I don't believe the data is accurate simply because most crime of this level is not reported because the victims accurately believe nothing will happen.
I don't know, definitely don't trust myself to not notice something a lot more when it becomes a big thing in the media.
Why do you think there has been this sudden uptick in under-reporting? When did it start?
It’s just used when actual data doesn’t confirm what people want to be true.
You don't have to take my word for it. There are studies to support that property crime goes severely under-reported[1]. Also, people are drastically less likely to report crime when it is obviously nothing will happen and it cost more than the value of whatever was taken. Walmart loses millions on theft every year, they could stop it but stopping it would cost more than doing nothing.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about...
> Some former police officials said in interviews that officers don’t feel it is worth making an arrest in low-level cases because they assume the district attorney won’t file charges. They also point to a statewide ballot measure passed in 2014—Proposition 47—that raised the dollar amount at which theft can be prosecuted as a felony from $400 to $950.
> Mr. Boudin has pointed the finger back at the police, arguing that the certainty of arrest is low in San Francisco compared with other cities. More consistent arrests of criminals, he has said, would be a more powerful deterrent than the length of prison sentences.
Regardless of what side you take, combine an increase in crime with the fact it is unlikely that people will be prosecuted or arrested and it seems reasonable to think that could lead people to just deciding it isn't worth the time to report the crime.
Because the same policy causes both. DA's refusing to prosecute encourages shoplifting and discourages reporting.
It should be obvious that insurance serves as financial benefit for the insured or else the insurance industry would have collapsed a long time ago.
You know what we call a business that makes enough money on float to cover its operating costs? A bank.
If the float was so lucrative they wouldn't need to charge "high enough to matter" premiums.
Insurance companies don't have magical investments they can make that other businesses can't. They're not going to be making $0.50 on the dollar you give them. They're going to be making pennies, just like literally everyone else. This will mostly go toward subsidizing operating costs. In no universe do insurance companies make enough profit from their money pile to even come close to offsetting payouts.
The fact of the matter is that theft affects the entire area so it WILL be reflected in premiums, the same way things like the climate and adverse weather are reflected in premiums.
>It should be obvious that insurance serves as financial benefit for the insured or else the insurance industry would have collapsed a long time ago.
Using insurance to cover routine expenses never makes financial sense. There's a reason businesses self-insure as much as they can.
Just because a financial product can be a net win doesn't mean that it will still be a net win if you use it exactly the wrong way. Speaking of things that should be obvious...
I didn't say float was enough to cover their operating costs. I said insurance companeis can and often do run for long stretches in which premiums do not cover claims. Float is the way this is accomplished. If an insurance company goes long stretches in which premiums do exeed claims, customers will begin to turn away. Interest on float is free money and therefore float has value regardless of how small the returns. These companies want as much float as possible and offering favorable terms to their clients is a great way to increase total available float.