Snorri1234 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:LESS PEOPLE DOES NOT MEAN A LOWER CRIME RATE!!!
I will retract the above, if you, Snorri, can prove to me, mathematically, and all other things being equal, how less people = a lower crime rate.
All else being equal? That's exactly my point, the amount of people influences how a city behaves. It won't be equal. The more people you get the more likely you get ghettos, poor education and a higher pay-off for crime. Cities have higher crime-rates because they are cities.
Let's say there is a finite amount of the resource "education". First that is spread over 100 kids, but a few years later that same amount is spread over 50 kids. That means those 50 kids all get a better education, and are therefore less likely to resort to criminal activities. Same with lots of other things like housing, clothing and food down to the amount of love and support you receive from your parents.
This is the real world, not some mathproblem with everyone being equal.
This analogy doesn't work, because the resource "education" isn't finite. It is variable, based on the amount of money the taxpayers pay in to the system.
The reason cities fail in these areas compared to small towns is complex. Here's my ultra-simple, completely non-PC take on it.
Stupid people don't get good jobs. They could get crappy jobs, but that would only put them slightly above the standard of living if they live off the state. So they do what I would do. Live off the state. They don't have to work at all. This gives them more time to f*ck. Fucking is actually productive, because it produces more stupid children. The more stupid people you are responsible for, the more the state gives you.
Eventually those stupid people you were responsible for will begin fucking and having their own stupid children. And around and around it goes.
Now, cities see more of this than normal, because by the nature of being a city, space is in higher demand, and thus more valuable. This drives up the cost of everything. Because the standard of living is higher, the gap between working and living off the state widens. So those who do work must make even more to make it worthwhile when compared to not working and living off the state.
This will result in higher crime rates, as the state entitlements don't result in a standard of living that is as comfortable as the successful people. This disparity becomes apparent in all aspects of life. Housing, cars, clothes, etc. Stupid people will attempt to correct this "inequality", not by working, but through crime. In addition to this, stupid people will all eventually live in certain areas and run in certain circles, again due to their economic decision-making. More stupid people living in the same areas, seeing the same stupid people doing the same stupid things, makes them think it is normal and accepted. Thus they are more likely to repeat the same situation generation after generation.
So we have successful working people with good salaries, and we have stupid people. The taxes are designed to draw enough out of this pool to pay for the variable resource "education". We've already established the stupid people don't work. So they won't pay any taxes. That would be like writing yourself a check and depositing it into the account it's drawn on. So the successful working people pay taxes, which constitutes the entire pool for "education".
Now, "education" is a resource that is not rationed by how much you've contributed, but by how many children you have. The more children you have, the more "education" resource your family gets compared to the average family.
Successful people typically have fewer children, for several reasons. First, children don't represent a pay increase for them. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Second, they're busy working, so they don't f*ck as much. Third, they typically have a higher level of morality when it comes to marriage, monogamy, etc., so they can't procreate with multiple "baby mommas". Fourth, they understand that raising a child is a big responsibility and requires a lot of expense and effort to do it right, and would rather not do it than do it poorly. Stupid people don't share this view, primarily because the potential for monetary reward outweighs the moral concerns.
So, you've got this "education" resource that is being spread among a large number of stupid people's children, and a small number of successful people's children. Since the stupid people are given incentive to be stupid and produce more stupid people as fast as possible, this "education" is wasted on them, but since our society thinks it's important they are required to receive the resource anyway. So the successful people's children receive less "education" than they normally would. This will drive most of the successful people out of the area to the suburbs, where their "education" resource is more fairly distributed among the contributors. Which will in turn leave the city to only generate "education" revenue from taxing the successful people while they work in the city, which will result in less "education" per stupid person.
