I also doubt that Mullainathan and Shafir’s description of the poor as suffering from scarcity is generally true. When it comes to time, the poor watch more television, invest less time in caring for their children, have plenty of free time to think about what they will eat, and yet are more likely to be obese. Their characterisation of the poor having a lot on their mind whereas the rich are relaxed despite their more complex employment does not seem particularly strong.
Read the whole thing.
Yeah, this narrative has been getting a sympathetic hearing in the usual quarters, and I find it every bit as implausible as Jason Collins does, if not more so. The whole thing is a testament to the dangers of social science: over-interpreting, mis-interpreting, over-extrapolating, missing the forest for the trees, probably some confirmation bias thrown in as well, etc.
Alternatively we have a spectrum between ‘slines and Vickies (Neal Stephenson’s terms, from Anathem and Diamond Age, respectively). One has some measure of choice, control, and responsibility regarding one’s position on the spectrum, but the overwhelming factors are genetics and upbringing, with a compounding link between genetics and upbringing (one tends strongly to be raised by one’s genetic parents).
Society and culture may favor slines or Vickies, depending on time and place. Democratic politics clearly favors slines, while economics seems to favor Vickies. Academia seems to reward Vickies while favoring slines, though this effect may be specific to our time.
Whatever sympathy one holds for slines themselves (which Vicky culture demands, perhaps to excess), it seems that sline culture is harmful and results in misery rather than flourishing, characterized by relatively poor judgment, lack of planning, impulsive and counterproductive behavior — essentially mortgaging one’s future for the wrong reasons with no hope of ever reclaiming it.
This leads one to consider how to incentivize the adoption of Vicky culture while minimizing harm to slines themselves. Eugenics has been discarded, perhaps rightfully so. Incentives regarding reproduction and upbringing may be examined, though this treads dangerously near social engineering and potential violation of individual human and natural rights. Perhaps the best solution is to examine previous attempts at social engineering which incentivize sline behavior and culture. Have we created “unnatural” incentives which promote sline behavior and culture that could be plausibly and safely removed in order to minimize harm and maximize flourishing?
Disclaimer: this lens is distasteful and is easily misinterpreted. It may be useful to don at various times without fully internalizing or adopting.
To gratuitously up the distastefulness, I would say the answer to your question in the last paragraph is clearly yes, and the clearest solution is repealing the 19th Amendment.