Black crime rates.

[Arkady]

I was merely pondering the amount of money that the various farakahan, jesse jackson, reren' wright, sharpton types have milked out of such a minority group of people in the US.

One would obviously HAVE to be quite the snake oil salesman granted, but make no mistake about it, there is a lot of damned money to be had from selling that, "the majority is responsible for all you feel entitled to but do not have" bull sh it to a minority of people.

There's certainly enough of a niche there that someone can make money if he positions just right. But the easier play is always going to be telling the majority what they want to hear. And, notably, guys like Farrakhan, etc., have never just told minorities that they can blame others for their problems. One of the central organizing ideas of the Black Muslim faith is the call on black people, and particularly black man, to become self-disciplined, to bring about change from within the community, rather than just demanding someone else save them. Remember the Million Man March? If you can get past all the silly God-talk, the message was similar to that. Farrakhan called on those in attendance to pledge never to strike or disrespect their wives, never to abuse children, to swear off the use of the "B" word to describe women, to swear off drugs, to love their brothers as they love themselves, to improve themselves spiritually, morally, mentally, socially, politically, and economically, and never to use violence against another person except in self defense. That was Farrakhan's signature political moment and it didn't involve anything from outside the community -- it was all about demanding more from within the community. That's a tough sell, obviously, but he got a huge positive response for it.

 

[Arkady]

No you aren't. You've made up your mind already.

Have I? What, exactly, have I decided? I'm curious, because honestly I don't know, and you could save me a great deal of time if you could give me a preview of what my beliefs are.

 

[UPNYA2]

Economics, education, and family dynamics..... you're listing vague topics, not providing a theory. In what way are US economics diving the phenomenon? What about US economics, as opposed to the economics of any other major wealthy nation, favors such violence problems? How about education? What is it that we're doing differently from our international peers on the education front, bringing about these worse results? And how about families dynamics? Is there something, in particular, that creates such dysfunctional family dynamics in the US, even as every other wealthy nation seems to do OK?

I think to move this forward in a productive way, we need to get specific. For example, one can point to some policies in most wealthy nations, designed to support the family, which don't exist here. In the US, talk about "family values" is usually just code for expressing discomfort with certain politically disfavored forms of sex. But in much of the world, valuing the family means things like mandating lengthy paid maternity and paternity pay, minimum paid vacation allowances, more efforts to try to control how many hours per week people work, subsidized childcare, and more social programs designed to make is feasible to have a full-time homemaker.

Take Europe's biggest economy, Germany, as an example. The average German worker works 1388 hours per week. The average US worker works 1788 hours per week. If you think of the 400-hour difference as being the equivalent of getting 10 EXTRA WEEKS OF VACATION PER YEAR (based on a 40-hour workweek), it gives you a sense of just how much more time Germans will have for spending quality time with their kids, parenting them up to be more law-abiding than here in the US. Add to that the fact that in the US, we also have a slightly higher employment-population ratio, meaning more retirees and stay-at-home spouses in Germany to help with building strong, healthy families for raising kids. This extra free time would also mean more availability for leading scout troops and bake sales and other efforts that support childrearing on a more community-wide basis.

I'm not sure if that's the kind of "family dynamic" that is causing our problems in the US, but it's at least something to look into.

I believe you are on to something with the whole "Americans have to work more hours" thing.

Problem is, it is not JUST the greed of employers forcing employees to work more hours nor is it JUST the greed of corporations demanding higher and higher prices for their goods or services. Sad to say but often times this having to work more than many others thing is driven by the greed of the American worker.

If we could all just be honest with ourselves we could investigate why it is so many families "have" to have 2 full time employed members, "just to make ends meet". Because really, DO they?

How many families are doing this that COULD get by perfectly well in a far more modest size home, in a less expensive part of town, a little bit older car, a smaller TV, less cloths, tvs, cars etc.? What IF they chose to get along perfectly fine with less and one of them stay home to ensure their children are raised with some amount of respect for right and wrong?

But greed dictates we work more so we can spend more so we can.........what really?

How many parents REALLY value raising their kids right enough to do without some things so many others have? Because that COULD be done in many an instance. Again, it is sad to say but I personally know of people who WANT to work full time just so they do not have to be around their own children any more than they have to, no kidding, thay actually say so.

Sad commentary on many an American worker, but too often true.

 

[Arkady]

I believe you are on to something with the whole "Americans have to work more hours" thing.

Problem is, it is not JUST the greed of employers forcing employees to work more hours nor is it JUST the greed of corporations demanding higher and higher prices for their goods or services. Sad to say but often times this having to work more than many others thing is driven by the greed of the American worker.

If we could all just be honest with ourselves we could investigate why it is so many families "have" to have 2 full time employed members, "just to make ends meet". Because really, DO they?

How many families are doing this that COULD get by perfectly well in a far more modest size home, in a less expensive part of town, a little bit older car, a smaller TV, less cloths, tvs, cars etc.? What IF they chose to get along perfectly fine with less and one of them stay home to ensure their children are raised with some amount of respect for right and wrong?

But greed dictates we work more so we can spend more so we can.........what really?

How many parents REALLY value raising their kids right enough to do without some things so many others have? Because that COULD be done in many an instance. Again, it is sad to say but I personally know of people who WANT to work full time just so they do not have to be around their own children any more than they have to, no kidding, thay actually say so.

Sad commentary on many an American worker, but too often true.

I think that for a lot of people, it's not so much about not wanting to be around their kids as it is about the sense of insecurity they have if they aren't "keeping up with the Joneses." If all their kids' friends have something their kids don't, or if their kids' friends will be able to afford private university and their kids won't, they feel like they're doing their kids a disservice. I think that those labor laws in many other nations act as a kind of collective bargaining... or, really, like a set of ground rules for the game of "keeping up with the Joneses." Just as athletes collectively benefit by an enforced rule saying that nobody is allowed to use steroids (because if you allow it, then soon the only way to be competitive is to use them), workers can be benefited by a rule saying that everyone has to take a minimum amount of vacation and nobody can work more than X hours per week.

 

[Barbella]

I believe you are on to something with the whole "Americans have to work more hours" thing.

Problem is, it is not JUST the greed of employers forcing employees to work more hours nor is it JUST the greed of corporations demanding higher and higher prices for their goods or services. Sad to say but often times this having to work more than many others thing is driven by the greed of the American worker.

If we could all just be honest with ourselves we could investigate why it is so many families "have" to have 2 full time employed members, "just to make ends meet". Because really, DO they?

How many families are doing this that COULD get by perfectly well in a far more modest size home, in a less expensive part of town, a little bit older car, a smaller TV, less cloths, tvs, cars etc.? What IF they chose to get along perfectly fine with less and one of them stay home to ensure their children are raised with some amount of respect for right and wrong?

But greed dictates we work more so we can spend more so we can.........what really?

How many parents REALLY value raising their kids right enough to do without some things so many others have? Because that COULD be done in many an instance. Again, it is sad to say but I personally know of people who WANT to work full time just so they do not have to be around their own children any more than they have to, no kidding, thay actually say so.

Sad commentary on many an American worker, but too often true.

Great post. 100% on the money.

 

[marvin martian]

I think that for a lot of people, it's not so much about not wanting to be around their kids as it is about the sense of insecurity they have if they aren't "keeping up with the Joneses." If all their kids' friends have something their kids don't, or if their kids' friends will be able to afford private university and their kids won't, they feel like they're doing their kids a disservice. I think that those labor laws in many other nations act as a kind of collective bargaining... or, really, like a set of ground rules for the game of "keeping up with the Joneses." Just as athletes collectively benefit by an enforced rule saying that nobody is allowed to use steroids (because if you allow it, then soon the only way to be competitive is to use them), workers can be benefited by a rule saying that everyone has to take a minimum amount of vacation and nobody can work more than X hours per week.

Sounds like you're projecting. I have no problem taking time off to be with my kids. My wife left her high-paying career to homeschool our kids. I'd rather spend time with them than buy them things, and I sure as hell don't need a government agency to do it for me, as you so clearly would like. I hope you work that out eventually, your kids will be better off for it.

 

[UPNYA2]

Great post. 100% on the money.

Thanks.

It is truly sad for me to see so many women, and some men as well, who feel as if, who act as if others, are somehow "lesser" or "lower" human beings if they elect to be with their kids as they grow rather than trying to work outside the home.
As if those who go out to earn money to purchase "stuff" for the kids they will see far less of, and have less opportunity to mold, educate and influence their values in life are more "valuable" mothers or fathers.

 

[SW48]

Economics, education, and family dynamics..... you're listing vague topics, not providing a theory. In what way are US economics diving the phenomenon? What about US economics, as opposed to the economics of any other major wealthy nation, favors such violence problems? How about education? What is it that we're doing differently from our international peers on the education front, bringing about these worse results? And how about families dynamics? Is there something, in particular, that creates such dysfunctional family dynamics in the US, even as every other wealthy nation seems to do OK?

I think to move this forward in a productive way, we need to get specific. For example, one can point to some policies in most wealthy nations, designed to support the family, which don't exist here? In the US, talk about "family values" is usually just code for expressing discomfort with certain politically disfavored forms of sex. But in much of the world, valuing the family means things like mandating lengthy paid maternity and paternity leave, minimum paid vacation allowances, more efforts to try to control how many hours per week people work, subsidized childcare, and more social programs designed to make it feasible to have a full-time homemaker.

Take Europe's biggest economy, Germany, as an example. The average German worker works 1388 hours per year. The average US worker works 1788 hours per year. If you think of the 400-hour difference as being the equivalent of getting 10 EXTRA WEEKS OF VACATION PER YEAR (based on a 40-hour workweek), it gives you a sense of just how much more time Germans will have for spending quality time with their kids, parenting them up to be more law-abiding than here in the US. Add to that the fact that in the US, we also have a slightly higher employment-population ratio, meaning more retirees and stay-at-home spouses in Germany to help with building strong, healthy families for raising kids. This extra free time would also mean more availability for leading scout troops and bake sales and other efforts that support childrearing on a more community-wide basis.

I'm not sure if that's the kind of "family dynamic" that is causing our problems in the US, but it's at least something to look into.

By economics I mean it doesn't matter if you are white, black, brown, or red, if you are poor and live in a poor community you are more likely to cause crime.

By family in part I mean single parent households are generally poorer and produce lower morals which leads to more crime and more poverty.

The economy until 1970ish provided a man with a good salary to raise a family. From 1970 on the mans wages have decreased but women began entering the workplace so two parent households with two workers incomes continued to grow and allow for a higher quality of life. But single parent households just can no longer keep up with the Jonese's anymore.

There are exceptions to all of the above of course but in general this is the issue.

 

[SW48]

Economics, education, and family dynamics..... you're listing vague topics, not providing a theory. In what way are US economics diving the phenomenon? What about US economics, as opposed to the economics of any other major wealthy nation, favors such violence problems? How about education? What is it that we're doing differently from our international peers on the education front, bringing about these worse results? And how about families dynamics? Is there something, in particular, that creates such dysfunctional family dynamics in the US, even as every other wealthy nation seems to do OK?

I think to move this forward in a productive way, we need to get specific. For example, one can point to some policies in most wealthy nations, designed to support the family, which don't exist here? In the US, talk about "family values" is usually just code for expressing discomfort with certain politically disfavored forms of sex. But in much of the world, valuing the family means things like mandating lengthy paid maternity and paternity leave, minimum paid vacation allowances, more efforts to try to control how many hours per week people work, subsidized childcare, and more social programs designed to make it feasible to have a full-time homemaker.

Take Europe's biggest economy, Germany, as an example. The average German worker works 1388 hours per year. The average US worker works 1788 hours per year. If you think of the 400-hour difference as being the equivalent of getting 10 EXTRA WEEKS OF VACATION PER YEAR (based on a 40-hour workweek), it gives you a sense of just how much more time Germans will have for spending quality time with their kids, parenting them up to be more law-abiding than here in the US. Add to that the fact that in the US, we also have a slightly higher employment-population ratio, meaning more retirees and stay-at-home spouses in Germany to help with building strong, healthy families for raising kids. This extra free time would also mean more availability for leading scout troops and bake sales and other efforts that support childrearing on a more community-wide basis.

I'm not sure if that's the kind of "family dynamic" that is causing our problems in the US, but it's at least something to look into.

As you know I also hate to compare to other countries because here in the USA we have a mix of races like no other country in the world. We as a country are a leader and a successful country. Are we perfect? No. But to compare to another country that doesn't have our racial and social mix is like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[resident_evil]

Why because he tells you what you want to hear ?

Why do you object to the content of the character being judged?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

My question is this:

Looking at low-income black and white within the same amount of poverty, why is black crime so much higher if not for cultural influences?

 

[resident_evil]

I've read some interviews of his and read parts of the book accessible online. I didn't see where he'd answered my question. If he has, could you paraphrase here?

I'd say it is a call of refurbishment of character of large swaths of the U.S. black population. If they began to act like the recent successful African immigrants you'd see a sea change in that community and a cessation of calling America racist.

LET ME ASK YOU ONE THING. If America is racist and keeping the black man down, then why is it that Michael Brown was going to college? How could he do that (i.e. be going to collet) and act like he did in that store, Hmmm...? Tell me!!!! What the fvck is wrong with the worst of black culture!?!?!? Even immigrants in Sweden go ape shit given everything gratis that the West has to offer!!!

If is a plain and simple failure of content of character.

 

[Spamature]

"Marginal ownership of the communities they live in."
Why is that? Are some "not allowed" to own? How should ownership be "corrected"? Ease loaning requirements? Nooooo.........been tried. Ok, so what, just take from some and give it to others, to make things more, "fair"?


"School systems that are comparably under funded."
I see. Like in DC, right? But never mind that, where does funding from most school systems originate? So what, again we need to take more from some and give it to others, to make things more, "fair"?

"A social welfare system that seems to be in place in exchange for a real effort in providing an equal opportunity."
OR might it be a social welfare system that seems to be in place in exchange for a real effort in providing for oneself? Might it be an equal outcome is what is desired, not an equal opportunity?

"Police forces that or more aggressive and is therefore seen and behaves as a occupational force rather than an arm of public safety. Which creates and adversarial relationship. "
What IF police forces have to be more aggressive, and is therefore seen and as an "occupational force" rather than an arm of public safety because of a much more pronounced disrespect of authority, an indoctrinated hatred of others not like themselves and a perverted feeling of entitlement to any and everything any other may have.........

That too could create an adversarial relationship which you are speaking of, correct?


"Also if you really look at them these communities are economic deserts."
So what would change that? Forcing others with more to have to go there to live or work? Why do they not now?

"One of the leading causes of their continuation as such is the idea that making it means leaving those communities behind."
Indeed. And you do you think THAT might be? Is the solution to force those who can move to stay there? Take more from them so they can't leave and give it to others, to make things more "fair"? What?

"So they continuously face the brain and talent drainage need to build maintain connections to the larger economy and maintenance of connections once made. "
WHY is that?

Perhaps the "brains" being "drained" from these areas do so BECAUSE it is the "brainy" thing to do...............


Face it, sport, there are no "bad neighborhoods", no, "depressed areas" in a town, there are bad PEOPLE in various neighborhoods and various areas of towns. Neighborhoods and areas of towns are buildings and structures, they bother no one.

PEOPLE do.

People like the gated community liberals on here do not live their lives in fear of outdated homes or run down buildings, skippy. They do not refuse to venture through parts of their own towns out of a fear of some billboard falling on them. They fear the PEOPLE in those areas.

Believe it. Test me on it.

In YOUR town look at what most would deem to be the "bad section", then look at what most would consider to be the "upper scale" area. Now just imagine that one day, somehow, magically the li by dream comes true and, POOF!, everyone from those two areas of town are inverted.

How long do you think it will be before someone in the "bad side" of town tries to pick up, paint, maybe grow a flower or two...........

How long do you think it will be before someone in the "upper scale" area of town steals from another, kills someone, sells drugs or pimps out someone else, "tags" a wall or the side of a building etc.?

How long will it be before you would try to discourage your teenage daughter from visiting the old "upper side" area after dark?



Sometimes, SOMETIMES, it is actually the PEOPLE who are ultimately for their roles in life when it comes to good and bad. NOT when it comes to good or bad mind you, but still, people CAN be poor and NOT bad.

But THEY have to CHOOSE to do so.

Trying to get someone with your predisposition to understand the bigger picture I am drawing would take too much effort. It would be easier to factually counter your points you bring up. And believe me I could sit here and absolutely slaughter what you just posted. But that would just drag us off into the weeds.

 

[Drumcollie]

Crime rates for People of color..... high...................People of color voting for Democrats.... high...

Bingo...I think we have a winner

 

[Drumcollie]

When the Democrats( and if you have to ask...you wouldn't understand) wrap their minds around this thought..crime should be illegal...then they might want to enforce the law.

 

[Arkady]

By economics I mean it doesn't matter if you are white, black, brown, or red, if you are poor and live in a poor community you are more likely to cause crime.

Yes. I agree in principle. And yet something remains very odd about poor communities in the US, in particular. It's not like there aren't poor minorities in other countries. In fact, if you were to judge by something like GDP/capita, you'd expect a whole lot more of them in plenty of other countries. We're a third richer than Germany, in those terms, and almost twice as wealthy as countries like Italy, Greece, and the Czech Republic. Yet those countries don't have the same kind of hyper-violent underclass as us. I'd like to understand better why that is.

By family in part I mean single parent households are generally poorer and produce lower morals which leads to more crime and more poverty.

Perhaps. Take a look at the data, though:

http://www.oecd.org/social/family/41919559.pdf

On a national basis, do you see a correlation between single parenthood and crime? It's not jumping out at me, if it's there. We have 70.7% of children living in households with both a father and mother. That compares to 68.9% in the UK, and 65.0% in Belgium. Sweden and France are each within 10 points of us. Mexico, which leads the OECD in violent crime, has very high two-parent-household status (87.1%, which is well above the OECD average). I'd need to see more analysis to be convinced by this theory.

 

[Arkady]

As you know I also hate to compare to other countries because here in the USA we have a mix of races like no other country in the world. We as a country are a leader and a successful country. Are we perfect? No. But to compare to another country that doesn't have our racial and social mix is like comparing apples and oranges.

Every country can claim to have a racial mix like no other. Japan, for example, has an extremely low percentage of white people for an OECD nation. Nobody in the OECD has anywhere near as many Maori as New Zealand or as many Arabs and Kurds as Turkey. They all have unique racial mixes. That would be a poor reason to believe that cross-comparisons aren't useful, unless one comes from a genetic perspective and assumes that there's something determinative about race at that level, rather than just by way of culture.

 

[Arkady]

When the Democrats( and if you have to ask...you wouldn't understand) wrap their minds around this thought..crime should be illegal...then they might want to enforce the law.

What's a democratic?

 

[Arkady]

I'd say it is a call of refurbishment of character of large swaths of the U.S. black population. If they began to act like the recent successful African immigrants you'd see a sea change in that community and a cessation of calling America racist.

LET ME ASK YOU ONE THING. If America is racist and keeping the black man down, then why is it that Michael Brown was going to college? How could he do that (i.e. be going to collet) and act like he did in that store, Hmmm...? Tell me!!!! What the fvck is wrong with the worst of black culture!?!?!? Even immigrants in Sweden go ape shit given everything gratis that the West has to offer!!!

If is a plain and simple failure of content of character.

As I said, if there's something particularly screwed up about the American character, why is that? What went wrong here, exactly, that didn't go wrong in all those many other countries that have much fewer crimes than us? Remember, the median murder rate in OECD countries is barely over 1/5 of what we have here. I can point to all sorts of policy differences between the US and what is usual in other OECD nations (other than fellow murderous outlier Mexico), and I suppose our poor character might result from those policy differences. But I'm curious what your theory is.

 

[resident_evil]

As I said, if there's something particularly screwed up about the American character, why is that? What went wrong here, exactly, that didn't go wrong in all those many other countries that have much fewer crimes than us? Remember, the median murder rate in OECD countries is barely over 1/5 of what we have here. I can point to all sorts of policy differences between the US and what is usual in other OECD nations (other than fellow murderous outlier Mexico), and I suppose our poor character might result from those policy differences. But I'm curious what your theory is.

How do your poor across ethnic and racial lines compare in crime, std's, all the common metrics? Are poor whites more or less violent than poor blacks?