You could just as easily frame this the other way around. The down-and-out guy has nothing to lose (no money, no reputation) so risky behavior is less irresponsible for him. Or maybe it’s the middle-class guy who is better able to handle it - not as much to lose as the rich guy, but not so precarious a position as the poor guy. My guess is that people from all demographics use this sort of logic to justify their irresponsible behavior. The mind is not good for moral logic but great for moral rationalization.
Like the mutual fund manager who got caught with a hooker some years back. The "SELL" orders swamped the organization, cratered the fund, and dispatched the miscreant "Master of the Universe" in short order. Nobody even noticed the crack addict and her dealer getting it on in the alley...
Caplan is right that the prudence of an action depends on circumstances, but his conclusion follows only if we assume equal agency across income groups. Poverty often reduces a person’s ability to avoid risk, cope with stress, or access safer alternatives, so equal behavior does not imply equal responsibility. Higher stakes for the poor reflect harsher constraints, not weaker character. Prudential risk and moral responsibility are different categories, and treating them as equivalent obscures how circumstances shape agency itself.
This framework clicks for me through a personal memory. At one of the poorest points in my life, a genuinely hard time, I discovered I could do retail therapy for $5 at Big Lots once in a while. Five dollars was within my margin -- a small pleasure with an absorbable cost.
But I attended an inner-city church at the time, and many members there didn't have that margin. For them, $5 was the gas in the tank that got them to work until payday. The identical bill carried completely different moral weight. My $5 was leisure. Theirs was risk. Same purchase, entirely different transaction.
What this framework illuminates, and what my experience confirmed, is that the behavior looks identical from the outside while the stakes are completely different. The temptation to spend it feels the same too -- everyone needs a small moment of relief in a hard stretch. The difference is entirely in the consequences if something goes wrong, and whether you have any capacity to absorb those consequences.
It's a more honest and more compassionate framework than either pure judgment or pure excuse-making.
I'm not sure I see your point, beyond the well-established "humans are hypocrites and don't have a well-formed definition or model of a lot of things that they claim motivates their decisions".
EVERYTHING is a mix of circumstances, luck, and decisions. And those decisions are based on circumstances and luck. So what?
The rich can be "irresponsible" in private but they must not flaunt it publicly or they will get their asses kicked (and increase the chances of other rich kids getting whooped)
Sorry Bryan but when did an accomplished economist become so infatuated with moralizing on the lifestyles of others... slow day in the world of number-crunching... get a life, you've got better & more important things you could be talking about... there is nothing good to be said about any kind of irresponsible behaviour, regardless of your position on sex, alcohol or whatever has put a burr in your thong... advocating that people should be aware of their habits period, but that would only take about 30 seconds of your time, but thanks anyway...........
You could just as easily frame this the other way around. The down-and-out guy has nothing to lose (no money, no reputation) so risky behavior is less irresponsible for him. Or maybe it’s the middle-class guy who is better able to handle it - not as much to lose as the rich guy, but not so precarious a position as the poor guy. My guess is that people from all demographics use this sort of logic to justify their irresponsible behavior. The mind is not good for moral logic but great for moral rationalization.
Like the mutual fund manager who got caught with a hooker some years back. The "SELL" orders swamped the organization, cratered the fund, and dispatched the miscreant "Master of the Universe" in short order. Nobody even noticed the crack addict and her dealer getting it on in the alley...
I once saw a study that essentially concluded everyone's definition of "moderation" is whatever they're currently doing.
Caplan is right that the prudence of an action depends on circumstances, but his conclusion follows only if we assume equal agency across income groups. Poverty often reduces a person’s ability to avoid risk, cope with stress, or access safer alternatives, so equal behavior does not imply equal responsibility. Higher stakes for the poor reflect harsher constraints, not weaker character. Prudential risk and moral responsibility are different categories, and treating them as equivalent obscures how circumstances shape agency itself.
This framework clicks for me through a personal memory. At one of the poorest points in my life, a genuinely hard time, I discovered I could do retail therapy for $5 at Big Lots once in a while. Five dollars was within my margin -- a small pleasure with an absorbable cost.
But I attended an inner-city church at the time, and many members there didn't have that margin. For them, $5 was the gas in the tank that got them to work until payday. The identical bill carried completely different moral weight. My $5 was leisure. Theirs was risk. Same purchase, entirely different transaction.
What this framework illuminates, and what my experience confirmed, is that the behavior looks identical from the outside while the stakes are completely different. The temptation to spend it feels the same too -- everyone needs a small moment of relief in a hard stretch. The difference is entirely in the consequences if something goes wrong, and whether you have any capacity to absorb those consequences.
It's a more honest and more compassionate framework than either pure judgment or pure excuse-making.
Neither of those girls are attractive in the pic. I'd pay money to get away from both of them.
(Maybe they look better sober.)
I'm not sure I see your point, beyond the well-established "humans are hypocrites and don't have a well-formed definition or model of a lot of things that they claim motivates their decisions".
EVERYTHING is a mix of circumstances, luck, and decisions. And those decisions are based on circumstances and luck. So what?
The rich can be "irresponsible" in private but they must not flaunt it publicly or they will get their asses kicked (and increase the chances of other rich kids getting whooped)
Sorry Bryan but when did an accomplished economist become so infatuated with moralizing on the lifestyles of others... slow day in the world of number-crunching... get a life, you've got better & more important things you could be talking about... there is nothing good to be said about any kind of irresponsible behaviour, regardless of your position on sex, alcohol or whatever has put a burr in your thong... advocating that people should be aware of their habits period, but that would only take about 30 seconds of your time, but thanks anyway...........
I've NEVER known Caplan to "crunch numbers." And I should know. I'm an accountant.