re: study shows welfare prevents crime, quite dramatically

quote:

---

Children under 16 aren’t legally able to work, anyway.

---

That’s false.

quote:

---

Your use Of “their entire lives” is disingenuous.

---

Um.........if you are born on welfare and at age 18, you're still on welfare, that's your ENTIRE LIFE unless you've come some special fricking calendar dimwit.

quote:

---

Children under 16 aren’t legally able to work, anyway.

---

Well, that's only true of standard jobs. I mean, ya know, normal people under 16 can, and often DO do things to earn $$ from grass cutting to babysitting etc.

Regardless, a study absent the features I mentioned isn't a study. It's just a document discovering the known.........and then framing it to target morons.......like you.

quote:

---

cash welfare has a much larger discouragement effect on criminal activity

---

So pay them cash or expect criminal behavior. That’s a ransom, not a solution.

quote:

---

Children under 16 aren’t legally able to work, anyway.

---

And if they grew up on welfare, they are never taught that they should, or given a good example by their parents.

Anyone with a brain could figure out the only reason rich, white dems vote for welfare is to keep poor colored people out of their gated communities.

quote:

---

study shows welfare prevents crime, quite dramatically

---

I don't believe any of this:
1) Because you are not objective and carry a bias with everything you post here so there is suspicion already.

2) It's from academia, whose reputation has gotten worse and worse recently.

3) Research misconduct is a serious problem.

4) Academia is hard left and this supports a hard left narrative. What a shocking surprise. Hey the economists say give people free money and everything will get better. Forget all of human history, just trust the 'science'.

5) One of the authors is a male with a hyphenated name. Big red flag. Feels like we've seen this movie before. Contact author is at U of Chicago. Yeah, we've seen this movie before.

6) What is particularly alarming is that they think they can pin 20years of effects to a single event of this type, with so many things that can intervene to the left and right of "welfare change" in a person's life. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the statistical analysis here is absolute garbage, and that peer review was a bit less than rigorous. I would be interested to see a causal diagram and find out why the authors thought they could ignore causal variables to the left of "welfare change", which is what this type of analysis must do, and these events affect incarceration and are independent of "age" which is the cause of the change in welfare. There is a 100% guarantee of bias here.

7) There are always red flags when people talk about likelihoods of events using percentages, indexed to something they don't outline and then fail to give real numbers like: the increase in incarceration rose X%, meaning in the study cohort we saw 12 out of every 1000 people being incarcerated, and after event Y we observed 15 out of every 1000. When you just give percentages, that is generally meaningless. Also, they say the number of criminal charges increased, not the number of people that faced charges. That could be very meaningful.

Every time I see a study like this, I discount it entirely. These fields of research, and the hard left leaning of academia make all of this work suspicious.

Here's an interesting snippet:
The researchers found that the impact of the change was heterogeneous. While some people removed from the income support program at age 18 responded by working more in the formal labor market, a much larger fraction responded by engaging in crime to replace the lost income. In response to losing benefits, youth were twice as likely to be charged with an illicit income-generating offense than they were to maintain steady employment.

A differential response like this is predictable from the outset - where is the planned secondary analysis to probe this observation? Something tells me that such an analysis was intentionally not done and I may be wrong, but something else tells me that if you wanted to do this analysis, you would have a hard time getting the raw data from the research team.

This is garbage.

quote:

---

what do you think food stamps are?

---

I don't know, you'll have to tell me. I have to work for the food that my family eats, along with my taxes going to pay for the ones out there who refuse to work for a living.
I say frick'em, let them starve and get desperate, then FAFO. The social experiment has gone far enough.

quote:

---

along with my taxes going to pay for the ones out there who refuse to work for a living.

---

It's crazy you feel comfortable talking about the military like this.

At this point, I'm going to assume you get piss drunk every night because you wish you majored in a STEM degree.

quote:

---

Military members don't work?

---

According to who I replied to apparently not.