Why is Oaklands crime rate higher than most? (Los Angeles, Compton: median income, place to live)

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by LunaticVillage

The murder/crime rate in Oakland and San Francisco fluctuates from year to year like any cities in America. The outcomes change yearly like professional sports. Many years, SF's black homicide rate dwarfs that of Oakland, such as in 2005 when it was about double that of Oakland. SF's high homicide rate in 2005 was fueled by the micro civil war fought in Hunter's Point between the opposing factions of West Mob and Big Block. But the next year, Oakland had a whopping 145 homicides. In 1999, when most cities were a bit worse than today, Oakland only had 60 murders. This was the only year Oakland recorded less murders than SF.

But all in all, there are good and bad areas on both sides of the bridge. But the quality of life is markedly lower in SF's housing projects, as a whole, in the southern half of the city than anywhere in Oakland.

It also had half the population. NYC also had nearly three times as many homicides as Oakland last year... but then it has over 20 times as many people living in it.

Sunnydale and BV/HP are pretty crappy, which is why most people in San Francisco avoid those areas instead saying they're really great neighborhoods with a high quality of life. The interesting thing, especially with Sunnydale, is it's temporary housing. Yet a lot of people are de facto permanent residents. They like it there. Many of them could get full-time work but chose not to because they like Sunnydale. More money would push them out to welfare housing that charges higher rent. It's an interesting mentality. Seems it doesn't matter how crappy someplace is, you'll always have people that prefer to not get a job because then they'd have to pay rent. Others, of course, aren't really capable of holding a job which is a separate issue.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by jade408

There are lots of black middle people and areas in Oakland.

I'm sure there are but Oakland still has a very serious crime problem.

I grew up in SF in the 1960's/70's when the black pop. was almost 30% and it was far, far more dangerous back then.

You could get robbed riding the bus during the afternoon. Hell, bus drivers could as well which is why they stopped carrying change.

It wasn't until several large public housing projects closed and many blacks moved over to the east bay that things changed. You just don't see many groups of black kids out and about in SF anymore.

And while parts of hunters point are still quite rough the fear of say riding public transportation around the time schools end is almost a forgotten memory.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by Malloric

The interesting thing, especially with Sunnydale, is it's temporary housing. Yet a lot of people are de facto permanent residents. They like it there. Many of them could get full-time work but chose not to because they like Sunnydale. More money would push them out to welfare housing that charges higher rent. It's an interesting mentality. Seems it doesn't matter how crappy someplace is, you'll always have people that prefer to not get a job because then they'd have to pay rent. Others, of course, aren't really capable of holding a job which is a separate issue.

"People who don't have a job say there is no point in getting one because they will just have to pay more rent. And some of those who do have jobs don't want promotions or better jobs, because that, too, would make their rent go up. It's best to have side jobs with tax-free revenue."
Life at the bottom: S.F.'s Sunnydale project - SFGate

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by john3232

"People who don't have a job say there is no point in getting one because they will just have to pay more rent. And some of those who do have jobs don't want promotions or better jobs, because that, too, would make their rent go up. It's best to have side jobs with tax-free revenue."
Life at the bottom: S.F.'s Sunnydale project - SFGate

Exactly.

It's not a mentality I understand. I can't see how people intentionally choose that path to surround themselves in filth, squalor, crime, dependent on the charity of others for their basic survival. But that's how many of them want to live, and it's their choice.

San Francisco's housing costs are so high that most of them probably never could get off of welfare, and many people who would otherwise be middle-class somewhere likewise are similarly unable to afford housing. I guess it's just a question of who you provide welfare to. Do you provide the nicer welfare housing to the people who work hard in low and moderate paying jobs, pay taxes, and generally contribute to society? Or do you provide the nicer welfare housing to the people who won't ever work, will never pay taxes, will never contribute to society, and generally just tear anything apart in a few years anyway? Not a tough decision for me.

It sucks for those that do temporarily get stuck in Sunnydale. Working harder to increase transit access especially was a very smart decision to enable those who don't prefer to live in Sunnydale to get out and be active in the economy so they can leave. Otherwise, if anything it's too nice and/or the welfare levels to generous.

[DocGoldstein]

It's a huge problem in Oakland. Over 20% of the population is below the poverty line, and nearly 33% of Oakland residents receive food stamps or government aid of some level. When you have poverty like that, crime problems are bound to follow.

[nei]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

It's a huge problem in Oakland. Over 20% of the population is below the poverty line, and nearly 33% of Oakland residents receive food stamps or government aid of some level. When you have poverty like that, crime problems are bound to follow.

But Oakland's poverty isn't as extreme or its median income as low compared to others cities with its murder rate. Oakland, CA:

Poverty rate: 20%
Median Income: $51k/year
Murder rate: 26 / 100k (2011, higher in 2012)

Baltimore, MD:

Poverty rate: 22%
Median Income: $40k/year
Murder rate: 31 / 100k (2011)

Newark, NJ:

Poverty rate: 26%
Median Income: $36k/year
Murder rate: 34 / 100k (2011)

Philadelphia, PA:

Poverty rate: 26%
Median Income: $37k/year
Murder rate: 21 / 100k (2011)

New York, NY:

Poverty rate: 19%
Median Income: $51k/year
Murder rate: 6 / 100k (2011, 5 in 2012)

Los Angeles, CA:

Poverty rate: 20%
Median Income: $50k/year
Murder rate: 8 / 100k (2011)

The cities with a comparable murder rate to Oakland have much lower incomes. Some cities with a similar poverty rate and income to Oakland have much lower murder rates.

Edit: To make it more clear, the cities that have a comparable poverty rate and income to Oakland are the last two, but their murder rates are much lower. The other cities with more similar murder rates to Oakland are much poorer.

[DocGoldstein]

You data is inaccurate.

Oakland Median Household Income 2011: $51,144
Los Angeles Median Income 2011: $50,028

Fairly comparable, I'm not seeing "much lower incomes", and considering Los Angeles is over 10x bigger than Oakland, that's pretty impressive.

When it comes to murders though, there's a HUGE difference per capita.

Oakland Homicide rate 2012: .03 per 1,000 people
Los Angeles Homicide rate 2012: .007 per 1,000 people

Oakland in 2012 literally had a homicide rate that was 428% higher than Los Angeles. That's MILES apart. So it seems to me the statistics don't support your overall conclusion.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by nei

...The cities with a comparable murder rate to Oakland have much lower incomes. Some cities with a similar poverty rate and income have much lower murder rates.

You're getting to hung-up on stats.

Much of the sociopathic subculture within Oakland likes it "real." Likes it "thug."

Nothing is going to change.

Best to just stay away.

[nei]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

You data is inaccurate.

Oakland Median Household Income 2011: $51,144
Los Angeles Median Income 2011: $50,028

Fairly comparable, I'm not seeing "much lower incomes", and considering Los Angeles is over 10x bigger than Oakland, that's pretty impressive.

I posted the same numbers above. I never said Los Angeles had much a lower income than Oakland, I said the cities I listed that have a comparable murder rate to Oakland (which is obviously not Los Angeles) have a much lower income than Oakland.

Oakland in 2012 literally had a homicide rate that was 428% higher than Los Angeles. That's MILES apart. So it seems to me the statistics don't support your overall conclusion.

The statistics do support my overall conclusion, you misread my post to think my conclusion was something different.

[Malloric]

Poverty is more strongly correlated with non-violent crime than violent crime, although it's certainly correlated to both. Second, it's not so much the median as income inequality that matters, and median income doesn't really give a great picture of that. Having a high income inequality is actually a empirically linked with higher crime, which makes some sense. If everyone around you is poor, the fact that you are is just normal.

Normally, you'd expect to have a bell curve with most people making around the median and then it falling off as you approach poverty or 200k+ a year. Oakland's distribution of income is just completely out of whack, which means it's completely normal for being an American city. Phily is actually more normal, although very heavily left-skewed.

Finally, you just have places where crime is a systemic problem and other areas where it isn't. LA and NYC have largely managed to control the systemic crime problems. As great as empirical evidence is, it just really can't explain crime. The crime rate has been falling in NYC since the '90s despite an increase in poverty and a increase is inequality of income, both which would suggest crime should be rising. To put it bluntly, some places just have cultures of crime. Or perhaps sub-cultures would be more accurate. It's not that everyone in Oakland has criminal tendencies but that a much larger population in Oakland do than say Compton. This despite the fact that Compton is much, much poorer than Oakland, which really isn't particularly poor at all. It's just violent.