Yes, yes... if we just shit upon the poor and desperate just a little bit more, capitalism will finally work and we will all live in a Utopian meritocracy. Remember hygiene is a privilege, not a right!
It always gets under my skin that my local grocery store has two camera screens to deter shoplifting. The first is in the liquor aisle, which is fair enough, fine, whatever.
The second one, however, is in the baby supplies aisle. Absolutely go fuck yourself Kroger. This and the self-checkout that accuses you of stealing and calls an attendant if you rearrange your bagged groceries to fit on the stupid scale makes me wish there were better options where I live.
I'm a Food Lion man. The reason being is that aside from the checkout line, I'm rather certain no Food Lion has had its interior updated in 25 years. It's a normal, bog-standard grocery store, that is so frill-less and basic that the only Shin Ramen is spicy and it isn't because black and gold are out of stock. It's all they thought to get.
While I can't speak for that store I used to put up and manage security for a blue store. The formula was put under higher watch mainly to make the drug dealers and the scam artists.
Had a case happen at my store a yongish guy came in and "swept" the entire stock he could reach into the cart and rush out an e door. Talking to pd he was linked to using the formula for the mix in of some drugs.
Honestly, I could see this model work for households who rely on large, predictable, repeat orders (i.e. families with small children), but I don't think it'll ever replace normal grocery stores, because a lot of profit is generated by people just browsing the aisles and buying stuff they didn't even know they wanted, and online stores are still fairly bad at replicating that experience.
I agree that online stores don't do it as well as in person ones (being committed to being in a specific place where you buy stuff I think makes people engage more intentionally and consider items in front of them), but I wish more people talked about how shitty SEO (search engine optimization) is one of the ways online stores do this, so I wanna take this opportunity to share that idea
Instead of having to walk to the back corner of the store to get milk or Christmas decorations, you have to scroll past a million items that aren't quite what you're looking for but are closely related by keywords. And in this metaphor the store can be infinitely big.
This would be where you type in exactly what you want (including SKUs or product codes) and it suggests a million different things that are either tangentially related or not related at all, in an effort to distract you from buying what you want.
This has already been happening; before the GenBS search apocalypse, it was quicker to use a search engine query for “store product” to take you direct to the listing.
For example “M10 bolts Bunnings” would show me exactly what I asked for, instead of using the useless Bunnings search feature.
I don't see how. No robot could ever imitate your preferences for produce selection 100% accurately. I don't think even any human could (unless you provide them with an unlimited budget).
you just have to find someone who's grown the crop and is a chef. have them cook for you a few times, talk to you about what you did and didn't like about it. you know, farm to table type shit, right? then they buy the food for you and move in, and are named Hikaru and cook for you every day and we have a pony named Glue Factory who likes to eat caramel.
fuck you bezos. there's no way AI could ever match that.
yeah, part of successful grocery management is knowing how often to rearrange the store that your customers don't hate you for moving the damn kefir. my bagels need kefir!
also i don't trust a robot to pick the right fruit for me. a good onion smells different than the rest of the average shit in the pile.
This is why I like shopping at Aldi rather than Woolworths or Coles (besides the corporate Duopsony screwing over suppliers and Duopoly screwing over customers).
I have the choice of queuing for a checkout, and chatting to the other customers (if I am in a social mood), or going straight to the automated checkouts which don’t treat you as a criminal for not having a loyalty card.
I've had this thought for a while. I don't know how big of an issue loss from theft actually is, but if you own a store and perceive it to be a major issue, why give the customer access to anything? You could make it distopian and shitty like you're saying it could be, but honestly, if you do it right it doesn't have to be. Reorganize the store so the customers can see what is available, but they get a code or ticket instead of the item. Then have the employees pick the items once the customer is ready to pay. We already have a counter serve model like this for a butcher or baker. Convenience stores do this for highly regulated items like cigarettes and liquor. Just do it for everything. If that was the premise from the start, I wouldn't mind because it would be less hostile. The current half asses model of I pick most of my stuff, but then I have to call one of 2 pissed off overworked employees to unlock the other half individually is hostile to the customer and the employee.
When it comes to shoplifting supermarkets, I'm of the opinion that that is a symptom of the state failing to, or worse, choosing not to, take care of those who, for whatever reason, can't take care of themselves and those they are responsible for.
You don't know what it's like, you don't have a clue.
And if you did you'd find yourself doing the same thing too.
~ R. Halford et al, 1980
I don't report shoplifting people either because they desperately need it while the CEO of the franchise earns millions. When shoplifting is a common thing forcing the store to put products behind locks, society has failed as too many of the population are struggling financially.
This was back in 2023, but I once got the estimated losses from shoplifting from the four major UK supermarkets (Tesco, Asda, Morrisons and Sainsbury's) and compared them to the shareholder/investor payouts. In all four cases, the latter was greater and it wasn't even close.
It was 2020, covid was in full force, all prices went up. Ahold said they were forced to do so, due to extra shipping fees etc and shortages due to covid. Many people were struggling financially. Their personnel also couldn't get raises while they were more exposed to get covid, had to work more due to colleagues being ill. The store chain said the profits on products was minimal, that they were struggling not to sell products at a loss. That they had no choice but to raise prices, while also bleeding themselves.
Turns out that year they had more yearly profits than ever before. Check this chart.
I'm unable to steal. I'm too honest for that, my autistic brain just can't. But I so much believe companies like Ahold deserve to be stolen from. Fuck them.
Yeah, the locking products up thing is not happening here at all (except for valuable electronics, jewellery etc obviously) but also most of everyone can comfortably afford the necessities around here
The CEO of the franchise doesn't hurt at all from stolen products. If they see a product is being stolen often, they just increase the price so everyone else pays for it.
Why would they increase the price, that would only make more people steal it. Also, with the price wars between stores (which is huge here in The Netherlands), they can't afford making things more expensive while their competitor keeps it at a low price. Usually they do more checks at the self checkout counters with certain products as certain combinations of products are common with stolen items. Also, contrary to what they claim, they also check certain people based on their looks. I know because I'm never checked, but when I dye my hair purple I'm checked 14 out of 15 times (yeah I counted). Also my darker skin colored friends are checked more often while the store keeps claiming it's all random.
If you're a good person, and someone desperately needs something, why don't you just offer to buy it for them? Why make them go through the indignity of having to risk shoplifting?
If they get away with it, the store will raise its prices to make up for the shortfall, and you'll be paying for it anyhow.
Literally gave a guy $100 once (everything in my wallet) so that he wouldn't need to keep begging in the parking lot. I was working minimum wage. Problem is, now I literally don't have enough money to do that again. Now see, maybe if the next person also did this, that might help solve the problem. Perhaps it might evolve into a community of people paying it forward and helping the brother next to them in a slowly strengthened network of support.
In other words, a much more expensive, unsustainable and unreliable version of a strong government funded social safety net.
You sound like a white guy, living in a reasonably rich country, who went to school then got a job, who never had a struggle in his life, who never saw other countries except for holiday destinations, who got his world info from populist politicians and sensation newspapers and Facebook like sources. How far off am I? You sound like you haven't seen anything from the real world.
This is naive. Sure, in a perfect world everyone helps people in desperate situations or they have support structures that can help them. This is not that world. Sure some shopplifting is for unnecessary stuff but most of it is from desperation because people struggle to afford necessities. It is a much better approach to blame the systems and structures that lead to people having no other options rather than blaming the poor people just trying to get by.
By your logic why aren't you, presumably a good person, paying for every persons groceries who cant afford them. Is it because you are actually a bad person? No, its because that is neither feasible nor tenable. And the CEOs of large corporations actively work to maintain things as they are because they make incredible wealth.
As to increased prices, every corporate grocery store or big box store has insurance and works losses into their budgets. They can easily absorb it without increasing their costs. On the other hand do you know what the most common form of theft in the US is? Wage theft. So the same CEOs making bank also keep pay from employees who are already struggling.
In short, fuck the corps, shoplift if you need to, don't be a snitch if you see someone else.
No, you are naive. Yes, grocery stores do calculate losses into their budget and thus are able to absorb a certain amount, but you know who pays for it? Everyone who doesn't shoplift, by paying more than they'd need to so the store can afford the insurance policy. No store can absorb unlimited losses, they'll simply close up shop if they can't turn a profit, and then your neighborhood will turn into a food desert.
Cool strawman. Obviously unlimited losses would ruin anyone but that is impossible and most stores operate well within their expected loss margins, so markups are arbitrary or caused by inflation. Backing up a bit, you are again blaming the more vulnerable group in this. Be mad at the CEOs and politicians that keep people poor, not the poor people trying to survive. Crime drops in direct proportion to drops in poverty
Also, you keep repeating corporate propaganda. It is more common for these companies to use shoplifting as an excuse to close stores that they already intended to close rather than closing them because shoplifting was actually a problem.
That is the most bad faith interpretation of what i said. When i said it was impossible i meant that in reality the vast majority of people will not steal, not that everyone should steal all the time because there will never be consequences. And i am not saying that stealing is morally good in all cases. I am saying that large corporations, their executives and the politicians they fund keep people in poverty so they can become ultra wealthy from the record profits these companies make (weird they can make record profits while everyone is apparently stealing so much stuff from them), so yeah, if a poor person steals from one of these companies to get medicine they need or food they can't afford, i think they should and that we should not condemn them for it. I would rather a company lose a buck than someone go hungry. And even if it was true that it was happening at a scale where they had to increase prices, i would gladly pay that if it meant my neighbor could eat without being arrested. These companies are not struggling and theft of this nature does not happen on a scale to warrant any of their current interventions including increasing prices.
I find it interesting that you refuse to engage with my actual core argument and instead have opted for picking at random sentences. Engage with this: the systems that cause and deepen poverty are the problem, not the poor people tryong to survive. These systems are perpetuated by large corporations and the ultra wealthy, they are the ones you should be angry with. You are closer to the person stealing to survive than you are any billionaire.
So I, someone who also doesn't make much money, should use the little money I have extra to pay for others, while these stores make billions profit per year? You know how much people are poor? You're doing exactly what mega corporations do: blame the consumer. I do help out some friends of mine who are poor AF. But the issue is mega corps creating vast amounts of poverty out of greed.
Went to buy $2 nail clippers from Walmart. Locked in one of these cages. Hit the button, wait a few min, no one comes. Oh, they keep the overstock on top of the cabinet. Reach up and grab what I want and check out.
As someone who used to have to make those cases. They don't care about the clippers it's the expensive makeup that's in that same section and we only had a case that could do that entire area.
Some things are in the case by proximity more then anything else, thus it can be on the overstock because whatever
Yeah someone planogrammed cheap items into the anti theft case because there was extra room and they didn't want it to look ugly. No thought was put into it beyond that.
if it's not an expensive item that I can't get elsewhere, then I just don't buy it from that store. I have gone into stores and walked right back out when I saw that a pair of gloves was behind a lockbox.
it's like Canadian Tire not allowing backpacks - I will always ignore that rule. I'm not waiting in line to leave my bag at customer service and let some random minimum wage worker have access to my things. the experience there is so shitty anyways, and why is it impossible to leave the store without going through the cash queue
Do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of Canadian Tire? I thought they just sold tires. If I'm correct about that, why the backpack policy? Do they really think people are going to be able to surreptitiously shoplift tires?
it's a home/tool/auto/garden/sports/outdoors store. a Walmart without food, regular daily wear clothes, or a tech dpmt.
they've started locking down all sorts of shit in the past few years, it's absurd. like, I'm not going to wait for an employee to unlock the case so I can get a box wrench. I'm just gonna go to a different store.
I remember during covid started when they'd just made changes to prevent people from leaving the store without meandering through the 100ft long checkout queue. also absurd. I didn't buy anything because you don't have what I need, let me the fuck out, I'm supposed to not be up close to people but I have to squeeze past in a four foot wide aisle??
Both of these statements are correct. And if you blame the locked cases on shoplifting rather than blaming the shoplifting on the fact that greedy, soulless merchants will jack up their prices in response to sunrises, sunsets, or passing fancies, then fuck you along with capitalism.
If what I want to buy is under $200 and locked up, I usually go to another store to buy the item. I am not waiting for an employee to show up and unlock $200 item.
It often only takes a few months of huge losses in sales for the shelves to all be unlocked at a store.
If margin is idk 30% then losing 3 sales to prevent 1 stolen item loses you money, assuming you account for the stolen item at what you paid for it rather than the selling price (which makes sense unless you expect it to sell out, i guess you can add a bit for storage+set up cost but that'll be near nothing for a single item).
Last time I was at Walmart I asked an employee (who I knew. I'm a known quantity in my town. If I was shoplifting, the shop deserved it. Or I forgot like idk a watermelon at the self checkout my object permanece sucks) if they minded if I just popped the lock one of these days if i was in a hurry. They laughed and assumed i was joking, because I joke a lot. I just gave them that "no, I'm good with locks and don't like waiting" shrug. You know the one. Then they quietly said no I like having a job. And I dropped it.
But man those locks suck and are always right under cameras.
The time it takes to call someone over is minimal. But yeah I'm sure you pay for your shit, then go into another store, wait for a person to unlock the item because you live in an area with theft and it's all locked up 🤣.
Dude, no one comes. They used the door to replace a person, do you think they have the staff to man the doors they just installed?
People don't shop for those items from those places unless they absolutely have to. I'm of the same opinion as OP, and I'm pretty sure it's the majority opinion.
I needed something from Best Buy the other day that was locked up. I pretty easily found an employee who tried to be helpful but had to call a manager over to open the case. As frustrating as it I that I couldn't just get the thing I needed, it has to be straight up demoralizing for the employees to know that they aren't trusted either.
You think I don't think this shit is demeaning as fuck? Rather than pay, what, $100 bucks a day on a LP employee, they installed doors and forced their remaining employees to deal with the irate customers who are pissed about being forced to ask permission to buy a $4 deodorant.
It's not about theft, it's about forcing 1 or 2% more out of a balance sheet. They don't give a fuck that their service is less usable. We're just the vessels for their profits.
The social contract is just that, a contract. The unwritten contract of most developed countries has long been:
*Work hard. Get an education. Don't steal. Don't commit acts of violence. Don't try to foment unrest or rebellion. Walk the straight and narrow. In turn, you'll have a peaceful and adequate life. You may not be rich, but you'll have all your needs met during your working years, and you'll be able to retire when old with a bit of dignity."
For generations, the social contract was that anyone who played along and did things "right" would have a decent life. That decent life might mean living in a modest apartment your whole life, but it was achievable by the vast majority. Traditionally, if you couldn't achieve self-sufficiency, it's because you either were excluded from the social contract (like certain minority groups), you were born with some debilitating disability, or because you did something very wrong (like commit a serious crime.)
But contracts are two-way streets. When one side breaks the contract, it breaks for both sides. In wealthy countries, this old social contract has been broken by the rich. Millions are finding they did everything they were supposed to, and they still can't get a decent life. So with the contract broken, there's far less reason to follow it.
Most people do not avoid committing crimes simply because they fear the law. Most folks have an ethical belief that stealing and violence is wrong. Most people wouldn't do these things even if there were no police or prisons. But when you break the social contract, the portion of the population that finds committing crimes to be morally acceptable will inevitably rise.
Honestly, this is by far the best argument I've seen so far ITT, but I will say it does require substantiation. Like many people who did just as you said, I feel cheated because none of my efforts were rewarded according to my expectations, but I'm afraid a conviction requires more evidence than that.
Seriously, I am on your side. If you have information that will help to convict the boomers, I'm all ears.
Nah, this is probably suppose to make the poster look hypocritical, but I think the sentiment of basic life essentials still stands.
Imagine this person lives in an area where fracking, data centers, and beverage companies have stolen or destroyed access to water; then complaining about bottled water being locked up because of shoplifting.
Tooth decay can kill you eventually, but hydraulic despotism can kill you pretty quickly. The slowly boiled frog vs the one dropped immediately into the pan.
why /s? the insane pronatalist propaganda in the recent years benefits no one except fascists who need future meat shields to fight their wars, and capitalists who need future buying power
And they're always understaffed. I hate having to wait several minutes for someone to come unlock the contact solution I didn't realize I needed until I was trying to go to bed
It's literally every store around where I live. The local Krogers built a little mini store inside the store where all the personal care items are kept. They're not behind glass, but there is a single exit that's always staffed with a cashier and you have to pay right there before you leave. The local Safeway did the same for liquor.
Local stores have very little locked up here. My area has industry, which provides wages. Wages produce taxes. Taxes are used for police. Through surveilance police arrest shoplifters.
Complacency of theft only backslides society. I will agree that a waning industry, or that our hyper-fixation on growth effects society negatively, but that’s another discussion.
If someone offers a free item, someone will take it whether they need that item or not, whether they can afford that item or not. Nature takes the path of least resistance. It’s easier to take than to work.
As such, there is no incentive to work if the item is free. If there is no incentive to work nothing gets made. Yet people will need things so you’re forced to make items people need. Which makes items not really free after all to the dismay of many an anti-capitalist.
Regardless, there will always be some percentage of the population that will feel above the rest, mainly due to mental deficiency or addiction, independent of the economic system. For punishment of theft I would prefer to see forced induction into the municipal workforce for 5 years, flat sentence with a minimum wage earned in municipal bonds, held in a community barracks with a tapered reintegration into society. A sort of forced communism for those who can’t cope.
You're saying people will steal because they can? Do you?
Are we talking about the poor, or the billionares finding every possible loophole on taxes and regulation?
Small/Societal theft is not exactly hard to get away with. It's a lot easier than most professions, but then a lot of engineers and scientists don't get into the business for the money. People do difficult things for the hell of it, as long as they arent punished for it, and sometimes even if they are. Nature takes the path of least resistance? Fucking really?
The reason surveillance is increasing, is because the NEED to steal, is increasing. And hence spending more to prevent it is making more sense.
Food isn't optional. If you decrease wages, theft goes up. No matter how hard you police it.
Your area doesn't need to lock things up because the amount of theft is too small to be worth spending on to prevent. That is as it should be.
If the police in your area is wasting their time on catching grocery thieves, you're already spending your taxes wrong.
I see it as maximizing their profits instead. They're posting record profits, they're gaming the system somehow and gouging us on basic necessities. I won't report shoplifting from billionaire conglomerates.
"Hurting people's not a good thing! Sometimes it is... but not when it's a bunch of people looking for something to eat!" - John spartan, demolition man.
Anything is still more expensive than $0. If lowering the prices was more profitable to them than keeping the price but making sure stuff isn't stolen, then they probably would've gone for that.
I don't know about your context, but in my country people say the same thing... but grocery store profit margins hover reliably around 3%. That's not price gouging, and it doesn't take much theft to seriously eat into it.
I'm talking about the whole system fucking us. $40k cars, rent $2500/month. We're being bled out. Computers now 3x their price due to ram and drive shortages from data centers. Its all just greed.
No, that doesn't make sense. If you want to talk about "the whole system fucking us", then you must nevertheless be talking about the parts of the system that fuck us. I'm saying: grocery stores which pocket three cents on the dollar are not what you should be talking about if you want to point to how unfair the system is. If you want to complain about landlord greed, be my guest. But you're in a thread about reducing theft in an environment where, if 3% of stock were stolen the store would eventually close, not in a thread about landlords gouging on rent.
Having this general anger at a system which makes it difficult to live a happy and fulfilling life is fine and justified. But if you don't turn that general anger into anger which is directed at the right things, all it will do is make your life less happy. Focus it where it needs to be focused.
That things are locked literally has nothing to do with capitalism. It is because people are shoplifting to such an absurd amount that it is cheaper for the store to invest in locks then let it happen. And if u shoplift, that'll just raise the prices cos the store has to somehow compensate this loss. Not sure how it is in the US, but in germany grocery stores operate on a slim margin, so significant amounts of shoplifting can be really detrimental.
No. LP can be done with people. It's more effective (less shoplifting) and loses less sales. But, of course, hiring labor to do something that a door can do is something that bean counters hate more than anything. They'd rather stab their own eye out then have to hire labor. So everything becomes shittier cause every store needs to show 2% growth this year and every year into perpetuity, meaning a store that used to employee 4 people at a time needs to be able to function with only 3 people this year or it gets closed.
I guess it depends on the size of the store. Around here, every grocery store has their liquor cabinet locked up. Except Trader Joe's, which only opened last year, and replaced a Rite Aid that used to be in the same location (and of course, had lots of stuff locked up).
Now, Trader Joe's doesn't sell most items that other stores keep locked up besides liquor. But they don't lock up their liquor either (or anything else for that matter). However, it's just a tiny shelf and conveniently placed right across from the manager's desk, so pretty much always within direct view of a team member.
Also, they probably have almost the same amount of staff as the Kroger across the street that's 4x as big, so I suppose what you say IS possible, but you do pay for it with a much more limited selection. Trader Joe's has exactly one of everything (their store brand), and if you don't like that, you're SOL. Regular supermarkets have way more choices, and they're paying a lot more in rent to afford the space to stock all of these items.
139 Comments
Sludgehammer@lemmy.world · 108 pts · 24d
Yes, yes... if we just shit upon the poor and desperate just a little bit more, capitalism will finally work and we will all live in a Utopian meritocracy. Remember hygiene is a privilege, not a right!
dalekcaan@feddit.nl · 47 pts · 23d
It always gets under my skin that my local grocery store has two camera screens to deter shoplifting. The first is in the liquor aisle, which is fair enough, fine, whatever.
The second one, however, is in the baby supplies aisle. Absolutely go fuck yourself Kroger. This and the self-checkout that accuses you of stealing and calls an attendant if you rearrange your bagged groceries to fit on the stupid scale makes me wish there were better options where I live.
Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 23d
I'm a Food Lion man. The reason being is that aside from the checkout line, I'm rather certain no Food Lion has had its interior updated in 25 years. It's a normal, bog-standard grocery store, that is so frill-less and basic that the only Shin Ramen is spicy and it isn't because black and gold are out of stock. It's all they thought to get.
jdr@lemmy.ml · 23 pts · 23d
A terrifying chimera
Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 23d
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
Who called the cops‽
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23d
Ok but green is so good…
Fredselfish@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23d
To bad Reasors bought out our Food Lion and now Brookshires bought out Reasors groceries. So I have that or Walmart for choices where I live.
Pyro@pawb.social · 2 pts · 23d
While I can't speak for that store I used to put up and manage security for a blue store. The formula was put under higher watch mainly to make the drug dealers and the scam artists.
Had a case happen at my store a yongish guy came in and "swept" the entire stock he could reach into the cart and rush out an e door. Talking to pd he was linked to using the formula for the mix in of some drugs.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 44 pts · 24d
Next it will be curb pickup or delivery only. Customers won't be allowed in the stores at all.
And, as soon as they can, it will be robots in the stores filling orders.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · 39 pts · 24d
Honestly, I could see this model work for households who rely on large, predictable, repeat orders (i.e. families with small children), but I don't think it'll ever replace normal grocery stores, because a lot of profit is generated by people just browsing the aisles and buying stuff they didn't even know they wanted, and online stores are still fairly bad at replicating that experience.
Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip · 11 pts · 24d
I agree that online stores don't do it as well as in person ones (being committed to being in a specific place where you buy stuff I think makes people engage more intentionally and consider items in front of them), but I wish more people talked about how shitty SEO (search engine optimization) is one of the ways online stores do this, so I wanna take this opportunity to share that idea
Instead of having to walk to the back corner of the store to get milk or Christmas decorations, you have to scroll past a million items that aren't quite what you're looking for but are closely related by keywords. And in this metaphor the store can be infinitely big.
I hate shopping online 🥹
Salvo@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 23d
It should be called SED (de-optimisation).
This would be where you type in exactly what you want (including SKUs or product codes) and it suggests a million different things that are either tangentially related or not related at all, in an effort to distract you from buying what you want.
This has already been happening; before the GenBS search apocalypse, it was quicker to use a search engine query for “store product” to take you direct to the listing.
For example “M10 bolts Bunnings” would show me exactly what I asked for, instead of using the useless Bunnings search feature.
PineRune@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 24d
For prepackaged and bulk it would work good, but I'm not buying fresh produce sight unseen.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · 9 pts · 24d
100% my biggest pet peeve when ordering grocery delivery, and no robot will ever be able to solve that.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 10 pts · 23d
Well, they theoretically could, but they never would, because the robots are owned by the company and the company wants to screw you over.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 23d
I don't see how. No robot could ever imitate your preferences for produce selection 100% accurately. I don't think even any human could (unless you provide them with an unlimited budget).
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23d
you just have to find someone who's grown the crop and is a chef. have them cook for you a few times, talk to you about what you did and didn't like about it. you know, farm to table type shit, right? then they buy the food for you and move in, and are named Hikaru and cook for you every day and we have a pony named Glue Factory who likes to eat caramel.
fuck you bezos. there's no way AI could ever match that.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
yeah, part of successful grocery management is knowing how often to rearrange the store that your customers don't hate you for moving the damn kefir. my bagels need kefir!
also i don't trust a robot to pick the right fruit for me. a good onion smells different than the rest of the average shit in the pile.
yes, this is how i
traveldriveconveyexist dammitSalvo@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 23d
This is why I like shopping at Aldi rather than Woolworths or Coles (besides the corporate Duopsony screwing over suppliers and Duopoly screwing over customers).
I have the choice of queuing for a checkout, and chatting to the other customers (if I am in a social mood), or going straight to the automated checkouts which don’t treat you as a criminal for not having a loyalty card.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23d
I miss Aldi. My region really needs to get it
PineRune@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 24d
Stores will turn into warehouses.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 24d
They largely already are
ThePantser@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 24d
Vending machines
lillardfair@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23d
I've had this thought for a while. I don't know how big of an issue loss from theft actually is, but if you own a store and perceive it to be a major issue, why give the customer access to anything? You could make it distopian and shitty like you're saying it could be, but honestly, if you do it right it doesn't have to be. Reorganize the store so the customers can see what is available, but they get a code or ticket instead of the item. Then have the employees pick the items once the customer is ready to pay. We already have a counter serve model like this for a butcher or baker. Convenience stores do this for highly regulated items like cigarettes and liquor. Just do it for everything. If that was the premise from the start, I wouldn't mind because it would be less hostile. The current half asses model of I pick most of my stuff, but then I have to call one of 2 pissed off overworked employees to unlock the other half individually is hostile to the customer and the employee.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
That's how stores used to work until I think the early 20th century
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
What was old becomes new again
Zarobi@aussie.zone · 0 pts · 23d
I hate ordering things online… but I think you're right
Iron_Lynx@lemmy.world · 41 pts · 23d
When it comes to shoplifting supermarkets, I'm of the opinion that that is a symptom of the state failing to, or worse, choosing not to, take care of those who, for whatever reason, can't take care of themselves and those they are responsible for.
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 37 pts · 23d
I don't report shoplifting people either because they desperately need it while the CEO of the franchise earns millions. When shoplifting is a common thing forcing the store to put products behind locks, society has failed as too many of the population are struggling financially.
rmuk@feddit.uk · 9 pts · 23d
This was back in 2023, but I once got the estimated losses from shoplifting from the four major UK supermarkets (Tesco, Asda, Morrisons and Sainsbury's) and compared them to the shareholder/investor payouts. In all four cases, the latter was greater and it wasn't even close.
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 23d
It was 2020, covid was in full force, all prices went up. Ahold said they were forced to do so, due to extra shipping fees etc and shortages due to covid. Many people were struggling financially. Their personnel also couldn't get raises while they were more exposed to get covid, had to work more due to colleagues being ill. The store chain said the profits on products was minimal, that they were struggling not to sell products at a loss. That they had no choice but to raise prices, while also bleeding themselves.
Turns out that year they had more yearly profits than ever before. Check this chart.
I'm unable to steal. I'm too honest for that, my autistic brain just can't. But I so much believe companies like Ahold deserve to be stolen from. Fuck them.
craftrabbit@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 23d
Yeah, the locking products up thing is not happening here at all (except for valuable electronics, jewellery etc obviously) but also most of everyone can comfortably afford the necessities around here
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 23d
Same in my country. It only happens in countries with vast amounts of poverty.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22d
The CEO of the franchise doesn't hurt at all from stolen products. If they see a product is being stolen often, they just increase the price so everyone else pays for it.
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 22d
Why would they increase the price, that would only make more people steal it. Also, with the price wars between stores (which is huge here in The Netherlands), they can't afford making things more expensive while their competitor keeps it at a low price. Usually they do more checks at the self checkout counters with certain products as certain combinations of products are common with stolen items. Also, contrary to what they claim, they also check certain people based on their looks. I know because I'm never checked, but when I dye my hair purple I'm checked 14 out of 15 times (yeah I counted). Also my darker skin colored friends are checked more often while the store keeps claiming it's all random.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · -18 pts · 23d
If you're a good person, and someone desperately needs something, why don't you just offer to buy it for them? Why make them go through the indignity of having to risk shoplifting?
If they get away with it, the store will raise its prices to make up for the shortfall, and you'll be paying for it anyhow.
JustTheWind@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 23d
Literally gave a guy $100 once (everything in my wallet) so that he wouldn't need to keep begging in the parking lot. I was working minimum wage. Problem is, now I literally don't have enough money to do that again. Now see, maybe if the next person also did this, that might help solve the problem. Perhaps it might evolve into a community of people paying it forward and helping the brother next to them in a slowly strengthened network of support.
In other words, a much more expensive, unsustainable and unreliable version of a strong government funded social safety net.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · -13 pts · 23d
Give a man a hundred dollars, he'll feed himself for a day. Teach a man how to make a hundred dollars... you know where I'm going with this.
black0ut@pawb.social · 12 pts · 23d
So you're one of those "just get a job" idiots...
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 23d
Maaaate. You're telling people they are naive, but you are the perfect example of what that word means.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · -10 pts · 23d
How so?
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 22d
You sound like a white guy, living in a reasonably rich country, who went to school then got a job, who never had a struggle in his life, who never saw other countries except for holiday destinations, who got his world info from populist politicians and sensation newspapers and Facebook like sources. How far off am I? You sound like you haven't seen anything from the real world.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · -5 pts · 22d
You really thought that was a smart argument to make, didn't you?
your_dead_pet_goldfish@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 23d
This is naive. Sure, in a perfect world everyone helps people in desperate situations or they have support structures that can help them. This is not that world. Sure some shopplifting is for unnecessary stuff but most of it is from desperation because people struggle to afford necessities. It is a much better approach to blame the systems and structures that lead to people having no other options rather than blaming the poor people just trying to get by.
By your logic why aren't you, presumably a good person, paying for every persons groceries who cant afford them. Is it because you are actually a bad person? No, its because that is neither feasible nor tenable. And the CEOs of large corporations actively work to maintain things as they are because they make incredible wealth.
As to increased prices, every corporate grocery store or big box store has insurance and works losses into their budgets. They can easily absorb it without increasing their costs. On the other hand do you know what the most common form of theft in the US is? Wage theft. So the same CEOs making bank also keep pay from employees who are already struggling.
In short, fuck the corps, shoplift if you need to, don't be a snitch if you see someone else.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · -11 pts · 23d
No, you are naive. Yes, grocery stores do calculate losses into their budget and thus are able to absorb a certain amount, but you know who pays for it? Everyone who doesn't shoplift, by paying more than they'd need to so the store can afford the insurance policy. No store can absorb unlimited losses, they'll simply close up shop if they can't turn a profit, and then your neighborhood will turn into a food desert.
your_dead_pet_goldfish@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 23d
Cool strawman. Obviously unlimited losses would ruin anyone but that is impossible and most stores operate well within their expected loss margins, so markups are arbitrary or caused by inflation. Backing up a bit, you are again blaming the more vulnerable group in this. Be mad at the CEOs and politicians that keep people poor, not the poor people trying to survive. Crime drops in direct proportion to drops in poverty
Also, you keep repeating corporate propaganda. It is more common for these companies to use shoplifting as an excuse to close stores that they already intended to close rather than closing them because shoplifting was actually a problem.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · -7 pts · 23d
Okay, so if unlimited losses are impossible, everyone should just steal, right?
your_dead_pet_goldfish@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 23d
That is the most bad faith interpretation of what i said. When i said it was impossible i meant that in reality the vast majority of people will not steal, not that everyone should steal all the time because there will never be consequences. And i am not saying that stealing is morally good in all cases. I am saying that large corporations, their executives and the politicians they fund keep people in poverty so they can become ultra wealthy from the record profits these companies make (weird they can make record profits while everyone is apparently stealing so much stuff from them), so yeah, if a poor person steals from one of these companies to get medicine they need or food they can't afford, i think they should and that we should not condemn them for it. I would rather a company lose a buck than someone go hungry. And even if it was true that it was happening at a scale where they had to increase prices, i would gladly pay that if it meant my neighbor could eat without being arrested. These companies are not struggling and theft of this nature does not happen on a scale to warrant any of their current interventions including increasing prices.
I find it interesting that you refuse to engage with my actual core argument and instead have opted for picking at random sentences. Engage with this: the systems that cause and deepen poverty are the problem, not the poor people tryong to survive. These systems are perpetuated by large corporations and the ultra wealthy, they are the ones you should be angry with. You are closer to the person stealing to survive than you are any billionaire.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · -4 pts · 23d
Okay, in which cases would you say that stealing is morally good?
Please be as precise as possible. This is very important.
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 23d
So I, someone who also doesn't make much money, should use the little money I have extra to pay for others, while these stores make billions profit per year? You know how much people are poor? You're doing exactly what mega corporations do: blame the consumer. I do help out some friends of mine who are poor AF. But the issue is mega corps creating vast amounts of poverty out of greed.
Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 30 pts · 23d
Went to buy $2 nail clippers from Walmart. Locked in one of these cages. Hit the button, wait a few min, no one comes. Oh, they keep the overstock on top of the cabinet. Reach up and grab what I want and check out.
Unbelievably stupid decision making
Pyro@pawb.social · 10 pts · 23d
As someone who used to have to make those cases. They don't care about the clippers it's the expensive makeup that's in that same section and we only had a case that could do that entire area.
Some things are in the case by proximity more then anything else, thus it can be on the overstock because whatever
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 23d
Yeah someone planogrammed cheap items into the anti theft case because there was extra room and they didn't want it to look ugly. No thought was put into it beyond that.
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 23d
if it's not an expensive item that I can't get elsewhere, then I just don't buy it from that store. I have gone into stores and walked right back out when I saw that a pair of gloves was behind a lockbox.
it's like Canadian Tire not allowing backpacks - I will always ignore that rule. I'm not waiting in line to leave my bag at customer service and let some random minimum wage worker have access to my things. the experience there is so shitty anyways, and why is it impossible to leave the store without going through the cash queue
Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 23d
Do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of Canadian Tire? I thought they just sold tires. If I'm correct about that, why the backpack policy? Do they really think people are going to be able to surreptitiously shoplift tires?
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 23d
yes, you do lol
it's a home/tool/auto/garden/sports/outdoors store. a Walmart without food, regular daily wear clothes, or a tech dpmt.
they've started locking down all sorts of shit in the past few years, it's absurd. like, I'm not going to wait for an employee to unlock the case so I can get a box wrench. I'm just gonna go to a different store.
I remember during covid started when they'd just made changes to prevent people from leaving the store without meandering through the 100ft long checkout queue. also absurd. I didn't buy anything because you don't have what I need, let me the fuck out, I'm supposed to not be up close to people but I have to squeeze past in a four foot wide aisle??
DudleyMason@lemmy.ml · 28 pts · 23d
Both of these statements are correct. And if you blame the locked cases on shoplifting rather than blaming the shoplifting on the fact that greedy, soulless merchants will jack up their prices in response to sunrises, sunsets, or passing fancies, then fuck you along with capitalism.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · -2 pts · 23d
Funny enough, the products locked behind glass at my store have actually been getting cheaper while everything else has been getting more expensive.
bountygiver@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 23d
Turns out if it is inconvenient enough to buy certain products people will just not buy them there
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · -9 pts · 23d
Literally every store in the area does the same so it's probably not that
The_v@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 24d
If what I want to buy is under $200 and locked up, I usually go to another store to buy the item. I am not waiting for an employee to show up and unlock $200 item.
It often only takes a few months of huge losses in sales for the shelves to all be unlocked at a store.
Saapas@piefed.zip · 14 pts · 23d
*next store has the same locked cage because they too don't want their $200 items stolen*
From the store's pov shit being stolen is worse than it taking a bit longer to sell
LwL@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 23d
That really depends on how much is stolen.
If margin is idk 30% then losing 3 sales to prevent 1 stolen item loses you money, assuming you account for the stolen item at what you paid for it rather than the selling price (which makes sense unless you expect it to sell out, i guess you can add a bit for storage+set up cost but that'll be near nothing for a single item).
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
the item doesn't take time to sell. the item takes time to restock. you gotta think like a manager. where are the cost centers.
Saapas@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 23d
Item not being sold -> don't have to restock. Win-win
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
corporate keeps fuckin sending these damn crates tho
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 23d
Last time I was at Walmart I asked an employee (who I knew. I'm a known quantity in my town. If I was shoplifting, the shop deserved it. Or I forgot like idk a watermelon at the self checkout my object permanece sucks) if they minded if I just popped the lock one of these days if i was in a hurry. They laughed and assumed i was joking, because I joke a lot. I just gave them that "no, I'm good with locks and don't like waiting" shrug. You know the one. Then they quietly said no I like having a job. And I dropped it.
But man those locks suck and are always right under cameras.
shweddy@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 23d
I went to target and they locked up the underwear. I've never been back to target
makeshift0546@lemmy.today · -5 pts · 23d
Bullshit 🤣
I am very tough internet shit.
The time it takes to call someone over is minimal. But yeah I'm sure you pay for your shit, then go into another store, wait for a person to unlock the item because you live in an area with theft and it's all locked up 🤣.
chuckleslord@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 23d
Dude, no one comes. They used the door to replace a person, do you think they have the staff to man the doors they just installed?
People don't shop for those items from those places unless they absolutely have to. I'm of the same opinion as OP, and I'm pretty sure it's the majority opinion.
Burninator05@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23d
I needed something from Best Buy the other day that was locked up. I pretty easily found an employee who tried to be helpful but had to call a manager over to open the case. As frustrating as it I that I couldn't just get the thing I needed, it has to be straight up demoralizing for the employees to know that they aren't trusted either.
chuckleslord@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 23d
You think I don't think this shit is demeaning as fuck? Rather than pay, what, $100 bucks a day on a LP employee, they installed doors and forced their remaining employees to deal with the irate customers who are pissed about being forced to ask permission to buy a $4 deodorant.
It's not about theft, it's about forcing 1 or 2% more out of a balance sheet. They don't give a fuck that their service is less usable. We're just the vessels for their profits.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23d
dude. let's get you some water. you look like corn
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 23d
The social contract is just that, a contract. The unwritten contract of most developed countries has long been:
*Work hard. Get an education. Don't steal. Don't commit acts of violence. Don't try to foment unrest or rebellion. Walk the straight and narrow. In turn, you'll have a peaceful and adequate life. You may not be rich, but you'll have all your needs met during your working years, and you'll be able to retire when old with a bit of dignity."
For generations, the social contract was that anyone who played along and did things "right" would have a decent life. That decent life might mean living in a modest apartment your whole life, but it was achievable by the vast majority. Traditionally, if you couldn't achieve self-sufficiency, it's because you either were excluded from the social contract (like certain minority groups), you were born with some debilitating disability, or because you did something very wrong (like commit a serious crime.)
But contracts are two-way streets. When one side breaks the contract, it breaks for both sides. In wealthy countries, this old social contract has been broken by the rich. Millions are finding they did everything they were supposed to, and they still can't get a decent life. So with the contract broken, there's far less reason to follow it.
Most people do not avoid committing crimes simply because they fear the law. Most folks have an ethical belief that stealing and violence is wrong. Most people wouldn't do these things even if there were no police or prisons. But when you break the social contract, the portion of the population that finds committing crimes to be morally acceptable will inevitably rise.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · -2 pts · 23d
Honestly, this is by far the best argument I've seen so far ITT, but I will say it does require substantiation. Like many people who did just as you said, I feel cheated because none of my efforts were rewarded according to my expectations, but I'm afraid a conviction requires more evidence than that.
Seriously, I am on your side. If you have information that will help to convict the boomers, I'm all ears.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 23d
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is a court of law...
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · -4 pts · 22d
Oh come on, man, I want to convict the boomers as much as anyone, please just give me a valid reason that'll hold up to their own standards.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 22d
Honestly, this is bizarre and you're creeping me out.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 21d
Why? Your initial argument was that the social contract is broken. Well, who broke it?
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
Because it's cringe as fuck.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 21d
What is, the social contract? Your argument? I don't think I follow...
JustTheWind@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 23d
Nah, this is probably suppose to make the poster look hypocritical, but I think the sentiment of basic life essentials still stands.
Imagine this person lives in an area where fracking, data centers, and beverage companies have stolen or destroyed access to water; then complaining about bottled water being locked up because of shoplifting.
Tooth decay can kill you eventually, but hydraulic despotism can kill you pretty quickly. The slowly boiled frog vs the one dropped immediately into the pan.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · -11 pts · 23d
I'd like to see a single town or urban area that is directly affected by all three, otherwise I'm going to assume you're overreacting.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 24d
Stores should be grateful when people steal condoms.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
Why, then their crotch spawn don't grow up to need baby formula from nestle. Then they become good little consumers, as intended
/S
aketawi@quokk.au · 0 pts · 23d
why /s? the insane pronatalist propaganda in the recent years benefits no one except fascists who need future meat shields to fight their wars, and capitalists who need future buying power
thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23d
Dunno. It was 3am
aesthelete@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 24d
All so that you can just steal the shit at self checkout anyway.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 23d
And they're always understaffed. I hate having to wait several minutes for someone to come unlock the contact solution I didn't realize I needed until I was trying to go to bed
PetoniousRex@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 23d
Ask them to unlock it then leave it on a different shelf.
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 23d
nah they gotta walk the item up to the cash for you
RagingRobot@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23d
Like you're a criminal
Jankatarch@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 23d
One thing about me is that if I see a customer pull out their hammer and break the glass deodorant safe, I pretend I didn't.
Comrade_Squid@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 23d
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
Well I wasn't planning on shotgunning a redbull but here we are.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · -2 pts · 23d
Guess you're gonna have to steal the apple flavor...
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 22d
Stores: If anybody shoplifts, I'm gonna make everyone wait.
Stores, years later: Hey everyone is buying everything online these days.
protist@retrofed.com · 2 pts · 23d
I've only ever seen this at Walmart, and to a lesser extent, Target. I don't shop at either
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 23d
they're putting more receipt checkers on doors at Kroger recently. 3 out of 4 I've been to in the last couple of weeks had them
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 23d
It's literally every store around where I live. The local Krogers built a little mini store inside the store where all the personal care items are kept. They're not behind glass, but there is a single exit that's always staffed with a cashier and you have to pay right there before you leave. The local Safeway did the same for liquor.
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 23d
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shoplifting-retail
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · 0 pts · 24d
🤣
don_kiedyck@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 23d
This is why Walmart has lost almost all of my business to Amazon.
666dollarfootlong@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 23d
From one shitpile to the next.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 23d
suggested amazon alternatives? honest query, trying to reduce my use of bezo's bullshit
Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 23d
You say that like Amazon isn't just eWalmart
dewey_mcbrewster@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 23d
Local stores have very little locked up here. My area has industry, which provides wages. Wages produce taxes. Taxes are used for police. Through surveilance police arrest shoplifters.
Complacency of theft only backslides society. I will agree that a waning industry, or that our hyper-fixation on growth effects society negatively, but that’s another discussion.
If someone offers a free item, someone will take it whether they need that item or not, whether they can afford that item or not. Nature takes the path of least resistance. It’s easier to take than to work.
As such, there is no incentive to work if the item is free. If there is no incentive to work nothing gets made. Yet people will need things so you’re forced to make items people need. Which makes items not really free after all to the dismay of many an anti-capitalist.
Regardless, there will always be some percentage of the population that will feel above the rest, mainly due to mental deficiency or addiction, independent of the economic system. For punishment of theft I would prefer to see forced induction into the municipal workforce for 5 years, flat sentence with a minimum wage earned in municipal bonds, held in a community barracks with a tapered reintegration into society. A sort of forced communism for those who can’t cope.
I’m ready for the downvotes.
MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz · 8 pts · 23d
...
You're saying people will steal because they can? Do you?
Are we talking about the poor, or the billionares finding every possible loophole on taxes and regulation?
Small/Societal theft is not exactly hard to get away with. It's a lot easier than most professions, but then a lot of engineers and scientists don't get into the business for the money. People do difficult things for the hell of it, as long as they arent punished for it, and sometimes even if they are. Nature takes the path of least resistance? Fucking really?
The reason surveillance is increasing, is because the NEED to steal, is increasing. And hence spending more to prevent it is making more sense.
Food isn't optional. If you decrease wages, theft goes up. No matter how hard you police it.
Your area doesn't need to lock things up because the amount of theft is too small to be worth spending on to prevent. That is as it should be.
If the police in your area is wasting their time on catching grocery thieves, you're already spending your taxes wrong.
ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 23d
First-world mentality right here. If it wasn't for people like you we could be more like Venezuela and Nicaragua
Saapas@piefed.zip · -9 pts · 23d
Hah, who would've thought the stores would want to protect their merchandise from shoplifting. It sucks for everyone now
thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 23d
That's one way to look at it.
I see it as maximizing their profits instead. They're posting record profits, they're gaming the system somehow and gouging us on basic necessities. I won't report shoplifting from billionaire conglomerates.
"Hurting people's not a good thing! Sometimes it is... but not when it's a bunch of people looking for something to eat!" - John spartan, demolition man.
Saapas@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 23d
I mean maximizing their profits by trying to prevent shoplifting. More shoplifting, stores will do more to prevent it.
black0ut@pawb.social · 1 pts · 23d
How about lowering prices?
Saapas@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 23d
Anything is still more expensive than $0. If lowering the prices was more profitable to them than keeping the price but making sure stuff isn't stolen, then they probably would've gone for that.
FishFace@piefed.social · -3 pts · 23d
I don't know about your context, but in my country people say the same thing... but grocery store profit margins hover reliably around 3%. That's not price gouging, and it doesn't take much theft to seriously eat into it.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
I'm talking about the whole system fucking us. $40k cars, rent $2500/month. We're being bled out. Computers now 3x their price due to ram and drive shortages from data centers. Its all just greed.
FishFace@piefed.social · 0 pts · 23d
No, that doesn't make sense. If you want to talk about "the whole system fucking us", then you must nevertheless be talking about the parts of the system that fuck us. I'm saying: grocery stores which pocket three cents on the dollar are not what you should be talking about if you want to point to how unfair the system is. If you want to complain about landlord greed, be my guest. But you're in a thread about reducing theft in an environment where, if 3% of stock were stolen the store would eventually close, not in a thread about landlords gouging on rent.
Having this general anger at a system which makes it difficult to live a happy and fulfilling life is fine and justified. But if you don't turn that general anger into anger which is directed at the right things, all it will do is make your life less happy. Focus it where it needs to be focused.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 1 pts · 23d
Honestly, this is better than having it suck for some, while most willfully ignore them.
blackberry28@sh.itjust.works · -12 pts · 23d
That things are locked literally has nothing to do with capitalism. It is because people are shoplifting to such an absurd amount that it is cheaper for the store to invest in locks then let it happen. And if u shoplift, that'll just raise the prices cos the store has to somehow compensate this loss. Not sure how it is in the US, but in germany grocery stores operate on a slim margin, so significant amounts of shoplifting can be really detrimental.
redparadise@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 23d
Ah no relation to capitalism got it, why are people shoplifting necessities?
blackberry28@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 23d
People shoplift because their employers pay to little. But that's not a problem of the grocery store, they can't solve that.
redparadise@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 23d
Agreed, that's not a personal problem of the grocery store but of capitalism.
Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 23d
Did you get hit with the stupid stick or something?
chuckleslord@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 23d
No. LP can be done with people. It's more effective (less shoplifting) and loses less sales. But, of course, hiring labor to do something that a door can do is something that bean counters hate more than anything. They'd rather stab their own eye out then have to hire labor. So everything becomes shittier cause every store needs to show 2% growth this year and every year into perpetuity, meaning a store that used to employee 4 people at a time needs to be able to function with only 3 people this year or it gets closed.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 23d
I guess it depends on the size of the store. Around here, every grocery store has their liquor cabinet locked up. Except Trader Joe's, which only opened last year, and replaced a Rite Aid that used to be in the same location (and of course, had lots of stuff locked up).
Now, Trader Joe's doesn't sell most items that other stores keep locked up besides liquor. But they don't lock up their liquor either (or anything else for that matter). However, it's just a tiny shelf and conveniently placed right across from the manager's desk, so pretty much always within direct view of a team member.
Also, they probably have almost the same amount of staff as the Kroger across the street that's 4x as big, so I suppose what you say IS possible, but you do pay for it with a much more limited selection. Trader Joe's has exactly one of everything (their store brand), and if you don't like that, you're SOL. Regular supermarkets have way more choices, and they're paying a lot more in rent to afford the space to stock all of these items.