Hacker News Reader

Most times I've been to a Target store, they have a loss prevention officer right up front. It's not a solution to every incident, but is a very effective front line defense, as alluded to in the article:

> Local Walmarts, on average, generated four times as many calls as nearby Targets, the Times found.

Walmart continues to be the gold standard of reducing prices by increasing externalities.

View on HN

Yeah, but are the decreased amount of police calls due to Target's loss prevention officers (and other such prevention mechanisms), or is it simply due to the fact that they cater to a different demographic? It would certainly be an interesting experiment - if Target removed their loss prevention officer, and/or Walmart added them, how much would change? I have no idea, but I suspect the demographic plays a pretty large role.

Completely agree - there's no chance lack of on-site enforcement accounts for 100% of the difference, but I'm sure the effect is still large. Theft of a $3 bottle of eye drops, to take an example from the article, just seems SO easily resolvable without police intervention. Even without loss prevention officers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com