3 ms·

> Most stores have far fewer controls than they could, because they'd rather be nice to their customers. ... 99% of people are basically decent and honest. Don'

> Most stores have far fewer controls than they could, because they'd rather be nice to their customers. ... 99% of people are basically decent and honest. Don't be in the 1% who aren't This is dangerous thinking. People don't generally steal because they're bad vs "nice", they steal because they have an incentive to do so (economically speaking). Heaping moral judgement on them is unhelpful and in many cases actively detrimental [because it obscures causal underlying issues and excuses bad policy designed to address symptoms]. 'I mean, have you noticed that like, in white, "nice" places, where people are "nice", the stores are all open and nice and people are friendly, but in those dirty poor black neighborhoods the corner stores have got bars on the windows and grills in front of the cashiers, because blacks steal more and make up more of that nasty 1% obviously' </valleygirlvoice> I hope it's obvious where this line of reasoning leads. Dangerous places. Theft controls are functions of behavioral economics, not how "nice" people are (store owners included). ALL stores suffer from some level of theft, and thus _could_ implement HYPER security to eliminate the problem. They don't, mostly because the costs (direct and indirect) outweigh the benefits of deterring a given level of theft. So for most stores, the expenditure on theft prevention comes down to the minimum spend necessary to reach a tolerable level of theft. And levels of theft have everything to do with a very careful balance of cost:benefit to do with economic and social incentives for the actors involved. This "most people are nice but 1% of people are bad and mess it up for everyone else" type thinking excuses awful systemic abuse and places blame in entirely the wrong place.

mikeash 9y ago
It's dangerous thinking to observe that stores in poor areas have more security, because there's a twisted line of thinking that leads from there to racism? How about, it's the racism that's dangerous thinking.
- popcorncowboy 9y ago
  Haha, wow, you really missed the crux of my reply.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    It's very difficult to pay attention to anything else when you basically accuse me of being racist in the middle of the comment.
    - popcorncowboy 9y ago
      mikeash - for the record, I am not calling you a racist, don't think you are a racist and in no way am implying you are one. It is a pity you drew that line back to yourself as that was not my intent. I thank you for including the word "basically" in your assertion, as it infers you understand that it does require a leap to connect the dots in my reply to an accusation of racism. To be clear, '</valleygirlvoice>' was specifically included to define that speech as being an example of someone-else confusing correlation with causation and (this is the critical bit) the ease with which we (all) jump from there to moral judgements and social consequences.
  - chrismcb 9y ago
    What exactly is the crux of your reply? Are you trying to claim it is a purely monetary relationship? As soon as the cost for the security controls is lower than the cost of the theft then it will be implemented? I don't think it is that simple as their is an intangible as well, part of the "niceness"of the op. If I had to choose between a place with high theft deterrent and one with low, I would choose the one with low. Yeah in the end it all comes down to profit. But being nice to your customers also had an impact on your bottom line.
    - popcorncowboy 9y ago
      > Are you trying to claim it is a purely monetary relationship? No. "Cost" in behavioral economics is never purely monetary. It includes social, emotional, cultural, personal, moral and relational calculus too. The entire spectrum of the human condition really. > As soon as the cost for the security controls is lower than the cost of the theft then it will be implemented? Yes, but where "cost" includes the aforementioned factors. Consider it by way of example, you standing in front of the Airport Lounge, QR code cracker hand, asking yourself one critical question: "Is it worth it?" (what will my friends think, what if I don't and have to spend the next 4 hours in a plastic airport seat, I'm tired, what if I get caught, but oh man I could snapchat me in a biz class lounge and Sarah would see, etc etc). Store owners and businesses in general have to ask the same question. "Is it worth it?" > Yeah in the end it all comes down to profit. Does it? Many of the comments here are people incensed by some version of _moral_ or _social-code_ violations by the QR cracker. Their sentiment and that of any prosecuting 'store owner' is not to do with the marginal "cost ($)" of his offense (which is likely close to zero, and arguably net positive). > But being nice to your customers also had an impact on your bottom line. I agree with you. > What exactly is the crux of your reply? Humans intuitively see correlation as causation and jump to apply moral judgements leading to (often devastating) social consequences to the wrong people because of it. The line of reasoning that "we're all nice, it's just a handful of bad people out there who are the problem" is the problem.

mikeash 9y ago

It's dangerous thinking to observe that stores in poor areas have more security, because there's a twisted line of thinking that leads from there to racism? How about, it's the racism that's dangerous thinking.

popcorncowboy 9y ago
Haha, wow, you really missed the crux of my reply.
- mikeash 9y ago
  It's very difficult to pay attention to anything else when you basically accuse me of being racist in the middle of the comment.
  - popcorncowboy 9y ago
    mikeash - for the record, I am not calling you a racist, don't think you are a racist and in no way am implying you are one. It is a pity you drew that line back to yourself as that was not my intent. I thank you for including the word "basically" in your assertion, as it infers you understand that it does require a leap to connect the dots in my reply to an accusation of racism. To be clear, '</valleygirlvoice>' was specifically included to define that speech as being an example of someone-else confusing correlation with causation and (this is the critical bit) the ease with which we (all) jump from there to moral judgements and social consequences.
- chrismcb 9y ago
  What exactly is the crux of your reply? Are you trying to claim it is a purely monetary relationship? As soon as the cost for the security controls is lower than the cost of the theft then it will be implemented? I don't think it is that simple as their is an intangible as well, part of the "niceness"of the op. If I had to choose between a place with high theft deterrent and one with low, I would choose the one with low. Yeah in the end it all comes down to profit. But being nice to your customers also had an impact on your bottom line.
  - popcorncowboy 9y ago
    > Are you trying to claim it is a purely monetary relationship? No. "Cost" in behavioral economics is never purely monetary. It includes social, emotional, cultural, personal, moral and relational calculus too. The entire spectrum of the human condition really. > As soon as the cost for the security controls is lower than the cost of the theft then it will be implemented? Yes, but where "cost" includes the aforementioned factors. Consider it by way of example, you standing in front of the Airport Lounge, QR code cracker hand, asking yourself one critical question: "Is it worth it?" (what will my friends think, what if I don't and have to spend the next 4 hours in a plastic airport seat, I'm tired, what if I get caught, but oh man I could snapchat me in a biz class lounge and Sarah would see, etc etc). Store owners and businesses in general have to ask the same question. "Is it worth it?" > Yeah in the end it all comes down to profit. Does it? Many of the comments here are people incensed by some version of _moral_ or _social-code_ violations by the QR cracker. Their sentiment and that of any prosecuting 'store owner' is not to do with the marginal "cost ($)" of his offense (which is likely close to zero, and arguably net positive). > But being nice to your customers also had an impact on your bottom line. I agree with you. > What exactly is the crux of your reply? Humans intuitively see correlation as causation and jump to apply moral judgements leading to (often devastating) social consequences to the wrong people because of it. The line of reasoning that "we're all nice, it's just a handful of bad people out there who are the problem" is the problem.