An old cliché says time is money. A newer cliché, from Oliver Stone, says money never sleeps — which is essentially the same assessment as the older one. But why are we pretending there's a contest here? We like what money can buy, but virtually all the research on what makes people happy shows that time matters more than money — not only in the long term but also in the short term. Now a new study shows that time matters more than money even when you live below the poverty line.

　　一句舊的陳詞說時間就是金錢。而Oliver Stone所說的新的迂腐的話金錢永不眠——這本質(zhì)上跟那句舊話評價一樣。但是為什么我們總假裝其中有爭議呢?我們喜歡錢能買東西，但事實(shí)上，所有有關(guān)什么讓人高興的研究表明，時間比金錢更重要——不僅從長遠(yuǎn)而且從短期看來。如今一項(xiàng)新的研究表明即使你生活水平非常地下，時間也比金錢更重要。

　　The new paper, which was published by the Association for Psychological Science and written by a young Wharton School instructor, Cassie Mogilner, begins by reminding us that older studies have found a weak relationship between wealth and happiness.

　　由沃爾頓商學(xué)院一個年輕的教師Cassie Mogilner所寫并發(fā)表在《心理科學(xué)協(xié)會》的新論文一開始提醒我們，以往的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)財(cái)富與幸福之間沒有多大關(guān)系。

　　Then Mogilner notes that although Europe consistently performs worse economically than the U.S., the E.U. consistently performs better in surveys on happiness.

　　Mogilner指出，盡管歐洲經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況一貫比美國差，但是歐盟的幸福調(diào)查向來都比美國好。

　　As Mogilner writes:

　　就如Mogilner所寫：

　　"Work is necessary to pay the bill and contributes to an individual's sense of productivity and self-esteem, but the number of hours Americans spend working frequently exceeds that required to provide these benefits."

　　“要付賬就必定要工作，而且工作有助于個人的生產(chǎn)力和自尊感，但是美國人的工作時間經(jīng)常超過所需提供這些好處的時間。”

　　Money is all about utility: it is survival. But time is about emotional investment. In psychological studies of why people donate to charity, the mere mention of money makes people less likely to help. If you ask people to donate time, they may not do it — but they don't become more stingy.

　　金錢是非常有用的：它是活的。但時間是精神的投資。關(guān)于為什么人們向慈善基金捐款所進(jìn)行的心理研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，僅僅提及金錢使人更不愿意去幫忙。如果你讓人們捐出時間，他們做不到——但并不說明他們更小氣。

　　Mogilner found that these same findings held among a population of 76 people who met the 2009 definition for poverty set by the federal government. Which is remarkable: if you qualify for the federal definition of poverty, you almost certainly worry about making sure your family can eat every day. But even then, most people time to be more valuable than money.

　　Mogilner發(fā)現(xiàn)這些相同的研究結(jié)果包括76名符合2009年聯(lián)邦政府對貧窮定義的人們。值得注意的是：如果你符合聯(lián)邦政府貧窮標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，那么你肯定要擔(dān)心你家庭每天的吃飯問題。但即使那樣，大部分人認(rèn)為時間比金錢更有價值。

　　One flaw in the study is that it may not consider the middle class: if you are very rich or very poor, money may be less valuable than when every bill just balances every month. Money, in that case, can be harmony: a perfect bill-balancing act. Time — well, that's what weekends are for.

　　這個研究的一個缺點(diǎn)是它不考慮中產(chǎn)階級：如果你是非常富裕或非常貧窮，比起月收支平衡的人，錢就比較沒意義了。在那種情況下，錢可以協(xié)調(diào)：一個完美的賬單平衡做法。時間——同樣是周末所需要的。

小編有約：Daisy也認(rèn)為時間比金錢更重要，時間是無價的。當(dāng)你很忙的時候，偶爾的小憩，會不會感到很開心呢！擁有自己的時間，不禁讓我想起大學(xué)時的時光，呵呵~~