yeah, jail is such a huge deterrent we have 20% of the world's prisoners but only ~4.5% of its population. seems to be working reeeeeal well here.
yeah, jail is such a huge deterrent we have 20% of the world's prisoners but only ~4.5% of its population. seems to be working reeeeeal well here.You need more aggressive policing, in order to catch the people doing this, and then you need to put these people in jail. Jail is a huge deterrent. There's an enormous difference between going to jail and getting an appearance ticket for a court date at some future point. The pendulum has swung away from policing and towards mayhem over the past year or so. Once random acts of violence and crime start happening in the burbs, the pendulum will start to swing back.
And to say that the only way to fix these crime sprees is to fix the ills of society is an exercise in futility. It's not wrong, necessarily, it's just impossible. It's like me solving the problem of too many gnats flying around my head in the summertime by solving climate change. There may well be a relationship there but you're turning a solvable problem into an impossible problem. Just get a can of Off and be done with it, while simultaneously having a long term understanding as to the effects of climate change.
In this case, the cops/jail are the Off.
Use the Off.
^ This is that unfounded fear leading to bad policy thing I mentioned earlier.You need more aggressive policing, in order to catch the people doing this, and then you need to put these people in jail. Jail is a huge deterrent. There's an enormous difference between going to jail and getting an appearance ticket for a court date at some future point. The pendulum has swung away from policing and towards mayhem over the past year or so. Once random acts of violence and crime start happening in the burbs, the pendulum will start to swing back.
And to say that the only way to fix these crime sprees is to fix the ills of society is an exercise in futility. It's not wrong, necessarily, it's just impossible. It's like me solving the problem of too many gnats flying around my head in the summertime by solving climate change. There may well be a relationship there but you're turning a solvable problem into an impossible problem. Just get a can of Off and be done with it, while simultaneously having a long term understanding as to the effects of climate change.
In this case, the cops/jail are the Off.
Use the Off.
i would agree with you except they keep big screen tv's and boxes with tv's right next to the front door (also the jewelry case is not to far from the front door)It's not the Fox painted world out there. Especially, at your local Costco. Also, Costco usually has about 2 cases of expensive merchandise, usually about 50ft. deep into the store. Costco, also has physically channeled ins and outs. Not a smart place to try and steal. That's one of the ways Costco saves money, by really controlling store theft.
you know how crazy 80 kids are going to be when you lock them inside? prob will turn into murder mayhem.Install remote locks on the doors, call staff inside then do this, "now yous can't leave"
jail is to fun for them, all their friends are there, loads of freedoms you can do drugs work out almost anything the same as the street even sex if you are lucky enough or good enough at sweet talking, same with rapists and molesters they only get a few years in prison so they are like "wow i can see my uncle when im locked up" some people cant handle the norm of work everyday and actually enjoy their prison life. ((spoiler i have worked in a prison and have heard and seen alot))yeah, jail is such a huge deterrent we have 20% of the world's prisoners but only ~4.5% of its population. seems to be working reeeeeal well here.
It's not that he doesn't really believe it, it's that like most conservatives, he is unable to put himself in someone else's shoes. HE wouldn't want to live in high density housing, so naturally in his world no one else would want to live in high density housing.
yeah, jail is such a huge deterrent we have 20% of the world's prisoners but only ~4.5% of its population. seems to be working reeeeeal well here.
what kinda person would want to live in high density housing? the kind of person that HAS TO! You can choose a house or a apartment with 10000 neighbors you pass by as you enter your house why would you choose the gauntlet?
what kinda person would want to live in high density housing? the kind of person that HAS TO! You can choose a house or a apartment with 10000 neighbors you pass by as you enter your house why would you choose the gauntlet?
jail is to fun for them, all their friends are there, loads of freedoms you can do drugs work out almost anything the same as the street even sex if you are lucky enough or good enough at sweet talking, same with rapists and molesters they only get a few years in prison so they are like "wow i can see my uncle when im locked up" some people cant handle the norm of work everyday and actually enjoy their prison life. ((spoiler i have worked in a prison and have heard and seen alot))
There’s a lot of wage theft that isn’t low wages.I'm going to assume that the folks that work in those stores are paid whatever amount they agreed to. I'll further assume that they can leave without fear of retribution. Since both parities have the right of refusal, there is no theft.
I agree with a mandated minimum wage, with mandated overtime, and with other legal protections for employees. But calling low pay wage theft is an outright lie.
Right now we're seeing an adjustment in the market. In my industry labor is in very short supply because a lot of people refuse to carry heavy things. Some are asking for pay rates that are unsustainable. It will level out over the next couple of years with greatly increased housing prices and reduced production on the remodeling side. That will lead to demands for more "affordable" housing. In this case, affordable means someone else pays for it. The land and home will still be absurdly expensive.
There’s a lot of wage theft that isn’t low wages.
Let’s just look at a simple example. Take failure to pay for time spent donning and doffing equipment and uncompensated meal breaks.
- Minimum wage violations
- Overtime pay violations
- Misclassification of workers
- Unpaid “Off the clock” work
- Employee payroll debit card fees
- Improper recordkeeping
- Tip-sharing and tip-pooling violations
- Uncompensated meal breaks
- Unreimbursed mileage and expenses
- Failure to pay for time spent donning and doffing gear and equipment
Boss has a remediation job going on. 4 man crew paid $15/hr. Job is two weeks working 8-5. It takes them 15 minutes to don the gear, 15 minutes to doff with a 30 minute lunch break
Boss tells the crew they can’t clock in until they are in their tyvek and respirators and they need to clock out before lunch and before doffing the equipment since he feels they’ve been taking too long to get ready.
If they don’t like it they can get another job.
So for that 2 week job:
4 men x (15min don + 15min doff + 30 minute lunch)/day x 10 days = 40 man hours of labor stolen.
At $15/ hours that’s $600 of labor. But wait there’s more. 8-5 is 9 hour work day. By failing to record the time correctly they only make 8hrs/day. The extra hour should be overtime at say time and half? I guess we can add improper timekeepinovertime violations.
So it’s really $900 of labor stolen.
If the boss has 3 crews and does maybe 10 jobs/crew per year that’s a cool $27,000 in “free” labor he gets.
Will anyone punish him for that? Probably not. If people stole $27,000 from a store in some “smash and grab” would the police do something about it?
Now I’m not saying this to defend people who steal. Any individual who shoplifts, breaks into cars, etc should be caught and prosecuted. I’m sorry the guys who stole your tools weren’t caught.
However, I’ll point out low wages + wage left creates an environment that will lead to more theft.
And transporters. Once contained, Miles can energize and send them to jail, straight to jail without passing Go.Install remote locks on the doors, call staff inside then do this, "now yous can't leave"
That's a lot of words that don't have anything to do with the thread topic.Loads of gobbledygook.
Can you show me which post(s) express sympathy for criminals and criminal activity? That way I can see how liberals are in love with crime, thanks.OP, I had a thread on this very issue and as you can see by the posts expressing sympathy for criminals and their criminal activity, liberals are in love with crime - which of course they deny.
They have bought the old street line, "Dont hate they player, hate the game" to sooth their collective conscious.
The sad thing is that criminals will keep on thieving without remorse until they are finally booked and kept in jail for years to pay their debt to society.
It's not banned. There is an area not 5 miles from where I sit that's high density.Right, and this is dumb. Just make them all market rate.
No, what you mean is what some people want is to use the government to ban high density housing. After all you’re welcome to build a single family home in the middle of the city if you want to. So it’s only the low density people who get what they want because they can build their preferred house anywhere but ban others from building their preferred housing.
As I mentioned this is just like the affordable housing thing. You want the government to forcibly restrict supply so your property values go up.
If nobody is interested in high density housing around you then there’s no reason to ban it, right?
Can they legally build high density housing next door to you? If not, that's a ban, brotha.It's not banned. There is an area not 5 miles from where I sit that's high density.
Yet the end result is only managing things where YOU are, with you ending up as the large financial recipient of this ban.I don't want local government to force my property value up, I want it manage what goes where. I don't want the home next to me turned into a business.
I would also prefer it not be a crack house or brothel.
Essentially every city and suburb everywhere takes it far beyond reason because the incumbent landowners have a large personal financial incentive to keep housing scarce. The solution is simple, preempt all local residential zoning restrictions, eliminate all parking minimums and cap minimum square footage requirements at something low like ~1,000 sqft.Of course many city planning departments take this far beyond reason, and some turn it into a profit center. But that's a different problem with a different solution.
You really are this obtuse. That's a 5 mile ban . Holy moly.It's not banned. There is an area not 5 miles from where I sit that's high density.
I don't want local government to force my property value up, I want it manage what goes where. I don't want the home next to me turned into a business. I would also prefer it not be a crack house or brothel. Of course many city planning departments take this far beyond reason, and some turn it into a profit center. But that's a different problem with a different solution.
Tesla coils at the exits triggered by unscanned tags, should be a lot more entertaining than just being shotI vote for machine gun nests at the exit doors.
That's how you build slums. Go look around the third world and you'll see how well the free for all approach works. I don't want a slaughter house at the end of my street, I don't want a garbage dump next door, I don't want my thirty mile commute to work to take three hours. Planning is absolutely critical to a properly functioning city. Infrastructure has to be in place to support every single person in that city. The best places are always going to have a housing shortage because everyone wants to live there.Can they legally build high density housing next door to you? If not, that's a ban, brotha.
Yet the end result is only managing things where YOU are, with you ending up as the large financial recipient of this ban.
Why are you equating apartment complexes with criminal enterprises?
Essentially every city and suburb everywhere takes it far beyond reason because the incumbent landowners have a large personal financial incentive to keep housing scarce. The solution is simple, preempt all local residential zoning restrictions, eliminate all parking minimums and cap minimum square footage requirements at something low like ~1,000 sqft.
We tried it your way for a half century and it's led to a humanitarian crisis, mass homelessness, and ruinously expensive housing for regular people. Local governments have proven time and again they cannot be trusted with this responsibility so it's time to take it away.
EDIT: I think people who support mutifamily housing bans think all that's needed is a few tweaks around the edges and things will be okay because they vastly, vastly underestimate the scale of the crisis their policies have caused. We went 5 million houses in the hole just in the last 10 years - if you count the last 50 it's even worse than that. We have a huge hole to dig out of.
That's how you build slums. Go look around the third world and you'll see how well the free for all approach works. I don't want a slaughter house at the end of my street, I don't want a garbage dump next door, I don't want my thirty mile commute to work to take three hours. Planning is absolutely critical to a properly functioning city. Infrastructure has to be in place to support every single person in that city. The best places are always going to have a housing shortage because everyone wants to live there.
If you go to a very popular area and build high density housing it won't be affordable, it will be market rate, and all of the poor people won't be able to afford it. Location is far more important than density. There are several places across the country where homes don't sell at any price, the market is absolutely bottomed out. I could go there right now and put twenty of them on my visa card, and I have the skills and assets to make them into nice homes, want to take a guess as to why I don't do that?
That's how you build slums. Go look around the third world and you'll see how well the free for all approach works. I don't want a slaughter house at the end of my street, I don't want a garbage dump next door, I don't want my thirty mile commute to work to take three hours. Planning is absolutely critical to a properly functioning city.
Infrastructure has to be in place to support every single person in that city.
The best places are always going to have a housing shortage because everyone wants to live there.
If you go to a very popular area and build high density housing it won't be affordable, it will be market rate, and all of the poor people won't be able to afford it.
Location is far more important than density. There are several places across the country where homes don't sell at any price, the market is absolutely bottomed out. I could go there right now and put twenty of them on my visa card, and I have the skills and assets to make them into nice homes, want to take a guess as to why I don't do that?
Despite its reputation from Fox News, I have always considered the Twin Cities a relatively safe place to live. However, we are now seeing 3 problems: flash mobs stealing from stores, catalytic converter thefts, and worst of all (because there is distinct possibility of violence) a large number of car jackings. I am sure the conservative media blows things up to fit their agenda, but it is a serious problem.If this is really happening with significant frequency (and I don't know if it is or if it's just the latest media panic) then the correct answer is increased police presence in these locations.
The entire structure of these crimes as I see it is that with so many people it makes it very unlikely any of the perpetrators will be caught and arrested. If you add more cops, the likelihood of arrest goes up, and the attractiveness of doing it disappears.
The solution is better police. Start implementing better standards for accountability and significantly longer training and requirements that include de-escalation as well as understanding the communities they will be policing.Despite its reputation from Fox News, I have always considered the Twin Cities a relatively safe place to live. However, we are now seeing 3 problems: flash mobs stealing from stores, catalytic converter thefts, and worst of all (because there is distinct possibility of violence) a large number of car jackings. I am sure the conservative media blows things up to fit their agenda, but it is a serious problem.
I dont really have an answer for any of these, and this thread seems to be mostly name calling instead of anyone able to propose a reasonable solution. We have had injures related to car jacking, both from the perpetrators and from accidents during police chases after the car jacking.
Maybe Greenman is worried low density zoned areas like this will just get ruined by developers plopping down high density housing. You know, turn the area into slums like all high density housing doesSo now you're attempting to equate the US to a third world country? lol. Large swaths of Manhattan (for our purposes) has essentially no restrictions on density. Are you saying the richest patch of real estate in the US, maybe on earth, is a slum? Ironically, the only areas that would really be considered 'slums' in Manhattan are the ones that do have height restrictions. How do you explain this? If anything, I bet density in the US is INVERSELY correlated with household income and wealth so reality is the exact opposite of what you claim.
You are also again equating health and environmental zoning with residential zoning. You tried this before and we shot it down, why are you doing it again?
Infrastructure is not put in place first, it is built alongside development. That's how building cities works. You would have to be insane in almost all cases to build it ahead of time, that's essentially central planning of the housing market, which is even more coercive than the housing bans you already support.
So why were housing shortages in 'the best places' so much less acute in the past? What changed, other than not building remotely enough houses to keep up with population growth?
It might not be affordable, but it will be MORE AFFORDABLE than before. More importantly, you build high density AROUND the popular area too! Build build build. Take whatever you're thinking of the worst case scenario for density and quadruple it - that's how big a hole your policies have created and that's the scale that's needed to alleviate the humanitarian crisis your preferred policies have caused.
Now you're catching on - allow people to build houses where people want to live! Let the free market work!
I never got the argument of 'if you don't regulate developers they are going to build a whole bunch of places nobody wants to live in'. If that's the case, how would they sell them?