The US shoplifting scourge is a lot of hype with little evidence
cnn.com
cnn.com
I don't know what the truth of the matter is. When I traveled to the US a few months ago (from Australia) I was astonished by both how many people expressed increased fear of crime, but also, some of the warnings I got for things that were no longer safe to do. I was shocked by the warnings because many of them seemed so obvious. One woman in SF told us as part of her warning about crime and homelessness that we had better not leave expensive items like phones or laptops out on our car seats when we park. Sometimes I wonder if the bar in America for expectations of safety aren't set differently.
That said, whether or not that's true has no bearing on whether or not things are getting worse or better. I'm just on a tangent I don't quite know how to pull back into my main point.
It seems unlikely that this would be successful in convincing anyone who feels crime is getting worse. The entire theory is predicated around the idea (true or not) that cities stopped prosecuting non-violent crimes. It's unclear to me that if a store realized at the end of the day that $80 worth of toothpaste was missing, they'd file a police report. It's unclear to me they'd file a police report if their security guard walk someone caught someone walk out the door with a couple hundred dollars worth of items.
It would be like if you were fearful that police stopped caring about domestic violence - and then someone cited police stats on domestic violence arrests to you. Of course the statistic is going to go down if people have less of a reason to go to you for help.
Stores are putting anti-theft devices on items such as toothpaste where I live. I've switched to Amazon anyways, but it's annoying when you need something in a pinch. Maybe they are doing it simply because the anti-theft devices have gotten cheaper to make and use, but I doubt it.
Yes, devices have gotten cheaper.
But I'd argue the "epidemic" is more than likely a moral panic, and we've seen plenty of moral panics before.
It's easy to remember back to the 80s where the moral panic over kidnappings reached incredible levels and you'd see stores with intense child protection policies, signs in stores, etc. None of that expense was justified by the numbers, yet stores were doing it. Because moral panics eliminate rational behavior. "They're doing it so it MUST be justified" probably isn't a solid argument.
The retail industry excessively monitors "shrinkage" because it gets to write it off (which means it's in their interests to over-report, not under-report, at least on the accounting side.)
From the article:
> Even the National Retail Federation, the primary lobbying group for the retail industry, is acknowledging past reports have been inflated and retracting a key point in one of its widely cited reports about retail crime. (These industry reports are frequently cited by lawmakers, journalists and others about retail crime.)
Both a study of police reports and comments from retail lobbyist groups say that retail theft is exaggerated.
> It would be like if you were fearful that police stopped caring about domestic violence - and then someone cited police stats on domestic violence arrests to you. Of course the statistic is going to go down if people have less of a reason to go to you for help.
Under-reporting is extensively studied, particularly for intimate partner violence, allowing for estimates for adjusting.
If you can think of some potential "gotcha" to a study, research, etc - chances are the professional researchers in that field have as well.
Teaser: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-organized-retail-c...
Subscribers only (worth it imho): https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-organized-retail-c...
1. Entertainment value - their banter is just funny. I don't have to agree with 100% of what they say to just enjoy funny banter.
2. They care about Methodology - Michael Hobbes in particular is great at pointing out when news media misrepresents a study by drawing conclusions the study's methodology in no way supports. For this episode talking about how terrible crime statistics in America often are is relevant. Which leads me to #3...
3. They just read the source material. Most of this story is based on just reading the original "ORC" report and showing how devoid of substantiated facts it was. Sure, some types of crime are up! Crime in some places is up! They don't deny that, but they contextualize it. The report that started the national media cycle is quite silly when examined directly.
For example one statistic that they cover changed dramatically because the reporting criteria changed. Human behavior may not have changed in the least, but the statistic suddenly became sensational because of how it was calculated. The worst part is that it's clearly impossible in that case to know if human behavior did change! By changing what they measured they ruined any opportunity to make a meaningful comparison.
Pretty silly of them, right?