• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy limping back to strength

What percentage of the population is on welfare in this country? Then what percentage of that percentage are the ones who commit crimes to supplement their welfare incomes?

Then tell me that number has a significant effect on crime rates on a larger scale than just neighborhood by neighborhood, and then we'll talk.

More research you ask?

Poverty makes thieves and thieves hamper economic growth. We study these linkages in a model of modern sector job creation. Job creation has two effects. Higher labor demand tends to lower crime while higher output gives more to steal, tending to increase crime. At low levels of modernization the second effect dominates and, as a consequence, the model has decreasing returns to scale. At higher levels of modernization there is increasing returns to scale due to declining crime. The economy may end up in a poverty trap with high crime and low production or obtain full modernization with low crime rates. The danger of ending up in a poverty trap has implications for economic policies. We show, for instance, that a reform, intended to improve efficiency, may throw the economy into a vicious circle of increasing crime and stagnation if implemented too fast.

source
 
More research you ask?



source

The answers to my questions are not in your report. It's also critical that I don't give you MY numbers, I want YOU to research this. From reliable sources, if you would be so kind. So once again I ask:

1. Please tell me what percentage of the population is on welfare.

2. Of that percentage, how many commit crimes to supplement their income when they cannot make their money last.

3. What is that number (of people or crimes) in comparison with overall crime rates.
 
The answers to my questions are not in your report. It's also critical that I don't give you MY numbers, I want YOU to research this. From reliable sources, if you would be so kind. So once again I ask:

1. Please tell me what percentage of the population is on welfare.

2. Of that percentage, how many commit crimes to supplement their income when they cannot make their money last.

3. What is that number (of people or crimes) in comparison with overall crime rates.

Your questions have very little meaning in regards to the discussion. I am not claiming that the majority of criminality is embedded in the welfare population.

I am stating an undeniable fact: Increased poverty (AKA intense wealth inequality) puts upward pressure on criminality.
 
Your questions have very little meaning in regards to the discussion. I am not claiming that the majority of criminality is embedded in the welfare population.

I am stating an undeniable fact: Increased poverty (AKA intense wealth inequality) puts upward pressure on criminality.

Fine, don't answer my questions. But do not claim a 'victory' if you're not willing to defend it. You can't just take one study (by reading the abstract by the way, cause I know you didn't purchase that article) and claim that it is significant when it's really just being taken out of context with the big picture, which is the ENTIRE crime rate.
 
Last edited:
I am stating an undeniable fact: Increased poverty (AKA intense wealth inequality) puts upward pressure on criminality.

Poverty is wealth inequality? I don't like that definition. The impoverished of today could probably be the elites of the Classical period. Poverty should be the subsistence level.

And I assume that you're working on a response to my other post?
 
Epic,

Areas that are impoverished have far higher crime rates (along with more police presence) than higher income areas. Your questions are a red herring, as they do nothing to strengthen your premise; they only shift the debate.

The fact remains: poverty induces crime, and poverty is determined primarily by income.

Both you and Tony have argued that it is "optimal" to eliminate our social welfare system, of which i have responded that in doing so, we will increase the crime burden (although it is not felt in proportion). The impoverished face a greater burden than the rich actually.

Have i argued that welfare traps do not exist? Of course not.
 
Have i argued that welfare traps do not exist? Of course not.

Being poor without welfare. Risk of committing a crime is p1.

Being poor with welfare. Risk of committing a crime is p2.

p1>p2.

The number of poor people when welfare does not exist. n1.

The number of poor people when welfare does exist. n2.

n2>n1.

The total number of poor people committing crime: np.

So the question becomes, which is greater, n1p1, or n2p2. It's impossible to prove either way (because theoretically it would be better to pick the option that lowers crime, although even this I may have a problem with), and so the moral argument sways the decision away from the conclusion that we should use welfare to deter crime.
 
Being poor without welfare. Risk of committing a crime is p1.

Being poor with welfare. Risk of committing a crime is p2.

p1>p2.

The number of poor people when welfare does not exist. n1.

The number of poor people when welfare does exist. n2.

n2>n1.

The total number of poor people committing crime: np.

So the question becomes, which is greater, n1p1, or n2p2. It's impossible to prove either way (because theoretically it would be better to pick the option that lowers crime, although even this I may have a problem with), and so the moral argument sways the decision away from the conclusion that we should use welfare to deter crime.

Simple deduction will not achieve the result you desire. I am not here to play the morality game (morals are completely subjective).

Are you familiar with the efficiency wage hypothesis? (hint: this could be a set up, so choose your words carefully).
 
Simple deduction will not achieve the result you desire. I am not here to play the morality game (morals are completely subjective).

I'd dispute that, but anyway, it was meant to show that a definite answer cannot be found.

Are you familiar with the efficiency wage hypothesis? (hint: this could be a set up, so choose your words carefully).

Nope.
 
Question: What is the primary determinant for having an income?
 
I think Golden and Phat make some valid points.
-crime increases with poverty.
-poverty is a lack of income.
-we can't possibly "welfare" people out of poverty. (lest we all become impoverished)
So handing people money to do with as they please is not the answer.
 
Capitalism (especially our system) requires a welfare state to achieve a more efficient outcome.
 
-we can't possibly "welfare" people out of poverty. (lest we all become impoverished)

This one isn't necessarily true. It just depends on your definition of poverty. There aren't really any people in this country that are in poverty. People in poverty aren't getting the things that they need to live. Are there poor people though? Of course.
 
I'd dispute that, but anyway, it was meant to show that a definite answer cannot be found.

By using unrealistic/false axioms? Bad form Tony!
 
By using unrealistic/false axioms? Bad form Tony!

Nothing I said was false or unrealistic. I was merely showing that you can't ignore the effect that welfare has to encourage being poor.
 
Nothing I said was false or unrealistic. I was merely showing that you can't ignore the effect that welfare has to encourage being poor.

Your axioms were invalid.
 
It helps eliminate unemployment and underemployment. ;)

I know how it can ALLEVIATE underemployment (though is it really worth the cost?), but how does it eliminate unemployment?
 
Back
Top Bottom