O.T. More inequality leads to more crime

ic

to

or

is,

cial ills are worse in less equal societies. It compares both a bunch of ad vanced industrial countries and the separate states of the USA and finds pr etty much the same trends in both cases.

cs.

I'm sure that they do, but epidemiology is about describing what is going o n. Curing the problems that have been documented is somebody else's job, al though The Equality Trust exists to try to do something about it.

There's quite a lot of evidence to show that reducing inequality gets rid o f quite a lot of social ills, mostly generated by people who fixed some soc ial ills and reduced inequality in the process.

The problem with the US is that they are half-hearted - at best - about red ucing social ills, and very enthusiastic about minimising taxes, which redu ces the resources available for reducing social ills.

Europe pays out more in taxes (mostly raised by progressive taxes, which re duces inequality) so the government has more to spend on tackling social il ls. The UK is more like the US than most European countries, and doesn't do all that well. France isn't fond of progressive taxes and doesn't do all that well either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

What earthly purpose would that serve? Crime makes society less efficient, so you want as little of it as possible. Poverty makes crime a more attractive choice, but it's never a good choice, and needs to be discouraged.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

te:

me inequality story is just an excuse.

hem voted for Trump.

n like US health care - parts of it are less than adequate.

1,009 per head

trict to the next.

000 in New York States to about $7000 in Utah and Idaho (where Trump did ab out twice as well as Clinton).

chool administration and not directly to educating the students. This gets back to the American culture of entitlement to a well paying job for doing nothing.

tion, there are four that spend a bit more - Austria, Norway, Switzerland a nd Luxembourg. This does suggest that US education spending is in the right ball-park.

be more or less okay, the median is probably quite a bit lower. In Europe schools tend to be reasonably uniform, with nation-wide education standards . The US has school districts which are all over the place. New York State spends more than Luxembourg or Switzerland, while Utah and Idaho spend half as much per head as either of those well-off countries.

n?pg=26#pg26

250 years of slavery, over 10 generations, that's a lot of epigenetic progr amming.

but it's never a good choice, and needs to be discouraged.

You just have no compassion! They are poor, they deserve the riches of they're theft and to punish them for crime is just not treating them fairly with what society has done to them. s/

Mikek

right, consider it "reparations self-help"

In a perfect world where the desire to work is evenly distributed, yes. Problem is that people are lazy. They won't work if you give them everything they need. Theft is simple redistribution of wealth carried out by those who would not benefit from anything you could do to help. The fix is zero-strikes. You get convicted, you get terminated. That's a very strong detriment. Problem will limit itself.

If the impoverished took the simple step of not procreating, the problem would vanish in a generation. Maybe they should be helped with that. Food stamp AFTER sterilization.

You probably haven't seen other posts I have made, both posts I made in this thread were sarcasm. I'm pretty much on board with you, if you do the crime, you do the time. Mikek

Epigenetics works between generations. Stacking up 10 generations of slavery, is the same thing happening ten times over - it doesn't make it any worse.

The 13th Amendment was ratified by the US states on December 6, 1865, so there have been six slavery-free generations since then.

Wage slaves and serfs in Europe weren't treated all that well, so I'm afraid that your argument is less than persuasive.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

n

s of inequality to look at.

nt, so you want as little of it as possible. Poverty makes crime a more att ractive choice, but it's never a good choice, and needs to be discouraged.

Encouraging behavior that is wasteful and destructive isn't remotely compas sionate.

The poor don't "deserve" to be rich. It does make sense to feed, house and educate them well enough to allow them to become productive members of soci ety, and doing anything less than that is probably unfair, and certainly fa lls short of enlightened self-interest.

Having them steal stuff doesn't help.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney 
>  
>                         Mikek

They'd help themselves more by helping themselves less often.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Two things going on: 1) the adaptations are becoming more prevalent in the population due to inheritance and continuing requirement to adapt, and 2) the adapted subpopulation has improved survival contributing to their prevalence.

Once the genetic expression has been modified for adaptation it tends to stay, does not go away, becomes a new racial characteristic.

They still have characteristics of serfs to this day, this how they're manipulated like mindless sheep.

:

rote:

ote:

rote:

17_Main?pg=26#pg26

US?

programming.

avery, is the same thing happening ten times over - it doesn't make it any worse.

e population due to inheritance and continuing requirement to adapt, and 2) the adapted subpopulation has improved survival contributing to their prev alence.

Epigenetics isn't about modification to the core DNA or the genes, it's abo ut modification of gene expression. Epigenetic modifications aren't permane nt adaptions, but rather particular reactions to particular circumstances.

Remove the particular circumstances and the epigenetic modifications go awa y.

o there have been six slavery-free generations since then.

stay, does not go away, becomes a new racial characteristic.

The whole point about epigenetic modification is that it doesn't change the genetic material - the DNA sequence - but only it's expression. This can h appen very early and persist for life, but calling it "heritable" is dubiou s.

fraid that your argument is less than persuasive.

nipulated like mindless sheep.

Really? Political debate in Europe and the USA works more or less the same way. People with lots of money do seem to be able to buy more influence in the U SA, but I doubt if genetic differences have much effect.

The fact that social security and health care work better in Europe than th ey do in the USA, favouring the section of the population that you seem to think is being manipulated like mindless sheep, does suggest that the US fl ock is a trifle more mindless than its European equivalent.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

rote:

:

te:

2017_Main?pg=26#pg26

e US?

ic programming.

slavery, is the same thing happening ten times over - it doesn't make it an y worse.

the population due to inheritance and continuing requirement to adapt, and

2) the adapted subpopulation has improved survival contributing to their pr evalence.

bout modification of gene expression. Epigenetic modifications aren't perma nent adaptions, but rather particular reactions to particular circumstances .

way.

so there have been six slavery-free generations since then.

o stay, does not go away, becomes a new racial characteristic.

he genetic material - the DNA sequence - but only it's expression. This can happen very early and persist for life, but calling it "heritable" is dubi ous.

That's the whole point of the article. What is an adaptation for the indivi dual undergoing the modification becomes a heritable permanent trait in the ir offspring. The "learning," confused with "natural inclination," results from what originated as an epigenetic transformation in earlier generations .

afraid that your argument is less than persuasive.

manipulated like mindless sheep.

e way.

USA, but I doubt if genetic differences have much effect.

they do in the USA, favouring the section of the population that you seem t o think is being manipulated like mindless sheep, does suggest that the US flock is a trifle more mindless than its European equivalent.

Right.

Because you said they're committing crimes to pay their rent. In public housing, cheaper or free rent should mitigate or eliminate the need to acquire one's rent-money criminally.

I'm not making that assumption, but I am questioning your hypothesis

"Where you have economic inequality you tend to have higher crime, simply because the have-nots have to put food on the table"

If true, where there is already food-stamp food on the table, crime should be less.

If it pays them less for equal work, crime must be discriminating against people "down low on the social ladder." They ought to sue for higher wages.

Cheers, James Arthur

Right. If Joe_1 has 2x subsistence and Joe_2 has 10x subsistence, that's not a survival imperative for Joe_1 to rob Joe_2.

[...]

Cheers, James Arthur

Sue who, exactly? For not making as much out of breaking the law, because they can't afford the resources it takes to get away with a crime, or the lawyers that can get them off on a technicality?

You can't be serious. Or even sarcastic.

/Teo.

--

teostupiditydor@algonet.se | for you are good and crunchy with 
Remove stupidity to reply  | ketchup.

But slavery doesn't explain it, since many of today's ills were far less in the '40's and '50's, when black inequality, poverty, and race prejudice were far worse.

Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell, separately, document extensively that when they were kids the most dangerous ghettos today were poorer but completely safe; that schools had no police, yet little violence; blacks' divorce and out-of-wedlock births were much lower, and black wage inequality was rapidly shrinking.

Up until Johnson's Great Society, that is. That's when we started paying people to have and raise children out of wedlock (the #1 immediate cause of poverty in the U.S.).

In 1940 the black illegitmacy rate was 15%.

"Today 72 percent of black babies are born out of wedlock. Being born and finding out that your mother is 17 years old, that your grandmother is 35 and that you don't know who or where your father is is not a good start on life. In fact, it's a near guarantee for school dropout, poverty and crime, but such a start in life has nothing to do with racial discrimination." --Walter E. Williams

Cheers, James Arthur

ote:

e:

they don't have enough to eat or can't afford basic housing?

Economic inequality isn't about survival. It's a little more complicated th an that. The point at issue seemed to be that extravagant inequality - with the people at the top of the tree having very obvious and flashy status sy mbols - put more pressure on the people at the bottom of the tree to get at least some of those status symbols any way they could.

Crime isn't a great way of getting status symbols but desperate people do t urn turn to it if they can't find any other way.

Increasing inequality does increase the pressure.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

ote:

e:

they don't have enough to eat or can't afford basic housing?

Economic inequality isn't about survival. It's a little more complicated th an that. The point at issue seemed to be that extravagant inequality - with the people at the top of the tree having very obvious and flashy status sy mbols - put more pressure on the people at the bottom of the tree to get at least some of those status symbols any way they could.

Crime isn't a great way of getting status symbols but desperate people do t urn turn to it if they can't find any other way.

Increasing inequality does increase the pressure.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney