You're correct in your first paragraph and probably a quarter correct in your second paragraph. Just to be a bit more deliberate: poor communities have experienced high rates of crime throughout human history, it's a newly recurring phenomenon that high rates of crime are now happening in communities which are not poor, and it's a problematic sign for society. Without trying to crack open the entirety of human psychology and sociology in a comment on HN, a lot of people primarily gather wealth to build safety for their family, the entire reason that they become wealthier is to insulate themselves from the criminality that is common in poorer parts of their city/country/world. The fact that relative wealth is no longer as insulative as it once was is indicative of a wider ranging issue than poverty driving crime, and results in subtle shifts and cracks forming in society.

There are absolutely cultural drivers behind crime, as well as demographic drivers, and I am positing that a big piece of what's causing criminal culture to spread and shift is social media acting as a communications platform to spread a different set of social mores and standards than those that have historically enforced cohesion within larger society and reduced criminality in wealthier areas. Again, case in point, children of wealthy families in posh schools engaging in vandalize and theft of school property for social media points. Social media is nothing if not a cultural force that creates a new demographic that cuts across other lines, their user-base.

Why is it an issue that wealth is not as insulative as it once was against crime?

What about those who want wealth but can't acquire it but also do good in a community to prevent crime? What if we were forced to make communal change instead of buying our way out?

Children across all spectrums of wealth have engaged in vandalization or theft for the entirety of humanity, whether for social media points or other variations of clout.

> Why is it an issue that wealth is not as insulative as it once was against crime?

I think it depends on social context, but at least in the US, and I would suspect in much of the West generally, people work to acquire wealth primarily to better the lives of themselves and their family, and a big portion of that is where they live (e.g. a home purchase is usually the largest purchase in any person's life). Given that, if you cannot reliably buy a home in a safe place, it leads to significant increased risk for productive members of society and general breakdowns in social cohesion. I don't want to be that guy, but I see parallels between our current zeitgeist and the fall of the Roman Empire.

> What about those who want wealth but can't acquire it but also do good in a community to prevent crime? What if we were forced to make communal change instead of buying our way out?

"Buying your way out" is a form of communal change, it's literally the basis of suburban living, HOAs, inner-metro townships & associated township policing, et al. I don't know of anyone who "wants wealth but can't acquire it", I know of many people that want some subset of what wealth might bring and are unwilling to do the things necessary to acquire what they want. Unwillingness and inability are not the same, nor is materialism and safety/piece and quiet.

> Children across all spectrums of wealth have engaged in vandalization or theft for the entirety of humanity, whether for social media points or other variations of clout.

Yes, anti-social behavior is part of the human condition, but generally speaking is confined in some way except in times of social strife and turmoil. By most metrics this is not a time of social strife and turmoil, but we are seeing a rise in anti-social behavior that would indicate that it is.