271–280 of 652 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Additionally, mail theft laws which include prison as a consequence should be extended to package thefts if they don't already cover them. But it is a nonviolent crime. It seems like finding some way to prevent the thefts is better.
Cool, so wage theft is a nonviolent crime as well, hence by your logic it should go unpunished as well
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a fundamental attribution error... You're saying the person _is_ a thief, whereas I would say the person is _committing_ thievery. In the first case, it's the persons nature and no change in incentives would dissuade them. In the second, if you change the incentives so that thievery is less attractive (with its inherent risks) than just working for a good wage, the behavior would vanish.
_People committing thievery_ more often than not aren’t rational actors capable of assessing risks at least somewhat accurately. There, exact same argument with a term you prefer.
"They are poor, not stupid"
He was commenting on the risk decisions of farmers throughout history. It would be sensible for people to put all their effort into growing surplus of one crop for sale, but then they would be at greater risk of starving under crop failure.
People's choices are affected by their (percevied) risk calculus.
https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When risking getting caught stealing is more attractive than working then it's safe to say the working opportunities for those people aren't worth almost anything. That assumes thieves are rational actors capable of assessing risks at least somewhat accurately. Often times (the vast majority of times, even) they are not. It's also worth bringing up that certain American subcultures glorify criminals. The criminal l…
I think this is a fundamental attribution error... You're saying the person _is_ a thief, whereas I would say the person is _committing_ thievery. In the first case, it's the persons nature and no change in incentives would dissuade them. In the second, if you change the incentives so that thievery is less attractive (with its inherent risks) than just working for a good wage, the behavior would vanish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Inequality implies poverty, so this question is pointless.
No, they are orthogonal. A society split between middle class workers and billionaires still has inequality without poverty. A society of 100% poverty has no inequality.
> https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07...
"Two commonly used measures are: people in relative low income – living in households with income below 60% of the median in that year; people in absolute low income – living in households with income below 60% of (inflation-adjusted) median income in some base year, usually 2010/11."
This is however a bureaucratic definition of poverty that I don't accept as capturing the everyday meaning, but I thought it might be of interest to mention. I remember being under the poverty line and thinking "this doesn't count. I don't accept that I'm living in poverty." Knowing these technical uses made me regard official-sounding news and reports about 'poverty' quite differently.
(The bottom of the article talks about a group giving a more lay-compatible definition "The Social Metrics Commission (SMC) proposed a new based on the extent to which someone’s resources meet their needs. This accounts for differences among households such as costs of childcare and disability, savings and access to assets." which seems more meaningful if you're interested about absolute standards of living).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why crime us going up? It’s not. The long term trend in property crime in the US is down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Difficulty: people may not even bother reporting minor property crimes anymore, because the police (and, more important, the prosecutors) DGAF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imo the comment you’re replying to is a kind of progressive left-wing university faculty lounge flavor of upper middle class politics and is not representative of the vast majority of Americans (but is overrepresented online). I’d suspect most Americans (across the political spectrum) would see these train robberies and think “these people should go to jail”, rather than moralizing about why it’s not their fault.
> I’d suspect most Americans (across the political spectrum) would see these train robberies and think “these people should go to jail”, rather than moralizing about why it’s not their fault. Jail isn't some magical free solution to your crime problems. Would Americans still be so eager to imprison someone if they knew that the cost to incarcerate someone is ~$36k/yr? [1] The government defines poverty as $12k/yr for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When risking getting caught stealing is more attractive than working then it's safe to say the working opportunities for those people aren't worth almost anything. People take the easier option. You choose "lock your trains well" despite knowing the answer will be "crack those locks well" because it was the easy answer. The view is simple. Eventually the train will be a rolling mountain of steel protected by an army.…
> When risking getting caught stealing is more attractive than working then it's safe to say the working opportunities for those people aren't worth almost anything. Except when these thefts are de-facto decriminalized in Califronia, and police is either defunded or directed not to fight these crimes, the "risk of getting caught" is effectively zero. That means that unless you start handing out iPhones for free in lo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a fundamental attribution error... You're saying the person _is_ a thief, whereas I would say the person is _committing_ thievery. In the first case, it's the persons nature and no change in incentives would dissuade them. In the second, if you change the incentives so that thievery is less attractive (with its inherent risks) than just working for a good wage, the behavior would vanish.
_People committing thievery_ more often than not aren’t rational actors capable of assessing risks at least somewhat accurately. There, exact same argument with a term you prefer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is "forced" to steal packages. "The trains are clearly being robbed out of desperation by the poorest citizens." I don't think that's true. I think they are being robbed because it's easy to do so, with a low risk for any consequences. Similarly as to why shoplifting in LA is up. Start shooting at the thieves and see how fast the train robbery trend reverses.
>I think they are being robbed because it's easy to do so, with a low risk for any consequences. Similarly as to why shoplifting in LA is up. Ok, then why aren't you robbing or shoplifting if it's so easy and risk-free? Is it because you have too much to lose if you get caught? My whole point is that if people have a minimal standard of living, the fear of losing it will prevent them from committing crimes much more…
Amazon has already started doing their own shipping. Maybe they'll hire their own mercenaries to guard the shipments too. Eventually they'll replace the government. United States of Amazon. We won't even have to change all our monogrammed stuff.
if they do it the way they did AWS it'll be amazing