Very disagree. It is not immoral or prejudicial to note the simple reality that, in aggregate, poverty and crime are correlated[0], and in part because poverty creates conditions where crime is more likely[1].
That doesn't mean that any particular person is doomed to crime because they're poor, or can't improve. Of course they can, and of course nobody should assume that a particular person is a criminal based on membership in a socioeconomic class (or any other class).
But it's just true that poverty and crime are correlated. There are confounding factors (police are more likely to arrest a poor person, and more likely to merely warn a rich person), but nothing suggests that crime is merely equally prevalent among poor and non-poor populations.
I applaud the compassion, and I agree that individuals bear the moral weight of doing the right thing, but let's not deny facts in service of those principles.
0. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28019/chapter/2118222... 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-80897-8
They 100% are.
The plural of anecdote is not data. Your story is nice, but the reality is poverty is heavily correlated with crime. And social nets address both at once.
letting poor people suffer because some poor people can improve their station in life through luck, hard work and a number of other extrenous factors is unethical.
Portugal has lower gdp than the US but it isn't poor internally. People spend less % on housing food etc than in the US.
Also having no guns means a lot of crime is less violent, not that there is less of it.
It means you do not have homeless camps in hollywood boulevard next to million dollar penthouses. The income inequality is smaller therefore the variance in income levels is smaller and therefore all prices are down.
Let me give you an example.
Country A is rich. The poorest person has 10$ the richest has 100000$
Country B is poor the poorest person has 1$ the richest person has 5$.
In both country Nestle sells water bottles, they use a formula to maximise profit based on average earnings. On country A a water bottle is 20$ in country B is 0.2$.
Despite the proportional poverty, a poor person in country B can buy 5 water bottles while a poor person on country A can buy 0.
> Source for "spend less % on housing, food" ?
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
On the most expensive city in Portugal and the only thing cheaper in SF is gasoline, something most people in portugal don't use as much as they walk everywhere.
> Poor in the US get food stamps
Getting vouchers for milk and beans is not helping people. Portugal for example does not have millions of people in jail for minor drug offenses. Portugal does not have medical bankruptcy. Portugal does not have homeless camps in every mayor city.
Also food banks are common everywhere, the only difference is they are usually much broaders and healthier than food stamps and come on top of unemplyment payments, health benefits, and council housing.
> I've been to Portugal
I was born in Spain a few decades ago, I am gonna take my 18 years there over your weekend abroad.
you realize salaries in SF are astronomically higher than in Portugal, right?
the income inequality is indeed smaller in Portugal, but that is a different issue, absolute numbers wise Portugal is clearly a lot poorer than US
US doesn't have millions of people in jail for minor drug offenses, where did you get this nonsense from?
Poverty and crime are not married.
My wife and I both grew up poor and working class. Living in trailers are in our life stories. You can be dog poor and still not be a junkie, still not mug others, still not assault people. This was understood widely in our upbringing and those we dealt with. People _did_ misbehave, but it was not "just what happens".
Presumption that poor areas must mean getting to deal with junkies, means dealing with violence, well, that is a morally bankrupt view. People don't have to do that. That is their choice. Improvement is possible.