5 ms·

The real key is the bottom line for the shop, if theft has doubled and sales have doubled then the shop should be making more money. That isn't addressed, all

by fleitz 15y ago

The real key is the bottom line for the shop, if theft has doubled and sales have doubled then the shop should be making more money. That isn't addressed, all the article says is that theft is up.

jaredsohn 15y ago
To be pedantic, the important metrics are not percentage increases but rather the change in profits and the change in costs associated with theft.
- homosaur 15y ago
  That's not pedantic, those are the same metrics retailers use when making decisions.
  - jaredsohn 15y ago
    I said I was being pedantic because I was agreeing with the post's main point (what matters is the bottom line for the shop) but felt there could be a better way to describe what it means for it to be better for the bottom line.
temphn 15y ago
Well, be Bayesian about it. The incidents described in the full article include huge violent fistfights that led to curfews. Low income people are unlikely to spend lots of money. Lots of theft and violence is accompanied by lots of broken windows behavior that may not rise to the level of a criminal offense, but does scare away higher income people (example: screaming at the screen in a movie theater). And very few retail shops operate at 100% margins such that a doubling of revenue would exactly compensate for a doubling in theft. All in all, it is highly likely that events transpired as predicted by the project's critics. No doubt the proponents like homosaur did not sell the project as "violence will increase, thefts will double, and your previous patrons like Johnny Fields will leave, but...". They instead tried to insinuate that "rich white people be crazy" to think something like this might happen.
- waitwhat 15y ago
  And very few retail shops operate at 100% margins such that a doubling of revenue would exactly compensate for a doubling in theft. They don't need 100% margins to come out on top if they sell more units than are stolen. So if a shop was selling 10 units an hour and losing 1 unit an hour to theft, and footfall doubled (simplistically doubling sales and thefts), then the shop is now selling 20 units an hour and losing 2 to theft. At realistic margins, the shop is more profitable than it was.
  - anamax 15y ago
    The article says that arrests doubled, not that the costs associated with theft doubled. Note that "costs associated with thefts" is not just the cost of the goods stolen. It includes the costs of security. I also like how you think that they should be happy with your model, that how they feel about the situation is of no consequence. They have to live with this situation; they've got skin in the game. You just post.
    - waitwhat 15y ago
      The article says that arrests doubled, not that the costs associated with theft doubled. I wasn't discussing the article, but correcting errors in someone else's post. I also like how you think that they should be happy with your model, that how they feel about the situation is of no consequence. I never said what I think about the situation. I merely corrected someone else's financial misunderstanding. They have to live with this situation; they've got skin in the game. You just post. You're clearly angry at something. I strongly suggest you deal with this yourself, rather than continue to flail around and vent your frustration on strangers over the internet.
- fleitz 15y ago
  Violent fistfights are what make news. Just because something is news doesn't mean there is an underlying statistical basis to justify the conclusion of the article. Articles in papers are anecdotal in nature. Actually low income people spend HUGE amounts of money, if you study economics you'd know that poor people pay more for almost any good than do the rich. What I mean by this is that the poor will by 500mL of milk rather than 4L, and so in a year when you look at the costs of milk for the poor they are more than the rich. Similarly, the poor shop at convenience stores and the rich shop at warehouse stores further exacerbating the price differential.
homosaur 15y ago
That general hypothesis seems to be supported by the massive expansion of the Galleria in recent years, including the giant new Apple store, several new restaurants, Nordstroms, etc

by fleitz 15y ago

The real key is the bottom line for the shop, if theft has doubled and sales have doubled then the shop should be making more money. That isn't addressed, all the article says is that theft is up.

jaredsohn 15y ago

To be pedantic, the important metrics are not percentage increases but rather the change in profits and the change in costs associated with theft.

homosaur 15y ago
That's not pedantic, those are the same metrics retailers use when making decisions.
- jaredsohn 15y ago
  I said I was being pedantic because I was agreeing with the post's main point (what matters is the bottom line for the shop) but felt there could be a better way to describe what it means for it to be better for the bottom line.

temphn 15y ago

Well, be Bayesian about it. The incidents described in the full article include huge violent fistfights that led to curfews. Low income people are unlikely to spend lots of money. Lots of theft and violence is accompanied by lots of broken windows behavior that may not rise to the level of a criminal offense, but does scare away higher income people (example: screaming at the screen in a movie theater). And very few retail shops operate at 100% margins such that a doubling of revenue would exactly compensate for a doubling in theft. All in all, it is highly likely that events transpired as predicted by the project's critics. No doubt the proponents like homosaur did not sell the project as "violence will increase, thefts will double, and your previous patrons like Johnny Fields will leave, but...". They instead tried to insinuate that "rich white people be crazy" to think something like this might happen.

waitwhat 15y ago
And very few retail shops operate at 100% margins such that a doubling of revenue would exactly compensate for a doubling in theft. They don't need 100% margins to come out on top if they sell more units than are stolen. So if a shop was selling 10 units an hour and losing 1 unit an hour to theft, and footfall doubled (simplistically doubling sales and thefts), then the shop is now selling 20 units an hour and losing 2 to theft. At realistic margins, the shop is more profitable than it was.
- anamax 15y ago
  The article says that arrests doubled, not that the costs associated with theft doubled. Note that "costs associated with thefts" is not just the cost of the goods stolen. It includes the costs of security. I also like how you think that they should be happy with your model, that how they feel about the situation is of no consequence. They have to live with this situation; they've got skin in the game. You just post.
  - waitwhat 15y ago
    The article says that arrests doubled, not that the costs associated with theft doubled. I wasn't discussing the article, but correcting errors in someone else's post. I also like how you think that they should be happy with your model, that how they feel about the situation is of no consequence. I never said what I think about the situation. I merely corrected someone else's financial misunderstanding. They have to live with this situation; they've got skin in the game. You just post. You're clearly angry at something. I strongly suggest you deal with this yourself, rather than continue to flail around and vent your frustration on strangers over the internet.
fleitz 15y ago
Violent fistfights are what make news. Just because something is news doesn't mean there is an underlying statistical basis to justify the conclusion of the article. Articles in papers are anecdotal in nature. Actually low income people spend HUGE amounts of money, if you study economics you'd know that poor people pay more for almost any good than do the rich. What I mean by this is that the poor will by 500mL of milk rather than 4L, and so in a year when you look at the costs of milk for the poor they are more than the rich. Similarly, the poor shop at convenience stores and the rich shop at warehouse stores further exacerbating the price differential.

homosaur 15y ago

That general hypothesis seems to be supported by the massive expansion of the Galleria in recent years, including the giant new Apple store, several new restaurants, Nordstroms, etc