Shoplifting reaches crisis proportions(axios.com)
axios.com
Shoplifting reaches crisis proportions
https://www.axios.com/shoplifting-retail-crisis-online-resale-9031ced5-04c9-4e88-84f8-1c93e39e7afd.html
232 comments
I'd like anyone who considers more harsh jail punishments to be the solution to consider that the USA has the highest per-capita prison population in the world. Only 1/5 of those prisoners is in there for drug-related crime. Perhaps harsher punishments aren't going to help here.
If only 1/5th of those prisoners are there for drug-crime (and I assume you believe as I do that much drug-related crime isn't worth the arrest?) then isn't that in fact evidence that our population commits substantially more _real_ crime than in other countries?
If so, then yes, let's lock them up. "Everyone steals" is not a good defense to stealing.
If so, then yes, let's lock them up. "Everyone steals" is not a good defense to stealing.
> "Everyone steals" is not a good defense to stealing.
I'm not defending stealing, I'm saying for all crime in America, the deterrent of jail doesn't appear to be working. That button has already been pressed, hard.
I'm not defending stealing, I'm saying for all crime in America, the deterrent of jail doesn't appear to be working. That button has already been pressed, hard.
Right now we have DA’s across the country that are refusing to prosecute crime and letting people out. Criminals know this and are taking advantage.
Even if prison were completely ineffective as a deterrent, that wouldn't be a reason to not use it, because criminals can't rob any more stores while they're imprisoned.
Awesome, we should send the shoplifting rate to zero, by imprisoning, everyone!
I'm not saying to imprison everyone, obviously. I'm saying to imprison everyone who steals.
And my argument is against turning the dial up on punishment as a result of people in prison not being able to steal. The logic you've put forward, at the very least, suggests that people who steal should therefore have life sentences, and that already sounds a little absurd. If we should imprison people more, to prevent crime, why not you and me? I assume we've both jaywalked.
You could add that the price for having a single person in jail is more than people steal. A prisoner costs, in California, $106000 per year.
It would literally be cheaper (and obviously far more efficient for the economy) to offer anyone who steals $50 000 per year as long as they don't steal again. I mean you'd be paying criminals more than police officers, so I get that there would be revolution, but perhaps there are a LOT of cheap possibilities. If you offer someone $10k and what you ask in return keeps them out of prison for 3 months, that's a LARGE profit for the economy ...
The "prevent economic loss, by preventing stealing" argument is pretty strongly against prisons, doubly so in California.
It would literally be cheaper (and obviously far more efficient for the economy) to offer anyone who steals $50 000 per year as long as they don't steal again. I mean you'd be paying criminals more than police officers, so I get that there would be revolution, but perhaps there are a LOT of cheap possibilities. If you offer someone $10k and what you ask in return keeps them out of prison for 3 months, that's a LARGE profit for the economy ...
The "prevent economic loss, by preventing stealing" argument is pretty strongly against prisons, doubly so in California.
We would have to compare that with how much crime there would be if there was no jails.
We might also look at things like how you can come back from jail and get a normal life, and looking into how we house people who are not suitable to get out again.
We might also look at things like how you can come back from jail and get a normal life, and looking into how we house people who are not suitable to get out again.
> the deterrent of jail doesn't appear to be working.
Deterrent ? It does work, the people in jail are not stealing
Deterrent ? It does work, the people in jail are not stealing
The USA has the most people in the world in the jail and this article is about the rising shoplifting problem. You are correct, those people that are currently in jail are not stealing.
And those currently stealing are not in jail.
And if we jail every single citizen of the USA, there will be no stealing! Perfect.
We did it! It's solved!
Can you explain how "it works" when jail inmates cost $106000 per year? You don't need jail to make someone steal less than $106k. You can just let them steal in supermarkets, they'll never get to that amount.
Because that's the whole point, isn't it? Prevent economic loss. So that means the solution needs to cost LESS then the problem. Jails cost more. This is exactly the opposite of working, even on purely economic terms.
Because that's the whole point, isn't it? Prevent economic loss. So that means the solution needs to cost LESS then the problem. Jails cost more. This is exactly the opposite of working, even on purely economic terms.
We have a high recidivism rate because are correctional institutions have no intention of correcting anything about our inmates. California profits off of private prison labor, and have no incentive to provide a path to recovery from a life of crime.
That's nice. Feel free to fix the prison system at any time; if the people who come out don't commit more crimes, I'll be happy.
In the meantime, imprison the people who do commit crimes, and if they do so again after they're out, imprison them again.
In the meantime, imprison the people who do commit crimes, and if they do so again after they're out, imprison them again.
Such a smooth-brained take.
There's a reason prisons are called "schools for crime", and it's because of silly lines like "if they do so again [...], imprison them again". Please actually think, and eventually realize that reducing recidivism rates is how you get your "people who come out don't commit more crimes".
There's a reason prisons are called "schools for crime", and it's because of silly lines like "if they do so again [...], imprison them again". Please actually think, and eventually realize that reducing recidivism rates is how you get your "people who come out don't commit more crimes".
If you've got a way of reducing recidivism, we'd all love to see it. In the meantime, though, throwing insults at ahh doesn't actually refute his/her position.
It's not a secret, it's common sense:
> Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world; in 2016, only 20% of inmates re-offended within 5 years. [...] Norway's prisons are renowned for being some of the best and most humane in the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway
Treat people like people, it's that simple. Attitudes like ahh's arise from not expanding past using their lizard brain. They create more of the problem they purport to complain about. Straight contradiction.
> Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world; in 2016, only 20% of inmates re-offended within 5 years. [...] Norway's prisons are renowned for being some of the best and most humane in the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway
Treat people like people, it's that simple. Attitudes like ahh's arise from not expanding past using their lizard brain. They create more of the problem they purport to complain about. Straight contradiction.
You are welcome to advocate for pleasant, humane prisons. Run whatever antirecidivism campaigns you wish there. If they work, that's great.
In either case: send people who commit crime to those prisons. If they do it again, send them back.
In either case: send people who commit crime to those prisons. If they do it again, send them back.
This isn't some theoretical thing. Countries with sane laws around this see far lower recidivism rates, today.
The proof is in the pudding, and your pudding is rotten. Give it some actual thought.
The proof is in the pudding, and your pudding is rotten. Give it some actual thought.
Which states don’t profit off of prisons?
Many industrialized countries have banned forced prison labor, but still allow some form of voluntary labor. The 13th Amendment enshrines it at the highest law of the land of the United States, and prisoners are often punished for refusing forced labor. Forced penal labor is also embraced by many other authoritarian countries like Communist China and Vietnam.
Some other countries don’t consider possession of a minor amount of drugs, clearly intended for personal use, “a drug crime”. Of course your numbers will be higher than others, if you count things differently.
Treat addiction like an illness, not a crime, and your numbers will fall in line with the rest of the countries, quickly. Moreso if you get rid of those for-profit prison system while you are at it.
Treat addiction like an illness, not a crime, and your numbers will fall in line with the rest of the countries, quickly. Moreso if you get rid of those for-profit prison system while you are at it.
I think you're misinterpreting GP: even though it is true that possession-like crimes are badly handled by the US, you can erase them entirely and the US _still_ has a larger prison population. Our population commits more real crimes than most first-world countries. Treating addiction like an illness seems nice, but will not stop that. We either must imprison them (which don't do _enough_) or convince them not to commit crimes (which actually prosecuting crimes _might_ help with, and very little else we've tried does.)
Someone is not born a "stealer" or "not a stealer". Conditions in society can be a cause.
We have a high prison population so thus we shouldn’t penalize criminals? How does this even make logical sense? Maybe we have a lot of criminals because our society is decaying. Which it very much is. Drug addiction is a separate issue. Crimes have victims, do they not matter? Rampant theft leads to businesses moving out of the area, which harms the community. There are plenty of reasons to punish this behavior.
> Maybe we have a lot of criminals because our society is decaying.
Ok, so maybe addressing that will be more fruitful than baying for more punishment!
Ok, so maybe addressing that will be more fruitful than baying for more punishment!
It can be both/and, rather than either/or. We can try to fix a decaying society, and not let criminals run wild in the meantime.
Ok, but characterizing criminals as "running wild" in the country with literally the most criminals behind bars, seems odd!
Not every country has the same number of criminals total. Just because we have the most behind bars doesn't mean that we don't also have the most running wild.
And why does America produce more criminals? Can we address the root cause rather than the symptom?
Once again: Let's address the root cause and the symptom. Not rather than. Both/and.
But it'd appear that addressing the symptom by turning up the amount of incarceration, has not worked, since America has the most in the world.
I get it. But why after we are asked to decriminalize meth and heroin are we being asked to spend a lot of money on drug rehab and housing for people whose lives have fallen apart because of fentanyl? Or that we should just accept that they need to steal those LEGOs at Target to fund their addiction and there shouldn’t be any consequences?
I agree that harsher punishments would not work, but compassion that simply enables this behavior isn’t the way either.
Honestly, the way the suburbs (like Bellevue WA) handle the problem via simple police intimidation (every incident is met with overwhelming police presence) to push the problems on more open nearby cities (Seattle in this case) seems to be the only that works (locally at least, it doesn’t solve the problem at all regionally or nationally).
I agree that harsher punishments would not work, but compassion that simply enables this behavior isn’t the way either.
Honestly, the way the suburbs (like Bellevue WA) handle the problem via simple police intimidation (every incident is met with overwhelming police presence) to push the problems on more open nearby cities (Seattle in this case) seems to be the only that works (locally at least, it doesn’t solve the problem at all regionally or nationally).
I’d also like anyone who promotes harsher punishments to actually go through the system for just a day before they insist on locking others into it.
Getting arrested permanently changed my view on our justice system. It was a nonviolent offense, related to a paperwork issue, but it resulted in a bench warrant being issued for me.
If I hadn’t just received several thousand dollars in my account from an unexpected windfall, I would not have been able to pay the jail fees. Not fines for the ticket - which was completely dropped - the jail fees for simply being arrested.
The total out the door cost to get arrested was north of $2100 for me. You can beat the case, but you can’t beat the ride.
Getting arrested permanently changed my view on our justice system. It was a nonviolent offense, related to a paperwork issue, but it resulted in a bench warrant being issued for me.
If I hadn’t just received several thousand dollars in my account from an unexpected windfall, I would not have been able to pay the jail fees. Not fines for the ticket - which was completely dropped - the jail fees for simply being arrested.
The total out the door cost to get arrested was north of $2100 for me. You can beat the case, but you can’t beat the ride.
How are jail fees not illegal extra-judicial punishment?
> How are jail fees not illegal extra-judicial punishment
The argument is that they are in law (so not illegal) and compensatory rather than punitive (so not punishment.)
This is contentious, though, and jails have sometimes lost legal cases around them, e.g.:
https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/louisville/news/2021/11/03/ruli...
The main reason for them, of course, is that while mass incarceration policies are popular with those bit subjected to them, paying for mass incarceration is not.
The argument is that they are in law (so not illegal) and compensatory rather than punitive (so not punishment.)
This is contentious, though, and jails have sometimes lost legal cases around them, e.g.:
https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/louisville/news/2021/11/03/ruli...
The main reason for them, of course, is that while mass incarceration policies are popular with those bit subjected to them, paying for mass incarceration is not.
This shoplifting epidemic is happening because no one is going to jail for this. The DA has made clear they won't prosecute these crimes so the shoplifters have no fear of getting caught and know they will be released soon.
From the article:
The top five cities for organized retail crime, in order, were Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, New York and San Francisco.
By “the DA” you are probably referring to the DA of the #5 city?
The top five cities for organized retail crime, in order, were Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, New York and San Francisco.
By “the DA” you are probably referring to the DA of the #5 city?
Per-Capita or ?
> This shoplifting epidemic is happening because no one is going to jail for this.
Is that true?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/17/walmart-shop...
Is that true?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/17/walmart-shop...
I don't think that they literally meant "no one", but rather that a small group of people commit a majority of the crimes, and if those people were behind bars, the crimes rates would fall back to normal levels.
There is evidence to support this thesis. First, we do know that a small group of people commit most of the crimes. Second, we see that in the U.S. when we let people out of institutions the crime rate went up until mass incarceration removed a roughly equivalent amount of people from society.
So there are about 2 million people who commit a huge number of crimes, and we need to decide, as a society, whether to lock these people up or live with the higher crime rates. I don't think there is much evidence that criminals can actually be treated somehow to be reformed, they are either tolerated* or warehoused until they age out.
(*) One middle ground of toleration you see in developing countries is creating zones where crimes can be committed more freely and rich people can buy their own security or live in zones where crimes are punished. Then criminals learn to avoid those zones. That's what a lot of nations (such as Argentina) do which have a large criminal class (like the U.S.) but that can't afford the costs of mass incarceration. They create geographic bubbles in which crime is low.
There is evidence to support this thesis. First, we do know that a small group of people commit most of the crimes. Second, we see that in the U.S. when we let people out of institutions the crime rate went up until mass incarceration removed a roughly equivalent amount of people from society.
So there are about 2 million people who commit a huge number of crimes, and we need to decide, as a society, whether to lock these people up or live with the higher crime rates. I don't think there is much evidence that criminals can actually be treated somehow to be reformed, they are either tolerated* or warehoused until they age out.
(*) One middle ground of toleration you see in developing countries is creating zones where crimes can be committed more freely and rich people can buy their own security or live in zones where crimes are punished. Then criminals learn to avoid those zones. That's what a lot of nations (such as Argentina) do which have a large criminal class (like the U.S.) but that can't afford the costs of mass incarceration. They create geographic bubbles in which crime is low.
> One middle ground of toleration you see in developing countries is creating zones where crimes can be committed more freely and rich people can buy their own security or live in zones where crimes are punished.
This is already happening in the USA. Bellevue WA has a much lower crime rate than Seattle WA. It isn't the rich people "buying" their own security, however, rather than them demanding their police are more numerous and tougher on crime than the city across the lake (pushing the problem over there). Even if King County (where Seattle and Bellevue are) doesn't prosecute, the people doing these things get annoyed with constant police interaction and harassment and so find Seattle much more appealing.
This is already happening in the USA. Bellevue WA has a much lower crime rate than Seattle WA. It isn't the rich people "buying" their own security, however, rather than them demanding their police are more numerous and tougher on crime than the city across the lake (pushing the problem over there). Even if King County (where Seattle and Bellevue are) doesn't prosecute, the people doing these things get annoyed with constant police interaction and harassment and so find Seattle much more appealing.
Argentinian approach to crime and inflation! Perfect :D
The article you have provided is from 2018 and primarily deals with a single individual that had several other outstanding warrants, it has no bearing on what was stated prior.
It sounded like what you said was "This shoplifting epidemic is happening because no one is going to jail for this."
I disagree, I do think people are going to jail for this.
I disagree, I do think people are going to jail for this.
How many of those are recent convicts vs people serving long sentences piling up?
I feel like no one advocates for a middle ground. I usually don’t believe in locking people up excessively. I also don’t believe in effectively legalizing crime by never persecuting petty theft.
If it’s your second or third time shoplifting in bulk, I think a 6 month prison sentence is appropriate. There needs to be some penalty to disincentivize such behavior.
I feel like no one advocates for a middle ground. I usually don’t believe in locking people up excessively. I also don’t believe in effectively legalizing crime by never persecuting petty theft.
If it’s your second or third time shoplifting in bulk, I think a 6 month prison sentence is appropriate. There needs to be some penalty to disincentivize such behavior.
The real problem with jails is that they (1) destroy your life outside and, (2) have you spend time surrounded by other criminals.
So, they make it more likely that you will become/remain a criminal once you come out, even after a short time. So, the middle ground doesn't really work well; we either have to try hard to not put someone in prison, or we basically commit to putting them in prison forever. Because we cannot really say the latter part out loud we release them occasionally and then put them back. The argument currently appears to be between these two extremes in isolation, and the real middle ground IMHO would be to do both things, to different people. But moderate punishment might be the worst of both worlds.
So, they make it more likely that you will become/remain a criminal once you come out, even after a short time. So, the middle ground doesn't really work well; we either have to try hard to not put someone in prison, or we basically commit to putting them in prison forever. Because we cannot really say the latter part out loud we release them occasionally and then put them back. The argument currently appears to be between these two extremes in isolation, and the real middle ground IMHO would be to do both things, to different people. But moderate punishment might be the worst of both worlds.
I don't want to incarcerate a first-time shoplifter, but a habitual thief deserves to spend some time in jail, and the threat of jail will deter people from being habitual thieves.
> the threat of jail will deter people from being habitual thieves.
It'd appear though that given probability, an American is more likely to be in jail than the citizen of any other country, but even with this high threat of jail, these crimes seem to be on the rise.
It'd appear though that given probability, an American is more likely to be in jail than the citizen of any other country, but even with this high threat of jail, these crimes seem to be on the rise.
America is a huge country, with a state and local laws that are inconsistent over both geography and time.
It can be true that we over jail and impose longer sentences in some places, in some past eras, and/or for some crimes, to no good effect, while also in other places, other times, or for certain crimes, under punish such that there is zero deterrent effect when there needs to be at least some.
It can be true that we over jail and impose longer sentences in some places, in some past eras, and/or for some crimes, to no good effect, while also in other places, other times, or for certain crimes, under punish such that there is zero deterrent effect when there needs to be at least some.
Since America is such a huge outlier in terms of jailing people, my thinking is that we ought to compare America to other similar countries and see what the differences are. Pressing the "harsher punishments" button would seem premature, in my view.
You should not be comparing America as a whole to most other countries. The states have historically had more autonomy resulting in more diverse sets of laws and cultures than most other countries. If you must compare, I think state level data would be a more fair comparison.
If they spend time in jail after the first time, maybe they won't become a habitual thief.
In fact its impossible to steal from a CVS while in jail.
Nah, prison is where they learn how to get away with it next time from hardened criminals.
I don't really believe on that theory.
On other hand whole being marked felon thing is what really destroys the future. If you can't get a decent job, what options do you have left?
On other hand whole being marked felon thing is what really destroys the future. If you can't get a decent job, what options do you have left?
Consider another few possibilities.
1. Americans are just more likely to be criminals.
2. Other nations may be equally or even more ineffective at tackling crime.
The assumption that jail doesn't work rests on the assumption that other nations track crime as effectively and that their people are equally criminal.
1. Americans are just more likely to be criminals.
2. Other nations may be equally or even more ineffective at tackling crime.
The assumption that jail doesn't work rests on the assumption that other nations track crime as effectively and that their people are equally criminal.
I'm totally behind 1, open to any evidence of 2. The question then if we decide 1 is the case is - why? What predisposes Americans to, the most jailable crime in the world?
I don’t have anything other than anecdotal stories I would rather not share publicly, but it essentially amounts to there not being any resources to handle non-violent crime (and even violent crime against men is anecdotally ignored).
There just isn’t the capacity of the system to deal with how terrible so many people are and the end result of that is cops not bothering to even record instances as they don’t think it will matter.
This is Canada.
There just isn’t the capacity of the system to deal with how terrible so many people are and the end result of that is cops not bothering to even record instances as they don’t think it will matter.
This is Canada.
Let's figure out if it's 1 or 2 first.
1. Quickly becomes an uncomfortable conversation for most people when you look at the crime stats breakdown by demographic.
[deleted]
Is it uncomfortable? Crime is pretty clearly a systemic issue. If we all were secure in food, housing, and healthcare do you think crime rates would be as high as they are?
What demographics in the US do you think are least likely to be secure in food, housing, and healthcare?
What demographics in the US do you think are least likely to be secure in food, housing, and healthcare?
It is because you're kidding yourself if you try to explain it as purely socio economic, and a lot of people don't want to go there.
For example, men dominate the prison and violent crime demographics compared to women.
For example, men dominate the prison and violent crime demographics compared to women.
Here’s another option one:
3. The American system is putting a lot of innocent people behind bars.
3. The American system is putting a lot of innocent people behind bars.
While letting the actual criminals go free for those crimes? Possibly.
Locking people up also increases the tax burden on everyone else, because housing someone in a prison isn't free.
The real solutions will be technical. More precise delivery tracking (so you know when your package will arrive, so it doesn't get stolen off your porch an hour later). Drone delivery. Package lockers. Man traps at the supermarket exits.
The real solutions will be technical. More precise delivery tracking (so you know when your package will arrive, so it doesn't get stolen off your porch an hour later). Drone delivery. Package lockers. Man traps at the supermarket exits.
> Perhaps harsher punishments aren't going to help here.
Harsher than “no punishment” might
Harsher than “no punishment” might
What a perfectly irrational thing to say. "We've got to go easy on these derelicts...because there are so many, and so many are even worse!"
I'm purely making an argument against the reflex to demand harsher punishments. If harsher punishment always worked to deter criminals, we'd have the death penalty for every crime.
For that conclusion, wouldn't you need to show that the USA has a higher rate of shoplifting and also a higher rate of incarcerated shoplifters per capita?
My conclusion is only that the harsher punishment button has, overall, already been pushed in America. This isn't an argument about shoplifting specifically.
Out of curiosity, I pulled up 73 countries that list prisoners per capita as well as theft per capita. There wasn't any
meaningful correlation.
I didn't really expect there to be a correlation.
Your argument presupposed that those who want harsher punishments do so because punishment is tied to crime per capita.
If the two are unrelated, then it may be that people want harsher punishments anyway just as you don't want harsher punishments anyway.
If the two are unrelated, then it may be that people want harsher punishments anyway just as you don't want harsher punishments anyway.
> Your argument presupposed that those who want harsher punishments do so because punishment is tied to crime per capita.
What? No.
What? No.
This is probably an opinion that I have that is the furthest away from the overton window, but while I wholeheartedly agree (and think drugs should be legalized FWIW), I draw a very different conclusion. Jails definitely don't work as rehabilitation and only prevent crime via removal from society. Also, they are very expensive. So, for better removal, I think habitual criminals (violent or property) should simply be executed. The only problem with death penalty for those who refuse to respect others' negative rights really is the risk of false convictions, and after 3 separate robberies or 5 thefts it is basically 0.
I'm not a big fan of jailing as concentrating prisoners into a single location with lots of time and little oversight sounds prima facie a really bad idea.
I think corporal punishment should be considered as an alternative. Hard to be a cool gangster when you have a sore ass.
I think corporal punishment should be considered as an alternative. Hard to be a cool gangster when you have a sore ass.
Considering the current punishment is nothing... Yeah a harsher punishment will help. Didn't necessarily mean that it should be jail time.
Lately there are a lot of people who want to sell this story of out-of-control shoplifting, but as the article itself notes at the end, it might be bullshit:
> Yes, but: An analysis of crime statistics and other reporting by The Atlantic [1] cast doubt on what it called the "great shoplifting freak-out," citing "fuzzy data" and asserting that what's being lumped together as shoplifting is actually a variety of violent crimes.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/12/shoplifti...
> Yes, but: An analysis of crime statistics and other reporting by The Atlantic [1] cast doubt on what it called the "great shoplifting freak-out," citing "fuzzy data" and asserting that what's being lumped together as shoplifting is actually a variety of violent crimes.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/12/shoplifti...
If you've seen the problem first hand, you wouldn't dismiss it as BS, but I get how people who live in more comfortable environs would find it hard to believe. If you ever visit the Target in downtown Seattle, you can see people just grabbing things off the shelf, the associates watch, follow, try to dissuade them, but 5/10 they get out the door with what they've stolen. It is very depressing to actually see it happen.
The LEGO shelf in that store was cleared out long ago, much to my son's sadness.
But I wouldn't really call this "shoplifting" like I knew it as a kid (when my friends would do it on a stupid dare, trying not to get caught). These people...they aren't worried about getting caught, they aren't subtle about it, they just know the system isn't going to punish them so why not? Like who the heck would try to shoplift a 70 inch TV and think they could do that without anyone noticing? And the judge let him go even though he had like 5 bench warrants:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10447987/Prolific-s...
The LEGO shelf in that store was cleared out long ago, much to my son's sadness.
But I wouldn't really call this "shoplifting" like I knew it as a kid (when my friends would do it on a stupid dare, trying not to get caught). These people...they aren't worried about getting caught, they aren't subtle about it, they just know the system isn't going to punish them so why not? Like who the heck would try to shoplift a 70 inch TV and think they could do that without anyone noticing? And the judge let him go even though he had like 5 bench warrants:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10447987/Prolific-s...
Some companies are lying about why they’re closing stores.
For example, Walgreens announced in 2019 that it would shutter 200 stores. Blaming shoplifting sounds like some serious Chamber of Commerce spin to direct attention away from them abandoning locations and the jobs that go with them, and to give ammunition to pro-corporate pro-policing factions.
For example, Walgreens announced in 2019 that it would shutter 200 stores. Blaming shoplifting sounds like some serious Chamber of Commerce spin to direct attention away from them abandoning locations and the jobs that go with them, and to give ammunition to pro-corporate pro-policing factions.
So what is the real reason they're closing the stores? I want to hear the rest of the conspiracy theory :(
The word of big business is truth and doubting it is a conspiracy theory? That’s a bit of a leap.
Anyway, TFA links to more reading in its final paragraph. Look for the link in the following text:
but: An analysis of crime statistics and other reporting by The Atlantic cast doubt on what it called the "great shoplifting freak-out," citing "fuzzy data" and asserting that what's being lumped together as shoplifting is actually a variety of violent crimes.
Anyway, TFA links to more reading in its final paragraph. Look for the link in the following text:
but: An analysis of crime statistics and other reporting by The Atlantic cast doubt on what it called the "great shoplifting freak-out," citing "fuzzy data" and asserting that what's being lumped together as shoplifting is actually a variety of violent crimes.
That doesn't answer my question, but... that article you tell me to read merely says that there isn't enough information to say that there's a theft spike, it does not provide any evidence against a theft spike.
Those can be equivalent.
Not really. If stores aren't reporting their theft problems because police aren't doing anything about them...the theft problem remains even if the crime statistics magically don't show it. Everyone quickly realizes it is a farce and even the most left-wing SF politician stops using the statistics in their arguments.
>The word of big business is truth and doubting it is a conspiracy theory?
This is certainly the case on HackerNews if it's a censoring tech company or a BigPharma Corp like Pfizer
This is certainly the case on HackerNews if it's a censoring tech company or a BigPharma Corp like Pfizer
So Walgreen is closing otherwise profitable stores out of spite?
Do you have any evidence for this?
Do you have any evidence for this?
They are challenging the assumption/claim that they are profitable.
... while avoiding all blame on management. They made no errors. Not on market research, leading to lack of profitability. Not on managing the store. Nothing is their fault. That alone makes it a bit too convenient.
Its a local pharmacy! This isnt Kodak in the late 90s dropping the ball on the advent of digital.
Its not that hard.
Hire a couple of pharmacists. Check their licenses.
Hire a dozen regular employees.
Assign a few managers.
Buy drugs. Buy soft drinks and milk. Buy personal care goods.
Open between hours of 9 to 10 pm 24-7
There’s no long term strategic plan needed (should we switch to Pepsi? Why not stock both?). Except, maybe, the prescience to only hire ex-marines.
Its not that hard.
Hire a couple of pharmacists. Check their licenses.
Hire a dozen regular employees.
Assign a few managers.
Buy drugs. Buy soft drinks and milk. Buy personal care goods.
Open between hours of 9 to 10 pm 24-7
There’s no long term strategic plan needed (should we switch to Pepsi? Why not stock both?). Except, maybe, the prescience to only hire ex-marines.
Our local QFC keeps cutting back their hours because of:
a. They can't hire enough people.
b. Shoplifting spikes later at night, so why bother being open then, especially when (a) is a problem.
It isn't just one thing, but given two problems put together, it leads to stones (cut hours, close stores) that kill multiple birds.
a. They can't hire enough people.
b. Shoplifting spikes later at night, so why bother being open then, especially when (a) is a problem.
It isn't just one thing, but given two problems put together, it leads to stones (cut hours, close stores) that kill multiple birds.
They’ll shift to online only and then won’t care anymore because the pain will shift back to consumers.
Also note that shoplifting is all over the news, but wage theft is still rampant: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/07/want-t...
Also note that shoplifting is all over the news, but wage theft is still rampant: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/07/want-t...
Isn’t it because a lot of people no longer consider stealing morally wrong? There’s an outside voice saying “you deserve this, they’ve got insurance, it’s ok” and the inner voice no longer reponds with “that’s not ok”. Might that be the consequence of too much focus on all sorts of external moral factors telling us what is and is not offensive, perimissible?
High inflation? A pandemic disrupting millions of people's income? Rising inequality? Colour me surprised.
These people aren't shoplifting to get their needs and to propose such so am ignorance of the situation.
There was a wonderful and detailed article a while back about a baby formula shoplifting ring in the south that shows how this works. The people who are doing the shoplifting are often drug addicts who are promised cash payments or more drugs if they will go and shoplift by a middle man who then stockpiles the good and resales them on line. This isn't Jean Valjean stealing bread this is organized crime seeking to illicitly source goods.
There was a wonderful and detailed article a while back about a baby formula shoplifting ring in the south that shows how this works. The people who are doing the shoplifting are often drug addicts who are promised cash payments or more drugs if they will go and shoplift by a middle man who then stockpiles the good and resales them on line. This isn't Jean Valjean stealing bread this is organized crime seeking to illicitly source goods.
So it sounds like if people had jobs and weren't addicted to drugs they wouldn't be working for shoplifting rings.
Or they had jobs before they got addicted to drugs, and lost them because meth isn't very compatible with working. Honestly, why does everyone assume people lose their job and then start on drugs? There are plenty of people that do drugs while working, and it isn't surprising that not everyone can keep up like that.
This sounds like exactly the kind of this someone who doesn't want to confront millions of their countrymen living in desperation would tell themselves.
No idea if it's really true, but it is suspicious how there's always a good explanation that something that looks like terrible injustice actually isn't.
No idea if it's really true, but it is suspicious how there's always a good explanation that something that looks like terrible injustice actually isn't.
To quote the article
> Now they're combating systematic looting by organized crime gangs — which are growing more aggressive and violent
This is a well documented phenomena and js evidenced by what people are stealing. You don't show up to Nordstrom with a garbage bag if you are starving and hungry you do it if you are looking to score.
This is a well documented phenomena and js evidenced by what people are stealing. You don't show up to Nordstrom with a garbage bag if you are starving and hungry you do it if you are looking to score.
What do they do with the vast majority of LV clothes that don't fit? The smash and grabber doesn't appear to stop by the changing room to try them on first.
Perhaps they drop off the ill fitting clothes the next day with a note.
Perhaps they drop off the ill fitting clothes the next day with a note.
In that case, they really seem to need LEGOs for their mental well being. While that would work for me, the more believable explanation is that legos are much easier to fence for drug money.
Does it not have to do with masks as well as the increasing liability of stopping shoplifters (as well as corporate decision-makers telling store managers not to intervene)?
Note: I personally think masks are a necessary and good thing right now. I just see it as something relevant to why we might see changes in certain statistics.
Note: I personally think masks are a necessary and good thing right now. I just see it as something relevant to why we might see changes in certain statistics.
Let’s continue our wage disparity and see how that Plays out. We have rising homeless rates it can only get worst. If I am already homeless I may as well attempt to shoplift as jail is 3 hots and a cot as they say.
With a side of sodomy.
Prison in America is unjustly violent. The only thing I agree with progressives is that, if there’s no room to jail someone humanely, they shouldn't be in jail.
This to say, the homeless doesn’t want to go to jail for a warm meal. He knows his local DA isnt punishing crime.
Prison in America is unjustly violent. The only thing I agree with progressives is that, if there’s no room to jail someone humanely, they shouldn't be in jail.
This to say, the homeless doesn’t want to go to jail for a warm meal. He knows his local DA isnt punishing crime.
Current events, especially in America, has created a situation where I think theft has become ethical to sustain oneself.
They may let us eat cake, but we may opt to eat the rich instead.
Maybe you don't trust the stories over on /r/antiwork or /r/workreform but I think if even 1% is true, America is rapidly spiralling into a direction where a society can't be sustained.
For a large part of the USA population, young people have no hope of a beter future. They may even only have hope not to die and just to exist.
A home, decent wages, maybe a family one day, are probably for ever out of reach. Unbelievable for the IT tech bro for sure, with 6-figure salaries abound.
Maybe it will not be so bad after all, but I'm not so sure, to be frank.
They may let us eat cake, but we may opt to eat the rich instead.
Maybe you don't trust the stories over on /r/antiwork or /r/workreform but I think if even 1% is true, America is rapidly spiralling into a direction where a society can't be sustained.
For a large part of the USA population, young people have no hope of a beter future. They may even only have hope not to die and just to exist.
A home, decent wages, maybe a family one day, are probably for ever out of reach. Unbelievable for the IT tech bro for sure, with 6-figure salaries abound.
Maybe it will not be so bad after all, but I'm not so sure, to be frank.
There was a lovely article yesterday about the fall of Rome dealing with how one of the reasons Rome fell is because various people acted in their own self interest at the expense of the public good. Many of them doing so because they couldn't believe that something that'd been around so long could fail.
To condone theft because you feel like it is the best option for you is the epitome of that mindset. It will destroy society because we destroy the incentive for anyone to create to produce and then we see real poverty. Everyone bitching on antiwork about their hopeless future are doing so from a place where they have regular stable electricity, running clean water, an internet connection, and I am going to guess ate sometime in the last 12 or at least 24 hours.
Contrast that with my brother in law from Africa when we was growing up the government was subject to constant rebellions, and anything you had could be taken at any time, it made it hard to build and secure goods and services because much of your time was trying to survive, and any appearance of success brought those that would take it from you.
That's where we are headed if we continue to ignore the fact that justice and laws are the price of civilized society regardless of how inhumane it feels.
To condone theft because you feel like it is the best option for you is the epitome of that mindset. It will destroy society because we destroy the incentive for anyone to create to produce and then we see real poverty. Everyone bitching on antiwork about their hopeless future are doing so from a place where they have regular stable electricity, running clean water, an internet connection, and I am going to guess ate sometime in the last 12 or at least 24 hours.
Contrast that with my brother in law from Africa when we was growing up the government was subject to constant rebellions, and anything you had could be taken at any time, it made it hard to build and secure goods and services because much of your time was trying to survive, and any appearance of success brought those that would take it from you.
That's where we are headed if we continue to ignore the fact that justice and laws are the price of civilized society regardless of how inhumane it feels.
> Many of them doing so because they couldn't believe that something that'd been around so long could fail.
I think people don't understand how fragile societies are, in general. Because we in the west had it good for the last 75 years is almost an anomaly if you look at history. And how things can turn if a large majority of the populace has no future to look forward to (like their parents had).
> To condone theft because you feel like it is the best option for you is the epitome of that mindset.
I absolutely condone theft if you need money to survive, not as a means to get the latest iPhone.
> It will destroy society because we destroy the incentive for anyone to create to produce and then we see real poverty. Everyone bitching on antiwork about their hopeless future are doing so from a place where they have regular stable electricity, running clean water, an internet connection, and I am going to guess ate sometime in the last 12 or at least 24 hours.
That reeks so much like victim blaming to me.
Exactly the skewed tech-bro view that is really beyond wrong. You don't undestand that mere existing with some running water and electricity isn't good enough. People need to live. Not dread existence - with just one health scare away from financial ruin - in a terrible soul eating job that doesn't pay anywhere decent.
If you don't want the lower class to start eating the rich / or just fucking up society for that matter, maybe the rich should pay their due, and share their wealth so others don't have to work 3 jobs to survive.
Don't blame the young people, with worthless college debt, with no hope of ever buying a house. Let's see what this will do to fertility rates and how that in turn will affect businesses.
Oh and regarding all those businesses that can't pay a liveable wage: then you have no viable business.
I think people don't understand how fragile societies are, in general. Because we in the west had it good for the last 75 years is almost an anomaly if you look at history. And how things can turn if a large majority of the populace has no future to look forward to (like their parents had).
> To condone theft because you feel like it is the best option for you is the epitome of that mindset.
I absolutely condone theft if you need money to survive, not as a means to get the latest iPhone.
> It will destroy society because we destroy the incentive for anyone to create to produce and then we see real poverty. Everyone bitching on antiwork about their hopeless future are doing so from a place where they have regular stable electricity, running clean water, an internet connection, and I am going to guess ate sometime in the last 12 or at least 24 hours.
That reeks so much like victim blaming to me.
Exactly the skewed tech-bro view that is really beyond wrong. You don't undestand that mere existing with some running water and electricity isn't good enough. People need to live. Not dread existence - with just one health scare away from financial ruin - in a terrible soul eating job that doesn't pay anywhere decent.
If you don't want the lower class to start eating the rich / or just fucking up society for that matter, maybe the rich should pay their due, and share their wealth so others don't have to work 3 jobs to survive.
Don't blame the young people, with worthless college debt, with no hope of ever buying a house. Let's see what this will do to fertility rates and how that in turn will affect businesses.
Oh and regarding all those businesses that can't pay a liveable wage: then you have no viable business.
Why are people with low incomes and often drug habits moving to a city with exorbitant rent. With a couple roommates and a retail job you can easily afford rent in large parts of the country.
Sure blame the victim.
People have agency. Lol at thinking these people have exhausted literally every avenue of advancement
For me, it's a systems design problem.
How do you design a law enforcement system that (1) doesn't grind down poor and minorities the way the current system does, yet (2) still makes punishment for minor crimes like shoplifting sufficiently swift, sure, and severe to be an effective deterrent?
Liberals tend to say "Let's focus on (1) and ignore (2)," while conservatives say "Let's focus on (2) and ignore (1)."
Is it possible to create a system satisfies both concerns? Or is there some fundamental reason that we can never have both? Do we need to pick exactly one of {(1), (2)} and just accept that we'll be stuck with whatever we decide is the lesser of two evils?
How do you design a law enforcement system that (1) doesn't grind down poor and minorities the way the current system does, yet (2) still makes punishment for minor crimes like shoplifting sufficiently swift, sure, and severe to be an effective deterrent?
Liberals tend to say "Let's focus on (1) and ignore (2)," while conservatives say "Let's focus on (2) and ignore (1)."
Is it possible to create a system satisfies both concerns? Or is there some fundamental reason that we can never have both? Do we need to pick exactly one of {(1), (2)} and just accept that we'll be stuck with whatever we decide is the lesser of two evils?
Get people jobs, get them off drugs and give them something to hope for so that you don't have to use law enforcement as the solution?
What if they don't want jobs and don't want off drugs? Can we force them?
We can throw all the money we want at this problem, but at the end of the day, the person has to be somewhat willing to get their life back together, or we are just waiting it.
It is not like most of them didn't have housing/work before their addiction started. The "I got addicted to drugs because I lost my housing and job" isn't as common as the other way around. The reason the problem is so bad now is that really bad drugs that mess people up a lot are much easier to get these days. Many of those people are never coming back, even if you gave them food and shelter for life.
We can throw all the money we want at this problem, but at the end of the day, the person has to be somewhat willing to get their life back together, or we are just waiting it.
It is not like most of them didn't have housing/work before their addiction started. The "I got addicted to drugs because I lost my housing and job" isn't as common as the other way around. The reason the problem is so bad now is that really bad drugs that mess people up a lot are much easier to get these days. Many of those people are never coming back, even if you gave them food and shelter for life.
A good chunk of the people arguing to throw them all in prison are probably one good car accident away from getting hooked on opiates to get through the chronic back pain and winding up like them. Might be you.
And you cannot force people to stop drugs, but most of them really don't want to be doing what they're doing, but they need a way out to be there when they try to find it. Tossing them in jail doesn't work and we can't lock them away for life or execute them.
And they need housing (even while they're on drugs) and they need a job when they start getting clean, or they'll relapse.
You can't force anything, which is kind of the point about why treating it with the criminal justice system is stupid.
And you cannot force people to stop drugs, but most of them really don't want to be doing what they're doing, but they need a way out to be there when they try to find it. Tossing them in jail doesn't work and we can't lock them away for life or execute them.
And they need housing (even while they're on drugs) and they need a job when they start getting clean, or they'll relapse.
You can't force anything, which is kind of the point about why treating it with the criminal justice system is stupid.
So if we can’t fix people that easily once they get addicted to drugs, let’s spend most of our resources trying to prevent addiction in the first place. I’m all for throwing a ton of resources at at-risk kids and making addiction prevention during hospitalizations a number one priority. It’s just that the problem becomes too hard to solve once the damage is done, so focus on avoiding the damage.
And now you know the secret of all those European countries that have less crime and drug problems than we do.
And now you know the secret of all those European countries that have less crime and drug problems than we do.
> A good chunk of the people arguing to throw them all in prison are probably one good car accident away from getting hooked on opiates to get through the chronic back pain and winding up like them. Might be you.
If I ever start stealing from people to get drugs, please do throw me in prison too with the rest of them all, even if the root cause was legitimately prescribed painkillers.
If I ever start stealing from people to get drugs, please do throw me in prison too with the rest of them all, even if the root cause was legitimately prescribed painkillers.
This. The best deterrent to crime is giving the criminal something to lose in the case of being arrested. And no, taking away freedom isn't really much of a deterrent if all you have to your name is $100 and a few sets of clothing and some old furniture.
I bet people with steady jobs and with secure housing commit crimes at a rate of 0.1x (or less) of those who don't.
I bet people with steady jobs and with secure housing commit crimes at a rate of 0.1x (or less) of those who don't.
[deleted]
Uh who could have this seen comming?!? Thing like this start to happen, if the gap between rich and poor becomes bigger and bigger. The next logic step would be just hijack random people.
The vast majority of these people are not stealing out of desperation. This is just the intersection of shitty culture and insufficient enforcement.
>They come in every day, sometimes twice a day, with laundry bags and just load up on stuff,” the Post quoted a store employee saying
We've all seen the videos. When egregious behavior like this goes unpunished and is publicized, there's no shortage of unscrupulous thieves who will line up for an easy score. There is always a subset of the population which only follows laws out of fear of punishment.
>They come in every day, sometimes twice a day, with laundry bags and just load up on stuff,” the Post quoted a store employee saying
We've all seen the videos. When egregious behavior like this goes unpunished and is publicized, there's no shortage of unscrupulous thieves who will line up for an easy score. There is always a subset of the population which only follows laws out of fear of punishment.
It sounds like you are saying that your sources for this claim:
> The vast majority of these people are not stealing out of desperation
Is that “you have seen some videos”.
From where I stand, that doesn’t look like a very strong base on which to build upon.
> The vast majority of these people are not stealing out of desperation
Is that “you have seen some videos”.
From where I stand, that doesn’t look like a very strong base on which to build upon.
so because Jeff Bezo's is rich, I can steal?
No because I'm so poor and nothing to loose. If I had something to loose I wouldn't do stupid things. My life in jail might even better than on the street.
Why don't they just eat minced pork?
No because a class structure only has rich and poor with less and less middle ground, stealing becomes necessity to some. Even if immoral.
Is stealing from someone like Walmart, who post record profits every year, pay employees so little they are on food stamps, engage in union busting etc etc really immoral?
Yes.
So Walmart profit is more important to you than people not starving?
If you want food, robbing the very people bringing in food is worse than robbing random strangers.
Walmart is not people, Walmart is a billion dollar company and it is not bringing food, it is selling it for profit. Stealing from a company is a matter of balance sheet, while stealing from people means a real someone (as opposed to a abstract corporate entity) is actually going to miss something.
Moreover, Walmart would throw the food away anyway, if nobody bought it.
Moreover, Walmart would throw the food away anyway, if nobody bought it.
Walmart's profits have no bearing on the fact that stealing is immoral.
Calling your personal morality a fact seems bit over the top.
Walmart has paid over $1.4 billion in wage theft settlements and fines.
And that also is immoral. However, that does not make it moral to steal from them.
burner556(6)
Let the market handle this. Simply close stores with high theft rates, which will happen anyway since they’re unprofitable.
Already happening in SF as we speak. And the remaining stores have super jacked up prices to the point that it's cheaper to order delivery from a store in the suburbs, pay a tip for a driver, and pay them to do the shopping for you (Instacart) than it is to buy locally.
It's clear that Prop 47 and the general mentality that property crimes don't matter and prosecuting them is racist has failed.
It's clear that Prop 47 and the general mentality that property crimes don't matter and prosecuting them is racist has failed.
I'm sure shoplifting is to blame, and not the price of rent and lack of new construction.
They're both problems that can be attacked independently. You can crack down hard on shoplifters and reselling rings but also build lots of new housing.
Price of rent is a function of housing supply and demand. Rent control just pushes the costs to less visible things like security deposit, maintenance, etc.
Price of rent is a function of housing supply and demand. Rent control just pushes the costs to less visible things like security deposit, maintenance, etc.
They're more interconnected than at first glace. When ambitious people can't be stakeholders in the economy due to NIMBY gatekeepers, they resort to less socially-acceptable means of getting ahead and making it big.
I don't think "reselling rings" are that easy to crack down on, they probably are not rings at all rely on apps and services and operate on a more individual basis. The very framing of such is just used to justify greater police budgets, but this is something far harder than even the drug war to win. The only way to win it is to make sure entrepreneurial sorts find it more profitable to do things legitimately than it is to plunder goods, and ensure jobs and job training are more accessible than a life of crime.
I don't think "reselling rings" are that easy to crack down on, they probably are not rings at all rely on apps and services and operate on a more individual basis. The very framing of such is just used to justify greater police budgets, but this is something far harder than even the drug war to win. The only way to win it is to make sure entrepreneurial sorts find it more profitable to do things legitimately than it is to plunder goods, and ensure jobs and job training are more accessible than a life of crime.
> When ambitious people can't be stakeholders in the economy due to NIMBY gatekeepers, they resort to less socially-acceptable means of getting ahead and making it big
I don't ever remember thinking of drug dealers at any school I went to as "ambitious". Some drug _users_, yes, but they never stole stuff to fund their drug habit. It was more like recreational, responsible alcohol for them. And now that we all have careers it's pretty clear who was actually ambitious and who wasted their parents' money.
I don't ever remember thinking of drug dealers at any school I went to as "ambitious". Some drug _users_, yes, but they never stole stuff to fund their drug habit. It was more like recreational, responsible alcohol for them. And now that we all have careers it's pretty clear who was actually ambitious and who wasted their parents' money.
I suppose you're not suggesting that people whose ambition to become business leaders is hindered by high rent turn to running criminal rings?
If you grow up in a neighborhood where the only example of financial success around you is a drug dealer, and every honest person is losing, what would you want to be when you grow up?
> Let the market handle this.
Not sure I want that. When the state refuses to protect private property, the market solution tends to look more like Vito Corleone. That's especially true when it appears certain organized crime groups are perpetrating coordinated thefts like the one at Nordstrom. The big corporations can't afford to to have mafia payments on the books, but they can afford to pack up and leave or encase everything in cages. The local mom 'n' pop store will be willing to pay a bit for protection.
Not sure I want that. When the state refuses to protect private property, the market solution tends to look more like Vito Corleone. That's especially true when it appears certain organized crime groups are perpetrating coordinated thefts like the one at Nordstrom. The big corporations can't afford to to have mafia payments on the books, but they can afford to pack up and leave or encase everything in cages. The local mom 'n' pop store will be willing to pay a bit for protection.
I think that the OP is ironic, and suggests that the market will force everyone reasonable to leave, exposing California as a failed state.
While that would indeed he instructive, it also would be quite destructive. I hope California can return to protecting the liberties that were already well-understood 200 years ago without going to such extremes.
While that would indeed he instructive, it also would be quite destructive. I hope California can return to protecting the liberties that were already well-understood 200 years ago without going to such extremes.
Kind of, though:
In the past stores had Loss Prevention departments which were tasked with this stuff. It's never been the case that nobody shop lifted, its just now that the economic race has led retailers to externalize and cut costs.
It's very, very annoying to have some mall cop following you around, so now its a camera, later it will be many more and much better cameras with a lower paid employee with much less engagement with their occupation. I reject that it is an impossible task for national retailers.
I suspect walmart has a workable model: They move stocking into the shopping hours and use all of their employees as a micro-scale surveillance network.
Why should society foot the bill for for police and such to watch private property like this and essentialy persecute the population because the national retailers don't want to invest in the cost of doing business?
Inside of a store, it's completely reasonable and totally possible to just have an employee around.
Policing organized crime is the job of the FBI, if my knowledge of this stuff is a little bit correct. All of this surveillance garbage we've been ignoring for decades was supposed to solve these problems, but it is clearly not capable of doing so.
In the past stores had Loss Prevention departments which were tasked with this stuff. It's never been the case that nobody shop lifted, its just now that the economic race has led retailers to externalize and cut costs.
It's very, very annoying to have some mall cop following you around, so now its a camera, later it will be many more and much better cameras with a lower paid employee with much less engagement with their occupation. I reject that it is an impossible task for national retailers.
I suspect walmart has a workable model: They move stocking into the shopping hours and use all of their employees as a micro-scale surveillance network.
Why should society foot the bill for for police and such to watch private property like this and essentialy persecute the population because the national retailers don't want to invest in the cost of doing business?
Inside of a store, it's completely reasonable and totally possible to just have an employee around.
Policing organized crime is the job of the FBI, if my knowledge of this stuff is a little bit correct. All of this surveillance garbage we've been ignoring for decades was supposed to solve these problems, but it is clearly not capable of doing so.
The market is also what provides demand for cheap goods at a time when prices are increasing, and corporate profits are skyrocketing. Retail theft is the correction.
Absolutely not. There are actually human costs to it. My parents are old (in their 70s), and they are lucky to have a CVS near by where they can walk and get their medicine and basic needs.
Pharmacies and grocery stores being forced to close due to unchecked theft inflict pain and major lowering of quality of life to people around the neighborhood, and especially to people that can't just drive to the next store.
Also "just use online", may not be a solution. Medicine (especially pain pills), are continuous target of thefts.
Once the stores are closed, then the organized criminals move into homes. Next you will have to start installing heavy iron bars in your home. If you walk in parts of brooklyn, you'd see older homes that had massive bars even in 2nd floor windows, just to keep the people safe.
The market just doesn't solve the collapse of society. Unchecked theft costs to all society.
Pharmacies and grocery stores being forced to close due to unchecked theft inflict pain and major lowering of quality of life to people around the neighborhood, and especially to people that can't just drive to the next store.
Also "just use online", may not be a solution. Medicine (especially pain pills), are continuous target of thefts.
Once the stores are closed, then the organized criminals move into homes. Next you will have to start installing heavy iron bars in your home. If you walk in parts of brooklyn, you'd see older homes that had massive bars even in 2nd floor windows, just to keep the people safe.
The market just doesn't solve the collapse of society. Unchecked theft costs to all society.
We live in a democracy, more or less, which allows the majority to dictate what is acceptable in society. The majority has decided that a subset of society is not beholden to the laws the rest of us are. Jim Crow laws were unjust and it was the victims who had to fight it. Elderly people have most of the wealth in this country, if they've got a problem then they should put that wealth to work convincing a majority of their views.
> Elderly people have most of the wealth in this country
That's...so reductive as to be actively misleading. "Have", "most", and "wealth" all deserve several asterisks.
That's...so reductive as to be actively misleading. "Have", "most", and "wealth" all deserve several asterisks.
> Elderly people have most of the wealth in this country, if they've got a problem then they should put that wealth to work convincing a majority of their views.
The elderly people with this wealth don't care - they can afford to live in places where this isn't a problem. Everyone else (young and old alike) can take a hike as far as these rich old folks are concerned.
The elderly people with this wealth don't care - they can afford to live in places where this isn't a problem. Everyone else (young and old alike) can take a hike as far as these rich old folks are concerned.
I don't know what needs to start happening for society to reach a consensus that we need to address the problems of poverty and inequaliy in income and access to good education
Part of "let the market handle it" is your parents moving to a safer place.
Which seems like a bad deal for everyone (the stores, the people in the neighborhood, and even the shoplifters).
The community gets the shopping options it asks for, apparently (or not, according to the article).
Why should my grocery store close because people are stealing things from it? What do I do, just starve?
...because they are losing money? stores aren't in business to feed you; they are in business to make money. Would you continue to own and run a store if it lost money for you? Better have deep pockets then.
You’re being downvoted for this, but you are right, and it’s why we have—or ought to have—a vested interest in enforcing our laws.
How does society function if no one is tasked with feeding the people?
Are we all supposed to own farms? How does that work with 330 million Americans? Who is going to have time to do things like design the hardware and software that power the devices you use to post on the internet--they don't have time to do that and work their personal farm for food...
Are we all supposed to own farms? How does that work with 330 million Americans? Who is going to have time to do things like design the hardware and software that power the devices you use to post on the internet--they don't have time to do that and work their personal farm for food...
I understand your point, that we all need to come together to solve community problems, as a community.
However, let's put this in context - when was the last time you did something, purely altruisticly, without any expectation of recompense? I think the people who do that kind of work are exceptional and exceptionally rare (assuming you are such a person). Even in those cases, those exceptional people choose problems where they can do the most good - and even if it can be argued that a community grocery store is such a place, it "competes" with various other local and global issues.
I imagine you need to get paid yourself in order to support your lifestyle.
Imagine someone were to approach you and ask the fruits of your labor for free - "qbasic_forever's software is a community good, why won't he simply do it for free?" I'm sure you have a variety of reasons, but most people's answers would be: life requires resources, so I must acquire those resources so that I and my family can live.
The grocery store owner and employees are in a similar circumstance. Or perhaps, a worse circumstance: "why should we continue to provide for a community which constantly steals from us and makes it harder for us to live?"
I have a very hard time answering this question - so I sympathize dearly with the grocery store owner.
However, let's put this in context - when was the last time you did something, purely altruisticly, without any expectation of recompense? I think the people who do that kind of work are exceptional and exceptionally rare (assuming you are such a person). Even in those cases, those exceptional people choose problems where they can do the most good - and even if it can be argued that a community grocery store is such a place, it "competes" with various other local and global issues.
I imagine you need to get paid yourself in order to support your lifestyle.
Imagine someone were to approach you and ask the fruits of your labor for free - "qbasic_forever's software is a community good, why won't he simply do it for free?" I'm sure you have a variety of reasons, but most people's answers would be: life requires resources, so I must acquire those resources so that I and my family can live.
The grocery store owner and employees are in a similar circumstance. Or perhaps, a worse circumstance: "why should we continue to provide for a community which constantly steals from us and makes it harder for us to live?"
I have a very hard time answering this question - so I sympathize dearly with the grocery store owner.
No one is actually tasked with feeding people. We benefit from the surplus of farms which sell their excess for profit, and you are then tasked with securing the means of purchasing food if you want to eat.
Or: farms task themselves with producing food in the same way programmers task themselves with producing software.
Or: farms task themselves with producing food in the same way programmers task themselves with producing software.
Why should the farmers stay in business of making food if they could make more money as programmers, bitcoin traders, etc?
Why do people go into Real Estate or hospitality or teaching if they could make more money as programmers, bitcoin traders, etc?
The answer is, I don’t know why people do everything they do, but the labor market sorts itself out according to incentives, ability, compensation, laws, education, the dispersal of information and any number of factors.
We have farms and they are really good at what they do because we have food that is readily and cheaply accessible in abundance.
The answer is, I don’t know why people do everything they do, but the labor market sorts itself out according to incentives, ability, compensation, laws, education, the dispersal of information and any number of factors.
We have farms and they are really good at what they do because we have food that is readily and cheaply accessible in abundance.
I mean, if the people running the store can't profitably operate (due to theft or other factors), why should they operate?
Why should the owners of that supermarket go into ruin just to give you another shopping option? Why is it their responsibility to keep you fed at all?
Why should the owners of that supermarket go into ruin just to give you another shopping option? Why is it their responsibility to keep you fed at all?
My grandfather owned and operated an early contemporary grocery store, growing from his fruit stand. Before self-service shopping and the checkout line, you would just give the grocer a list of what you would need and they would get it from the inventory. This also made theft impractical. Now, with the skyrocketing cost of retail rent, and other costs affiliated with retail store operations, we see a return full-service shopping with apps and food service operating out of ghost kitchens, we're finding out we don't need grocery stores.
It's a shame - however, I live in an area without this endemic shop-lifting. I enjoy my local community store and I'm sad that others in these high-crime areas cannot.
Why should firefighters put out fires? They make no money from it. It costs them money in equipment wear, water usage, etc.!
I'm sympathetic to your grandparent statement (closing stores can really screw their patrons), but the comparison to firefighters is apples to oranges. Firefighting is a civic utility-everyone contributes a little bit for the service. Grocery stores are not, in most locales.
If no one fights fires, they burn uncontrollably and we all die. If no grocery stores operate, we all starve and die. Feeding the people is the same level of protection as fighting fires.
Expenses of firefighting are paid from the state budget. When expenses of grocery stores (dispensaries?) will be paid from the state budget, the comparison would stand.
Also, shoplifting is like calling firefighters to water your lawn, because, see, it's free!
Also, shoplifting is like calling firefighters to water your lawn, because, see, it's free!
Running a store is very different from firefighting - arguably there is a much higher moral good being done by literally saving people from imminent death by burning. Firefighters are also paid in many places, even if volunteer services are available.
Finally, they do have charitable "food delivery" places - they are called soup kitchens, but they are intended for people who can't afford food at all, not necessarily for people who have the money to buy what they need.
Finally, they do have charitable "food delivery" places - they are called soup kitchens, but they are intended for people who can't afford food at all, not necessarily for people who have the money to buy what they need.
Because they get paid to do it - they literally make money from fighting fires
How does this business of fire fighting make money? All they do is spend money on equipment, labor, etc. Where is their income coming from, and who is incentivized to keep paying them despite no profit and no return on investment ever?
It doesn't, but the community decided that it was valuable, so chose to fund it using taxes, collectively. If you make the case to your community for a communal grocery store, it too can be funded with taxes. Be warned, it comes with its own set of problems that are hard to predict at the outset.
Actually, I have private fire insurance that I do pay for, and the insurance makes plenty of money on it. That's ok with me.
People could pay for a service where firefighters would come and put out a potential fire at their house.
What if your neighbor decides not to pay their fire fighting bill? You going to be happy about living within feet of their uncontrolled blaze?
I believe those firefighting services will respond to every fire, they will just watch and prevent it from burning a neighboring house that does pay.
The average grocery store profit margin is around 2.2%. If additional shoplifting amounts to a substantial fraction of that, then there's no reason to keep the business open. Grocery stores aren't pro bono.
https://thegrocerystoreguy.com/what-is-the-profit-margin-for...
https://thegrocerystoreguy.com/what-is-the-profit-margin-for...
They have massive revenue, but low margins. Also large chunk of their stock are perishable, meaning that inventory control and so on is critical. It really doesn't compare to many other industries. And not to forgot how harsh the competition is too.
Really many factors bring even some losses to be unacceptable.
Really many factors bring even some losses to be unacceptable.
Because you and other people in the community aren't filling the other side of social contract. That is ensuring that store can operate without unnecessary losses from you or your community members stealing from it. It is in the end your failing of making operation possible.
Vote for DA’s and politicians that enforce the law.
Talk to your government officials to fix the underlying problem.
no please don't starve, you should start stealing food like your neighbors do.
Yea I mean why have police at all? Just let the market sort out all out. If people keep getting shot, we’ll eventually the neighborhood will empty out and no more shootings!
That's literally the first sentence of the article.
when has capitalism ever fixed crime?
2008 financial crash saw almost no bank executives prosecuted, so from their perspective banking crimes are fixed and not a problem anymore.