Being poor now just leads to being more poor later. Can't pay to clean your teeth? Next year pay for a root canal. Can't pay for a new mattress? Next year pay for back surgery. Can't pay to get that lump checked out? Next year pay for stage 3 cancer. Poverty charges interest.
窮只會讓你接下來更窮。沒錢清洗牙齒？明年，你得花錢做牙根管治療。沒錢買個新床墊？明年，你得花錢做背部手術。沒錢檢查那個腫塊？明年，你得花錢做癌症的第三個階段治療。貧窮會榨取利息。
評論翻譯
原創翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：翻譯加工廠 轉載請註明出處
-------------譯者：penny12138-審核者：龍騰翻譯總管------------
SteveAAdcock 189 points·4 hours ago
Yup a lot of that is true. Same principle with being cheap vs. frugal. If you're cheap it'll very often cost you more money in the long run because you are re-buying things later on. If you cannot pay for preventative maintenance it costs us...
是的，大部分是這樣的。同樣的原則適用於便宜和節約。如果你買便宜的東西，但是因為你不久後又得再買，所以從長遠來看你會花掉更多的錢。如果你不花錢防護檢修，這會花....
ChemistryRespecter 2 points·7 minutes ago
One of the truest statements ever said about this is "Being poor costs money."
有句關於這的非常有道理的話是“貧窮就是花錢。”
oppy1984 11 points·1 hour ago
And this is why I dumped my corporate bank and put everything in my credit unx. I get better service great rates on loans nation wide access to the Alliance One ATM network and all the online banking features I had with the corporate bank. The only thing corporate banks have over credit unxs is a better online banking UI and I can live with the 2001 style UI.
這就是為什麼我不再使用股份銀行，而是把所有的錢存在信用社裡。我能享受到更好的服務、更好的貸款利息、全國範圍內的自動提款機網絡，還可以使用所有的網上銀行業務。股份銀行唯一比信用社好的一點就是它的在線銀行用戶界面（UI），我挺滿意2001版的用戶界面。
tl;dr: If you don't want to pay fees for not having enough money bank with a Credit unx instead.
總而言之，如果你不想因錢不夠而要繳（服務）費，還是辦信用社的銀行卡吧。
-------------譯者：willdemon-審核者：龍騰翻譯總管------------
jospa27 19 points·2 hours ago
Very odd that the more money you have the more free things you receive.
很奇怪哦，你錢越多越能得到更多免費的服務。
KellieReilynn 16 points·1 hour ago
But it is very true! Now that I have a professional job there is so much free food and not just at meetings. I have really wondered if some of the wealthy are even aware that food costs money. It would explain a few things.
（接上）很奇怪但確實是事實！我現在在做的這份工作會給我提供很多免費食品，不僅僅只是在開會的時候提供哦。我一直好奇，這些有錢的老闆知不知道這些食物也是要花錢的啊。這確實能說明一些世事。
starberry_Sundae 5 points·1 hour ago
I don't have any money in the bank so the bank charges me $70 that I can totally afford.
:/
我銀行賬戶裡一分錢都沒有，所以銀行要收取我70美金的服務費，這些錢我“完全”付得起。:/
MyElectricCity 282 points·3 hours ago
“The reason that the rich were so rich Vimes reasoned was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”
-Sir Terry Pratchett
“‘有錢人之所以有錢，’比梅斯推斷，‘是因為他們設法少花錢。’
拿靴子來舉個例子。他一個月算上津貼一共賺38美金。一雙質量上乘的靴子要價50美金。但是一雙買得起的靴子，雖然至少還能湊活穿，但是當鞋裡填充的紙板磨穿了後就會進水，這樣的靴子要賣10美金左右。比梅斯就一直買這種便宜的靴子，穿到鞋底磨到薄得不行，甚至到了在莫波克起霧的晚上他靠腳底感受鵝卵石就能識別方位。
但是實際情況是，一雙好的靴子可以穿好多年。一個人如果可以付得起50美金買雙好靴子，他就可以穿上十年而鞋子仍然不進水。然而窮人就只能買得起便宜的靴子，在同樣的十年裡，他要在買靴子上花費數百美金，而每雙靴子最後還是要進水的。
這就是塞繆爾.比梅斯隊長有關社會經濟不公平性的 ‘靴子理論’。“
——特里·普拉切特爵士
（譯註：Sir Terry Pratchett，1948~2015， 英國著名幻想小說家，因對英國文學貢獻，1998年被授予爵士稱號）
BeTheBlessing 58 points·3 hours ago
Except that wealth these days is orders of magnitude more than you could ever amass just by saving. You or I could save every dollar we've ever made and not make a dent in the wealth of the truly rich.
除此以外，現在有錢人的財富數量級是你靠收入積攢完全比不了的。你我可以把賺的每一分錢都存起來，然而和真正的有錢人比，還是九牛一毛。
-------------譯者：willdemon-審核者：龍騰翻譯總管------------
FaeryLynne 40 points·2 hours ago
I saw a calculation that a regular Amazon worker would have to work for nearly 1000 years to make what Bezos makes in one. That's just insane to me.
我看過一份統計，上面說亞馬遜公司的普通員工，要工作1000年才能趕得上貝索斯（亞馬遜創始人）一年的收入。我覺得這太瘋狂了。
nicetriangle 17 points·2 hours ago
Beat me to it. It's exactly what this tweet is describing.
Poor people also pay higher interest rates on loans and have to stoop to pay day lending and title loans. Having been dirt broke earlier in my life I remember all to well how badly life nickel and dimed me.
比我搶先一步說了。這正是這篇推文想要表達的東西。窮人總是要為貸款付更高的利息而且有時不得不每日按揭或者還高利貸勉強度日。早年的我窮困潦倒，我深深記得生活對我是多麼的吝嗇和摳門啊。
stmstr 20 points·3 hours ago
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
-------------譯者：willdemon-審核者：龍騰翻譯總管------------
skunkwrxs 22 points·2 hours ago
Being poor is extremely expensive.
貧窮可是很燒錢的。
oxygenium92 1 point·3 minutes ago
And requires a lot of work...
（接樓上）而且還要做更多的工作。
ThrowsLikeaHuman 36 points·2 hours ago·edited 2 hours ago
Yup. If taxpayers understood the math of all this how things like affordable housing are really good for the middle class and wealthy too then maybe we could all get along?
沒錯。要是納稅人們都能明白其中的道理，就是人人都負擔得起的房價對中產階級和富人都是有好處的，那麼也許大家就都相安無事和平共處了？
After all every time your local police pick up your homeless junkies book them in jail run them thru the court system and then put them in jail or rehab for a year WHO is paying for all of that?
YOU and ME. Not the junkie.
畢竟，每次警察抓獲了無家可歸的吸毒和販毒者，要把他們先關押起來，然後在法院走一遍流程，最後再關進監獄或者強制戒毒一年，是誰為這些掏的錢？是你我這些納稅人。不是那些癮君子們。
poisontongue 17 points·3 hours ago
Well yeah that's kind of the point.
Credit cards were the first realization of that for me. Their underlying intent is to keep people in debt. Then there's all sorts of loans from these various usurious institutions enabled here.
Preventative care is also better than reactive care although unfortunately America's system is designed for the latter. You are better taking care of yourself now - if you can.
呃，好吧，你這觀點不錯。信用卡讓我第一次意識到這點。信用卡潛在的目的就是讓人們都背上債務。然後放債機構們就帶著各種各樣借貸服務來了。預防性的保健總是比應激性的治療要好，但不幸的是美國的系統都是以後者為目的而設計的。你現在最好開始好好照顧自己——要是你能付得起的話。
閱讀更多 用戶98408596888 的文章
