6 ms·

Analysis of Walgreens' stated reasoning for closing SF stores

33 points by benzible 5y ago

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
> When comparing 2021 larceny theft figures to pre-pandemic 2019 figures, one will find that reports of theft are actually down. From Jan. 1, 2021, to Oct. 10, 2021, there have been 21,842 reports of larceny theft, and there were 31,958 reports over the same period in 2019, which is a 31.6% decrease. Ok, but this might be very misleading. Wallgreen’s chief complaint is that the laws were changed and police no longer respond to theft under $950. Encouraging small incidence but relatively safe repeated thefts. So wouldn’t it make complete sense that larceny numbers where police were called, an arrest was made, and a conviction secured would drop if police were instructed to respond only to larger crimes? If anything I would expect a larger decrease if Walgreen’s is correct. Not saying this was any plan to “decrease crime by under reporting” or that I can prove the videos I’ve seen of carefree shoplifters weren’t happening previous to the law changes. Just that this might not be the point they are intending to make.
- mc32 5y ago
  It would also be useful to know what the average haul of the thefts pre-pandemic and now.
  - gota 5y ago
    This, I think, is the core issue. The typical theft before the changes could have been of trivially low values. As soon as people know that the strongest negative incentives only kick in after a total value (e.g. 1000 USD) they may start to "optimize" for that. I mean - if a person would shoplift item A; they may reason that there is very little additional negative incentive to not steal B, C...as well - to get closer to that threshold. This makes sense even if you assume that thefts of total value under the threshold are being always reported (as commented elsewhere here). Lower numbers of instances, higher value of theft. Then again, maybe there are underlying mechanisms in the motivations of shoplifting that make this completely wrong. I'd accept and appreciate the input of someone with expertise in this subject
  - taurath 5y ago
    Walgreens has the data on this so they can choose to put it up, if they care about people believing them.
- jet_32951 5y ago
  Walgreen's are not perceiving local support for their stores. They are not alone. There is a Walgreen's in the Castro and it is likely from my reading they share a lot of the complaints in this article [0] which says law enforcement is no longer to be counted on to help. [0]https://www.ebar.com/news/latest_news/302626 https://www.ebar.com/news/latest_news/302626
leoh 5y ago
Walgreen's is not in the business of morality. They are in the business of making money. Walgreen's could say just about anything they wanted about closing up shop in San Francisco and it doesn't really make good business sense for them to say something provocative. It seems to me they're telling the truth. On the other hand, the San Francisco DA is acting in a highly defensive manner. It's pretty offensive of them and it's pretty clear they're doing a bad job. Worse, the San Francisco DA is helping create a false dichotomy between safety and compassion. I think both are possible; the SF DA, however, does not seem competent enough to offer either.
- taurath 5y ago
  Walgreens could easily respond by putting up historical store revenues and profits that show year over year increasing tear from each store they closed. The DA put up numbers showing that in the past 2 years thefts have gone down. I’ll for now trust the one that puts up the numbers.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    It was also decided to not respond to shoplifting reports under $950, which may be the cause of the 'reduction in reported larceny'. People may have stopped reporting it.
  - finite_jest 5y ago
    Didn't they change the definition of what counts as "theft" though? Also, wouldn't less people bother to report theft if they know it probably won't be prosecuted?
  - elgernon 5y ago
    just check the local daily news, man, the reality is really depressing
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    I have no idea who is telling the truth, but wouldn't it be fair to say that people working for the city do have more of a motivation to spin this than Walgreens? If Walgreens is doing what the city claims, then Walgreens doesn't need to blame the city. They might anyway, but there's no big incentive. If they have a lot of stores that aren't closing, wouldn't it even be potentially harming their business for no reason? Whereas, if the situation is what Walgreens says, then the city does need to blame Walgreens. I have never been to SF and don't have any idea about the facts on the ground. Just, coming from ignorance, it seems logical to me to bet the opposite way from you. One response to a decrease in reported theft and an increase in viral videos of theft is that the number of videos is misleading and "the numbers" prove it. Another is that people aren't reporting theft as much because it's either out of control or perceived as such due to the videos. And/or the authorities have ways of manipulating the statistics. I don't know that one or the other interpretation is correct, but if someone presents the first one as obvious without delving into why it is certainly true, then I tend to distrust them overall.
GaryTang 5y ago
> "They are saying that’s the primary reason, but I also think when a place is not generating revenue, and when they’re saturated — S.F. has a lot of Walgreens locations all over the city — so I do think that there are other factors that come into play,” Mayor London Breed told reporters Wednesday. https://youtu.be/2jrnhaLzCqA https://youtu.be/2jrnhaLzCqA There are dozens of videos of theft in SF Walgreens captured on YouTube. Can someone explain to the mayor that your revenue is going to decrease when criminals are walking out with garbage bags full of merchandise? Per typical, SF Democrats are trying to cover up their underreporting of crimes.
- just_steve_h 5y ago
  The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    So stores should just accept being stolen from, creating highly unsafe situations for employees and customers, in the middle of economic conditions already hurting profit and supply chains? Or maybe the stores should hire private security, sufficiently armed to deter theft? That's probably a minimum cost of $500k per year for wages and insurance and licensing. I'm truly curious what the endgame is with this line of bleeding heart absurdity.
    - taurath 5y ago
      A society where people don’t need to steal to survive, if you are truly asking. A Walgreens takes money from a community and gives it to their shareholders. They pay minimum wage. The desperation people have across this country should be responded to with policies that lessen desperation, rather than jailing people like we have been for the last 60 years - 25% of the prisoners in the world are in the USA which has 5% of the population. If you want people to not steal food, give them food. If you want people to not be homeless, give them a home. If you want people in prison, prevent the hungry from eating and the homeless from finding a home. It costs a lot more to hold a prisoner than providing food or shelter by other means.
elgernon 5y ago
the article is right, it's all about narrative, and these "optics" make SF politicians look bad
sneeeeeed 5y ago
Next up: legally requiring stores to operate in high-theft areas?
timbo1642 5y ago
Of course the leftists once again don't want to take responsibilities for their bad policies and failures. This is always the case
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

33 points by benzible 5y ago

> When comparing 2021 larceny theft figures to pre-pandemic 2019 figures, one will find that reports of theft are actually down. From Jan. 1, 2021, to Oct. 10, 2021, there have been 21,842 reports of larceny theft, and there were 31,958 reports over the same period in 2019, which is a 31.6% decrease. Ok, but this might be very misleading. Wallgreen’s chief complaint is that the laws were changed and police no longer respond to theft under $950. Encouraging small incidence but relatively safe repeated thefts. So wouldn’t it make complete sense that larceny numbers where police were called, an arrest was made, and a conviction secured would drop if police were instructed to respond only to larger crimes? If anything I would expect a larger decrease if Walgreen’s is correct. Not saying this was any plan to “decrease crime by under reporting” or that I can prove the videos I’ve seen of carefree shoplifters weren’t happening previous to the law changes. Just that this might not be the point they are intending to make.

mc32 5y ago
It would also be useful to know what the average haul of the thefts pre-pandemic and now.
- gota 5y ago
  This, I think, is the core issue. The typical theft before the changes could have been of trivially low values. As soon as people know that the strongest negative incentives only kick in after a total value (e.g. 1000 USD) they may start to "optimize" for that. I mean - if a person would shoplift item A; they may reason that there is very little additional negative incentive to not steal B, C...as well - to get closer to that threshold. This makes sense even if you assume that thefts of total value under the threshold are being always reported (as commented elsewhere here). Lower numbers of instances, higher value of theft. Then again, maybe there are underlying mechanisms in the motivations of shoplifting that make this completely wrong. I'd accept and appreciate the input of someone with expertise in this subject
- taurath 5y ago
  Walgreens has the data on this so they can choose to put it up, if they care about people believing them.
jet_32951 5y ago
Walgreen's are not perceiving local support for their stores. They are not alone. There is a Walgreen's in the Castro and it is likely from my reading they share a lot of the complaints in this article [0] which says law enforcement is no longer to be counted on to help. [0]https://www.ebar.com/news/latest_news/302626 https://www.ebar.com/news/latest_news/302626

leoh 5y ago

Walgreen's is not in the business of morality. They are in the business of making money. Walgreen's could say just about anything they wanted about closing up shop in San Francisco and it doesn't really make good business sense for them to say something provocative. It seems to me they're telling the truth. On the other hand, the San Francisco DA is acting in a highly defensive manner. It's pretty offensive of them and it's pretty clear they're doing a bad job. Worse, the San Francisco DA is helping create a false dichotomy between safety and compassion. I think both are possible; the SF DA, however, does not seem competent enough to offer either.

taurath 5y ago
Walgreens could easily respond by putting up historical store revenues and profits that show year over year increasing tear from each store they closed. The DA put up numbers showing that in the past 2 years thefts have gone down. I’ll for now trust the one that puts up the numbers.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  It was also decided to not respond to shoplifting reports under $950, which may be the cause of the 'reduction in reported larceny'. People may have stopped reporting it.
- finite_jest 5y ago
  Didn't they change the definition of what counts as "theft" though? Also, wouldn't less people bother to report theft if they know it probably won't be prosecuted?
- elgernon 5y ago
  just check the local daily news, man, the reality is really depressing
- perl4ever 5y ago
  I have no idea who is telling the truth, but wouldn't it be fair to say that people working for the city do have more of a motivation to spin this than Walgreens? If Walgreens is doing what the city claims, then Walgreens doesn't need to blame the city. They might anyway, but there's no big incentive. If they have a lot of stores that aren't closing, wouldn't it even be potentially harming their business for no reason? Whereas, if the situation is what Walgreens says, then the city does need to blame Walgreens. I have never been to SF and don't have any idea about the facts on the ground. Just, coming from ignorance, it seems logical to me to bet the opposite way from you. One response to a decrease in reported theft and an increase in viral videos of theft is that the number of videos is misleading and "the numbers" prove it. Another is that people aren't reporting theft as much because it's either out of control or perceived as such due to the videos. And/or the authorities have ways of manipulating the statistics. I don't know that one or the other interpretation is correct, but if someone presents the first one as obvious without delving into why it is certainly true, then I tend to distrust them overall.

GaryTang 5y ago

> "They are saying that’s the primary reason, but I also think when a place is not generating revenue, and when they’re saturated — S.F. has a lot of Walgreens locations all over the city — so I do think that there are other factors that come into play,” Mayor London Breed told reporters Wednesday. https://youtu.be/2jrnhaLzCqA https://youtu.be/2jrnhaLzCqA There are dozens of videos of theft in SF Walgreens captured on YouTube. Can someone explain to the mayor that your revenue is going to decrease when criminals are walking out with garbage bags full of merchandise? Per typical, SF Democrats are trying to cover up their underreporting of crimes.

just_steve_h 5y ago
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  So stores should just accept being stolen from, creating highly unsafe situations for employees and customers, in the middle of economic conditions already hurting profit and supply chains? Or maybe the stores should hire private security, sufficiently armed to deter theft? That's probably a minimum cost of $500k per year for wages and insurance and licensing. I'm truly curious what the endgame is with this line of bleeding heart absurdity.
  - taurath 5y ago
    A society where people don’t need to steal to survive, if you are truly asking. A Walgreens takes money from a community and gives it to their shareholders. They pay minimum wage. The desperation people have across this country should be responded to with policies that lessen desperation, rather than jailing people like we have been for the last 60 years - 25% of the prisoners in the world are in the USA which has 5% of the population. If you want people to not steal food, give them food. If you want people to not be homeless, give them a home. If you want people in prison, prevent the hungry from eating and the homeless from finding a home. It costs a lot more to hold a prisoner than providing food or shelter by other means.

elgernon 5y ago

the article is right, it's all about narrative, and these "optics" make SF politicians look bad

sneeeeeed 5y ago

Next up: legally requiring stores to operate in high-theft areas?

timbo1642 5y ago

Of course the leftists once again don't want to take responsibilities for their bad policies and failures. This is always the case

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]