You believe that people today own fewer expensive consumer goods? My first impression would be the exact opposite.
A majority of the population owns a small, easily stolen electronic device (smart phone) that is worth an average week's pay. Not to mention computers, TVs, video game systems, etc. All stuff commonly stolen.
Isn't that in direct opposition to the data and claims? A TV financially worth stealing is going to be too big and delicate to steal. I'm not in the i-ecosystem but I'm told changes have been made making a stolen iphone basically worthless.
I was motivated to pull my communities police blotter (which is online) and look at the last weeks thefts. Stolen last week: one microwave oven, garbage cans (the city owns the rolling bins and it is incredibly inconvenient and costs $75 to replace each rolling bin, so its a revenge crime type of thing rather than for resale profit), gasoline was siphoned out of some car dealership cars, and misc office supplies (aka someone got fired for cause for taking a pad of paper instead of getting downsized to keep unemployment insurance costs lower). Apparently in my suburb there were no "real" thefts last week.
I think its interesting that HN posters would make excellent thieves compared to the general population. Apparently the general population thieves are really stupid, or are not stealing for the sake of profit maximization but for punishment or getting even. Possibly we're seeing some kind of variation in drugs, like crack users could be effective thieves via the chemical stimulation but most of the local addicts are pill heads and the chemical effects mean they can't effectively steal things. The crime report in an urban area is likely much longer than this suburban example and that might be useful data. Finally school is out so dorm related crime last week would be very minimal compared to during school.
I think the implication is that people still involved in the crime economy aren't idiots. If you're a criminal looking to make money, robbing houses is too high-risk anymore. Other crimes like credit card fraud are much more lucrative and don't carry the possibility of getting shot by a police officer or homeowner.
I don't think the risk from robbing houses is any higher than it used to be, but the reward is probably lower and there are other, better ways to make money illegally.
I don't own a CD or DVD player, dedicated film camera, dedicated video camera, speakers, typewriter, game console, CRT TV.
These days I have a flat screen TV, smartphone, a game console, plus a few computers with peripherals; router, modem. For me it may balance out or be slightly more.
I certainly replace what I have far more than I ever would back in the 1980s back then I certainly would not have casually spent 5% of my after tax income on a single entertainment device that's the big difference I see today.
Worth an average week's pay? Not unless you define "average" as "minimum wage". Even at $10/hour, a full-time (40 hour) week is $400 (maybe $300 after taxes and deductions). That's pretty high for the kind of smartphone that the majority of the population is using. And I suspect that $10/hour is below average, as well.
Why would you be looking at the average for this though? The reason economic factors and crime rates are so tightly correlated are because it is those who are desperate for money, e.g. unemployed, working low-wage and/or part-time, etc., that would be most likely to be tempted to steal these devices. Even if you drop the resale value of those devices to around $100 you could easily get away with a smartphone, tablet, laptop at once and make enough to get by for a couple weeks.
A majority of the population owns a small, easily stolen electronic device (smart phone) that is worth an average week's pay. Not to mention computers, TVs, video game systems, etc. All stuff commonly stolen.