Organized Retail Crime

Quote by 1meanjean

They are everywhere, from residential houses and garages, strip malls and storage units to large warehouses disguised as legitimate businesses. They hide well and sell items individually on multiple platforms and websites.

Organized crime is not stupid, it’s very clever and difficult to prove, much like white collar crime. It’s just dealing in a different economy.

Just like the boogey man and Chinese spies. All over, it's all their fault. But we can't find any. Very tricky. I'm sure there are a few, but the numbers don't support any evidence of this happening en masse. If you want to save more retail locations, contact your congressman about the importance of enforcing anti-monopoly laws against Amazon.

Quote by Chryses

Here is a piece from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Here is a relevant selection that relates, I think, to our point of contention.

 

States also need to adjust the thresholds for the value of goods stolen to trigger a felony charge to prevent thieves from avoiding prosecution and heavier charges. States can further address this through passing legislation allowing for the aggregation of a pattern of organized thefts across multiple jurisdictions over a period of time.

 

This loops back to the $1,000 ceiling on non-jailable retail theft in New York I posted. The zero bail policy and the heightened misdemeanor ceiling make organized retail crime more attractive by making potential punishment less severe.

US Chamber of Commerce, great name to make it sound like an official government body. Instead it's a retail lobbying group, funded by some of the wealthiest CEO's and corporations in America.

Now on to the body of the article you linked... Oh wait. It's not an article. It's literally that one sentence you quoted. Crack up job there. You've found a less reliable source than DailyMail which I personally find impressive.

But hey, let's start adjusting everything for inflation. Starting with minimum wage. Since every single study shows lowering poverty is the greatest tool for lowering all forms of crime across the board.

Or we could adjust white-collar fines for inflation. Those go decades without an update. Or better yet, make it based directly off how much was stolen so they would always have to pay more than they earned.

Quote by RowanThorn

Just like the boogey man and Chinese spies. All over, it's all their fault. But we can't find any. Very tricky. I'm sure there are a few, but the numbers don't support any evidence of this happening en masse. If you want to save more retail locations, contact your congressman about the importance of enforcing anti-monopoly laws against Amazon.

No, they find them all the time, even here in Canada ( no boogey man, though). It’s not reported in the media unless it’s a very large arrest. If you want save retail stores, don’t buy online and don’t buy at large retailers, support smaller, local businesses.

Quote by Chryses

If the politicians want retailers to remain in communities, the politicians need to correct the conditions that cause retailers to leave communities.

Like poverty? Cool. Start enforcing wage theft laws and raise the minimum wage. Investing money in social services to provide diapers and formula to parents in these locations takes down the incentive to steal the most stolen items. It does a hell of a lot more than blaming the specter of retail crime for all the problems.

Or you could admit that these arguments have nothing to do with the communities. The greatest concern is corporate profits.

One of the biggest issues relating to this situation is the loss of employment that results. Most “big box” stores, in this case Target, have 150-250 employees (or associates, if you prefer that term) in full and part-time positions.

It takes 20-30 new, not existing, small retailers to provide that level of employment, just to offset one Target store.

Since online retailers are already providing the gateway between manufacturers and buyer, which is what online retail platforms are, just gateways, the small retailers have little opportunity at success.

At the end of the day, the consumer controls what happens by where they spend their money, and more is going to online every year.

What industries are going to provide enough employment to cover those job losses, especially in a low income, high crime area?

Quote by Chryses

Yes, your points above have nothing to do with organized retail crime.

Only the root cause of it. Your points show that you have no interest in preventing retail crime, just punishment.

Quote by 1meanjean

One of the biggest issues relating to this situation is the loss of employment that results. Most “big box” stores, in this case Target, have 150-250 employees (or associates, if you prefer that term) in full and part-time positions.

It takes 20-30 new, not existing, small retailers to provide that level of employment, just to offset one Target store.

Since online retailers are already providing the gateway between manufacturers and buyer, which is what online retail platforms are, just gateways, the small retailers have little opportunity at success.

At the end of the day, the consumer controls what happens by where they spend their money, and more is going to online every year.

What industries are going to provide enough employment to cover those job losses, especially in a low income, high crime area?

This is an excellent example of how big box retailers have enslaved the economy by being unchecked. By providing people with less and less disposable income consumers have less and less legitimate options.

Can we afford to by groceries from Fred's local market? It's an extra $50 this week because he can't compete with Target and Walmart's buying power. So even if I want to support Fred and his market can I afford an extra $200 a month to do so? And now Target and Walmart are getting priced out by Amazon, which hilariously now have people casting them in the same victim roll that was formerly occupied by actual small businesses.

Maybe our economy should be more focused on smaller retailers to provide more options to people. Maybe Amazon should pay more taxes than Fred and his grocery store. By forcing Amazon (or Target or Walmart) to pay higher tax rate it levels the playing field for the small guys.

Because at the end of the day, the local economy would run better with 20 small businesses than one big one.

Quote by Chryses

No, the argument is about the destructive nature of organized retail crime.

No, it's a red hearing argument to save face for retailers having to answer why four stores in a busy city are bleeding.

Little economy 101 for you, the stock market setup is not sustainable. People want returns on investments. For returns you need a business to grow. However unlimited growth is impossible. Every single corporation has the same job, make the stock more valuable. Nothing more, nothing less. Every decision made, every press release is done to those ends alone.

So when they say, "Oh no, it's theft!" They are diverting from the fact that they simply can't grow anymore. They want stockholders (Those 10% of Americans with expendable wealth) to feel like it's a fixable problem. But it's not theft, all the data in the world that you choose to ignore shows that's not the problem. The biggest problem corporations have is empowered workers with options. And understaffed store hemorrhages money. Huge amounts of OT, unsatisfied customers, stock not making it onto the selling room floor. And it's a problem that builds on itself because when you are understaffed more people quit.

Honestly, the entire US economy is built on a lie that it's growing and will continue to do so. Corporations are the root cause of modern poverty and that's the real destructive nature. Not 10 guys stealing Nikes together.

Raise the minimum wage. It drops the crime rate every time.

Quote by Chryses

The migration of spending from physical stores to virtual stores is something the consumer controls, and the "free" delivery factored into the cost of the goods purchased makes it a real challenge for the Walmarts and Targets. The point made earlier that Amazon likely has lower shrinkage than physical stores is a real Amazon advantage.

All assumptions are based on no facts. Amazon doesn't share any shrinkage reports. They did lose 2.7 billion last year while making 9% more in sales. They also are heavily subsidized by the government and pay little to nothing in taxes.

Strictly speaking, Amazon is doing much worse than Walmart and Target, both companies generated a profit last year. However, stock price has nothing to do with a company's profitability but its ability to manipulate market values. Because, once again, a corporation's job isn't to make a profit. It's to make the stock price go up.

Quote by Chryses

Sources, please.

Besides my honors degree in accounting and economics? What, you want my text books? I doubt you would read them.

What are you looking for, the effects on the lower and middle class as corporations expand and boom? The relatively easy to understand concept of basing a community's economy on one market means it's extremely easy to fail and be exploited by that business?

Perhaps you could google 'how small businesses help the economy'. There you might learn fun facts like '66% of all new jobs in the last 25 years were made by small businesses' or 'small businesses are much better at distributing funds in a community than large corporations'.

It's really, like, business school first day knowledge that small businesses are better for the economy.

Amazon has lower shrinkage, unfortunately their customers do not. They bear the cost associated with the theft of the products they paid for, from “porch pirates”, many of who are organized and resell the goods, and from the scam retailers. Amazon, and the other platforms, have no liability, so it is “buyer beware”.

I think we all agree that some retail theft is a result of poverty, it has always been there, there are always desperate people who need to steal to survive for a variety of reasons. No one can dispute that.

Organized Retail Crime is all about making money, same as any business. There’s a CEO, district mangers, and front line employees. The front lines go into the store and retrieve the goods to deliver to their managers, who report to the CEO, and are the ones who are identified and arrested. The CEO is untouched and protected, and when shit hits the fan walks away.

So the poor person who gets $50 to steal a $400 item gets arrested on a misdemeanour, the CEO just hires someone else and makes the profit reselling the item. Same corporate structure in a different environment.

Quote by Chryses

Is this another claim you will not substantiate with data or information? Let me add that by information, I am not referring to what you believe.

So you blindly go on what some CEO says despite the fact that they don't back it up with evidence? Or that all evidence show's that retail theft is pretty much the same level it always is? (See page 1 on this topic for that link). Or that all evidence that is contrary to this is solely supplied by a voluntary survey run by corporations and lobbyists who have not actually revealed their hard numbers to the public?

You want evidence? Push for legislation that demands companies fully reveal all financial transactions. Full open book policy. Otherwise, you're taking the word of their marketing department.

Quote by Chryses

No assumptions here. It is a fact that Amazon is a publicly traded company. Its common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol AMZN. It publishes its earnings. The information is available.

Awesome! You know where I got Amazon's earning report from? Do you know what's in an earning report or what they are required to show? I do. It's my job to know these things. And they can very broadly report things such as 'losses' while keeping the cards extremely close to their chest as to what is causing those losses.

So a company like Amazon or, say Target, could make the claim that losses are from shrinkage but actually show stockholders next to now specific information on the subject. They can close 4 stores but tell them whatever they want as to why.

I believe the point of this thread was to point out how Organized Retail Crime is contributing to the decline of neighborhoods. The article states it was a contributing factor to already poor performing stores, not the main reason.

It is easier and cheaper for them to walk away than it is to invest in additional security and changes to the location to make it perform better.

It’s always about money, tax write offs, and investors.

Quote by Chryses

So, you will provide no sources to substantiate your "Because at the end of the day, the local economy would run better with 20 small businesses than one big one." claim, correct?

Honestly, I doubt your ability to follow. Which metric do you want that justified? Taxes collected? Money put back into the local community? Jobs created? Revenue generated? Distribution of wealth? Consumer happiness?

Let's go back to Fred's grocery store. Locally owned, locally operated. Fred's grocery store pays a higher tax % than corporations, who only paid 6% of America's federal taxes while consuming 56% of our economic earnings. American small businesses are harder to track by IRS metric standards as they are tied to many people's personal incomes, but rough estimates by the IRS suggest around 26% of tax income is from small businesses. The latter part of the IRS income comes from middle and upper-middle-class families, a percentage that is shrinking rapidly due to the disappearing middle class and less taxable families and businesses being around. Most of the middle and upper middle class families are the small business owners, thus making their tax burdern really punching above it's weight in terms of how much it earns.

Now Fred will pay his workers and probably take home a good amount of pay. But Fred does not take home a huge percentage of profits. Most is invested back into the business as small businesses run much tighter P&L's than large businesses. Also, if a small business isn't profitable it fails. If a Corporation isn't profitable it's still the largest earning company in the world. So Fred must actually succeed and pay taxes to run a business and large corporations do not.

Fred's grocery store also keeps the earnings local, almost exclusively dealing with other small businesses and suppliers. At no point does Fred's profit's disappear into a nebulous corporate moneybag used to pay out CEO's and stockholders.

Employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction is also much higher in local shops, the only consumer issue being the price as people like Fred don't have the buying power to drive down prices (that the government refuses to regulate).

For sources there are so many resources on the internet but you need a book, not small articles, to really get the scope.

Poverty Paradox is really great at spelling these things out in simple terms. I would suggest my text books but I don't think you will be buying $120 books (thanks to another corporation that uses a zero choice option to jack up prices to absurd levels for required reading to graduate).

How the Economy Grows and Why it Crashes really explores the cycle of the rich ruining the economy and small businesses saving it.

Walmart Effect another really good one. Let me know when you finished reading them. Those last few are only $15-$20 each.

Quote by Chryses

Raising the minimum wage is unlikely to change that business model.

The business model? No. The only thing that will change that is treating corporate wrongdoing like actual crimes. The company knowingly releases poison in the water supply? You don't fine them. You arrest them and put them in jail. Company falsely reports their taxes? You put the CEO and entire board in jail for life. We can put a man in prison for life for hedge clippers, why can't we put 25 million dollars in theft away for life? Wage theft should be prosecuted like normal retail theft. We don't fine the business, we put them in jail. That's how you fix this business model.

Minimum wage increases empower workers, reduce corporate profits, and give a huge percentage of the population a chance at actually finding something they enjoy and can do with a good quality of life.

Quote by Chryses

This is the 443 word (courtesy of MS Word) version of no; you will not substantiate your "Because at the end of the day, the local economy would run better with 20 small businesses than one big one." claim,

Listen, Chryse. I'm done with you for tonight. [Mod response: Thank the high holy lord of fuck for that. Deleting all these off-topic citational dick-measuring posts is annoying.]

Quote by Chryses

Now, you claim that a minimum wage increase will "give a huge percentage of the population a chance at actually finding something they enjoy and can do with a good quality of life."

That is an interesting claim. Can you substantiate it with data or evidence? I ask because Sweden operates without a nationally implemented minimum wage yet seems to be doing well.

Correction for context: All employers in Sweden are mandated to meet with collective bargaining meetings with the employees. Essentially the whole country is unionized by law. Sweden has a much lower wealth gap than America, higher average buying power for families, and rated number 1 in quality of life in the world. It's one of the most liberal economies in the world and has the lowest crime rates. The wealthiest pay as much as 51% in taxes, which decentives large corporations or accumulating massive wealth. Thank you for bringing Sweden into this argument to make my point.

Quote by 1meanjean

I believe the point of this thread was to point out how Organized Retail Crime is contributing to the decline of neighborhoods. The article states it was a contributing factor to already poor performing stores, not the main reason.

It is easier and cheaper for them to walk away than it is to invest in additional security and changes to the location to make it perform better.

It’s always about money, tax write offs, and investors.

That was the point of the thread, but the point I've been making again and again is that's provably untrue. The factor's as to why the stores are closing are not actually disclosed in any way. What's being said is directly from the marketing department of Target, who has no legal obligation to tell the truth here.

As you said, the stores were already performing poorly in areas with a dense population. The store was being mismanaged already. The statement was made directed at stockholders and to save face. You sink a bunch of local businesses and pull out, you look like the bad guy. They are the bad guys. This is damage mitigation and needs to be called out as such.

Quote by Justlooking51

Easier to walk away than invest in security? Why would any reasonable Board of Directors approve an outlay for security when the local police won't arrest, the local prosecutors won't prosecute, and the local Government won't make any effort to stem the tide of crime?

The decay of neighborhoods precedes the neighborhoods raiding private enterprise to supplement their Government incomes, not the other way around. When LBJ decided to subsidize single parent families at the expense of parenting, the die was cast.

Trump will fix this when he becomes the president again.

Quote by Ironic

Here's an approach that might work in some areas.

A D.C. grocery store is removing Tide, Colgate and Advil to deter theft

"In the coming weeks, a Giant Food market in D.C. will clear its beauty and health aisles of all national labels. No more Tide, Colgate or Advil, only store brands. Shoppers also will have to present their receipts to an employee before exiting the store."

If you don’t mind using the store brands, at least the store will remain open.

“People are stealing name brand toiletries and medications. The solution is to make these things inaccessible instead of correcting the systems that make stealing such items a necessity.” LOL.

Organized retail theft is just another red herring to avoid fixing broken systems.

Quote by Ironic

It hurts everybody.

Yes, broken systems hurt everyone. Fix the systems, then symptoms/red herrings like organized retail theft will be eradicated.

Being that Target closing 9 of their stores (citing retail theft & organized retail crime) was the catalyst for this thread, I think it's important to note that these headlines have been all over the place, but with no data. Journalist/lawyer Judd Leggum did some digging and found the following:

1. Target is closing the store at 517 East 117th Street in Harlem. But according to NYPD data, there were fewer incidents of shoplifting this year at the Harlem store than other nearby stores that will remain open.

2. Target is also closing its location on Folsom Street in San Francisco. But according to SFDP data, there were fewer incidents of shoplifting in and around that store than other nearby stores that will remain open.

3. The Seattle Times did a similar analysis of stores in the Seattle area and found there were fewer police incidents in and around the two stores being closed than other nearby stores that will remain open.

4. All of this data suggests there were other reasons beyond shoplifting driving Target's decision to close stores. In June, Target's CEO said it was saddled with lots of unwanted merchandise that it was forced to deeply discount, cutting profits.

Target and large retailers like it put out similar press waves when they're closing stores, but rarely (read: never) have the crime data to substantiate these claims.

Quote by ElCoco

So, that data's not inconsistent with the OP.

Being that there isn’t any crime data that supports the claims in the OP, this is a moot point. My point, however, still stands.

In 2013, Target bought Canadian national retailer Zellers with plans to convert them into Target stores. The management of "Target Canada" was a disaster from the start with poor sales and supply chain issues. A couple of years later, they shut down operations, liquidated whatever was left of the former Zellers stores, and left. The only entity to benefit from the whole sad saga was Wal-Mart who, as in the US, was the main competitor for Target (Zellers) and was now gifted a virtual monopoly over big box retail. Canadians can have a deep nationalistic streak - Zellers was our thing. Target was an American thing. Target pillaged and killed our thing for apparently nothing then fled in the middle of the night leaving the ruins of a formerly functional Canadian business in their wake. Again, fuck Target.

Weren’t the conservatives boycotting Target because Target had some displays that were hella gay or whatever?

What happened to that?

Quote by Magical_felix

Weren’t the conservatives boycotting Target because Target had some displays that were hella gay or whatever?

What happened to that?

It wasn’t the boycotting that was the problem, it was the religious terrorists who threatened the lives of the store employees. In many locations Target pulled the Pride merchandise, not because they felt it was inappropriate or that they did anything wrong but because they valued the employee safety.

They had multiple mass shooting and bomb threats called in.

So then Target made the gay community angry for pulling the merch, but now it’s a no win situation because it was either endanger employees or cave to terrorists.

👀

this has just gotten weird.

Quote by sprite

this has just gotten weird.

Just?

Quote by MsStep

My question was sincere. I don’t have the answer. I reported on how one retail chain has responded to the change in their business ecosystem, and how its response to that threat impacts the shoppers’ experience.

Sounds like you’re shopping in the ghetto… when you need to buy yourself men’s underwear outside of the ghetto, it’s not locked up.