3 ms·
There is a great book on poverty called "Poor Economics" [1] which has a relevant point about why people choose to buy TVs: We asked Oucha Mbarbk, a man we met
by MarkMc 10y ago
There is a great book on poverty called "Poor Economics" [1] which has a relevant point about why people choose to buy TVs:
We asked Oucha Mbarbk, a man we met in a remote village in Morocco, what he would do if he had more money. He said he would buy more food. Then we asked him what he would do if he had even more money. He said he would buy better tasting food. We were starting to feel very bad for him and his family, when we noticed a television, a parabolic antenna, and a DVD player in the room where we were sitting. We asked him why he had bought all these things if he felt the family did not have enough to eat. He laughed, and said, "Oh, but television is more important than food!"
After spending some time in that Moroccan village, it was easy to see why he thought that. Life can be quite boring in a village. There is no movie theater, no concert hall, no place to sit and watch interesting strangers go by. And not a lot of work, either. Oucha and two of his neighbors, who were with him during the interview, had worked about seventy days in agriculture and about thirty days in construction that year. For the rest of the year, they took care of their cattle and waited for jobs to materialize. This left plenty of time to watch television. These three men all lived in small houses without water or sanitation. They struggled to find work, and to give their children a good education. But they all had a television, a parabolic antenna, a DVD player, and a cell phone.
Generally, it is clear that things that make life less boring are a priority for the poor.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007CI81IQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1#nav-subnav https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007CI81IQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
- tpeo 10y agoI wonder if TV hinders economic growth and development. In so far as urbanization goes, the story that I was told in Urban Economics was that as farming productivity went up, the opportunity cost of time went down and so people took up other trades in addition to farming. When an hour less of farm work didn't mean starvation anymore, people had the time to sew, bake, build, etc. And over time, things which were probably hobbies developed from cottage industries to actual industries. What entertainment does is drive the opportunity cost of time back up by increasing the pleasurableness of leisure time. Now, that probably isn't much of an issue for actual underdeveloped countries. I don't think anyone would prefer to sew their own clothes when they can buy perfectly fine ones for a lower price unless they're obsessed with self-reliance, and no one is missing out on these homemade goods either. But in a society where it's plausible that a hobbist might produce some really neat stuff on their own, encouraging passive entertainment might mean some less neat gadgets in the long run.