6 ms·

This reads like something from The Onion

by kecupochren 5y ago

whynotkeithberg 5y ago
Maybe if you haven't researched other successful programs like this.
- rahimnathwani 5y ago
  Like the ones listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
webinvest 5y ago
It really does! It will have perverse unintended consequences. In the field of economics, this is known as “The Cobra Effect”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_original_cobra_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origi... Edit: Just because someone doesn’t live inside your echo-chamber doesn’t mean you should shower them with downvotes.
- gaadd33 5y ago
  Do you know why that didn't happen in Richmond CA when they did it? Specifically reports show a 77% drop in homicides (from another comment). Or what were the "cobras" that sprung up there?
  - andrewfong 5y ago
    The "cobra" here would be to engage in behavior that makes you more likely to be selected for this program so you can then be rewarded for stopping that behavior. I suspect the odds of unexpected outcomes would be low here though because the program itself is small (only 10 people). And there are inherent downsides to engaging in behavior that make others think you're likely to shoot someone, so it's not something you do on a whim.
    - webinvest 5y ago
      Yes. Another unexpected outcome is that it provides an economic competitive advantage to potential murderers and naturally peaceful people become less economically competitive. If you believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest, you’re increasing the fitness of the potential murderers over the peaceful people.
  - webinvest 5y ago
    Too early to tell. Good results can show up initially only to strike back later.
- tzs 5y ago
  I don't see how the Cobra Effect is even theoretically possible here. To have a possible Cobra Effect you have to be (1) paying to try to achieve a desired outcome, and (2) what you actually payout for is when people do something that correlates with leading to the desired outcome put does not correlate perfectly. People may then find that some of those things that achieve the payout but do not correlate with the desired outcome are easier to do then the things that do correlate with it. In the original Cobra Effect example the desired outcome was a reduction in the number of wild cobras. The thing that earned the payout was turning in a dead cobra. The way to turn in dead cobras that was easier and did not correlate with a reduction in wild cobras was breeding cobras to kill and turn in. In the San Fransisco case the desired outcome is that a group of people don't shoot anyone for a month. The payout is earned by not shooting anyone for a month. As far as I can tell not shooting anyone for a month perfectly correlates with not shooting anyone for a month, and hence no Cobra Effect is possible.
  - waterhouse 5y ago
    So they're paying a specific group of 10 people $300 per month. Suppose someone says, "I'm not in that group, but I'd like to be in it. How do I get into it?" Well... the article specifies "people at high risk of shooting someone", and implicitly it would be "people that those administering this program are aware are at high risk of shooting someone". So, I guess, if you didn't already have a gun, you could get one, and start waving it around; or get into public arguments in bars and do low-level violent crime or theft; or find out whatever risk factors the administrators are specifically looking for, and start exhibiting them. Probably you wouldn't just deliberately go shoot someone, because you might end up in jail; but you might start putting yourself in situations where shooting started looking like your best option.
- nanis 5y ago
  > In the field of macroeconomics Actually, macro is voodoo ... The sub-discipline of economics that deals with individual incentives and behavior is microeconomics.
- senectus1 5y ago
  i sent the article to a friend and his immediate response was to laugh then reply with /r/NotTheOnion America really is a very strange place.
umvi 5y ago
Only in California. The same state that decriminalized shoplifting so that people can just walk out of supermarkets with a cart full of groceries they didn't pay for and the police do nothing.
- swman 5y ago
  Is this true? Can’t you be banned from the store?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    The store can tell you that you're banned, and if you returned you'd be trespassing, but that charge is just as unlikely to stick as the original shoplifting charge.
- m0llusk 5y ago
  That is false. California changed the amount of damage required for some convictions because prisons were exploding. Shoplifting is still illegal. Celebrating criminals getting away with crimes does not make you superior.
  - umvi 5y ago
    I mean... I remember reading a story about a guy in CA that brought a calculator to a store to make sure he didn't shoplift more than $950 or whatever the Prop 47 limit was. See: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R-TCCeOj_McJ:www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/10/10/prop47/+ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R-TCCeO... "There was the thief in San Bernardino County who had been caught shoplifting with his calculator, which he said he used to make sure he never stole the equivalent of $950 or more."
    - m0llusk 5y ago
      But you are ignoring everything that matters here. The $950 amount defines how the crime is handled. Because less than that is a lesser crime it tends not to even be enforced, but that does not mean that it cannot be enforced or will not be enforced. Much of the problem there has to do with exactly what happens when police but a case before the state. The fundamental problem that prisons were exploding with a population that simply could not be contained and cared for does not go away because enforcing retail theft is difficult. You seem to be proposing the idea that the way to fix this is to enforce shoplifting crimes aggressively, but how will you pay for and manage the additional prisons that will require? Instead of pretending the problem is simple we need to continue to find ways to make the justice system actually work. Part of that is to make it clearer what may happen if police arrest someone. Now they tend to be let free which has as much to do with prosecutor options and decisions as the law itself. It is clear we need to do better, but it is also quite clear that simply complaining about dysfunction does not fix anything and can imply bills that are too large to pay.

This reads like something from The Onion

whynotkeithberg 5y ago

Maybe if you haven't researched other successful programs like this.

rahimnathwani 5y ago
Like the ones listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

webinvest 5y ago

It really does! It will have perverse unintended consequences. In the field of economics, this is known as “The Cobra Effect”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_original_cobra_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origi... Edit: Just because someone doesn’t live inside your echo-chamber doesn’t mean you should shower them with downvotes.

gaadd33 5y ago
Do you know why that didn't happen in Richmond CA when they did it? Specifically reports show a 77% drop in homicides (from another comment). Or what were the "cobras" that sprung up there?
- andrewfong 5y ago
  The "cobra" here would be to engage in behavior that makes you more likely to be selected for this program so you can then be rewarded for stopping that behavior. I suspect the odds of unexpected outcomes would be low here though because the program itself is small (only 10 people). And there are inherent downsides to engaging in behavior that make others think you're likely to shoot someone, so it's not something you do on a whim.
  - webinvest 5y ago
    Yes. Another unexpected outcome is that it provides an economic competitive advantage to potential murderers and naturally peaceful people become less economically competitive. If you believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest, you’re increasing the fitness of the potential murderers over the peaceful people.
- webinvest 5y ago
  Too early to tell. Good results can show up initially only to strike back later.
tzs 5y ago
I don't see how the Cobra Effect is even theoretically possible here. To have a possible Cobra Effect you have to be (1) paying to try to achieve a desired outcome, and (2) what you actually payout for is when people do something that correlates with leading to the desired outcome put does not correlate perfectly. People may then find that some of those things that achieve the payout but do not correlate with the desired outcome are easier to do then the things that do correlate with it. In the original Cobra Effect example the desired outcome was a reduction in the number of wild cobras. The thing that earned the payout was turning in a dead cobra. The way to turn in dead cobras that was easier and did not correlate with a reduction in wild cobras was breeding cobras to kill and turn in. In the San Fransisco case the desired outcome is that a group of people don't shoot anyone for a month. The payout is earned by not shooting anyone for a month. As far as I can tell not shooting anyone for a month perfectly correlates with not shooting anyone for a month, and hence no Cobra Effect is possible.
- waterhouse 5y ago
  So they're paying a specific group of 10 people $300 per month. Suppose someone says, "I'm not in that group, but I'd like to be in it. How do I get into it?" Well... the article specifies "people at high risk of shooting someone", and implicitly it would be "people that those administering this program are aware are at high risk of shooting someone". So, I guess, if you didn't already have a gun, you could get one, and start waving it around; or get into public arguments in bars and do low-level violent crime or theft; or find out whatever risk factors the administrators are specifically looking for, and start exhibiting them. Probably you wouldn't just deliberately go shoot someone, because you might end up in jail; but you might start putting yourself in situations where shooting started looking like your best option.
nanis 5y ago
> In the field of macroeconomics Actually, macro is voodoo ... The sub-discipline of economics that deals with individual incentives and behavior is microeconomics.
senectus1 5y ago
i sent the article to a friend and his immediate response was to laugh then reply with /r/NotTheOnion America really is a very strange place.

umvi 5y ago

Only in California. The same state that decriminalized shoplifting so that people can just walk out of supermarkets with a cart full of groceries they didn't pay for and the police do nothing.

swman 5y ago
Is this true? Can’t you be banned from the store?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  The store can tell you that you're banned, and if you returned you'd be trespassing, but that charge is just as unlikely to stick as the original shoplifting charge.
m0llusk 5y ago
That is false. California changed the amount of damage required for some convictions because prisons were exploding. Shoplifting is still illegal. Celebrating criminals getting away with crimes does not make you superior.
- umvi 5y ago
  I mean... I remember reading a story about a guy in CA that brought a calculator to a store to make sure he didn't shoplift more than $950 or whatever the Prop 47 limit was. See: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R-TCCeOj_McJ:www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/10/10/prop47/+ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R-TCCeO... "There was the thief in San Bernardino County who had been caught shoplifting with his calculator, which he said he used to make sure he never stole the equivalent of $950 or more."
  - m0llusk 5y ago
    But you are ignoring everything that matters here. The $950 amount defines how the crime is handled. Because less than that is a lesser crime it tends not to even be enforced, but that does not mean that it cannot be enforced or will not be enforced. Much of the problem there has to do with exactly what happens when police but a case before the state. The fundamental problem that prisons were exploding with a population that simply could not be contained and cared for does not go away because enforcing retail theft is difficult. You seem to be proposing the idea that the way to fix this is to enforce shoplifting crimes aggressively, but how will you pay for and manage the additional prisons that will require? Instead of pretending the problem is simple we need to continue to find ways to make the justice system actually work. Part of that is to make it clearer what may happen if police arrest someone. Now they tend to be let free which has as much to do with prosecutor options and decisions as the law itself. It is clear we need to do better, but it is also quite clear that simply complaining about dysfunction does not fix anything and can imply bills that are too large to pay.