A 32-hour, 4-day work week can be more productive than a traditional 40-hour, 5-day schedule, particularly for roles that require cognitive engagement beyond routine production line tasks.
There are studies that prove this. It also reduces sick days. Does anyone care? No, let's ignore science because it feels like it's more productive to force productivity.
People like simple solutions more than listening to science.
Yeah one of the biggest learnings for me over my career is that people are hard-wired for stories. It doesn't matter how good an engineer/scientist you are, how well explained or robust the logic/study is, etc. People only respond to how things make them feel - we are emotional beings with the ability to rationalize, not the other way around.
I was going to mention the same thing. The recent AI craze and productivity studies are another similar thing. Same with return-to-office. Our rulers (the owner class) put power and cruelty over rationality.
Loss is calculated in anyhow. Unless they go out of their way there's no way to know what caused it - shoplifting, breakage, employees making themselves feel slightly better about their abysmal working conditions...
Except for that one overzealous middle-manager who will immediately get irate as if you had insulted them personally, as they demand you go back to the register so an underpiad cashier can embarrassingly ring up every item so they know exactly how much you stole, and finish by entering your face into a 3rd party database that will flag you every time you walk in any other store that also utilizes this database.
They'll just invent new crimes. Like loitering, jaywalking, and using an open-source operating system that doesn't forward your identity and details of your computer usage to governments and private companies.
As a person whose home was recently burgled: I spoke with 4 different police officers/detectives in the investigation. I agree that what we need is a less desperate society, not more policing.
The first two responded to the initial call, the second two were from the forensic ID team, checking for prints and seeing if there was anything likely to give a good DNA signal. I don't know what else I could expect from them. I know they worked with the power company to figure out what time my power was cut, and went to my neighbours to see if they had any video from that time.
Can I ask what they took? It's none of my business, but I guess I'm morbidly curious about what they were desperate to have, and why burglary was a better option than, say, shoplifting or something
Because we live in a universe of finite resources. So maybe be efficient, and do the things that work best first. When we have a budget surplus we can talk about where to spend that.
It's more effective on a finite budget. Just like focusing on a rehabilitation is better than focusing on punishment in prisons. The Norwegian method spends way more per person but the ones that go through the system are much less likely to come back. This means that per person Norway spends way less than a lot of other countries.
Norway spends 3x more per prisoner than the US but spend half as much on prisons.
Explanations aren't excuses. Especially because the things that drive individuals are systems; we can strive to hold individuals accountable for their actions whilst also recognise the systemic oppression that makes it harder to make good choices
Cops are mainly to suppress anybody who doesn't go along with the will of the powerful.
They don't exist to reduce harm to the many, they exist to protect the assets of the Owner class, which is why in Law property "crime" is usually more severely punished than anything but murder and why cops are vastly more speedy at investigating and prosecuting "crimes" committed against the Owner class or their Assets than they are when it's the riff-raff that suffers.
They're minions to a handful of people, not servants of the public.
Homeless people cost tax payers between 30-50 thousand dollars a year. Housing the homeless is likely fiscally conservative.
This means the incentive structure in our society is wrong. People who lack the creativity to solve novel problems resort to psychopathy to to be productive in the economy. Military industrial complex, private prisons, judge judy.
This is psychologically unsatisfying for too many people. At the core of capitalist propaganda is the idea the the rich and the poor both deserve what they have. In the US, we further buttress this ideal with something called "prosperity gospel".
They know. But it's better for them for crime to be up and police to be fat, so they can run on being hard on crime, and police works for the rich instead of the people.
Prison labor is essentially legalized slavery so there is incentive to keep poor people incarcerated. There's a reason why the US is the most incarcerated nation in the world.
i think the situation wouldn't be as bad if there weren't also for-profit prisons that have an additional incentive to exploit people who are incarcerated. all prisons should be nonprofit. (what a weird thing to say out loud)
Ahh but you see, blaming the poor for all the problems is great they can't effectively fight back and if they do, it's super easy to fearmonger about the riots of 'those people'
the people are kept poor so that they can push more people towards the military, it's a known scheme. the fed gov fundamentally doesn't care about people's wellbeing; how would it? it's never held accountable by the people. it's too far away, too abstract, too difficult to walk there with pitchforks and torches ...
Yeah, well, science also says Twitter is an information black hole, and few that need to see this will see it.
I know itās microblog memes, but still. Itās surprising to me how much scientist believers post about the state of the worldā¦ on Twitter. Itād be like going into a Nazi bar in Berlin to warn about the Holocaust, or to criticize Catholicism in the Vatican, and thinking youāre somehow in an open forum.
ā¦At least it isnāt a blue checkmart Tweeter, though.
Pay doesn't have to be monetary. Would you do volunteer work for building a billionaires next house? Volunteer at Amazon to pack boxes? The pay for volunteering is a satisfaction that you are doing the "right thing" and helping people/communities in need.
People have been told all their lives that money can't buy happiness and now science is proving that it very much can so I imagine there is a bit of cognitive dissonance.
There is a difference between āhaving enough money prevents people from turning to crime to survive and meet their basic needsā and āhaving more money allows you to buy more happiness, even if your basic needs have long since been met.ā
but in some cases that's literally banditery, so giving them money is giving in to bullying; even if there exist cases that are not, it is A) foolish to generalise like this and B) very hard to convince people to give their money away like that when they know that this is inclusive of bandits.
The difference between someone choosing to give to beggers and not wanting to give money to muggers.
Post also seems to be suffering under the childish simplifcation that criminals are just disgruntled poor people.
In reality, being poor isn't actually a predisposition to crime.
Two reasons why society chooses "to give police more money rather than poor people" are:
A) we don't, because policee are actually just one manifestation of State monopoly on violence, so nobody is actively "voting" for them to get a pay rise and they will get pay rises regardless if it's necessary to enforce state violence, and
B) it's more important to people to see those who act-out in society to be hidden away or killed rather than to receive news that random strangers they never met are no longer poor and they used their own money to make it happen
I want to agree, and i mean i usually will vote for a party that promises to enact programs like this, but i think the framing of it just being about the money or "getting them back above the poverty line" is deeply misguided and sets us up for disappointment.
::: spoiler There exist some people who are career criminals... they do it because they love it.
[Now, a successful criminal isn't "poor" but they tend to live as if they are, because it allows them to enlist desperate people or sell drugs to desperate people by appearing as one of them.]
:::
Those people aren't going to be like "huh, looks like society loves me! So i should stop being a criminal!" They're going to go "great, more venture capital for my hijacking next thursday!
So why the government, police and voters in general don't advocate for blindly distributing wealth in the hopes it cures crime - they see it as rewarding bad behaviour. They perhaps know that criminals themselves see it as a reward for their bad behaviour (if you listen to organised criminals, this is exactly how they see it)
Tl;dr i think crime is more down to culture and specific contextual problems (like access to guns and increased opportunity from lack of safeguarding) than poverty.
There is some nuance yes. But it's also easy to see that it's cheaper to deal with a problem early than it is to deal with the consequences after the fact, especially if that second step is done poorly.
It's not one or the other, since giving money won't stop all crime or violence. Rather its about finding the right balance between the different places that the money can go. Right now, in many places around the world, we might be putting too much money into policing, and that money could be better spent on other programs.
Yes I agree with what you're saying but the tweet ignores that you're likely already doing both giving money to cops and giving money to poor people so the nuance of effectiveness of where to allocate the extra funds is not as simple as the tweet puts. I can think of a ton of times where increasing welfare does not impact crime statistics and increasing cop spending does and vice versa. I really do wish it was as simple as the tweet makes it out to be because throwing money at a problem is actually pretty easy.
It is, and I have no idea what you're talking about.
When people have food on the table and roof over their beds, they don't need to do crime.
Fund mental health care for all, and viola, we are only left with wage theft and police brutality as the most common crimes, which are done by rich and powerful people.
I can tell you have no idea what im talking about you're literally the person in the tweet who thinks its a simple issue that is easily solved by giving people food and housing. I dont know what planet you live on but people have food and housing and still commit crime. Giving people a good quality of life reduces crime but there are other factors at play.
I expect your mind is made up and that you already realize this, but it's not that this idea would solve all crime, it's that it would help. It's about which policies do the most good.
You dont think I understand that this helps? I know this helps. This tweet is acting like they've found an absolute fact and no one in government is listening but that doesnt track at all with reality and "memes" like this erode public trust in government. The reality is every single leftwing government around the world knows this and even right wing ones at this point. They have all implemented some form of policy based on this understanding but it's not a silver bullet and government is a balancing act and at some point you still need other approaches like police.
You are exactly the suit that is being lamented in the meme. Your narrow minded view of the world was programmed into you and you've not shed it yet.
Crimes of desperation don't happen when people aren't desperate. Most petty thefts are crimes of desperation. Some of jealousy.
You're just unthinking and uncaring as a result of your conditioning. I hope better for you.
You're getting robbed blind by suits while seeing desperate people trying to survive as the problem inside a system designed to crush them under a jackboot.
Why are you saying crimes of desperation when we are talking about general crime. Most of the people committing crime have food and a place to live. It's not all homeless starving people.
Like is someone stealing a ps5 to hawk it for food or pay rent? Sometimes but definitely not always.
It's kind of pathetic how everyone is acting like this is a simple issue that you fix basic social safety nets and there won't be crime. Just as pathetic as right wing takes on immigration or basically everything.
I can think of a ton of times where increasing welfare does not impact crime statistics and increasing cop spending does and vice versa.
The point is not just to increase it, but to make it enough for people to not resort to commit crimes.
But Iām curious about this take. Scientific literature vastly supports the idea of welfare as a societal stabilizer. What it does not support as much is increased enforcement as a way to curb crime in developed and democratic countries. Which concrete examples can you show to support your point?
97 Comments
big_slap@lemmy.world · 117 pts · 121d
its not about the wellbeing of our society, its about being in control. by force
Xerxos@lemmy.ml · 92 pts · 121d
A 32-hour, 4-day work week can be more productive than a traditional 40-hour, 5-day schedule, particularly for roles that require cognitive engagement beyond routine production line tasks.
There are studies that prove this. It also reduces sick days. Does anyone care? No, let's ignore science because it feels like it's more productive to force productivity.
People like simple solutions more than listening to science.
More cops, less crime.
More work, more productivity.
More billionaires, better economy.
Ogy@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 121d
Yeah one of the biggest learnings for me over my career is that people are hard-wired for stories. It doesn't matter how good an engineer/scientist you are, how well explained or robust the logic/study is, etc. People only respond to how things make them feel - we are emotional beings with the ability to rationalize, not the other way around.
sobchak@programming.dev · 7 pts · 120d
I was going to mention the same thing. The recent AI craze and productivity studies are another similar thing. Same with return-to-office. Our rulers (the owner class) put power and cruelty over rationality.
osanna@lemmy.vg · 82 pts · 121d
This just in: people will resort to any means necessary to eat. More at 10.
FinalRemix@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 121d
Remember kids, if you see someone shoplifting at the supermarket, no you didn't.
osanna@lemmy.vg · 16 pts · 121d
one of the biggest grocery chains in australia just made $2B last FY. They'll be fine.
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 14 pts · 121d
Loss is calculated in anyhow. Unless they go out of their way there's no way to know what caused it - shoplifting, breakage, employees making themselves feel slightly better about their abysmal working conditions...
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 121d
Most of the people who work there don't even care if you're shoplifting.
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 120d
Except for that one overzealous middle-manager who will immediately get irate as if you had insulted them personally, as they demand you go back to the register so an underpiad cashier can embarrassingly ring up every item so they know exactly how much you stole, and finish by entering your face into a 3rd party database that will flag you every time you walk in any other store that also utilizes this database.
arin@lemmy.world · 70 pts · 121d
If poors stop doing crime and cops can't arrest the poors then who will give profit prisons free labor??
Alexstarfire@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 121d
Trump and immigrants.
arin@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 121d
At this rate Trump will be senile before going to prison for his crimes.
edible_funk@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 120d
It'll be poc and gsm, we're already building and filling those camps.
olafurp@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 121d
The prisons are not gonna fill themselves
DiarrheaSommelier@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 120d
They'll just invent new crimes. Like loitering, jaywalking, and using an open-source operating system that doesn't forward your identity and details of your computer usage to governments and private companies.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 53 pts · 121d
The purpose of cops is not to reduce crime.
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml · 23 pts · 121d
Well, part of their purpose is to reduce crime, but only crime against very rich people.
masta_chief@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 121d
And their stuff. Can't let anything happen to their stuff
BreadOven@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 121d
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdHXZs0Fo8A
Wataba@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 120d
The brainwash is leaking out your ears.
m0darn@lemmy.ca · 45 pts · 121d
As a person whose home was recently burgled: I spoke with 4 different police officers/detectives in the investigation. I agree that what we need is a less desperate society, not more policing.
Inucune@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 121d
Let me guess... They're investigating but have no interest in doing actual police work once the case is filed.
Bad cop, no doughnut.
m0darn@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 121d
The first two responded to the initial call, the second two were from the forensic ID team, checking for prints and seeing if there was anything likely to give a good DNA signal. I don't know what else I could expect from them. I know they worked with the power company to figure out what time my power was cut, and went to my neighbours to see if they had any video from that time.
percent@infosec.pub · 4 pts · 121d
Can I ask what they took? It's none of my business, but I guess I'm morbidly curious about what they were desperate to have, and why burglary was a better option than, say, shoplifting or something
m0darn@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 121d
Mostly jewellery eg my wife's engagement ring, also weirdly a Lego set
Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 120d
Have you seen the cost of Lego?
AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 120d
I'm sorry that you lost something of such sentimental value
Hacksaw@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 120d
Yeah, I miss that Lego set
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca · -6 pts · 121d
Why not both? Other people's desperation is not an excuse to rob you.
m0darn@lemmy.ca · 14 pts · 121d
Yeah I'm not excusing the burglars. I'm saying the way to reduce the number of burglars isn't more police, it's less desperation.
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 121d
Because we live in a universe of finite resources. So maybe be efficient, and do the things that work best first. When we have a budget surplus we can talk about where to spend that.
bradbot@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 121d
More policing creates more criminals, which increases net desperation since society punishes people with a criminal history.
olafurp@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 121d
It's more effective on a finite budget. Just like focusing on a rehabilitation is better than focusing on punishment in prisons. The Norwegian method spends way more per person but the ones that go through the system are much less likely to come back. This means that per person Norway spends way less than a lot of other countries.
Norway spends 3x more per prisoner than the US but spend half as much on prisons.
AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 120d
Explanations aren't excuses. Especially because the things that drive individuals are systems; we can strive to hold individuals accountable for their actions whilst also recognise the systemic oppression that makes it harder to make good choices
unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth · 40 pts · 121d
Source?
This just confirms my preexisting biases a little too much.
Micromot@piefed.social · 28 pts · 121d
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038012125000229 maybe something like this for the homelessness part
Starstarz@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 121d
Link is down š
Micromot@piefed.social · 2 pts · 121d
Works for me, but it's just what I found from 5 minutes of googling, it's not fully the point but I'm pretty sure there is stuff proving that too.
kambusha@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 121d
Holly
couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 121d
Well she did do the sciency thing
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 35 pts · 121d
Cops are mainly to suppress anybody who doesn't go along with the will of the powerful.
They don't exist to reduce harm to the many, they exist to protect the assets of the Owner class, which is why in Law property "crime" is usually more severely punished than anything but murder and why cops are vastly more speedy at investigating and prosecuting "crimes" committed against the Owner class or their Assets than they are when it's the riff-raff that suffers.
They're minions to a handful of people, not servants of the public.
Erna_muse@lemmy.zip · 30 pts · 121d
Homeless people cost tax payers between 30-50 thousand dollars a year. Housing the homeless is likely fiscally conservative.
This means the incentive structure in our society is wrong. People who lack the creativity to solve novel problems resort to psychopathy to to be productive in the economy. Military industrial complex, private prisons, judge judy.
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 22 pts · 121d
Related: it's been long known that giving unemployed people money is good for the economy.
"I'm a supporting member of society because I work 40h/week, and you aren't" simply isn't true.
I don't have the scientific paper to support this but I've known it since the 1990s.
Economists know it too. It doesn't even have anything to do with "socialism".
Speculater@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 121d
No no no, that's socialism! Which people have learned is bad... Because, empathy is toxic!
electric_nan@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 120d
This is psychologically unsatisfying for too many people. At the core of capitalist propaganda is the idea the the rich and the poor both deserve what they have. In the US, we further buttress this ideal with something called "prosperity gospel".
Agent641@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 120d
Yeah but that doesn't serve the prison industrial slavery complex
yakko@feddit.uk · 12 pts · 121d
System bad
MithranArkanere@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 120d
They know. But it's better for them for crime to be up and police to be fat, so they can run on being hard on crime, and police works for the rich instead of the people.
ponypuncher@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 120d
Prison labor is essentially legalized slavery so there is incentive to keep poor people incarcerated. There's a reason why the US is the most incarcerated nation in the world.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org · 4 pts · 120d
i think the situation wouldn't be as bad if there weren't also for-profit prisons that have an additional incentive to exploit people who are incarcerated. all prisons should be nonprofit. (what a weird thing to say out loud)
Vinylraupe@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 121d
AgE oF sCIence aND prOgREss
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 120d
But does it protect capital?
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 120d
And is it fun?
rumba@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 120d
Ahh but you see, blaming the poor for all the problems is great they can't effectively fight back and if they do, it's super easy to fearmonger about the riots of 'those people'
Gotta keep em separated...
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org · 4 pts · 120d
the people are kept poor so that they can push more people towards the military, it's a known scheme. the fed gov fundamentally doesn't care about people's wellbeing; how would it? it's never held accountable by the people. it's too far away, too abstract, too difficult to walk there with pitchforks and torches ...
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 120d
Yeah, well, science also says Twitter is an information black hole, and few that need to see this will see it.
I know itās microblog memes, but still. Itās surprising to me how much scientist believers post about the state of the worldā¦ on Twitter. Itād be like going into a Nazi bar in Berlin to warn about the Holocaust, or to criticize Catholicism in the Vatican, and thinking youāre somehow in an open forum.
ā¦At least it isnāt a blue checkmart Tweeter, though.
Karmanopoly@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 121d
Show me the science Jerry!
SHOW ME THE SCIENCE!!
HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub · 3 pts · 121d
Sane people do stuff for a reason. Remove the reason, remove the action they would take.
Like for example remove pay and any sane person will stop working.
S0UPernova@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 121d
Basic needs, I.E food, water, shelter, and healthcare should be seen as rights, but past that is wants, and people will work for what they want.
In our current system we provide all of those needs, and fund it with by taxes for the people in prison, but not the innocent and poor.
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 121d
Do you think that anybody who does volunteer work is insane?
Brosplosion@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 121d
Pay doesn't have to be monetary. Would you do volunteer work for building a billionaires next house? Volunteer at Amazon to pack boxes? The pay for volunteering is a satisfaction that you are doing the "right thing" and helping people/communities in need.
HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub · -1 pts · 120d
If it's their work - yes. If someone profits from that - hell yes.
Hobbies don't need to be paid, but work should.
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 120d
The pedophile class wants everything
Vinylraupe@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 121d
Love the vibe in this comment section š¤š»
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 0 pts · 120d
People have been told all their lives that money can't buy happiness and now science is proving that it very much can so I imagine there is a bit of cognitive dissonance.
GardenGeek@europe.pub · 0 pts · 120d
There is a difference between āhaving enough money prevents people from turning to crime to survive and meet their basic needsā and āhaving more money allows you to buy more happiness, even if your basic needs have long since been met.ā
Impractical_Island@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 120d
johnbeening@x69.org · -6 pts · 121d
I am a new user, please welcome me, thank you
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world · -9 pts · 121d
but in some cases that's literally banditery, so giving them money is giving in to bullying; even if there exist cases that are not, it is A) foolish to generalise like this and B) very hard to convince people to give their money away like that when they know that this is inclusive of bandits.
The difference between someone choosing to give to beggers and not wanting to give money to muggers.
Post also seems to be suffering under the childish simplifcation that criminals are just disgruntled poor people. In reality, being poor isn't actually a predisposition to crime.
Two reasons why society chooses "to give police more money rather than poor people" are: A) we don't, because policee are actually just one manifestation of State monopoly on violence, so nobody is actively "voting" for them to get a pay rise and they will get pay rises regardless if it's necessary to enforce state violence, and B) it's more important to people to see those who act-out in society to be hidden away or killed rather than to receive news that random strangers they never met are no longer poor and they used their own money to make it happen
smrtprts@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 121d
Wrong.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 121d
Then go out and give your money to people poorer than yourself
wavebeam@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 120d
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 120d
I want to agree, and i mean i usually will vote for a party that promises to enact programs like this, but i think the framing of it just being about the money or "getting them back above the poverty line" is deeply misguided and sets us up for disappointment.
::: spoiler There exist some people who are career criminals... they do it because they love it. [Now, a successful criminal isn't "poor" but they tend to live as if they are, because it allows them to enlist desperate people or sell drugs to desperate people by appearing as one of them.] :::
Those people aren't going to be like "huh, looks like society loves me! So i should stop being a criminal!" They're going to go "great, more venture capital for my hijacking next thursday!
So why the government, police and voters in general don't advocate for blindly distributing wealth in the hopes it cures crime - they see it as rewarding bad behaviour. They perhaps know that criminals themselves see it as a reward for their bad behaviour (if you listen to organised criminals, this is exactly how they see it)
Tl;dr i think crime is more down to culture and specific contextual problems (like access to guns and increased opportunity from lack of safeguarding) than poverty.
wavebeam@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 120d
Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 120d
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 120d
How do you think this works? "Hello, Mr. Criminal, I'm Government Man, here from the government! Please take this check and don't do any more crimes."
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 120d
Yep that's how it works.
Fizz@lemmy.nz · -39 pts · 121d
If only it were that simple.
otter@lemmy.ca · 41 pts · 121d
There is some nuance yes. But it's also easy to see that it's cheaper to deal with a problem early than it is to deal with the consequences after the fact, especially if that second step is done poorly.
It's not one or the other, since giving money won't stop all crime or violence. Rather its about finding the right balance between the different places that the money can go. Right now, in many places around the world, we might be putting too much money into policing, and that money could be better spent on other programs.
Alexstarfire@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 121d
We love trying to fix the symptoms rather than the cause.
Fizz@lemmy.nz · -17 pts · 121d
Yes I agree with what you're saying but the tweet ignores that you're likely already doing both giving money to cops and giving money to poor people so the nuance of effectiveness of where to allocate the extra funds is not as simple as the tweet puts. I can think of a ton of times where increasing welfare does not impact crime statistics and increasing cop spending does and vice versa. I really do wish it was as simple as the tweet makes it out to be because throwing money at a problem is actually pretty easy.
msage@programming.dev · 23 pts · 121d
It is, and I have no idea what you're talking about.
When people have food on the table and roof over their beds, they don't need to do crime.
Fund mental health care for all, and viola, we are only left with wage theft and police brutality as the most common crimes, which are done by rich and powerful people.
Fizz@lemmy.nz · -10 pts · 121d
I can tell you have no idea what im talking about you're literally the person in the tweet who thinks its a simple issue that is easily solved by giving people food and housing. I dont know what planet you live on but people have food and housing and still commit crime. Giving people a good quality of life reduces crime but there are other factors at play.
stretch2m@infosec.pub · 16 pts · 121d
I expect your mind is made up and that you already realize this, but it's not that this idea would solve all crime, it's that it would help. It's about which policies do the most good.
Fizz@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 120d
You dont think I understand that this helps? I know this helps. This tweet is acting like they've found an absolute fact and no one in government is listening but that doesnt track at all with reality and "memes" like this erode public trust in government. The reality is every single leftwing government around the world knows this and even right wing ones at this point. They have all implemented some form of policy based on this understanding but it's not a silver bullet and government is a balancing act and at some point you still need other approaches like police.
greyscale@lemmy.grey.ooo · 16 pts · 121d
You are exactly the suit that is being lamented in the meme. Your narrow minded view of the world was programmed into you and you've not shed it yet.
Crimes of desperation don't happen when people aren't desperate. Most petty thefts are crimes of desperation. Some of jealousy.
You're just unthinking and uncaring as a result of your conditioning. I hope better for you.
You're getting robbed blind by suits while seeing desperate people trying to survive as the problem inside a system designed to crush them under a jackboot.
It doesn't have to be this way.
Fizz@lemmy.nz · -3 pts · 121d
Why are you saying crimes of desperation when we are talking about general crime. Most of the people committing crime have food and a place to live. It's not all homeless starving people.
greyscale@lemmy.grey.ooo · 2 pts · 121d
timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 121d
I'll agree with you.
Like is someone stealing a ps5 to hawk it for food or pay rent? Sometimes but definitely not always.
It's kind of pathetic how everyone is acting like this is a simple issue that you fix basic social safety nets and there won't be crime. Just as pathetic as right wing takes on immigration or basically everything.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 121d
Gaslighting is abuse. It's why centrists do it all the fucking time.
Fizz@lemmy.nz · -7 pts · 121d
You dont even vote so spare me the political bait.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 121d
Libel. I vote every chance I get.
mabeledo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 120d
The point is not just to increase it, but to make it enough for people to not resort to commit crimes.
But Iām curious about this take. Scientific literature vastly supports the idea of welfare as a societal stabilizer. What it does not support as much is increased enforcement as a way to curb crime in developed and democratic countries. Which concrete examples can you show to support your point?
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 121d
Compare the poor parts in the USA with poor parts in Europe. Huge difference.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 121d
It is though.
Fizz@lemmy.nz · -1 pts · 120d
Oh then i guess we've solved crime. People where I live have all of the above so crime should drop to 0 anytime now.
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 120d
You're right, they also need to clean up the lead.