The real question is: how exactly do you positively impact the Maslow hierarchy outlined? How would present welfare programs be different if also oriented toward "reducing crime"?
It is far from clear to me that it is basic food and housing prompting property crimes as opposed to say, drug abuse. I'm sure there is some, but all of the research I've seen shows only a 20% increase in criminality of those thrown off welfare vs. those still on it.
Compare this 20% to the 43% of incarcerated criminals coming from single parent families...
I would also suggest looking at what people are stealing. If it is food or some other very basic Maslow hierarchy category, that is one thing. But if it is iPhones and Tide for resale, that is a very different dynamic.
Note how crimes per 100,000 people went from 250 in the 1900-1920 era to over 1000 in the 1950s. Note 1950s UK was a really tough time to be a Briton due to massive austerity, economic damage due to World War 2 and the US forcing the UK to repay the loans extended to it by the US.
I am also highly dubious about focus on food. The West in general pays less as a percentage per capita of food than ever before; the real problem is cost of housing. Are people starving because they can't buy food due to food cost or lack of income, or because they can't afford food because they are paying too much for housing, medical care, education etc?
That said: there is likely at least some cultural influence at work as well. There are very marked differences between different ethnicities. We discriminate negatively against Asians in universities because they are over-represented but discriminate positively for Native Americans and African Americans - but the latter have markedly different levels of incarceration rates.
Cross reference the crime rate data vs. census race data:
As you can see - the Black/African American demographic is ridiculously over-represented. All other ethnicities represent less crime vs. population percentage.
Is this because of selective enforcement/prosecution? Very troubling argument IMO since the absolute numbers of crimes/arrests are of white people. I could believe that some over-enforcement/prosecution can occur due to the "high yield" of enforcement in high crime areas but it doesn't explain the still enormous over-representation (nearly double population percentage). I'd also note that poor areas tend to overlap demographics: new immigrants tend to cluster in poor areas whether black/asian/white/hispanic/whatever.
Nor am I automatically convinced of some agenda of oppression feeding into the over-enforcement/prosecution. There can be no ethnicity that has been more screwed over than Native Americans - they have experienced ridiculous population loss over the past 150 years of "white subjugation" yet they don't seem to be committing anywhere near the levels of crime.
So then what do you think explains the overrepresentation of black people in terms of crime? What do you think explains, as you put it, the overrepresentation of Asian people in universities?
The Asian thing is fairly well supported as a combination of highly educated immigrants plus a cultural emphasis. The African American is probably the converse: low education base plus lack of, or negative culture.
Add in reinforcement bias and the fact that the African Americans are disproportionately living in cities and urban ghettoes as opposed to American Indians in the boonies/reservations - that is probably the majority of it.
Another way to look at it is: if food were really an issue, we should be seeing lots of examples of starvation and/or physical under development. Do you see that? I sure don’t.
This isn't a new discovery.
The real question is: how exactly do you positively impact the Maslow hierarchy outlined? How would present welfare programs be different if also oriented toward "reducing crime"?
It is far from clear to me that it is basic food and housing prompting property crimes as opposed to say, drug abuse. I'm sure there is some, but all of the research I've seen shows only a 20% increase in criminality of those thrown off welfare vs. those still on it.
Compare this 20% to the 43% of incarcerated criminals coming from single parent families...
I would also suggest looking at what people are stealing. If it is food or some other very basic Maslow hierarchy category, that is one thing. But if it is iPhones and Tide for resale, that is a very different dynamic.
20% increase seems high, no?
iPhones and Tide are resold for money, which is then used to buy stuff. Given that, I think the dynamic you mention is still at play.
Depends on your point of view.
If people were really starving - I would think the increase in crime would be far, far higher.
The UK's records on crimes show far, far greater swings: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olympic-britain/crime-and-defence/crimes-of-the-century/
Note how crimes per 100,000 people went from 250 in the 1900-1920 era to over 1000 in the 1950s. Note 1950s UK was a really tough time to be a Briton due to massive austerity, economic damage due to World War 2 and the US forcing the UK to repay the loans extended to it by the US.
I am also highly dubious about focus on food. The West in general pays less as a percentage per capita of food than ever before; the real problem is cost of housing. Are people starving because they can't buy food due to food cost or lack of income, or because they can't afford food because they are paying too much for housing, medical care, education etc?
That said: there is likely at least some cultural influence at work as well. There are very marked differences between different ethnicities. We discriminate negatively against Asians in universities because they are over-represented but discriminate positively for Native Americans and African Americans - but the latter have markedly different levels of incarceration rates.
Cross reference the crime rate data vs. census race data:
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221
Crimes: (White/Black/Native Am./Asian) 69.91% 26.11% 2.43% 1.56%
Population: (White/Black/Native Am. Asian) 75.80% 13.60% 1.30% 6.10%
As you can see - the Black/African American demographic is ridiculously over-represented. All other ethnicities represent less crime vs. population percentage.
Is this because of selective enforcement/prosecution? Very troubling argument IMO since the absolute numbers of crimes/arrests are of white people. I could believe that some over-enforcement/prosecution can occur due to the "high yield" of enforcement in high crime areas but it doesn't explain the still enormous over-representation (nearly double population percentage). I'd also note that poor areas tend to overlap demographics: new immigrants tend to cluster in poor areas whether black/asian/white/hispanic/whatever.
Nor am I automatically convinced of some agenda of oppression feeding into the over-enforcement/prosecution. There can be no ethnicity that has been more screwed over than Native Americans - they have experienced ridiculous population loss over the past 150 years of "white subjugation" yet they don't seem to be committing anywhere near the levels of crime.
So then what do you think explains the overrepresentation of black people in terms of crime? What do you think explains, as you put it, the overrepresentation of Asian people in universities?
The Asian thing is fairly well supported as a combination of highly educated immigrants plus a cultural emphasis. The African American is probably the converse: low education base plus lack of, or negative culture.
Add in reinforcement bias and the fact that the African Americans are disproportionately living in cities and urban ghettoes as opposed to American Indians in the boonies/reservations - that is probably the majority of it.
Another way to look at it is: if food were really an issue, we should be seeing lots of examples of starvation and/or physical under development. Do you see that? I sure don’t.
Favorite chain? Gold.