Poverty has been steadily decreasing across the board, in both absolute and relative numbers. That's plenty of carrot.

You're looking at the wrong statistic. Inequality is the issue. There are plenty of people living hand to mouth who don't fall in the definition of poverty.

Ah yeah, wealth inequality. E.g. lots of rich bastards own megayachts and I don't, therefore this justifies me stealing packages from other common people who also don't own megayachts.

These people aren't Robin Hood, stop excusing their criminal behavior.

I didn't excuse their behaviour.

If you actually care about reducing crime you look at the evidence. E.g. https://equalitytrust.org.uk/crime

So, are people like animals that start going feral when they see someone in a way better status than they are? If that's the case, and this article suggests there is psychological evidence to support it, it poses a serious problem for the whole society. Are we really going to assign a maximum value to people's wealth?

People can reasonably be excused for theft when they are trying to meet their needs. Somebody who steals because they're at the poverty line and are trying to keep a roof over their head and food on their children's plate deserves sympathy.

But when people have their needs met, are above the poverty line with a decent job that pays the bills, and they still steal because "inequality" makes them jealous and greedy, they don't deserve sympathy. Most people in such a condition don't become theives, they either content themselves with what they have or they try to better their condition through some honest means, like seeking better job training or political advocacy for social change. The ones who respond by turning to crime (usually targetting other common people living in similar conditions as themselves) are antisocials who need to have the book thrown at them. The reason they're stealing packages instead of robbing banks or spending their time looking for a better job is because porch theft is easy and low risk. If penalties and enforcement were increased, theft rates would drop.

Why would inequality be the issue?

If 1% of the population suddenly got personal space-ships (hugely increasing inequality) would that make people steal from trains more?

It's an issue because humans are humans. E.g. "The link between economic inequality and both property crime and violent crime is well established" https://equalitytrust.org.uk/crime

A link there may be, but that can be A causing B, B causing A or both A and B having a common cause.

That's a nice theory, except most people don't turn petty thief just because billionaires exist. These thieves aren't class warfare warriors, no matter how much you wish it. They're greedy degenerates who don't care about others. Being an asshole isn't the exclusive domain of the rich.

"not starving to death"

That's not a carrot that's just less stick

How do you define poverty?

I don't, and who ever does raises the poverty threshold over time. Today's first world borderline poor can enjoy things (hot water, variety of food, healthcare, transportation) that only nobles could afford mere 150 years ago.

ok, so what about "relative to other countries today" rather than "relative to the past"?

Are you suggesting that the crime in question is driven by the fact that some 5000km away there are now fewer poor? Yes, there are countries with less poverty than the US. You might want to check out what else they have less of.

I'm suggesting the standard of poverty even when raised over time should still pay heed to worldwide economic levels. Hence, I ask you how you define (or pedantically, whose definition you take) when you talk about poverty.

US Census Bureau. Worldwide economic levels are such that the entire US population are filthy rich. Basically you're arguing as per above in this thread, that the fact that there are billionaires with private planes is somehow the reason for people to steal more.

> Basically you're arguing as per above in this thread

No I'm not. I asked how you define poverty