8 ms·

I call BS on this article. I'm an SF-grown left-leaning SJW type, and this seems like propaganda to me. Yes, the exec said, “Maybe we cried too much last year

I call BS on this article. I'm an SF-grown left-leaning SJW type, and this seems like propaganda to me. Yes, the exec said, “Maybe we cried too much last year,” but that's all he said. If you listen to him in full, instead of taking one phrase out of context, it's clear that he's not making some big admission or anything like that. > It was a remarkable admission, retail experts said. Which experts? - - - - I've lived here all my life, nearly half a century now, and things have never been like this. There are tent cities, people shooting up in the Muni stations and on the street, actual human feces on the sidewalk. The Tenderloin in particular has become a lawless zone, even the longtime residents are scared. This town has always been nuts, and even a little dangerous, since the Gold Rush, but at least it was fun. What we're seeing today is dystopian. If the Progressive bloc can't see their own problems they're not going to be able to make, uh, progress. Progressives insist that the recall of Boudin was all due to Republicans and the Police, they ignored democrats and particularly the Asian-American political bloc and told us that we were tricked by the nasty R's and the lying police! (Asian American political groups in SF were against Boudin because they believed he was soft on anti-Asian hate crime in the wake of the pandemic & lockdowns. A lot of Democrats just felt that he wasn't able to do his job. Some of that because the rank-and-file cops didn't like him, but mostly because he was kinda nuts.) - - - - Anyway, two things can be true: Walgreens overestimated and overstated how bad shoplifting was, and shoplifting and crime is a big problem in SF right now.

anikom15 4y ago
How many Republicans are even in SF? LA runs political ads blaming Republicans for everything bad around here, but there aren’t Republican politicians. There are only Republican voters…. At some point the argument starts to look ridiculous.
- carapace 4y ago
  https://www.sfelections.org/tools/election_data/ https://www.sfelections.org/tools/election_data/ Registration by Party ... Democratic 317,109 Republican 33,778 So D's outnumber R's here by roughly 10:1. Interestingly: No Party Preference/Unknown 133,810
prottog 4y ago
Yeah, it's at least the third time I've seen this same article on HN in the past couple of weeks. Walgreens is only walking it back because their additional anti-theft measures are costing them in expenses and lost sales, not because theft isn't actually a problem.
- kaitrain87 4y ago
  Agree. The quote is a great headline, but I read it to be to say they overstated the need and effectiveness to hire security: "We’ve put in incremental security in the stores in the first quarter. Actually, probably we put in too much. We might step back a little bit from that." It's like realizing that the current state of individual recycling may not be the most effective solution, and then twisting it into an climate change denial.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Or you can read their actual public reports and see that their shrinkage is perfectly in line with other companies.
  - prottog 4y ago
    Their overall shrinkage is in line after they closed stores and put in counter-theft measures. It doesn't say anything about whether they need to further close stores in such areas, or whether mom-and-pop stores can survive in the same areas.
jrochkind1 4y ago
A different two things can also be true -- there might be, as you suggest, problems with: "tent cities, people shooting up in the Muni stations and on the street, actual human feces on the sidewalk. The Tenderloin in particular has become a lawless zone, even the longtime residents are scared." And at the same time, shoplifting losses might not be significantly different for Walgreens or other stores than typical trends, and the stories about widespread organized crime shoplifting might have been overblown. People still in HN threads like to point to the "shoplifting problem" specifically when talking about crime being out of control or former DA Boudin not doing his job, and use Walgreens specifically as their evidence. If Walgreens says in fact shoplifting wasn't all that unusual... There is a transcript of the earnings call available and linked to in OP, if you want to see exactly what the Walgreens exec said about it (that "shrink" losses are now "well below the prior-year levels."). https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2023/01/05/walgreens-boots-alliance-wba-q1-2023-earnings-call/ https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2023/01/05/wa...
- carapace 4y ago
  > A different two things can also be true You list the same two things I did..?
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    I am saying perhaps shoplifting is not in fact any worse than typical trends, as Walgreens suggested for their stores. In arguments I've seen on HN, people get really excited about shoplifting, especially in relation to Boudin, and use Walgreens as their evidence. If Walgreens isn't that evidence... maybe there is not unusual shoplifting going on? Even if there are other problems.
    - carapace 4y ago
      > I am saying perhaps shoplifting is not in fact any worse than typical trends, as Walgreens suggested for their stores. That's what I said too, "Walgreens overestimated and overstated how bad shoplifting was". Anyway, it's not important. - - - - > In arguments I've seen on HN, people get really excited about shoplifting, especially in relation to Boudin, and use Walgreens as their evidence. If Walgreens isn't that evidence... maybe there is not unusual shoplifting going on? Counter-propaganda is still propaganda. I want "my side" (to the extent that I'm not apolitical I'm left-leaning by USA standards) to do better than the opposition. We don't need propaganda because we've got truth on our side! (In case it's not clear that was meant tongue-in-cheek.) > maybe there is not unusual shoplifting going on? It would be nice to know. I wish NYT had printed that data.
iudqnolq 4y ago
You establish there's shit on the street, then seem to assume that proves there's also theft. Why does this sort of comment always conflate people sleeping in the street with theft and general lawlessness? Simply because things are a little unpleasant for you doesn't necessarily mean there has to be a real problem here.
- carapace 4y ago
  Well, like I said, I've seen it for myself. E.g. some folks broke into the house across the street and were squatting. My sister's car got broken into and some stuff stolen.
ryan_lane 4y ago
You don't remember the decades when SoMa and the mission were gang hotspots, with frequent shootings? During that same time, it was dangerous to wear a hoodie, or a bandana. Crime in SF is still at historic lows, especially violent crime. There's a higher perception of crime in the city right now due to a persistent media emphasis on crime _percentage_ increases. The police haven't been defunded, the DA's office is still prosecuting roughly the same number of criminals. The biggest different in SF is the homeless population, and specifically the amount of drug addicts. Drug addicts are also the ones breaking into cars, shop lifting and stealing bikes. This is primarily thanks to the opiod epidemic, and not due to local politics. Republican cities are _not_ handling this better than liberal ones. The tenderloin has always been awful. It's named the way it is because of high crime and dirty cops. You describing it this way makes me doubt you live in the city at all. It's been a year since Boudin was recalled, and yet you're saying it's the worst it's ever been. Maybe he wasn't the issue?
- carapace 4y ago
  > You don't remember the decades when SoMa and the mission were gang hotspots, with frequent shootings? During that same time, it was dangerous to wear a hoodie, or a bandana. Oh I do. When I was a kid the rule was "Don't wear Adidas sneakers on the Muni, you'll get robbed." (Also Nike.) We mostly hung out in the Sunset and my clique was multi-ethnic, so we had to watch out for SDI (the Sunset District Incorporated, skinheads) when we hung out in Stern Grove in the middle of the night. The thing about gang violence is that it's mostly between gang members. > Crime in SF is still at historic lows, especially violent crime. There's a higher perception of crime in the city right now due to a persistent media emphasis on crime _percentage_ increases. I think the perception is due to, well, perception. Not to be snarky, what I mean is you see it everywhere, the kinds of crime that are common today. I mentioned in a sib comment that I've seen squatters break into a house across the street, and my sister's car had a window broken and things stolen from it. This has never happened before and we've lived here for about 25 years. (Park Merced.) You can literally go downtown and see people shooting up in the gutter, or step over the human feces yourself. Downtown has always been scuzzy (at least since I was a kid) but it's getting medieval down there. Go look for yourself if you don't believe me. Just be careful. > The biggest different in SF is the homeless population, and specifically the amount of drug addicts. Drug addicts are also the ones breaking into cars, shop lifting and stealing bikes. This is primarily thanks to the opiod epidemic, and not due to local politics. Republican cities are _not_ handling this better than liberal ones. First of all this should not be a partisan issue I don't care about Left vs. Right when it comes to housing the homeless and treating addiction. I was homeless myself for a few years, and I've seen first hand how addiction warps people. Second, yeah, addicts steal. They need help: stable, supportive environments (and in some cases access to substitute drugs or whatever, I don't want to get into the details of humane treatment for addicts here. I'm not an expert anyway.) SF spends a quarter of a billion dollars per year on homelessness. Most of it goes into the pockets of people who are not themselves homeless. So on the one hand, homelessness and drug addiction should not be treated as crimes, and folks with those problems should get the help they need, while on the other hand, leaving them on the street without support to steal and take drugs is not humane. Third, do you have data? I haven't been out in the street for a couple of decades, so my first-hand data are pretty stale. If we're going to discuss this we should do it with actual data please. > The tenderloin has always been awful. It's named the way it is because of high crime and dirty cops. You describing it this way makes me doubt you live in the city at all. My man, I lived in the Tenderloin for a bit in my twenties. It has always been a rough neighborhood (highest incidence of male-on-male rape in the country. Dubious distinction to put it mildly.) But it functioned for its residents. Now it's gotten so chaotic that even the dirty cops won't go in there. > It's been a year since Boudin was recalled, and yet you're saying it's the worst it's ever been. Maybe he wasn't the issue? Well that's the argument I made to my Progressive friends (the ones who told me to my face that the R's and the lying police bamboozled me): the police said they couldn't work with him, so now if crime doesn't go down significantly it will show that he wasn't actually the problem after all, like you say. The recall might be a setback for the Progressives, but it was a Pyrrhic victory for the Right. From my POV the Progressives biggest problem right now is that they have their heads up their behinds when it comes to selling their policies to the middle-Left, aka the 317k D's and the 134k undecided voters of the City.

anikom15 4y ago

How many Republicans are even in SF? LA runs political ads blaming Republicans for everything bad around here, but there aren’t Republican politicians. There are only Republican voters…. At some point the argument starts to look ridiculous.

carapace 4y ago
https://www.sfelections.org/tools/election_data/ https://www.sfelections.org/tools/election_data/ Registration by Party ... Democratic 317,109 Republican 33,778 So D's outnumber R's here by roughly 10:1. Interestingly: No Party Preference/Unknown 133,810

prottog 4y ago

Yeah, it's at least the third time I've seen this same article on HN in the past couple of weeks. Walgreens is only walking it back because their additional anti-theft measures are costing them in expenses and lost sales, not because theft isn't actually a problem.

kaitrain87 4y ago
Agree. The quote is a great headline, but I read it to be to say they overstated the need and effectiveness to hire security: "We’ve put in incremental security in the stores in the first quarter. Actually, probably we put in too much. We might step back a little bit from that." It's like realizing that the current state of individual recycling may not be the most effective solution, and then twisting it into an climate change denial.
mrguyorama 4y ago
Or you can read their actual public reports and see that their shrinkage is perfectly in line with other companies.
- prottog 4y ago
  Their overall shrinkage is in line after they closed stores and put in counter-theft measures. It doesn't say anything about whether they need to further close stores in such areas, or whether mom-and-pop stores can survive in the same areas.

jrochkind1 4y ago

A different two things can also be true -- there might be, as you suggest, problems with: "tent cities, people shooting up in the Muni stations and on the street, actual human feces on the sidewalk. The Tenderloin in particular has become a lawless zone, even the longtime residents are scared." And at the same time, shoplifting losses might not be significantly different for Walgreens or other stores than typical trends, and the stories about widespread organized crime shoplifting might have been overblown. People still in HN threads like to point to the "shoplifting problem" specifically when talking about crime being out of control or former DA Boudin not doing his job, and use Walgreens specifically as their evidence. If Walgreens says in fact shoplifting wasn't all that unusual... There is a transcript of the earnings call available and linked to in OP, if you want to see exactly what the Walgreens exec said about it (that "shrink" losses are now "well below the prior-year levels."). https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2023/01/05/walgreens-boots-alliance-wba-q1-2023-earnings-call/ https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2023/01/05/wa...

carapace 4y ago
> A different two things can also be true You list the same two things I did..?
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  I am saying perhaps shoplifting is not in fact any worse than typical trends, as Walgreens suggested for their stores. In arguments I've seen on HN, people get really excited about shoplifting, especially in relation to Boudin, and use Walgreens as their evidence. If Walgreens isn't that evidence... maybe there is not unusual shoplifting going on? Even if there are other problems.
  - carapace 4y ago
    > I am saying perhaps shoplifting is not in fact any worse than typical trends, as Walgreens suggested for their stores. That's what I said too, "Walgreens overestimated and overstated how bad shoplifting was". Anyway, it's not important. - - - - > In arguments I've seen on HN, people get really excited about shoplifting, especially in relation to Boudin, and use Walgreens as their evidence. If Walgreens isn't that evidence... maybe there is not unusual shoplifting going on? Counter-propaganda is still propaganda. I want "my side" (to the extent that I'm not apolitical I'm left-leaning by USA standards) to do better than the opposition. We don't need propaganda because we've got truth on our side! (In case it's not clear that was meant tongue-in-cheek.) > maybe there is not unusual shoplifting going on? It would be nice to know. I wish NYT had printed that data.

iudqnolq 4y ago

You establish there's shit on the street, then seem to assume that proves there's also theft. Why does this sort of comment always conflate people sleeping in the street with theft and general lawlessness? Simply because things are a little unpleasant for you doesn't necessarily mean there has to be a real problem here.

carapace 4y ago
Well, like I said, I've seen it for myself. E.g. some folks broke into the house across the street and were squatting. My sister's car got broken into and some stuff stolen.

ryan_lane 4y ago

You don't remember the decades when SoMa and the mission were gang hotspots, with frequent shootings? During that same time, it was dangerous to wear a hoodie, or a bandana. Crime in SF is still at historic lows, especially violent crime. There's a higher perception of crime in the city right now due to a persistent media emphasis on crime _percentage_ increases. The police haven't been defunded, the DA's office is still prosecuting roughly the same number of criminals. The biggest different in SF is the homeless population, and specifically the amount of drug addicts. Drug addicts are also the ones breaking into cars, shop lifting and stealing bikes. This is primarily thanks to the opiod epidemic, and not due to local politics. Republican cities are _not_ handling this better than liberal ones. The tenderloin has always been awful. It's named the way it is because of high crime and dirty cops. You describing it this way makes me doubt you live in the city at all. It's been a year since Boudin was recalled, and yet you're saying it's the worst it's ever been. Maybe he wasn't the issue?

carapace 4y ago
> You don't remember the decades when SoMa and the mission were gang hotspots, with frequent shootings? During that same time, it was dangerous to wear a hoodie, or a bandana. Oh I do. When I was a kid the rule was "Don't wear Adidas sneakers on the Muni, you'll get robbed." (Also Nike.) We mostly hung out in the Sunset and my clique was multi-ethnic, so we had to watch out for SDI (the Sunset District Incorporated, skinheads) when we hung out in Stern Grove in the middle of the night. The thing about gang violence is that it's mostly between gang members. > Crime in SF is still at historic lows, especially violent crime. There's a higher perception of crime in the city right now due to a persistent media emphasis on crime _percentage_ increases. I think the perception is due to, well, perception. Not to be snarky, what I mean is you see it everywhere, the kinds of crime that are common today. I mentioned in a sib comment that I've seen squatters break into a house across the street, and my sister's car had a window broken and things stolen from it. This has never happened before and we've lived here for about 25 years. (Park Merced.) You can literally go downtown and see people shooting up in the gutter, or step over the human feces yourself. Downtown has always been scuzzy (at least since I was a kid) but it's getting medieval down there. Go look for yourself if you don't believe me. Just be careful. > The biggest different in SF is the homeless population, and specifically the amount of drug addicts. Drug addicts are also the ones breaking into cars, shop lifting and stealing bikes. This is primarily thanks to the opiod epidemic, and not due to local politics. Republican cities are _not_ handling this better than liberal ones. First of all this should not be a partisan issue I don't care about Left vs. Right when it comes to housing the homeless and treating addiction. I was homeless myself for a few years, and I've seen first hand how addiction warps people. Second, yeah, addicts steal. They need help: stable, supportive environments (and in some cases access to substitute drugs or whatever, I don't want to get into the details of humane treatment for addicts here. I'm not an expert anyway.) SF spends a quarter of a billion dollars per year on homelessness. Most of it goes into the pockets of people who are not themselves homeless. So on the one hand, homelessness and drug addiction should not be treated as crimes, and folks with those problems should get the help they need, while on the other hand, leaving them on the street without support to steal and take drugs is not humane. Third, do you have data? I haven't been out in the street for a couple of decades, so my first-hand data are pretty stale. If we're going to discuss this we should do it with actual data please. > The tenderloin has always been awful. It's named the way it is because of high crime and dirty cops. You describing it this way makes me doubt you live in the city at all. My man, I lived in the Tenderloin for a bit in my twenties. It has always been a rough neighborhood (highest incidence of male-on-male rape in the country. Dubious distinction to put it mildly.) But it functioned for its residents. Now it's gotten so chaotic that even the dirty cops won't go in there. > It's been a year since Boudin was recalled, and yet you're saying it's the worst it's ever been. Maybe he wasn't the issue? Well that's the argument I made to my Progressive friends (the ones who told me to my face that the R's and the lying police bamboozled me): the police said they couldn't work with him, so now if crime doesn't go down significantly it will show that he wasn't actually the problem after all, like you say. The recall might be a setback for the Progressives, but it was a Pyrrhic victory for the Right. From my POV the Progressives biggest problem right now is that they have their heads up their behinds when it comes to selling their policies to the middle-Left, aka the 317k D's and the 134k undecided voters of the City.