3 ms·

Yes, and you realize "theft" is a part of everything. I don't think the comment you responded to was arguing that theft was moral or companies were being greed

by cogman10 10mo ago

Yes, and you realize "theft" is a part of everything. I don't think the comment you responded to was arguing that theft was moral or companies were being greedy. Rather, just that 30% markup is typical and it takes a fair bit of theft before that starts closing the gaps on the margins.

etchalon 10mo ago
Then I think the parent comment lacks an understanding of the difference between gross and net margins.
- cogman10 10mo ago
  That's an uncharitable reading of their comment.
  - etchalon 10mo ago
    It's the only reasonable reading if someone is dismissing 2% loss due to theft for a retailer.
    - hnlmorg 10mo ago
      I wasn’t dismissing theft and supermarkets do not have 2% of their stock lost through theft (if 1 in 50 items were already stolen then that supermarket is dysfunctional at preventing theft). Thus what you’re describing simply has no basis in reality. Furthermore, you’ve completely misread every single comment in this thread and taken the least charitable conclusion from them.
      - etchalon 10mo ago
        You seem to believe that when the industry says they suffer a 2% loss due to shrinkage, they mean 2% of their inventory. That 2% figure refers to gross sales, not item inventory losses.
        hnlmorg 10mo ago
        As I’ve already told you, the industry says they lose 1.6% to shrinkage and theft is just a subset of shrinkage. So your figures are flat out wrong. And I get it’s a gross figure, I was just putting it into simple terms for you because you’ve managed to misunderstand every other comment thus far. I was hoping turning the figure into a fraction might help you understand the ridiculousness of your comments. It was meant as an illustration rather than a literal scenario. Anyway, like the other guy, I’m done chatting to you now. I’ve done business studies and worked in retail before moving to IT. Clearly you haven’t. And if you’re going to keep repeating incorrect figures then you’re beyond reason anyway.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]

etchalon 10mo ago

Then I think the parent comment lacks an understanding of the difference between gross and net margins.

cogman10 10mo ago
That's an uncharitable reading of their comment.
- etchalon 10mo ago
  It's the only reasonable reading if someone is dismissing 2% loss due to theft for a retailer.
  - hnlmorg 10mo ago
    I wasn’t dismissing theft and supermarkets do not have 2% of their stock lost through theft (if 1 in 50 items were already stolen then that supermarket is dysfunctional at preventing theft). Thus what you’re describing simply has no basis in reality. Furthermore, you’ve completely misread every single comment in this thread and taken the least charitable conclusion from them.
    - etchalon 10mo ago
      You seem to believe that when the industry says they suffer a 2% loss due to shrinkage, they mean 2% of their inventory. That 2% figure refers to gross sales, not item inventory losses.
      - hnlmorg 10mo ago
        As I’ve already told you, the industry says they lose 1.6% to shrinkage and theft is just a subset of shrinkage. So your figures are flat out wrong. And I get it’s a gross figure, I was just putting it into simple terms for you because you’ve managed to misunderstand every other comment thus far. I was hoping turning the figure into a fraction might help you understand the ridiculousness of your comments. It was meant as an illustration rather than a literal scenario. Anyway, like the other guy, I’m done chatting to you now. I’ve done business studies and worked in retail before moving to IT. Clearly you haven’t. And if you’re going to keep repeating incorrect figures then you’re beyond reason anyway.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]