3 ms·

Being poor in and of itself isn’t a globally accurate predictor of crime rate. This would seem to contradict your earlier statement: > [Crime is] much more a

Being poor in and of itself isn’t a globally accurate predictor of crime rate. This would seem to contradict your earlier statement: > [Crime is] much more a result of the gross economic disparity found in America than any "far left" policies. The reason this can’t be true is China and Sweden have comparable wealth disparity to the US, yet vastly better public safety outcomes. If “gross economic disparity” were as predictive of crime as you claim, surely China and Sweden would have comparable crime rates to the US, irrespective of social programs. The fact they have much lower crime rates than the US disproves economic determinism along this axis.

imilk 5y ago
> Being poor in and of itself isn’t a globally accurate predictor of crime rate. If you look at income inequality (with a few exception), it is not the sole predictor, but it gets you pretty damn close. Of course there are many other factors, but there is still an extremely strong correlation. After all, if the poor are not extremely disconnected from wealth, there is less incentive to resort to crime. Income inequality is a much better measure of inequality than wealth inequality. Just like how a cash flow statement is much better at describing the health of a business than their balance sheet. If you don't have the cash to pay the bills, you're screwed. I have explicitly said that countries with authoritarian governments are an exception to the correlation and factored in how massive social programs (like the ones in Sweden) decrease inequality. And you would see those decreases if you looked at income inequality, where the US is 2-3x as unequal as Sweden by almost every measure. > If “gross economic disparity” were as predictive of crime as you claim, surely China and Sweden would have comparable crime rates to the US, irrespective of social programs. Why would it be irrespective of social programs when social programs (largely supported by the "far left") reduce inequality? That doesn't make any sense. You are straw-manning my argument to that of "wealth inequality is the sole determining factor of crime". This is something that I have explicitly not said and given you multiple reasons why. It's an extremely weak and disingenuous way to have a discussion, and frankly makes this entire exchange pointless. Try to actually engage with the people your speaking to in the future and you'll have more meaningful interactions.

imilk 5y ago

> Being poor in and of itself isn’t a globally accurate predictor of crime rate. If you look at income inequality (with a few exception), it is not the sole predictor, but it gets you pretty damn close. Of course there are many other factors, but there is still an extremely strong correlation. After all, if the poor are not extremely disconnected from wealth, there is less incentive to resort to crime. Income inequality is a much better measure of inequality than wealth inequality. Just like how a cash flow statement is much better at describing the health of a business than their balance sheet. If you don't have the cash to pay the bills, you're screwed. I have explicitly said that countries with authoritarian governments are an exception to the correlation and factored in how massive social programs (like the ones in Sweden) decrease inequality. And you would see those decreases if you looked at income inequality, where the US is 2-3x as unequal as Sweden by almost every measure. > If “gross economic disparity” were as predictive of crime as you claim, surely China and Sweden would have comparable crime rates to the US, irrespective of social programs. Why would it be irrespective of social programs when social programs (largely supported by the "far left") reduce inequality? That doesn't make any sense. You are straw-manning my argument to that of "wealth inequality is the sole determining factor of crime". This is something that I have explicitly not said and given you multiple reasons why. It's an extremely weak and disingenuous way to have a discussion, and frankly makes this entire exchange pointless. Try to actually engage with the people your speaking to in the future and you'll have more meaningful interactions.