Cato caught lying again

[Harshaw]

The study and the methods were called out to be false.

Well, no; a left-wing think tank tried to make a case that they were. The question is hardly conclusive.

The topic title is used to draw interest.

By attacking the source.

 

[justabubba]

"In the late 1970s and early 1980s, several important reviews of the literature failed to establish a clear consensus on the relationship between economic conditions and violent crime. The research presented here applies the procedures of meta-analysis to 34 aggregate data studies reporting on violent crime, poverty, and income inequality. These studies reported a total of 76 zero-order correlation coefficients for all measures of violent crime with either poverty or income inequality. Of the 76 coefficients, all but 2, or 97 percent, were positive. Of the positive coefficients, nearly 80 percent were of at least moderate strength (>.25). It is concluded that poverty and income inequality are each associated with violent crime. The analysis, however, shows considerable variation in the estimated size of the relationships and suggests that homicide and assault may be more closely associated with poverty or income inequality than are rape and robbery.

Poverty, Income Inequality, and Violent Crime: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Aggregate Data Studies

"Starting from the 1970s, studies in the US pointed more and more at the link between unemployment, poverty and crime. After that other connections with income level, time spent at school, quality of neighborhood and education were revealed as well. Fresh research from the UK even indicates that economic cycles may affect variations in property and violent crimes.

But most importantly, what reveals the unmistakable connection between poverty and crime is that they’re both geographically concentrated - in a strikingly consistent way. In other words, where you find poverty is also where you find crime. Of course this doesn't include "softer" crimes such as corruption which causes massive damage to people's lives but in a more indirect type of violence."

Poverty and Crime: Breaking a Vicious Cycle of Discrimination

"Studies have shown that poverty and income are powerful predictors of homicide and violent crime. We hypothesized that the effect of the growing gap between the rich and poor is mediated through an undermining of social cohesion, or social capital, and that decreased social capital is in turn associated with increased firearm homicide and violent crime. Social capital was measured by the weighted responses to two items from the U.S. General Social Survey: the per capita density of membership in voluntary groups in each state; and the level of social trust, as gauged by the proportion of residents in each state who believed that “most people would take advantage of you if they got the chance”. Age-standardized firearm homicide rates for the years 1987–1991 and firearm robbery and assault incidence rates for years 1991–1994 were obtained for each of the 50 U.S. states. Income inequality was strongly correlated with firearm violent crime (firearm homicide, r=0.76) as well as the measures of social capital: per capita group membership (r=−0.40) and lack of social trust (r=0.73). In turn, both social trust (firearm homicide, r=0.83) and group membership (firearm homicide, r=−0.49) were associated with firearm violent crime. These relationships held when controlling for poverty and a proxy variable for access to firearms. The profound effects of income inequality and social capital, when controlling for other factors such as poverty and firearm availability, on firearm violent crime indicate that policies that address these broader, macro-social forces warrant serious consideration."

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277953698000975?via=sd&cc=y

you attempt to explain the correlation between poverty and crime
here is a correlation - for the same period - between the presence of lead and crime
America's Real Criminal Element: Lead | Mother Jones

... Crime rates rose dramatically in the '60s through the '80s, and then began dropping steadily starting in the early '90s. ...
lead emissions from automobiles explain 90 percent of the variation in violent crime in America. Toddlers who ingested high levels of lead in the '40s and '50s really were more likely to become violent criminals in the '60s, '70s, and '80s. ...

 

[JP Hochbaum]

you attempt to explain the correlation between poverty and crime
here is a correlation - for the same period - between the presence of lead and crime
America's Real Criminal Element: Lead | Mother Jones

There are many correlating factors that lead to violent crime poverty is one, education level is one, and quite possibly lead content is one. Just because there is more than one correlating factor doesn't negate all other correlating factors.

There is nothing to suggest that only one factor is allowed to contribute to something. Many things can lead to obesity, but it doesn't mean that we should conclude that the lack of exercise is no longer a factor just because there are more than one factors that contribute to obesity.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Well, no; a left-wing think tank tried to make a case that they were. The question is hardly conclusive.

The source doesn't matter if the methods are correct. I have yet to see anyone attack the source actually contend, with proof, that the methods or results are wrong.

 

[Harshaw]

The source doesn't matter if the methods are correct. I have yet to see anyone attack the source actually contend, with proof, that the methods or results are wrong.

Post #6 gave reasons why the blog post you linked to as proof that Cato "lied" is to be met with skepticism.

 

[justabubba]

There are many correlating factors that lead to violent crime poverty is one, education level is one, and quite possibly lead content is one. Just because there is more than one correlating factor doesn't negate all other correlating factors.

There is nothing to suggest that only one factor is allowed to contribute to something. Many things can lead to obesity, but it doesn't mean that we should conclude that the lack of exercise is no longer a factor just because there are more than one factors that contribute to obesity.

good to see you recognize that there may be factors other than poverty as major contributors to incidences of crimes; such openness to other factors was not evident within your original post

 

[ecofarm]

The source doesn't matter if the methods are correct. I have yet to see anyone attack the source actually contend, with proof, that the methods or results are wrong.

You don't read your own threads or are you this capable of ignoring evidence regarding the stupidity of the OP?

 

[Andalublue]

A leftist think tank writing about a conservative think tank. Well, there's news you can use.

Well, there's an ad hominem fallacy you can use too. Ignore the argument, attack the messenger. Nice.

 

[ecofarm]

Well, there's an ad hominem fallacy you can use too. Ignore the argument, attack the messenger. Nice.

Isn't it horrible for anyone to be selective regarding their information sources or to consider a source's bias regarding another group or issue? What kind of a dumbass does that? It's not like this is a debate website and sources are fair game.

And, in case you didn't notice, the methods and results were shown to be idiotic.

 

[sawdust]

Well, there's an ad hominem fallacy you can use too. Ignore the argument, attack the messenger. Nice.

Considering the source is not necessarily ad hominem. You'll note that I didn't attempt to impeach the source, I mearly pointed out that the source had an agenda that would be useful while reading the analysis. Had I said that a lying sack of **** is studying the Cato Institute, that would have been an ad hominem fallacy. See the difference?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Isn't it horrible for anyone to be selective regarding their information sources or to consider a source's bias regarding another group or issue? What kind of a dumbass does that? It's not like this is a debate website and sources are fair game.

And, in case you didn't notice, the methods and results were shown to be idiotic.

Can you repost what you are referring to? that way we are on the same pager here?

 

[ecofarm]

Can you repost what you are referring to? that way we are on the same pager here?

Read your thread, post #6. Address it if you can.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Have a hard time with the premise of the Ebook in the (see here) of the article. For instance it states that as income inequality increases poverty becomes less responsive [whatever that really means] to overall growth. Then it goes on to indicate, in a comparison to our international peers, we are "woefully inadequate"...going on to list factors that play a role in our higher poverty rate compared to other countries.

YEs as inequality increases, the growth in an economy goes to the top, and not to the bottom, which is exactly what we have seen today, and its still occurring!

Then they slip in that it is the highest "relative poverty rate"... so because we in this country have a much higher high end, those at the bottom look comparatively, or "relatively", lower in comparison to our peers. That is just manipulation of data on its very own.

You will have to explain how it is manipulative.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

The author states that the Cato report was "wildly misleading" and is so because "For one, Tanner and Hughes make the assumption that these families receive simultaneous assistance from all..." the programs and goes on to list them. If you look in the Cato report's methodology, they clearly state:

"Clearly no one receives benefits from all of these programs. Indeed, many federal welfare programs are so small or so narrowly targeted that few receive benefits. Yet many recipients do receive benefits from multiple programs. For purposes of this study, we assumed that our profile family receives the following benefits:"
and then they list the three following: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid.

Except this isn't true. It usees all those programs multiple times in the CATO study. SO you took their word for it but apparently stopped there? Page 36, they used everything that the OP stated they used.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

YEs as inequality increases, the growth in an economy goes to the top, and not to the bottom, which is exactly what we have seen today, and its still occurring!

You will have to explain how it is manipulative.

Certainly you understand what relative poverty is as opposed to absolute poverty, correct?

 

[phattonez]

"In the late 1970s and early 1980s, several important reviews of the literature failed to establish a clear consensus on the relationship between economic conditions and violent crime. The research presented here applies the procedures of meta-analysis to 34 aggregate data studies reporting on violent crime, poverty, and income inequality. These studies reported a total of 76 zero-order correlation coefficients for all measures of violent crime with either poverty or income inequality. Of the 76 coefficients, all but 2, or 97 percent, were positive. Of the positive coefficients, nearly 80 percent were of at least moderate strength (>.25). It is concluded that poverty and income inequality are each associated with violent crime. The analysis, however, shows considerable variation in the estimated size of the relationships and suggests that homicide and assault may be more closely associated with poverty or income inequality than are rape and robbery.

Poverty, Income Inequality, and Violent Crime: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Aggregate Data Studies

"Starting from the 1970s, studies in the US pointed more and more at the link between unemployment, poverty and crime. After that other connections with income level, time spent at school, quality of neighborhood and education were revealed as well. Fresh research from the UK even indicates that economic cycles may affect variations in property and violent crimes.

But most importantly, what reveals the unmistakable connection between poverty and crime is that they’re both geographically concentrated - in a strikingly consistent way. In other words, where you find poverty is also where you find crime. Of course this doesn't include "softer" crimes such as corruption which causes massive damage to people's lives but in a more indirect type of violence."

Poverty and Crime: Breaking a Vicious Cycle of Discrimination

"Studies have shown that poverty and income are powerful predictors of homicide and violent crime. We hypothesized that the effect of the growing gap between the rich and poor is mediated through an undermining of social cohesion, or social capital, and that decreased social capital is in turn associated with increased firearm homicide and violent crime. Social capital was measured by the weighted responses to two items from the U.S. General Social Survey: the per capita density of membership in voluntary groups in each state; and the level of social trust, as gauged by the proportion of residents in each state who believed that “most people would take advantage of you if they got the chance”. Age-standardized firearm homicide rates for the years 1987–1991 and firearm robbery and assault incidence rates for years 1991–1994 were obtained for each of the 50 U.S. states. Income inequality was strongly correlated with firearm violent crime (firearm homicide, r=0.76) as well as the measures of social capital: per capita group membership (r=−0.40) and lack of social trust (r=0.73). In turn, both social trust (firearm homicide, r=0.83) and group membership (firearm homicide, r=−0.49) were associated with firearm violent crime. These relationships held when controlling for poverty and a proxy variable for access to firearms. The profound effects of income inequality and social capital, when controlling for other factors such as poverty and firearm availability, on firearm violent crime indicate that policies that address these broader, macro-social forces warrant serious consideration."

Elsevier: Article Locator

This doesn't answer my question. Obviously low income is associated with crime. You made the claim that social spending decreases crime. That's what I want proof of.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

This doesn't answer my question. Obviously low income is associated with crime. You made the claim that social spending decreases crime. That's what I want proof of.

I can't prove a claim I never made.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Certainly you understand what relative poverty is as opposed to absolute poverty, correct?

Yes, it has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Yes, it has nothing to do with this thread.

Ummm....you brought up the sources in this thread, I read the sources in reply to the Cato report, the source makes a big deal of just this, relative poverty, and one might say even that it hinges on relative poverty [ which is not real poverty, real poverty is absolute poverty ]... have you not yourself read the Ebook chapter on Poverty?

Hard to take you, your OP, your sources and your posts credibly if you have little knowledge of what is contained within the content of the sources you quote.

In fact in your original post you refer exactly to this source yourself:

"The Congressional Budget Office provides comprehensive data on sources of income for households by income fifths. We looked at this in some detail in the poverty chapter of State of Working America (see here). These reputable data tell a very different story about how low-wage workers live their lives. They are getting far less from government assistance than the Cato report implies and are relying much more on income gained from working."

You should click that (see here) in the original article, read the EBook chapter on Poverty and maybe, just maybe, you will notice that relative poverty does, per your original post on the subject quoting explicitly that, indeed have something to do with this thread.

Incredible...yet hardly credible... sheeeeesh.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

YEs as inequality increases, the growth in an economy goes to the top, and not to the bottom, which is exactly what we have seen today, and its still occurring!

You will have to explain how it is manipulative.

Inequality, if relative, is certainly of no concern of mine unless there are barriers, there is no opportunity by those on the bottom tier, through dint of hard work, intelligence or luck, to reach the middle or top tier... and we know of many, perhaps the majority, cases where this has happened...

Happened to me.

Upon becoming an adult, I was poor, worked for minimum wage, put myself, with one small loan and no parental assistance, mostly just my savings gained working during my high school years and then continuing, working myself in jobs, through college with two degrees and the equivalent of a minor...

Now, I am not rich, not complaining of what I don't have as my needs are more than met in the system we have. You see, once needs are met, the rest is up to you. Could I be richer? Sure, I also could have devoted a lot more time and effort at it, too. But I didn't... I was satisfied not to be on that top tier and to be where I was, with needs met and more and more of my wants fulfilled... and if I ever want more, I find a way to achieve them...

So what is the problem... and why do we need to be supporting folks beyond the minimum?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Ummm....you brought up the sources in this thread, I read the sources in reply to the Cato report, the source makes a big deal of just this, relative poverty, and one might say even that it hinges on relative poverty [ which is not real poverty, real poverty is absolute poverty ]... have you not yourself read the Ebook chapter on Poverty?

Where are you getting this idea that the source I posted made a big deal about relative poverty?

The source made a big deal about Cato creating a misleading study. I just read it twice more to make sure I didn't miss it so please post where you see them mention anything about "relative poverty". Or explain to me how a thread and OP on Cato is now being transformed into a debate on a topic you want to focus on?

Seems to me if you want to debate the difference between relative and absolute you should do a thread on it.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Inequality, if relative, is certainly of no concern of mine unless there are barriers, there is no opportunity by those on the bottom tier, through dint of hard work, intelligence or luck, to reach the middle or top tier... and we know of many, perhaps the majority, cases where this has happened...

Oh there are plenty of barriers. Just because you are unaware of these barriers doesn't mean they don't actually exist.

For example, a tremendous barrier for the poor is access to nutrition and education, probably the two most important things needed to become a healthy hard working adult. I am actually working on a paper about this, should be done with it by next week.

 

[phattonez]

I can't prove a claim I never made.

Oh you made the claim:

This underclass of humans were more prevalent to violence and crime long before hand outs existed.

MORE prevalent BEFORE hand outs existed. You made the claim, now prove it.

 

[phattonez]

For example, a tremendous barrier for the poor is access to nutrition and education, probably the two most important things needed to become a healthy hard working adult. I am actually working on a paper about this, should be done with it by next week.

The poor can't buy produce or go to the library? Fascinating. Your paper should be a smash.

 

[head of joaquin]

The poor can't buy produce or go to the library? Fascinating. Your paper should be a smash.

You mean nutritious food costs the same as junk food! You've made an amazing discovery -- steak costs the same as Spam!

Write a paper on it.