3 ms·
> We find that in the absence of credit constraints only 2% of households would be best off doing wage labor, while 97% of households are exclusively reliant su
by travisoneill1 6y ago
> We find that in the absence of credit constraints only 2% of households would be best off doing wage labor, while 97% of households are exclusively reliant such work at baseline. Conversely, only 1% work in livestock when 90% would do so if they had access to the same asset wealth as the middle and upper classes. Overall, this implies that 96% of households are forced to misallocate their labor.
So the authors suggest that currently 1% of the labor pool is working in livestock, but an optimal allocation would be 90% of the labor pool? Ridiculous.
- PragmaticPulp 6y agoThis study primarily focused on rural poor in Bangladesh. Trying to project the conclusions on to relatively wealthy (on a global scale) societies like the United States isn’t going to make much sense.
- bmcn2020 6y agoI don't think that's what it said. It's not a recommendation, just a summary: 1% do it now, but 90% would do it if they had the chance.
- howlgarnish 6y agoNo, the authors are debunking the popular theory that poor people are poor because they don't have the skills/gumption needed to not be poor. Turns out that when you give them a productive asset (a cow) that lets them be not-poor, they're perfectly capable of staying not-poor.