖維，而不是沒有使用機器時的只能分離出一磅。很快，更大的脫籽機被制造出來，并用水力驅(qū)動，后來改用蒸汽動力。

And, yes, they’re still in use. No people mind you, you will notice the total absence of workers in this photo but you’re still getting a lot of cotton. Hell, I bet you could do without people entirely!

而且，它們今天仍在使用。請注意，照片中完全沒有工人，但棉花依然在大量產(chǎn)出。天啊，我打賭甚至完全可以不需要人！

So there’s two things that you could do with this excess value:

那么，我們可以如何處理這些額外的財富呢？

Be kind to people and make sure they’re housed, fed, clothed, educated and treated for disease or;
Buy more yachts.
Oh, and yes, it’s not a good idea to be around these machines when they’re working.

1. 善待人民，確保他們有住房、食物、衣物、教育和醫(yī)療保障；
2. 或者買更多游艇。
哦，順便說一句，當(dāng)這些機器運轉(zhuǎn)的時候，你最好不要靠得太近。

五、Michael Cheng
Back in ye olden days before 1975, most manual labor manufacturing was done in America, but workers back then couldn’t actually afford what they made.

在1975年以前那個“老古董時代”，大多數(shù)的手工制造業(yè)都在美國進行，但當(dāng)時的工人實際上買不起他們制造的產(chǎn)品。

For the workers who worked on the manufacturing lines for fancy jets like the Boeing 747, most couldn’t afford regular or any flights on them. For the workers who built televisions, they struggled to afford a crappy model, if at all. Also, there simply weren’t as many things available to buy.

比如那些參與制造波音747等豪華客機的工人，大多數(shù)人連坐一次飛機都負(fù)擔(dān)不起。那些制造電視機的工人，甚至連一臺破舊型號的電視都難以負(fù)擔(dān)。此外，當(dāng)時可供購買的商品種類也很少。

It’s hard to imagine, but 50 years ago, a low resolution black and white television cost around $350, about the same as a basic 50 inch LED television with 4K resolution today. Meanwhile, the median individual wage has gone up from $5K to around $40K in that time. So, a television has gone down from just under 1 month of income to 2 days of income while becoming far superior.

很難想象，但在50年前，一臺低分辨率的黑白電視機價格約為350美元，差不多相當(dāng)于今天一臺基本款50英寸4K LED電視的價格。同時期，美國人的平均個人收入從5,000美元增長到約40,000美元。也就是說，電視的價格從接近一個月的工資，降到了僅兩天的工資，而性能卻遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)優(yōu)于從前。

That vast improvement in purchasing power has been part of the trade-off in adopting the much maligned free-trade of neoliberalism. While we lost those adequately paid manufacturing jobs, we improved our overall living standards. So, instead of literally pounding away at dangerous heavy machinery, we’ve become a country of highly paid office workers and lowly paid service workers. A few workers were obviously the sorry losers out of the bargain.

這種購買力的巨大提升，是我們接受新自由主義所倡導(dǎo)的自由貿(mào)易的代價之一。雖然我們失去了大量待遇不錯的制造業(yè)崗位，但整體生活水平得到了顯著提高。于是我們從一個以重工業(yè)為主的國家，變成了一個由高薪辦公室職員和低薪服務(wù)人員構(gòu)成的社會。當(dāng)然，也有一些人在這場交易中成了輸家。

There is NO WAY to bring back heavy manufacturing to America without a return to those lower living standards of the 1970s. Even if we put up ridiculous tariff barriers for all imported goods, there are vast numbers of goods that simply cannot be made in America due to lack of raw materials or labor. For those goods from the 1970s, we could make them in America again, and they would be ridiculously expensive.

如果不回到1970年代較低的生活水平，就不可能把重工業(yè)帶回美國。即使我們對所有進口商品設(shè)置極端的關(guān)稅壁壘，也有大量商品由于原材料或勞動力的限制根本無法在美國生產(chǎn)。對于那些上世紀(jì)70年代能在美國生產(chǎn)的商品，如果現(xiàn)在再生產(chǎn)，價格將極其昂貴。

Manufacturers would have to pay workers far more to make anything in America but not enough for the workers to ever afford their own products. Simply, manufacturers would seek profit at the far end of the supply-demand curve where a few rich people could afford the goods, just like in those ye olden days. We would return to the days of vacuum and appliance repair stores where average people kept patching together old things as they couldn’t afford new ones.

制造商必須支付給工人遠(yuǎn)高于其他國家的工資來在美國制造產(chǎn)品，但這點工資仍不足以讓工人買得起自己制造的產(chǎn)品。簡而言之，制造商會在供需曲線的高端尋求利潤，只有少數(shù)富人才能負(fù)擔(dān)得起這些商品，就像“老古董時代”一樣。我們將回到那個需要維修收音機和家電的年代，普通人只能不斷修補舊東西，因為他們買不起新的。

We are able to enjoy the huge benefits of endless affordable consumer goods due to global trade with dirt poor countries. We’re subjecting them to the hard labor while we merely have to flex our Navy and print away our reserve currency.

我們之所以能夠享受無窮無盡的廉價消費品，是因為我們與世界上最貧困國家之間的全球貿(mào)易。我們把這些艱苦的工作交給了他們，而我們只需依靠海軍力量和印鈔權(quán)就能維持這種優(yōu)勢。

Huge numbers of our imported goods come from China where the median income is less than 1/7th that of America’s. Their largest currency, the 100 RMB, has a value of $13.50 in America but has the buying power of $100 in China. This is after a 45 year economic miracle to bring the most humans out of poverty in history. We get to buy goods at less than 1/7th our cost, mark it up a for a healthy profit margin and still sell it for less than 1/3rd of our on-shore production cost.

我們大量進口來自中國的商品來，而中國的平均收入不到美國的七分之一。在中國最大面值的紙幣是100元人民幣，約合13.5美元，但它在中國的購買力相當(dāng)于100美元。這是經(jīng)過45年的經(jīng)濟奇跡之后的結(jié)果，也是歷史上最多人口擺脫貧困的成就。我們能以不到本國成本七分之一的價格購買這些商品，然后加價出售，利潤可觀，但仍低于在我們國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)所需成本的三分之一。

Why bother working hard to compete with that? Why not make more money with higher value work and buy cheap stuff? It’s like a form of imperialism except China willingly trades with us, for now.

既然如此，我們?yōu)槭裁匆M勁地與這種模式競爭？為什么不從事更高價值的工作，然后購買便宜的商品？這簡直是一種帝國主義，只不過中國是自愿與我們貿(mào)易的——至少目前是這樣。

Indeed, for a taste of what life would be like if we brought back all manufacturing to America, we just have to look at housing and healthcare. Both are industries that have been very minimally outsourced and both are infamous for being expensive, to the point that they’re always the whipping boys for the high costs of living in America.

確實，如果我們想體驗一下把所有制造業(yè)都帶回美國的生活是什么樣，我們只需要看看住房和醫(yī)療行業(yè)就知道了。這兩個產(chǎn)業(yè)幾乎沒有怎么外包，而它們也因此出了名的昂貴，甚至經(jīng)常成為美國人生活成本高昂的主要原因。

Now, imagine if EVERYTHING was that expensive. Sure, some people would find higher pay and easily keep up with the costs without complaint, but many Americans, possibly hundreds of millions, would struggle mightily.

現(xiàn)在，想象一下如果一切商品都像房子和醫(yī)療一樣昂貴會怎樣？當(dāng)然，有些人收入更高，能輕松應(yīng)對這些開銷，不會抱怨。但對數(shù)以億計的美國人來說，這將是極大的困難。

I know the current right wing party in full control of our government rails against socialism, but making so many suffer so aggressively to benefit the few is the height of late stage capitalism, which is hardly the America we want for our children.

我知道目前全面掌控美國政府的右翼政黨強烈反對社會主義，但讓這么多人承受如此巨大的痛苦只為少數(shù)人謀利，這就是晚期資本主義的極致表現(xiàn)，這顯然不是我們所希望的留給美國下一代的做法。

六、Joel Henry Hinrichs
That flashy new 1956 Chevy was cheap to fix and cheap to build. It was an oil burner with parts starting to fall off at 100,000 miles. Houses were cheap to build and if you compared your dwelling to one built 75 years ago you would notice many “enhancements.”

那輛閃亮的新1956款雪佛蘭修起來便宜、造起來也便宜。它燒油，零部件在行駛10萬公里后就開始掉落。那時候的房子建造成本也很低，如果你把自己現(xiàn)在的房子跟75年前的相比，你會發(fā)現(xiàn)許多“升級之處”。

Computers shred the value-add of most of us. Reagan didn’t invent them, but he was there when they had pushed their way into daily life. “High per-employee production” means lots of automation and no real craftsmen, other than the ones up to speed on computer controlled tools.

計算機正在摧毀我們大多數(shù)人的價值貢獻。里根沒發(fā)明計算機，但他執(zhí)政期間計算機開始進入日常生活。“人均高產(chǎn)能”意味著高度自動化，幾乎沒有真正的工匠，除了那些熟練掌握數(shù)控工具的人。

In 1950 a carpenter would take a door blank, remove the old door, use a chisel, expertly, to make a place for the old hinges to fit flush into the new door, then hang the new door. Manual skill was valued. Today Jack Homeowner has no chisel, and no trouble.

在1950年，木匠拿到一塊門板，會拆除舊門，熟練地用鑿子在新門上刻出適合舊鉸鏈嵌入的位置，然后安裝新門。那時候手工技藝是有價值的。而現(xiàn)在，普通家庭用戶既沒有鑿子，也不需要它們。

Bottom line, we accepted levels of quality and durability, 75 years ago, which would draw scorn today. Rote, boring work such as sewing pieces of cloth together to make something you wear, and put on a hanger in your closet, finds eager hands in second-world places. Those hands use to live in China, but today China farms those jobs out to Cambodia and VietNam.

歸根結(jié)底，75年前我們接受的質(zhì)量和耐用性水平，在今天看來簡直會被嘲笑。諸如縫紉布料這樣的重復(fù)性、枯燥性工作，如今在“第二世界”國家能找到愿意做的工人。這些工人曾經(jīng)在中國，但現(xiàn)在中國把這些工作外包給了柬埔寨和越南。

Capische? Bringing those factories back here would

明白了嗎？把這些工廠搬回美國，

take multiple years to design, plan, and build
thus engaging many millions of dollars per factory
and, when staffed by 100 people being paid U S wages,
would produce goods that cost significantly more than those made partly by hand in impoverished countries.

需要多年的設(shè)計、規(guī)劃和建設(shè)，
每個工廠都需要投入數(shù)百萬美元的資金，
當(dāng)工廠雇傭100名領(lǐng)取美國工資的員工時，所生產(chǎn)出來的商品成本將遠(yuǎn)高于那些由貧困地區(qū)工人手工部分制作的商品。

七、Randy Woods
People didn't waste their money back then

那時候的人不會亂花錢。

They knew the difference between a want and a need. Kids got clothes that were 2sizes too big and grew into them and they became hand me downs. You patched your clothes you didn't throw away and get new simply because it had a rip or you wanted another color or were just tired of it.

他們知道“想要”和“需要”的區(qū)別。孩子們穿的衣服通常會大兩個碼，等他們長大了才剛好合身，之后這些衣服又會傳給弟弟妹妹穿。你修補衣服而不是一破就扔掉，也不是因為你想要另一種顏色或只是厭倦了它就換新的。

Things weren't cheaper. They cost more alot more. It took a higher percentage of your take home pay. But things were extremely well made and lasted generations.

東西并不便宜，反而更貴。它們占你工資收入的比例更高。但那時候的東西質(zhì)量非常好，可以用好幾代人。

Not the throw away society now. Our cook ware lasted 30 years you didn't buy new every 3 or 4 years. Didn't have to. And couldn't afford to change simply because you wanted new. Same with furniture. Bedding towels everything. Shoes you wore till they fell apart. Then git the tape out and put what was left of the sole back on. Because you didn't know when you'd get the money for another pair.

不像現(xiàn)在這個“用完即棄”的社會。我們當(dāng)年的廚具能用30年，不需要每三四年就換新的。你也買不起僅僅因為想換新就換廚具。家具、床上用品、毛巾、鞋子都是如此。鞋子穿爛了才會扔，穿不下去了就拿膠水粘一粘鞋底繼續(xù)穿，因為你不知道什么時候才能攢夠錢再買一雙新的。

Thus we knew the difference between a WANT and a NEED. You never ate out. You have food at home. You didn't get a candy bar or a pop or something to eat because, that smells good. You heard, you can't be hungry you just ate 2 hours ago, you can wait till you get home. You have food at home. And imagine we weren't OBESE.

所以那時我們真的知道什么是“需要”，什么是“想要”。  
我們從不在外吃飯，家里有飯吃就夠了。  
你不會因為聞到某種食物香味就想買根巧克力棒或一瓶汽水。  
你會聽到大人說：“你兩小時前剛吃過，不可能餓，回家再吃。”  
“家里有吃的。”

When things are cheap you waste your money. Then you don't have money for what you need.

想象一下，介時我們將從根本擺脫肥胖問題。

you only wanted what you needed. Almost every family the parent worked a full time job and a part time job. No one in my neighborhood ever had a new car. Let alone 4 or 5. They bought a car 4 or 5 years old that was new to them. Even the guy down the street who was a foreman at Ford never had a new car and worked a part time job.

當(dāng)東西變得便宜時，你就開始亂花錢；而當(dāng)你亂花錢時，就沒有錢去購買真正需要的東西了。你只買你需要的，而不是你想要的。幾乎每個家庭中，父母都有一份全職工作，甚至還要做兼職。我住的那條街上沒人開過新車，更別說家里有四五輛了。大家都買的是用了四五年的二手車，對他們是“新”的就行了。就連街對面在福特公司當(dāng)主管的那個人也從來沒有買過新車，而且他還做著一份兼職。

Why people think it was easier. Your just ignorant of what life was truly like. You know, reality. You just see the TV shows and movies and believe that's how life was.

為什么有人覺得那時候的生活更容易？你只是不了解真實的生活是什么樣子罷了。你所謂的了解，不過是看了些電視劇和電影，然后以為那就是生活。
  
八、Kenneth Coleman
Great question. For one thing, for most of the 1950s the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Today it’s 37%. What that means is that there was basically a maximum wage. So, imagine that you’re making 610,000 per year today, and your boss tells you he’s going to give you an extra $1 million per year. That means 91% of that million is going to go to taxes. It doesn’t make any sense to send all of that money to the top if they aren’t going to get to keep it. You’re basically just handing money to the federal government at that point. That’s a check on corporate greed. When they reduced top marginal rates under Reagan, worker wages stagnated while executive wages skyrocketed. In 1970 the middle 60% of households took home 62% of all earned wages, by 2018 the middle 60% only took home 43% of all earned wages. Why give higher wages to employees when you can keep it all for yourself? That’s not the whole story though. You have to remember that our economic boom in the US came after WWII when the manufacturing centers in Europe were decimated during the war while ours remained in tact. We were the only game in town which meant that we could produce more products and products of higher quality than the rest of the world could. So, we were exporting goods all over the world because the rest of the world didn’t have the infrastructure to do it themselves. You also have to understand that the current manufacturing powerhouses basically use sweat shop practices. They work people 12, 14, 16, or 18 hours a day for abysmally low wages without paying overtime, or complying with safety or environmental regulations. We can’t compete with that unless we treat our workers the same way. Americans won’t put up with that kind of treatment. Our labor laws were put in place under FDR, and he didn’t do it out of the goodness of his heart. There were armed uprisings. We were on track for a second civil war. Look up the Battle of Blair Mountain. It’s where we get the term “redneck”. The business owners didn’t take FDR’s new deal lying down, they were planning a coup against FDR until the former general they were trying to recruit to lead an army turned them in to the FBI. Look up the Wall Street Putsch. If you want proof that american made goods will be too expensive for most americans, look at which prices have skyrocketed, and which have remained more stable. The things that have become more expensive are things that can’t be imported: medical care, housing, education. Things that can be imported are more affordable: clothing, consumer electronics, cars.

這是一個很好的問題。首先，在1950年代大部分時間里，美國的最高邊際稅率是91%。而現(xiàn)在是37%。這意味著實際上存在一個“最高工資上限”。你可以想象一下：你現(xiàn)在年薪61萬美元，你的老板告訴你他要給你每年再加100萬美元。那么這100萬美元中的91%都要交稅。既然大部分錢都要上繳，那就沒意義再去掙這筆錢了。你基本上就是在把錢直接送給聯(lián)邦政府。
這其實是對資本貪婪的一種限制機制。當(dāng)里根政府降低最高邊際稅率后，工人的工資停滯不前，而高管們的收入?yún)s飆升。1970年，中間60%的家庭拿到了全部工資收入的62%，而到了2018年，這個比例已經(jīng)下降到43%。
既然可以自己留著錢，為什么要給員工漲工資呢？當(dāng)然，這不是全部原因。你還得記住，二戰(zhàn)后美國的經(jīng)濟繁榮，是因為歐洲的制造業(yè)中心在戰(zhàn)爭中被摧毀，而我們的工業(yè)設(shè)施完好無損。
我們是當(dāng)時世界上唯一有能力大量生產(chǎn)高質(zhì)量產(chǎn)品的地方，所以我們向全世界出口商品，因為其他國家根本沒有能力自己制造。
你還必須明白，如今的制造業(yè)強國基本上都在使用血汗工廠的做法。他們的工人每天工作12、14、16甚至18個小時，工資極低，沒有加班費，也不遵守安全或環(huán)保法規(guī)。
除非我們也這樣對待自己的工人，否則無法與他們競爭。而美國人是不會接受這種待遇的。我們的勞動法是在羅斯福（FDR）時期建立的，并不是因為他心地善良。當(dāng)時爆發(fā)了武裝起義，我們差點爆發(fā)第二次內(nèi)戰(zhàn)。你可以查一下“布雷爾山戰(zhàn)役（Battle of Blair Mountain）”，那里就是“紅脖子（redneck）”這個詞的來源。
商界大佬們并沒有乖乖接受羅斯福的新政。他們曾策劃了一場針對羅斯福的政變，直到他們試圖招募來領(lǐng)導(dǎo)軍隊的一位前將軍將他們告發(fā)給了聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局。你可以查一下“華爾街政變（Wall Street Putsch）”。如果你想證明“美國制造的商品太貴，大多數(shù)美國人買不起”，那就看看哪些價格飛漲，哪些價格保持穩(wěn)定就知道了：
1.醫(yī)療、住房、教育這些無法進口的行業(yè)價格暴漲；
2.服裝、消費電子產(chǎn)品、汽車這些可以進口的商品價格則相對穩(wěn)定。

九、Chris Thomas
Americans of a certain age look back on the 1950s and 1960s as “normal.” To an extent, that is understandable. “Normal” is the world a person grows up in. Our brains are pattern matching machines and we set our baseline by observing the world around us during our childhood.

一些年紀(jì)較大的美國人常常把1950年代和1960年代視為“正?！钡臅r代。從某種程度上講，這是可以理解的?！罢！笔且粋€人在成長過程中所經(jīng)歷的世界。我們的大腦是模式識別機器，我們在童年時期觀察周圍世界，從而設(shè)定我們對“正?！钡幕鶞?zhǔn)。

But the 1950s and 1960s in the United States were anything but normal. They were one of the strangest times in world history.

但其實，美國的1950年代和1960年代一點都不正常，那是世界歷史上最奇特的時期之一。

In 1945 America came home from the war. The GIs bought houses and raised families. There was a massive baby boom. Times were good. Jobs were plentiful. You can still drive around most cities today and spot mile-after-mile of post-war shopping districts and residential developments that are almost a stereotype of the American dream: two bedrooms, one bath, white picket fence. All a young family needs to get started. Times were good.

1945年戰(zhàn)爭結(jié)束后，美國大兵們返鄉(xiāng)。退伍軍人買了房子、組建了家庭，迎來了大規(guī)模嬰兒潮。那時的日子很好過，工作機會很多。今天你開車穿過許多城市，仍能看到成片成片的戰(zhàn)后商業(yè)區(qū)和住宅區(qū)，幾乎成了美國夢的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)畫面：兩間臥室、一間浴室、白色柵欄——年輕家庭起步所需的一切。那真是個好時代。

The people who lived in those houses lived good, solid, middle class lives. Here’s a Piggly Wiggly grocery store in Texas in 1948.

住在那些房子里的人過著體面穩(wěn)定的中產(chǎn)階級生活。這是1948年德克薩斯州一家Piggly Wiggly雜貨店的照片：


德克薩斯1948

Hold this image in your head. The suburban mom shopping at the Piggly Wiggly, choosing from the frozen foods, meats, and fresh produce. She’ll take that home to her family where they’ll all sit down to a nice home-cooked meal.

請記住這張畫面：郊區(qū)的母親在Piggly Wiggly超市購物，挑選冷凍食品、肉類和新鮮農(nóng)產(chǎn)品。她把這些帶回家，全家人一起享用一頓溫馨的家常飯。

At the same time, Britain and France were still under food rationing. Germany lay in ruins. Agriculture was just beginning to claw its way back into some semblance of normality across Europe and Asia. Industry was still a long way off. American food, American industrial products, American textiles, even American oil was life-support for a world bled white by war.

與此同時，英國和法國仍在實行食品配給制。德國一片廢墟。農(nóng)業(yè)才剛剛開始恢復(fù)到戰(zhàn)前水平。整個歐洲和亞洲的工業(yè)還遠(yuǎn)未復(fù)蘇。美國的糧食、工業(yè)產(chǎn)品、紡織品，甚至是石油，都是戰(zhàn)后世界的救命稻草。



柏林1948

What Americans think of as an idyllic “normal” in the 1950s and 1960s is a lifestyle built that was only possible because the United States had emerged from World War 2 as the most fantastically wealthy, powerful, and dominant country in world history. There’s a good reason for this and it comes down to the fact that American cities were never bombed, never invaded, never pillaged, and never burned in the course of World War II.

美國人眼中1950至1960年代那種理想化的“正?！鄙?，實際上是建立在美國從二戰(zhàn)中崛起為世界上最富有、最強大、最主導(dǎo)國家的基礎(chǔ)之上的。出現(xiàn)這種情況是有原因的：美國的城市從未被轟炸、從未被入侵、從未被掠奪、也從未被戰(zhàn)火焚毀。

There are many, many examples of this but one of the most compelling comes from the International Monetary Fund. By 1947 the United States had come to be in possession of 70% of the world’s gold supply. At a time when gold was synonymous with national wealth, a single country — one of almost 200 — had 70% of it.

有很多例子可以說明這一點，其中最具說服力的一個來自國際貨幣基金組織（IMF）。到1947年，美國擁有全球70%的黃金儲備。而在那個黃金等同于國家財富的時代，一個國家——在近200個國家中——竟然擁有70%的黃金。

Putting that into perspective is almost impossible but consider this. The total net wealth of the United States is about $135 Trillion. Elon Musk — probably the wealthiest person in America right now — has a net worth of about $200 Billion.

要理解這個數(shù)字有多夸張幾乎是不可能的，但我們可以做個類比：今天美國的凈資產(chǎn)總額約為135萬億美元。而目前可能是美國最富有的人——埃隆·馬斯克的凈資產(chǎn)大約是2000億美元。

For Elon Musk to be as rich - compared to other Americans - as the United States was compared to the other countries in the international community he would have to have to be 472 TIMES wealthier than he is today. Americans could afford goods produced in America because they were rich. Fantastically, unbelievably rich.

如果把“馬斯克的財富地位對比其他美國人”和“美國在全球范圍內(nèi)的財富地位對比其他國家”作一個橫向類比，那么他必須比現(xiàn)在富裕472倍才行。美國人之所以能買得起在美國制造的商品，是因為他們非常非常富有。富有到一種難以想象的程度。

They just didn’t realize it.

但連他們自己都沒意識到這一點。