One natural response is that people are never satisfied: perhaps their desire to consume can be inflamed by advertisers; perhaps it is just that one must always have a better car, a sharper suit, and a more tasteful kitchen than the neighbours. Since the neighbours are also getting richer, nothing about this process allows anyone to take time off.

一个自然的回应是人们永远不会感到满足：或许广告商们燃起了他们的消费欲望；或许只是因为人们永远希望拥有比邻居更好的车、更抢眼的西装以及更有品位的厨房。由于邻居们也在变得更富有，因此这个过程不允许任何人休息。

No doubt there is much in this. But Friedman takes a different angle. Rather than asking how Keynes could have been so right about income but so wrong about leisure, Friedman points out that Keynes might not have been quite so on the mark about income as we usually assume. For while the US economy grew briskly until the crisis of 2007, median household incomes started stagnating long before then — around 1970, in fact.

确实，这很有道理。但弗里德曼有着不同的视角。他没有问凯恩斯为何猜对了收入却猜错了人们的休闲时间，而是指出，凯恩斯对于收入的看法可能不像我们通常认为的那样正确。尽管在2007年金融危机之前，美国经济增长不俗，但家庭收入中值早在那之前就开始停滞了，实际上是在1970年前后。

【不好好工作还能做点什么?】相关文章：

★ 2019年《政府工作报告》双语要点

★ 寂寞的小袋熊缺少拥抱变抑郁

★ 你做过什么最勇敢的事？

★ 抑郁症是一种什么体验?

★ 可折叠手机成未来行业趋势？苹果已经申请专利

★ 如此休假:只要做完工作 休假随你定

★ 有话不敢说怎么破?

★ 工作经验对于跳槽的意义

★ 睡眠不足怎么办?

★ 欧洲毒黄瓜引恐慌 污染来源还在调查中