: : Don: Yes, I agree, but this is an *indirect* way in which economics effects crime. : Most economic links usually are indirect, i.e. they are mediated by other circumstances- economy turns-down, person loses job, puts strain on them and partner, they lose partner, lose house, move to poor neighbourhood, etc.
DonS: And that person's morality has a direct effect on how they react to these sort of circumstances.
: : Don: There had been "gross inequality of wealth" back when the homicide rate was lowest. In fact, that was the time of the greatest inequality. After the US got the income tax (1914, I think), the homicide rate was higher. Now, I don't think the income tax deserves all the blame for the increase in homicide, but clearly economic inequality is not the main reason for homicide . . .
: No, I would say that economics is the main reason for *crime* of which homicide is only one facet. Also, remember, the vast majority didn't pay income tax in teh US until the early 60's.
: : Don: The homicide rate chart is for the US only (if you have per capita homicide charts for England or else where, I'd like to see them).
: Indeed, but the US is part of the world economy, and part of the G7, so it will have been hit by those downturns. over-here teh government ackowledges that poor people are more likely to commit crimes,a nd much more likely to be the victims of crimes.
DonS: And if enonomic inequality was a major reason for crime, you would expect criminals to target the rich.
DonS: I agree that the poor are more likely to commit crimes--I know some of the poor who do just that. Most of these people are poor because they CHOOSE not to work. They want easy money. They will take a handout from the government, and they will steal if they think they can get away with it. These people are poor because of how they act. They are also criminals because of how they act. The problem is the people, and how they were raised.
: : Don: Certainly where I live, the economic situation seems great. What data do you have for US wages, etc.? I believe that wages continue to go up, and that employment is low.
: No, I've heard relative to the 1970's they're down, I've lost the doc. so I can't substantiate.
DonS: In my personal experience, things are better.
: : Don: We didn't have full recovery until after the war. It is my impression we didn't start to recover until '41 or so. I'll ask my dad about this, he lived through it.
: Living through it is no necessary proof of being able to see it, since most effects were invisible. I think it was a weak recovery in 41, which fell off, and which revovered fully after the war...
: : Don: In the 1890s and 1900s we had lots of inner city poor who had just emigrated to the US.
: But not nearly as many as came much later, as you noted, there was a huge influx into teh cities. Remember, cities would have been the minority of the population at that time.
DonS: As I recall, our big influx was in the 1890s, and most of these went into New York and other big cities.
: : Don: We had this since the 1890s.
: Had it, but it was growing, and at first it offered better wages, during the twenties those wages and its benefits began to fall off.
: : Don: People were poorer and more desperate in the '30s and in the early 1900s. Yet crime was higher in the '20s. There was greater economic inequality in the early 1900s than in the '20s. Yet crime was higher in the '20s. There was greater urbanization in the '30s, yet crime was higher in the '20s.
: Erm, no, the chart shows the murder peak at '35, so the highest crime rate is in the thirties. The twenties saw aweful poverty as well, and increasing displacement of people (displacement can be a causative factor, note the mini-spike after '45 with all them thar demobbed soldiers coming back). I'll go look for some text-books....
DonS: The '20s were considered a boom time in the US. The homicide rate was going up in the '20s and continued into the early '30s. It peaked in '35, which is to say it started going down.
--
McSpotlight: I'm not going to intrude on this argument; but criminals *do* target the wealthy here in the UK; at least, in respect to robberies and muggings; there have been a whole series of celebrities mugged for their Rolex watches.
