Steady decline in burglaries because "Everybody has everything now" | Hacker News Reader

Steady decline in burglaries because "Everybody has everything now"

npr.org

32 pointsmhb35 comments

I've noticed this too. I think the decline has been going on longer than 30 years. It's because stuff isn't valuable anymore.

As the value of stuff accelerates exponentially toward zero, the only thing that matters is social status. I suspect that in the future most burglaries will fall into one of two categories:

A) The object being stolen confers social status (e.g. iPhone)

B) The act of stealing confers social status in the individual's social circle

In most non-hacker circles, an iPhone is just another cell phone, except that it is advertised so much that many are getting annoyed with it. ("Okay, I get it, it's a phone with a browser and it plays music....") For that reason, the idea that an iPhone confers social status really jumps out at me, because it just doesn't seem true.

"For that reason, the idea that an iPhone confers social status really jumps out at me, because it just doesn't seem true."

Though it may suggest that the owner has a bit of spare cash, since they're not economically priced.

THe BART police in SF suggest you not wear white earphones because it might get you robbed. This implies that there's still quite a bit of status associated w/ iPods and iPhones.

Does it have to imply status, or simply that it's easy to sell them quickly on craigslist? I'm not saying an iPod or iPhone isn't the best solution for many people, just that I don't really think of them as conferring status in the same way that, say, a cell (car) phone did 10 years ago, or a Ferrari does today.

Or it implies police like to scare you (like it's their job).

C) The stuff is more liquid - cash, jewelry, etc

What about those of us who couldn't care less about social status? I mean, is everything everybody wants for all time based on status signalling? For me it really hasn't been an issue since middle school.

It's because stuff isn't valuable anymore

What are you basing this on? I can't think of anything to really determine the value of "stuff" except for price, and from what I've seen, stuff still has prices attached.

Maybe a good stereo in 1970 was 200 dollars, and today it's (inflation-adjusted) 150 dollars. But even a decline like that doesn't mean it isn't valuable.

Look at the number of median wage hours of labor it takes to buy things. It has plummeted. I've known poor grad students that could afford huge TVs.

The punishment for crime has increased, which few people talk about. Most complain about the drug war rightfully, but lots more people are being sent to jail and being kept there for other offenses.

cheaper stuff + stiffer punishments = less crime

Consider also that you have to sell stuff to someone, that selling stolen stuff isn't as easy as selling stuff normally, and that people you are selling to are more likely to already have something quite similar to what you're trying to sell them.

Last Christmass I considered giving a gift certificate for "relieving you off some stuff".

Seriously, stuff is piling up too fast - ebay is too inefficient for me, for years I have pondered a kind of "garage sale" web service. Just put up a photo of the pile of junk and make it an image map - buyers can just click on the items on the map. It is too much work to fill out a several page form for every item to sell on ebay.

There, I published an idea...

What about the fact that it is far easier to steal your credit card/identity and then just buy the stuff one wants, instead of trying to find someone with the stuff you want and then stealing it.

Not one mention of the most likely cause, which is demographics. Break-ins are a young person's game, the number of young people have declined.

Freakonomics has an interesting perspective: It is due to the legalization of abortion. The authors do make a good case for it. I tend to lean towards this explanation which amounts to less poor young people.

That was for crime in general, though. The article here mentioned that the statistics for other crimes were different from burglary.

More here:

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/03...

Great link, thanks.

Burglaries per:

 	United Kingdom:   	13.8321 per 1,000 people 

	United States:   	7.09996 per 1,000 people

Murders per:

        United States:          0.042802 per 1,000 people

 	United Kingdom:   	0.0140633 per 1,000 people

My suggestion: The wide availability of guns makes murder easier in the United States (for obvious reasons) and Burglary harder (...since so many homeowners have guns, and shooting burglars is generally legal, burglars tend to avoid the practice.)

Or maybe window glass is thicker in the UK or one of another of the zillion other possible explanations for this statistic.

Heck, NPR is basing their theory on anecdotes from an ex-con. At least I'm putting up some numbers. Obviously, statistics like the above are a result of extremely complex systems. I tried to compare two countries with similar population make-ups, similar economies, similar legal traditions, etc, but you can only remove so many factors. Actual experimentation in social science, by contrast, tends to result in unholy bloodbaths.

Guns are ubiquitous in Canada, but violent crime rates are dramatically lower. The US murder rate is 2.5 times greater than Canada's.*

I'm sure there are several reasons for this. There are two differences between US and Canadian society that I suspect could be important.

First, the wealth divide is much greater in the US than in Canada (or the UK). Social programs look out for the poor and reduce their desperation.

Second, the US almost uniformly rejects drug treatment as an alternative to long incarceration. Sending drug addicts to prison is just going to train them to become proper criminals.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#United_States

Another important fact, which is politically incorrect to mention.

About 66% of the murders in the US are committed by a demographic group that is unique to the US (1). If you exclude that group, our murder rate is cut in half.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_informatio...

(1) I'm know the racial group exists in both Canada and the UK. The demographic group (race+culture) is uncommon in Canada, and virtually nonexistent in the UK. When looking at the statistics, I'm assuming the 28% of murders with unknown perp are distributed the same as those with a known perp.

I read a 365tomorrows story that talked about how burglaries of the future will involve the burglars dumping trash in your residence, instead of stealing something.

Fear not, as one group of criminals falls, another rises. These new ones don't know how to pick a (physical) lock, but they sure as hell are taking in some serious cash via identity theft.

I can think of a lot of other reasons why burglaries have declined, such as improved street policing and the sharp rise in other types of crime linked to drug use, such as identity theft.

Oh, and just one counterexample to the "Everybody has everything now.":

Canon 1Ds Mark III - 21 megapixels, full frame sensor, $8k.

I lust for it, but don't own one.

But how big is the black market for one of those?

Dunno. I think that's why they call it a "black" market. I know that Thomas Hawk had his 5D (only $3k for that) stolen while on vacation.

And how lucky do you have to be to steal one of those? Will you know it when you see it?

how much can you ebay it for?

Yes, but unless the burglar is also some kind of master spy, he will never know which house has a Canon 1Ds Mark III and which hasn't. Usually, I assume a burglar's goal will be much broader -- something like "score some stuff that can be pawned/sold in the black market".

I guess since generic "stuff" (TV, PC, stereo, microwave) is easier to get now, probably there are less buyers in the black market, too. So, less incentive for burglars.

BTW, I think this is great, and I hope this situation spreads to the rest of the world as fast as possible. (You don't want me prattling about growing up poor, trust me.)

I'm pretty sure to most thieves it looks just like a $500 Canon DSLR, of which there are thousands per Mark III.

What about the availability of credit? It's probably easier to buy the big TV on credit now than to steal it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com