We all need crime. (927 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.94 on 46 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Kaelic <scarletranger.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2006-11-02 10:08:51 EST
Let me submit an idea that may be obvious to some, not so much so to others:
We need crime.
We live in a world of supply and demand, and of necessity. Consider that even the White house needs janitors. It needs a janitorial staff (well paid, I'm sure) to empty waste paper baskets, mop, sweep, vacuum, dust, and whatever other janitorial services such an establishment requires. Who thinks to themselves, "Man, when I grow up, I want to be the president .... 's janitor, cleaning the oval office!"
Just as these positions are vital, crime is also vital. Everyone says that we need to reduce crime ... but is that really true? If crime was reduced, wouldn't the amount of police officers, prison workers, corrections officers, probation officers, bondsman, lawyers, and even judges be reduced? An entire system of people, of moderate to high incomes would be out of work. These people have families to feed, kids to put through school, money to spend that bolsters the economy. So is it really true that we want crime reduced?
Just as there is no forseeable end to crime, there is no forseeable end to poverty. We like to hold up shining examples of people who managed to pull themselves up out of the ghetto and now they belong to middle America, but what about the countless others who could not beat nearly inssurmountable odds to obtain a higher education and move on? Take a stab in the dark ... Iraq, filling out the brunt of the enlisted soliders, and consequently, the ones in the most danger. Anyone, intelligent or not, can see that it's true. Very few college graduates are over in Iraq dying. That's not a stab at the intelligence of soldiers, that's a stab at the way out society is arranged. Everyone does NOT have a fair and equal chance at success.
The world needs janitors, and thus, the world needs people who can not, for whatever reason, achieve a higher education. People who work in the fast food industry, janitorial work, the lowest paid rungs of society, are also essential to continuing our way of life, just as crime fuels the entire industry of the legal system, but who really loses out?
Discuss.
User Reviews
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2006-11-03 21:55:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
have fun trying to agrue with hard numbers with your old, tattered and out of date race card NetP
would you like me to cite, or show you, multiple reference links/data/etc?
or do you want to keep your head buried in the sand mumbling: no...no...no..it's not true!?
Submitted by rennfahrer (user info) at 2006-11-03 13:19:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
What he said: http://www.ubersite.com/m/95253
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2006-11-03 08:37:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2006-11-03 04:27:25 (#)
Ranking: 1
60 out of every 100 black men go either to jail or prison for all or some part of their lifetimes
==================================================================================================
60 out of every 100 white men I know are completely racist, even if the only time they express it is when someone starts off a joke about a black man running from a chainsaw.
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2006-11-03 04:27:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
60 out of every 100 black men go either to jail or prison for all or some part of their lifetimes
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-11-02 18:50:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-11-02 16:33:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
its obtuse to think that poverty = crime and wealth = law abiding.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-11-02 16:32:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i dig what you are saying, but I think need is not the correct term
i'd just as soon not have a criminal justice system than have people hurt other people.
Submitted by jade_digitalmedia (user info) at 2006-11-02 15:58:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree, who else would answer my phone and clean my house.
heart jade
Submitted by rillins (user info) at 2006-11-02 15:22:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Crime rates are high today because there are more crimes to commit : more legislation = more crimes.
--insightful post
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:09:09 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 12:55:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
Crime rates are higher today because there is a wider gap between the rich and the poor. There are less rich and middle class, and therefor, MORE poor people that need to steal (or commit whatever crime) to try and make up the difference. Can you finally wrap your head around what I am saying now?
-------------------
There is a 1% percent increase in "poor" people (from your link). Crime has gone up more than one percent.
Your theory makes no sense.
I can understand a relationship between being poor and committing crime. But since crime rates increases are much larger than poverty increases, this is only a small factor.
I would say the attitude of entitlement (clearly displayed by your saying they NEED to steal so they can have the big screens) is a much larger factor.
Very few people (if any) in this country need to steal to live (barring expensive medical operations, which are the exception not the rule for criminals).
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:08:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/95253
Shabam upside y'all heads.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-11-02 13:48:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Well, to extend your logic, we also need niggers, too.
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 12:55:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Crime rates are higher today because there is a wider gap between the rich and the poor. There are less rich and middle class, and therefor, MORE poor people that need to steal (or commit whatever crime) to try and make up the difference. Can you finally wrap your head around what I am saying now?
Submitted by hour_man (user info) at 2006-11-02 11:44:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I get what you're saying and it's not wholly stupid.
However, it's the end of the day here for me and I want to go home. SO have a going home +2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-02 11:24:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Just as these positions are vital, crime is also vital. Everyone says that we need to reduce crime ... but is that really true? If crime was reduced, wouldn't the amount of police officers, prison workers, corrections officers, probation officers, bondsman, lawyers, and even judges be reduced? An entire system of people, of moderate to high incomes would be out of work. These people have families to feed, kids to put through school, money to spend that bolsters the economy. So is it really true that we want crime reduced?
---------------------
You make it sound as if this could somehow happen overnight. I don't think we would wake up one morning realize there is no crime and fire all cops, judges, lawyers and guards. I don't think it is possible to ever get rid of crime completely, but to greatly reduce it over a number of years is possible and it wouldn't be putting people out of work. These industries would just hire less people.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-02 11:20:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 11:11:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
No, I read it, but big deal. That is completely beside the point. The trickle down effect is in play ... just because more poor people have televisions and access to advanced medical care (though not the best televisions or the most advanced medical care) just goes to further illustrate the point I am making, which is that the inability to reach what is perceived as "luxury" or "comfort" leads to crime.
So you have access to a 10" color TV. It's still a long ways from that 60" plasma screen that Mr. Ivy League has.
The poor today have it relatively the same as the poor three decades ago. The key word there, Indoninja, is relatively. ALL people today are generally healthier, that is why the AVERAGE life span has increased. The poor fall into that same spectrum. Try to learn to interpret what you're reading.
------------------------------------
There is a world of difference between, having a car - not having a car and having a car - having a crap car, having a TV - not having a TV and hiving a big TV - having a TV.
But lets pretend there is no difference and people have to steal because their TV isn't widescreen. Why are crime rates HIGHER today than they were 30 years ago if poverty is the same (even though poverty isn't as bad now).
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 11:16:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I should have said "A trickle down effect", because I don't know if it's THE trickle down effect (I'm pretty sure it's not), but hopefully you understand the point I'm making.
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 11:11:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No, I read it, but big deal. That is completely beside the point. The trickle down effect is in play ... just because more poor people have televisions and access to advanced medical care (though not the best televisions or the most advanced medical care) just goes to further illustrate the point I am making, which is that the inability to reach what is perceived as "luxury" or "comfort" leads to crime.
So you have access to a 10" color TV. It's still a long ways from that 60" plasma screen that Mr. Ivy League has.
The poor today have it relatively the same as the poor three decades ago. The key word there, Indoninja, is relatively. ALL people today are generally healthier, that is why the AVERAGE life span has increased. The poor fall into that same spectrum. Try to learn to interpret what you're reading.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-02 11:02:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:39:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
Whoa, mr. indoninja, please put down the testosterone filled syringe and slow down. First off, how do you know that crime is up today as opposed to twenty years ago? And secondly, can you prove that it's not directly attributable to the widening gap between rich and poor? In a lot of areas of Florida, poor people can't live in certain counties because the cost of living is so incredibly high, and there is no affordable housing, so they live in one county and commute to work in another, usually at some fast food place.
--------------------------------------
This is nothing new. People have always commuted and there has always been rich areas, how does that relate to crime, or poverty?
And learn to read your own links.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-02 11:00:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:42:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
And actually, here are the statistics to back up that people are poorer today than they were three decades ago, with inflation taken into account:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/09/our_poverty_sta.html
--------------------------
Did you read the article you just linked?
"Per capita income adjusted for inflation is over 60 percent higher today than in 1974. The unemployment rate is lower, and the percentage of adults with paying jobs is distinctly higher. Thirty years ago, the proportion of adults without a high school diploma was more than twice as high as today (39 percent versus 16 percent). And antipoverty spending is vastly higher today than in 1974, even after inflation adjustments..."
"The soundings from the poverty rate are further belied by information on actual living standards for low-income Americans. In 1972-73, for example, just 42 percent of the bottom fifth of American households owned a car; in 2003, almost three-quarters of "poverty households" had one. By 2001, only 6 percent of "poverty households" lived in "crowded" homes (more than one person per room) - down from 26 percent in 1970. By 2003, the fraction of poverty households with central air-conditioning (45 percent) was much higher than the 1980 level for the non-poor (29 percent)."
"Besides these living trends, there are what we might call the "dying trends": that is to say, America's health and mortality patterns. All strata of America - including the disadvantaged - are markedly healthier today than three decades ago. Though the officially calculated poverty rate for children was higher in 2004 than 1974 (17.8 percent versus 15.4 percent), the infant mortality rate - that most telling measure of wellbeing - fell by almost three-fifths over those same years, to 6.7 per 1,000 births from 16.7 per 1,000."
There are 1% more "poor" people than there were in the US 30 years ago. But the averages poor person makes more (when adjusted for inflation), has a higher standard of living, and is healthier.
I would say that makes the poor today better off than they were 30 years ago. Yet we have more crime. I don't think poverty is the reason. It is the lack of personal responsability. It is the culture of blaming others. It is the culture of celebrating "thug life", of blaming the man.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:48:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Umm, Kaelic.. you should read more of that link you posted.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:47:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I would say the poor are as poor now as they have ever been.
--------------
Woah there.... I doubt that... do you know that no more than 50 years ago some people in Ireland were so poor that all that had was one potato?
That shit is poor shit.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:45:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
fair enough, iddqd
i see his point, and I do not altogether disagree with either one of you. there is a lot of help up the ladder if you are wealthy enough. but the OPPORTUNITY is still there, otherwise those few would not get excepted into the rarified ranks.
does chasing success mean you're pursuing the 'evil' of hope? maybe. that hope isn't altogether unfounded though.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:44:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
you like men
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:42:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And actually, here are the statistics to back up that people are poorer today than they were three decades ago, with inflation taken into account:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/09/our_poverty_sta.html
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:39:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Whoa, mr. indoninja, please put down the testosterone filled syringe and slow down. First off, how do you know that crime is up today as opposed to twenty years ago? And secondly, can you prove that it's not directly attributable to the widening gap between rich and poor? In a lot of areas of Florida, poor people can't live in certain counties because the cost of living is so incredibly high, and there is no affordable housing, so they live in one county and commute to work in another, usually at some fast food place.
And also, what are you basing these statements on that the poor are less poor than twenty years ago? That doesn't seem likely --- the minimum wage was raised, but inflation essentially cancels it out. I would say the poor are as poor now as they have ever been.
Submitted by livEvil (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:38:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree with everything you said.
Even the fact that it's all pretty obvious.
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:36:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I went to a private school for a year, and it's true ... I think I made A's almost the entire time, but more so, the kids who really had influence there, the one's with parents who were alumni with buildings that had their last name on them, they seemed to effortlessly achieve a 4.0, so I'm with you on that, Scourge.
When I went back to public school, it was a completely different world. Everyone I knew from private school has graduated college. Everyone I knew from public school is in prison or jail or has served time in prison or jail, or has five kids now. Honest to god truth.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:35:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
If you're going to stereotype, you fucking redneck, get it right. Greeks don't eat falafel, those are the dirty Arabs.
Now go brush your tooth
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:34:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:25:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, something I meant to address but didn't was that the two are inextricably linked ... high crime is a result of high poverty. People generally wouldn't be perpetrating armed robbery if they weren't poor and desperate, I think we can all agree. Mental illness aside, there are very few, if any cases of millionares going and holding up liquor stores, right? Can we agree that drugs are so appealing to poverty stricken individuals because it's a form of escapism?
--------------------
How are you defining poverty? How many people do you think are actually starving today as opposed to 50, 100, 200 years ago? I would guess a lot less but crime is up?
Why is that the poor today are better off in material terms then the poor 20 years ago, but they commit more crimes?
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:32:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
actually scourge youre a bit off base there. yes the opportunity is there for those who 'work their arses off AND excel at what they do', however those sort of people are exceptional. the opportunities for the mediocre remainder of us are patently UNequal. money is privilege and privilege is opportunity. there are very limited places to prestigious universities, and kids who go to private high schools have their marks somewhat inflated by somewhat dodgy practices initiated by those schools to ensure that most of their kids get into whatever course they like. in a very real sense these people buy their way in.
as it always goes, the rich get richer and the occasional few of us get admitted up into their rarified ranks to enslave the rest of us peons with that most dire of the evils pandora set free into the world: hope.
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:30:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It just seems so obvious that I'm amazed you don't hear people discussing it more. I might be slightly racist, but I work hard to accept the group of people I loathe the most, those filthy falafel eating greeks
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:26:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Why don't you stop pussyfooting around and just admit that you're a racist?
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:25:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, something I meant to address but didn't was that the two are inextricably linked ... high crime is a result of high poverty. People generally wouldn't be perpetrating armed robbery if they weren't poor and desperate, I think we can all agree. Mental illness aside, there are very few, if any cases of millionares going and holding up liquor stores, right? Can we agree that drugs are so appealing to poverty stricken individuals because it's a form of escapism?
Submitted by Cadrach (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:25:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
We all need arson.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:24:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:18:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
So you're saying that our society isn't designed to keep the extremely poor from attaining a higher education while the extremely rich are almost guaranteed acceptance into an ivy league school? That seems somewhat unlikely to me that everyone has the exact same equal chance. The fact that everyone doesn't make the same amount of money pretty much discounts that theory. More money automatically equals more opportunities, agreed?
===
No.
Not agreed.
Opportunity feeds itself. Take maximum advantage of opportunity number one, and opportunity number two opens itself.
While it is HARDER to attain that higher education, monetarily, the opportunity is there. You just have to obtain it through different means. If your personal determination is strong enough, you will succeed. If not, you blew that opportunity.
Start at a community college, work your ass off, excell at what you do, and you will have the chance to move on to something better.
Resignation to an uncomfortable status quo is disgusting.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:23:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/27328
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:23:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Godammit, sorry about that, my boss got a hold of my password, he's so fucking immature sometimes
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:22:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
IT IS, YOURE JUST A CRYBABY EMO FAGGOT
PORT O' MIAMI '07, IM RENTING A HUMMER WOOOOOOOOO
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:19:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't think it's super obvious to most people, though, is the thing.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:19:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
IT'S ALSO CALLED YIN YANG
YOU'RE A FUCKING TOOL
GO ZT2000 JET SKIS WOOOOOOOOOOO
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:18:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
So you're saying that our society isn't designed to keep the extremely poor from attaining a higher education while the extremely rich are almost guaranteed acceptance into an ivy league school? That seems somewhat unlikely to me that everyone has the exact same equal chance. The fact that everyone doesn't make the same amount of money pretty much discounts that theory. More money automatically equals more opportunities, agreed?
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:18:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS
IT'S CALLED GOOD AND EVIL
YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD OF IT IN A BOOK CALLED THE BIBLE, FAGGOT
GO JET SKIS WOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:16:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The taxpayer.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:15:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
everyone DOES have a fair and equal chance at success, sometimes a wrench just gets thrown into the works quicker for some people is all.
bad decisions just have a way of piling up on one another until one day you're sucking cock for dope money.
ANYWAY, i don't have time to care about this, i'm a very successful and wonderful human.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:15:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment