A Literary Analysis Of Freakonomics
They argue that a few people did make a lot of money from being in a drug gang, but those people were usually the leaders of the gang, not the larger numbers of low level drug dealers. Vankatesh befriended some of their test subjects and was given several years of the gang’s financial records. These records were kept just like any other well run organization keeping track of who made how much money, how it was spent or divided and so on. Through personal interview notes with low level gang members, it was concluded that even though they make less than minimum wage, the thought of winning that tournament or being one of the rich guys kept them going even when the likelihood of death was very high. Many of these lower level gang members did not know any other way of life and felt that they were doing what they needed to do to support their families. The economist argued that these drug gangs ran their operations in a similar fashion to McDonald’s where the executive and managers made a lot of money and the low level employees made not much …show more content…
1 Corinthians 15:33 tells us that bad company corrupts good morals, so the low level members may have the right thought process telling them to take care of their families, by working with or even associating with the other gang members they are corrupting themselves. As for the selling of drugs, it is against the law, in Romans 13, we are encouraged to follow the laws and authority of the government so that we can have an orderly society.
The authors of Freakonomics indicate that their research says that what a parent is before they have a child is more vital to the child’s successes in life than what a parent does after they have a child. The data indicates that a person who is educated, a bit older but not too old, and successful before they choose to have children make more successful children than attending parenting classes, reading books, or surrounding a child with different cultural and learning