![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
One thing though - for me it was my parents who grew up in the depression and fought in WW2. ;) One of my grandfathers was born in 1876, so he was even too old for WW1.:eek: |
Quote:
This sound at all familiar? Quote:
It's a shame history repeats itself. |
repeats itself.
|
Quote:
My Grandparents were born in the 1910-1920 range. My Dad was born in '45, the leading edge of the baby boomers. I was born in '77. It sounds like our families are just half a generation out of step with each other. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
So... despite all our bitching, we really do have it made. As far "kids these days" go - I remember them saying all that about my brothers' generation, my generation, and your generation. I have a little more faith in my kids' generation. FWIW they and their friends seem to be a lot smarter than I was at there age, they have a better attitude, and they seem to stay out of troube better than I (and my brothers all) did. A little spoiled maybe, yes. That's a sign if prosperous times, but maybe that is coming to an end. In my family every generation since the 1800's has been more prosperous and more successful than the one before. I'm not so sure that is going to continue. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...Crime_Rate.jpg Not sure what my point is, other than the kids are not as violent as the media portrays. |
Kids need to stop sitting on the couch playing 1st person shooters and get out and start killing people for real like they did when I was a kid... :)
|
Quote:
In 1936 in NYC when the "greatest generation" was coming of age there were 510 murders. Last year there were 494, and the population is a lot higher there now. Of course a lot of it has to do with police presence, but still... |
Quote:
|
I'm beginning to like FPS on console but's that a different thread. I also have reasons I think it is better.
|
Every thread here seems to drift toward video games. Let's keep this on off-topic... ;)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ortsanm.gif |
Quote:
................1960.......2006 Murder:......9,110 - 17,034 Rape:........17,190 - 92,455 Robbery:..107,840 - 447,403 Assault:...154,320 - 862,947 TOTAL:....288,460 - 1,417,745 I wouldn't say thats safe. EDIT: If you break that down into per 100,000 citizens like I should have done, it looks like this. .............1960....2006 murder:...5.1......5.7 Rape:......9.6......30.9 Robbery:..60.1....149.4 Assault:...86.1....287.5 2nd Edit. Like Matt said. There was a huge influx of crime in the 90s and its gone down, but its still high and seems to be climbing back up. |
Quote:
|
I would think that the following factors associated with a downturn in the economy/general credit crunch would have a significant impact on crime:
1) Higher rates of alcohol/drug use 2) More transition from middle class to lower class (lower relative standards of living) 3) Political/ethnic/age polarization 4) Decreased standards/control at schools (is this possible?) 5) Increased socialism/welfare spending |
Quote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Crime_Rate.jpg It's true that at best it has leveled out and at worst it is starting to increase again (not shown on graph yet). Too early to tell statistically. Certainly a hurting economy will not help things. |
It's simple, crime follows poverty around like a lap dog. The more people that can't make ends meet, the more people there are that lash out against there neighbors. It's not just human nature, it's the basic law of the jungle.
I'm willing to bet that the chart above correlates nicely with the percentage of people living below the poverty line. As the rich get richer, the money comes from the poor... and the poor start fighting over what's left. I'm not a socialist, I think that most people can do just fine on their own w/o a government making decisions for them. But I'm realistic enough to realize that many people are born into a cycle of poverty and lack of education that makes it impossible for them to get out of the trappings of an open economy. I've got no problem taking from the top 1% and giving to the bottom 10%. Edit: here's a poverty graph over the same years as the crime graph above. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate.jpg The correlation is pretty clear (assuming you ignore the vast improvement in poverty due to the ending of segregation), though it's kinda interesting that crime seems to precede the poverty curve by a year or two. Perhaps it's the crime that causes poverty? Or just perhaps the crime is a symptom of the problem that shows up before people are driven below the poverty threshold? |
0.75% anyone? What, is the U.S. dollar not as influential as it once was? *tongue in cheek*
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Scott, there is no doubt that poverty and crime are related. I just wonder then why during the 60's did crime rise while poverty plummeted.
Experts attribute the huge increase in crime around 1990 to be caused by the crack epidemic. The recession in 1991 didn't help either I'm sure. |
Quote:
Poverty created by inequality didn't correlate to crime... we just had a ton of people living in a "lower cast" that skews the chart. I'll bet that within the lower cast, the poorest of the poor were more apt to commit crime than the richest of the poor. It's human nature... when you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose... i.e. the primary reason why people keep to the moral high road is because they're afraid of the consequences, not because they just listen to their moral compass. IMO, that's the primary reason religions were invented in the first place... to get people to believe that if they don't do what their told, they're going to hell. "Listen to your father, or Zeus is gonna throw a lightning bolt right up your ass!" |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Basically, the huge drop in poverty in the 1960's didn't correlate to the crime rate of the same decade because the drop was due to the civil rights movement. The inequality of segregation not only pushed people into poverty, it also suppressed violent crime... after all who would commit even a non-violent crime if you knew you'd be hung for it (or some trumped up charges) because you were black? So even though poverty was high, crime was not. I guess I'm just saying that my theory probably doesn't apply pre-1970 unless you factor in relative poverty within the white and black casts during the years of segregation. Then again, I could be totally way off base. I haven't studied the civil rights movement since high school. |
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." or so sang Janis Joplin in 1969.
Johnson did declare "War on Poverty" in 1964 (I think that's when). Exercising my inner knee-jerk right-wingnut - he (it?) would say that all the rock-n-roll,drugs and free love in the 60's is what did it. That and... <gasp>...dancing. Sheesh... kids those days! |
Quote:
http://www.impawards.com/1984/posters/footloose.jpg |
Quote:
I think Scott's on the right track. The blip where crime was higher than poverty was a symptom of growing pains as both sides of the Civil Rights movement adjusted to the new era. Also, statistics during the civil rights movement may be skewed, because crimes were often trumped against activists and sympathizers by Jim Crow advocates in law enforcement. |
Quote:
|
Carp. Well, it was a good theory if I had read the data right. :lol:
|
Quote:
So your saying that the majority of crime was committed by blacks. Then because they were scared of being hung, less crime was committed? |
Quote:
i.e. Normally, lots of people living in poverty means lots of crime, but because many of the people living in poverty were doing so because they were living under segregation, crime was not as high as you would expect. |
I was just joking.
|
This is no joking matter.
Can't you see how long these posts are? |
I was just thinking about this and think Obama should announce a strong independent or even left wing republican with a strong finance and/or international background as a VP running mate NOW!
Steve Forbes comes to mind. Colin Powell would be good as well, but doubt either is interested unfortunately. I think this might impress the skeptics and not alienate too many of the faithful... Talk about a CHANGE!!! Oprah would probably love Powell too. :) |
Quote:
That is assuming they can bury the hatchet after what's turned into a fierce primary campaign. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
...same reason Bush took Cheney on as VP, insurance. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Bush just wasn't quite dumb enough to go "hunting" with him... DAMN...
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Content Copyright Subaru Enthusiasts Car Club of the Sierras unless otherwise noted.