[Mustang19]

Well I think you can't rule out the possibility that this crime elevation is just a natural consequence of structural changes. Urbanization, for instance, is always going to push the crime rate upwards. Or it could be an income inequality problem. Or a loss of low-end jobs as they go overseas, leaving those at the bottom of the ladder fewer options. Comparing two points in time isn't as illustrative, I think, as looking at the contours of the map.

Well, those were factors, but like I said a few times before looking at other countries/the severity of the spike there's probably other things at work too.

I guess there's little else to say. But it's interesting to look at what happened in New Orleans after Katrina versus Japan after the earthquake. Here's the Huffington Post trying to worm it's way out of a collectivist-society explanation for the lack of looting in Japan, and another article from the BBC. Culture's gotta be involved bro. Are you going to say that it's because (slate, sorry) the police and legal system reward honesty and deter crime by harshly punishing minor offenses? Well that sounds even more fascistic, and it's a cultural explanation anyway.

[Grizzly]

Not that there was much looting during, say, Christchurch. New Orleans looting can be explained because of the 'we-don't-really-care-we-are-busy-fighting-wars' attitude of the bush administration.

[Mustang19]

The speed of intervention was part of it, but 200 people died in Christchurch versus 4,000 in Katrina and 10,000 in Japan. It doesn't really compare.

edit: also the japanese government has been doing a pretty **** job of responding too

[Mustang19]

GB, I'm not 100% sure of the social conservative take but econ/drugs/immigration (I'll just start saying edi) doesn't seem that strong either. Sure, job security is less than it was, but unemployment has been steady the last 50-60 years and poverty has fallen a lot. Immigration can't explain it since the native US population is responsible for the majority of the increase. Drugs might be convincing, but cultural norms about drug use have changed a lot too. For instance marijuana was something deviant bohemians did in the 40s and 50s until it gained a degree of social acceptance in the 60s. To the skim readers out there, I'm not saying pot turns people into violent lunatics, rather that the "drugs causes crime" line of causation is more complicated. So I'm not seeing a whole lot of support for these explanations either.

[Kosh]

Actually illegal drug trade does cause increased crime in the same manner that prohibition of alchohol in the 20's fueled the al capone's of the day.

[Nuclear1]

Like we've said before, it's not using the drugs that causes crime, it's the illegal trade.  There's increasing violence along the US/Mexico border and in urban areas.

Sure, job security is less than it was, but unemployment has been steady the last 50-60 years and poverty has fallen a lot.

Unemployment rises and falls periodically, but when it rises, it stays high for long enough that it can drive people to desperation. 

Last fifty years and last ten years.

[General Battuta]

Well I think you can't rule out the possibility that this crime elevation is just a natural consequence of structural changes. Urbanization, for instance, is always going to push the crime rate upwards. Or it could be an income inequality problem. Or a loss of low-end jobs as they go overseas, leaving those at the bottom of the ladder fewer options. Comparing two points in time isn't as illustrative, I think, as looking at the contours of the map.

Well, those were factors, but like I said a few times before looking at other countries/the severity of the spike there's probably other things at work too.

I guess there's little else to say. But it's interesting to look at what happened in New Orleans after Katrina versus Japan after the earthquake. Here's the Huffington Post trying to worm it's way out of a collectivist-society explanation for the lack of looting in Japan, and another article from the BBC. Culture's gotta be involved bro.

No it doesn't. It's basic scientific method: to make a claim like that, culture needs to be the only key dimension that varies between the two situations, and it's not. You have too many confounds to know.

[General Battuta]

GB, I'm not 100% sure of the social conservative take but econ/drugs/immigration (I'll just start saying edi) doesn't seem that strong either. Sure, job security is less than it was, but unemployment has been steady the last 50-60 years and poverty has fallen a lot. Immigration can't explain it since the native US population is responsible for the majority of the increase. Drugs might be convincing, but cultural norms about drug use have changed a lot too. For instance marijuana was something deviant bohemians did in the 40s and 50s until it gained a degree of social acceptance in the 60s. To the skim readers out there, I'm not saying pot turns people into violent lunatics, rather that the "drugs causes crime" line of causation is more complicated. So I'm not seeing a whole lot of support for these explanations either.

None of these arguments are in the slightest bit convincing. You're trying to simplify complexity.

Now would you please read the ****ing book.

[Mustang19]

Pulling this off some random conservative website. In any case it's good evidence for an economic explanation. It shows that crime was high in the 30s too. Here is a comparison of world unemployment since 1975. As you can see unemployment has been way up everywhere except Japan. So I'll concede that now that I've actually looked at the data and stopped pulling statements out of my ass.

Now would you please read the ****ing book.

I can't, I'm unemployed and don't have any money.

[General Battuta]

Look at it this way:

Crime is mostly committed by young men.

Young men who go into education are less likely to commit crime.

Young men who leave education and find a job are less likely to commit crime.

If you can keep your bros educated, or give them something to do aside from education, you're not going to see as much crime. And there are big structural factors which impact your chance of doing that.

[Mustang19]

If you can keep your bros educated, or give them something to do aside from education, you're not going to see as much crime. And there are big structural factors which impact your chance of doing that.

Do you think that this is part of the reason crime rates are lower in Europe, with everyone getting a free liberal arts degree mill education from 80-90% graduation rate public colleges? Sounds like a good plan.

I think we're running out of unscientific statements to throw at each other, and I'm wondering what else there is to talk about. Maybe the whole punishment versus rehabilitation debate, but even I feel I don't have enough knowledge to speak on that. Otherwise this thread can die a peaceful death.

[The E]

*Flaming post removed*

I apologize for any hurt feelings; but people claiming that Europe is a liberal arts major heaven is just so unbelievably wrong, it made me rage.

[Mustang19]

I can't find overall data for college pass rates but one good example is the Sorbonne. Of course I was wrong, I confused graduation rates with admission rates. But it's still a good deal, if you're French.

Nothing makes the case for university reform more convincingly than the Sorbonne, focus of the student uprising in May 1968 as well as the rioting last spring. One in 10 of its students never goes to lectures, having signed on only in order to qualify for free health benefits and generous student discounts at cinemas and museums.

Under egalitarian rules that are a legacy of the 1968 student uprising, anyone passing the baccalauréat school leaving exam - the pass rate is 80% - is guaranteed a place in a university. Under the same egalitarian rules, university education is free, but this means that the universities never have enough money.

At the Sorbonne, founded in 1257 by Robert de Sorbon, a theologian, there is no cafeteria.

There is not even a student newspaper. Worst of all, however, is the high dropout rate: 45% of Sorbonne students do not complete their first year and 55% do not graduate.

[The E]

Now tell the class why low entrance hurdles for high education are bad. Extra credits awarded for proving that leaving university graduates with massive debts in student loans is a good thing, and that education should thus be a domain only for the upper middle class and higher. Even more extra credits for showing that this is true in general, not just in handpicked cases.

[Mustang19]

Sure, I'll humor you.

Sending people to college for the sake of increasing the number of degree holders takes people out of the workforce, reducing GDP. For instance, France and the US have similar GDP per hour worked but France has more young people in college, therefore less GDP than they could have from these extra work hours. Requiring students to take out loans makes them responsible for ensuring that they'll generate a return on investment (ROI) from their education. Student loans aren't restricted to any particular class; if someone's rich enough to pay for college without loans, they don't take out loans. Yeah, I agree low income students should get more grants. But my main argument is the first one, more people in college = less people in the workforce unless they're actually going for useful job training that will generate an ROI.

[General Battuta]

Yeah I hear if we take particular cases and then build entire arguments on them it makes for really good discussion

[Mustang19]

Scathing sarcasm, GB. But if E has any additional questions I will answer them.

[The E]

So, if the french population is as productive per capita as the american, what is your point, exactly?

[Mustang19]

That's not what I said. I said that GDP per hour worked is the same in both countries. When less hours are worked, GDP falls.

[Nuclear1]

**** off, you ignorant little american twerp.

This was, of course, the best way to word this disapproval of Mustang's post.