Seumas Milne’s dodgy statistics on African poverty

Seumas Milne’s column last week blamed globalisation for migrant deaths in the Mediterranean. The column isn’t that important, but this bit jumped out at me:

As the catechism of “free market” deregulation has been imposed across the world under “free trade” and “partnership” agreements and the destructive discipline of the IMF, World Bank and WTO, capital and resources have been sucked out of the developing world and tens of millions of people have been driven into urban poverty by corporate land grabs.

That is why the number living on less than $2 a day in sub-Saharan Africa has doubled since 1981 under the sway of rich world globalisation. Africa’s boom has been in resource exploitation, not in most people’s living standards. So it is hardly surprising that migration from the global south to high and middle-income countries has more or less tripled over the past half century.

Actually, the percentage of people living on less than $2 a day in sub-Saharan African has fallen from 72.2 percent to 69.2 percent since 1981. The total number of people on $2 a day has doubled because sub-Saharan Africa’s population has doubled (p. 96). “Free market deregulation” has nothing to do with it, except for the fact that infant mortality has fallen substantially.

I know this because it is in the same paper that Mr Milne’s figure comes from, on the same page, in the same table. It’s a pity that he did not think to mention the data that directly disproves his claim.

Screen Shot 2014-10-16 at 09.25.27I wrote a letter to the Guardian pointing this out but they didn’t print it. It’s also worth pointing out that African poverty fell by 38% between 1990 and 2011. (h/t Anonymous Mugwump.)

Screen Shot 2014-10-16 at 09.38.06

 

Being economically worth less does not mean you are worthless

I’ve just been on Channel 4 News discussing Lord Freud’s comments about letting people with disabilities choose to work for below the minimum wage. I haven’t watched it back but I gather from Twitter that I fluffed it a bit – unfortunately the producers put me up against two people without telling me, so I got flustered. 

The thing I said that upset people the most was that some people with severe disabilities or learning difficulties may be economically worth less than people without. (One of the people I was debating apparently thought I said ‘economically worthless’.) 

Lots of people have taken this to be a comment on the moral value of people with severe disabilities or learning difficulties. This is an error. The value of a person’s labour is equivalent to what others will pay them for a given amount of time, also known as their productivity. When Lord Freud talked about people not being ‘worth’ the minimum wage, this is what he meant.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how important they are as a person. Some very good people are unproductive because they are inexperienced, they don’t have economically-valuable talents, or they are disabled. Some very bad people are very productive because they did well in the lottery of life. Indeed this is something I care about very strongly, and it has led me to abandon beliefs I once held quite strongly in favour of mechanisms that would redress some of this imbalance.

Perhaps it was a bad choice of words to say ‘economic worth’ because many people are unaware of the above. I can understand that if you heard me say someone was ‘economically worth less’ (let alone ‘economically worthless’!) that you might think I was making some comment about that person’s value as a human being. I’m pleased, at least, that many people who disagree with me nonetheless give me the benefit of the doubt, and I hope I’d do the same.

I think Freud’s comments were motivated by a sincere desire to make disabled people’s lives better off by allowing those that want to work to do so, with their wages topped up by the taxpayer. Whether or not you agree that this is a wise move it does nobody any favours to suggest that anybody in this debate thinks people with disabilities are not valuable as human beings.

What’s at stake in the social justice debate

The most interesting cultural debate of modern times is about the free expression of ideas.

The main instigators of this debate are the social justice movement. It champions people who lack or are seen as lacking social power, like women, racial minorities and transgendered people. It does this by criticizing people who say and do things that hurt or reinforce the powerlessness of these groups. An example may be the ‘misgendering’ of a transgendered person – that is, referring to someone as a man when they identify as a woman.

Opponents of the social justice movement are numerous but intellectually disorganized. In this post I hope to draw the lines of battle as fairly as possible in order to make the fundamental argument clearer to both sides. I will try to make a case for the side I prefer in a future post.

The social justice movement sometimes tries to “show the door” to people who say what it sees as bad things. One example was the campaign against Brendan Eich after he was made CEO of the Mozilla Corporation, which makes the Firefox web browser. Eich, who invented the Javascript coding language, had donated $1,000 to the anti-gay marriage campaign in California six years previously. This led to a campaign for a boycott of Mozilla products and calls by Mozilla employees for Eich to resign. Ultimately, Eich resigned.

Another recent example is the (comparatively muted) reaction to TV presenter Judy Finnegan’s discussion of a rapist footballer on Loose Women earlier this week. Finnegan argued that because the rape was not violent and the victim was drunk at the time, the footballer should be able to return to playing football after he had served his time. This has prompted calls for apologies and so on.

The Eich case is significant, the Finnegan case is not. But both are essentially skirmishes in the debate over what we can say in public and what we can’t. Note that I disagree with both Eich and Finnegan – I support gay marriage and I don’t think ‘non-violent’ rape is any less bad than violent rape (except the obvious additional injuries and trauma associated with any violence).

But the crucial issue is not whether these beliefs are good or bad, it’s whether they’re acceptable to say in public. This is what distinguishes the social justice movement and makes it interesting: its aims are to discourage the expression of certain bad beliefs, not to correct or rebut them. It’s not about whether Eich or Finnegan’s beliefs are right or wrong, it’s about whether society should tolerate their expression at all.

This is very important. Much of the content of the social justice movement’s beliefs is either right or trivial – gay rights are good, acceptance of transgendered people is good, etc. The idea that makes the social justice movement special is the idea that some ‘words matter’ so much that we need to stop them from being said through social and consumer pressure.

For the most part, the debate is not about legislation on either side. Most social justice advocates want to boycott firms that employ people with bad beliefs and socially shun people with bad beliefs. Some have sudden conversions to ‘thin libertarianism’ when opponents say they are undermining free speech, claiming that the only kind of freedom of speech worth caring about is that affected by the state.

But this is silly. Private actions can impose costs on others to an enormous extent. If being a Muslim in Britain meant losing your job and losing your friends, it would be a significant and meaningful limit to your freedom to be a Muslim. To the extent that this happens, it is a meaningful limit on Muslims’ freedom. The consequences are what matter.

Members of the social justice movement might point out that words do indeed have consequences. Eich’s donation helped the platform of people who want to restrict gay rights; Finnegan’s beliefs may lead to greater tolerance for rapists and hence, at the margin, more rapes. And almost everyone thinks that some words should be restricted: harassment and threats can ruin people’s lives and it is for the best that certain kinds are illegal.

What’s more, lots of people who think it’s bad to boycott a firm for employing a transphobe think it’s right to boycott a firm for employing, say, a racist. And virtually everyone thinks it’s OK for a firm to fire an employee for being rude, obnoxious or dishonest.

But this may go too far. Even if words can have bad consequences, they can have good consequences too. A utilitarian justification for free speech is that we need it to discover what’s true. Many beliefs that once seemed untrue to almost everyone later became very convincing to almost everyone, like heliocentrism and equality for non-whites. We can never be sure of practically any of our beliefs, but we do seem to have the ability to gradually sort bad ones from good ones. A competitive ‘marketplace of ideas’ may be a good way of helping that to happen.

I suggest that opponents of the social justice movement should organize around this kind of principle. The onus may be on us to prove that losing the ‘marketplace of ideas’ is worse than the hurt and/or powerlessness that its existence exacerbates.

The question is about the costs of freely discussing ideas that may indirectly lead to bad things. In a future post I will try to argue for a very extensive form of free speech that would require us to tolerate the expression of virtually any concept or idea, if it’s done so politely and honestly. But to understand why we should value a ‘thick’ definition of free speech we must first understand why people want to curb it.

Voters are very ignorant, and that should terrify you

Voters are very ignorant about the basic facts of politics. This is where Americans fall when asked what the US government spends the most on:

Screen Shot 2014-10-09 at 13.20.14And here is how the money is actually spent:

Screen Shot 2014-10-09 at 13.23.00As I’ve often asked before, how can we possibly expect voters to elect the right people if they know so little about the issues at stake? It’s like asking a blind man to be your ship’s navigator.

Governments have vast powers and responsibilities. Their reach is essentially limitless. And the people who decide what they do are hopelessly ill-informed about the world. Forget the Hayekian knowledge problem – the voter ignorance problem means democracies cannot hope to elect decent governments with the priorities and policies that the voters themselves would want if they were well-informed.

Elite rule might have been the answer, but elites are dogmatic, closed-minded ideologues. No, there does not seem to be any group we can rely on to rule. Voter ignorance should make us extremely reluctant to bring the state in to solve some problem we’re having.

And before you tell me that democracy is the worst system we know of, apart from all the others: Are you sure?

Why do people oppose immigration?

My Buzzfeed post on immigration generated a bit of traffic yesterday and a bit of disagreement, too. The most common objection to our approach to immigration is that it’s one-dimensional—OK, we might be right about the economics, but c’mon, who really cares? It’s culture that matters. This point was made to me a few times yesterday and there’s definitely something to it.

My first response is that I think people underestimate the public’s ignorance of the economics, and hence the public’s fears about immigration. This poll by Ipsos MORI (I love those guys) asked opponents of immigration what they were worried about—as you can see, their concerns are overwhelmingly about job losses and the like:

Screen Shot 2014-10-07 at 11.16.10

The top five concerns are all basically to do with economics, with the highest-ranking cultural/social concern getting a measly 4%.

Obviously this isn’t the whole story. People might be lying to avoid seeming “racist”, for example. But in other polls people seem less reserved—last year 27% of young people surveyed said that they don’t trust MuslimsLess than 73% of the population say they’d be quite or totally comfortable with someone of another race becoming Prime Minister, and less than 71% say they’d be quite or totally comfortable with their child marrying someone of a different race. So the ‘embarrassment effect’ of seeming a bit racist can’t be that strong, and clearly the ceiling is higher than 4%.

I reckon it’s more likely that people have a bunch of concerns, of which the economic ones seem more salient. Once they’ve mentioned them, they don’t need to add the cultural concerns to the pile. Either that, or we just believe people in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

That’s why I think it’s legitimate to focus on the economics of immigration, even if we concede that the cultural questions are important (and tougher for open borders advocates to answer). Persuading some people that their economic fears are misguided should move the average opinion in the direction of looser controls on the borders.

If we could put the economic arguments to bed we might be able to have a more productive discussion about immigration. If culture’s your problem, then let’s talk about that, but remember that the controls we put on immigrants to protect British culture come with a price tag. Maybe we’d decide that more immigration was culturally manageable if we ditched ideas like multiculturalism and fostered stronger social norms that pressurised immigrants into assimilating into their new country’s culture. I don’t know. (Let’s leave aside my libertarian dislike of using the state to try to shape national culture.)

The point, for me, is this: the economics of immigration does matter a lot to people. Immigration is not either/or—we can take steps towards more open borders without having totally open borders. At the margin, then, persuading people about the economics of immigration should move us in the direction of more open borders. And that, in my view, makes the world a better place.