Chapter 3: Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms? Although conventional wisdom holds drug dealers make a lot of money to stay in such a risky business, one economist's close ties to a drug-dealing community show only those at the very top make enough money to do well Feb 09, · Freakonomics Chapter 3 outlines a detailed analysis into the economics of a drug dealing Chicago gang. Through the field efforts of a sociologist named Sudhir Venkatesh the authors of Freakonomics have access to years of financial records kept by the gang. These financial records are especially important because they are the first known financial records to Estimated Reading Time: 5 mins Feb 10, · Freakonomics: Chapter 3 “Drug Dealers Living with their Moms”. February 10, //. 1. Chapter three begins with a discussion of a famous quote by economist John Kenneth Galbraith who stated, “we associate truth with convenience” (86). This statement is the basis for the beginning of the author’s line of reasoning to conclude that statistics are easily blogger.comted Reading Time: 5 mins
Freakonomics: Chapter 3 “Drug Dealers Living with their Moms” | melanierader
Freakonomics Chapter 3 outlines a detailed analysis into the economics of a drug dealing Chicago gang. Through the field efforts of a sociologist named Sudhir Venkatesh the authors of Freakonomics have access to years of financial records kept by the gang. These financial records are especially important because they are the first known financial records to be kept by a crack-dealing street gang.
After analyzing the data, Levitt and Dubner were able to break down the economics and economic incentives to becoming a crack-dealer. It is a common misconception freakonomics chapter 3 thesis crack-dealers freakonomics chapter 3 thesis a lot of money, but in the hierarchy of the street gang, only those at the top of the pyramid make really good money. This is exactly what Levitt and Dubner concluded. So why would anyone want to be a foot soldier in a crack-dealing street gang?
So if the money is not great, and the risks are high, what are the incentives to staying in the gang? Levitt and Dubner seem to think that it is for protection among other reasons and this is where I tend to disagree with Levitt and Dubner.
One of the issues that I disagree with Levitt and Dubner about are the known incentives to being in a street-gang. However, again, freakonomics chapter 3 thesis, this is an elitist approach that focuses only on the economic reasons for the way the world works and that is, in my opinion, an extremely narrow view.
In no way am I against the economic reasons freakonomics chapter 3 thesis joining street gangs. There is some merit to that approach and I do realize that Freakonomics is economic literature, but I feel as though they left some cultural elements out of the equation.
One thing that should be taken into account aside from the economic perspective is a cultural perspective. It is hard for me to imagine that most making assumptions here high-school dropouts would be economically minded when they join a gang. Yes, it makes sense that they would look out for their financial well-being and the financial well-being of their families, but I think Freakonomics makes a bit of a stretch.
Levitt and Dubner seem to forget that gang life is as much of a culture as it is a business. This was touched on briefly in the chapter but not as in depth as I would have liked it.
With that being said, freakonomics chapter 3 thesis, it is even more difficult again making assumptions for someone with a lack of demonstrated communication skills to find a job at all. So what is there left to do? Some of these people have no choice but to sell drugs. Some of that reason also has a lot to do with the upbringing of youth.
Why would someone work extremely hard at a low paying job to still be in financial trouble when they can hang out with their friends all day and sell-crack and be in a similar situation while expending exponentially less energy?
And, more food for thought, but why would someone search for freakonomics chapter 3 thesis legitimate job when they see their friends working in a lucrative illicit business where visually the risks are downsized? To that end, is there something to be said about the enjoyment and utility of crack dealing, and joining a gang, freakonomics chapter 3 thesis, rather than working a legitimate job? In conclusion, Levitt and Dubner provide a fantastic detail about the economics of a crack-dealing street gang.
The common misconception that gangs are unorganized and unmanaged is debunked in this chapter. However, some of the issues that Freakonomics brings to mind raises other questions about culture and inner city society as well. I would be curious to see if there is any further literature on this subject. Vince, I very much enjoyed this post.
I think you bring freakonomics chapter 3 thesis a good point about the cultural elements that cannot always be explained with statistics, freakonomics chapter 3 thesis. Unfortunately the kids in this neighborhood lack the support groups to steer them away from gangs and keep them in school. The authors provide reasoning for why these kids should avoid the gangs because aside from the obvious dangers there is not much money to be made at the lowest levels.
While they do account for the lack of education of most adults in the neighborhood and the scarce availability of high-paying jobs there will always be contributing factors that no one can truly understand until they live in the actual situation. Vinny—this was a very thoughtful post. What would an ideal data set to study this problem look like? Are we looking for incentives or disincentives? Vince- I really like how you look at how important of a role culture takes in gangs, freakonomics chapter 3 thesis.
Being in a gang with a group of people who come from similar circumstances as you could be somewhat of a comfort compared to trying to get a low paying job. You are commenting using your WordPress. com account. You are commenting using your Google account, freakonomics chapter 3 thesis. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account.
Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Home About. Thesis and Explaination ». Share this: Twitter Facebook. Like this: Like Loading Categories Uncategorized. February 10, at am, freakonomics chapter 3 thesis. ekfletch says:. lbrauer25 says:. February 21, at am.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:. Email required Address never made public. Name required. Blog at WordPress. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their freakonomics chapter 3 thesis. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy.
Freakonomics Chapter 3 Discussion
, time: 3:56Freakonomics Chapter 3 Summary and Analysis | GradeSaver
First, a subject-matter expert will write your essay from scratch. Examine instructions and requirements, create a Freakonomics Chapter 3 Thesis structure, and Freakonomics Chapter 3 Thesis write down a perfect and unique text. The final result is guaranteed to meet your expectations and earn you the best grade/10() It also affected black communities far more than white communities, contributing greatly to the widened gap in racial achievement. This presents a nuanced view of the social impact of certain products entering the market. Gundersen, Kathryn. Suduiko, Aaron ed. "Freakonomics Chapter 3 Summary and Analysis" Feb 09, · Freakonomics Chapter 3 outlines a detailed analysis into the economics of a drug dealing Chicago gang. Through the field efforts of a sociologist named Sudhir Venkatesh the authors of Freakonomics have access to years of financial records kept by the gang. These financial records are especially important because they are the first known financial records to Estimated Reading Time: 5 mins
No comments:
Post a Comment