- Posts
- 10,608
- Likes
- 51,750
Walrus
·A 30 year old tiaa-cref advertisement
Things were cheaper- not that long ago
- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,981
JwRosenthal
·
- Posts
- 2,510
- Likes
- 3,732
rcs914
·I mean it's sort of hit or miss there - A burger and fries at In-n-out is going to cost you around $8 but if you are getting one in a restaurant it's $16+
A vacation to where? I mean we spent a week at Disneyland last year and it was around $5K total, but if going to Hawaii or Bora Bora it would be far more.
And there are still decent basic cars under $30K.
All of those things can now cost the prices given in the ad, but they don't have to.
- Posts
- 3,623
- Likes
- 7,610
ErichPryde
··Seamasters ForeverI agree that MOST people should not be confronting shoplifters. MOST people never really did confront shoplifters. It was encouraged by retailers, so your point about "vigilante" is fairly on, it was typically a few hotheads- or trained LP employees- that were involved in most confrontations.
If it was just a matter of not actively engaging in violent confrontation, that would be one thing. But it goes a lot further than that. If you call the police for a "beer run" in many places, the Police won't do anything about it. Even $70-$100 worth of beer often won't get a police response. Retailers almost unilaterally themselves won't press charges- even on fairly high dollar theft. PRessing charges is an exception, not a rule.
When everything about our society is boiled down to a cost-analysis of "what will cost us more" as opposed to "what is the right thing" I feel like that's a serious social issue. And I'm not sure it's as simple as "Ok Boomer, you're living in the past and society should be able to change." Sure, society should be able to grow and change but when we actively let people break the law because we're concerned with repercussions of doing the right thing, well, that has a history of not ending well.
To your initial point, professionally dealing with shoplifters isn't particularly straightforward. Employees who do it have to be good at assessing the risk the person might pose to them, and have to have the right approach. They have to know when to totally disengage and who not to engage with. That means being hotheaded is a problem, and it's something that requires a lot of up-front training and a ton of experience. I'm sure all of us in here agree that experience can really only be gained the best way through our mistakes.
This sort of development and training is incredibly costly, which is just another reason it isn't done. Again, cost- analysis. Perhaps this is the same reason we're seeing (or the media is showing us) so much breakdown in the relationship between Law Enforcement and Public as well.
Anyway, whatever the case... as a final point I feel I must add that some of the retailers that swung so hard on simply not engaging shoplifters, like Home Depot, have now started to swing in a different direction. On the Portland side of the river the two HDs in rough neighborhoods now have armed (Glocks and Tazers) and kevlared security at all times. Some of them may be off-duty police picking up work but based upon my observation of them I don't believe all of them are.
Perhaps society is ultimately just an oscillator swinging between extremes.
If it was just a matter of not actively engaging in violent confrontation, that would be one thing. But it goes a lot further than that. If you call the police for a "beer run" in many places, the Police won't do anything about it. Even $70-$100 worth of beer often won't get a police response. Retailers almost unilaterally themselves won't press charges- even on fairly high dollar theft. PRessing charges is an exception, not a rule.
When everything about our society is boiled down to a cost-analysis of "what will cost us more" as opposed to "what is the right thing" I feel like that's a serious social issue. And I'm not sure it's as simple as "Ok Boomer, you're living in the past and society should be able to change." Sure, society should be able to grow and change but when we actively let people break the law because we're concerned with repercussions of doing the right thing, well, that has a history of not ending well.
To your initial point, professionally dealing with shoplifters isn't particularly straightforward. Employees who do it have to be good at assessing the risk the person might pose to them, and have to have the right approach. They have to know when to totally disengage and who not to engage with. That means being hotheaded is a problem, and it's something that requires a lot of up-front training and a ton of experience. I'm sure all of us in here agree that experience can really only be gained the best way through our mistakes.
This sort of development and training is incredibly costly, which is just another reason it isn't done. Again, cost- analysis. Perhaps this is the same reason we're seeing (or the media is showing us) so much breakdown in the relationship between Law Enforcement and Public as well.
Anyway, whatever the case... as a final point I feel I must add that some of the retailers that swung so hard on simply not engaging shoplifters, like Home Depot, have now started to swing in a different direction. On the Portland side of the river the two HDs in rough neighborhoods now have armed (Glocks and Tazers) and kevlared security at all times. Some of them may be off-duty police picking up work but based upon my observation of them I don't believe all of them are.
Perhaps society is ultimately just an oscillator swinging between extremes.
I don't want to derail this thread but I just can't help myself on this. I agree that by-and-large society has gone soft. But in this case I would say society has gotten smarter. Encouraging vigilante retail workers to engage in physical altercations with shoplifters is just stupid. Especially female workers who probably have no martial arts training. What if the guy or gal pulls a knife or a gun? Or just kicks your ass? Or what if the worker breaks grannies hip? Or she hits her head and dies? There are a thousand scenarios where this is just totally not worth the risk and cost of whatever the person is shoplifting. Would you want your daughter getting injured or killed trying to save Shop-O-Rama $50 of merchandise?
I think the approach is right. Confront the person so they know they've been caught, then call law enforcement and let them do their job. I've heard a badass Navy SEAL who could kick 99% of the asses on this planet say the same thing. You just never know who your fυcking with. Even people who don't look like much may have been training BJJ for the last 30 years and will just destroy you. Or somebody is having a really bad day and pulls a weapon. A lot of murders are not pre-meditated. Somebody is just having a really bad day and shit goes off the rails. De-escalate, check your ego, and bow out is the smarter move.
- Posts
- 3,623
- Likes
- 7,610
ErichPryde
··Seamasters ForeverI mean it's sort of hit or miss there - A burger and fries at In-n-out is going to cost you around $8 but if you are getting one in a restaurant it's $16+
A vacation to where? I mean we spent a week at Disneyland last year and it was around $5K total, but if going to Hawaii or Bora Bora it would be far more.
And there are still decent basic cars under $30K.
All of those things can now cost the prices given in the ad, but they don't have to.
True, I believe the average cost of a new car loan was 54k as of late 2022 though. (EDIT: KBB says 49k. eh. sheesh.)
but to your point, price increases don't scale as a fixed slope, which makes it easy to make statements like the ad and be more or less right with some comparisons and wildly wrong with others.
Edited:
- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,981
JwRosenthal
·I mean it's sort of hit or miss there - A burger and fries at In-n-out is going to cost you around $8 but if you are getting one in a restaurant it's $16+
A vacation to where? I mean we spent a week at Disneyland last year and it was around $5K total, but if going to Hawaii or Bora Bora it would be far more.
And there are still decent basic cars under $30K.
All of those things can now cost the prices given in the ad, but they don't have to.
- Posts
- 2,945
- Likes
- 16,944
Aroxx
·@ErichPryde You make a lot of good points. It's not so cut and dry. I was thinking if it needs to be enforced that dedicated/trained staff or private security would be more appropriate. There is still risk and liability but it's a better approach than asking Sheryl from produce to do it. Large intimidating human beings, armed or not, are also a better deterrent. That would also ultimately come down to bean counting. How much are we losing vs. how much it costs to pay these people and defend lawsuits?
As you mentioned, it eventually comes around to the social issue side of it. Other than the kleptomaniacs, why is theft such a problem? Why are people thinking stealing is their best/only option? It's not Home Depot's job to enforce morals. We could start cutting hands off again but punishment addresses the symptom not the disease. Even the most virtuous man on Earth is probably going to steal some food before he quietly starves to death in the streets. I don't have the answers. I'm just here for the watches... and to prevent SC1 from whippin' grannies ass in the supermarket.
As you mentioned, it eventually comes around to the social issue side of it. Other than the kleptomaniacs, why is theft such a problem? Why are people thinking stealing is their best/only option? It's not Home Depot's job to enforce morals. We could start cutting hands off again but punishment addresses the symptom not the disease. Even the most virtuous man on Earth is probably going to steal some food before he quietly starves to death in the streets. I don't have the answers. I'm just here for the watches... and to prevent SC1 from whippin' grannies ass in the supermarket.
- Posts
- 3,623
- Likes
- 7,610
ErichPryde
··Seamasters ForeverCompletely agree, and it is this way at basically every retailer now - you will be fired if you do more than ask them to put the merchandise back. Say you have 500 stores, and at each of those stores you have $2000 in merchandise a week that is stolen. Total cost to the bottom line is $52 million a year. How much is the business going to lose when a single employee is killed because the tried to stop a robber? How much is the company going to lose when the robber is suffocated by an employee? How much theft will trying to stop that person prevent in the future?
Bottom line is that there are some people who are going to steal. You can't stop this, and it absolutely isn't the employees responsibility to put themselves in harms way to try and prevent it.
EDIT: and @Aroxx tagging you since the below post is right along the lines of your last response.
As a follow-up to my last comment, I want to just say that I agree with both of you- it is NOT the average employee's responsibility to put themselves in harm's way. Absolutely not. My issue here is that it's a philosophical spiral.
Is it right to steal? No.
Is it right to let others steal? No.
Is it right to put yourself in danger? No.
Is it right to put someone else in danger? No.
Obviously for most people the biggest factor should be to classify what is right and wrong in terms of self preservation first, and since profiling shoplifters and measuring threat from individual isn't 100% science, is complicated, &c there's some inherent risk involved, most people really shouldn't be doing it. Which is exactly why we have systems that are supposed to stop this, whether it be at the store level (LP- Trained Loss Prevention employees) or at a socially provided level (Law Enforcement). The big problems start to crop up when these systems are either taken away or stop functioning. Some retailers still utilize LP teams, but many don't, because it's expensive. As you and Aroxx pointed out, MOST employees aren't paid enough and it simply isn't part of their Employer-Employee contract to put themselves in harm's way. In my opinion, Employers encouraging employees to stop shoplifters but simultaneously saying "our policy is that you don't get involved in altercations wink wink" was/is just another way that Employers take advantage of their employees.
Unfortunately, when theft is dealt with it can lead to physical altercation, and on a statistical basis it becomes a certainty that means someone will get hurt occasionally. It's just reality when you roll the dice on thousands of encounters between people breaking the law and people attempting to stop unlawful behavior.
Obviously that's not good and I wish it weren't the case.
- Posts
- 3,623
- Likes
- 7,610
ErichPryde
··Seamasters Forever@ErichPryde You make a lot of good points. It's not so cut and dry. I was thinking if it needs to be enforced that dedicated/trained staff or private security would be more appropriate. There is still risk and liability but it's a better approach than asking Sheryl from produce to do it. Large intimidating human beings, armed or not, are also a better deterrent. That would also ultimately come down to bean counting. How much are we losing vs. how much it costs to pay these people and defend lawsuits?
As you mentioned, it eventually comes around to the social issue side of it. Other than the kleptomaniacs, why is theft such a problem? Why are people thinking stealing is their best/only option? It's not Home Depot's job to enforce morals. We could start cutting hands off again but punishment addresses the symptom not the disease. Even the most virtuous man on Earth is probably going to steal some food before he quietly starves to death in the streets. I don't have the answers. I'm just here for the watches... and to prevent SC1 from whippin' grannies ass in the supermarket.
Totally agree, especially about what employees should/should not be involved in this sort of thing. It's absolutely not cut and dry, and I'm not here to start polarized arguments with anyone (Honestly, you all are probably THE most scientifically minded and easy to talk to group I've seen on the internet in years, which I find incredibly pleasant).
As for WHY people steal? There are dozens of reasons, ranging from "because it's profitable" to "because I'm uneducated/can't get a job/have to steal to eat/spent my money on food and need this thing." It's definitely complex, and I'm sure you know a dozen reasons. That starts digging into how to address root issues- and then we balloon into even more complex social problems, how to reform education and encourage equality being some of the biggest.
None of that matters though for what the primary point here is- the average employee isn't trained, equipped, or paid to deal with the bad statistical outcomes.
As a side note, did you know that Grocery stores didn't even go to the modern self-serve model where you could shop for yourself until the late 30s or early 40s? It's an interesting history.
EDIT: also, reviewing my last couple of posts I seem to be repeating myself a bit. It's a fun topic to debate, exactly because it's complex, and because two people can have opposing stances and simultaneously both have the correct stance. Pleasure talking to both of you about it! 😀
Edited:
- Posts
- 2,945
- Likes
- 16,944
Aroxx
·Oh, I forgot to add my awesome idea for how to best address the shoplifting issue! Terminator robots. Surely our AI overlords will know best! 
- Posts
- 2,945
- Likes
- 16,944
Aroxx
·As a side note, did you know that Grocery stores didn't even go to the modern self-serve model where you could shop for yourself until the late 30s or early 40s? It's an interesting history.
- Posts
- 2,648
- Likes
- 4,503
Pastorbottle
·Leaving the moral dilemma of of shoplifting and the enforcement/deterrence/prevention/prosecution debate aside.
Before getting involved with shoplifters, some of the things an employee should ask themselves are:
* Am I getting paid enough for this shit?
* Is the company gonna make it worth my while?
* What’s gonna happen if it all turns to shit?
* Will my employer step in and help me deal with any legal issues or worse that could arise from the situation
turning to shit?
* Do I have the training and expertise to deal with this situation?
Of course the answer to all these questions is going to be a resounding NO!
Before getting involved with shoplifters, some of the things an employee should ask themselves are:
* Am I getting paid enough for this shit?
* Is the company gonna make it worth my while?
* What’s gonna happen if it all turns to shit?
* Will my employer step in and help me deal with any legal issues or worse that could arise from the situation
turning to shit?
* Do I have the training and expertise to deal with this situation?
Of course the answer to all these questions is going to be a resounding NO!
- Posts
- 1,915
- Likes
- 5,763
SC1
·Leaving the moral dilemma of of shoplifting and the enforcement/deterrence/prevention/prosecution debate aside.
Before getting involved with shoplifters, some of the things an employee should ask themselves are:
* “Am I getting paid enough for this shit?
* Is the company gonna make it worth my while?
* What’s gonna happen if it all turns to shit?
* Will my employer step in and help me deal with any legal issues or worse that could arise from the situation turns to shit?
* Do I have the training and expertise to deal with this situation?”
Of course the answer to all these questions is going to be a resounding NO!
True, but at 17 years old - and a male - every one of those answers was either:
YES
or
fυck IT, I'M GOING TO ANYWAY
- Posts
- 2,648
- Likes
- 4,503
Pastorbottle
·True, but at 17 years old - and a male - every one of those answers was either:
YES
or
fυck IT, I'M GOING TO ANYWAY
Yeah the “Young, dumb and full of cum” mind set of the average 17yo male means they rarely ask themselves anything before they lunge in.
In the moments immediately before their untimely fate, many a young fella’s last words have been:
“Hey bro, watch this!” or “Here, hold my beer!”
- Posts
- 2,945
- Likes
- 16,944
Aroxx
·And what about the employees who are stealing!? I’m still going with terminator robots as the answer.
- Posts
- 2,648
- Likes
- 4,503
Pastorbottle
·Well we also ask: “What happens to employers that steal from employees?”
Wage theft from employees is rife in some businesses sectors.
A common joke amongst workers is if the company is listed on the stock exchange, there is no moral impediment to liberate stuff, as if you don’t it will only leave more for the senior executives to steal from the shareholders.
Either way it’s gonna get stolen, it’s just a matter of who benefits! 😁
Wage theft from employees is rife in some businesses sectors.
A common joke amongst workers is if the company is listed on the stock exchange, there is no moral impediment to liberate stuff, as if you don’t it will only leave more for the senior executives to steal from the shareholders.
Either way it’s gonna get stolen, it’s just a matter of who benefits! 😁
- Posts
- 1,515
- Likes
- 5,202
Vanallard
·The real estate market in Vancouver has exploded over the past couple of decades. This somewhat dumpy home that’s listed for $2.5M sold for just over $200K in 2000. But talk to boomers who bought their now multi-million dollar homes for less than $100k in the 70-90s and they’re quick to point out that interest rates were higher back then 🙄
- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,981
JwRosenthal
·The real estate market in Vancouver has exploded over the past couple of decades. This somewhat dumpy home that’s listed for $2.5M sold for just over $200K in 2000. But talk to boomers who bought their now multi-million dollar homes for less than $100k in the 70-90s and they’re quick to point out that interest rates were higher back then 🙄
- Posts
- 756
- Likes
- 1,340
Braindrain
·The real estate market in Vancouver has exploded over the past couple of decades. This somewhat dumpy home that’s listed for $2.5M sold for just over $200K in 2000. But talk to boomers who bought their now multi-million dollar homes for less than $100k in the 70-90s and they’re quick to point out that interest rates were higher back then 🙄
East 1st? As a fellow Vancouverite, that is *hardly* a choice location.
Yes, it's bananas.
- Posts
- 1,090
- Likes
- 5,707
river rat
·Some one posted a pack of cigarettes $1.50 when I stopped smoking in high school because they taste like crap they were 50 cents a pack and cigarettes machines were everywhere how I bought them underage. This was the 1970’s. Now real-estate the 1.6 acre lot my house is on I got for 7,000 in the 1990’s in 2014 when I built my house the lot next to mine a smaller one sold for 80,000 dam should of bought more than one lot.
Edited: