Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Or, I didn't see it until just now.

Well, I think the chain goes like this:

• Poverty reduces viable legal avenues for earning money.
• Illicit avenues for earning money are lucrative, but carry significant risk [of violence].
• The likelihood of choosing illicit avenues to earn money are related to the relative difference between the legal and illicit avenues.
• Therefore, people more deeply in poverty are more likely to choose illicit avenues despite the risk.

That said, the dude in my fraternity house that was the "drug hookup" wasn't poor. We see it where well-off investment bankers end up insider trading, or you have Bernie Madoff Ponzi schemes because sometimes the illicit methods are just TOO juicy.

But I think that the reason that so many people in the inner cities turn to drugs and gangs is because they don't have other viable options.

Public-employee unions are problematic in a way that private-sector unions are not.  Public employees' union dues go in part toward political contributions to the same people with whom they negotiate their pay and working rules.

Didn't see what?  Seriously, I don't understand your post.
I've pointed out this Motte-and-Bailey thing to you before.  You say something outrageous and hyperbolic.  Then you get challenged on it.  Then you retreat and say this other thing on the same subject that is merely argumentative and within the bounds of reason, and you say that is what you meant all along.

OAM: "All blue-eyed people are jackasses!"
Respondent: "How can you say that, as you don't know all blue-eyed people?"
OAM: "Joe Shit is blue-eyed and he's a jackass!  That's what I meant!"
Respondent:

Here's a bit of the evidence to the contrary to which I alluded.


It goes down during the Great Depression and goes up during the prosperous '60s.

You get bitchy when I don't respond in the time frame of your choosing.  Not sorry about that.