No, you left out the somewhat important (or perhaps untrue) detail that everyone else stayed half an hour longer than rostered.
Almost like a retail outlet and a hospital are different things.
The Left calling out The Left for gaslighting people about crime
- Thread starter Phoenixmgs
- Start date
Basic logic says there is a flaw in one or both studies. This could be the new study is flawed, or it could be that a flaw was identified in the old studies, which is why the change was made and the results changed. At a surface level, there needs to be information sought out to be make a decision.
Assuming the change was the problem, without any further information is just making poor assumptions on incomplete information.
I'm not sure you understand the situation. There are three things for comparison mentioned in the first post: a survey of people across the country, an old system for law enforcement agencies to report crime statistics to the federal government, and an updated system for reporting. The survey regularly reaches the conclusion that official reporting is much lower than actual crime rate, but the two moved generally in parallel: if one goes up, so does the other, if one goes down, so does the other. The actual accuracy of the reported numbers aside, you could at minimum tell upward or downward trends with reasonable accuracy. To my knowledge, this is still true with the new system, both the crime survey and NIBRS data are showing upward trends in crime since 2020.
The individual pieces of your logic are fine: there are flaws in one or both systems, the new system addresses many flaws in the old system, there is a lack of information right now, but it's going to be better. (The old way was written records with very little specificity, the newer system is digital and allows for more precise crime categorization and doesn't require someone at the FBI to enter a pile of written records into their systems.) The transition isn't a particularly political thing, the newer system has existed for decades and has been an official standard since the Obama Administration. The FBI has just been using both systems for a while, individual police precincts could submit their numbers through either system, and the Uniform Crime Report would contain data from both sets. Now, they are only counting data submitted through NIBRS, the newer system, which is a good thing in many ways... but only if law enforcement is using the NIBRS.
The old system, including SRS data, had near 100% participation from law enforcement agencies. The new one was declared the sole reporting standard with less than 60% participation. I think this was a good decision, as you'll never get everyone to upgrade anything until they actually can't use the old way. The one thing here that's problematic is trying to compare across the two systems. Comparing from the old combined system to the solely NIBRS data, crime stats are lower overall. They actually predicted the switch would seem to increase the reported crime rate (and it still might), but the opposite happened, and it's because we're missing like 40% of the data. If that missing data were a random sampling, it shouldn't make a difference, but the agencies that haven't managed to participate in the NIBRS are understandably the police in high-crime areas. Law enforcement with fewer crimes to report and more time on their hands mostly updated their reporting standards to the better system before it was required, so the current FBI stats are disproportionately missing places with the highest crime rates.
So like, the new system is going to be better once everywhere is counted, and I would argue it's a good thing that they are starting to use it exclusively, but you can't do a meaningful year-over-year comparison between reports before 2022 and reports now, because like 40% of the data is missing. It's like yeah, the crime rate went down, but only if you compare two different systems of reporting and the new reporting is missing half of NYC and LA. Where the National Crime Victimization Survey doesn't have a sudden change in methods or a missing set of data causing bias in the results (not political bias, just statistical), and Phoenix is correct to see that as a more useful indicator of trends from 2020 to the present.
A couple of the links I read from while writing this:
National Incident-Based Reporting System - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Yeah but I'm not addressing that. I'm addressing captain logic and his statements that specifically say it could be measuring anything and the method which has changed is obviously wrong.
A survey of hundreds of thousands of people is rather accurate. We literally know the data from the NIBRS is less accurate (than previous system) because several of the countries biggest law enforcement agencies are not submitting their data.
Crime is up on the subway in New York though...
It's cheaper to leave stuff the way it is than buying cases to lock things in. It takes less employee hours of work to run a store if you don't constantly need employees opening locked cases for toothpaste. It also makes customers more likely to buy something if they don't need to ask for an employee to get it for them. The company loses more money on self-checkout than they save because the theft is higher than the money saved on cashier pay.
And then when theft causes stores to close like say a Walmart for example, you people will b!tch about food deserts when there wouldn't be one if the community didn't steal from the grocery store that used to be there.
It is true the guys that got hired with me (from our previous job) stay till 5pm and I go home at 4:30.
You not getting paid your proper pay matters if it's Walmart or a hospital?
I also gave you the gist of the reason (what Schadrach and tstorm both said) why the new system was less accurate in the 1st post but you ignored that in your initial reply.
If you have 2 methods for measuring something and you change one and now you have a bigger disconnect, the reason is probably because you changed the one form of measurement. Yes, maybe the change in measurement results in a more accurate measurement or a less accurate measurement. Either way, for comparison purposes to see if crime (for this specific example) went up or down in comparison to the year before (with the old system) is not going to give you an accurate comparison because it's basically giving you a new baseline instead. Whereas the survey crime data didn't change so even if it is less accurate of actual crime, the comparison is more accurate because the same methods were used consistently from year to year. However, we know the reason why the new system is showing lower crime because several major police departments in high crime areas are not reporting.
Nah, your argument was ass. You then piggybacked off others who put more thought into it than you did and claimed it as your reasoning.
shoplifting is good actually
what are we doing here?
giving credo to crime statistics like narcs when theyve set up a military check point at the subway
its already here guys
and phoenix is living for it and profiting even if by just wasting our time
bye
what are we doing here?
giving credo to crime statistics like narcs when theyve set up a military check point at the subway
its already here guys
and phoenix is living for it and profiting even if by just wasting our time
bye
Your working day ends at 4:30? That's fine. Just would've been useful context when saying that you work less than everyone else.
Retaliatory actions taken against the organisation matter differently.
That's what I said...
---
What retaliatory actions? Regardless of the workplace, why would you work any longer than what you are getting paid for?
I saw that, but it doesn't really make it clear. Am I to understand you can schedule your own lunch break whenever you want, and you always schedule it at the end of the day to go home early? Because if so, that's fine, but it's not really clear from the passage.
In this context, we were talking about shoplifting and leaving work early, as sort of "retaliatory" actions. The latter is only still being discussed since I was under the impression you were leaving early, and not doing your rostered hours. That was the impression I got from your description but I apologise if that's not right.
I take my lunch normally in the middle of the day. It says you have to take lunch no later than the end of the 5th hour of work. So I work from 8am-noon, that's 4 hours of work. I take lunch at noon-1pm usually, that's technically 0.5 hours of work (just stack the 15 min breaks and the 30 min unpaid lunch). Then I work from 1pm-4:30pm for 3.5 hours of work. So 4 + 0.5 + 3.5 = 8 hours. If I work until 5pm, that's technically 8.5 hours of work.
So those 'breaks' count as work-time at your org?
How does your employer explain a 8-5 working day (9 hrs) if only 30 Mins in the middle is unpaid and doesn't count to the working hours? That leaves 8.5.
You're telling me your employer hasn't realised that 9 - 0.5 is 8.5, and that all the other employees are working an extra half hour for no pay and no reason, and that's why you leave half an hour before everyone else?
I don't believe you.
You should've seen how bad they mathed out the annual pay based on the hourly wage in one of my offer letters.
I brought up the issue in a meeting the other day when they oddly went person to person asking what hours everyone is working (I guess people are coming in late and stuff), and here's what has happened since. I don't bullshit about things.
---
---
Our boss just makes sure they are 8 hours a day and that's it.
I am tremendously confused. But it seems to be your organisation being confusing and self-contradictory rather than you. Apologies.