Characteristics of American homicide

As I keep working on studying the relations of which countries do and do not have open borders, the one variable in the United States which keeps sticking out is our very high homicide rate relative to other countries. It is the only variable where we are consistently doing worse than every member of the Schengen Area. Our corruption perceptions index, ease of doing business index, and our press freedom are all in line with member states of the European Union. However, our homicide rate is significantly higher than that of any member state of the Schengen Area.

The big question of course is why, and in order to answer this question I am going to describe what the data shows in several variables:

1. Regionally
2. Racial
3. Inequality

Regions

When it comes to regions, murder rates vary wildly city to city. Statista has the data to fully see where people are most likely to be shot. They found that the cities in the United States with the highest murder rates today are in:

• St. Louis 66.07
• Baltimore 55.77
• Detroit 39.8
• New Orleans 39.5
• Cleveland 27.77
• Memphis 27.73
• Newark 27.14
• Chicago 24.13
• Cincinnati 23.4
• Philadelphia 20.06
• Milwaukee 19.83
• Pittsburgh 17.98
• Indianapolis 17.91
• Stockton 17.77
• Tulsa 17.29
• Washington, DC 16.72
• Atlanta 16.41
• Nashville 16.3

St. Louis has the largest rate by far and than the rate drops significantly after that. Shootings around St. Louis tend to be concentrated around downtown, and in Black neighborhoods. Shooting map, Race map. Almost all of the murders were committed using a firearm.

 When it comes to states, we see (unsurprisingly) a similar pattern:

1. Louisiana
2. Missouri
3. Nevada
4. Maryland
5. Arkansas
6. Alaska
7. Alabama
8. Mississippi
9. Illinois
10. South Carolina
11. Tennessee
12. New Mexico
13. Georgia

Race

Murder disproportionately impacts African Americans more than anyone else.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/08/10/african-american-homicide-rate-nearly-quadruple-national-average-11680

Inequality

Here is a map of states with a higher homicide rate than Lithuania:

Here is a map of US Inequality from Wikipedia:

Not a perfect fit, but still pretty darn close.

The best theory so far which I have tested myself and have not broken is that income inequality is the biggest driver of homicide. This journal article shows how the inequality hypothesis is an unbreakable hypothesis (I tried and failed to disprove the inequality hypothesis myself when I was in college) in determining where there will be more homicides using a linear regression. Meaning, the relationship between them is so strong that it is a linear one at that, which is actually highly unusual.

More articles examining the link, none are very long and all are worth reading:

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
• http://evonomics.com/inequality-predicts-homicide-rates-better-variable/ 
• https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf

Reading through these articles, along with my own research, I am completely convinced that in order to reduce our homicide rate we need to focus on reducing our inequality.

So, what does this look like in practice?

1. Well, the first thing we can do is tax reform. Reducing taxes on low income earners and increasing taxes on the wealthiest in America will make an immediate and lasting effect on American income inequality. This should be fairly obvious. I do not oppose other methods to reduce inequality, but I personally believe this should be the first step. This is part of why I was so quick to join Carbon Washington while studying political economy in college.
2. What is the point of increasing disability payments if 10% of that money goes right back to the state? What is the point of increasing TANF when property taxes are hitting low income families the hardest as a percentage of income and 13.4% of their income goes to what is essentially a Ponzi scheme which most low income earners will lose money on? We should obviously do both tax reform and improve our safety net.
3. We should invest in Early Childhood Education. The impacts of Preschool are shown to be lifelong. It allows parents to go back to work, increasing their economic well-being, and substantially helps children with their social skills.
4. Improving Social security Old Age Insurance would make a significant impact on the ability of people to save and help money in poor families stay in their pockets. I have already written about how Social Security takes money from people who die young (read, are poor and more likely to be a racial minority) and transfers it to people who die old (read, are rich and more likely to be White). Replacing SS OASI with a Basic Income would instead transfer money to those people who need it most, reducing inequality, instead of probably increasing it. That money would stay in their families, not be transferred to richer old white people. The biggest policy move we can do to reduce inequality actually comes from a Republican proposal (if you have read my blog you know I generally have a very low opinion on United Russia, oh, Republicans), and that is to give people the option to privatize their Old Age Insurance contributions. I expect this would end the program within a decade because everyone would opt to privatize their contributions in a situation similar to what Singapore uses. The big difference is when people pass away this money is then inheritable by their heirs because it exists, as opposed to being transferred to rich old white people, as is the policy today. We could also give people the option to put their money in Real Estate as payments on their house mortgage, which is an option in Singapore, which has one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. We could also just end the Payroll tax because it is the most regressive tax in America, though I do like the idea of forcing people to invest in their future in a way which actually provides value to their heirs, which OASI does not. This would literally save lives by reducing inequality.
5. Ensure all Americans have access to health care, in order to end medical debt which is eating us alive.
6. We can significantly increase funding for education at all levels. Free college will put young people on a path to save for retirement which will significantly reduce inequality for the long term. Improving schools in poorer neighborhoods by ending the dependence on local property taxes will have long term effects on economic inequality in the United States.
7. We should expand the Earned Income Tax Credit as soon as possible because it works at reducing inequality.
8. America seriously needs to join the bandwagon with the rest of the world and implement paid parental leave. This will allow people to keep their jobs and reduce the number of people who have to leave the workforce to take care of their children.
9. Ending racial segregation is the 6th idea from the Berkeley article, which will of course be the hardest to implement, but allowing people to use their payroll taxes to pay off their house will help this.
10. The OECD points out that tax incentives for education and health care disproportionately benefit the wealthy. We need to switch to a model which subsidizes these activities.
11. Improving unemployment benefits for people who lose work which is temporary would help reduce inequality.
12. Reducing the gender wage gap, which deserves an article on its own because unlike how social security takes from the poor and gives to the rich, this one is super complicated.
13. Cutting unnecessary government expenditures, particularly when it comes to the military, and then using that money for effective social welfare programs will help inequality by making it so money goes to people who actually need it.
14. Have no income tax on incomes below $100,000 per year for an individual.

As you can see, there are no shortage of policies the US government can do right now to reduce inequality, save lives, and save money. We should do as many of these as politically possible as soon as we can.

This is ultimately how we will reduce our homicide rate to be in line with other developed economies.

We need to do this now.

Lives are literally on the line.

Black Lives Matter.

References for inequality mitigation:

• https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/six-policies-reduce-economic-inequality
• http://www.oecd.org/eco/labour/49421421.pdf

Issues in terms of importance

There are a lot of issues floating around in the political landscape right now, and they all deserve some level of importance. When it comes to the most important issues facing America today, here is how I think of them in terms of importance.

Social justice has many aspects demanding attention as always. You have racial justice as an ongoing issue in the United States, with police brutality, unequal education opportunities, and the persistent cross cleavage underlying the whole issue ruining lives constantly. These deserve attention, and require policies that address the root issues of the inequality which breeds racism, and bring down our homicide rate which disproportionately affects African American men more than any other demographic. This requires government policy to end the inequity and save lives.

Other social issues regard rape culture, LGBT rights, immigrant rights under the Geneva protocols, and much more.

Economics is a persistent issue. Tax fairness is a problem apparent to most, issues with Social Security, although not a big issue among voters with average information, is highly concerning to most economists, regardless of political affiliation.

Health Care is a persistent issue, and we must implement universal health care as soon as possible to save money and most importantly lives.

The environment is an issue which has clear working solutions to global warming. A well designed carbon tax would do more to fight global warming than any other policy, in terms of intensity, speed, and fairness. You wouldn't ignore physics when designing a rocket, and you shouldn't ignore economics when dealing with the consumption, production, and trade of oil. To not use economic theory is folly and will bring forward ineffective policies.

Infrastructure has massive impacts on economic growth, economic mobility, and of course the environment. Lacking economic mobility hurts low income Americans significantly, making it more difficult to climb out of poverty. Designing a durable, cost-effective, and functional infrastructure network is critical to all of these issues. We need to make it so as few people as possible need a car in order to live good lives by having good high quality mass transit and by investing in AMTRAK.

All of this is well and good, but at the end of the day these require having good government in order to ensure these policies are implemented efficiently and equitably. In "The Quality of Government" by Bo Rothenstein he comes to the conclusion that a factor which led Singapore to be developed was not democracy but more based on having a really effective leader. There is a big debate of course about Singapore, but it cannot be denied that there is a clear connection between the quality of government and social well-being. Quality of government is inversely correlated to corruption, and this is tied to inequality and social trust. The theory is that having a society where people trust each other helps reduce inequality, and this leads to lower corruption in society. These three variables are very correlated, and seem to be more important than simply having a more democratic government.

The vast majority of Americans want to have modern infrastructure, good environmental protections, a strong and equitable economy, and a society where people can live comfortably without race hurting people on a daily basis. According to the research by Bo Rothenstein among other political economists, we can start by building social trust in our society as a key feature of our societies to bring people together. I am getting involved with a group of friends building Imaginal Cafes with the goal of spreading them around the world. It is quite similar to the Alternative Library in Bellingham, Washington which I have been involved in now for about 5 years. What these spaces do is create non-sectarian, intentionally drug and alcohol free spaces for people to come together and enjoy themselves. When people are able to come together in a place free of influencing drugs beautiful things can be built which build trust and community.

This is fundamental to building a country which works for all people, and the foundational block when we look at political research. This will start at grassroots by activists who build those bridges and build communities of love and trust which are open to more people coming in all the time. We need places in every town in the world where people come together in a way which is social. Concerts are good because people get out, but when was the last time you actually talked to a stranger at a concert? As soon as alcohol gets involved, the probability of building the connections which we crave goes to 0. Political party gatherings are a good place to start even if you don't have an Imaginal Cafe in your community yet.

So, as a political economist, the first question is what types of policies can we implement to grow social trust? The first idea which comes to my head is mandating worker's rights. Guaranteeing every worker gets vacation and paid sick leave so people have the ability to be more refreshed and mentally able to go out into their communities and build those connections. This will make it easier to organize for all other issues when people are feeling like they are part of a community with the energy such a community can provide which breeds friendship and a better world. We must keep working on all of these issues at once, and I am grateful for all of the activists who work on all important issues. I am hopeful we can make a better system where it is easier to achieve all of these issues.

As we are building our social trust in our country, we need to also ensure that we have equitable elections. Our current election system in most of the United States inevitably breeds a party system dominated by only two major parties, like all single mark election systems. We need to have an election system which allows people to vote their conscience regardless of the "electability" of other candidates, and the only way to do this is ranked voting. Ending the two party system will reduce corruption, encourage social trust since having more smaller parties will be forced to work together to solve problems, and also force parties to stick to their platform, or their voters will leave them in the next election cycle for their coalition partner. This needs to be done in tangent with building Imaginal Cafes to grow social trust all at the same time, and building Imaginal Cafes will make it easier for people to get involved in making our election system fair.

I am personally focusing my political energy right now on three major issues. One of them is The Imaginal Cafe so we can have a better world for everyone, one is of course Carbon Washington, the most amazing group of environmental activists I have ever met in my life, and the third is FairVote so we can have governments with politicians who really represent the communities they are meant to serve. The three go together so well, and by building this more collaborative world, where we make decisions based on science, reason, and fact as opposed to hearsay, coincidence, and falsehoods we will be able to make a world which works for all.