> So theft is up in NYC and no other major cities, that’s considered an outlier in that case. Everywhere else, theft is down and not an issue.
That's extrapolating too much from what the article actually claims. It only says that shoplifting incidents "in major cities" (whatever that means) as a whole has gone down. That's not the same as "So theft is up in NYC and no other major cities". Moreover, the claim you made isn't that thefts are down on average across the country, it's that "It’s never theft". Even if it's just new york, that invalidates your "It’s never theft" claim. Murder rates are down across the country as well, but that doesn't mean you can claim it's "never murder".
>Your argument against the second article was “maybe those poor corpos just aren’t reporting crime” lol. Shrink includes numbers for all lost or destroyed inventory not just theft, btw.
>Get real comrade.
1. Is "maybe those poor corpos just aren’t reporting crime" really that hard to believe? The National Crime Victimization Survey puts the reporting rate for property crimes to be 26%. Once you stack non-response to the actual survey on top, you'd be a fool to take any self-reported crime statistics at face value.
2. True, shrink could be caused by other factors, btu is there any reason to believe that "lost or destroyed inventory" would have gone up? I find it baffling that you dismiss the idea of retailers not reporting thefts, but are seemingly convinced of the idea that retailer reported shrink is caused by other factors without providing any justification, "comrade".