6 ms·

Is your argument that Walmart causes crime?

post_break 10y ago
I worded my comment poorly. The seabrook PD is tiny and basically all the calls to walmart were causing other places to be policed less. The revenue brought in from the walmart isn't enough to offset the cost of hiring more officers.
- ones_and_zeros 10y ago
  There have been several reports from the justice department indicating that over policing and a judicial system that penalizes being poor are widespread and ultimately exacerbate the problem. If you have any say when your community does have revenue, it might be worthwhile to support solutions that don't amount to more police making more criminals.
  - greedo 10y ago
    "police making more criminals" That in a nutshell is one of the real problems with crime in the US. It's unpopular to expect people to behave in a civil manner. Instead we tolerate their uncivil behavior by blaming schools, parents, churches, and now police for making them criminals. Forget personal responsibility, that's for suckers.
- fixermark 10y ago
  Did the crime rate go up in other places as a result of police resources being re-routed? Did the crime rate in the town overall go up?
- criddell 10y ago
  What's a reasonable solution? If there's more crime than the Seabrook PD can handle, then hard decisions have to be made. It seems they either need to increase taxes to hire more police or start deciding what laws won't be enforced when police are not available.
- saint_fiasco 10y ago
  But all the thieves are also concentrated in Walmart, leaving less theft to go around in the rest of the neighborhood. Shouldn't it balance out?
colechristensen 10y ago
This is the argument the article is making too. WalMart markets itself to a demographic most likely to commit crime and doesn't adequately set up it's own security to prevent crime in and around it's stores. That is, instead of spending money on internal security resources it offloads it's security problems on the local police. Crime is being punished instead of prevented. It should be put into law that businesses with lax security share a greater portion of the public cost of the crime which results as well as punitive measures for the irresponsible situation they created.
- marknutter 10y ago
  > It should be put into law that businesses with lax security share a greater portion of the public cost of the crime which results as well as punitive measures for the irresponsible situation they created. That sounds like a fantastic way to disincentivize any company from providing goods and services to the poor.
  - colechristensen 10y ago
    WalMart is #1 in revenue and #15 in market cap, I don't think there are any problems with incentives there. Giving the population most vulnerable to falling into crime an easy opportunity to steal is bad for the poor. Providing goods and services to the poor but not ensuring a crime-free environment is bad for the poor. If not enforced, companies that _do_ take the responsibility for crime prevention will be at a competitive disadvantage. You're not helping the poor by allowing slums and shitholes to exist on the false premise that the small apparent savings to them is worth the degraded conditions. You're just allowing profiteering from the poor because poor customers are much less able to demand better conditions.
    - marknutter 10y ago
      No, they will simply stop serving low-income areas if it becomes unprofitable for them to do so. What then? Pass laws to force Walmart to sell to the poor? They're a company, their singular goal is profit (as it should be). They pay their taxes and follow all the regulations set out by the government and in return they expect that the government will protect them from criminals. > WalMart is #1 in revenue and #15 in market cap, I don't think there are any problems with incentives there. This is because we haven't passed ridiculous laws like the one you are proposing.

I worded my comment poorly. The seabrook PD is tiny and basically all the calls to walmart were causing other places to be policed less. The revenue brought in from the walmart isn't enough to offset the cost of hiring more officers.

ones_and_zeros 10y ago
There have been several reports from the justice department indicating that over policing and a judicial system that penalizes being poor are widespread and ultimately exacerbate the problem. If you have any say when your community does have revenue, it might be worthwhile to support solutions that don't amount to more police making more criminals.
- greedo 10y ago
  "police making more criminals" That in a nutshell is one of the real problems with crime in the US. It's unpopular to expect people to behave in a civil manner. Instead we tolerate their uncivil behavior by blaming schools, parents, churches, and now police for making them criminals. Forget personal responsibility, that's for suckers.
fixermark 10y ago
Did the crime rate go up in other places as a result of police resources being re-routed? Did the crime rate in the town overall go up?
criddell 10y ago
What's a reasonable solution? If there's more crime than the Seabrook PD can handle, then hard decisions have to be made. It seems they either need to increase taxes to hire more police or start deciding what laws won't be enforced when police are not available.
saint_fiasco 10y ago
But all the thieves are also concentrated in Walmart, leaving less theft to go around in the rest of the neighborhood. Shouldn't it balance out?

colechristensen 10y ago

This is the argument the article is making too. WalMart markets itself to a demographic most likely to commit crime and doesn't adequately set up it's own security to prevent crime in and around it's stores. That is, instead of spending money on internal security resources it offloads it's security problems on the local police. Crime is being punished instead of prevented. It should be put into law that businesses with lax security share a greater portion of the public cost of the crime which results as well as punitive measures for the irresponsible situation they created.

marknutter 10y ago
> It should be put into law that businesses with lax security share a greater portion of the public cost of the crime which results as well as punitive measures for the irresponsible situation they created. That sounds like a fantastic way to disincentivize any company from providing goods and services to the poor.
- colechristensen 10y ago
  WalMart is #1 in revenue and #15 in market cap, I don't think there are any problems with incentives there. Giving the population most vulnerable to falling into crime an easy opportunity to steal is bad for the poor. Providing goods and services to the poor but not ensuring a crime-free environment is bad for the poor. If not enforced, companies that _do_ take the responsibility for crime prevention will be at a competitive disadvantage. You're not helping the poor by allowing slums and shitholes to exist on the false premise that the small apparent savings to them is worth the degraded conditions. You're just allowing profiteering from the poor because poor customers are much less able to demand better conditions.
  - marknutter 10y ago
    No, they will simply stop serving low-income areas if it becomes unprofitable for them to do so. What then? Pass laws to force Walmart to sell to the poor? They're a company, their singular goal is profit (as it should be). They pay their taxes and follow all the regulations set out by the government and in return they expect that the government will protect them from criminals. > WalMart is #1 in revenue and #15 in market cap, I don't think there are any problems with incentives there. This is because we haven't passed ridiculous laws like the one you are proposing.