2 ms·

Shrug. Okay, let's take your points as true, and agree that wage theft shouldn't be criminalized more than it already it. Why are the enforcement agencies resp

Shrug. Okay, let's take your points as true, and agree that wage theft shouldn't be criminalized more than it already it. Why are the enforcement agencies responsible for preventing wage theft - including "the taxman" - so underfunded as compared to the police, even when we're talking about comparable economic effects in the billions of dollars? When talking about correlations between race and being a "victim", why should we only (or primarily) consider criminal statistics? Is there a national equivalent of the National Crime Victimization Survey which covers wage theft, workplace harassment, and other illegal activities which aren't part of criminal law? I dunno. Me code.

Chris2048 5y ago
> enforcement agencies responsible for preventing wage theft - including "the taxman" The taxman isn't formally concerned with wage theft, they are concerned with (tax) fraud. I'm not sure what other enforcement agencies there would be - the Department of Labour? > When talking about correlations between race and being a "victim", why should we only (or primarily) consider criminal statistics? We shouldn't, but that's a generalisation of the original question: why is wage theft not treated like a criminal offence. Also, correlations with race doesn't imply causation: If race correlates with X then anything that correlates with X will also correlate with race. Race correlates with wealth, so anything that correlates with wealth can be spuriously correlated to race. If you normalise for wealth and the racial correlation disappears (I do not know if this is the case) then you have a stronger case for a (primary) cause. > which covers wage theft, workplace harassment presumably court cases and lawsuit in non-criminal cases. and other non-legal things such as polls and complaints. But I'm not sure why you expand this to workplace harassment etc - legal resources should be better provided at the lower end, but the courts are the proper place for these civil issues, not criminalising (recategorising) everything for the sake of fixing a funding problem.

Chris2048 5y ago

> enforcement agencies responsible for preventing wage theft - including "the taxman" The taxman isn't formally concerned with wage theft, they are concerned with (tax) fraud. I'm not sure what other enforcement agencies there would be - the Department of Labour? > When talking about correlations between race and being a "victim", why should we only (or primarily) consider criminal statistics? We shouldn't, but that's a generalisation of the original question: why is wage theft not treated like a criminal offence. Also, correlations with race doesn't imply causation: If race correlates with X then anything that correlates with X will also correlate with race. Race correlates with wealth, so anything that correlates with wealth can be spuriously correlated to race. If you normalise for wealth and the racial correlation disappears (I do not know if this is the case) then you have a stronger case for a (primary) cause. > which covers wage theft, workplace harassment presumably court cases and lawsuit in non-criminal cases. and other non-legal things such as polls and complaints. But I'm not sure why you expand this to workplace harassment etc - legal resources should be better provided at the lower end, but the courts are the proper place for these civil issues, not criminalising (recategorising) everything for the sake of fixing a funding problem.