5 ms·

I remember when my brother worked for Best Buy (electronics retailer) in the late 90's. Best Buy gave a large bonus if the shoplifting numbers were low (cannot

I remember when my brother worked for Best Buy (electronics retailer) in the late 90's. Best Buy gave a large bonus if the shoplifting numbers were low (cannot remember the term they used). The Minneapolis store he worked at never got that bonus, as it had all kinds of thievery going on. They even hired cops as security (nice part time gig with the discount they had). The Fargo ND store always got its bonus ($700 per part timer, I think). Walmart is Best Buy times 100. Blaming Walmart is just plain dumb as its a sign of something wrong with society. I wish we'd get over blaming things and get to being honest and admit the problem is people. People can have all manner of things fixed, and yes, its harder than demanding the victim of the crime pay for it. Charging Walmart more is going to up the prices and hurt a lot more people who really cannot afford another tax.

dec0dedab0de 10y ago
I also worked at Best Buy in the late 90s. Every store had a "shrink budget" that was the total number of money they expected to lose do to theft, and errors. If a store came in under it's shrink budget, a percentage of the difference was evenly distributed among the employees. I think the most I got was $400, my 19 year old self was very happy with that.
wpietri 10y ago
> I wish we'd get over blaming things and get to being honest and admit the problem is people. The problem has always been people. That's why we have civilization in the first place: to create a structure where people are reasonably safe from the predations of other people. People were still people 10 or 20 years ago, but Walmart didn't have the same crime problem. Asking them to return to previous staffing levels so that their stores are safer for customers and the community doesn't sound like a shocking burden to me.
- mason240 10y ago
  Walmart didn't have large presence in urban areas 20 years ago.
- mhurron 10y ago
  > People were still people 10 or 20 years ago, but Walmart didn't have the same crime problem But is that actually a problem of Walmart's creation, or is it that the pressures that encourage shoplifting became higher among those that Walmart attracts and in the areas Walmart builds in the past 10-20 years. Increasing staffing would probably benefit the people shopping there more than it would prevent shoplifting. And the greeters? They hired 60+ year olds for that, no one was dissuaded from shoplifting because of them.
  - davidf18 10y ago
    The crime at Wal-Mart is a manifestation of a systems problem that was not of Wal-Mart's making but rather the export of jobs to China and Mexico and the substantial increase in immigrants from 9 million in 1970 to 43 million today (not counting the 11 million illegal immigrants). The immigrants generally are uneducated and complete for jobs and drive down income for America's poorest citizens. Diagnose and solve the problem, don't treat the symptom of the problem.
    - citrin_ru 10y ago
      Exporting jobs to China allows poor to buy cheap goods. Without moving production to countries with cheap labor American poor will earn more, but able to buy less.
      - davidf18 10y ago
        I'm glad you mentioned this. Some people have lost their jobs to workers overseas. People can't always be "retrained" and so for these people, since they are now unemployed they are not able to buy more. In addition, lack of employment correlates (and presumably causes) and increase in crime, in drug use, in depression. These are all externalities that are borne not only by the former worker and their families but by taxpayers and society at large. Someone has to pay for the increased crime and protection, someone has to pay for the additional health care costs, and so on. These negative externalities of exporting jobs to China, to Mexico, and soon possibly to other Asian nations through TPP are never part of the economic equation. In order to address a problem, it must be fully analyzed. In this case, there is much finger pointing at the victims of a broken system. So, when a company exports a worker's job overseas, who is supposed to pay the additional healthcare costs cost by the unemployment? Should us the taxpayers or should those that caused the problem in the first place? Someone has to pay and we shouldn't just let events decide but rather make a conscious choice.
- douche 10y ago
  There's a lot less crime in general in the rural/suburban areas that Walmart was primarily serving 10-20 years ago. And a lot of even those areas have more poverty and petty crime than they did 10-20 years ago, with the local industries and economy taking a huge punch in the face, and meth and opiate abuse spiraling. You could blame Walmart for some of the economic woes, but they aren't the ones shuttering the auto plant, or the steel mill, or the shoe shop, or automating the old labor-intensive, natural-resource sectors so they require vastly fewer, more highly skilled people.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
"Walmart is Best Buy times 100. Blaming Walmart is just plain dumb as its a sign of something wrong with society. I wish we'd get over blaming things and get to being honest and admit the problem is people." How is it just plain dumb to call Walmart greedy and apathetic when it's greedy and apathetic? The measures cited in the article always reduce crime wherever they're implemented. Best Buy, Target, Kroger, etc use them over here in high-crime areas. Even our Walmart does. The Walmart in article that started them back up had a big decline in calls. We can't blame them for the rest but it was clear they weren't doing their part before. All for some extra $$$. Note: All these retailers have a risk management team that knows about effects of above practices. You can bet they voiced opposition to the changes since their headaches would go up. They were then ignored to see those numbers go up on the balance sheet.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Who is the victim of the crime? You are blaming the victim for behavior of other people. If it wasn't obvious from my two city examples, quite a lot of Walmarts don't have this problem.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    The "victim" increased the crime intentionally to make more money. The cost of dealing with the increase was shouldered to taxpayers. They also were put at increased risk of physical harm. I think that means there's two victims: Walmart and taxpayers. That's why the one city declared Walmart a nuisance. They weren't allowed to externalize their problem onto others for free anymore. Once economics changed, suddenly Walmart decided it knew how to reduce crime. Which it did.
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    The victim is the public because they bear the cost of constant police engagement in Walmart, costs that Wallmart is trying to offload to balloon their bottom line even more
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago

dec0dedab0de 10y ago

I also worked at Best Buy in the late 90s. Every store had a "shrink budget" that was the total number of money they expected to lose do to theft, and errors. If a store came in under it's shrink budget, a percentage of the difference was evenly distributed among the employees. I think the most I got was $400, my 19 year old self was very happy with that.

wpietri 10y ago

> I wish we'd get over blaming things and get to being honest and admit the problem is people. The problem has always been people. That's why we have civilization in the first place: to create a structure where people are reasonably safe from the predations of other people. People were still people 10 or 20 years ago, but Walmart didn't have the same crime problem. Asking them to return to previous staffing levels so that their stores are safer for customers and the community doesn't sound like a shocking burden to me.

mason240 10y ago
Walmart didn't have large presence in urban areas 20 years ago.
mhurron 10y ago
> People were still people 10 or 20 years ago, but Walmart didn't have the same crime problem But is that actually a problem of Walmart's creation, or is it that the pressures that encourage shoplifting became higher among those that Walmart attracts and in the areas Walmart builds in the past 10-20 years. Increasing staffing would probably benefit the people shopping there more than it would prevent shoplifting. And the greeters? They hired 60+ year olds for that, no one was dissuaded from shoplifting because of them.
- davidf18 10y ago
  The crime at Wal-Mart is a manifestation of a systems problem that was not of Wal-Mart's making but rather the export of jobs to China and Mexico and the substantial increase in immigrants from 9 million in 1970 to 43 million today (not counting the 11 million illegal immigrants). The immigrants generally are uneducated and complete for jobs and drive down income for America's poorest citizens. Diagnose and solve the problem, don't treat the symptom of the problem.
  - citrin_ru 10y ago
    Exporting jobs to China allows poor to buy cheap goods. Without moving production to countries with cheap labor American poor will earn more, but able to buy less.
    - davidf18 10y ago
      I'm glad you mentioned this. Some people have lost their jobs to workers overseas. People can't always be "retrained" and so for these people, since they are now unemployed they are not able to buy more. In addition, lack of employment correlates (and presumably causes) and increase in crime, in drug use, in depression. These are all externalities that are borne not only by the former worker and their families but by taxpayers and society at large. Someone has to pay for the increased crime and protection, someone has to pay for the additional health care costs, and so on. These negative externalities of exporting jobs to China, to Mexico, and soon possibly to other Asian nations through TPP are never part of the economic equation. In order to address a problem, it must be fully analyzed. In this case, there is much finger pointing at the victims of a broken system. So, when a company exports a worker's job overseas, who is supposed to pay the additional healthcare costs cost by the unemployment? Should us the taxpayers or should those that caused the problem in the first place? Someone has to pay and we shouldn't just let events decide but rather make a conscious choice.
douche 10y ago
There's a lot less crime in general in the rural/suburban areas that Walmart was primarily serving 10-20 years ago. And a lot of even those areas have more poverty and petty crime than they did 10-20 years ago, with the local industries and economy taking a huge punch in the face, and meth and opiate abuse spiraling. You could blame Walmart for some of the economic woes, but they aren't the ones shuttering the auto plant, or the steel mill, or the shoe shop, or automating the old labor-intensive, natural-resource sectors so they require vastly fewer, more highly skilled people.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"Walmart is Best Buy times 100. Blaming Walmart is just plain dumb as its a sign of something wrong with society. I wish we'd get over blaming things and get to being honest and admit the problem is people." How is it just plain dumb to call Walmart greedy and apathetic when it's greedy and apathetic? The measures cited in the article always reduce crime wherever they're implemented. Best Buy, Target, Kroger, etc use them over here in high-crime areas. Even our Walmart does. The Walmart in article that started them back up had a big decline in calls. We can't blame them for the rest but it was clear they weren't doing their part before. All for some extra $$$. Note: All these retailers have a risk management team that knows about effects of above practices. You can bet they voiced opposition to the changes since their headaches would go up. They were then ignored to see those numbers go up on the balance sheet.

protomyth 10y ago
Who is the victim of the crime? You are blaming the victim for behavior of other people. If it wasn't obvious from my two city examples, quite a lot of Walmarts don't have this problem.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  The "victim" increased the crime intentionally to make more money. The cost of dealing with the increase was shouldered to taxpayers. They also were put at increased risk of physical harm. I think that means there's two victims: Walmart and taxpayers. That's why the one city declared Walmart a nuisance. They weren't allowed to externalize their problem onto others for free anymore. Once economics changed, suddenly Walmart decided it knew how to reduce crime. Which it did.
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  The victim is the public because they bear the cost of constant police engagement in Walmart, costs that Wallmart is trying to offload to balloon their bottom line even more
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago