12 ms·

Most of the comments here are ignoring the difference between regular old shoplifting and the trend driving the increase discussed in the article, which they're

by axutio 4y ago

Most of the comments here are ignoring the difference between regular old shoplifting and the trend driving the increase discussed in the article, which they're referring to as "organized retail crime". I think it's very fair to have differing attitudes/moral thresholds for an impoverished mother shoplifting a week's worth of baby formula versus "a couple in Alabama [which] pled guilty to shifting $300,000-worth of stolen baby formula on eBay". My reading of the article suggests that the trend discussed is a result of the latter, which is more recent and problematic, and not the former. Comments here discussing the morality of crime or a desire for policy change are missing this distinction.

dls2016 4y ago
> Most of the comments here are ignoring the difference between regular old shoplifting and the trend driving the increase discussed in the article, which they're referring to as "organized retail crime". I guess, but conversely I'd argue that organized retail theft has been around pretty much as long as supply chains have existed. That's the mob's bread and butter. The phrase "riding shotgun" is in common use. Perhaps mass shoplifting from the store is a new tactic, but personally I look at this situation and ask, "what has changed"? For one, we've sort of collectively realized how terrible modern jails are (Rikers anyone?). And that's good. A second conclusion I draw is that retail stores have been gutted... walmart-ized... every ounce of efficiency wrung out of them. Have you ever been to one of these massive retail outlets and had trouble finding anyone that works there? A few months ago everyone was clutching pearls about some 150 yd stretch of train track in LA that was continually being robbed... and I can make a wild guess that this was the result of 1) skeleton crews, 2) minimal security on the ground and 3) shipping containers that are running with sub-standard defense mechanisms because they're simply too much work (slows down loading, probably break a lot, etc.). Yes organized crime should be punished, but these companies seem to throw up they're hands and say "Gee golly, we have no idea why $20 million dollars of merchandise watched by 5 overworked, low wage employees and 1 loss prevention officer is such a target! It's a mystery!" I don't hate mega corporations (ok maybe a little), but they definitely have a hand in creating this situation. And it's rarely commented upon when discussing the recent rise in shoplifting. (Edit: I forgot my favorite shoplifting fact... up until recently, reports showed that both shoplifting and wage theft "cost the economy" around $40 billion per year. Comparing prosecution rates of the two crimes is left as an exercise for the reader.)
- concordDance 4y ago
  Having extra staff will have no effect on shoplifting if it isn't prosecuted and the police don't arest for it. And note that security measures are deadweight loss to society.
- capitalsigma 4y ago
  Understaffing doesn't justify crime. You probably understaff your home security, leaving it empty all day while you're at work. Do you deserve to be robbed?
  - dls2016 4y ago
    > Understaffing doesn't justify crime. Noting the existence of theft throughout the ages is not an endorsement. My point is that we should be careful who we ask to pay for enforcement. It's expensive to maintain a system of courts and jails for petty crimes. Rikers is a rather egregious example, but almost $1 billion per year where 85% of detainees are pretrial! I think it's legitimate to ask to what exent the community should cover the enforcement cost.
    - karatinversion 4y ago
      The community pays either way - they are the source of the revenue that has to cover any private enforcement! Law enforcement is a public good and will be under supplied by private parties that cannot internalise all the gain!
  - bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
    When you spread the risk out among thousands of homes near you, a door with a lock may well be a “sufficiently staffed” home. Meanwhile stores may be the only game for several blocks, miles even depending on which part of the country.
  - Broken_Hippo 4y ago
    These aren't the same. Understaffing and such things are like having locks on your house, yet only locking the windows while leaving the house, garage, and shed doors open. You may not deserve to have your stuff taken, but everyone can understand why they chose your house instead of the one next door. If you aren't willing to do the bare minimum - shutting doors and locking them - you were minimally more OK with the risk. And to be fair, retail places usually aren't "robbed". They have their stuff shoplifted and stolen: Robbing a store generally creates images of armed intruders, and most of it isn't like that.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> I think it's very fair to have differing attitudes/moral thresholds for an impoverished mother shoplifting a week's worth of baby formula versus "a couple in Alabama [which] pled guilty to shifting $300,000-worth of stolen baby formula on eBay". I’ve also noticed a weird tendency to downplay theft lately, either through projecting a theoretical moral justification on to the shoplifter or by insinuating that retail stores are evil corporations and therefore deserve no sympathy. Knowing some people who work in retail, the impact of rampant theft (organized or random) is really quite unsettling on the people who have to be around it. Retail store policies are very much about not interfering with the thieves, but it’s quite upsetting when you realize you’re in an environment where the law doesn’t really mean anything and consequences basically don’t exist for breaking the law. The few people I know in retail (including retail management) are looking to get out ASAP because it just feels so vaguely unsafe and, worse yet, large swaths of the public seem to thing the thieves are the good guys and the retail employees are the bad ones because they’re associated with a corporation.
- marricks 4y ago
  - capitalsigma 4y ago
    < 7% of Americans work in retail: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/profile-of-the-retail-workforce.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/profile-of-th...
- ryandrake 4y ago
  > I’ve also noticed a weird tendency to downplay theft lately, either through projecting a theoretical moral justification on to the shoplifter or by insinuating that retail stores are evil corporations and therefore deserve no sympathy. Let me try to convince you without defending the morality of the shoplifter or declaring corporations evil. 1. On the totem pole of crimes, petty shoplifting (without violence) is pretty close to the bottom when it comes to harm done the public. Jaywalking and smoking weed are lower. 2. These corporations that are being robbed already build shrinkage into their budgets. $300k of baby food is nothing to Walmart, a rounding error, and I doubt you can even see it in their bottom line. Even a smaller shop is not going to go out of business if someone walks out with all their toothpaste. It’s not analogous to stealing from an individual. 3. There are a limited number of police and I’d rather them be out there deterring violent and serious crime than protecting the inventory of companies. When every rapist, murderer, white collar fraudster, and drunk driver is behind bars, and the police have nothing left to do, then sure, go bust those dastardly deodorant thieves.

by axutio 4y ago

dls2016 4y ago

> Most of the comments here are ignoring the difference between regular old shoplifting and the trend driving the increase discussed in the article, which they're referring to as "organized retail crime". I guess, but conversely I'd argue that organized retail theft has been around pretty much as long as supply chains have existed. That's the mob's bread and butter. The phrase "riding shotgun" is in common use. Perhaps mass shoplifting from the store is a new tactic, but personally I look at this situation and ask, "what has changed"? For one, we've sort of collectively realized how terrible modern jails are (Rikers anyone?). And that's good. A second conclusion I draw is that retail stores have been gutted... walmart-ized... every ounce of efficiency wrung out of them. Have you ever been to one of these massive retail outlets and had trouble finding anyone that works there? A few months ago everyone was clutching pearls about some 150 yd stretch of train track in LA that was continually being robbed... and I can make a wild guess that this was the result of 1) skeleton crews, 2) minimal security on the ground and 3) shipping containers that are running with sub-standard defense mechanisms because they're simply too much work (slows down loading, probably break a lot, etc.). Yes organized crime should be punished, but these companies seem to throw up they're hands and say "Gee golly, we have no idea why $20 million dollars of merchandise watched by 5 overworked, low wage employees and 1 loss prevention officer is such a target! It's a mystery!" I don't hate mega corporations (ok maybe a little), but they definitely have a hand in creating this situation. And it's rarely commented upon when discussing the recent rise in shoplifting. (Edit: I forgot my favorite shoplifting fact... up until recently, reports showed that both shoplifting and wage theft "cost the economy" around $40 billion per year. Comparing prosecution rates of the two crimes is left as an exercise for the reader.)

concordDance 4y ago
Having extra staff will have no effect on shoplifting if it isn't prosecuted and the police don't arest for it. And note that security measures are deadweight loss to society.
capitalsigma 4y ago
Understaffing doesn't justify crime. You probably understaff your home security, leaving it empty all day while you're at work. Do you deserve to be robbed?
- dls2016 4y ago
  > Understaffing doesn't justify crime. Noting the existence of theft throughout the ages is not an endorsement. My point is that we should be careful who we ask to pay for enforcement. It's expensive to maintain a system of courts and jails for petty crimes. Rikers is a rather egregious example, but almost $1 billion per year where 85% of detainees are pretrial! I think it's legitimate to ask to what exent the community should cover the enforcement cost.
  - karatinversion 4y ago
    The community pays either way - they are the source of the revenue that has to cover any private enforcement! Law enforcement is a public good and will be under supplied by private parties that cannot internalise all the gain!
- bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
  When you spread the risk out among thousands of homes near you, a door with a lock may well be a “sufficiently staffed” home. Meanwhile stores may be the only game for several blocks, miles even depending on which part of the country.
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  These aren't the same. Understaffing and such things are like having locks on your house, yet only locking the windows while leaving the house, garage, and shed doors open. You may not deserve to have your stuff taken, but everyone can understand why they chose your house instead of the one next door. If you aren't willing to do the bare minimum - shutting doors and locking them - you were minimally more OK with the risk. And to be fair, retail places usually aren't "robbed". They have their stuff shoplifted and stolen: Robbing a store generally creates images of armed intruders, and most of it isn't like that.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

> I think it's very fair to have differing attitudes/moral thresholds for an impoverished mother shoplifting a week's worth of baby formula versus "a couple in Alabama [which] pled guilty to shifting $300,000-worth of stolen baby formula on eBay". I’ve also noticed a weird tendency to downplay theft lately, either through projecting a theoretical moral justification on to the shoplifter or by insinuating that retail stores are evil corporations and therefore deserve no sympathy. Knowing some people who work in retail, the impact of rampant theft (organized or random) is really quite unsettling on the people who have to be around it. Retail store policies are very much about not interfering with the thieves, but it’s quite upsetting when you realize you’re in an environment where the law doesn’t really mean anything and consequences basically don’t exist for breaking the law. The few people I know in retail (including retail management) are looking to get out ASAP because it just feels so vaguely unsafe and, worse yet, large swaths of the public seem to thing the thieves are the good guys and the retail employees are the bad ones because they’re associated with a corporation.

marricks 4y ago
- capitalsigma 4y ago
  < 7% of Americans work in retail: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/profile-of-the-retail-workforce.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/profile-of-th...
ryandrake 4y ago
> I’ve also noticed a weird tendency to downplay theft lately, either through projecting a theoretical moral justification on to the shoplifter or by insinuating that retail stores are evil corporations and therefore deserve no sympathy. Let me try to convince you without defending the morality of the shoplifter or declaring corporations evil. 1. On the totem pole of crimes, petty shoplifting (without violence) is pretty close to the bottom when it comes to harm done the public. Jaywalking and smoking weed are lower. 2. These corporations that are being robbed already build shrinkage into their budgets. $300k of baby food is nothing to Walmart, a rounding error, and I doubt you can even see it in their bottom line. Even a smaller shop is not going to go out of business if someone walks out with all their toothpaste. It’s not analogous to stealing from an individual. 3. There are a limited number of police and I’d rather them be out there deterring violent and serious crime than protecting the inventory of companies. When every rapist, murderer, white collar fraudster, and drunk driver is behind bars, and the police have nothing left to do, then sure, go bust those dastardly deodorant thieves.