You must log in or register to comment.

FuzzyBubbles117 t1_ixjuncq wrote

This also more directly coincides with the generational dip in crime and recidivism after mandating "unleaded" gasoline though...


-downtone_ t1_ixlqpbl wrote

Is aggression tied to intelligence level?


FuzzyBubbles117 t1_ixnxu4v wrote

Not necessarily, but both may have been tied to lead exposure during developmental years - as heralded by long cited studies.

Point being: his didn't seem novel or specifically significant on its own merits as it didn't account for already observed phenomena which have been well vetted.

I'd love to see data taking both observations into account.


Dizzy_Slip t1_ixk7mcf wrote

You mean economic security reduces poverty which can in turn reduce crime. What a novel idea!


hickhelperinhackney t1_ixjsspu wrote

I should like to see policies based on evidence such as this rather than who is judged to be‘deserving’ of something above abject poverty


stealth_elephant t1_ixka4nk wrote

Everyone is deserving of something above abject poverty.


hickhelperinhackney t1_ixkg7zt wrote

I quite agree. Our world has the resources. And who decides what is ‘deserving’ labor?


incomprehensibilitys t1_ixkcixd wrote

Not if they can work but decide not to.

I support helping those who cannot support themselves, not those who decide that they can make more money off of the governmental support


couchfucker2 t1_ixkoqg5 wrote

Ya know an interesting thing happens when humans “decide not to work.” They tend to find work for themselves from their inherent passions. They create art, dance, become streamers, ect. It’s our instinct to do that, and it creates a richer more cultural society when people decide to do that. There’s easily enough money that was stolen from the workers share of economic growth to fund this kind of support, it’s nothing to the billionaire class. We did something like this in the US in the form of WPA and the National endowment for the arts and public broadcasting.


Strazdas1 t1_ixlfwii wrote

yeah, thats how its "supposed to be". But in reality there are a lot of people who just sit at home and watch TV. Btw i support a full UBI and i think those people who choose not to do anything arent an issue.


incomprehensibilitys t1_ixmikuu wrote

If what you were saying about UBI is true, why aren't half of the 200 countries around the world doing it?

Many many trillions in the United States have flowed from the government and aid organizations to people over the last century or more. Social security, welfare, grants governmental aid for a variety of things,. Where is the evidence that these recipients create art and dance and a richer more cultural society? The evidence should be overwhelming.

And why aren't people who are working considered able to create these things you are saying? Are they stupid? A lot of these people open businesses and take karate and dream paint and travel and open social media and share photography and other things.

What money was stolen from people? Are you talking about what we did to Native Americans and enslaved people? We all know the great harm that was done to others. But where is all this easy money? We already owe tens of trillions to Medicare and Social Security. As well as tens of trillions in governmental borrowing. About 30 to 40% of government spending has to be borrowed. We don't have two nickels to rub together that are actually not borrowed.

For people who are talking about giving away other people's money, what have they done? Have you given back your home to a native person because it was stolen land? Have you made reparations to enslaved people's descendants with your own money? I am working on a multi-year project to try to return tens of thousands of acres of ancestral land back to Native Americans who are now hundreds to thousands of miles away from their ancestral land. It may fail, but it is worth trying

These are woke assertions, not proven reality.


camisado84 t1_ixljs14 wrote

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Can you explain how you feel that even a massive redistribution of wealth would make meaningful changes (and lasting) in everyone's lives from those who have their finances predominantly leveraged? I say it like this, because most rich people aren't exactly hoarding gems and tying up their resources in fictional valuations (a small portion does, of course). Mostly those resources are tied back into the means of production.

Even if you take Musk's fortune at 200bn and redistribute it to every US citizen, that is ~600 bucks a person, one time. But that would require liquidating his leveraged portfolio which is nearly all in a small number of companies, which generate jobs and thus opportunities for individuals who otherwise may not have. Sure, that would free a very tiny amount of resources up for people to do something with, hopefully some of it very handy. But how do you quantify that to justify the execution of such a plan? (e.g. pilot programs that show it would be a net good for everyone)

While those individuals would no doubt spend it in the economy, how do you theorize this creates a net positive long term meaningful impact?


Strazdas1 t1_ixlfulh wrote

I wouldnt because this does not establish causation, when we already have established causation for this reduction via the ban of leaded gasoline.


Fluffy_Artichoke_723 t1_ixlbktq wrote

You mean if we give people resources, provide them housing, income, healthcare, they don't see a need to resort to crime? Shocked. I'm just shocked.


SerialStateLineXer t1_ixlj7pz wrote

The claimed effect is implausibly large. The $1,000 in the title is cumulative over the first 14 years of life, not per year. Even if we assume that it's concentrated in the first five years of life, this implies that an extra $600 in income per year reduces criminal convictions in late adolescence by a third. If we assume that it's spread out over the whole 14 years, it would be a little over $200 per year.

Rather than measuring actual EITC benefits received by families, what they did was simulate the effects of variation in EITC policies between states and over time to estimate how much more or less a family would have received than the mean amount. This is highly vulnerable to confounding by, e.g., the secular decline in crime coinciding with increased funding for the EITC. This concern is limited but not eliminated by the fact that they grouped the children into 5-year birth cohorts. It is a bit suspicious that they didn't treat date of birth as a continuous variable. Furthermore, any number of other state-level factors could confound state-level differences in EITC policy.

Between the implausibly strong effect size and the methodological weaknesses, it's unlikely that they've identified a true causal effect here. There may be one, but probably not of the magnitude claimed here.


pogo6023 t1_ixle16q wrote

Yet another marginal attempt to use pseudoscience to justify a social narrative. This so-called study demonstrates little to no evidence that the EIC reduces criminal involvement. "May be associated with..." concedes this. Another, perhaps more valid, conclusion would be that children in households engaging in earned incomes are less inclined to participate in criminal activity.


AutoModerator t1_ixjsbsg wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


kawhi_2020 t1_ixkc2a8 wrote

The earned income tax credit is one of the worst programs we have. We create a negative tax for people as they make more money until they plateau, then we have a high marginal tax for people as they make money past the maximum benefit.

Just give everyone the same flat amount. The incentive to work crap has never been true.