Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by elzbardico | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

elzbardico

Yeah. That something that happened during that period of time was:

- Stable jobs with good salaries

- Home Ownership

- Salaries that increased as much as profits when productivity raised.

It was a good time, they told me.

View on HN

Train robberies were mostly stopped via private security (the Pinkertons, as one notorious example) well before the post-WWII boom that you're referencing. It was violent and bloody, but alas the train robberies did stop.

Many porch pirates have decent jobs and plenty of money. They do it because they're greedy, it's easy and the penalties for getting caught are light. We need to revise our criminal code to apply harsher penalties to this kind of behavior. Porch piracy isn't a crime of 'passion', the people who do it presently think that the rewards are worth the risks and this can be fixed by escalating the risks.

> We need to revise our criminal code to apply harsher penalties to this kind of behavior.

We'd have to be careful about that since research shows that past a certain point harsher penalties do not act as a deterrent. It might be that being a little bit harsher improves the situation, but the tendency is the US is to go way overboard to the point that the US locks up more of its citizens than any other nation on Earth, and even an arrest is enough to cause someone to lose their job while a conviction can cause someone to because virtually unemployable for the rest of their lives.

It might be better to focus on making it more likely that people are caught at all for stealing packages than increasing punishments for the ones that do get caught.

Being caught is the problem. If there's a 100% chance of getting caught, like grabbing the box while the owner is right there talking to a police officer, that deters this kind of crime

I think this is the reason Amazon bought Ring. But the criminal justice system still needs to uphold their end.

Seems like something reasonable like a few months in jail would very quickly solve this. It would not be too harsh punishment to stop this sort of theft.

There are places were people aren't so inclined to steal in the first place. I'd say the difference is a cultural one.

"Societal community spirit" or something like that. Some places in the US have it, some don't.

Wage theft is the largest theft category by value (withheld wages, illegally docked wages, etc.) - and from studies it is carried out pretty universally across the country. Why might that be? Why is it when people think of theft, their first thought it's the business person or manager that come to mind as the people we should be going after for theft?

Quote: Workers in the US have an estimated $50bn-plus stolen from them every year

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/15/wage-theft-u...

Because it's more ambiguous, being based on estimations. The situation in the article sounds like a breach of contract rather than criminal, who should be "going after" them?

Says a lot that we treat theft from a workers wages as 'just contractual' - let's not get the police involved. If that same worker stole from the till?

You don't get the police involved because you can go to the courts..

It was something called the Peacemaker

That's a carrot, works best with a stick. There's no shortage of carrot these days, poverty has been steadily decreasing since then.

For silicon valley tech workers that might be true, but for a lot of people the carrot has become awfully small over the last 16 years.

"Carrot for me, but stick for thee" selects along the socioeconomic boundaries.

Poverty has been steadily decreasing across the board, in both absolute and relative numbers. That's plenty of carrot.

You're looking at the wrong statistic. Inequality is the issue. There are plenty of people living hand to mouth who don't fall in the definition of poverty.

Ah yeah, wealth inequality. E.g. lots of rich bastards own megayachts and I don't, therefore this justifies me stealing packages from other common people who also don't own megayachts.

These people aren't Robin Hood, stop excusing their criminal behavior.

I didn't excuse their behaviour.

If you actually care about reducing crime you look at the evidence. E.g. https://equalitytrust.org.uk/crime

People can reasonably be excused for theft when they are trying to meet their needs. Somebody who steals because they're at the poverty line and are trying to keep a roof over their head and food on their children's plate deserves sympathy.

But when people have their needs met, are above the poverty line with a decent job that pays the bills, and they still steal because "inequality" makes them jealous and greedy, they don't deserve sympathy. Most people in such a condition don't become theives, they either content themselves with what they have or they try to better their condition through some honest means, like seeking better job training or political advocacy for social change. The ones who respond by turning to crime (usually targetting other common people living in similar conditions as themselves) are antisocials who need to have the book thrown at them. The reason they're stealing packages instead of robbing banks or spending their time looking for a better job is because porch theft is easy and low risk. If penalties and enforcement were increased, theft rates would drop.

So, are people like animals that start going feral when they see someone in a way better status than they are? If that's the case, and this article suggests there is psychological evidence to support it, it poses a serious problem for the whole society. Are we really going to assign a maximum value to people's wealth?

Why would inequality be the issue?

If 1% of the population suddenly got personal space-ships (hugely increasing inequality) would that make people steal from trains more?

It's an issue because humans are humans. E.g. "The link between economic inequality and both property crime and violent crime is well established" https://equalitytrust.org.uk/crime

That's a nice theory, except most people don't turn petty thief just because billionaires exist. These thieves aren't class warfare warriors, no matter how much you wish it. They're greedy degenerates who don't care about others. Being an asshole isn't the exclusive domain of the rich.

A link there may be, but that can be A causing B, B causing A or both A and B having a common cause.

"not starving to death"

That's not a carrot that's just less stick

How do you define poverty?

I don't, and who ever does raises the poverty threshold over time. Today's first world borderline poor can enjoy things (hot water, variety of food, healthcare, transportation) that only nobles could afford mere 150 years ago.

ok, so what about "relative to other countries today" rather than "relative to the past"?

Are you suggesting that the crime in question is driven by the fact that some 5000km away there are now fewer poor? Yes, there are countries with less poverty than the US. You might want to check out what else they have less of.

I'm suggesting the standard of poverty even when raised over time should still pay heed to worldwide economic levels. Hence, I ask you how you define (or pedantically, whose definition you take) when you talk about poverty.

US Census Bureau. Worldwide economic levels are such that the entire US population are filthy rich. Basically you're arguing as per above in this thread, that the fact that there are billionaires with private planes is somehow the reason for people to steal more.

> Basically you're arguing as per above in this thread

No I'm not. I asked how you define poverty

this is so wrong. it's fanciful

No shortage of home ownership by people, not corporations and investment vehicles. Easy mistake to make.

That first one seems very unlikely. The early 1950s had much lower salaries than today adjusted for inflation.

I'm also quite confused as to how home ownership could ve causative here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com