4 ms·
Yeah. That something that happened during that period of time was: - Stable jobs with good salaries - Home Ownership - Salaries that increased as much as pro
by elzbardico 3y ago
Yeah. That something that happened during that period of time was:
- Stable jobs with good salaries
- Home Ownership
- Salaries that increased as much as profits when productivity raised.
It was a good time, they told me.
- jojobas 3y agoThat's a carrot, works best with a stick. There's no shortage of carrot these days, poverty has been steadily decreasing since then.
- peddling-brink 3y agoNo shortage of home ownership by people, not corporations and investment vehicles. Easy mistake to make.
- wongarsu 3y agoFor silicon valley tech workers that might be true, but for a lot of people the carrot has become awfully small over the last 16 years.
- echelon 3y ago"Carrot for me, but stick for thee" selects along the socioeconomic boundaries.
- jojobas 3y agoPoverty has been steadily decreasing across the board, in both absolute and relative numbers. That's plenty of carrot.
- noelwelsh 3y agoYou're looking at the wrong statistic. Inequality is the issue. There are plenty of people living hand to mouth who don't fall in the definition of poverty.
- lupusreal 3y agoAh yeah, wealth inequality. E.g. lots of rich bastards own megayachts and I don't, therefore this justifies me stealing packages from other common people who also don't own megayachts. These people aren't Robin Hood, stop excusing their criminal behavior.
- noelwelsh 3y agoI didn't excuse their behaviour. If you actually care about reducing crime you look at the evidence. E.g. https://equalitytrust.org.uk/crime https://equalitytrust.org.uk/crime
- altairTF 3y agoSo, are people like animals that start going feral when they see someone in a way better status than they are? If that's the case, and this article suggests there is psychological evidence to support it, it poses a serious problem for the whole society. Are we really going to assign a maximum value to people's wealth?
- lupusreal 3y agoPeople can reasonably be excused for theft when they are trying to meet their needs. Somebody who steals because they're at the poverty line and are trying to keep a roof over their head and food on their children's plate deserves sympathy. But when people have their needs met, are above the poverty line with a decent job that pays the bills, and they still steal because "inequality" makes them jealous and greedy, they don't deserve sympathy. Most people in such a condition don't become theives, they either content themselves with what they have or they try to better their condition through some honest means, like seeking better job training or political advocacy for social change. The ones who respond by turning to crime (usually targetting other common people living in similar conditions as themselves) are antisocials who need to have the book thrown at them. The reason they're stealing packages instead of robbing banks or spending their time looking for a better job is because porch theft is easy and low risk. If penalties and enforcement were increased, theft rates would drop.
- 3y ago
- hasty_pudding 3y ago"not starving to death" That's not a carrot that's just less stick
- Chris2048 3y agoHow do you define poverty?
- jojobas 3y agoI don't, and who ever does raises the poverty threshold over time. Today's first world borderline poor can enjoy things (hot water, variety of food, healthcare, transportation) that only nobles could afford mere 150 years ago.
- Chris2048 3y agook, so what about "relative to other countries today" rather than "relative to the past"?
- jojobas 3y agoAre you suggesting that the crime in question is driven by the fact that some 5000km away there are now fewer poor? Yes, there are countries with less poverty than the US. You might want to check out what else they have less of.
- Chris2048 3y agoI'm suggesting the standard of poverty even when raised over time should still pay heed to worldwide economic levels. Hence, I ask you how you define (or pedantically, whose definition you take) when you talk about poverty.
- jojobas 3y agoUS Census Bureau. Worldwide economic levels are such that the entire US population are filthy rich. Basically you're arguing as per above in this thread, that the fact that there are billionaires with private planes is somehow the reason for people to steal more.
- 3y ago
- hasty_pudding 3y agothis is so wrong. it's fanciful
- remarkEon 3y agoTrain robberies were mostly stopped via private security (the Pinkertons, as one notorious example) well before the post-WWII boom that you're referencing. It was violent and bloody, but alas the train robberies did stop.
- lupusreal 3y agoMany porch pirates have decent jobs and plenty of money. They do it because they're greedy, it's easy and the penalties for getting caught are light. We need to revise our criminal code to apply harsher penalties to this kind of behavior. Porch piracy isn't a crime of 'passion', the people who do it presently think that the rewards are worth the risks and this can be fixed by escalating the risks.
- autoexec 3y ago> We need to revise our criminal code to apply harsher penalties to this kind of behavior. We'd have to be careful about that since research shows that past a certain point harsher penalties do not act as a deterrent. It might be that being a little bit harsher improves the situation, but the tendency is the US is to go way overboard to the point that the US locks up more of its citizens than any other nation on Earth, and even an arrest is enough to cause someone to lose their job while a conviction can cause someone to because virtually unemployable for the rest of their lives. It might be better to focus on making it more likely that people are caught at all for stealing packages than increasing punishments for the ones that do get caught.
- Ekaros 3y agoSeems like something reasonable like a few months in jail would very quickly solve this. It would not be too harsh punishment to stop this sort of theft.
- altairTF 3y agoBeing caught is the problem. If there's a 100% chance of getting caught, like grabbing the box while the owner is right there talking to a police officer, that deters this kind of crime
- lupusreal 3y agoI think this is the reason Amazon bought Ring. But the criminal justice system still needs to uphold their end.
- Chris2048 3y ago
- concordDance 3y agoThat first one seems very unlikely. The early 1950s had much lower salaries than today adjusted for inflation. I'm also quite confused as to how home ownership could ve causative here.
- altairTF 3y agoIt was something called the Peacemaker