Why is Oaklands crime rate higher than most? (Los Angeles, Montclair: murders, corporate)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Malloric

And yet LA doesn't have nearly the crime culture that Oakland has. Like I said early, some places just have a culture of crime that statistics really can't explain. Poverty is pretty strongly correlated with crime, one of the strongest correlated as metrics go, yet LA has no where near the crime rate that Oakland does. There's more at play than simply poverty.

In other words even though Oakland has a high crime rate, it still has less poverty than cities that have lower crime rates

And what that means is Oakland must have a lot more going on for it than just crime when nearly a third of the city's households earn $100,000+ annually.

I don't think LA has quite the same income inequality as Oakland does

LAs rich are richer and their poor are poorer.

Clearly the gap btwn rich and poor is more pronounced in LA.

[nei]

Originally Posted by Malloric

And just as an interesting tidbit, it's interesting how white people just don't engage in Oakland's public school system. Non-Hispanic whites are 26% of Oakland by population, but make up less than 10% of public school enrollment. I suspect it's a combination of white students coming from more affluent families who can afford private schools. To a lesser degree, there's also probably a larger percentage of younger whites with no kids. Blacks and Hispanics are both over-represented. Hispanic families due tend to be larger, which is a pretty major factor in that. San Francisco has the same thing. Whites just don't participate in the public school system there either. The interesting thing is that Asian families do, which probably has something to do with why Sunset has such great schools. You don't have the selection bias going on where a large number of the parents that give a crap are pulling the kids out to go to private schools or if they can't afford it fleeing for a suburb.

That's true of many other cities as well. For New York City (don't know where to find other stats), non-hispanic whites are 35% of the population, but 25% of the under 18 population, and 15% of the public school population (Catholic and orthodox Jewish schools make up part of the difference). But nationwide, the demographic profile of the under 18 population is rather different than the population overall; it's more diverse, so there'd be some discrepancy everywhere.

As for Asians it could be:

1) Less of a cultural fear (justified or not) of city schools
2) An added push to stay in an area with more asians
3) Can't afford to leave or choose a private school (at least the more recent immigrants)

Not sure how well this applies for California though

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by Malloric

And yet LA doesn't have nearly the crime culture that Oakland has. Like I said early, some places just have a culture of crime that statistics really can't explain. Poverty is pretty strongly correlated with crime, one of the strongest correlated as metrics go, yet LA has no where near the crime rate that Oakland does. There's more at play than simply poverty.

It does not mean Los Angeles doesnt have the crime culture. Los Angeles has a larger population to dilute it's crime rate.

Originally Posted by Malloric

I don't think LA has quite the same income inequality as Oakland does, but that's just me throwing stuff out. The data is out there, I just don't have it. I'm not sure anyone even parses it? At a state level, I know it is, just not sure about for individual cities.

US Census Bureau 5 year estimates

Los Angeles .5267
Oakland .5117
San Francisco .5110

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

In other words even though Oakland has a high crime rate, it still has less poverty than cities that have lower crime rates

And what that means is Oakland must have a lot more going on for it than just crime when nearly a third of the city's households earn $100,000+ annually.


LAs rich are richer and their poor are poorer.

Clearly the gap btwn rich and poor is more pronounced in LA.

Actually, that's not true; it's the opposite. Check out Nei's link. Oakland has a greater percentage of households at the bottom (<$10,000 and $10,000-$15,000) and more households at the top ($100-150k, $150-200k, >$200k than LA). The bottom isn't statistically relevant (within the 95% CI). But Oakland does have more rich people than LA.

Really, they're almost identical across the board, even at the top where Oakland does diverge from LA it's quite similar. Oakland may have slightly more income inequality than LA (also strongly correlated to crime), but it's very slight and certainly wouldn't account for much of Oakland's higher crime rate.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by Stephen1110

It does not mean Los Angeles doesnt have the crime culture. Los Angeles has a larger population to dilute it's crime rate.




US Census Bureau 5 year estimates

Los Angeles .5267
Oakland .5117
San Francisco .5110

That's what's great about rates. They don't get diluted by larger population.

What's the unitless number represent?

[DocGoldstein]

Yes true, Oakland definitely has more income inequality than L.A, not that L.A is a valid comparison since it's literally 50x bigger.

But I don't think income inequality explains Oakland's crimes 100%. I tend to agree with the concept of "culture of crime" seeing as how crime has been part of Oakland's history for such a long time.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Actually, that's not true; it's the opposite. Check out Nei's link. Oakland has a greater percentage of households at the bottom (<$10,000 and $10,000-$15,000) and more households at the top ($100-150k, $150-200k, >$200k than LA). The bottom isn't statistically relevant (within the 95% CI). But Oakland does have more rich people than LA.

Really, they're almost identical across the board, even at the top where Oakland does diverge from LA it's quite similar. Oakland may have slightly more income inequality than LA (also strongly correlated to crime), but it's very slight and certainly wouldn't account for much of Oakland's higher crime rate.

I can live with this.

However, LAs gap between extreme wealth and extreme poverty is definitely more pronounced.

Oakland may have more affluence in the general sense, but we have nothing that compares to Bel Air, nor do we have anything as destitute and depressed as Skid Row.

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by Malloric

That's what's great about rates. They don't get diluted by larger population.

a larger population does lower the crime rate

Originally Posted by Malloric

What's the unitless number represent?

income inequality

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Sunny Daisy

That sounds right. One would think the locals would get fed up with this way of living. Not being able to go outside etc. To think it's so close to a world class city, it's sad really.

This was an obvious troll topic, the OP has been banned. Why is everyone still here, discussing?

[Senno]

Well, I guess I will illustrate why I post here in this thread with this video. This man lived around 5 miles from where I do. But he got caught and is in prison. Yet I judge him as dangerous as they come and is a member of the Fresno Bulldogs.


Lockup Raw - Predatory Behavior (3/6) - YouTube

Now I have spoken a bit of the Bulldogs background down in general. They started off as the F-14's in SE Fresno and were opposed by the Stoners. They later changed their name to the Bulldogs. They were in the junior high I would have attended had I not been sent to a magnet school by my parents. But they weren't in my High School, which is in SE Fresno.

I live within 5 miles of their territory right now. Yet my area is generally safe and nice. So when I checked with the people I knew in Oakland including my former boss, I was told that just like Fresno, such areas exist in Oakland. This made sense to me, as I am familiar with crime and gang behavior here in Fresno. So I decided I would post about that here in the Oakland crime thread.