Well, the density and welfare usage is perpetually higher in Lawrence vs Crenshaw, though it did decrease during the recession recovery (though still remains higher overall, with a smaller population). I understand what you're saying, but these are both rural counties, yet one has over twice the violent and property crime, despite less welfare and pop density.
If we look really hard, I imagine we can find an outlier, but I've yet to stumble across the one that links socioeconomics (which correlates to welfare usage) to crime to anywhere close to the degree that correlates with demographics.
Whites are by far and away the largest users of snap benefits in raw numbers, despite disproportional rates. If there were a crime link here, I wouldn't expect to see such low crime rates among whites when compared to blacks.
Anyway, would like to see some contrary data if you can come up with it.
Well, the density and welfare usage is perpetually higher in Lawrence vs Crenshaw, though it did decrease during the recession recovery (though still remains higher overall, with a smaller population). I understand what you're saying, but these are both rural counties, yet one has over twice the violent and property crime, despite less welfare and pop density.
If we look really hard, I imagine we can find an outlier, but I've yet to stumble across the one that links socioeconomics (which correlates to welfare usage) to crime to anywhere close to the degree that correlates with demographics.
Also, if we look at this:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938
Whites are by far and away the largest users of snap benefits in raw numbers, despite disproportional rates. If there were a crime link here, I wouldn't expect to see such low crime rates among whites when compared to blacks.
Anyway, would like to see some contrary data if you can come up with it.