9 ms·

When risking getting caught stealing is more attractive than working then it's safe to say the working opportunities for those people aren't worth almost anythi

When risking getting caught stealing is more attractive than working then it's safe to say the working opportunities for those people aren't worth almost anything. People take the easier option. You choose "lock your trains well" despite knowing the answer will be "crack those locks well" because it was the easy answer. The view is simple. Eventually the train will be a rolling mountain of steel protected by an army. Your fishing lure will cost an arm and a leg because protection costs are up. And the thieves will just be relegated to do slave work (the work that shouldn't exist in those conditions but society was too busy locking the train well to bother protecting its most vulnerable members) or starve because those are the only options on the table.

oefrha 5y ago
> When risking getting caught stealing is more attractive than working then it's safe to say the working opportunities for those people aren't worth almost anything. That assumes thieves are rational actors capable of assessing risks at least somewhat accurately. Often times (the vast majority of times, even) they are not. It's also worth bringing up that certain American subcultures glorify criminals. The criminal lifestyle is seen as glamorous by a large number of people, while honest labor is just dull, whether it pays enough or not.
- ckolkey 5y ago
  I think this is a fundamental attribution error... You're saying the person _is_ a thief, whereas I would say the person is _committing_ thievery. In the first case, it's the persons nature and no change in incentives would dissuade them. In the second, if you change the incentives so that thievery is less attractive (with its inherent risks) than just working for a good wage, the behavior would vanish.
  - oefrha 5y ago
    _People committing thievery_ more often than not aren’t rational actors capable of assessing risks at least somewhat accurately. There, exact same argument with a term you prefer.
    - lifeisstillgood 5y ago
      I am reminded of this from acoup.blog "They are poor, not stupid" He was commenting on the risk decisions of farmers throughout history. It would be sensible for people to put all their effort into growing surplus of one crop for sale, but then they would be at greater risk of starving under crop failure. People's choices are affected by their (percevied) risk calculus. https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they-make-it-part-i-farmers/ https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they...
    - Cymrukicks 5y ago
      Hard disagree. The majority probably >95% of _People committing thievery_ will have assessed the risk to reward before doing it otherwise what would be the point? even if just for momentary excitement. They just have very little to lose if they get caught. The problem is so many people are being pushed out of decent society in terms of rewards for work and wealth increase. you even have people who expect to go to prison at some point in their life simply because of the circumstances for their birth.
      - cloverich 5y ago
        Earning a criminal record has an extremely high cost even if you are poor. Actually, especially if you are poor.
  - weallknowtheobv 5y ago
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  <<It's also worth bringing up that certain American subcultures glorify criminals. The criminal lifestyle is seen as glamorous by a large number of people, while honest labor is just dull, whether it pays enough or not. It probably is not the main driver, but it is hard to discount it as a factor. Another interesting archetype is one man going solo against a corrupt system ( usually guns are involved ). You could reasonably argue that US populace is conditioned for it and then people are all surprised when people actually act out on those early imprints.
NeverFade 5y ago
> When risking getting caught stealing is more attractive than working then it's safe to say the working opportunities for those people aren't worth almost anything. Except when these thefts are de-facto decriminalized in Califronia, and police is either defunded or directed not to fight these crimes, the "risk of getting caught" is effectively zero. That means that unless you start handing out iPhones for free in local malls, the thefts will continue. Let's stop pretending these thieves are "starving". Starving people don't pull up to a Gucci or Louis Vuitton in a Porsche and casually steal a luxury handbag for their girlfriend. If all work is slavery to you, how about the people who produced all these iPhones and LV bags? We're dealing here with people who are happy to steal the products of other people's work, instead of doing any work themselves.
- drewwwwww 5y ago
  there has been no meaningful defunding of police in any major metropolitan area in california and no directive to not pursue property crime. police have not pursued property crime for decades. you are regurgitating authoritarian propaganda with no evidence.
  - NeverFade 5y ago
    California passed a proposition that theft of property under $950 will not be prosecuted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47 That means criminals engaging in such thefts cannot be legally arrested or prosecuted. And we haven't even started discussing LA's new DA Gascon's aggressive move to decriminalize a very large set of offenses: https://abc7.com/george-gascon-los-angeles-district-attorney-lada-misdemeanor-crimes/8674095/ https://abc7.com/george-gascon-los-angeles-district-attorney...
  - ErikCorry 5y ago
    > no directive to not pursue property crime. police have not pursued property crime for decades If there's no directive, why is property crime not pursued?
thinkingemote 5y ago
These types of crimes are generally opportunistic. Opportunistic crimes are committed by people who literally don't think of any future, they don't see any risk, only the chance of a reward. Prison is not on their mind. Similar types of crime would be most house burglaries where entrance is easy, pick pocketing and street mugging. For house burglary the way to deter opportunistic criminals is to harden down the house just a little bit. Lock doors, close windows. Often drugs is the driving factor. I notice that out of 207 comments in this thread, only 4 including this one mention drugs. (I used to work in a criminology research office)
- dusted 5y ago
  But think about that, in your average day, how many opportunities did you have to steal or otherwise break the law. I'm guessing, A LOT, and how many did you take advantage of? (I speculate, none, because your standard of living is such that it's not an attractive option to you).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
nswest23 5y ago
did you see the amount of packages that had been opened and littered all over?? I'd say that the risk of getting caught there was extremely low and that desperation had little to do with it and it was more opportunistic.

oefrha 5y ago

> When risking getting caught stealing is more attractive than working then it's safe to say the working opportunities for those people aren't worth almost anything. That assumes thieves are rational actors capable of assessing risks at least somewhat accurately. Often times (the vast majority of times, even) they are not. It's also worth bringing up that certain American subcultures glorify criminals. The criminal lifestyle is seen as glamorous by a large number of people, while honest labor is just dull, whether it pays enough or not.

ckolkey 5y ago
I think this is a fundamental attribution error... You're saying the person _is_ a thief, whereas I would say the person is _committing_ thievery. In the first case, it's the persons nature and no change in incentives would dissuade them. In the second, if you change the incentives so that thievery is less attractive (with its inherent risks) than just working for a good wage, the behavior would vanish.
- oefrha 5y ago
  _People committing thievery_ more often than not aren’t rational actors capable of assessing risks at least somewhat accurately. There, exact same argument with a term you prefer.
  - lifeisstillgood 5y ago
    I am reminded of this from acoup.blog "They are poor, not stupid" He was commenting on the risk decisions of farmers throughout history. It would be sensible for people to put all their effort into growing surplus of one crop for sale, but then they would be at greater risk of starving under crop failure. People's choices are affected by their (percevied) risk calculus. https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they-make-it-part-i-farmers/ https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they...
  - Cymrukicks 5y ago
    Hard disagree. The majority probably >95% of _People committing thievery_ will have assessed the risk to reward before doing it otherwise what would be the point? even if just for momentary excitement. They just have very little to lose if they get caught. The problem is so many people are being pushed out of decent society in terms of rewards for work and wealth increase. you even have people who expect to go to prison at some point in their life simply because of the circumstances for their birth.
    - cloverich 5y ago
      Earning a criminal record has an extremely high cost even if you are poor. Actually, especially if you are poor.
- weallknowtheobv 5y ago
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
<<It's also worth bringing up that certain American subcultures glorify criminals. The criminal lifestyle is seen as glamorous by a large number of people, while honest labor is just dull, whether it pays enough or not. It probably is not the main driver, but it is hard to discount it as a factor. Another interesting archetype is one man going solo against a corrupt system ( usually guns are involved ). You could reasonably argue that US populace is conditioned for it and then people are all surprised when people actually act out on those early imprints.

NeverFade 5y ago

> When risking getting caught stealing is more attractive than working then it's safe to say the working opportunities for those people aren't worth almost anything. Except when these thefts are de-facto decriminalized in Califronia, and police is either defunded or directed not to fight these crimes, the "risk of getting caught" is effectively zero. That means that unless you start handing out iPhones for free in local malls, the thefts will continue. Let's stop pretending these thieves are "starving". Starving people don't pull up to a Gucci or Louis Vuitton in a Porsche and casually steal a luxury handbag for their girlfriend. If all work is slavery to you, how about the people who produced all these iPhones and LV bags? We're dealing here with people who are happy to steal the products of other people's work, instead of doing any work themselves.

drewwwwww 5y ago
there has been no meaningful defunding of police in any major metropolitan area in california and no directive to not pursue property crime. police have not pursued property crime for decades. you are regurgitating authoritarian propaganda with no evidence.
- NeverFade 5y ago
  California passed a proposition that theft of property under $950 will not be prosecuted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47 That means criminals engaging in such thefts cannot be legally arrested or prosecuted. And we haven't even started discussing LA's new DA Gascon's aggressive move to decriminalize a very large set of offenses: https://abc7.com/george-gascon-los-angeles-district-attorney-lada-misdemeanor-crimes/8674095/ https://abc7.com/george-gascon-los-angeles-district-attorney...
- ErikCorry 5y ago
  > no directive to not pursue property crime. police have not pursued property crime for decades If there's no directive, why is property crime not pursued?

thinkingemote 5y ago

These types of crimes are generally opportunistic. Opportunistic crimes are committed by people who literally don't think of any future, they don't see any risk, only the chance of a reward. Prison is not on their mind. Similar types of crime would be most house burglaries where entrance is easy, pick pocketing and street mugging. For house burglary the way to deter opportunistic criminals is to harden down the house just a little bit. Lock doors, close windows. Often drugs is the driving factor. I notice that out of 207 comments in this thread, only 4 including this one mention drugs. (I used to work in a criminology research office)

dusted 5y ago
But think about that, in your average day, how many opportunities did you have to steal or otherwise break the law. I'm guessing, A LOT, and how many did you take advantage of? (I speculate, none, because your standard of living is such that it's not an attractive option to you).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

nswest23 5y ago

did you see the amount of packages that had been opened and littered all over?? I'd say that the risk of getting caught there was extremely low and that desperation had little to do with it and it was more opportunistic.