> Are you trying to claim it is a purely monetary relationship? No. "Cost" in behavioral economics is never purely monetary. It includes social, emotional, cul

> 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.