3 ms·

Okay, that's an interesting theory. Violent crime rates have decreased dramatically across America over the past several decades. Has inequality gone up or down

Okay, that's an interesting theory. Violent crime rates have decreased dramatically across America over the past several decades. Has inequality gone up or down? Because if it's gone up, then decreasing crime rates didn't do what your theory says they should do. The theory doesn't really matter that much if we can point at two arrows going in opposite directions and say, "look, making one of the arrows go down didn't make the other one go down." I'm kind of picking on you here, but to be clear, we can ask the same question in the opposite direction -- inequality has gone up by many metrics even though crime has gone down by many metrics, so clearly inequality doesn't have as much of a direct effect on crime rates as people say it does, or else crime rates wouldn't have gone down. But no matter what way you're looking at it, these really simplistic models just don't hold up to even surface-level scrutiny like, "are they playing out in the real world?" There has to be more complicated stuff going on or else the numbers would be different. And so it's just frustrating to hear people say, "the correct answer is to keep doing the exact same things we've been doing, and to hope that the results are different." There has been ample opportunity for policies focused on crime to prove that they solve these social issues, and they haven't solved them.

WalterBright 5y ago
Would you start a business in a high crime neighborhood, or in a low crime one? If your dad was put in prison while you were growing up, would your standard of living go up or down? Other things drive inequality. For example, if you would be paid $12,000 for a job, and $10,000 for not working, which would you select? Would your standard of living be higher or lower?
- danShumway 5y ago
  If decreasing crime decreases inequality, why did inequality rise while crime fell? Hypotheticals aside, something is clearly going on here that you are not accounting for. > For example, if you would be paid $12,000 for a job, and $10,000 for not working, which would you select? Would your standard of living be higher or lower? It's an interesting theory, but the problem with this explanation is that pandemic checks are too recent. Inequality trends were visible before 2019.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > why did inequality rise while crime fell? Crime is not the only variable affecting the economy. I gave you another variable - paying people to not work. > It's an interesting theory It's a question for you. Which would you choose? As for trends, there's been a decades long increasing trend of people leaving their jobs for one reason or another and getting on disability. Disability pays less than their jobs did, but it's a workable life. Their standard of living went down, but it wasn't because of rich people. It was because they found a friendly doctor who could get them on disability, and they wouldn't have to work anymore. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/2016/sect01.html#chart2 https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/2016/sect01... Do you think that a 5 fold increase in the number of workers on disability in the last 70 years might have contributed to inequality?
    - danShumway 5y ago
      > Crime is not the only variable affecting the economy. I gave you another variable - paying people to not work. It sounds like you're saying here that crime doesn't have a strong enough effect on inequality to really practically matter when compared to other factors. Is that what you're saying? That other factors are so much stronger that they're able to actually reverse the trend we would otherwise expect to see? ---- If you're trying to find the actual reasons why inequality has gone up, we can overlay a lot of charts on top of inequality levels that will show correlations, from welfare participation to market deregulation to housing prices to even mobile phone usage. People can debate which of those theories are correct. But all of them are more plausible than the idea that crime rates are strongly correlated with rising inequality. I have some issues with the "welfare queen" narratives that people bring out, but blaming welfare is at least pointing to two numbers that are going in the same direction. So, sure, I will happily grant that it is more plausible that welfare levels influence inequality than it is to say that crime rates are driving inequality. I will take some minor quibbles with the fact that spikes in welfare/inequality don't seem to be correlated in convincing ways (again, we saw economic trends around 2019/2020 that didn't line up with when people were given financial aide during the pandemic, which should probably strike you as at least a little bit odd). But yes, at the very least you're now pointing at graphs that both have a positive slope. ---- > It's a question for you. Which would you choose? I would genuinely, honestly choose to work, I am interested in maximizing my earning potential for multiple reasons. I also have side/entrepreneurial stuff I do anyway for profit, so it's really not feasible for me to even consider taking welfare that would be conditional on me not having a job or earning any additional income. And the numbers you're talking about are too low for me to live comfortably, and only the working option gives me a clear path forward to changing that number. I don't think that answer matters to you, and I don't understand why you care about it. Obviously you don't think the answer I give above about my own work preferences is representative of the average American person, so why did you ask the question if the answer didn't matter to your argument?

WalterBright 5y ago

Would you start a business in a high crime neighborhood, or in a low crime one? If your dad was put in prison while you were growing up, would your standard of living go up or down? Other things drive inequality. For example, if you would be paid $12,000 for a job, and $10,000 for not working, which would you select? Would your standard of living be higher or lower?

danShumway 5y ago
If decreasing crime decreases inequality, why did inequality rise while crime fell? Hypotheticals aside, something is clearly going on here that you are not accounting for. > For example, if you would be paid $12,000 for a job, and $10,000 for not working, which would you select? Would your standard of living be higher or lower? It's an interesting theory, but the problem with this explanation is that pandemic checks are too recent. Inequality trends were visible before 2019.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > why did inequality rise while crime fell? Crime is not the only variable affecting the economy. I gave you another variable - paying people to not work. > It's an interesting theory It's a question for you. Which would you choose? As for trends, there's been a decades long increasing trend of people leaving their jobs for one reason or another and getting on disability. Disability pays less than their jobs did, but it's a workable life. Their standard of living went down, but it wasn't because of rich people. It was because they found a friendly doctor who could get them on disability, and they wouldn't have to work anymore. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/2016/sect01.html#chart2 https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/2016/sect01... Do you think that a 5 fold increase in the number of workers on disability in the last 70 years might have contributed to inequality?
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > Crime is not the only variable affecting the economy. I gave you another variable - paying people to not work. It sounds like you're saying here that crime doesn't have a strong enough effect on inequality to really practically matter when compared to other factors. Is that what you're saying? That other factors are so much stronger that they're able to actually reverse the trend we would otherwise expect to see? ---- If you're trying to find the actual reasons why inequality has gone up, we can overlay a lot of charts on top of inequality levels that will show correlations, from welfare participation to market deregulation to housing prices to even mobile phone usage. People can debate which of those theories are correct. But all of them are more plausible than the idea that crime rates are strongly correlated with rising inequality. I have some issues with the "welfare queen" narratives that people bring out, but blaming welfare is at least pointing to two numbers that are going in the same direction. So, sure, I will happily grant that it is more plausible that welfare levels influence inequality than it is to say that crime rates are driving inequality. I will take some minor quibbles with the fact that spikes in welfare/inequality don't seem to be correlated in convincing ways (again, we saw economic trends around 2019/2020 that didn't line up with when people were given financial aide during the pandemic, which should probably strike you as at least a little bit odd). But yes, at the very least you're now pointing at graphs that both have a positive slope. ---- > It's a question for you. Which would you choose? I would genuinely, honestly choose to work, I am interested in maximizing my earning potential for multiple reasons. I also have side/entrepreneurial stuff I do anyway for profit, so it's really not feasible for me to even consider taking welfare that would be conditional on me not having a job or earning any additional income. And the numbers you're talking about are too low for me to live comfortably, and only the working option gives me a clear path forward to changing that number. I don't think that answer matters to you, and I don't understand why you care about it. Obviously you don't think the answer I give above about my own work preferences is representative of the average American person, so why did you ask the question if the answer didn't matter to your argument?