Too Many Households Are Short on Emergency Savings
太多美國家庭 應急存款不足
By Ann Carrns

Six weeks of take-home pay.
六周的實質薪資。

That’s how much cash families should aim to set aside to ride out gyrations in their income and expenses, a new analysis from JPMorgan Chase’s research arm finds.
摩根大通研究單位的一項新分析發現，一個家庭在收入與支出出現狀況時要能安然度過，這是必須存下的金額。

The recommendation, based on an analysis of millions of Chase checking accounts, is considerably less than the traditional rule of thumb of three to six months of take-home pay.
這項建議是以對摩根大通數百萬個支票帳戶的分析為根據，比起傳統經驗法則要存三至六個月分的實質收入，少了很多。

But even so, most households fall short, the report found: About two-thirds lack the recommended buffer.
但是即使如此，大多數家庭存款仍然不足，這分報告發現，大約三分之二家庭缺乏建議的預備存款。

To cushion against a simultaneous spike in expenses and dip in income, a middle-income family needs about $5,000 in a rainy-day fund but has just $2,000 – a gap of $3,000. Lower-income families need about $2,500 but have just $700.
為了因應同時發生的支出飆升及收入驟減，一個中等收入家庭約需要5000美元應急資金，但實際上只有2000美元， 少了3000美元。低收入家庭約需2500美元，實際上卻只有700美元。

The findings were part of a report on income volatility that the JPMorgan Chase Institute published late last month. The report examined inflows and outflows from 6 million active checking accounts over a period of about six years that ended in December.
這些發現可見於摩根大通研究所上個月底發表的收入波動報告之中。這分報告檢視至去年12月為止的大約六年期間內，600萬個使用中的支票帳戶的存入和支出金額。

Americans’ lack of emergency savings has been a concern for years. The Pew Charitable Trusts found in 2015 that many families lacked funds to cover a $2,000 expense. And the Federal Reserve has repeatedly found that a significant share of households would struggle to cope with an unexpected $400 expense.
美國人缺乏應急儲蓄多年來一直令人引以為憂。匹優慈善信託2015年發現，許多家庭缺少支應一筆2000美元開銷的儲蓄。而且聯邦準備理事會也一再發現，相當比例的家庭應付突如其來的400美元支出會有困難。

But in the current long period of economic growth and low unemployment, it is especially frustrating that many families continue to lack a cash buffer, according to a report last month from the AARP Public Policy Institute. The AARP found that more than half of American households (53%) lacked an emergency savings account, including a majority of people over age 50.
但是，根據美國退休人員協會公共政策研究所（AARP）上個月的報告，在目前長期的經濟成長和低失業率下，許多家庭依然缺少應急現金令人洩氣。該協會發現，超過半數（53%）的美國家庭沒有應急儲蓄帳戶，包括大多數50歲以上民眾。

While it’s easier for more affluent people to save, some low-income families do manage to set aside money while higher-income families do not, the AARP found. For instance, a quarter of Americans earning more than $150,000 a year have no emergency savings account, the report found.
AARP發現，雖然手頭較寬裕者存錢更容易，卻有一些低收入家庭仍能努力存下了錢，一些高收入家庭反倒沒有。這分報告發現，舉例來說，一年收入超過15萬美元的美國人中，有四分之一沒有應緊儲蓄帳戶。

Regardless of their income, families with no emergency savings are more likely to suffer financial hardship, said Catherine S. Harvey, the author of the AARP report.
AARP報告的作者凱薩琳．哈維說，不論收入多寡，沒有應急存款的家庭都更可能陷入財務困境。

Harvey cautioned that just because people didn’t have a specific emergency savings account didn’t mean they lacked a plan to deal with unexpected expenses – even if it was borrowing from relatives and friends. But it’s clear, she said, that more must be done to promote emergency savings to make families more financially resilient.
哈維提醒我們，沒有特定應急儲蓄帳戶並不表示沒有應付意外支出的計畫，包括向親友借錢。不過她同時指出，顯而易見的是，我們必須更積極推廣應急儲蓄的觀念，讓所有家庭財務更靈活強靭。

Emergency savings are “necessary to meet the obvious issues that arise on a consistent basis for all of us, whether it’s costs for our home, car or health,” said George Barany, director of America Saves, a campaign that is managed by the Consumer Federation of America.
應急存款「對我們所有人應付經常出現的明顯問題而言，都是必要的，不論是我們住家、車子或醫療的花費。」美國消費者協會旗下的「美國存錢」活動執行長巴拉尼說。

原文參照：
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/your-money/emergency-savings.html

2019-11-17．聯合報．D4．紐約時報賞析．莊蕙嘉

說文解字看新聞 莊蕙嘉

本文介紹美國民眾普遍缺乏應急存款的現象，第三段提到依據經驗法則應存下的大約金額。rule of thumb 指累積經驗而得來，且可廣泛應用的不成文原則，但並非百分之百正確與適用。例如As a rule of thumb, your mortgage does not exceed one third of your monthly income.

同一段的take-home pay，字面意思指「拿回家的薪水」，也就是扣除稅額及其他必要費用後的實得薪資，在台灣的話就是指扣掉所得稅、勞保和健保後的薪水。earning或pay泛指所有收入，salary指的是全職工作的收入，wage偏向體力或基層勞動工作所得，income指帳面上的收入數字，與之相對的則是expense（支出）。

第四段的buffer，平常比較常在電腦相關的文章見到，指的是緩衝記憶體，本文指的是保護家庭的emergency savings，可在突然需要大筆支出時作為緩衝。

Big Meat Hops on the Meatless Bandwagon
食品大廠搶搭人造肉列車
By David Yaffe-Bellany

Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, scrappy startups that share a penchant for superlatives and a commitment to protecting the environment, have dominated the relatively new market for vegetarian food that looks and tastes like meat.
超越肉類公司與不可能食品公司是同樣偏愛最高級事物，並致力保護環境、敢作敢為的兩家新創企業，已在外觀和口味都像肉的素食食品的新市場稱霸。

But with plant-based burgers, sausages and chicken increasingly popular and available in fast-food restaurants and grocery stores across the United States, a new group of companies has started making meatless meat: the food conglomerates and meat producers that Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods originally set out to disrupt.
而隨著植物製漢堡、香腸和雞肉在美國速食店與雜貨店日益受到歡迎，又有一批公司開始生產不含肉的肉品，而這些業者正是超越與不可能當初列為顛覆目標的食品集團和肉品生產商。

In recent months, major food companies like Tyson, Smithfield, Perdue, Hormel and Nestlé have rolled out their own meat alternatives, filling supermarket shelves with plant-based burgers, meatballs and chicken nuggets.
近幾個月，泰森、史密斯菲爾德、寶鵰、荷美爾和雀巢等大型食品公司各自推出肉類替代品，在超市貨架上擺滿了植物製漢堡、肉丸和雞塊。

Once largely the domain of vegans and vegetarians, plant-based meat is fast becoming a staple of more people’s diets, as consumers look to reduce their meat intake amid concerns about its health effects and contribution to climate change. Analysts project that the market for plant-based protein and lab-created meat alternatives could be worth as much as $85 billion by 2030.
曾大致劃歸純素和一般素食者專屬領域的植物製肉品，正迅速成為更多人正餐主食，因為消費者希望減少肉類攝取量，以免對自己的健康和氣候變遷造成不利影響。分析師預估，植物製蛋白質跟實驗室培養製造的肉類替代品，2030年時市場價值將高達850億美元。

Now, at supermarkets across the United States, shoppers can find plant-based beef and chicken sold alongside the packaged meat products that generations of Americans have eaten.
現在，購物者在全美超市均能找到植物製牛雞肉，跟歷代美國人吃的袋裝肉一起展售。

“There is a growing demand out there,” said John Pauley, the chief commercial officer for Smithfield, one of the largest pork producers in the country. “We’d be foolish not to pay attention.”
美國最大豬肉品生產商之一史密斯菲爾德的商務長保利說：「需求愈來愈大。我們不去注意就太愚蠢了。」

In September, Nestlé released the Awesome Burger, its answer to the meatless patties of Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods. Smithfield started a line of soy-based burgers, meatballs and sausages, and Hormel began offering plant-based ground meat.
今年九月，雀巢推出「令人讚嘆漢堡」來迎戰超越與不可能的無肉肉餅，史密斯菲爾德亦開賣大豆製漢堡、肉丸和香腸，荷美爾則開始提供植物製絞肉。

Many supporters of meatless alternatives have hailed the new products as a sign that plant-based meat has gained widespread acceptance.
許多無肉替代品支持者對這種新產品表示歡迎，認為這代表植物製的肉已廣獲接受。

But the emergence of these meat companies in the plant-based protein market has also prompted suspicion and unease among some environmental activists, who worry the companies could co-opt the movement by absorbing smaller startups, or simply use plant-based burgers to draw attention away from other environmental misdeeds.
但這些肉品公司涉足植物製蛋白質市場，引起一些環保人士懷疑和不安，他們擔心這些公司恐透過吸納規模較小的新創企業來收服這項運動，或乾脆使用植物製漢堡來引開人們對其他不環保行為的注意力。

Pat Brown, the chief executive of Impossible Foods, has long described the project of creating faux meat as an environmental imperative. Brown has even set a deadline: eliminate animal products from the global food supply by 2035.
不可能食品公司執行長布朗一向把創造人造肉的計畫描述成一種環保責任。布朗甚至設定了最終期限，2035年之前要把動物產品自全球食物供應中剔除。

Not all his new rivals are quite so idealistic. Their goal is not to upend the meat industry in the name of sustainability. It is mainly to make money.
他的新競爭對手並非全都如此理想主義。他們的目標不是顛覆肉品業以追求永續，主要是為了賺錢。

原文參照：
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/business/the-new-makers-of-plant-based-meat-big-meat-companies.html

2019-11-17．聯合報．D4．紐約時報賞析．陳韋廷