m wrote:
>
> --- "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net> wrote:
> > "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > You may be able to make a case comparing
> > states and
> > > counties, but you are comparing apples & oranges.
> > They have
> > > different histories. For example, I'm grew up in
> > Mass. just
> > > north of Boston, and I believe that your
> > comparison between
> > > N.H. & Mass. if fundamentally flawed. N.H. is
> > primarily
> > > has been a rural state except in a few "mill
> > towns". Mass.
> > > is a fairly industrial state in the Eastern half
> > (the part
> > > bordering on N.H. I suspect Mass. has a much
> > higher population
> > > of "urban" poor, as compared to N.H. which may
> > have "rural" poor.
> > > The religious percentages in the two states are
> > different as well.
> > > I'm not sure if this is a factor, but it points
> > out that *you* can't
> > > go making the claims you have been making.
> >
> > Southeastern NH is as urbanized today as the
> > adjacent territory in
> > Massachusetts is.
>
> That's not the whole state...
No, but we were discussing the adjacent counties. Furthermore, I fail to see any difference between whether a person is poor in the country or poor in the city.
areas I know that are different:
a) education: NH has higher average SAT scores, as well as higher
percentages of students participating, despite paying less than half of
the per student expenditures on education than Mass.
b) unemployment: NH does have lower unemployment, though Lott, Kleck,
and others have found that unemployment rates have no effect on crime
rates.
c) disposable income: NH does have higher disposable income, despite
having lower gross income. The difference is in the tax rates.
d) economic growth: as far as I recall, NH has been occillating between
positions 1 and 3 in economic growth among the 50 states for every year
since '92. How does this translate to the individual criminal on the
street?
>
> > > If you want to do this, you have to put *all* the
> > data
> > > into a statistical regression model and tease out
> > > exactly what the correlations are -- *and* then
> > after
> > > you have the correlations, you still have work to
> > do
> > > because correlations are *not* causation.
>
> [...]
>
> > Well, though I stated general perceptions, others
> > have come up with
> > solid stats, showing that the crime rate per 100,000
> > population is 3
> > times higher in Mass than NH. rates per 100,000
> > should be the same no
> > matter what your population density if all other
> > factors are equal, so
> > obviously something is not equal.
>
> This *assumes* that density has no effect.
>
> These figures are statewide *means*, so you cannot
> account for regional variations within the state,
> which might show density effects.
The way to do that is to examine different areas, within the same state, with similar socioeconomic patterns, but with different population densities.