Analysis of Walgreens' stated reasoning for closing SF stores(sfgate.com)
sfgate.com
Analysis of Walgreens' stated reasoning for closing SF stores
https://www.sfgate.com/bay-area-politics/article/San-Francisco-Walgreens-closure-retail-theft-16533142.php
33 comments
[deleted]
Next up: legally requiring stores to operate in high-theft areas?
> When comparing 2021 larceny theft figures to pre-pandemic 2019 figures, one will find that reports of theft are actually down. From Jan. 1, 2021, to Oct. 10, 2021, there have been 21,842 reports of larceny theft, and there were 31,958 reports over the same period in 2019, which is a 31.6% decrease.
Ok, but this might be very misleading. Wallgreen’s chief complaint is that the laws were changed and police no longer respond to theft under $950. Encouraging small incidence but relatively safe repeated thefts.
So wouldn’t it make complete sense that larceny numbers where police were called, an arrest was made, and a conviction secured would drop if police were instructed to respond only to larger crimes?
If anything I would expect a larger decrease if Walgreen’s is correct.
Not saying this was any plan to “decrease crime by under reporting” or that I can prove the videos I’ve seen of carefree shoplifters weren’t happening previous to the law changes. Just that this might not be the point they are intending to make.
Ok, but this might be very misleading. Wallgreen’s chief complaint is that the laws were changed and police no longer respond to theft under $950. Encouraging small incidence but relatively safe repeated thefts.
So wouldn’t it make complete sense that larceny numbers where police were called, an arrest was made, and a conviction secured would drop if police were instructed to respond only to larger crimes?
If anything I would expect a larger decrease if Walgreen’s is correct.
Not saying this was any plan to “decrease crime by under reporting” or that I can prove the videos I’ve seen of carefree shoplifters weren’t happening previous to the law changes. Just that this might not be the point they are intending to make.
Walgreen's are not perceiving local support for their stores. They are not alone. There is a Walgreen's in the Castro and it is likely from my reading they share a lot of the complaints in this article [0] which says law enforcement is no longer to be counted on to help.
[0]https://www.ebar.com/news/latest_news/302626
[0]https://www.ebar.com/news/latest_news/302626
It would also be useful to know what the average haul of the thefts pre-pandemic and now.
This, I think, is the core issue. The typical theft before the changes could have been of trivially low values. As soon as people know that the strongest negative incentives only kick in after a total value (e.g. 1000 USD) they may start to "optimize" for that.
I mean - if a person would shoplift item A; they may reason that there is very little additional negative incentive to not steal B, C...as well - to get closer to that threshold.
This makes sense even if you assume that thefts of total value under the threshold are being always reported (as commented elsewhere here). Lower numbers of instances, higher value of theft.
Then again, maybe there are underlying mechanisms in the motivations of shoplifting that make this completely wrong. I'd accept and appreciate the input of someone with expertise in this subject
I mean - if a person would shoplift item A; they may reason that there is very little additional negative incentive to not steal B, C...as well - to get closer to that threshold.
This makes sense even if you assume that thefts of total value under the threshold are being always reported (as commented elsewhere here). Lower numbers of instances, higher value of theft.
Then again, maybe there are underlying mechanisms in the motivations of shoplifting that make this completely wrong. I'd accept and appreciate the input of someone with expertise in this subject
Walgreens has the data on this so they can choose to put it up, if they care about people believing them.
Walgreen's is not in the business of morality. They are in the business of making money. Walgreen's could say just about anything they wanted about closing up shop in San Francisco and it doesn't really make good business sense for them to say something provocative. It seems to me they're telling the truth.
On the other hand, the San Francisco DA is acting in a highly defensive manner. It's pretty offensive of them and it's pretty clear they're doing a bad job.
Worse, the San Francisco DA is helping create a false dichotomy between safety and compassion. I think both are possible; the SF DA, however, does not seem competent enough to offer either.
On the other hand, the San Francisco DA is acting in a highly defensive manner. It's pretty offensive of them and it's pretty clear they're doing a bad job.
Worse, the San Francisco DA is helping create a false dichotomy between safety and compassion. I think both are possible; the SF DA, however, does not seem competent enough to offer either.
Walgreens could easily respond by putting up historical store revenues and profits that show year over year increasing tear from each store they closed.
The DA put up numbers showing that in the past 2 years thefts have gone down. I’ll for now trust the one that puts up the numbers.
The DA put up numbers showing that in the past 2 years thefts have gone down. I’ll for now trust the one that puts up the numbers.
I have no idea who is telling the truth, but wouldn't it be fair to say that people working for the city do have more of a motivation to spin this than Walgreens?
If Walgreens is doing what the city claims, then Walgreens doesn't need to blame the city. They might anyway, but there's no big incentive. If they have a lot of stores that aren't closing, wouldn't it even be potentially harming their business for no reason?
Whereas, if the situation is what Walgreens says, then the city does need to blame Walgreens.
I have never been to SF and don't have any idea about the facts on the ground. Just, coming from ignorance, it seems logical to me to bet the opposite way from you.
One response to a decrease in reported theft and an increase in viral videos of theft is that the number of videos is misleading and "the numbers" prove it.
Another is that people aren't reporting theft as much because it's either out of control or perceived as such due to the videos. And/or the authorities have ways of manipulating the statistics.
I don't know that one or the other interpretation is correct, but if someone presents the first one as obvious without delving into why it is certainly true, then I tend to distrust them overall.
If Walgreens is doing what the city claims, then Walgreens doesn't need to blame the city. They might anyway, but there's no big incentive. If they have a lot of stores that aren't closing, wouldn't it even be potentially harming their business for no reason?
Whereas, if the situation is what Walgreens says, then the city does need to blame Walgreens.
I have never been to SF and don't have any idea about the facts on the ground. Just, coming from ignorance, it seems logical to me to bet the opposite way from you.
One response to a decrease in reported theft and an increase in viral videos of theft is that the number of videos is misleading and "the numbers" prove it.
Another is that people aren't reporting theft as much because it's either out of control or perceived as such due to the videos. And/or the authorities have ways of manipulating the statistics.
I don't know that one or the other interpretation is correct, but if someone presents the first one as obvious without delving into why it is certainly true, then I tend to distrust them overall.
I also am not strongly on one side there, but I can think of a few incentives for Walgreens to not say admit that certain stores are being closed due to lack of profits (indicating perhaps to investors that they've overbought in many areas and that their overall revenue will be going down, and hence their stock prices and the C-suite's bonus).
However I also agree that there's not enough info here to be definitively in one camp or another - hence my ploy to say hey these folks at least have data, to try to get the other side to put up their data. The interesting part would be how far off that data is, and then someone's got some 'splaining to do, either to voters or investors.
1. Walgreens is correct - the SF DA is vastly undercounting thefts. This is very much of the public interest
2. Walgreens is lying - this is very much in the interest of walgreens investors
3. Middle ground (probably likely here) - those particular stores had a lot more theft than the average in SF and were particularly targeted. Neither is lying, but walgreens assertion that theft is rampant is somewhat weasel words.
However I also agree that there's not enough info here to be definitively in one camp or another - hence my ploy to say hey these folks at least have data, to try to get the other side to put up their data. The interesting part would be how far off that data is, and then someone's got some 'splaining to do, either to voters or investors.
1. Walgreens is correct - the SF DA is vastly undercounting thefts. This is very much of the public interest
2. Walgreens is lying - this is very much in the interest of walgreens investors
3. Middle ground (probably likely here) - those particular stores had a lot more theft than the average in SF and were particularly targeted. Neither is lying, but walgreens assertion that theft is rampant is somewhat weasel words.
You can't be too cynical about management, but the investors are overwhelmingly institutions such as the largest index funds in the world. Walgreen's is something like 0.1% of the stock market. If they vaporized tomorrow, so much the better for their competitors which the same entities own.
I guess management might be playing to the few people that bet the farm on Walgreens, but I can't imagine what they are like or what the execs think they want.
You suggest that management doesn't want to admit they're closing stores for other reasons, but they do admit they're closing some stores for other reasons, right? That was cited in the article, which linked to an SEC filing saying they're spending over $2 billion to close stores.
Is it plausible individual investors and/or bonus agreements are critically affected by the reasoning provided for a handful of store closings out of hundreds?
Is it plausible even someone who invested every dollar they own in Walgreens cares about SF specifically, when they have 10,000 locations?
I don't think there's a way to recover a self-consistent narrative from the article.
Of course, that in no way proves that corporate mouthpieces are truthful or that they're not up to something.
I guess management might be playing to the few people that bet the farm on Walgreens, but I can't imagine what they are like or what the execs think they want.
You suggest that management doesn't want to admit they're closing stores for other reasons, but they do admit they're closing some stores for other reasons, right? That was cited in the article, which linked to an SEC filing saying they're spending over $2 billion to close stores.
Is it plausible individual investors and/or bonus agreements are critically affected by the reasoning provided for a handful of store closings out of hundreds?
Is it plausible even someone who invested every dollar they own in Walgreens cares about SF specifically, when they have 10,000 locations?
I don't think there's a way to recover a self-consistent narrative from the article.
Of course, that in no way proves that corporate mouthpieces are truthful or that they're not up to something.
It was also decided to not respond to shoplifting reports under $950, which may be the cause of the 'reduction in reported larceny'. People may have stopped reporting it.
The DA did not put up numbers showing that thefts have gone down. The DA put up numbers showing that reports of thefts have gone down.
Those are different things, don't you think?
Why would someone report a theft of under $1000 in SF when going outside and yelling at the sky would be precisely as likely to result in something being done?
Those are different things, don't you think?
Why would someone report a theft of under $1000 in SF when going outside and yelling at the sky would be precisely as likely to result in something being done?
Didn't they change the definition of what counts as "theft" though? Also, wouldn't less people bother to report theft if they know it probably won't be prosecuted?
Do those numbers show the ones which stay under that strange 99x USD (prosecution?) limit, or do they not account for them anymore?
> "They are saying that’s the primary reason, but I also think when a place is not generating revenue, and when they’re saturated — S.F. has a lot of Walgreens locations all over the city — so I do think that there are other factors that come into play,” Mayor London Breed told reporters Wednesday.
https://youtu.be/2jrnhaLzCqA
There are dozens of videos of theft in SF Walgreens captured on YouTube. Can someone explain to the mayor that your revenue is going to decrease when criminals are walking out with garbage bags full of merchandise?
Per typical, SF Democrats are trying to cover up their underreporting of crimes.
https://youtu.be/2jrnhaLzCqA
There are dozens of videos of theft in SF Walgreens captured on YouTube. Can someone explain to the mayor that your revenue is going to decrease when criminals are walking out with garbage bags full of merchandise?
Per typical, SF Democrats are trying to cover up their underreporting of crimes.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
So stores should just accept being stolen from, creating highly unsafe situations for employees and customers, in the middle of economic conditions already hurting profit and supply chains?
Or maybe the stores should hire private security, sufficiently armed to deter theft? That's probably a minimum cost of $500k per year for wages and insurance and licensing.
I'm truly curious what the endgame is with this line of bleeding heart absurdity.
Or maybe the stores should hire private security, sufficiently armed to deter theft? That's probably a minimum cost of $500k per year for wages and insurance and licensing.
I'm truly curious what the endgame is with this line of bleeding heart absurdity.
A society where people don’t need to steal to survive, if you are truly asking.
A Walgreens takes money from a community and gives it to their shareholders. They pay minimum wage. The desperation people have across this country should be responded to with policies that lessen desperation, rather than jailing people like we have been for the last 60 years - 25% of the prisoners in the world are in the USA which has 5% of the population.
If you want people to not steal food, give them food. If you want people to not be homeless, give them a home. If you want people in prison, prevent the hungry from eating and the homeless from finding a home. It costs a lot more to hold a prisoner than providing food or shelter by other means.
A Walgreens takes money from a community and gives it to their shareholders. They pay minimum wage. The desperation people have across this country should be responded to with policies that lessen desperation, rather than jailing people like we have been for the last 60 years - 25% of the prisoners in the world are in the USA which has 5% of the population.
If you want people to not steal food, give them food. If you want people to not be homeless, give them a home. If you want people in prison, prevent the hungry from eating and the homeless from finding a home. It costs a lot more to hold a prisoner than providing food or shelter by other means.
You are building the assumption that the thieves are super-poor and starving.
Food distribution is already very good for the poor and hungry.
It is possible some of these thieves are just down on their luck. But when there are zero consequences to stealing, many folks will just steal in order to get more stuff/make more money.
You seem to believe the world is populated by nice, well-meaning people who would never steal were they not hungry.
They aren't hungry at all. Your view is just incredibly naive.
Food distribution is already very good for the poor and hungry.
It is possible some of these thieves are just down on their luck. But when there are zero consequences to stealing, many folks will just steal in order to get more stuff/make more money.
You seem to believe the world is populated by nice, well-meaning people who would never steal were they not hungry.
They aren't hungry at all. Your view is just incredibly naive.
> Food distribution is already very good for the poor and hungry.
It is not.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2020/11/14/tho...
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-un...
> But when there are zero consequences to stealing, many folks will just steal in order to get more stuff/make more money.
I don't think there are zero consequences to stealing, even under a "cops won't show up for low amounts of theft" policy.
> You seem to believe the world is populated by nice, well-meaning people who would never steal were they not hungry.
Not the case. I believe thefts are almost finely tuned along with economic problems.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232084.pdf - see page 52, and 53.
The less people have, the more burglaries they do. Also page 53, the more income inequality in an area, the more robberies take place. SF is one of the places with the highest income inequality in the country.
To summarize: more poor people, more burglaries. Take the reverse, robberies are primarily carried out by poor people.
> They aren't hungry at all. Your view is just incredibly naive.
I would say your view is naïve about some inherent evil of people from a moralistic perspective directed at the poor. You seem to think its that people are greedy - sure, everyone is greedy to a point. Who are the most greedy in society? Who gets the longest prison terms? A white collar criminal embezzling a million dollars or someone who takes a coke from a convenience store? My view is its a condemnation of our extremely rich society that people must resort to shoplifting.
I'm not an idealist, I'm a realist. Broke people are gonna steal more often - that shouldn't be controversial. The study above, shows that places where EVERYONE is poor people steal less. In places where some are very poor compared to the richest, people steal more.
You will see some anecdote about some band of merry professional thieves who live in a nice apartment somewhere - that is the outlier, not the norm. Just like the idea of the "welfare queen", its time to stop thinking along jingoistic terms about criminal justice in the US. Again, we have 25% of the prison population IN THE WORLD.
It is not.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2020/11/14/tho...
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-un...
> But when there are zero consequences to stealing, many folks will just steal in order to get more stuff/make more money.
I don't think there are zero consequences to stealing, even under a "cops won't show up for low amounts of theft" policy.
> You seem to believe the world is populated by nice, well-meaning people who would never steal were they not hungry.
Not the case. I believe thefts are almost finely tuned along with economic problems.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232084.pdf - see page 52, and 53.
The less people have, the more burglaries they do. Also page 53, the more income inequality in an area, the more robberies take place. SF is one of the places with the highest income inequality in the country.
To summarize: more poor people, more burglaries. Take the reverse, robberies are primarily carried out by poor people.
> They aren't hungry at all. Your view is just incredibly naive.
I would say your view is naïve about some inherent evil of people from a moralistic perspective directed at the poor. You seem to think its that people are greedy - sure, everyone is greedy to a point. Who are the most greedy in society? Who gets the longest prison terms? A white collar criminal embezzling a million dollars or someone who takes a coke from a convenience store? My view is its a condemnation of our extremely rich society that people must resort to shoplifting.
I'm not an idealist, I'm a realist. Broke people are gonna steal more often - that shouldn't be controversial. The study above, shows that places where EVERYONE is poor people steal less. In places where some are very poor compared to the richest, people steal more.
You will see some anecdote about some band of merry professional thieves who live in a nice apartment somewhere - that is the outlier, not the norm. Just like the idea of the "welfare queen", its time to stop thinking along jingoistic terms about criminal justice in the US. Again, we have 25% of the prison population IN THE WORLD.
The problem is that the solutions that SF is doing to reduce poverty and inequality are blind to unintended consequences, even when they cause the opposite of the intended goal.
Sure, less prosecution means less ruined lives for convicted criminals... but it also leads to much more crime, and it is hard to argue that (unless you change the definition of crime/crime reporting, which is exactly SF's move here).
Anyone who has lived in SF for 10+ years can see the marked difference across the board for things like car break-ins and store theft. This isn't just one-off "anecdotal" evidence but across the board changes.
Walgreen's is a good example - the store near me had very little crime at one point, then crime increased: brazen theft, roving groups of teenagers locusting the store repeatedly, holdups at gunpoint, more and more things put behind glass, employees quitting after being threatened repeatedly, a security guard getting hired by the store... next is store closing and I am not surprised so many in worse areas have closed and are closing. But we measure reported crimes so they optimize for that, not actually making anything better for anyone.
If the DA won't prosecute, the cops don't arrest anyone - no reason for them to bother. And if the cops won't show up, the store won't bother reporting it. And because the gov't can play the media game with fudged numbers, hey our plan is working. But anyone remotely close to the situation can see the causal reality of this whole mess.
Most of this comes down to arrogance of policymakers/sympathizers who think they know what people want are need. It is a lot of white knighting. If you haven't actually been poor or been part of a poor environment, you end up looking at stats and trying to "save" people with policy, but ignoring people's desire for independence.
People do not steal apples from Walgreen's because they are starving. How things actually work is people go rob Walgreen's for razor blades and shampoo, then go sell them to neighbors at a discount - cash is the goal and cash is freedom. People buy stolen goods because they are cheap and they need cash for other things.
What nobody wants is to fill out forms in triplicate to be told which government shampoo they are allowed to have for free - that makes people feel like shit across the board.
Sure, less prosecution means less ruined lives for convicted criminals... but it also leads to much more crime, and it is hard to argue that (unless you change the definition of crime/crime reporting, which is exactly SF's move here).
Anyone who has lived in SF for 10+ years can see the marked difference across the board for things like car break-ins and store theft. This isn't just one-off "anecdotal" evidence but across the board changes.
Walgreen's is a good example - the store near me had very little crime at one point, then crime increased: brazen theft, roving groups of teenagers locusting the store repeatedly, holdups at gunpoint, more and more things put behind glass, employees quitting after being threatened repeatedly, a security guard getting hired by the store... next is store closing and I am not surprised so many in worse areas have closed and are closing. But we measure reported crimes so they optimize for that, not actually making anything better for anyone.
If the DA won't prosecute, the cops don't arrest anyone - no reason for them to bother. And if the cops won't show up, the store won't bother reporting it. And because the gov't can play the media game with fudged numbers, hey our plan is working. But anyone remotely close to the situation can see the causal reality of this whole mess.
Most of this comes down to arrogance of policymakers/sympathizers who think they know what people want are need. It is a lot of white knighting. If you haven't actually been poor or been part of a poor environment, you end up looking at stats and trying to "save" people with policy, but ignoring people's desire for independence.
People do not steal apples from Walgreen's because they are starving. How things actually work is people go rob Walgreen's for razor blades and shampoo, then go sell them to neighbors at a discount - cash is the goal and cash is freedom. People buy stolen goods because they are cheap and they need cash for other things.
What nobody wants is to fill out forms in triplicate to be told which government shampoo they are allowed to have for free - that makes people feel like shit across the board.
A Walgreens takes money from the community and gives it to its employees, its suppliers, the government, the utility company, many other entities, and, if there is anything left over, their shareholders.
But if the Walgreens is being robbed blind, there's nothing left for the shareholders, so it gets closed. Makes sense to me. Not to you?
I stole food when I was poor and hungry, the answer was not for people to give me food. The answer was for me to get a job. A minimum wage one, at the beginning.
But if the Walgreens is being robbed blind, there's nothing left for the shareholders, so it gets closed. Makes sense to me. Not to you?
I stole food when I was poor and hungry, the answer was not for people to give me food. The answer was for me to get a job. A minimum wage one, at the beginning.
> A Walgreens takes money from a community and gives it to their shareholders.
Walgreens buys goods and sells them to the people. To the extent that it does so profitably, it can distribute some or all of those profits to shareholders.
Notwithstanding the fact that Walgreens doesn't "take money from a community" (its customers freely exchange their money for goods Walgreens offers), if you compare Walgreens' earnings per share to its dividend history, you'd see that Walgreens does not pay out 100% of its earnings to shareholders.
So your odd characterization of Walgreens, which implies that Walgreens is engaged in some sort of theft from the communities it is present in, is wrong in every aspect.
Walgreens buys goods and sells them to the people. To the extent that it does so profitably, it can distribute some or all of those profits to shareholders.
Notwithstanding the fact that Walgreens doesn't "take money from a community" (its customers freely exchange their money for goods Walgreens offers), if you compare Walgreens' earnings per share to its dividend history, you'd see that Walgreens does not pay out 100% of its earnings to shareholders.
So your odd characterization of Walgreens, which implies that Walgreens is engaged in some sort of theft from the communities it is present in, is wrong in every aspect.
> A Walgreens takes money from a community and gives it to their shareholders.
So does that mean that you're happy that they're pulling out of these communities then?
So does that mean that you're happy that they're pulling out of these communities then?
[deleted]
the article is right, it's all about narrative, and these "optics" make SF politicians look bad