I think the wage theft point is relevant (I was going to bring it up too) for two reasons: 1. Directly, wage theft affects people's ability to get out of pover

I think the wage theft point is relevant (I was going to bring it up too) for two reasons: 1. Directly, wage theft affects people's ability to get out of poverty and build wealth. Wage theft is a problem that disproportionately affects lower-income people (because they're more likely to rely on wages, instead of salaries or investments) and is disproportionately worse for lower-wealth people (because they can't as easily absorb a loss of $1,000 by covering it out of savings). We know, from those very same victim surveys, that poverty correlates with crime. In fact https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/household-poverty-and-nonfatal-violent-victimization-2008-2012 https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/household-poverty-a... points out that poverty correlates with being a victim of crime. 2. Less directly, but more interestingly from a philosophical standpoint, wage theft is a great example of a crime where how you classify it impacts statistics. Victim surveys tend to look at robberies. Wage theft isn't a "robbery," but if you lose $1,000 from your employer, that's much worse for you than being mugged at knife-point and losing $100 from your wallet. And if you look at homicides: Los Angeles has 200-something homicides per year. It also has 40-something police-caused deaths per year, which are generally not called "homicides." It also has 200-something deaths from car accidents a year, which are also generally not called "homicides." You're equally dead through any of these means, but crime surveys create a specific definition of "violent crime" that only looks at certain forms of violence.