Why do the poor choose TVs over toilets?

A couple of years ago, one of my classmates from graduate school did some research on poverty in rural North Carolina. She visited homes to ask people why they thought they were poor. One thing she discovered was that you could basically tell how poor a family was by the size of their television: the bigger the TV, the poorer the family.

Anyone who’s lived in the United States long enough has heard middle-class people complain about poor people (especially those on government welfare) who waste their money on nonessentials such as cable TV, Tommy Hilfiger clothing, etc.

The phenomenon isn’t limited to the United States though. As I was browsing the photos of an excellent National Geographic article about Dharavi, “Mumbai’s premier slum,” I noticed the caption to a photo of a 9-year-old girl living in a shack whose walls are made of jute bags:

Few homes have running water or toilets, but a household without a television is uncommon in Dharavi.

I’ve visited Mumbai many times myself, and I’ve always wondered about the TV antennas poking through thatched-roofed shacks. How can “these people” buy TVs when their kids are malnourished and wading through sewage-infested water?

I suppose it’s a matter of priorities. If you are accustomed to eating light meals and not having a toilet, you just might prefer a TV over heartier food and latrines. TV provides an escape from misery. Anyone who’s seen a Bollywood movie knows it’s about vicariously experiencing a level of wealth and happiness that’s hopelessly unattainable in the real world. Why, you might just say that television is the new opiate of the masses.