5 ms·

Are you arguing that crime would not have increased in the newly-integrated neighborhoods if the white residents had not moved away?

tptacek 10y ago
Could you respond to my comment? It refutes your argument about causality.
- twblalock 10y ago
  Your explanation of crime in endogenously black neighborhoods is reasonable, but it only explains why crime existed in the first place, not why it increased so much in the 1960s through the early 1990s. The endogenously black neighborhoods did not experience erosion of the tax base due to white flight, because there were few, if any, whites living there in the first place. So, why did crime increase dramatically in the endogenously black neighborhoods during the time period we are talking about? Whatever the reason is, why wouldn't it be the same reason crime increased in the areas subject to white flight? I find it very unlikely that the endogenously black neighborhoods experienced an increase in crime for one reason, and the nearby white flight neighborhoods experienced an increase in crime for a totally different reason (such as erosion of the tax base after white people left). Obviously the erosion of the tax base made things worse, but unless that caused all of the increase in crime, something else was going on. If you are going to argue that crime increases after white flight were a self-fulfilling prophecy and would not have occurred without white flight, that's a pretty extraordinary claim.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I'm sorry, I think I made it sound like I was speculating. No, I was reciting the literature on this question. Your claim, that the causality of crime and white flight were reversed, is false. Can you address that (or just concede it) before moving on to new arguments?
    - twblalock 10y ago
      Answer a straight question: was 100% of the increase in crime a self-fulfilling prophecy caused by white flight that would not have happened otherwise? If you answer in the affirmative, you'll need to bring some proof. This is how I'm addressing your argument about causality. If any of the crime increases happened before white flight, or if the increases would have happened anyway, then you are wrong about causality. The best you can do is to claim that white flight made a pre-existing increase in crime worse. That is not what you have argued up to now.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        You made a straightforward claim earlier in the thread: that white flight was caused by crime, and not a causative agent for crime. That claim turns out to be straightforward to refute, because it's a basic question that social science researchers have been evaluating since the late 1970s. Your claim was wrong. Since you appear to be unwilling to even address the rebuttal of your argument, let alone concede the point, I'm not interested in the rest of your arguments. This thread is deep enough already.
        twblalock 10y ago
        It's pretty telling that you won't give a yes-or-no answer to a simple question that gets to the very heart of your argument.

tptacek 10y ago

Could you respond to my comment? It refutes your argument about causality.

twblalock 10y ago
Your explanation of crime in endogenously black neighborhoods is reasonable, but it only explains why crime existed in the first place, not why it increased so much in the 1960s through the early 1990s. The endogenously black neighborhoods did not experience erosion of the tax base due to white flight, because there were few, if any, whites living there in the first place. So, why did crime increase dramatically in the endogenously black neighborhoods during the time period we are talking about? Whatever the reason is, why wouldn't it be the same reason crime increased in the areas subject to white flight? I find it very unlikely that the endogenously black neighborhoods experienced an increase in crime for one reason, and the nearby white flight neighborhoods experienced an increase in crime for a totally different reason (such as erosion of the tax base after white people left). Obviously the erosion of the tax base made things worse, but unless that caused all of the increase in crime, something else was going on. If you are going to argue that crime increases after white flight were a self-fulfilling prophecy and would not have occurred without white flight, that's a pretty extraordinary claim.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I'm sorry, I think I made it sound like I was speculating. No, I was reciting the literature on this question. Your claim, that the causality of crime and white flight were reversed, is false. Can you address that (or just concede it) before moving on to new arguments?
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Answer a straight question: was 100% of the increase in crime a self-fulfilling prophecy caused by white flight that would not have happened otherwise? If you answer in the affirmative, you'll need to bring some proof. This is how I'm addressing your argument about causality. If any of the crime increases happened before white flight, or if the increases would have happened anyway, then you are wrong about causality. The best you can do is to claim that white flight made a pre-existing increase in crime worse. That is not what you have argued up to now.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      You made a straightforward claim earlier in the thread: that white flight was caused by crime, and not a causative agent for crime. That claim turns out to be straightforward to refute, because it's a basic question that social science researchers have been evaluating since the late 1970s. Your claim was wrong. Since you appear to be unwilling to even address the rebuttal of your argument, let alone concede the point, I'm not interested in the rest of your arguments. This thread is deep enough already.
      - twblalock 10y ago
        It's pretty telling that you won't give a yes-or-no answer to a simple question that gets to the very heart of your argument.