5 ms·

I thought the US was like the most advanced nation in the world? And businesses are supposed to pay for their own security instead of relying on police? What ne

by ahtihn 3y ago

I thought the US was like the most advanced nation in the world? And businesses are supposed to pay for their own security instead of relying on police? What next? Families of murder victims should cover the cost of the investigation?

NickC25 3y ago
ITT: people defending the actions of a corporation owned by a family worth over 230 billion USD. Businesses should expect that society protects them, sure. But those same businesses can't then go and bribe the government to cut worker protection laws, labor laws, can't slash wages and expect that the government covers the costs of labor, etc... If Walmart paid their workers lavishly, gave them huge pensions, didn't engage in far-right lobbying to diminish worker protections, didn't demolish the proverbial Main Street all across America, sure, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and say that we should cover their security costs. But look at their actions over the last 35 years....they've enriched themselves greatly as a corporation, bribed the government, and told regular Americans to pound sand.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  And provided inexpensive goods to the masses.
  - spondylosaurus 3y ago
    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      I shop at Walmart now and then, and benefit from the low prices. So does everyone else who shops there.
  - NickC25 3y ago
    Walmart is able to provide cheap goods because it can strong-arm providers into taking a loss or operating at a break-even point just for the chance to sell at Walmart. It can also provide cheap goods because they pay their workers jack shit and instruct employees to use government subsidized healthcare and insurance. It's totally possible to provide good pay, healthcare, etc... to employees, still have healthy enough margin % to make Wall Street happy, keep the C-Suite well paid, all while providing a great service at competitive prices to consumers. Maybe not enough to enrich the owners to a quarter trillion dollars in net worth, but plenty enough to keep the ship going. Case in point: CostCo. Whole Foods prior to Amazon was another.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      1. Nobody makes providers sell thru Walmart. 2. Nobody makes anyone buy from Walmart. 3. Nobody makes anyone work for Walmart. 4. Anybody is free to spin up a competitor to Walmart. 5. Walmart is not responsible for government wealth transfer programs. > It's totally possible to provide [...] You and anyone else are free to do so.
      - NickC25 3y ago
        Have you ever been to a small town in America? Outside of a few regions, Walmart is all they have...so that sort of nixes points 2 and 3. Regarding point 4, and your quoting of me - yes, people have. And some have been lucky in that they've made themselves multigenerational wealth in doing so. The guy who founded Costco did it, and made himself over a billion dollars. However, the Waltons have hundreds of times that amount. You can make a billion by doing right by everyone, or hundreds of billions by doing right by everyone not named you. I know what number I'd be content with, not sure about you though. (Hint: if you give me a billion dollars, I'm retiring tomorrow) Regarding point 5, Walmart IS however responsible for spending vast amounts of money (generational money) over the years to enact some pretty anti consumer and anti worker laws throughout the country. It IS responsible for funding some crazy far-right politicians. It IS responsible for paying its workers so little that they are "encouraged" to go on food stamps and apply for section 8 housing.
- sneak 3y ago
  We are criticizing the government, not defending Walmart. The idea of equal protection under the law is much bigger and more important than a corporation that sucks. Every business should have equal access to law enforcement regardless of how big they are. If law enforcement sucks, it is simply not any private company’s job to address the problem.
  - NickC25 3y ago
    If a corporation donates heavily to anti-government think tanks, funds several union-busting operations, sponsors politicians that write laws that would exempt that corporation from having to pay tax.....then we're not criticizing the government, we're calling the corporation out for antisocial behavior. If I run a company, make bank, and then use that money to engage in lobbying that would see public services cut significantly, I shouldn't get to whine that those same public services (which includes policing) should be protecting my private interests first and foremost.
tomcam 3y ago
In many of the places Wal-Mart has the most problems, both police and private security are sharply limited in what actions they can take against shoplifters. And places like California, Oregon, and Washington won’t prosecute for crimes under about $950. What do you propose Wal-Mart do in these localities?
- brvsft 3y ago
  A lot of people are under the impression that these stores can just eat the cost with insurance, which is, of course, an absurd notion because then the insurance company is losing too much money and will raise the premiums. Then Walmart, etc. can't afford the insurance unless they close their most problematic locations. People engage in a lot of magical thinking to justify theft since it seems like a harmless act. Thieves are just trying to feed their families! Insurance will cover it! Etc.! It's really unfortunate, they're going to learn the hard way as not only Walmart but other retail stores in their areas flee.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    No, insurance doesn't have to cover it, because even in these cases where large retailers are crying about theft, it's still not the primary cause of shrinkage in their businesses! Grocers still lose more product to employee theft or just breaking stuff during handling. Even in California where there's some conspiracy theory about how "It's the DAs fault the police aren't doing anything", as if it's the police's responsibility, or even their jurisdiction, to pick and choose who should go to jail. Cops should be bringing in people violating the law even if nobody ever went to prison!
    - scythe 3y ago
      At least one source gives shoplifting as the plurality of shrinkage at 36%, with employee theft close behind at 30%. But if theft isn't prosecuted, this would seem to affect incentives for both shoplifting and employee theft. https://lithospos.com/blog/shrinkage-in-retail-and-how-to-prevent-it/ https://lithospos.com/blog/shrinkage-in-retail-and-how-to-pr... Together this puts theft at a solid majority (66%) of shrinkage.
brvsft 3y ago
It's not unheard of in the US. The missing person case of Jennifer Kesse in Orlando, FL comes to mind. Her parents even had to file a lawsuit against the police because they refused to cooperate with private investigators after failing to make progress on the case.
gumby 3y ago
Well, banks hire private security guards, have stong safes (well, back when they handled cash) etc under practical pressure and pressure from their insurers. They don't rely solely on the police. On the other hand a lemonade stand will generally rely entirely on the police and on peoples' good nature. I sure hope they aren't armed! So on the spectrum between the two, don't we want a society where almost all interactions don't rely on private security guards? I feel like there has been an explosion of private security guards over the past 30 years, but I do see them in old movies so I don't know if my impression is correct.

by ahtihn 3y ago

NickC25 3y ago

ITT: people defending the actions of a corporation owned by a family worth over 230 billion USD. Businesses should expect that society protects them, sure. But those same businesses can't then go and bribe the government to cut worker protection laws, labor laws, can't slash wages and expect that the government covers the costs of labor, etc... If Walmart paid their workers lavishly, gave them huge pensions, didn't engage in far-right lobbying to diminish worker protections, didn't demolish the proverbial Main Street all across America, sure, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and say that we should cover their security costs. But look at their actions over the last 35 years....they've enriched themselves greatly as a corporation, bribed the government, and told regular Americans to pound sand.

WalterBright 3y ago
And provided inexpensive goods to the masses.
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    I shop at Walmart now and then, and benefit from the low prices. So does everyone else who shops there.
- NickC25 3y ago
  Walmart is able to provide cheap goods because it can strong-arm providers into taking a loss or operating at a break-even point just for the chance to sell at Walmart. It can also provide cheap goods because they pay their workers jack shit and instruct employees to use government subsidized healthcare and insurance. It's totally possible to provide good pay, healthcare, etc... to employees, still have healthy enough margin % to make Wall Street happy, keep the C-Suite well paid, all while providing a great service at competitive prices to consumers. Maybe not enough to enrich the owners to a quarter trillion dollars in net worth, but plenty enough to keep the ship going. Case in point: CostCo. Whole Foods prior to Amazon was another.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    1. Nobody makes providers sell thru Walmart. 2. Nobody makes anyone buy from Walmart. 3. Nobody makes anyone work for Walmart. 4. Anybody is free to spin up a competitor to Walmart. 5. Walmart is not responsible for government wealth transfer programs. > It's totally possible to provide [...] You and anyone else are free to do so.
    - NickC25 3y ago
      Have you ever been to a small town in America? Outside of a few regions, Walmart is all they have...so that sort of nixes points 2 and 3. Regarding point 4, and your quoting of me - yes, people have. And some have been lucky in that they've made themselves multigenerational wealth in doing so. The guy who founded Costco did it, and made himself over a billion dollars. However, the Waltons have hundreds of times that amount. You can make a billion by doing right by everyone, or hundreds of billions by doing right by everyone not named you. I know what number I'd be content with, not sure about you though. (Hint: if you give me a billion dollars, I'm retiring tomorrow) Regarding point 5, Walmart IS however responsible for spending vast amounts of money (generational money) over the years to enact some pretty anti consumer and anti worker laws throughout the country. It IS responsible for funding some crazy far-right politicians. It IS responsible for paying its workers so little that they are "encouraged" to go on food stamps and apply for section 8 housing.
sneak 3y ago
We are criticizing the government, not defending Walmart. The idea of equal protection under the law is much bigger and more important than a corporation that sucks. Every business should have equal access to law enforcement regardless of how big they are. If law enforcement sucks, it is simply not any private company’s job to address the problem.
- NickC25 3y ago
  If a corporation donates heavily to anti-government think tanks, funds several union-busting operations, sponsors politicians that write laws that would exempt that corporation from having to pay tax.....then we're not criticizing the government, we're calling the corporation out for antisocial behavior. If I run a company, make bank, and then use that money to engage in lobbying that would see public services cut significantly, I shouldn't get to whine that those same public services (which includes policing) should be protecting my private interests first and foremost.

tomcam 3y ago

In many of the places Wal-Mart has the most problems, both police and private security are sharply limited in what actions they can take against shoplifters. And places like California, Oregon, and Washington won’t prosecute for crimes under about $950. What do you propose Wal-Mart do in these localities?

brvsft 3y ago
A lot of people are under the impression that these stores can just eat the cost with insurance, which is, of course, an absurd notion because then the insurance company is losing too much money and will raise the premiums. Then Walmart, etc. can't afford the insurance unless they close their most problematic locations. People engage in a lot of magical thinking to justify theft since it seems like a harmless act. Thieves are just trying to feed their families! Insurance will cover it! Etc.! It's really unfortunate, they're going to learn the hard way as not only Walmart but other retail stores in their areas flee.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  No, insurance doesn't have to cover it, because even in these cases where large retailers are crying about theft, it's still not the primary cause of shrinkage in their businesses! Grocers still lose more product to employee theft or just breaking stuff during handling. Even in California where there's some conspiracy theory about how "It's the DAs fault the police aren't doing anything", as if it's the police's responsibility, or even their jurisdiction, to pick and choose who should go to jail. Cops should be bringing in people violating the law even if nobody ever went to prison!
  - scythe 3y ago
    At least one source gives shoplifting as the plurality of shrinkage at 36%, with employee theft close behind at 30%. But if theft isn't prosecuted, this would seem to affect incentives for both shoplifting and employee theft. https://lithospos.com/blog/shrinkage-in-retail-and-how-to-prevent-it/ https://lithospos.com/blog/shrinkage-in-retail-and-how-to-pr... Together this puts theft at a solid majority (66%) of shrinkage.

brvsft 3y ago

It's not unheard of in the US. The missing person case of Jennifer Kesse in Orlando, FL comes to mind. Her parents even had to file a lawsuit against the police because they refused to cooperate with private investigators after failing to make progress on the case.

gumby 3y ago

Well, banks hire private security guards, have stong safes (well, back when they handled cash) etc under practical pressure and pressure from their insurers. They don't rely solely on the police. On the other hand a lemonade stand will generally rely entirely on the police and on peoples' good nature. I sure hope they aren't armed! So on the spectrum between the two, don't we want a society where almost all interactions don't rely on private security guards? I feel like there has been an explosion of private security guards over the past 30 years, but I do see them in old movies so I don't know if my impression is correct.