richardhutnik said:
mrstickball said:
Kasz216 said:
mrstickball said:
Yep.
Culture, parentage, and education have a far greater effect on crime than base inequality. The real issue of inequality and crime is if the 'have nots' have litterally nothing. In America, those who are in the 'have nots' have phones, cars, cable TV and so on, therefore have no motivation to partake in crime for that reason. Comparatively, if they haven't been taught by parents or schools properly, they have a tendency to lash out. Thus why we saw the meteoric rise of crime in the US after the baby boom of the 1940s and 50s, and the notable decline after the rise of abortion causing falling birth rates in the 1970s.
|
I feel like I'm not the only one here who's read Freakanomics.
|
I came to the conclusion prior to Freakanomics, and simply (or not so simply) had it confirmed by watching it, since I had heard so much about the controversy.
It makes perfect sense, though. The higher the birth rate, the less resources available per child. The less resources available per child, the less likely they get the nuturing they need to be a productive member of society. So when the birth rate jumped 50% in a 2-3 year span, you had, essentially, a generation of kids that didn't get nutured in the same way.
You can separate out such statistics and come to pretty base conclusions about the quality of parenting a family provides, and a correlation of issues.
|
The switching to digital representation of currency likely has had a role in the reduction being robbed at gun point, and muggings.
|
Not quite. All metrics of crime dropped exactly 18 years after birth rates plunged in 1970-1973 in the same way they rose 18 years after the baby boom of post-WW2.
