A number of 0.07% is ludicrously low<p>I have a relative who worked at Walgreens in the bay area. Mind blowing daily theft. The walgreen shut down.<p>Local politicians say theft is falling. But at least this location did not report each theft - it wasn't worth it, they'd be busy filling out forms to report theft all day and even if caught nothing would happen.<p>The big risk was actually that a thief would be caught and get hurt and then sue. There was a much higher chance of consequences for that then the theft itself. This location at least went to extreme lengths to tell employees not to stop the thefts.
Imagine 10 years ago if someone posted videos like the ones we see today of flash mobs shoplifting major retailers, or of stores literally BOARDING UP their windows in major urban centers. there would be no discussion, no debate, no “deconstruction of modern crime” - none of this handwringing pseudo-intellectual nonsense.<p>In 2010 This would have been handled. Not sure what changed but these cities and their bureaucrats really don’t seem to care. People, however, do care about themselves, their families and their businesses. if this continues you can expect a major outflow of people, capital and talent.
I saw this happen in front of my own eyes in FiDi. The manager of the Walgreens said they don’t call the police anymore because SFPD won’t even come. I don’t trust any of the numbers coming from SFPD or the government of San Francisco.
The situation with the "crisis" feels very manufactured consent. Right around the time "defund the police" is getting serious attention, suddenly there's a crisis of theft to take the wind out of the movement.
I really hate this extremely politicised takes. The article just tries to refute the "outlandish claim" by saying it's not "organised crime" but shoplifting and fraud as well.<p>I don't care if it's theft by individuals, shoplifting by employees, by customers or fraud. I don't care whether it's "organised or non". There is a 70bln figure of lost products to people who got something for free.<p>Theft is theft and it's happening because people know they won't be punished.<p>Same as the BLM riots, this is wrong, it's symptom of a society which doesn't function properly and it damages mostly honest low earners (with increased prices from businesses having to recoup losses, increasing risk of working in retail, etc) but criminals as well (because they learn crime works and don't join the productive side of society).
There's a couple possible ways to interpret this information.<p>1) Retailers are lying (or, more likely, in the grip of a meme and convinced the numbers are spiking without any past objective data to back up the assertion)<p>2) Specific market sectors are being hit disproportionately hard, but it doesn't show up in the numbers because the market is growing or moving in a way that other sectors are utterly side-stepping this kind of theft.<p>If the latter, the next thing we can predict is the collapse of sectors (given the data sources, the predicted collapse would be most of the country would be fine but California towns would suddenly find mom-and-pops decide to do something else and major chains expect large conciliation from local governments to open a franchise location in their town).
Some of my childhood was spent living on military bases.<p>A friend of mine was caught shoplifting before he left the PX (the general store on the base). The MPs put him in a room, and summoned his father, an officer. In the Air Force, officers are considered responsible for the behavior of their children (on and off the base). The AF considers an officer unfit for command if he cannot control his children.<p>The MP, with the permission of the father, gave my friend a good lecture about just what was going to happen to him if he did it again. Scared the crap out of him. Never did it again.
I discovered this form of theft in 2003 ... In high school, I realized I could fill my cart, commit no crime until I was near the exit of the store, then transfer the items from cart to a shopping bag, and walk out without paying, running halfway around the block to my car (No plates on camera). I later believed in karma when there was a break in and only my stolen dvds(as well as my entire collection) were taken.
"The numbers" they are using under report because most victims have stopped filing reports due the DAs in LA and SF not bother to prosecute people and bailing them out on the cheap.<p>Further the state source is 1 year old delayed. So not contemporary or current.<p>Then again, the LA Times is akin to CNN in being 100% leftist propaganda, all the time so they have no more credibility than the National Inquirer!
I'm glad someone is crunching the numbers.<p>Will this sort of breakdown prevent us from needing to present a biometric id to enter a shop in the future? (Frankly in the present too - eg Lithuania, China, France, etc.)<p>Unfortunately I don't think so, as the id is being marketed as a health security issue, rather than a anti-theft one. And mostly it seems we accept it on health marketing grounds.
Witnessing people going into a store and taking stuff feels dangerous, very wild west, and it seems symbolic of a decaying social order. I know that's an ill defined complaint but I suppose I trust my gut more than "eh in dollar terms it's a write off".
This is a rather strange article. Rather than focus on a rise in crime, and its impact on communities, it seems to fixate on this one number and downplay the problem to death.
What is this article?! What's the point? It's seemingly arguing in favor of ignoring the crime by downplaying it. That's crazy, and also probably part of the problem.<p>Article makes no mention of the policies that explicitly prevent authorities from apprehending shoplifters, from lowering requirements of arrest for less than ~$900 value, to defunding the police. There is no mention of any of this, yet it still tries to justify this by alluding to how little impact it causes on the large corporation. Not only is that besides the point, but think about the wellbeing of the store workers, and the customers witnesses, which will certainly change their behavior adding to the losses in the long run.<p>TL;DR: garbage
FFS the bootlickers in this comment section: "Just because the data shows no sign of this happening doesn't mean I can't freak out about it!"
Why not make it mandatory (otherwise it will be a factor of competition to not have one) to install airlock-like gates in stores that sell expensive stuff, like they do in banks? These can also detect weapons.<p>I don't think that these smash-and-grab thieves will dare to upgrade themselves to armed robberies or hostage taking in this case, because that easily carries a death penalty which, given how many cameras are everywhere, will be nearly impossible to avoid.