« The Point of Tipping? | Main | Fiscal policy and the burden of proof »
Safest and most dangerous U.S. cities
Here is a list, via Craig Newmark. For the large cities, note that of the five safest (San Jose, Honolulu, El Paso, New York, Austin), I believe four have substantial Latino populations. San Diego and San Antonio are next in line for safety. Of the five least safe major cities (Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Washington, Philadelphia), none has an especially large Latino population.
Here is a bit more. Here is a lot more.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 18, 2008 at 09:48 AM in Data Source | Permalink
Comments
The crazy thing about El Paso is the fact that they are just across the river from Ciudad Juarez, which had an estimated 1500 murders last year. El Paso had 16. A murder rate 1/37th of its neighbor across the border.
Posted by: Brian Shelley at Dec 18, 2008 10:02:29 AM
"...none has an especially large Latino population" ... and all have an especially large black/African-American population, right, Tyler?
Posted by: Eric at Dec 18, 2008 10:16:37 AM
Yeah, I'm surprised to see El Paso on the list.
Posted by: db at Dec 18, 2008 10:17:28 AM
Your observation doesn't seem to hold up when examening the overall metropolitan areas.
Posted by: Christopher at Dec 18, 2008 10:22:58 AM
That was not a nice post to say the least since Tyler was definitely drawing attention to the demographics of these cities and the inevitable conclusion would be that a certain non-Hispanic minority (hint hint) seems to be correlated with crime rates...I suppose Tyler could claim that his post was in fact promoting tolerance of Hispanics but that is hardly credible considering the unmistakable implication that demographics of certain groups = crime rates...
Posted by: v at Dec 18, 2008 10:39:47 AM
Right, Eric, they do.
Posted by: Jim at Dec 18, 2008 10:44:03 AM
Hey, let's not shoot the messenger here. It is well known that crime is a problem in the black community. Thats unfortunate and reflects a complex, only somewhat well understood set of causes, many of which are the legacy of slavery. I really think that Tyler makes an interesting point drawing attention ot the lower crime rate in hispanic populated urban areas.
Posted by: steve at Dec 18, 2008 10:46:15 AM
I'm sure sure what the point of the Latino comment was, but at least in DC some of the "Latino" areas like Adams Morgan/Columbia Heights/Pleasant Valley are where you see a lot of crime.
Shrug.
Posted by: Scholar in Training at Dec 18, 2008 10:47:59 AM
First, what is the largest city in the U.S. that is more than 50% white. I doubt if it is in the top 50 cities. Thus, the largest cities are either more black than hispanics or more Hispanic than black. The statisitic just shows that Hispanics are less violent, on average, than blacks.
Posted by: superdestroyer at Dec 18, 2008 10:55:32 AM
Regarding El Paso, that place is a pit of a city. Brian Shelley is right to point out the murder rate in ciudad juarez because there is a correlation. My coworker has a lot of family there and he tells me stories of how people cross the border to commit crimes, etc., because they won't get caught in mexico.
Posted by: Brian at Dec 18, 2008 10:59:23 AM
Austin, one of the safest large cities, is extremely segregated. Latinos occupy the south and southeast side, Blacks the east side, and whites the north, central and northwest. I would be interested in seeing the crime incidence by neighborhood in Austin.
Posted by: Jimbino at Dec 18, 2008 11:01:09 AM
I think Tyler's was a culinary comment. You can eat Latino food in safety in most of the country's safety cities.
Posted by: bronxilla at Dec 18, 2008 11:08:15 AM
Here's a map of crime in Austin by neighborhood:
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/tx/austin/crime/
Posted by: Jimbino at Dec 18, 2008 11:10:14 AM
USDOJ: Homicide Trends By Race
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Posted by: Bild Wissenschaftler at Dec 18, 2008 11:12:37 AM
For what it's worth--and I don't know him except through his public persona--I thought Tyler was trying to be a kinder, gentler right-winger and defuse people's fears of immigrants. I don't think he was trying to criticize black people, even though that was the obvious elephant in the room with his decision to bring up race.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Dec 18, 2008 11:18:53 AM
"First, what is the largest city in the U.S. that is more than 50% white. I doubt if it is in the top 50 cities."
Houston, Dallas, San Diego...all in the top 10
Posted by: crimsongirl at Dec 18, 2008 11:25:11 AM
You can say that Tyler is drawing attention to "a certain non-Hispanic minority (hint hint)" but I have to agree with Bob Murphy. Plenty of people associate Latinos with crime and gang violence as well, and this data seems to deny that.
Posted by: dt at Dec 18, 2008 11:38:14 AM
Hey commenters!
Read some Hanson, will ya!
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html
Posted by: Jeff H. at Dec 18, 2008 11:45:49 AM
I think we have a bit of over aggregation here, both in the post and the comments.
The Hispanic population in NY is significantly Puerto Rican, which is a lot different than say, the Mexican population in California. For one thing, Puerto Ricans don't have to fear deportation, so there isn't the natural tendency to be a bit low profile that I would imagine is the case with Mexican illegals. My bet is the data would show Puerto Ricans are much more involved in violent crimes in the U.S.than Mexicans (adjusted, of course, for the size of their respective populations in the U.S.)
As for blacks, I don't think violent crime is a black thing as much as it is blacks reared in the U.S. since LBJ's Great Society. He created the lack of opportunities, outside of crime, for this group.
On the other hand, blacks reared outside the U.S., and now living here, tend to be much less violent. Ethiopians are gentle people, beautiful people. Nigerians are gentle, but I think largely hate the white man. (And yes, I realize these are broad generalizations, with many exceptions)
Posted by: Robert Wenzel at Dec 18, 2008 12:04:44 PM
Tyler's side note was clearly a preemption of a forthcoming Steve Sailer rant.
Posted by: at Dec 18, 2008 12:22:17 PM
Why the pre-emptive hysteria? The African-American crime rate is significantly higher than other groups. This is well-known and easily verified.
How can it be an evil thing to simply acknowledge an easily verifiable fact about the world?
This Orwellian denial of a known fact doesn't do anybody any good. It doesn't help reduce crime or protect victims.
Posted by: chris at Dec 18, 2008 12:34:27 PM
Crimson, Houston, Texas, is not 50% white. It's 30% white.
Posted by: Emily at Dec 18, 2008 12:51:12 PM
Hmm, Dallas is one of the most dangerous and Fort Worth is one of the safest...only 30 miles apart.
Posted by: Johnny at Dec 18, 2008 1:30:34 PM
@Robert Wenzel
I find this discussion confusing. What is a Latino? Someone whose grand parent sused to speak Spanish?
Or just someone from Latin American origins? Is that different than a Hispanic?
Until I know what these terms mean, I can't address your comment accurately.
There is a distance between Puerto Ricans and Nuyoricans - there are issues there so you can't just make any claims without distinguishing those 2 groups. And they are by no means the largest group of Latins or Spanish-speakers here anymore, I think.
Likewise Latino in NYC can include Dominicans, Argentines, Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, Brazilians, Guatemalans, Hondurans, Costa Ricans, Colombians, Ecuadorians, and Peruivans, all of whom are well-represented here. They have different income levels cultures and backgrounds, so to discuss Latino in an NYC context is too broad.
African-American, African or black in NYC is likewise fraught. We should just abandon these useless and confusing terms in today's world.
It would be better to be more clear about ethnic or national origin - even many Mexicans might be considered in light of being Nuahatl- or Mayan-speaking for example.
Posted by: StreetWalker at Dec 18, 2008 1:30:59 PM
"The first-generation immigrants (those born outside the United States) in our study were 45 percent less likely to commit violence than were third-generation Americans, adjusting for family and neighborhood background. Second-generation immigrants were 22 percent less likely to commit violence than the third generation."
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/2/6/4/7/p126471_index.html
Posted by: Sam N. at Dec 18, 2008 1:32:34 PM
