I thought the US was like the most advanced nation in the world? And businesses are supposed to pay for their own security instead of relying on police? What next? Families of murder victims should cover the cost of the investigation?
Businesses should expect that society protects them, sure. But those same businesses can't then go and bribe the government to cut worker protection laws, labor laws, can't slash wages and expect that the government covers the costs of labor, etc...
If Walmart paid their workers lavishly, gave them huge pensions, didn't engage in far-right lobbying to diminish worker protections, didn't demolish the proverbial Main Street all across America, sure, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and say that we should cover their security costs. But look at their actions over the last 35 years....they've enriched themselves greatly as a corporation, bribed the government, and told regular Americans to pound sand.
It's totally possible to provide good pay, healthcare, etc... to employees, still have healthy enough margin % to make Wall Street happy, keep the C-Suite well paid, all while providing a great service at competitive prices to consumers. Maybe not enough to enrich the owners to a quarter trillion dollars in net worth, but plenty enough to keep the ship going. Case in point: CostCo. Whole Foods prior to Amazon was another.
2. Nobody makes anyone buy from Walmart.
3. Nobody makes anyone work for Walmart.
4. Anybody is free to spin up a competitor to Walmart.
5. Walmart is not responsible for government wealth transfer programs.
> It's totally possible to provide [...]
You and anyone else are free to do so.
Regarding point 4, and your quoting of me - yes, people have. And some have been lucky in that they've made themselves multigenerational wealth in doing so. The guy who founded Costco did it, and made himself over a billion dollars. However, the Waltons have hundreds of times that amount. You can make a billion by doing right by everyone, or hundreds of billions by doing right by everyone not named you. I know what number I'd be content with, not sure about you though. (Hint: if you give me a billion dollars, I'm retiring tomorrow)
Regarding point 5, Walmart IS however responsible for spending vast amounts of money (generational money) over the years to enact some pretty anti consumer and anti worker laws throughout the country. It IS responsible for funding some crazy far-right politicians. It IS responsible for paying its workers so little that they are "encouraged" to go on food stamps and apply for section 8 housing.
Yeah, I've lived in them. My dad was in the AF, and (to save money) my parents would shop on the nearest AF base, which was maybe 30 miles away. They'd go once every 2 weeks or so and fill up the car with groceries.
The indisputable point is people prefer to shop at Walmart. Nobody makes them.
Name one "far right" law Walmart got enacted.
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/issues?...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/walmart-lobbyists_b_3632526
On the far right front, here's what I found:
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Walmart_and_Politics
https://www.ufcw.org/press-releases/new-report-on-political-...
> A new report issued Tuesday shows that Walmart and the Walton family that founded and controls the company have dramatically increased their political contributions over the last decade and that the vast majority of those contributions have gone to Republicans and right-wing causes, including anti-gay, anti-environment and pro-gun politicians and causes. The report asserts that Walmart, the world’s largest private employer, and the Walton family have spent over $17 million in federal elections and millions more on state and local initiatives. Since the 2000 election cycle, more than $11.6 million—69% of Walmart and the Waltons’ contributions—has gone to Republican candidates and committees. At the same time, 83% of the Waltons’ contributions, including their contributions to Super PACs, went to Republicans.
> The report further underscores Walmart and the Waltons’ turn to the right and shows that political contributions doesn’t simply stop at supporting Republicans; in 2008, Jim Walton gave $75,000 to the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee, which at the time was supporting a ballot measure to prevent gay families from adopting. Meanwhile, 94% of the Walton family’s contributions to candidates from 2000 to 2012 went to those who were opposed to or silent on the issue of marriage equality.
The report is archived here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130715154825/http://makingchan...
They also donate not out of the good of their hearts, but to protect and grow their economic interests, which is primarily the value of Walmart's stock.
The idea of equal protection under the law is much bigger and more important than a corporation that sucks. Every business should have equal access to law enforcement regardless of how big they are.
If law enforcement sucks, it is simply not any private company’s job to address the problem.
If I run a company, make bank, and then use that money to engage in lobbying that would see public services cut significantly, I shouldn't get to whine that those same public services (which includes policing) should be protecting my private interests first and foremost.
What do you propose Wal-Mart do in these localities?
People engage in a lot of magical thinking to justify theft since it seems like a harmless act. Thieves are just trying to feed their families! Insurance will cover it! Etc.! It's really unfortunate, they're going to learn the hard way as not only Walmart but other retail stores in their areas flee.
Even in California where there's some conspiracy theory about how "It's the DAs fault the police aren't doing anything", as if it's the police's responsibility, or even their jurisdiction, to pick and choose who should go to jail.
Cops should be bringing in people violating the law even if nobody ever went to prison!
https://lithospos.com/blog/shrinkage-in-retail-and-how-to-pr...
Together this puts theft at a solid majority (66%) of shrinkage.
Out of $6 TRILLION (Just in the US!) worth of brick and mortar retail sales in the same year, in an industry that claims 2% profit margins on the low ends.
All the fuss over shoplifting is just noise. Consider that the same survey which produced those numbers also showed that a full 16% of ALL merchandise sold in retail is returned, yet we don't have news channels blaring all over that we are in a crisis of unfit products.
It's a narrative, and a bad one, to blame greedy price increases on a STABLE total rate of shrink, one that has been roughly 1.5% for over a DECADE. The cost of shrink has been factored in to the price of goods forever.
You should definitely go to YCombinator and use this valuable perspective to start a brick and mortar retail firm
>Out of $6 TRILLION (Just in the US!) worth of brick and mortar retail sales in the same year, in an industry that claims 2% profit margins on the low ends.
So shoplifting is 29% of net profits? I'm sorry, which side of this argument are you on, exactly?
For comparison, in Texas, the misdemeanor limit is at $2,500.
Also it becomes a felony if any theft has been committed more than 3 times: `(D) the value of the property stolen is less than $2,500 and the defendant has been previously convicted two or more times of any grade of theft;`
In those other states its hard to get the police to even respond to shoplifting calls let alone make an arrest. And even if they did, the prosecutors will dismiss the charges or give them a slap on the wrist (which is why the cops don't bother anymore).
Just like in California.
Citation needed
On the other hand a lemonade stand will generally rely entirely on the police and on peoples' good nature. I sure hope they aren't armed!
So on the spectrum between the two, don't we want a society where almost all interactions don't rely on private security guards?
I feel like there has been an explosion of private security guards over the past 30 years, but I do see them in old movies so I don't know if my impression is correct.