People make themselves worse off all the time, especially when they’ve got little choice about it.
Which is his way of saying that "poor people are stupid". He's trying to convince us of this by providing recent evidence (.pdf) that shows, amongst other things, that
Women living in slums are also more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than their rural counterparts.
I think there's two natural reactions to this information. Firstly, conclude that anyone willing to give up life in the countryside to go and live in a slum and contract HIV/AIDS is pretty damn stupid, and for their own sakes we should step in and remove their right to self-determination - and therefore make their choices for them.
Alternatively, we could say that anyone choosing to urbanise, even under such awful conditions, must be doing so because they think they're going to be better off. And as sensible and free individuals (rather than mere "agents" with which we can experiment with) their prosperity is dependent upon an increasing menu of choices.
Sorry Jim, but it will take a lot of evidence to convince me that poor people are stupid.
Addendum
Chris Dillow has commented on this debate, and is as insightful and helpful as ever:
Jim says it shows that millions of people make wrong choices. Anthony says we shouldn't impute stupidity to the poor.
But couldn't they both be right? If rich, educated people fail to anticipate economic fluctuations or future tastes, and so (on average) make mistaken decisions about their financial investments, isn't it likely that poor, uneducated ones can also make wrong decisions about their human capital investments? So, chalk one up to Jim.
But both rich and poor are systematically wrong. So the poor aren't especially stupid. Chalk one up to Anthony.
Isn't he really saying 'extremely poor people are often uninformed and ill-educated, so they might make poor choices'? Which is quite probably true. I would also imagine that they are more than often extremely desperate, which would explain why they are willing to do things that we might see as irrational. Many people have never heard of HIV; in some parts of the world it is taught that you can't give Aids to a virgin ( i saw this on a recent BBC documentary about slums in Africa). Could it be possible that is the state intervened to better educate poor populations, they might be equipped to make better choices? Rather than 'more choices', more information.
Posted by: tc | August 01, 2006 at 01:17 PM
OK how do you defend a comment like this “Which is his way of saying that "poor people are stupid".”? That is nothing if not mudslinging. Nowhere in his post does Jim suggest that poor people are stupid. His post isn’t about that FFS. So why say it? Because it’s a cheap way of discrediting someone you disagree with. DEPRESSING.
Posted by: Costa | August 01, 2006 at 04:31 PM
tc
Isn't he really saying 'extremely poor people are often uninformed and ill-educated, so they might make poor choices'?
Perhaps, but are you using your own judgement about whether it's a "poor choice"?
Could it be possible that is the state intervened to better educate poor populations, they might be equipped to make better choices?
I agree with your diagnosis, but not the solution! (see here)
Rather than 'more choices', more information.
To be honest I don't know how we'd measure "choice" so I can't see how these two things differ.
Costa
People make themselves worse off all the time [i.e. they're stupid], especially when they’ve got little choice about it [i.e . they're poor].
Which of those two translations bothers you?
Posted by: AJE | August 01, 2006 at 05:46 PM
"Which is his way of saying that "poor people are stupid""
No, that's your way of saying that you're stupid. Wait, that's a bit harsh - it's your way of saying you don't understand what I'm saying. Which was, that people can only choose from the options presented to them, and cannot see into the future, and do not control the rest of the world. So it's obvious that someone can make a choice that you can call rational and end up worse off than they were before, either because they just had bad options to choose from or because in retrospect they just chose wrong. It's not being stupid, just being human. And poor people often have worse options than others. It's really that simple, and not actually inconsistent with your aim of increasing the available choices, as you would notice if you could see past your obsession with putting the worst possible spin on what I say.
I'll go deal with the other instance of that obsession now, but in future I think you should find something better to do with your time than dragging up old comments of mine and misunderstanding them.
Posted by: Jim | August 01, 2006 at 08:22 PM
it's obvious that someone can make a choice that you can call rational and end up worse off than they were before [True, but we shouldn't judge a decision on the past, but on the next best alternative], either because they just had bad options to choose from [Yes, this was my point], or because in retrospect they just chose wrong [That sounds a bit stupid too me]. It's not being stupid, just being human [We can all make mistakes, but I'm assuming that we learn from them, you're saying that it happens "all the time"], . And poor people often have worse options than others [the absolute quality of options is irrelevent, it's whether people are capable of knowing which of two options are better, for them]
I'm sorry, it just strikes me as being stupid if someone "make themselves worse off all the time".
Indeed that was the point of your original article - to try to show that the assumption of rationality was wrong!
Posted by: AJE | August 02, 2006 at 01:16 AM
Couple of points of clarification:
"Indeed that was the point of your original article - to try to show that the assumption of rationality was wrong!"
No, it actually wasn't.
"you're saying that it happens "all the time""
I didn't mean they make themselves worse off every time they do anything, I meant it is something that happens again and again.
"the absolute quality of options is irrelevent"
It self-evidently is not irrelevant.
Posted by: Jim | August 02, 2006 at 07:58 AM
Tim had said "The inhabitants, at least, think that they are richer by being there than if they were still strung out across the countryside.", you said that had "dubious assumptions" and was "factually incorrect". You then point to evidence that your claiming implies people are voluntarily making themselves worse off. The only assumption that I can see that you're claiming is dubious, is the assumption that people who make voluntary choices make themselves better off. Correct me if i'm wrong.
I didn't mean they make themselves worse off every time they do anything, I meant it is something that happens again and again.
Rational people learn from their mistakes and don't keep on making the same mistake. For you claim that "it is something that happens again and again" therefore violates the assumption of rationality, implying that the people are irrational (i.e. stupid)
It self-evidently is not irrelevant.
Let's say Mr A has a choice between a Ferrari and a mansion, whilst Mr B has a choice between a donkey and a slum. I'm assuming that if both people require shelter more than they require transport, they would pick the mansion and slum respectively. The absolute quality of choices doesn't affect whether someone has the cognitive capacity to choose options consistant with their preferences.
To say that people faced with lower quality options are less likely to make rational decisions, is another way of saying that the poor are stupid.
Posted by: AJE | August 02, 2006 at 10:42 AM
No, I've been over this too many times, and I'm not going to keep being dragged back to explain it to you, because I know you're not that stupid. Have a think about it and see what you come up with.
Posted by: Jim | August 02, 2006 at 10:36 PM