Poverty does not increase (violent) crime (Video)

CW: Canadian accents

the summary is that relative poverty correlates to increase in crime (esp violent crime). if an area is overly poor without a hierarchical distinction, the crime does not increase dramatically (just as, as we'd expect, areas of abundance and no lower classes see the same lack of crime)

Another link

quote:

---

The cities with the highest crime rates also have high poverty and unemployment figures [0]. Does this mean that poverty causes violence? To figure this out, it’s best to see if areas with poor economic factors necessarily produce violence. These figures contradict the previous trend. For instance, Idaho is ranked #44 in per capita income, yet also ranked #44 in violent crime

---

quote:

---

Returning back to the example of Idaho, it is ranked #8 for the lowest Gini Coefficient [5]. This makes sense of their low violence rates despite the economic factors mentioned earlier.

---

so Idaho is poor compared to the US at large, but within Idaho, the poverty is spread out without much of an economic status gap. poverty is abundant, but crime is not, because there is a lack of relative poverty

what leads to high Gini Coefficients? Hint...intelligence is not the biggest factor

Differences in self control are a much more correlated variable

quote:

---

The new research confirms the findings of the famous Stanford marshmallow study, which found that young children who were able resist grabbing a fluffy marshmallow placed in front of them — for 15 long minutes — in order to get two of them later scored an average of 210 points higher on the SAT than kids who couldn’t wait. About one-third of the 4-to-6-year-olds studied were able to withstand the sweet temptation. As in the current research, the kids with more self-control in the marshmallow trial had better life outcomes across the board.

---

quote:

---

By adulthood, children in the highest self-control group were significantly less likely to have multiple health problems (11%), compared with kids in the lowest self-control group (27%). They were also much less likely to have addictions to multiple substances (3% vs. 10%, respectively), says Moffitt.

Only 10% of kids with high self-control grew up to have low income — less than $20,000 per year — compared with 32% of their more impulsive peers. Forty-three percent of the least disciplined children had a criminal record by age 32, compared with just 13% of the most conscientious. And as adults, 58% of kids who had low self-control had become a single parent; this was true for only 26% of the high self-control group.

---

there are also arguments (but i couldn't find something worth adding while making this OP) about cultural and ethnic homogeneity causing lower Gini Coefficients. the people who promote this idea, from what i found in my limited googling, are the people most likely to be your typical "white nationalist" types so it may just be a self fulfilling prophecy and data cherrypicking

Bonus video content: there is an explanation of why polygamous societies are more violent