This is a very interesting idea and has some good potential for social change. So much energy, so misplaced. As a scandinavian my first thought is: Don't Americans realize that there might a point where it is cheaper to provide (or more exactly, force) better education and social security on those at risk, than increasing the police force and incarceration rates?

There is something that is not quite right with this narrative that Gladwell spins though. His past examples are about the winners of their era. On the other hand, the contemporary examples are losers who end up killed and squeezed by the police. Presumably, in the earlier mafia era there were also plenty of losers, we just don't hear about them.

The main thesis which I think is sound, though, is that innovation often (usually) involves a certain amount of breaking societal norms (which includes laws). It can take violent forms, such as the mafia, but also less violent law-breaking is often present. Think Napster, as a clear example but why not include Uber and AirBnB as well? Often innovation is not just about new technology, but rather re-negotiating social contracts. For this reason, when technological or social change introduces new economic opportunity, often it becomes populated by people who are willing to violate laws. I think as societies, we should try to figure out how to better utilize the violent and rebellious behvior of people, while limiting the detrimental effects. The same adrenaline addict might kill himself and a few pedestrian on a motorcycle when evading the police, but could instead be allowed to risk his life in some space exploration program or why not a technology startup.

I don't believe more than a small fraction of all gangsters and criminals ever made it. Most were poor, stayed poor and had children that also grew up to be poor. Focusing on the few who became millionaires is an extreme form of survival bias. It's writing history so that it fits the rich.

What they had in common with others in the upper classes is that they found a way to make other peoples labour work for them. Maybe that's called "working hard" but it could also be called "getting others to work hard for you." It's how wealth is amassed and it doesn't matter whether it's on the legal or illegal side of the law.

Interesting. I think the article downplays the brutality of the mafia, but the takeaway I've gotten from it is simple: if you want to lower organized crime, offer genuine, legal opportunities of advancement to those who currently don't have them.

This article is very similar to the thesis of Sudhir Venkatesh's "Floating City: A Rogue Sociologist Lost and Found in New York City" which studies how low level criminals (crack dealers, prostitutes) try to cross racial and economic classes to expand their businesses in NYC. They aren't criminals by nature but, as Gladwell writes, this is one of the few avenues open to them.

Like a lot of Gladwell yarns, it's a lovely theory with some nice stories (and wonderfully written - a real New Yorker burying of the lede). And he's more hypothesising than suggesting this should be the case.

But still - 'except when they were killing people, the PSI was an example of American exceptionalism' won't fly with me.

Interesting piece, and written in a compelling way.

However, some things don't fit the narrative. Gladwell mentions the various waves of immigration (Irish, Jewish, Italian) and suggests that crime is a way to get up the ladder.

But weren't the African-Americans there long before these groups? Shouldn't they have been the first to do this journey?

He mentions Merton's 6 ways and suggests crime is innovation. But how innovative is it really, crime? Is forming and running a cartel not something that has occurred quite often in the minds of people who compete? Is bootlegging innovative? To my mind, it's not innovative. It's just taking more risk than the average person takes.

The presidential Bush family also gained some of their riches through slavery. I'm not going to draw any conclusions from this right now.

I think a lot of African Americans are getting a bum deal out of life. Murder and drug dealing are wrong, but society doesn't give them a lot of other realistic options. But this is just feeding into the pessimism that David Brin was complaining about.[0] There is no silver bullet.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8332614

I found this interesting:

>Avellino’s mission was to rationalize the industry, to enforce what was called a “property rights” system among the carters. Individual firms were allowed to compete for new customers. But, once a carter won a customer, he “owned” that business; the function of Avellino’s P.S.I. was to make sure that no one else poached that customer.

It kind of reminded me of Peter Thiel's monopoly theory. At some point, competition for certain things becomes counter-productive. If the need is simple enough and adequately served, better to let it be served than waste energy undercutting and re-negotiating customers. There's a bigger world out there anyways. Obviously this colusion is all in the interest of the businessmen, rather than the customer.

But the point stands in (at least how I interpret) Peter's mafia theory: don't get into a line of business where it's easy to poach customers and competition is incredibly fierce. Like the restaurant business in San Francisco. The antithesis of this is something like Palantir I suppose, selling specialized solutions to governments.

I was really excited to see Malcolm Gladwell writing this just after I finished reading one of the books he's talking about, On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City. I highly recommend it, especially if you enjoyed Gang Leader for a Day.

The US is in desperate need of a mind shift from seeing all criminals as hopelessly dangerous people that can only be dealt with by force. When the same problems come up in every single poor community, it's a reflection of deeper social issues. These sort of well written stories showing the humanity involved can help with that.

I just searched for the other book mentioned in the article and the ONLY copy available for sale (as in there's exactly one book) is $59 on amazon. The publishing industry strikes again.

There's something deeply uncomfortable about one of the reported quotes:

I saw children give up running and simply stick their hands behind their back, as if in handcuffs; push their body up against a car without being asked; or lie flat on the ground and put their hands over their head. The children yelled, “I’m going to lock you up! I’m going to lock you up, and you ain’t never coming home!” I once saw a six-year-old pull another child’s pants down to do a “cavity search.”

Do we really want to be teaching this?

This is a slap in the face to everyone who tries to get ahead in life by, you know, learning stuff (like programming) and improving their skills.

The gangster route is for people who don't like the modest work to reward ratio that ordinary work brings - they want to risk more to get more. And by doing that, they make other people's life miserable.

Malcolm Gladwell has just lost every respect I ever had for him. The way he argues is like saying: "Yeah well, they were bad guys back then, but only because weren't rich yet, so they kind of had to be gangsters".