On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 06:35:24AM +0530, shiv sastry wrote: > Statistics in support of what you have said would be a real boon to any > crimefigthing department. In fact in any organization - such as a hospital, > it could be generally stated that nurses, physiotherapists, ward assistants, > helpers and cleaners are more likely to be dishonest than the doctor who gets > paid a lot more.
the doctor is paid a lot more partly because of greater responsibilities. the temptation to steal requires a higher absolute threshold, but not necessarily a higher relative threshold! so someone getting paid 1000 a month is going to be more tempted to steal 100 than someone paid 100000 a month. but the second person will be equally tempted to steal 10000... my statement makes no implications about the distribution of crime in general. indeed, if opportunity for crime (e.g. in terms of access to the amounts with which one can be dishonest) are evenly distributed in proportion to income, crime would be evenly spread. if opportunity is distributed disproportionately to those with a higher income, crime would be concentrated in people with a higher income. this is clearly the case with corruption. an underpaid policeman getting 10000 a month may demand bribes, based on the damage he can cause and the power he weilds, worth 5000 a month (say), which is absolutely small but relatively large (in proportion to his salary). a minister getting paid not MUCH more, let's say 100000 a month, has the opportunity to demand bribes several times greater both in absolute terms and relative terms. so the distribution of criminal activity here is likely to be concentrated towards the rich, not the poor. the solution is either to ensure that people are paid in proportion to the responsibility they have (i.e. the bribes they could demand) equalising the distribution of crime, as in singapore - or to design the system to greatly limit individual opportunity for dishonesty and crime, by limiting how much power individuals have access to. -rishab
