Rationality Deficits of the Poor, of the Rich—and of Economists
Rationality isn't the rule, it's rare. That's true of the sort of optimizing rationality that economists presume we all have (even though many economists themselves fall short of that standard).
1. Why are people poor? Your answer(s) might reveal “just economics” fallacies at work.
2. Noah Smith says the poor probably have more “rationality deficits.” Smith is a fair-minded, undogmatic economist (e.g. Econ 101 is often wrong), who means well, but reveals unproductive biases (that seem common among economists).
3. Smith says poor people use payday loans “not as a rational economic move, but because they have trouble controlling” impulses (typically using eight loans of ~$375 a year, costing ~$520 in interest).
4. Since “making wise decisions requires information, effort and time,” and the poor “have far less of all of these than the successful,” Smith argues, there are “surely cases where poor people regularly make decisions that they later regret.”
5. But we all know it’s not just the poor who make regrettable decisions. And Smith has himself covered similar issues among “the successful” (less condescendingly).
6. Sendhil Mullainathan says payday borrowing isn’t due to “foolishness—it comes from putting out fires.” He distinguishes three kinds of “scarcity trap”—money, time, bandwidth—and believes that, put in the poor’s shoes, many of “the successful” would behave just as “imprudently.”
7. The 60% of us who lack $500 in savings are just one unlucky break away from being broke. Perhaps the average credit card revolving balance of ~$6,885 indicates a class-transcending impulsiveness epidemic.
8. And I’d suggest that investment fees are to “the successful” what payday loans are to the poor. Smith has complained investment fees take “a huge bite out of” assets, and “a giant slice” of the economy (perhaps ~$100b vs $3.6b payday fees).
9. Smith proposes mandatory fee invoicing as a solution. But why haven’t glorious markets self-organized to do that already? Perhaps predatory obfuscation can beat plain-dealing (see Phishing For Fools).
10. Even billionaires fumble “optimal decisions,” as Richard Thaler illustrates using NFL draft picks.
11. And economists themselves often fall short of “rationality.” Yet their love of the theories and mathematical machinery that presumptive rationality enables keeps them oblivious to the obvious.
14. Smith says economists very rarely model “persistent irrational behavior.” But surely excluding common imprudence is a modeling simplification that’s self-defeating. Isn’t presumptive prudence why markets are supposedly, theoretically, “efficient” and “just” and good prioritizers and optimal allocators?
15. In reality we all face “just economics” fallacies. But how fair is auctioning life-saving medication? Or that the rich have life-expectancies 10-15 years longer? There but for the grace of the ovarian lottery go any of us.
PS a)—America has more payday lenders than Starbucks.
PS b)—Assuming away imprudence and regret, with ideas like “revealed preference,” makes the neoclassical economics framework a Freud-level unfalsifiable folly (Andrew Gelman). Forget jumping to conclusions, it jumps back to its assumptions.
PS c)—Perhaps “the successful” ignore all this because they think they can isolate themselves from the imprudence of others. Didn’t the 2008 financial crash show they’re wrong?
Illustration by Julia Suits, The New Yorker cartoonist & author of The Extraordinary Catalog of Peculiar Inventions
Young people could even end up less anxiety-ridden, thanks to newfound confidence
- The coronavirus pandemic may have a silver lining: It shows how insanely resourceful kids really are.
- Let Grow, a non-profit promoting independence as a critical part of childhood, ran an "Independence Challenge" essay contest for kids. Here are a few of the amazing essays that came in.
- Download Let Grow's free Independence Kit with ideas for kids.
Philosophers like to present their works as if everything before it was wrong. Sometimes, they even say they have ended the need for more philosophy. So, what happens when somebody realizes they were mistaken?
Sometimes philosophers are wrong and admitting that you could be wrong is a big part of being a real philosopher. While most philosophers make minor adjustments to their arguments to correct for mistakes, others make large shifts in their thinking. Here, we have four philosophers who went back on what they said earlier in often radical ways.
The future of learning will be different, and now is the time to lay the groundwork.
- The coronavirus pandemic has left many at an interesting crossroads in terms of mapping out the future of their respective fields and industries. For schools, that may mean a total shift not only in how educators teach, but what they teach.
- One important strategy moving forward, thought leader Caroline Hill says, is to push back against the idea that getting ahead is more important than getting along. "The opportunity that education has in this moment to really push students and think about what is the right way to live, how do we do it and how do we do it in a way that doesn't hurt or rob the dignity of other people?"
- Hill also argues that now is the time for bigger swings and for removing the barriers that limit education. The online space is boundary free and provides educators with new opportunities to connect with students around the world.
Remaining silent is being complicit.
- Protests around the world are demanding an end to police discrimination and violence against black citizens in America.
- Author and activist Dax-Devlon Ross offers advice on how white people can help during this moment.
- Ross's suggestions include thinking and voting locally, supporting black-owned businesses, and practicing self-reflection.
On Friday, the moon will pass through the Earth's outer shadow, known as the penumbra.