Hacker News Reader

Comment by jhbadger | Hacker News Reader

The problem is what time frame we are talking about. Yes, society looks nice now if you compare it to 200 years ago. But that's not relevant. The fact is by a lot of measurements (not limited to crime) the 1990s was the best decade ever (at least in the West). The question is how we can get back to that.

View on HN

No - for violent crime at least, the 1950's was the 'low point' - the 1990's were actually a high point.

Violent crime in 1992 was about 800% higher than in the 1950's at least in America.

It's come down a little, but crime is still about 600% greater than in the 1950's.

By which measurements? And why limit the window to the West?

Well, the US economic boom (the longest recorded expansion in US history), for example. And the drop in violent crime in the second half of the 1990s variously attributed to Bill Clinton's crime bill, the eventual indirect benefits of either legalizing abortion, or banning leaded gas. Limiting the window to the West avoids the whole issue of civil wars in Eastern Europe making anything seem better in comparison.

Don't forget the drop in the number of younger men, the most likely to become criminals, as the Baby Boomers grew older. Not to mention a bunch of the incorrigibles getting locked up for long periods of time.

The number of Millenials is about the same as the number of Boomers.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-...

Note that the article talks about the number of living Boomers and Millenials surpassing them. I'm not making that point. The max number of Boomers was about 79 million. 75 million Millenials is quite comparable to that.

We normally look at crimes by rates, X per 100,000, so the fact that the total population is quite a bit bigger between the two periods is significant.

So is the fact that the item you're comparing today's still living, old Boomers to a by definition much younger Millennial population. There were once quite a few more Boombers, and circling back to my entire point, young Boomers of the criminal producing age.

No, I'm comparing the 75 million living Millenials to the 79 million peak population of the Boomers. But I repeat myself.

I also disagree that a ~5% difference would be likely to drive significant differences in crime rates.

Later: Yes, that Millenials are a smaller percentage of the population would complicate the comparison.

That US economic boom was followed pretty spectacularly by a bust caused mainly by the rampant speculation that fueled the boom being based largely on bullshit.

You're clamoring for a soap bubble that didn't withstand a tiny pinprick.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com