| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:48 pm Post subject: U.S. Crime Rate Has Dropped |
 |
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616
For 20 years, crime in the US has been falling and new figures from the FBI show a sharp drop in the last two years, despite the recession. Why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
methdxman
Joined: 14 Sep 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:08 am Post subject: Re: U.S. Crime Rate Has Dropped |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616
For 20 years, crime in the US has been falling and new figures from the FBI show a sharp drop in the last two years, despite the recession. Why? |
Roe v Wade |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't think so. Haven't you heard of the high teenage birthrate and out of wedlock birth rates of the poor? Far higher than the higher socio-economic groups. Nope, the poor keep reproducing at a faster clip than everyone else.
Try again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:20 am Post subject: Re: U.S. Crime Rate Has Dropped |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616
For 20 years, crime in the US has been falling and new figures from the FBI show a sharp drop in the last two years, despite the recession. Why? |
This and this are probably relevant. Mass incarceration may be ridiculously expensive, inhumane, and in many cases even unjust, but it obviously has an impact on the crime rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Nope, the poor keep reproducing at a faster clip than everyone else. |
Not true. More income predicts more kids, but more education predicts less kids. The effect of more income is doubly as predictive to men as to women, and the effect of more education is doubly as predictive to women as to men. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Nope, the poor keep reproducing at a faster clip than everyone else. |
Not true. More income predicts more kids, but more education predicts less kids. The effect of more income is doubly as predictive to men as to women, and the effect of more education is doubly as predictive to women as to men. |
First of all, America's birth rate is falling and since the recession has dropped considerably.
However, in response to your post, as you indicated, that link talks about future predictions of birth rates. Its not a reflection of what is happening now or has happened.
The super rich have always had a high birthrate it seems. However, its inconsequential to the overall birth rate.
http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/gender-sexuality/fertility.html
This briefing paper provides answers to these and other questions that the press and public have been asking. It shows that the uptick in 3 and 4 child families among the affluent is confined to only a tiny sliver of the population, not enough to affect the overall fertility rates, and is not typical of what is happening for the other 98 percent of the population.
Families in the top 10 percent or even top 5 percent of household earnings aren't having detectably larger families. However, surveys that are able to distinguish families with earnings in the top 1 to 11/2 percent have shown some evidence for an increase. �The high proportion of 3 and 4 child families among the super-rich can affect the demographics in parts of Manhattan, but since it is confined to the very top 1.3 percent of households, it cannot explain measurable shifts in fertility at the national level. Moreover, historians point out that the super rich have historically tended to have more children than the middle layers of society, so this is hardly as unprecedented as some observers have assumed.
As I stated, the poor have always had a higher birthrate. Nothing surprising about that. Its that way around the globe.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2008/08/25/welfare-continues-to-drive-new-births.htm
A decade after the passage of welfare reform in 1996, the birth rate among U.S. women receiving public welfare during 2006 was three times higher than that of women not on welfare, reports the Census Bureau.
According to the Census' report, Fertility of American Women: 2006, women age 15 to 50 receiving public assistance had a birth rate of 155 births per 1,000 women, compared with 53 births per 1,000 women not receiving welfare |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
With regards to why, I recall reading crime stats in American history from another thread and about 1880 the crime rate dropped considerably. No one knows why. Policing methods had not changed. Nothing of not in society changed. It just stopped. Perhaps this is another such event?
What ever the reason, its good news. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As I stated, the poor have always had a higher birthrate. Nothing surprising about that. Its that way around the globe. |
But its not the poverty. Its the lack of education. People with more education tend to have more money, they also have less children. People with less money tend to have less education, they also have more children. But people with a combination of the most money and least education have the most children, statistically speaking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As I stated, the poor have always had a higher birthrate. Nothing surprising about that. Its that way around the globe. |
But its not the poverty. Its the lack of education. People with more education tend to have more money, they also have less children. People with less money tend to have less education, they also have more children. But people with a combination of the most money and least education have the most children, statistically speaking. |
Poverty and education usually go hand in hand. I don't see how my statement that poor people are having more children is not so. Those on aid are having more kids than those not on aid. I posted the fact. Furthermoer the super rich had more kids than the middle and upper classes, they are highly educsted which runs counter.
Its also cultural. Large families were common among the rich over a century ago and they were educated. The culture has changed.
Education may be one of the factors but its not the sole factor. The fact is the poor or having more kids than the rest of society. That is what I said and Ive not read anything you posted that says otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As I stated, the poor have always had a higher birthrate. Nothing surprising about that. Its that way around the globe. |
But its not the poverty. Its the lack of education. People with more education tend to have more money, they also have less children. People with less money tend to have less education, they also have more children. But people with a combination of the most money and least education have the most children, statistically speaking. |
Poverty and education usually go hand in hand. I don't see how my statement that poor people are having more children is not so. Those on aid are having more kids than those not on aid. I posted the fact. Furthermoer the super rich had more kids than the middle and upper classes, they are highly educsted which runs counter.
Its also cultural. Large families were common among the rich over a century ago and they were educated. The culture has changed.
Education may be one of the factors but its not the sole factor. The fact is the poor or having more kids than the rest of society. That is what I said and Ive not read anything you posted that says otherwise. |
Yes, you're right in the very narrow point-scoring perspective. But you're wrong about the factors; education is the dominant factor, because the evidence suggests that poverty taken alone will inhibit people from having kids. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Crime may be down statistically, but it's up significantly in reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matthews_world
Joined: 15 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reggie wrote: |
| Crime may be down statistically, but it's up significantly in reality. |
What does this mean?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| matthews_world wrote: |
| Reggie wrote: |
| Crime may be down statistically, but it's up significantly in reality. |
What does this mean? |
Its the baldest admission of confirmation bias these forums have seen in some time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| matthews_world wrote: |
| Reggie wrote: |
| Crime may be down statistically, but it's up significantly in reality. |
What does this mean? |
People don't always go to the police with their problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
