3 ms·

Definitely not bait! (At least, not intentionally, I'm not from the US and the above article is my only context for the problem of store closure relating to the

by palmetieri2000 4y ago

Definitely not bait! (At least, not intentionally, I'm not from the US and the above article is my only context for the problem of store closure relating to theft). I've read your article and it doesn't actually provide evidence that supports your claim (that those additional costs related to theft are what drove the closure), it just says that Walgreens cited theft as their reason for closing the store. The article even includes a quote from the Mayor contradictory to your point, who suggests Walgreens may have had other reasons for the closure. “When a place is not generating revenue and when they’re saturated – Walgreens has a lot of Walgreens locations all over the city – I do think there are other factors that come into play,"

BoorishBears 4y ago
You admittedly have no context, yet you want to refute the obviously plainly stated fact from the source of the closures themselves with the word of the mayor who is highly incentivized to downplay crime in the city? Really? Walgreens stated years ago: "To help combat this retail theft, we increased our investments in security measures in stores across the city to 46 times our chain average in an effort to provide a safe environment. This is primarily a result of our participation in the city’s 10B program to hire off-duty SFPD officers to have a presence in our stores" Yet you're juggling semantics to imply somehow theft is causing them to close the stores, but the cost of the theft... somehow doesn't factor in? Do you think they just feel morally bad about the shoplifters? – Honestly this is a tired topic. For years Walgreens wouldn't even admit that theft played any role at all because they didn't want to get dragged into local politics, but even they had their breaking point. You can readily find a million and one talking heads claiming that Walgreens closed because of anything but theft because admitting they closed due to theft is admitting there's a problem when poor people rob "rich corporations"... and some people just hate that idea. Won't do anything to change the fact that Walgreens themselves have finally admitted the actual cause.
- palmetieri2000 4y ago
  Thanks for engaging and providing more details! I think it is interesting that you so quickly recognise that the Mayor would have an ulterior motive to shift blame and/or responsibility yet seem unwilling to engage in the possibility that Walgreens would do the same for similar reasons.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    Walgreens closed something like 700 stores while actively insisting it had nothing to do with the theft, I think it's interesting you think they'd need to lie about closing 5 more.

BoorishBears 4y ago

You admittedly have no context, yet you want to refute the obviously plainly stated fact from the source of the closures themselves with the word of the mayor who is highly incentivized to downplay crime in the city? Really? Walgreens stated years ago: "To help combat this retail theft, we increased our investments in security measures in stores across the city to 46 times our chain average in an effort to provide a safe environment. This is primarily a result of our participation in the city’s 10B program to hire off-duty SFPD officers to have a presence in our stores" Yet you're juggling semantics to imply somehow theft is causing them to close the stores, but the cost of the theft... somehow doesn't factor in? Do you think they just feel morally bad about the shoplifters? – Honestly this is a tired topic. For years Walgreens wouldn't even admit that theft played any role at all because they didn't want to get dragged into local politics, but even they had their breaking point. You can readily find a million and one talking heads claiming that Walgreens closed because of anything but theft because admitting they closed due to theft is admitting there's a problem when poor people rob "rich corporations"... and some people just hate that idea. Won't do anything to change the fact that Walgreens themselves have finally admitted the actual cause.

palmetieri2000 4y ago
Thanks for engaging and providing more details! I think it is interesting that you so quickly recognise that the Mayor would have an ulterior motive to shift blame and/or responsibility yet seem unwilling to engage in the possibility that Walgreens would do the same for similar reasons.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  Walgreens closed something like 700 stores while actively insisting it had nothing to do with the theft, I think it's interesting you think they'd need to lie about closing 5 more.