It's about sample size isn't it? I"m sure the village had at least one person who wasted the money in some way. The article never mentions anybody, even if the village didn't, if you expanded it to a larger village there will be one person I'm sure.

But more importantly there's a stark difference between somebody who lives homeless in a developed nation vs a bunch of villagers living in poverty. I'm not sure how well I could articulate them but I imagine it comes from the perspective of what is considered "well-off" for the homeless man vs the villagers.