Started By
Message

re: The narrative that poverty = violence & murder

Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:24 pm to
Posted by Loserman
Member since Sep 2007
21856 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:24 pm to
Anyone else not buy this narrative? There are lots of dirt poor places in Appalachia with non-existent violent crime, in addition to cities like El Paso & San Antonio which are pretty safe relative to cities their size.

The real statistic that matters and relates to all crime and poverty is the number of parents living in the home.

Posted by MrLarson
Member since Oct 2014
34984 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:26 pm to
My tirade;

Crime has nothing to do with economic or education factors. I grew up dirt floor poor in a single parent home in the 70's. The real problem is women are more worried about killing inconveniences in their lives than teaching them to grow up and be productive members of society. If sorry arse women of today had the values of my mother who instilled that in me and my brother the world would be a better place.

Posted by PoundFoolish
East Texas
Member since Jul 2016
3724 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:26 pm to
quote:

Meh. Things aren't as bad as they were 20-30 years ago.


In Detroit and Flint where there are currently multiple generations within a single family dependent on the government, you cannot tell me that things are better than they were in 1986 when there were still GM factory jobs in the tens of thousands.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67016 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:27 pm to
Actually, the most correlative factor is actually whether or not one was raised in a 2 parent household verses a single parent household.
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35236 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:29 pm to
quote:

The real statistic that matters and relates to all crime and poverty is the number of parents living in the home.
I'm sure it matters, but I don't think it's the only one at all.

Besides, I think they are all caused at least partially by lurking variables. In other words, there are things (e.g., poor self-control; lower cognitive ability) that likely predispose people to poverty, violence, poor relationships (single parenting), etc.

Besides resource allocation (income, parenting, etc.), putting people together isn't going to erase those underlying issues. And in come cases it may make it worse (an abusive father is worse than a non-existent one).
This post was edited on 11/22/16 at 10:32 pm
Posted by GreatLakesTiger24
COINTELPRO Fan
Member since May 2012
55554 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:29 pm to
Ehhh Detroit's glory days were done by the '60s. It was plenty violent in the '80s.
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35236 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:30 pm to
quote:

In Detroit and Flint
I was referring to trend overall. They have larger problems stemming back a half a century (over reliance on single industries).

But Detroit isn't really more violent than it was 25 years ago (chart pages earlier), but that's not a good sign since the US is far less violent overall.
This post was edited on 11/22/16 at 10:32 pm
Posted by AUbused
Member since Dec 2013
7770 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:30 pm to
Id wager that if you looked at communities within just ONE race broken down by income levels as they pertain to crime the correlation would be seen easily. When you dont have much to lose.....well....frick it. I've seen my share of it within my extended family in a town decimated my manufacturing jobs disappearing. The town is lily white. Likewise people arent robbing eachother in gates communities for obvious reasons.

Whether racial culture adds to the influences of poverty is a separate issue.
Posted by Asgard Device
The Daedalus
Member since Apr 2011
11562 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:31 pm to
quote:

There are plenty of gangs in San Antonio or El Paso.


Right, but what's the MURDER rate?

Lets compare some cities.

Percentage of population in poverty:
Laredo: 31.2%
Fresno, CA: 30.6%
St. Louis: 27.8%
New Orleans: 27.7%
Baltimore: 24%
El Paso: 18.6%

Murder rate:
St. Louis 49.9
New Orleans 38.7
Baltimore 33.8
Fresno, CA 9.2
Laredo 5.6
El Paso 3.1


Percentage of population that is black:
Baltimore: 63.7
New Orleans: 60.2
St. Louis: 49.2
Fresno, CA 8.3
El Paso 3.4
Laredo: 0.5

Explain.
Posted by MrLarson
Member since Oct 2014
34984 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:31 pm to
Racist
Posted by BradPitt
Where the wild things are
Member since Nov 2009
13389 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:32 pm to
quote:

Right. Why are cities like New Orleans, Baltimore, Chicago, etc. much more violent than San Antonio, El Paso, etc?


I wonder...
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
84646 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:32 pm to
quote:

Both of those topics coincide with one demographic taking an 80% stranglehold on the city.




I guess I fail to see your point. If you control for poverty, violent crime rates vary among races and are highest among blacks. If you control for race, a wealthy black man is much less likely to commit murder than a poor black man.

What is the point?
Posted by GreatLakesTiger24
COINTELPRO Fan
Member since May 2012
55554 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:34 pm to
quote:

Id wager that if you looked at communities within just ONE race broken down by income levels as they pertain to crime the correlation would be seen easily
No doubt, but that wouldn't explain why impoverished blacks areas are soooo much more violent than impoverished white areas.

Personal anecdote- I grew up in a poor white area then an upper-middle class area and I didn't notice a difference in violent tendencies.
Posted by MrLarson
Member since Oct 2014
34984 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:36 pm to
You can take your culturally biased demographic study and shove it up your arse.

The hippie movement of the 70's is being reaped today.
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35236 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:38 pm to
quote:



I guess I fail to see your point. If you control for poverty, violent crime rates vary among races and are highest among blacks. If you control for race, a wealthy black man is much less likely to commit murder than a poor black man.

What is the point?
I think people (both right and left) want there to be a single factor. And even acknowledging that factor, but also acknowledging other factors, is seen as a complete disagreement for some reason.
This post was edited on 11/22/16 at 10:39 pm
Posted by gthog61
Irving, TX
Member since Nov 2009
71001 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:38 pm to
Half of the fricking murders are committed by blacks, mostly men, which would mean almost half of all murders are committed by 6% of the population. That means the other half are committed by the other 94% of the population.

There is no way to slice the data to make it have absolutely nothing to do with race.
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35236 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:40 pm to
quote:

There is no way to slice the data to make it have absolutely nothing to do with race.
Well I don't think anybody has made this argument.
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
84646 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:40 pm to
quote:

There is no way to slice the data to make it have absolutely nothing to do with race.


Who is trying to do that?
Posted by NIH
Member since Aug 2008
112553 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:41 pm to
Posted by MrLarson
Member since Oct 2014
34984 posts
Posted on 11/22/16 at 10:42 pm to
Black people, Democrats and you cucks.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram