6 ms·

I suppose one correlation is missing: the price of a number of goods generally considered valuable has gone down and the quantity and availability has gone up s

by yason 11y ago

I suppose one correlation is missing: the price of a number of goods generally considered valuable has gone down and the quantity and availability has gone up since the 80's. Think TVs, car radios, stereo systems, computers. If you really think you want one, you can buy it second-hand for so cheap that crime doesn't pay off. And if you steal one, you'd have a much harder time finding a place where you can sell it for some reasonable amount of money. Because crime involves a risk, it also requires proportionally a bigger payoff. Regular households don't provide that so easily anymore. Another thing is that the illegal nature of a crime is a deterrent for most people but not so if you grow up in a culture where casual crime is no big deal. But cultures change: maybe there's less people exposed to that than earlier. Or because of the first point, casual crime has gone down because the payoffs aren't high enough, and this has been shrinking the relevant subcultures that earlier favoured committing petty crimes, thus reducing the number of people used to do crimes and therefore, eventually, full-time criminals. Generally, a crime nearly always happens for a reason: a crime can happen only if someone wants something and there's no other way as easy to get it than to commit a crime. To summarise, a crime happens because someone wants to achieve a goal. In a crime there's always a risk involved: you might get into a fight, you might get caught, or you might get shot. Thus, nearly nobody does crimes routinely just for the fun of it: the payoff must be good enough, and the payoff generally correlates with the risk.

VLM 11y ago
Could combine permanent long term decline in standard of living with the decline in physical consumer goods. So my high school educated grandfather bought my grandmother a mink coat way back in the 50s. Now a days an average middle class college educated guy couldn't afford to give his wife a consumer good like that (aside from "fur is murder", just simply couldn't afford it). On the other hand I gift my wife an evernote subscription and an amazon prime subscription fee. Its easy for an unskilled criminal to figure out how to successfully steal a $3000 coat, but really hard for an unskilled criminal to steal an evernote subscription. You can't steal my wife's mink coat; she doesn't have one. On an enormously smaller scale, before 1962 every middle/upper class white male wore an expensive formal hat with his suit, after '62 statistically no one wears them; you could steal my grandfather's fedora, but you'll never steal mine because I don't own one and likely never will. You could steal joe average's fishing boat in 1970 because joe average could afford a boat. In 2015 joe average cannot and will never afford a boat, with the side effect of no one will steal it. Likewise every dollar I spend on medical, which only goes up 10%/yr or whatever it is, is money I'll permanently never be able to spend on something physical, small, stealable. If you steal my kindle I'll merely download my books again. You could steal my dad's 1980s laserdiscs (remember those?) but you can't steal my streamed movies, well, maybe you can "steal" as in piss off the copyright holders, but you can't take the experience of having watched them in the past away from me.
- refurb 11y ago
  You believe that people today own fewer expensive consumer goods? My first impression would be the exact opposite. A majority of the population owns a small, easily stolen electronic device (smart phone) that is worth an average week's pay. Not to mention computers, TVs, video game systems, etc. All stuff commonly stolen.
  - VLM 11y ago
    "All stuff commonly stolen." Isn't that in direct opposition to the data and claims? A TV financially worth stealing is going to be too big and delicate to steal. I'm not in the i-ecosystem but I'm told changes have been made making a stolen iphone basically worthless. I was motivated to pull my communities police blotter (which is online) and look at the last weeks thefts. Stolen last week: one microwave oven, garbage cans (the city owns the rolling bins and it is incredibly inconvenient and costs $75 to replace each rolling bin, so its a revenge crime type of thing rather than for resale profit), gasoline was siphoned out of some car dealership cars, and misc office supplies (aka someone got fired for cause for taking a pad of paper instead of getting downsized to keep unemployment insurance costs lower). Apparently in my suburb there were no "real" thefts last week. I think its interesting that HN posters would make excellent thieves compared to the general population. Apparently the general population thieves are really stupid, or are not stealing for the sake of profit maximization but for punishment or getting even. Possibly we're seeing some kind of variation in drugs, like crack users could be effective thieves via the chemical stimulation but most of the local addicts are pill heads and the chemical effects mean they can't effectively steal things. The crime report in an urban area is likely much longer than this suburban example and that might be useful data. Finally school is out so dorm related crime last week would be very minimal compared to during school.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - exelius 11y ago
      I think the implication is that people still involved in the crime economy aren't idiots. If you're a criminal looking to make money, robbing houses is too high-risk anymore. Other crimes like credit card fraud are much more lucrative and don't carry the possibility of getting shot by a police officer or homeowner. I don't think the risk from robbing houses is any higher than it used to be, but the reward is probably lower and there are other, better ways to make money illegally.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
I don't think crime usually has a rational proposition value. If you're desperate or an addict or whatever, you'll take what you can get. I lived in Chicago's Humboldt Park neighborhood (http://spotcrime.com/il/chicago/humboldt+park http://spotcrime.com/il/chicago/humboldt+park) for three years. During that time, my wife's car was broken into for a $99 GPS, that was 4 or 5 years old and had a resale value of maybe $10 at most? My own car was broken into for the near free Sirius radio you get when you sign up for service. This isn't even resellable as Sirius has the serial number and will refuse to active it. This didn't stop them from smashing our windows. Of course, this ignores other types of crime like murder, rape, etc where there is no economic argument at play. Looks to me that there's variety of factors here: a strong economy means the opportunity for jobs instead of joining a gang, abortion access means less unwanted children, foster policies moving from "paycheck" children to permanent adoptive placement, the end of concentrated crime and misery in 'the projects' to section 8 vouchers which lets poor people have a choice in housing, the removal of lead from gas and paint, the rise of cheap CCTV cameras, the rise of CCW permits, the rise of cheap/subsidized college, massive urban gentrification, police gang management policies that encourage stability and limits territory disputes, consolidated drug markets, etc.
- arthernan 11y ago
  But it does. You even said it yourself. "If you are desperate .. you'll take what you can get." The people that could be the most desperate, or that have the least to lose. Would be homeless, I think homeless don't steal a whole lot because they are fewer, and they don't really have the resources to steal. On the contrary they are more likely to be abused by people with more resources than them. 99% of crime has some economic factor, they have to do with society. Society and economy are inextricably connected.

by yason 11y ago

VLM 11y ago

Could combine permanent long term decline in standard of living with the decline in physical consumer goods. So my high school educated grandfather bought my grandmother a mink coat way back in the 50s. Now a days an average middle class college educated guy couldn't afford to give his wife a consumer good like that (aside from "fur is murder", just simply couldn't afford it). On the other hand I gift my wife an evernote subscription and an amazon prime subscription fee. Its easy for an unskilled criminal to figure out how to successfully steal a $3000 coat, but really hard for an unskilled criminal to steal an evernote subscription. You can't steal my wife's mink coat; she doesn't have one. On an enormously smaller scale, before 1962 every middle/upper class white male wore an expensive formal hat with his suit, after '62 statistically no one wears them; you could steal my grandfather's fedora, but you'll never steal mine because I don't own one and likely never will. You could steal joe average's fishing boat in 1970 because joe average could afford a boat. In 2015 joe average cannot and will never afford a boat, with the side effect of no one will steal it. Likewise every dollar I spend on medical, which only goes up 10%/yr or whatever it is, is money I'll permanently never be able to spend on something physical, small, stealable. If you steal my kindle I'll merely download my books again. You could steal my dad's 1980s laserdiscs (remember those?) but you can't steal my streamed movies, well, maybe you can "steal" as in piss off the copyright holders, but you can't take the experience of having watched them in the past away from me.

refurb 11y ago
You believe that people today own fewer expensive consumer goods? My first impression would be the exact opposite. A majority of the population owns a small, easily stolen electronic device (smart phone) that is worth an average week's pay. Not to mention computers, TVs, video game systems, etc. All stuff commonly stolen.
- VLM 11y ago
  "All stuff commonly stolen." Isn't that in direct opposition to the data and claims? A TV financially worth stealing is going to be too big and delicate to steal. I'm not in the i-ecosystem but I'm told changes have been made making a stolen iphone basically worthless. I was motivated to pull my communities police blotter (which is online) and look at the last weeks thefts. Stolen last week: one microwave oven, garbage cans (the city owns the rolling bins and it is incredibly inconvenient and costs $75 to replace each rolling bin, so its a revenge crime type of thing rather than for resale profit), gasoline was siphoned out of some car dealership cars, and misc office supplies (aka someone got fired for cause for taking a pad of paper instead of getting downsized to keep unemployment insurance costs lower). Apparently in my suburb there were no "real" thefts last week. I think its interesting that HN posters would make excellent thieves compared to the general population. Apparently the general population thieves are really stupid, or are not stealing for the sake of profit maximization but for punishment or getting even. Possibly we're seeing some kind of variation in drugs, like crack users could be effective thieves via the chemical stimulation but most of the local addicts are pill heads and the chemical effects mean they can't effectively steal things. The crime report in an urban area is likely much longer than this suburban example and that might be useful data. Finally school is out so dorm related crime last week would be very minimal compared to during school.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - exelius 11y ago
    I think the implication is that people still involved in the crime economy aren't idiots. If you're a criminal looking to make money, robbing houses is too high-risk anymore. Other crimes like credit card fraud are much more lucrative and don't carry the possibility of getting shot by a police officer or homeowner. I don't think the risk from robbing houses is any higher than it used to be, but the reward is probably lower and there are other, better ways to make money illegally.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

I don't think crime usually has a rational proposition value. If you're desperate or an addict or whatever, you'll take what you can get. I lived in Chicago's Humboldt Park neighborhood (http://spotcrime.com/il/chicago/humboldt+park http://spotcrime.com/il/chicago/humboldt+park) for three years. During that time, my wife's car was broken into for a $99 GPS, that was 4 or 5 years old and had a resale value of maybe $10 at most? My own car was broken into for the near free Sirius radio you get when you sign up for service. This isn't even resellable as Sirius has the serial number and will refuse to active it. This didn't stop them from smashing our windows. Of course, this ignores other types of crime like murder, rape, etc where there is no economic argument at play. Looks to me that there's variety of factors here: a strong economy means the opportunity for jobs instead of joining a gang, abortion access means less unwanted children, foster policies moving from "paycheck" children to permanent adoptive placement, the end of concentrated crime and misery in 'the projects' to section 8 vouchers which lets poor people have a choice in housing, the removal of lead from gas and paint, the rise of cheap CCTV cameras, the rise of CCW permits, the rise of cheap/subsidized college, massive urban gentrification, police gang management policies that encourage stability and limits territory disputes, consolidated drug markets, etc.

arthernan 11y ago
But it does. You even said it yourself. "If you are desperate .. you'll take what you can get." The people that could be the most desperate, or that have the least to lose. Would be homeless, I think homeless don't steal a whole lot because they are fewer, and they don't really have the resources to steal. On the contrary they are more likely to be abused by people with more resources than them. 99% of crime has some economic factor, they have to do with society. Society and economy are inextricably connected.