5 ms·

You call a fine for late book return threat or violence? I dunno, but I'm going to stop paying rent if there is no penalty.

EGreg 7y ago
Rent for the poor is compulsory But taxes for the rich are often not. Greece has a proud tradition of this... https://aeon.co/ideas/voluntary-taxation-a-lesson-from-the-ancient-greeks https://aeon.co/ideas/voluntary-taxation-a-lesson-from-the-a... Also safety nets for poor are begrudged because they are funded by Government taxes but safety nets for the rich are welcomed because they are funded by banks, and money of depositors and investors, since individuals who bail you out can (expected value) personally do better inside the bank than individuals who foreclose and help the bank (eg Trump’s bailouts after Taj Mahal etc.)
- robbrown451 7y ago
  I'm having a bit of trouble determining if that was a reply to my comment. My only point was that if things are optional to pay for, lots of people will take the thing, and not pay. That's why the grocery store hires cashiers, rather than being on the honor system.
  - BoorishBears 7y ago
    That's not why cashiers are there. The cashier is there for when you decide to pay for your goods. If you try and walk out with them, the cashier will not stop you. For legal reasons, even the security probably won't touch you. The reason most people who don't steal isn't the punishment, it's because they don't want to steal. Likewise, removing the fine doesn't make a late book not late. People do not have some inherent want to break social conventions like stealing or overstaying your lease on something.
    - robbrown451 7y ago
      I imagine you don't live in the city. More and more of the merchandise at Safeway is behind lock and key (shampoo, toothbrushes, etc), and incidents with security detaining someone (who is often making a very loud scene) are not at all uncommon. Regardless, I don't agree with your theory. It might work for a while, but as soon as people see other people getting things for free, and the prices they pay go up to compensate, they tend to decide not to be the suckers anymore. I mean, look how quickly looting can start. Look at all the people willing to exploit loopholes in the system to cheat people out of money. Look at corruption in countries where it isn't effectively policed against. Look at how crime is celebrated in a significant amount of American culture (especially music). And especially, look at how hard it is to make a buck by offering your software or music or what-have-you as "donation ware." The reason people don't want to steal is that they have been in environments where, if they are dishonest, people eventually are onto them and don't trust them and otherwise "punish" them, even if just by social pressure and shaming and such. If they are in environments where this isn't the case, especially if they have been in such environments for a long time, they adapt to those environments. Do you really think a grocery store would stay in business long if there was absolutely no tangible downside to just walking out without paying?
      - BoorishBears 7y ago
        I live in a city. You're describing a vast minority of stores in the US, I don't know who you're trying to fool... Sure you can go to a some neighborhoods and find stuff under lock and key and aggressive security, but the vast majorities of stores do not rely on that (in other words, the system as a whole does not rely on that, even if there are special cases for specific stores) You're waxing poetic about rioting and people driven to extreme enough poverty they feel the need to steal Tide to sell for drugs... yeah it turns out disenfranchised people in extreme situations will not respect societal norms, not some deep insight. We're talking about library books. You're straying into the most extreme ends of society to try and what exactly? Feel free to identify as someone who only doesn't steal books late fees, I assure you you'll be in the minority. >Look at how crime is celebrated in a significant amount of American culture (especially music). Also, what kind of non-sequitur is this?!
    - leosarev 7y ago
      Cashier apparently is here because is the substantial amount of people, who will steal if not watched, but won't take a risk of cashier will confront them or will call a police.
      - BoorishBears 7y ago
        So how do you explain self-checkout which is not watched nearly as carefully? It's not a binary outcome. Self-checkout increases shrinkage, of course there are people who steal when not watched as carefully. But the vast majority of people walking in a store are not stopped from stealing because of the odds of being caught. Like, stores would literally not work if that was the case. Margins these stores have a razor thin. The amount of shrinkage they'd have to deal with, and the amount they'd have to invest in LP would be insane. Similarly, the vast majority of people who are borrowing books would not steal them instead just because there was no late fee (it's not like there's no due date). And similarly, libraries would not work if that was not the case. When you keep a book, it still has to be replaced before someone else can use it, and if you don't pay the late fees/replacement fees the library either eats the whole cost, or sends it to a collection agency and eats part of the cost. How many libraries could afford to deal with a populace hellbent on stealing books regardless of late fees?
        rhizome 7y ago
        >Self-checkout increases shrinkage If this is true, and I'm not sure it is, I bet the money they lose to theft is dwarfed by the amount they save by laying off most of their checkers.
        vanniv 7y ago
        self-checkout does somewhat increase shrinkage. Many stores (Target, for one) combat this by having a screen right on the self-checkout machine that shows the camera footage of you checking out, to remind you that you're being watched even if there isn't a human right there doing the watching. But yeah, the increase in theft is probably a lot less than the savings from having to pay more checkers (since they typically can have one observer per 4-6 self-checkout kiosks)
    - vanniv 7y ago
      yet if there was no penalty for theft, there would be lots of theft. (Indeed, California recently reduced the penalty for theft -- making it a misdemeanor that is very rarely prosecuted for thefts under $950, and suddenly there's a massive increase in theft, because it turns out that you can make decent money stealing stuff $949 at a time)
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      > If you try and walk out with them, the cashier will not stop you. For legal reasons, even the security probably won't touch you. But you can bet that they’ll be sending the video recording with you waltzing out to the local police station…
    - chr1 7y ago
      > People do not have some inherent want to break social conventions Unfortunately in some places "taking what can be taken" is a social convention. I know people who are saying: "People in europe are idiots, i can take anything i want from supermarket, and the policemen doesn't even dare to search me, though knows that i have taken something".
BoorishBears 7y ago
For most people there is no penalty besides after a long period of time of and money spent by your landlord, eventually you'll get forcibly evicted, and they might even pay you to do leave before then. People squat on apartments all the time. Some people go from home to home never paying rent, and never see a real punishment for it. But it's unethical, and against social norms. Just like keeping books forever (stealing) just because there's no late fee.

EGreg 7y ago

Rent for the poor is compulsory But taxes for the rich are often not. Greece has a proud tradition of this... https://aeon.co/ideas/voluntary-taxation-a-lesson-from-the-ancient-greeks https://aeon.co/ideas/voluntary-taxation-a-lesson-from-the-a... Also safety nets for poor are begrudged because they are funded by Government taxes but safety nets for the rich are welcomed because they are funded by banks, and money of depositors and investors, since individuals who bail you out can (expected value) personally do better inside the bank than individuals who foreclose and help the bank (eg Trump’s bailouts after Taj Mahal etc.)

robbrown451 7y ago
I'm having a bit of trouble determining if that was a reply to my comment. My only point was that if things are optional to pay for, lots of people will take the thing, and not pay. That's why the grocery store hires cashiers, rather than being on the honor system.
- BoorishBears 7y ago
  That's not why cashiers are there. The cashier is there for when you decide to pay for your goods. If you try and walk out with them, the cashier will not stop you. For legal reasons, even the security probably won't touch you. The reason most people who don't steal isn't the punishment, it's because they don't want to steal. Likewise, removing the fine doesn't make a late book not late. People do not have some inherent want to break social conventions like stealing or overstaying your lease on something.
  - robbrown451 7y ago
    I imagine you don't live in the city. More and more of the merchandise at Safeway is behind lock and key (shampoo, toothbrushes, etc), and incidents with security detaining someone (who is often making a very loud scene) are not at all uncommon. Regardless, I don't agree with your theory. It might work for a while, but as soon as people see other people getting things for free, and the prices they pay go up to compensate, they tend to decide not to be the suckers anymore. I mean, look how quickly looting can start. Look at all the people willing to exploit loopholes in the system to cheat people out of money. Look at corruption in countries where it isn't effectively policed against. Look at how crime is celebrated in a significant amount of American culture (especially music). And especially, look at how hard it is to make a buck by offering your software or music or what-have-you as "donation ware." The reason people don't want to steal is that they have been in environments where, if they are dishonest, people eventually are onto them and don't trust them and otherwise "punish" them, even if just by social pressure and shaming and such. If they are in environments where this isn't the case, especially if they have been in such environments for a long time, they adapt to those environments. Do you really think a grocery store would stay in business long if there was absolutely no tangible downside to just walking out without paying?
    - BoorishBears 7y ago
      I live in a city. You're describing a vast minority of stores in the US, I don't know who you're trying to fool... Sure you can go to a some neighborhoods and find stuff under lock and key and aggressive security, but the vast majorities of stores do not rely on that (in other words, the system as a whole does not rely on that, even if there are special cases for specific stores) You're waxing poetic about rioting and people driven to extreme enough poverty they feel the need to steal Tide to sell for drugs... yeah it turns out disenfranchised people in extreme situations will not respect societal norms, not some deep insight. We're talking about library books. You're straying into the most extreme ends of society to try and what exactly? Feel free to identify as someone who only doesn't steal books late fees, I assure you you'll be in the minority. >Look at how crime is celebrated in a significant amount of American culture (especially music). Also, what kind of non-sequitur is this?!
  - leosarev 7y ago
    Cashier apparently is here because is the substantial amount of people, who will steal if not watched, but won't take a risk of cashier will confront them or will call a police.
    - BoorishBears 7y ago
      So how do you explain self-checkout which is not watched nearly as carefully? It's not a binary outcome. Self-checkout increases shrinkage, of course there are people who steal when not watched as carefully. But the vast majority of people walking in a store are not stopped from stealing because of the odds of being caught. Like, stores would literally not work if that was the case. Margins these stores have a razor thin. The amount of shrinkage they'd have to deal with, and the amount they'd have to invest in LP would be insane. Similarly, the vast majority of people who are borrowing books would not steal them instead just because there was no late fee (it's not like there's no due date). And similarly, libraries would not work if that was not the case. When you keep a book, it still has to be replaced before someone else can use it, and if you don't pay the late fees/replacement fees the library either eats the whole cost, or sends it to a collection agency and eats part of the cost. How many libraries could afford to deal with a populace hellbent on stealing books regardless of late fees?
      - rhizome 7y ago
        >Self-checkout increases shrinkage If this is true, and I'm not sure it is, I bet the money they lose to theft is dwarfed by the amount they save by laying off most of their checkers.
        vanniv 7y ago
        self-checkout does somewhat increase shrinkage. Many stores (Target, for one) combat this by having a screen right on the self-checkout machine that shows the camera footage of you checking out, to remind you that you're being watched even if there isn't a human right there doing the watching. But yeah, the increase in theft is probably a lot less than the savings from having to pay more checkers (since they typically can have one observer per 4-6 self-checkout kiosks)
  - vanniv 7y ago
    yet if there was no penalty for theft, there would be lots of theft. (Indeed, California recently reduced the penalty for theft -- making it a misdemeanor that is very rarely prosecuted for thefts under $950, and suddenly there's a massive increase in theft, because it turns out that you can make decent money stealing stuff $949 at a time)
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > If you try and walk out with them, the cashier will not stop you. For legal reasons, even the security probably won't touch you. But you can bet that they’ll be sending the video recording with you waltzing out to the local police station…
  - chr1 7y ago
    > People do not have some inherent want to break social conventions Unfortunately in some places "taking what can be taken" is a social convention. I know people who are saying: "People in europe are idiots, i can take anything i want from supermarket, and the policemen doesn't even dare to search me, though knows that i have taken something".

BoorishBears 7y ago

For most people there is no penalty besides after a long period of time of and money spent by your landlord, eventually you'll get forcibly evicted, and they might even pay you to do leave before then. People squat on apartments all the time. Some people go from home to home never paying rent, and never see a real punishment for it. But it's unethical, and against social norms. Just like keeping books forever (stealing) just because there's no late fee.