3 ms·

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 stree

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.
    - jrochkind1 4y ago
      I see what you mean. Some actual reporting on this would be welcome. It is rare to get actual reporting these days, like looking into the overall shoplifting statistics in a serious way, instead of just printing what someone said in a press release or earnings call. Journalism is not what we'd like. I still think it's news to report when a Walgreen's exec says in an earnings call "Yeah, maybe shoplifting wasn't actually that bad and we over-reacted", when the shoplifting issue, at Walgreen's specifically, has become such a talking point to represent the overall situation. Even just on it's own, I think it's news, and don't think it's just propaganda to report it in the way NYT did. But I get what you mean, I agree that I wish more people more often were interested in getting to what's really going on, instead of just finding talking points to support whatever they believe or find convenient for their agenda. I think "Oh, that Walgreens situation was not, according to Walgreens, what people are saying it was" is one point that is not irrelevant in doing that though. But yeah, it's not the full picture, it's just one data point (or, anyway, removing one data point from the previous picture).

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.
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    I see what you mean. Some actual reporting on this would be welcome. It is rare to get actual reporting these days, like looking into the overall shoplifting statistics in a serious way, instead of just printing what someone said in a press release or earnings call. Journalism is not what we'd like. I still think it's news to report when a Walgreen's exec says in an earnings call "Yeah, maybe shoplifting wasn't actually that bad and we over-reacted", when the shoplifting issue, at Walgreen's specifically, has become such a talking point to represent the overall situation. Even just on it's own, I think it's news, and don't think it's just propaganda to report it in the way NYT did. But I get what you mean, I agree that I wish more people more often were interested in getting to what's really going on, instead of just finding talking points to support whatever they believe or find convenient for their agenda. I think "Oh, that Walgreens situation was not, according to Walgreens, what people are saying it was" is one point that is not irrelevant in doing that though. But yeah, it's not the full picture, it's just one data point (or, anyway, removing one data point from the previous picture).