**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

If you're telling me that you spend significant time in Economics classrooms and you're also telling me that you don't think poverty and crime are linked, then I'm just gonna walk away shaking my head man. Does not compute.

They are associated for sure. I had to adjust for that association in an econometric analysis I did.

I'm discussing in terms of causality instead. It is true that in the states where you find poverty you find crime, though that doesn't mean the poverty is causing the crime.

[wufwugy]

It is true that in the states where you find poverty you find crime, though that doesn't mean the poverty is causing the crime.

Actually that seems to be true only in certain areas. Some poor places aren't that crimey, roughly speaking.

[spoonitnow]

Actually that seems to be true only in certain areas. Some poor places aren't that crimey, roughly speaking.

The two counties I've lived in primarily for the past decade are pretty poor, and both of them had low crime until the past 10 years, which is tied directly to opioid use.

"I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

Hmm, which Democratic president from just 50 years ago said this?

[BananaStand]

They are associated for sure. I had to adjust for that association in an econometric analysis I did.

I'm discussing in terms of causality instead. It is true that in the states where you find poverty you find crime, though that doesn't mean the poverty is causing the crime.

It has to do with something you talk about frequently....skin in the game.

If you have a job, possessions, health, access, and savings....then you have ALOT to lose by committing a crime.

If you have no job, no possessions, worse health, less access, and no savings, then the risk/reward ratio of committing a crime changes drastically.

It's really not that hard to figure out. Proximity to crime lessens your sensitivity to it. Living in poverty, generally, increases your proximity to crime.

[wufwugy]

It has to do with something you talk about frequently....skin in the game.

If you have a job, possessions, health, access, and savings....then you have ALOT to lose by committing a crime.

If you have no job, no possessions, worse health, less access, and no savings, then the risk/reward ratio of committing a crime changes drastically.

It's really not that hard to figure out. Proximity to crime lessens your sensitivity to it. Living in poverty, generally, increases your proximity to crime.

I like where you're going with this.

I pushback on two main things: (1) this is something we would want to see data on if possible. (2) If x is the cost of crime and y is the benefit of crime, if x>y then the person doesn't commit crime. Due to normal human preferences, x can be greater than y for both rich and poor people. While you are right about how people being poorer could lower x, it might not lower it enough to be greater than y.

[BananaStand]

I pushback on two main things: (1) this is something we would want to see data on if possible.

Use your google machine man. Find a map showing poverty in the US. Then find a map showing crime in the US. Superimpose one on top of the other and see what happens.

(2) If x is the cost of crime and y is the benefit of crime, if x>y then the person doesn't commit crime. Due to normal human preferences, x can be greater than y for both rich and poor people. While you are right about how people poor could lower x, it might not lower it enough to be greater than y.

It's not a straight mathematical equation as the perception of X (the cost of crime) can change based on environmental factors. For example, have you ever driven a busy highway where it seems like everyone is doing 15+ mph over the speed limit? This happens because everyone sees everyone else speeding, and they just keep up. The cost of crime (potential of getting pulled over) is low. However, if you were driving on that same road late at night with no one else on the road, you are far more likely to observe the speed limit.

This is actually contrary to safety concerns as you'd prefer to drive slower in congested traffic. The change in speed seems directly correlated to the likelihood of getting caught.

[wufwugy]

Use your google machine man. Find a map showing poverty in the US. Then find a map showing crime in the US. Superimpose one on top of the other and see what happens.

That shows association. I'm looking for something that shows that the poorer somebody becomes the more likely they are to commit crime due to having less skin in the game. My point that it probably is true that they have less skin in the game, but it may be by a small enough amount that it doesn't change their desire to commit crime.

It's not a straight mathematical equation as the perception of X (the cost of crime) can change based on environmental factors. For example, have you ever driven a busy highway where it seems like everyone is doing 15+ mph over the speed limit? This happens because everyone sees everyone else speeding, and they just keep up. The cost of crime (potential of getting pulled over) is low. However, if you were driving on that same road late at night with no one else on the road, you are far more likely to observe the speed limit.

This is actually contrary to safety concerns as you'd prefer to drive slower in congested traffic. The change in speed seems directly correlated to the likelihood of getting caught.

The variables integrate perception. In the situation you detail where drivers change behavior at time of day, their perception is that x<y.

[wufwugy]

What happens to your body or your moral code is typically a much bigger skin-in-the-game thing than what happens to your material wealth. That's why I'm making the point that a change in wealth might not typically (but could sometimes) dip somebody below the threshold where they would start committing crime. A poor person in this context still has loads of skin-in-the-game regarding their body and morals and stuff.