Guest Essay

America Is Pushing Its Workers Into Homelessness(英漢雙語) 美國正在讓工人陷入無家可歸的境地

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 

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: [email protected].

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]

漢譯

客座文章

美國正在讓工人陷入無家可歸的境地

2025 年 3 月 1 日，美國東部時間上午 7:00

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/opinion/crisis-working-homeless.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0k4.kAbS.he1PCix51nRL&smid=url-share

由稅務表格和麥當勞收據組成的剪影，背景是一座城市。

圖片來源：德里克·米勒·烏爾塔多

作者：布萊恩·戈德斯通

戈德斯通先生是《我們無處容身：在美國工作和無家可歸》一書的作者，即將出版。

晚上 10 點，一名醫院技術員駛入沃爾瑪停車場。她的四個孩子（其中一個仍在哺乳）擠在她的豐田車後座上。她告訴他們這是一次冒險，但她害怕有人會報警：“住房不足”足以讓你失去孩子。她幾個小時不睡覺，把薰衣草灌木叢摺疊在後備箱裡，聽着腳步聲，聽着任何麻煩的跡象。她的輪班很快就開始了。她會精疲力竭地走進醫院，假裝一切都很好。

在全國各地，男男女女夜復一夜地睡在車裡，第二天早上才去上班。其他人則勉強湊夠一周的錢在汽車旅館住，因為他們知道，一旦錯過一次工資，他們就可能流落街頭。

這些人並不是社會的邊緣人。他們是美國所依賴的工人。“無家可歸的人”這個詞本身就應該是一個矛盾，在一個聲稱努力工作會帶來穩定的國家裡，這是不可能的。然而，他們的無家可歸不僅普遍存在，而且一直被忽視——他們被排除在官方統計之外，被政策制定者忽視，被視為一種異常現象，而不是一場顯而易見的災難。

如今，無家可歸的威脅最嚴重的地方不是美國最貧窮的地區，而是最富裕、發展最快的地區。在這樣的地方，低薪工作就是無家可歸的必然結果。

對於美國越來越多的勞動力來說，飛漲的房租、低工資和不充分的租戶保護使他們陷入了殘酷的不安全循環，住房負擔不起、不穩定或根本無法負擔。最近一項分析 2010 年人口普查的研究發現，住在收容所的無家可歸者中，近一半有正式工作，而住在戶外或其他臨時環境中的無家可歸者中，約有 40% 有正式工作。但這只是部分情況。這些數字並不能反映美國無家可歸者的全部情況：許多人沒有家，但從未進入收容所，或者最終流落街頭。

過去六年，我一直在報道在雜貨店、養老院、日托中心和餐館工作的男男女女。他們準備食物、上架貨物、運送包裹並照顧病人和老人。一天結束後，他們不是回到家，而是回到停車場、避難所、朋友或親戚擁擠的公寓和骯髒的長住酒店房間。

訂閱《今日觀點》時事通訊，獲取專家對新聞的分析以及每個工作日早晨影響世界的重大創意指南。將其發送到您的收件箱。

美國一直經歷着經濟學家所描述的歷史性緊張的勞動力市場，全國失業率僅為 4%。與此同時，無家可歸者人數飆升至有記錄以來的最高水平。

當工人離無家可歸只有一份薪水的距離時，低失業率有什麼好處呢？

一些統計數據簡明扼要地說明了這場災難發生的原因：今天，美國沒有一個州、城市或縣的全職最低工資工人可以負擔得起中等價位的兩居室公寓。令人震驚的是，有 1210 萬低收入租房家庭“負擔沉重”，至少有一半的收入用於支付房租和水電費。自 1985 年以來，房租價格已超過收入增長 325%。

據全國低收入住房聯盟稱，在全國範圍內，租住一套普通兩居室所需的平均“住房工資”為 32.11 美元，而近 5200 萬美國工人每小時的收入不到 15 美元。如果你是殘疾人，並且領取社會保障金，情況就更糟了：目前，全國範圍內社會保障金的上限為每月 967 美元，而且全國幾乎沒有任何地方的這種固定收入足以支付平均房租。

但這不僅僅是工資太低的問題；而是工作變得比以往任何時候都更加不穩定。即使對於那些收入高於最低工資的人來說，工作保障也受到了侵蝕，這使得穩定的住房越來越遙不可及。

現在，越來越多的工人面臨着工作時間不穩定、工作時間不固定以及病假等福利缺失的問題。“即時”工作制的興起意味着員工不知道自己每周能工作多少小時，這使得他們無法為房租做預算。整個行業都被零工化了，網約車司機、倉庫工人和臨時護士沒有福利、保障或可靠的工資。即使是零售和醫療保健行業的全職工作也曾經被視為可靠的人越來越多地被外包，變成兼職，或以完成不斷變化的配額為條件。

對於數百萬美國人來說，最大的威脅不是失去工作。而是這份工作永遠沒有足夠的薪水，永遠沒有足夠的工作時間，永遠沒有足夠的穩定性來讓他們有房子住。

這種情況不僅發生在紐約、舊金山和洛杉磯。奧斯汀和西雅圖等科技中心、亞特蘭大和華盛頓特區等文化和金融中心，以及納什維爾、菲尼克斯和丹佛等快速擴張的城市也是如此，這些地方充斥着投資、豪華開發和企業增長。但這些財富並沒有涓滴而下。它集中在頂層，而經濟適用房被拆除，新房被封鎖，租戶被驅逐——根據普林斯頓驅逐實驗室的數據，大約每分鐘，全美就會有七起驅逐案件——住房被視為一種商品，被囤積和利用以獲取最大利潤。

這導致了一種毀滅性的模式：隨着城市中產階級化和“復興”，維持城市運轉的護士、教師、看門人和兒童保育人員被系統性地高價擠出。與早期普遍貧困時期（如 2008 年的經濟衰退）不同，我們今天所看到的危機不是由貧困引起的，而是由繁榮引起的。這些工人並沒有“陷入”無家可歸的境地。他們是被迫的。他們不是經濟衰退的犧牲品，而是一個蓬勃發展的經濟的犧牲品——只是不適合他們。

然而，即使這場災難加深，許多家庭仍然隱形，存在於一種陰影領域：被剝奪了家園，但既不被聯邦政府算作也不被承認為“無家可歸者”。

這種排斥是故意的。20 世紀 80 年代，隨着美國各地無家可歸者人數激增，里根政府做出了一致努力來塑造公眾對危機的看法。官員們淡化了無家可歸問題的嚴重性，同時混淆了其根本原因。聯邦政府對無家可歸問題的研究資金幾乎全部用於強調精神疾病和成癮的研究，從而轉移了人們對結構性力量的注意力——削減了對低收入住房的資助，這是一個支離破碎的安全網。將無家可歸問題歸咎於個人缺陷不僅使其更容易被忽視；而且在政治上也不那麼具有威脅性。它掩蓋了危機的社會經濟根源，並將責任推給受害者。而且它奏效了：到 20 世紀 80 年代末，至少有一項調查顯示，許多美國人將無家可歸歸咎於吸毒或不願意工作。沒有人提到住房。

幾十年來，這種狹隘、扭曲的觀點一直存在，並嵌入聯邦政府每年的無家可歸者普查中。在統計某件事之前，必須對其進行定義——而美國“減少”無家可歸的一種方式就是將整個無家可歸者群體定義為不存在。長期以來，倡導者們一直譴責人口普查故意限制的定義：只統計那些住在庇護所或街上可見的人。結果，在公眾的想象中，無家可歸者總數中相對較小但顯眼的一部分代表了無家可歸本身。其他人都被排除在故事之外。他們根本就不算數。

我們看到的和實際發生的情況之間的差距是巨大的。最近的研究表明，無家可歸者的真實人數——包括住在汽車或汽車旅館房間或與他人合住的人——至少是官方統計的六倍。儘管報告的數字很糟糕，但現實更糟糕。帳篷只是冰山一角，是更為根深蒂固的危機最明顯的跡象。

這種故意的視而不見造成了無法估量的傷害，使數百萬家庭和個人無法獲得重要援助。但它造成的傷害遠不止於此。我們如何計算和定義無家可歸決定了我們如何應對它。對問題的扭曲看法導致的回應充其量是不夠的，最壞的情況則是適得其反。

但事實是，所有這些——在車裡度過的夜晚、從汽車旅館到朋友家的不斷搬遷、為了避免無家可歸而不斷努力——既不是不可避免的，也不是難以解決的。我們的社會不必是一個每周工作 50 或 60 小時的人卻得不到足夠的報酬來滿足他們最基本的需求的社會。它不必是一個父母賣掉血漿或沒有電的地方，只是為了讓孩子有個棲身之所。

幾十年來，立法者一直袖手旁觀，看着租金飆升，看着住房變成了富人的資產類別，看着工人保護被撕碎，工資跟不上。我們滿足於零碎的、聊勝於無的舉措，這些舉措只是調整了現有的體系，而不是改變它。但我們面臨的災難需要的不僅僅是半途而廢。

這不足以吸引人們無家可歸——我們必須首先阻止他們陷入這種境地。在一些城市，每有一個人獲得住房，就會有另外四個人無家可歸。我們如何阻止這種持續不斷的流動？我們可以立即採取措施：加強對租戶的保護，如租金控制和正當驅逐法，取消排他性分區，提高工資並提供強有力的勞工保護。但我們也需要變革性的綜合解決方案，如大規模投資社會住房，將負擔得起、可靠的住房視為必不可少的公共利益，而不是少數人的特權。

任何有意義的解決方案都需要我們對美國住房的看法進行根本性的轉變。安全、負擔得起的住房不應該是一種奢侈品。它應該是每個人的一項保障權利。接受這個想法需要我們拓展道德想象力。採取行動需要堅定不移的政治決心。

我們不僅應該問自己這種情況會變得多糟，還應該問自己為什麼我們容忍了這麼久。

因為當工作不再提供穩定時，當工資太低而房租太高時，當數百萬人因為一張醫療賬單、一次錯過的薪水、一次房租上漲而失去家園時——究竟誰是安全的？

誰能在這個國家感到安全？誰是我們繁榮的犧牲品？

更多關於無家可歸者的信息

觀點

沒有家的生活

觀點 | 馬修·德斯蒙德和吉莉安·溫伯格

我研究無家可歸者。我希望更多地方看起來像這個庇護所。

2024 年 6 月 26 日

觀點 | 賓雅明·阿佩爾鮑姆

給民主黨人的說明：是時候拿起錘子了

2024 年 11 月 30 日

布萊恩·戈德斯通是《我們沒有立足之地：在美國工作和無家可歸》一書的作者。

《紐約時報》致力於發表各種致編輯的信。我們想聽聽您對這篇文章或我們任何一篇文章的看法。以下是一些提示。這是我們的電子郵箱：[email protected]。

在 Facebook、Instagram、TikTok、Bluesky、WhatsApp 和 Threads 上關注《紐約時報》觀點版塊。

*

恩格斯論資本主義與住房危機

“住房問題”是弗里德里希·恩格斯在 1872 年至 1873 年間撰寫的一系列文章。在這些文章中，恩格斯探討了工業化社會中工人階級面臨的住房危機，特別是在 19 世紀歐洲的背景下。他批評了資本主義制度及其在加劇住房短缺方面的作用，認為這一問題不僅僅是人口過剩或城市規劃不善的結果，而且深深植根於資本主義的剝削性質。

恩格斯贊同資產階級改革者和空想社會主義者的思想，如蒲魯東主義者和拉薩爾主義者，他們提出了小規模財產所有權或國家資助住房等解決方案。他認為這些措施不夠充分，聲稱它們未能解決資本主義剝削和財富集中的系統性問題。相反，恩格斯主張社會進行革命性變革，包括住房在內的生產資料由工人階級集體擁有和管理。

恩格斯分析的要點包括：

資本主義在住房短缺中的作用：恩格斯認為，資本主義通過推高租金、取代工人、將利潤置於人類需求之上，本質上造成了住房危機。資本主義下房地產市場的投機性質導致無產階級過度擁擠和生活條件惡劣。

對改革派解決方案的批判：恩格斯批判住房問題可以在資本主義框架內解決的想法。他認為租戶合作社或國家補貼等提議只是暫時的解決辦法，不會挑戰潛在的剝削制度。

革命性變革：恩格斯強調，不推翻資本主義就無法解決住房問題。他呼籲住房和生產資料社會化，確保住房被視為一項基本人權，而不是商品。

歷史唯物主義：恩格斯用馬克思主義的視角來看待住房問題，將其作為更廣泛的階級鬥爭的一部分進行分析。他認為住房危機是資本主義內部矛盾的表現，只有通過建立社會主義社會才能解決。

恩格斯關於住房問題的著作在馬克思主義理論和城市研究中仍然具有影響力，為資本主義、城市化和社會不平等之間的關係提供了批判性視角。它強調了解決住房問題作為經濟和社會正義的一個基本方面的重要性。[參閱：《馬恩選集》第二卷，恩格斯：“論住宅問題”。英文源自：https://chat.deepseek.com/ 即《深度求索》人工智能的R1版]

*

我自己的評論是，在當今世界資本主義晚期，危機變得如此勢不可擋，以至於一點一點的改進和改革都長期失敗。幾乎沒有人會希望資本主義在這個晚期階段能夠奇蹟般地在崩潰中倖存下來。在無產階級革命對全世界施加的沉重壓力下，“讓美國再次偉大”黨努力嘗試資本主義東山再起。DOPE（政府效率部）的清洗和鬥爭所獲得的節省和恢復能否至少暫時幫助解決註定要失敗的社會問題？[Mark Wain -3/01/2025]