America Homelessness(英汉双语) 美国正在让工人陷入无家可归的境地
Guest Essay
America Is Pushing Its Workers Into Homelessness(英汉双语) 美国正在让工人陷入无家可归的境地
March 1, 2025, 7:00 a.m. ET
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/opinion/crisis-working-homeless.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0k4.kAbS.he1PCix51nRL&smid=url-share
https://blog.creaders.net/user_blog_diary.php?did=NTA5Njg5
A cutout figure, composed of tax forms and a McDonald's receipt, against a background of a city.
Credit...Derek Miller Hurtado
By Brian Goldstone
Mr. Goldstone is the author of “There Is No Place for Us: Working and Homeless in America,” forthcoming.
At 10 p.m., a hospital technician pulls into a Walmart parking lot. Her four kids — one still nursing — are packed into the back of her Toyota. She tells them it's an adventure, but she's terrified someone will call the police: “Inadequate housing” is enough to lose your children. She stays awake for hours, lavender scrubs folded in the trunk, listening for footsteps, any sign of trouble. Her shift starts soon. She'll walk into the hospital exhausted, pretending everything is fine.
Across the country, men and women sleep in their vehicles night after night and then head to work the next morning. Others scrape together enough for a week in a motel, knowing one missed paycheck could leave them on the street.
These people are not on the fringes of society. They are the workers America depends on. The very phrase “working homeless” should be a contradiction, an impossibility in a nation that claims hard work leads to stability. And yet, their homelessness is not only pervasive but also persistently overlooked — excluded from official counts, ignored by policymakers, treated as an anomaly rather than a disaster unfolding in plain sight.
Today, the threat of homelessness is most acute not in the poorest regions of the country, but in the richest, fastest-growing ones. In places like these, a low-wage job is homelessness waiting to happen.
For an increasing share of the nation's work force, a mix of soaring rents, low wages and inadequate tenant protections have forced them into a brutal cycle of insecurity in which housing is unaffordable, unstable or entirely out of reach. A recent study analyzing the 2010 census found that nearly half of people experiencing homelessness while staying in shelters, and about 40 percent of those living outdoors or in other makeshift conditions, had formal employment. But that's only part of the picture. These numbers don't capture the full scale of working homelessness in America: the many who lack a home but never enter a shelter or who wind up on the streets.
I've spent the past six years reporting on men and women who work in grocery stores, nursing homes, day care centers and restaurants. They prepare food, stock shelves, deliver packages and care for the sick and elderly. And at the end of the day, they return not to homes but to parking lots, shelters, the crowded apartments of friends or relatives and squalid extended-stay hotel rooms.
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
America has been experiencing what economists described as a historically tight labor market, with a national unemployment rate of just 4 percent. And all the while, homelessness has soared to the highest level on record.
What good is low unemployment when workers are a paycheck away from homelessness?
A few statistics succinctly capture why this catastrophe is unfolding: Today there isn't a single state, city or county in the United States where a full-time minimum-wage worker can afford a median-priced two-bedroom apartment. An astounding 12.1 million low-income renter households are “severely cost burdened,” spending at least half of their earnings on rent and utilities. Since 1985, rent prices have exceeded income gains by 325 percent.
According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the average “housing wage” required to afford a modest two-bedroom rental home across the country is $32.11, while nearly 52 million American workers earn less than $15 an hour. And if you're disabled and receive S.S.I., it's even worse: Those payments are currently capped at $967 a month nationwide, and there is hardly anywhere in the country where this form of fixed income is enough to afford the average rent.
But it's not just that wages are too low; it's that work has become more precarious than ever. Even for those earning above the minimum wage, job security has eroded in ways that make stable housing increasingly out of reach.
More and more workers now face volatile schedules, unreliable hours and a lack of benefits such as sick leave. The rise of “just in time” scheduling means employees don't know how many hours they'll get week to week, making it impossible to budget for rent. Entire industries have been gigified, leaving ride-share drivers, warehouse workers and temp nurses working without benefits, protections or reliable pay. Even full-time jobs in retail and health care — once seen as dependable — are increasingly contracted out, turned into part-time roles or made contingent on meeting ever-shifting quotas.
For millions of Americans, the greatest threat isn't that they'll lose their jobs. It's that the job will never pay enough, never provide enough hours, never offer enough stability to keep them housed.
It's not just in New York and San Francisco and Los Angeles. It's also in tech hubs like Austin and Seattle, cultural and financial centers like Atlanta and Washington, D.C., and rapidly expanding cities like Nashville, Phoenix and Denver, places awash in investment, luxury development and corporate growth. But this wealth isn't trickling down. It's pooled at the top, while affordable units are demolished, new ones are blocked, tenants are evicted — about every minute, seven evictions are filed all around the United States, according to Princeton's Eviction Lab — and housing is treated as a commodity to be hoarded and exploited for maximum profit.
This results in a devastating pattern: As cities gentrify and become “revitalized,” the nurses, teachers, janitors and child care providers who keep them running are being systematically priced out. Unlike in earlier periods of widespread immiseration, such as the recession of 2008, what we're witnessing today is a crisis born less of poverty than of prosperity. These workers aren't “falling” into homelessness. They're being pushed. They're the casualties not of a failing economy but of one that's thriving — just not for them.
And yet, even as this calamity deepens, many families remain invisible, existing in a kind of shadow realm: deprived of a home, but neither counted nor recognized by the federal government as “homeless.”
This exclusion was by design. In the 1980s, as mass homelessness surged across the United States, the Reagan administration made a concerted effort to shape public perception of the crisis. Officials downplayed its severity while muddying its root causes. Federal funding for research on homelessness was steered almost exclusively toward studies that emphasized mental illness and addiction, diverting attention from structural forces — gutted funding for low-income housing, a shredded safety net. Framing homelessness as a result of personal failings didn't just make it easier to dismiss; it was also less politically threatening. It obscured the socioeconomic roots of the crisis and shifted blame onto its victims. And it worked: By the late 1980s, at least one survey showed that many Americans attributed homelessness to drugs or unwillingness to work. Nobody mentioned housing.
Over the decades, this narrow, distorted view persisted, embedding itself in the federal government's annual homeless census. Before something can be counted, it must be defined — and one way the United States has “reduced” homelessness is by defining entire groups of the homeless population out of existence. Advocates have long decried the census' deliberately circumscribed definition: only those in shelters or visible on the streets are tallied. As a result, a relatively small but conspicuous fraction of the total homeless population has come to stand, in the public imagination, for homelessness itself. Everyone else has been written out of the story. They literally don't count.
The gap between what we see and what's really happening is vast. Recent research suggests that the true number of people experiencing homelessness — factoring in those living in cars or motel rooms, or doubled up with others — is at least six times as high as official counts. As bad as the reported numbers are, the reality is far worse. The tents are just the tip of the iceberg, the most glaring sign of a far more entrenched crisis.
This willful blindness has caused incalculable harm, locking millions of families and individuals out of vital assistance. But it's done more than that. How we count and define homelessness dictates how we respond to it. A distorted view of the problem has led to responses that are inadequate at best and cruelly counterproductive at worst.
But the truth is that all of this — the nights spent sleeping in cars, the constant uprooting from motels to friends' couches, the incessant hustle to stay one step ahead of homelessness — is neither inevitable nor intractable. Ours doesn't have to be a society where people clocking 50 or 60 hours a week aren't paid enough to meet their most basic needs. It doesn't have to be a place where parents sell their plasma or live without electricity just to keep a roof over their children's heads.
For decades, lawmakers have stood by while rents soared, while housing was turned into an asset class for the wealthy, while worker protections were shredded and wages failed to keep up. We've settled for piecemeal, better-than-nothing initiatives that tweak the existing system rather than transform it. But the disaster we face demands more than half measures.
It's not enough to pull people out of homelessness — we must stop them from being pushed into it in the first place. In some cities, for every one person who secures housing, another estimated four become homeless. How do we halt this relentless churn? There are immediate steps: stronger tenant protections like rent control and just-cause eviction laws, the elimination of exclusionary zoning, and higher wages with robust labor protections. But we also need transformative, comprehensive solutions, like large-scale investments in social housing, that treat affordable, reliable shelter as an essential public good, not a privilege for the few.
Any meaningful solution will require a fundamental shift in how we think about housing in America. A safe, affordable home shouldn't be a luxury. It should be a guaranteed right for everybody. Embracing this idea will demand an expansion of our moral imagination. Acting on it will require unwavering political resolve.
We should be asking ourselves not just how much worse this can become but also why we've tolerated it for so long.
Because when work no longer provides stability, when wages are too low and rents are too high, when millions of people are one medical bill, one missed paycheck, one rent hike away from losing their homes — who, exactly, is safe?
Who gets to feel secure in this country? And who are the casualties of our prosperity?
More on homelessness
Opinion
A Life Without a Home
Opinion | Matthew Desmond and Jillian Weinberger
I Study Homelessness. I Wish More Places Looked Like This Shelter.
June 26, 2024
Opinion | Binyamin Appelbaum
Note to Democrats: It's Time to Take Up Your Hammers
Nov. 30, 2024
Brian Goldstone is the author of “There Is No Place for Us: Working and Homeless in America.”
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
*
Engels on Capitalism and Housing Crisis
Friedrich Engels' point of view on
"The Housing Question" is a series of articles written by Friedrich Engels between 1872 and 1873. In these texts, Engels addresses the housing crisis faced by the working class in industrialized societies, particularly in the context of 19th-century Europe. He critiques the capitalist system and its role in exacerbating housing shortages, arguing that the problem is not merely a result of overpopulation or poor urban planning but is deeply rooted in the exploitative nature of capitalism.
Engels engages with the ideas of bourgeois reformers and utopian socialists, such as Proudhonists and Lassalleans, who proposed solutions like small-scale property ownership or state-assisted housing. He dismisses these as inadequate, asserting that they fail to address the systemic issues of capitalist exploitation and the concentration of wealth. Instead, Engels advocates for a revolutionary transformation of society, where the means of production, including housing, are collectively owned and managed by the working class.
Key points in Engels' analysis include:
The Role of Capitalism in Housing Shortages: Engels argues that capitalism inherently creates housing crises by driving up rents, displacing workers, and prioritizing profit over human needs. The speculative nature of property markets under capitalism leads to overcrowding and poor living conditions for the proletariat.
Critique of Reformist Solutions: Engels critiques the idea that housing problems can be solved within the capitalist framework. He views proposals like tenant cooperatives or state subsidies as temporary fixes that do not challenge the underlying system of exploitation.
Revolutionary Change: Engels emphasizes that the housing question cannot be resolved without overthrowing capitalism. He calls for the socialization of housing and the means of production, ensuring that housing is treated as a basic human right rather than a commodity.
Historical Materialism: Engels applies a Marxist lens to the housing question, analyzing it as part of the broader class struggle. He sees the housing crisis as a manifestation of the contradictions within capitalism, which can only be resolved through the establishment of a socialist society.
Engels' work on the housing question remains influential in Marxist theory and urban studies, offering a critical perspective on the relationship between capitalism, urbanization, and social inequality. It highlights the importance of addressing housing as a fundamental aspect of economic and social justice. [Reference source: Version R1 of https://chat.deepseek.com/]
*
My own comment is that during this late capitalism in the world, crises have become so overwhelming that improvements and reformations by bits and pieces have failed for a long time. Almost no one will hope capialism in this late stage can miraculously survive its collapse. The MAGA party has tried hard to make a comeback for the capitalism under the heavy pressure that the proletarian revolution exerted on the whole world. Can the savings and recoveries obtained by DOPE's purge and struggle efforts help solving the socially doomed problems, at least temporarily? [Mark Wain -03/01/2025]
汉译
客座文章
美国正在让工人陷入无家可归的境地
2025 年 3 月 1 日，美国东部时间上午 7:00
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/opinion/crisis-working-homeless.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0k4.kAbS.he1PCix51nRL&smid=url-share
https://blog.creaders.net/user_blog_diary.php?did=NTA5Njg5
由税务表格和麦当劳收据组成的剪影，背景是一座城市。
图片来源：德里克·米勒·乌尔塔多
作者：布莱恩·戈德斯通
戈德斯通先生是《我们无处容身：在美国工作和无家可归》一书的作者，即将出版。
晚上 10 点，一名医院技术员驶入沃尔玛停车场。她的四个孩子（其中一个仍在哺乳）挤在她的丰田车后座上。她告诉他们这是一次冒险，但她害怕有人会报警：“住房不足”足以让你失去孩子。她几个小时不睡觉，把薰衣草灌木丛折叠在后备箱里，听着脚步声，听着任何麻烦的迹象。她的轮班很快就开始了。她会精疲力竭地走进医院，假装一切都很好。
在全国各地，男男女女夜复一夜地睡在车里，第二天早上才去上班。其他人则勉强凑够一周的钱在汽车旅馆住，因为他们知道，一旦错过一次工资，他们就可能流落街头。
这些人并不是社会的边缘人。他们是美国所依赖的工人。“无家可归的人”这个词本身就应该是一个矛盾，在一个声称努力工作会带来稳定的国家里，这是不可能的。然而，他们的无家可归不仅普遍存在，而且一直被忽视——他们被排除在官方统计之外，被政策制定者忽视，被视为一种异常现象，而不是一场显而易见的灾难。
如今，无家可归的威胁最严重的地方不是美国最贫穷的地区，而是最富裕、发展最快的地区。在这样的地方，低薪工作就是无家可归的必然结果。
对于美国越来越多的劳动力来说，飞涨的房租、低工资和不充分的租户保护使他们陷入了残酷的不安全循环，住房负担不起、不稳定或根本无法负担。最近一项分析 2010 年人口普查的研究发现，住在收容所的无家可归者中，近一半有正式工作，而住在户外或其他临时环境中的无家可归者中，约有 40% 有正式工作。但这只是部分情况。这些数字并不能反映美国无家可归者的全部情况：许多人没有家，但从未进入收容所，或者最终流落街头。
过去六年，我一直在报道在杂货店、养老院、日托中心和餐馆工作的男男女女。他们准备食物、上架货物、运送包裹并照顾病人和老人。一天结束后，他们不是回到家，而是回到停车场、避难所、朋友或亲戚拥挤的公寓和肮脏的长住酒店房间。
订阅《今日观点》时事通讯，获取专家对新闻的分析以及每个工作日早晨影响世界的重大创意指南。将其发送到您的收件箱。
美国一直经历着经济学家所描述的历史性紧张的劳动力市场，全国失业率仅为 4%。与此同时，无家可归者人数飙升至有记录以来的最高水平。
当工人离无家可归只有一份薪水的距离时，低失业率有什么好处呢？
一些统计数据简明扼要地说明了这场灾难发生的原因：今天，美国没有一个州、城市或县的全职最低工资工人可以负担得起中等价位的两居室公寓。令人震惊的是，有 1210 万低收入租房家庭“负担沉重”，至少有一半的收入用于支付房租和水电费。自 1985 年以来，房租价格已超过收入增长 325%。
据全国低收入住房联盟称，在全国范围内，租住一套普通两居室所需的平均“住房工资”为 32.11 美元，而近 5200 万美国工人每小时的收入不到 15 美元。如果你是残疾人，并且领取社会保障金，情况就更糟了：目前，全国范围内社会保障金的上限为每月 967 美元，而且全国几乎没有任何地方的这种固定收入足以支付平均房租。
但这不仅仅是工资太低的问题；而是工作变得比以往任何时候都更加不稳定。即使对于那些收入高于最低工资的人来说，工作保障也受到了侵蚀，这使得稳定的住房越来越遥不可及。
现在，越来越多的工人面临着工作时间不稳定、工作时间不固定以及病假等福利缺失的问题。“即时”工作制的兴起意味着员工不知道自己每周能工作多少小时，这使得他们无法为房租做预算。整个行业都被零工化了，网约车司机、仓库工人和临时护士没有福利、保障或可靠的工资。即使是零售和医疗保健行业的全职工作也曾经被视为可靠的人越来越多地被外包，变成兼职，或以完成不断变化的配额为条件。
对于数百万美国人来说，最大的威胁不是失去工作。而是这份工作永远没有足够的薪水，永远没有足够的工作时间，永远没有足够的稳定性来让他们有房子住。
这种情况不仅发生在纽约、旧金山和洛杉矶。奥斯汀和西雅图等科技中心、亚特兰大和华盛顿特区等文化和金融中心，以及纳什维尔、菲尼克斯和丹佛等快速扩张的城市也是如此，这些地方充斥着投资、豪华开发和企业增长。但这些财富并没有涓滴而下。它集中在顶层，而经济适用房被拆除，新房被封锁，租户被驱逐——根据普林斯顿驱逐实验室的数据，大约每分钟，全美就会有七起驱逐案件——住房被视为一种商品，被囤积和利用以获取最大利润。
这导致了一种毁灭性的模式：随着城市中产阶级化和“复兴”，维持城市运转的护士、教师、看门人和儿童保育人员被系统性地高价挤出。与早期普遍贫困时期（如 2008 年的经济衰退）不同，我们今天所看到的危机不是由贫困引起的，而是由繁荣引起的。这些工人并没有“陷入”无家可归的境地。他们是被迫的。他们不是经济衰退的牺牲品，而是一个蓬勃发展的经济的牺牲品——只是不适合他们。
然而，即使这场灾难加深，许多家庭仍然隐形，存在于一种阴影领域：被剥夺了家园，但既不被联邦政府算作也不被承认为“无家可归者”。
这种排斥是故意的。20 世纪 80 年代，随着美国各地无家可归者人数激增，里根政府做出了一致努力来塑造公众对危机的看法。官员们淡化了无家可归问题的严重性，同时混淆了其根本原因。联邦政府对无家可归问题的研究资金几乎全部用于强调精神疾病和成瘾的研究，从而转移了人们对结构性力量的注意力——削减了对低收入住房的资助，这是一个支离破碎的安全网。将无家可归问题归咎于个人缺陷不仅使其更容易被忽视；而且在政治上也不那么具有威胁性。它掩盖了危机的社会经济根源，并将责任推给受害者。而且它奏效了：到 20 世纪 80 年代末，至少有一项调查显示，许多美国人将无家可归归咎于吸毒或不愿意工作。没有人提到住房。
几十年来，这种狭隘、扭曲的观点一直存在，并嵌入联邦政府每年的无家可归者普查中。在统计某件事之前，必须对其进行定义——而美国“减少”无家可归的一种方式就是将整个无家可归者群体定义为不存在。长期以来，倡导者们一直谴责人口普查故意限制的定义：只统计那些住在庇护所或街上可见的人。结果，在公众的想象中，无家可归者总数中相对较小但显眼的一部分代表了无家可归本身。其他人都被排除在故事之外。他们根本就不算数。
我们看到的和实际发生的情况之间的差距是巨大的。最近的研究表明，无家可归者的真实人数——包括住在汽车或汽车旅馆房间或与他人合住的人——至少是官方统计的六倍。尽管报告的数字很糟糕，但现实更糟糕。帐篷只是冰山一角，是更为根深蒂固的危机最明显的迹象。
这种故意的视而不见造成了无法估量的伤害，使数百万家庭和个人无法获得重要援助。但它造成的伤害远不止于此。我们如何计算和定义无家可归决定了我们如何应对它。对问题的扭曲看法导致的回应充其量是不够的，最坏的情况则是适得其反。
但事实是，所有这些——在车里度过的夜晚、从汽车旅馆到朋友家的不断搬迁、为了避免无家可归而不断努力——既不是不可避免的，也不是难以解决的。我们的社会不必是一个每周工作 50 或 60 小时的人却得不到足够的报酬来满足他们最基本的需求的社会。它不必是一个父母卖掉血浆或没有电的地方，只是为了让孩子有个栖身之所。
几十年来，立法者一直袖手旁观，看着租金飙升，看着住房变成了富人的资产类别，看着工人保护被撕碎，工资跟不上。我们满足于零碎的、聊胜于无的举措，这些举措只是调整了现有的体系，而不是改变它。但我们面临的灾难需要的不仅仅是半途而废。
这不足以吸引人们无家可归——我们必须首先阻止他们陷入这种境地。在一些城市，每有一个人获得住房，就会有另外四个人无家可归。我们如何阻止这种持续不断的流动？我们可以立即采取措施：加强对租户的保护，如租金控制和正当驱逐法，取消排他性分区，提高工资并提供强有力的劳工保护。但我们也需要变革性的综合解决方案，如大规模投资社会住房，将负担得起、可靠的住房视为必不可少的公共利益，而不是少数人的特权。
任何有意义的解决方案都需要我们对美国住房的看法进行根本性的转变。安全、负担得起的住房不应该是一种奢侈品。它应该是每个人的一项保障权利。接受这个想法需要我们拓展道德想象力。采取行动需要坚定不移的政治决心。
我们不仅应该问自己这种情况会变得多糟，还应该问自己为什么我们容忍了这么久。
因为当工作不再提供稳定时，当工资太低而房租太高时，当数百万人因为一张医疗账单、一次错过的薪水、一次房租上涨而失去家园时——究竟谁是安全的？
谁能在这个国家感到安全？谁是我们繁荣的牺牲品？
更多关于无家可归者的信息
观点
没有家的生活
观点 | 马修·德斯蒙德和吉莉安·温伯格
我研究无家可归者。我希望更多地方看起来像这个庇护所。
2024 年 6 月 26 日
观点 | 宾雅明·阿佩尔鲍姆
给民主党人的说明：是时候拿起锤子了
2024 年 11 月 30 日
布莱恩·戈德斯通是《我们没有立足之地：在美国工作和无家可归》一书的作者。
《纽约时报》致力于发表各种致编辑的信。我们想听听您对这篇文章或我们任何一篇文章的看法。以下是一些提示。这是我们的电子邮箱：letters@nytimes.com。
在 Facebook、Instagram、TikTok、Bluesky、WhatsApp 和 Threads 上关注《纽约时报》观点版块。
*
恩格斯论资本主义与住房危机
“住房问题”是弗里德里希·恩格斯在 1872 年至 1873 年间撰写的一系列文章。在这些文章中，恩格斯探讨了工业化社会中工人阶级面临的住房危机，特别是在 19 世纪欧洲的背景下。他批评了资本主义制度及其在加剧住房短缺方面的作用，认为这一问题不仅仅是人口过剩或城市规划不善的结果，而且深深植根于资本主义的剥削性质。
恩格斯赞同资产阶级改革者和空想社会主义者的思想，如蒲鲁东主义者和拉萨尔主义者，他们提出了小规模财产所有权或国家资助住房等解决方案。他认为这些措施不够充分，声称它们未能解决资本主义剥削和财富集中的系统性问题。相反，恩格斯主张社会进行革命性变革，包括住房在内的生产资料由工人阶级集体拥有和管理。
恩格斯分析的要点包括：
资本主义在住房短缺中的作用：恩格斯认为，资本主义通过推高租金、取代工人、将利润置于人类需求之上，本质上造成了住房危机。资本主义下房地产市场的投机性质导致无产阶级过度拥挤和生活条件恶劣。
对改革派解决方案的批判：恩格斯批判住房问题可以在资本主义框架内解决的想法。他认为租户合作社或国家补贴等提议只是暂时的解决办法，不会挑战潜在的剥削制度。
革命性变革：恩格斯强调，不推翻资本主义就无法解决住房问题。他呼吁住房和生产资料社会化，确保住房被视为一项基本人权，而不是商品。
历史唯物主义：恩格斯用马克思主义的视角来看待住房问题，将其作为更广泛的阶级斗争的一部分进行分析。他认为住房危机是资本主义内部矛盾的表现，只有通过建立社会主义社会才能解决。
恩格斯关于住房问题的著作在马克思主义理论和城市研究中仍然具有影响力，为资本主义、城市化和社会不平等之间的关系提供了批判性视角。它强调了解决住房问题作为经济和社会正义的一个基本方面的重要性。[参阅：《马恩选集》第二卷，恩格斯：“论住宅问题”。英文源自：https://chat.deepseek.com/ 即《深度求索》人工智能的R1版]
*
我自己的评论是，在当今世界资本主义晚期，危机变得如此势不可挡，以至于一点一点的改进和改革都长期失败。几乎没有人会希望资本主义在这个晚期阶段能够奇迹般地在崩溃中幸存下来。在无产阶级革命对全世界施加的沉重压力下，“让美国再次伟大”党努力尝试资本主义东山再起。DOPE（政府效率部）的清洗和斗争所获得的节省和恢复能否至少暂时帮助解决注定要失败的社会问题？[Mark Wain -3/01/2025]