在金融危機(jī)之前，筆者坐在莊嚴(yán)的時(shí)代生活大廈（Time & Life Building）的辦公室里，絞盡腦汁地為新涌現(xiàn)出來的一批千禧一代的高收入者起個(gè)縮寫名。該群體的特點(diǎn)在于，即使家里有兩個(gè)能掙錢的人，合計(jì)收入很高，但他們要面對(duì)高額的稅費(fèi)和他們認(rèn)為的必要支出，以至于他們從未富有過，將來也很難富有起來。

隨后，這個(gè)標(biāo)簽觸動(dòng)了我——沒有玩文字游戲，沒有刻意押韻。這個(gè)靈感讓我想起了溫斯頓·丘吉爾所說的“腦海中的閃電”。我大聲歡呼：“他們是‘亨利族’（HENRY），高薪未富者。”因此，“高薪未富者”成為了我在2008年11月27日講述的故事“看看誰為救市買單”中的主角、英雄。這個(gè)題目指的是即將上臺(tái)的奧巴馬政府提出的增加稅收政策。

我必須補(bǔ)充一句，這種震撼的靈感時(shí)刻很少出現(xiàn)。雖然這些年來專家偶爾會(huì)借用這一術(shù)語，但它并未如我所愿，產(chǎn)生定義一代人的影響力。

不過情況也許不一樣了。你可以想象我在曼哈頓鬧市區(qū)的健身俱樂部（這里有許多“高薪未富者”在保持體型）里騎著動(dòng)感單車時(shí)的驚訝之情。和往常一樣，我這個(gè)嬰兒潮一代的人，以我很多X世代和Y世代同事所謂的“睡眠速度”踩著踏板。隨后，閱讀架上放著的《紐約郵報(bào)》（New York Post）的頭版，卻讓我騎得像旁邊單車上的X世代一樣迅速。這個(gè)小報(bào)左上角的欄目調(diào)侃道“年薪10萬美元的窮人，看看‘高薪未富者’吧”。我迅速把報(bào)紙翻到第35版，看到了另一個(gè)時(shí)尚標(biāo)題“噢Instagram，我會(huì)富有嗎？可憐的家伙！”“可憐的家伙”成了《紐約郵報(bào)》（和我）對(duì)“高薪未富者”的挖苦性描述。

這篇文章描繪了一位32歲的律師如何領(lǐng)著“六位數(shù)”的收入?yún)s活成了月光族，而收入10萬美元至25萬美元的單身千禧一代“喜愛奢侈品，承受著在社交媒體上維持富有人設(shè)的壓力，又是如何手頭拮據(jù)而像個(gè)‘高薪未富者’的”。

這是個(gè)很棒的故事。不過我那個(gè)故事從另一個(gè)角度探尋了他們的窘境。我當(dāng)時(shí)描繪的是有兩個(gè)孩子，年收入25萬至50萬的家庭，許多政客將這種情況描繪為“富有”。但實(shí)際上，“富有”指的是凈資產(chǎn)，是你的儲(chǔ)蓄，它包括銀行存款、股票和債券，以及房屋資產(chǎn)，而不是你的收入。我發(fā)現(xiàn)，這些收入豐厚的家庭需要為他們郊區(qū)的豪宅支付數(shù)量不菲的抵押貸款和稅費(fèi)，這是聯(lián)邦和國(guó)家收入的重要來源，還要每年為兩個(gè)孩子支付2萬美元供他們上私立學(xué)校，持續(xù)十多年甚至二十多年。因此，他們?cè)谕诵萸暗拇婵钸h(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)達(dá)不到“富裕”的程度。

在未來十年里，這個(gè)努力工作的群體只會(huì)越來越困難。他們不是投資銀行家、首席執(zhí)行官或首席財(cái)務(wù)官，他們是美國(guó)這個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)體中的審計(jì)員、副財(cái)務(wù)主管、家鄉(xiāng)律師或中上層的管理者。他們的生活過得不錯(cuò)，沒有人會(huì)覺得他們混得慘，但他們永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)變得富有。實(shí)際上，我在自己的那篇文章中給了他們一個(gè)更加合適的頭銜，法語版本的“亨利”（HENRI），“高薪不富”。

《紐約郵報(bào)》確實(shí)提到，這個(gè)術(shù)語最早出現(xiàn)在《財(cái)富》雜志2003年的一篇文章里，這一點(diǎn)讓我很欣賞（盡管那個(gè)故事是在2008年登載的）。里面沒有提到我的名字。嘿，這沒有關(guān)系。《紐約郵報(bào)》可能有助于把“高薪未富者”推廣為一種小型文化現(xiàn)象。某種程度上，我被選定為一位榮耀的千禧一代。忽然，我覺得年輕了起來，可以再來一次動(dòng)感單車課程了。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：嚴(yán)匡正

Just psrior to the financial crisis, this writer was sitting in Fortune’s offices in the venerable Time & Life Building trying to coin an acronym for a new class of affluent millennials. The concept was that even though this cohort of two-earner families make big combined salaries, they’re faced with such big outlays for taxes and expenses they deem essential that they’ll never, ever become wealthy.

Then the label hit me—no playing with words, no striving for rhymes. The flash reminded me of what Winston Churchill called “l(fā)ightning across the brain.” “They’re the HENRY’s, the High Earners Not Rich Yet,” I crowed out loud. And that’s how the HENRYs became the subject, the heroes really, of my November 27, 2008 story, “Look Who Pays for the Bailout,” referring to new tax increases proposed by the incoming Obama Administration.

That kind of thunderous illumination, I must add, rarely strikes. And though experts in intervening years occasionally borrowed the term, it didn’t get the generation-defining traction I’d hoped for.

Maybe that’s changing. Imagine my surprise today while mounting the exercise bike at my health club in downtown Manhattan, where lots of HENRYs stay in shape. As usual, this Baby Boomer was pedaling at a pace my Gen-Y and Gen-X co-workers might call “slumber speed.” Then, the front page of the New York Post, poised on the reading stand, got me pumping like the Gen-Xer on the next bike. The headline in the tabloid’s upper-left quadrant teased, “Poor on $100K, Meet the H.E.N.R.Y.s.” Speed-thumbing to the piece on page 35, I encountered a second, hipper headline, “Oh Instagram, When Will I Be Rich? Poor Things!” The “Poor Things” being the Post’s satirical characterization of the (or my) HENRYs.

The piece chronicles how an attorney, age 32, making “six figures” lives from paycheck to paycheck, and how single millennials earning between $100,000 and $250,000 are folks whose “taste for luxury—and pressure to keep up with their well-heeled buds on social media—has some HENRYs feeling more strapped than stacked.”

It’s a great story. But my piece approached their plight differently. I was writing about families with combined total incomes $250,000 to $500,000 a year and a couple of children, a demo that many politicians characterized as “rich.” In fact, the term “rich” refers to your net worth, the nest egg consisting of your cash savings in bank accounts, stocks and bonds, plus the equity in your house, not your income. I found that these well-paid families shoulder such high burdens covering the mortgages payments and taxes on their suburban colonials and tudors, the big take from federal and state levies, and the $20,000 or so they save to send two kids to private colleges a decade or two for now, that they will never generate savings sufficient enough to retire remotely “rich.”

In the ensuing decade, times have only gotten tougher for this hard working group. They’re not investment bankers or CEOs or CFOs, they’re the auditors, assistant treasurers, hometown attorneys and upper-middle managers that power America’s economy. They enjoy a nice lifestyle and no one should feel sorry for them, but they’ll never be rich. In fact, I suggested in my story that a more appropriate title might be Gallic version HENRIs, for “high earners, not rich indefinitely.”

The Post story did mention that “the term was first coined in a 2003 Fortune magazine article,” which I appreciated (even though the story appeared in 2008). It didn’t mention my name. Hey, no problem. The Post may help to launch the HENRYs as mini-cultural phenomenon. In a way, I’ve been anointed as an honorary millennial. Suddenly, I feel younger. A spinning class may be next.