財(cái)富真的不等于幸福

What is the point of being a “high net worth” person — of being seriously rich? As wealth increases, its benefits seem to diminish, or at times, lead to major problems.

身為“高凈值”人士(即達(dá)到真正富有的境界)到底意義何在?隨著財(cái)富增加，其帶來(lái)的好處似乎越來(lái)越少，有時(shí)甚至?xí)?lái)大問(wèn)題。

It is easy to see the benefits of having enough money to afford a nice house or two, private education and healthcare, the best food, expensive cars; not having to worry about what you spend. But you do not need dozens or hundreds of millions for these. Let us say £20m in capital and property combined, and an income of about half a million, should do the trick.

有足夠的錢(qián)來(lái)購(gòu)置一兩處不錯(cuò)的房產(chǎn)，支付私人教育和醫(yī)療保險(xiǎn)，買(mǎi)最好的食物、昂貴的汽車(chē)，而不用擔(dān)心自己的開(kāi)銷(xiāo);這些好處很容易理解。但你不需要數(shù)千萬(wàn)或數(shù)億的資產(chǎn)就足夠?yàn)檫@些買(mǎi)單。讓我們假設(shè)，資本和財(cái)產(chǎn)總計(jì)2000萬(wàn)英鎊、收入約50萬(wàn)英鎊，就能達(dá)到這個(gè)境界。

A simple game illustrates why it is pointless to want more than that, unless you have an unusual reason to do so (like a passion for a particular benevolent cause or a burning desire to fly to the moon).

一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的游戲可以表明為什么想要擁有更多是無(wú)意義的，除非你有一個(gè)不尋常的理由想要更多(例如對(duì)某項(xiàng)慈善事業(yè)的熱衷或者渴望登月)。

Suppose you have the UK’s national average wage, nearly £28,000. Now I am going to double that, for no additional work hours or change in role. For a short time you feel good, sure. But only six months later, you are already moving the goalposts, spending more and expanding your consumption horizons to fit £56,000.

假設(shè)你擁有英國(guó)的全國(guó)平均工資收入，近2.8萬(wàn)英鎊?，F(xiàn)在，在不增加工作時(shí)間和不改變工作崗位的情況下，把這個(gè)收入翻一番。沒(méi)錯(cuò)，短期內(nèi)你感覺(jué)很棒。但在僅僅6個(gè)月后，你的標(biāo)桿就會(huì)開(kāi)始改變，開(kāi)銷(xiāo)增加，消費(fèi)范圍擴(kuò)大，達(dá)到與5.6萬(wàn)英鎊收入相稱(chēng)的水平。

Six months later we repeat the exercise — double the money again. With £112,000 to play with, you feel a rush of excitement. But again, how long before that wears off and the newly moved goalposts of aspiration eat it up?

6個(gè)月后我們重復(fù)以上操作——把收入再翻一番。有11.2萬(wàn)英鎊讓你支配，你感到一陣興奮。但是同樣，這種興奮又會(huì)在多長(zhǎng)時(shí)間內(nèi)消失殆盡，被再度上調(diào)的欲望標(biāo)桿吞噬?

Six months later we double it again, and so on. At what point does the doubling begin to become meaningless; £57,344,000, £114,688,000, £229,376,000, or more than that? There are only so many boats, planes or houses one can buy.

6個(gè)月后我們?cè)賮?lái)翻一番，以此類(lèi)推。在哪一個(gè)點(diǎn)上，收入的翻倍會(huì)開(kāi)始顯得毫無(wú)意義?5734.4萬(wàn)英鎊、1.14688億英鎊、2.29376億英鎊，還是更多?一個(gè)人能夠買(mǎi)下并享用的船、飛機(jī)或房子終究是有限的。

All sorts of new problems will have arisen as you accelerate up through the millions. 當(dāng)你的收入在百萬(wàn)英鎊的級(jí)別加速增長(zhǎng)時(shí)，各種新的問(wèn)題將會(huì)顯現(xiàn)。

I have seen my rich friends fuss at expensive restaurants if the cutlery is not spotless, the £500 bottle of wine not quite right. I have looked on as they waited years for their dream houses to be completed. But worst of all, I have seen the effects of inherited wealth.

我見(jiàn)過(guò)我的富人朋友在高檔餐廳吹毛求疵，只是因?yàn)椴途卟婚W閃發(fā)亮;500英鎊一瓶的葡萄酒不太對(duì)味兒。我曾見(jiàn)證他們?yōu)樽约簤?mèng)想的豪宅竣工而等待數(shù)年。但最糟糕的是，我見(jiàn)識(shí)過(guò)繼承得來(lái)財(cái)富的后果。

The impact on offspring is usually dire. I have known well about 50 people who inherited enough money never to need to work. I can think of only one — incidentally, a therapist — who was not severely handicapped by their wealth.

對(duì)后代的影響通常是可怕的。我熟識(shí)大約50個(gè)繼承了足夠財(cái)富、以至于永遠(yuǎn)無(wú)需工作的人。就我記憶所及，其中只有一個(gè)人(順便提一句，這是一名治療師)沒(méi)有被其財(cái)富嚴(yán)重“致殘”。

Most of the rest never achieved anything in their careers, insofar as they attempted one. A few became ferocious workaholics, seeking to outdo their forebears, living miserable and frenzied lives. Worst of all, nearly all of them suffered a variety of depression, anxiety and substance abuse, living sad and emotionally unhealthy lives.

其余大多數(shù)人從未在職業(yè)生涯中實(shí)現(xiàn)過(guò)什么——如果他們?cè)?jīng)嘗試的話。少數(shù)幾個(gè)人成為不要命的工作狂，尋求超越他們的祖輩，過(guò)著乖戾和瘋狂的生活。最糟糕的是，他們幾乎全都遭受著不同程度的抑郁、焦慮和藥物濫用，過(guò)著悲傷和情感不健康的生活。

I am not remotely suggesting that absolute poverty is the route to wisdom and emotional health, although it is true that many poor countries have far lower prevalence of mental illness than rich ones.

我絕不會(huì)說(shuō)絕對(duì)貧窮是通往智慧和情感健康的途徑，盡管事實(shí)是很多窮國(guó)的精神疾病發(fā)病率遠(yuǎn)低于富國(guó)。

For example, only 4 per cent of Nigerians have suffered a mental illness in the past 12 months, compared with 26 per cent of Americans — invariably the most mentally ill country in all surveys, despite being one of the richest.

例如，在過(guò)去12個(gè)月中，只有4%的尼日利亞人患上精神疾病，相比之下美國(guó)人的精神疾病發(fā)病率高達(dá)26%——在各類(lèi)調(diào)查中始終是精神疾病比例最高的國(guó)家，盡管美國(guó)是最富有的國(guó)家之一。

The problem is relative, not absolute, deprivation: the more we have, the greater our tendency to keep up with the Joneses; to engage in malignant social comparisons and conspicuous consumption.

問(wèn)題在于相對(duì)(而非絕對(duì))貧窮：我們擁有的越多，跟別人攀比的欲望就越強(qiáng)烈，更容易投入惡性的社會(huì)攀比和炫耀性消費(fèi)。

Huge wealth seems to drain life of meaning for its owners and their offspring. That this capital could be serving the wider community is a secondary, political issue. My point is, high net worth seems to produce low net self-worth and greater vulnerability to mental illness.

巨額財(cái)富似乎會(huì)剝奪所有者及其后代的人生意義。至于這筆資本原本可以服務(wù)于整體社會(huì)是一個(gè)次要的政治課題。我的主要觀點(diǎn)是，高凈值似乎會(huì)帶來(lái)較低的自我價(jià)值感，并且更容易患上精神疾病。