“But Minneapolis also has a 15% lower age-adjusted death rate and 15% higher median household income than…”
Seems pretty disingenuous to me that HERE you choose to age adjust the numbers, but that in most of your claims about rural vs city death rates you do *not* do the same.
AFAIK people are on average older in rural areas than in cities.
A quick ChatGPT search tells me that the average age in rural areas in fully 6 years higher than in cities.
That’s gonna explain a huge amount of the health related and non- crime related “badness” you ascribe to rural vs cities in your first piece, innit?
Any chance you plan to redo your first piece to adhere to this “adjusting for age” for all those comparisons?
Or is this simply another case of the lawyer bromide “when the facts are on your side, pound the facts, when the law is on your side, pound the law, when neither is on your side, pound the table”?
We know there isn’t a causational relationship between crime and wealth.
There is a causational relationship between IQ and wealth, and a causational relationship between IQ and crime.
But you can’t raise IQ, you can only deal with the genetic hand your dealt.
So if you want lower crime here are your options:
1) higher clear rates and longer incapacitation
2) have your population get fatter and older
3) technological changes that make crime less profitable (panopticon, which is kind of a subset of #1, cars that can’t be chopped, etc).
4) fewer guns on the street, usually accomplished through stop and frisk of young minority men
5) keep the kid of drugs (usually uppers) that lead to violent crime out of the population (the 90s crime wave was called the “crack wars” for a reason)
If you could get crime back to 1950s levels like half of all urban real estate would suddenly be “unlocked” creating trillions in value and revolutionizing our society.
I agree that spending isn’t the problem, though calls for lower spending are usually a symptom of soft on crime mindsets that are a problem.
The problem is basically that the base level of crime that black people will put up with before calling for more enforcement is higher than white middle class people are willing to live with. This includes not just crime but general “social order”. Good manners, cleanliness, golden rule behavior, clean living, etc.
So as a result large swathes of our cities are “off limits” and people move the suburbs and endure brutal commutes once they have kids.
Crime rate trends tend to look very similar across countries with different demographics and different crime policies, suggesting that neither harsher criminal codes nor more bigotry are likely to be particularly helpful.
You have data on this? In particular on actual policies of locking up criminals?
Because I’ve seen a lot of data that suggests that “policy” in fact makes a huge difference.
“Harsher criminal codes” is very different from *actual* policies about incarceration, as most all the Soros-elected big city DAs and the associated higher incidences of crime have demonstrated.
By "Soros-elected," I assume you mean that as synecdoche for "supported by Holocaust survivors concerned about a police state"?
The data I'm referring to is that crime rates have tended to change in the same direction and similar percentages in basically all democracies, which implies a low upper bound for the effects of policy differences. If the data you're referring to is out-of-distribution changes to policy like in El Salvador, I do need to concede that El Salvadorans can't complain about safety anymore. Not safely, anyway.
“By ‘Soros-elected,’ I assume you mean that as synecdoche for ‘supported by Holocaust survivors concerned about a police state’?”
I mean nothing of the sort.
I mean the extremely soft on crime DAs that Soros’ money got elected in S.F., L.A. and Chicago at minimum over the last several years.
I genuinely cannot tell whether this comments is disingenuous or reflects genuine ignorance of the reality.
The fact that crime rates have come down worldwide over time as countries have gotten richer - and even that (if it’s the case) that that has had a bigger impact than local specific policies does NOT mean that those policies make no or little difference.
“But Minneapolis also has a 15% lower age-adjusted death rate and 15% higher median household income than…”
Seems pretty disingenuous to me that HERE you choose to age adjust the numbers, but that in most of your claims about rural vs city death rates you do *not* do the same.
AFAIK people are on average older in rural areas than in cities.
A quick ChatGPT search tells me that the average age in rural areas in fully 6 years higher than in cities.
That’s gonna explain a huge amount of the health related and non- crime related “badness” you ascribe to rural vs cities in your first piece, innit?
Any chance you plan to redo your first piece to adhere to this “adjusting for age” for all those comparisons?
Or is this simply another case of the lawyer bromide “when the facts are on your side, pound the facts, when the law is on your side, pound the law, when neither is on your side, pound the table”?
The mortality stats in the original post are also age-adjusted, as you'll see if you click, e.g. the first link.
We know there isn’t a causational relationship between crime and wealth.
There is a causational relationship between IQ and wealth, and a causational relationship between IQ and crime.
But you can’t raise IQ, you can only deal with the genetic hand your dealt.
So if you want lower crime here are your options:
1) higher clear rates and longer incapacitation
2) have your population get fatter and older
3) technological changes that make crime less profitable (panopticon, which is kind of a subset of #1, cars that can’t be chopped, etc).
4) fewer guns on the street, usually accomplished through stop and frisk of young minority men
5) keep the kid of drugs (usually uppers) that lead to violent crime out of the population (the 90s crime wave was called the “crack wars” for a reason)
If you could get crime back to 1950s levels like half of all urban real estate would suddenly be “unlocked” creating trillions in value and revolutionizing our society.
I agree that spending isn’t the problem, though calls for lower spending are usually a symptom of soft on crime mindsets that are a problem.
The problem is basically that the base level of crime that black people will put up with before calling for more enforcement is higher than white middle class people are willing to live with. This includes not just crime but general “social order”. Good manners, cleanliness, golden rule behavior, clean living, etc.
So as a result large swathes of our cities are “off limits” and people move the suburbs and endure brutal commutes once they have kids.
Crime rate trends tend to look very similar across countries with different demographics and different crime policies, suggesting that neither harsher criminal codes nor more bigotry are likely to be particularly helpful.
You have data on this? In particular on actual policies of locking up criminals?
Because I’ve seen a lot of data that suggests that “policy” in fact makes a huge difference.
“Harsher criminal codes” is very different from *actual* policies about incarceration, as most all the Soros-elected big city DAs and the associated higher incidences of crime have demonstrated.
By "Soros-elected," I assume you mean that as synecdoche for "supported by Holocaust survivors concerned about a police state"?
The data I'm referring to is that crime rates have tended to change in the same direction and similar percentages in basically all democracies, which implies a low upper bound for the effects of policy differences. If the data you're referring to is out-of-distribution changes to policy like in El Salvador, I do need to concede that El Salvadorans can't complain about safety anymore. Not safely, anyway.
“By ‘Soros-elected,’ I assume you mean that as synecdoche for ‘supported by Holocaust survivors concerned about a police state’?”
I mean nothing of the sort.
I mean the extremely soft on crime DAs that Soros’ money got elected in S.F., L.A. and Chicago at minimum over the last several years.
I genuinely cannot tell whether this comments is disingenuous or reflects genuine ignorance of the reality.
The fact that crime rates have come down worldwide over time as countries have gotten richer - and even that (if it’s the case) that that has had a bigger impact than local specific policies does NOT mean that those policies make no or little difference.