> enforcement agencies responsible for preventing wage theft - including "the taxman" The taxman isn't formally concerned with wage theft, they are concerned w

> 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.