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?
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.
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!
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.
No, this puts "shoplifting" on the same level as "employee theft" and "literally just doing a bad job" in terms of losing $100 billion (this is actually a global number) last year. IE, brick and mortar retail reported losing about $35 billion to shoplifting.
Out of $6 TRILLION (Just in the US!) worth of brick and mortar retail sales in the same year, in an industry that claims 2% profit margins on the low ends.
All the fuss over shoplifting is just noise. Consider that the same survey which produced those numbers also showed that a full 16% of ALL merchandise sold in retail is returned, yet we don't have news channels blaring all over that we are in a crisis of unfit products.
It's a narrative, and a bad one, to blame greedy price increases on a STABLE total rate of shrink, one that has been roughly 1.5% for over a DECADE. The cost of shrink has been factored in to the price of goods forever.
>IE, brick and mortar retail reported losing about $35 billion to shoplifting.
>Out of $6 TRILLION (Just in the US!) worth of brick and mortar retail sales in the same year, in an industry that claims 2% profit margins on the low ends.
So shoplifting is 29% of net profits? I'm sorry, which side of this argument are you on, exactly?
It's still a class A misdemeanor though and they will arrest you for it.
Also it becomes a felony if any theft has been committed more than 3 times: `(D) the value of the property stolen is less than $2,500 and the defendant has been previously convicted two or more times of any grade of theft;`
In those other states its hard to get the police to even respond to shoplifting calls let alone make an arrest. And even if they did, the prosecutors will dismiss the charges or give them a slap on the wrist (which is why the cops don't bother anymore).
What do you propose Wal-Mart do in these localities?