Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Analysis of Walgreens' stated reasoning for closing SF stores

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Analysis of Walgreens' stated reasoning for closing SF stores

#11

Post by taurath »

leoh wrote: post #4

Walgreen's is not in the business of morality. They are in the business of making money. Walgreen's could say just about anything they wanted about closing up shop in San Francisco and it doesn't really make good business sense for them to say something provocative. It seems to me they're telling the truth. On the other hand, the San Francisco DA is acting in a highly defensive manner. It's pretty offensive of them a…

Walgreens could easily respond by putting up historical store revenues and profits that show year over year increasing tear from each store they closed.

The DA put up numbers showing that in the past 2 years thefts have gone down. I’ll for now trust the one that puts up the numbers.

Re: Analysis of Walgreens' stated reasoning for closing SF stores

#12

Post by taurath »

mc32 wrote: post #3
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #2

> When comparing 2021 larceny theft figures to pre-pandemic 2019 figures, one will find that reports of theft are actually down. From Jan. 1, 2021, to Oct. 10, 2021, there have been 21,842 reports of larceny theft, and there were 31,958 reports over the same period in 2019, which is a 31.6% decrease. Ok, but this might be very misleading. Wallgreen’s chief complaint is that the laws were changed and police no longer…

It would also be useful to know what the average haul of the thefts pre-pandemic and now.

Walgreens has the data on this so they can choose to put it up, if they care about people believing them.

Re: Analysis of Walgreens' stated reasoning for closing SF stores

#13

Post by taurath »

robbedpeter wrote: post #10
just_steve_h wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

So stores should just accept being stolen from, creating highly unsafe situations for employees and customers, in the middle of economic conditions already hurting profit and supply chains? Or maybe the stores should hire private security, sufficiently armed to deter theft? That's probably a minimum cost of $500k per year for wages and insurance and licensing. I'm truly curious what the endgame is with this line of b…

A society where people don’t need to steal to survive, if you are truly asking.

A Walgreens takes money from a community and gives it to their shareholders. They pay minimum wage. The desperation people have across this country should be responded to with policies that lessen desperation, rather than jailing people like we have been for the last 60 years - 25% of the prisoners in the world are in the USA which has 5% of the population.

If you want people to not steal food, give them food. If you want people to not be homeless, give them a home. If you want people in prison, prevent the hungry from eating and the homeless from finding a home. It costs a lot more to hold a prisoner than providing food or shelter by other means.

Re: Analysis of Walgreens' stated reasoning for closing SF stores

#14

Post by mywittyname »

taurath wrote: post #11
leoh wrote: post #4

Walgreen's is not in the business of morality. They are in the business of making money. Walgreen's could say just about anything they wanted about closing up shop in San Francisco and it doesn't really make good business sense for them to say something provocative. It seems to me they're telling the truth. On the other hand, the San Francisco DA is acting in a highly defensive manner. It's pretty offensive of them a…

Walgreens could easily respond by putting up historical store revenues and profits that show year over year increasing tear from each store they closed. The DA put up numbers showing that in the past 2 years thefts have gone down. I’ll for now trust the one that puts up the numbers.

It was also decided to not respond to shoplifting reports under $950, which may be the cause of the 'reduction in reported larceny'. People may have stopped reporting it.

Re: Analysis of Walgreens' stated reasoning for closing SF stores

#15

Post by finite_jest »

taurath wrote: post #11
leoh wrote: post #4

Walgreen's is not in the business of morality. They are in the business of making money. Walgreen's could say just about anything they wanted about closing up shop in San Francisco and it doesn't really make good business sense for them to say something provocative. It seems to me they're telling the truth. On the other hand, the San Francisco DA is acting in a highly defensive manner. It's pretty offensive of them a…

Walgreens could easily respond by putting up historical store revenues and profits that show year over year increasing tear from each store they closed. The DA put up numbers showing that in the past 2 years thefts have gone down. I’ll for now trust the one that puts up the numbers.

Didn't they change the definition of what counts as "theft" though? Also, wouldn't less people bother to report theft if they know it probably won't be prosecuted?

Re: Analysis of Walgreens' stated reasoning for closing SF stores

#16

Post by elgernon »

taurath wrote: post #11
leoh wrote: post #4

Walgreen's is not in the business of morality. They are in the business of making money. Walgreen's could say just about anything they wanted about closing up shop in San Francisco and it doesn't really make good business sense for them to say something provocative. It seems to me they're telling the truth. On the other hand, the San Francisco DA is acting in a highly defensive manner. It's pretty offensive of them a…

Walgreens could easily respond by putting up historical store revenues and profits that show year over year increasing tear from each store they closed. The DA put up numbers showing that in the past 2 years thefts have gone down. I’ll for now trust the one that puts up the numbers.

just check the local daily news, man, the reality is really depressing

Re: Analysis of Walgreens' stated reasoning for closing SF stores

#17

Post by sjwalter »

taurath wrote: post #13
robbedpeter wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So stores should just accept being stolen from, creating highly unsafe situations for employees and customers, in the middle of economic conditions already hurting profit and supply chains? Or maybe the stores should hire private security, sufficiently armed to deter theft? That's probably a minimum cost of $500k per year for wages and insurance and licensing. I'm truly curious what the endgame is with this line of b…

A society where people don’t need to steal to survive, if you are truly asking. A Walgreens takes money from a community and gives it to their shareholders. They pay minimum wage. The desperation people have across this country should be responded to with policies that lessen desperation, rather than jailing people like we have been for the last 60 years - 25% of the prisoners in the world are in the USA which has 5%…

You are building the assumption that the thieves are super-poor and starving.

Food distribution is already very good for the poor and hungry.

It is possible some of these thieves are just down on their luck. But when there are zero consequences to stealing, many folks will just steal in order to get more stuff/make more money.

You seem to believe the world is populated by nice, well-meaning people who would never steal were they not hungry.

They aren't hungry at all. Your view is just incredibly naive.

Re: Analysis of Walgreens' stated reasoning for closing SF stores

#19

Post by perl4ever »

taurath wrote: post #11
leoh wrote: post #4

Walgreen's is not in the business of morality. They are in the business of making money. Walgreen's could say just about anything they wanted about closing up shop in San Francisco and it doesn't really make good business sense for them to say something provocative. It seems to me they're telling the truth. On the other hand, the San Francisco DA is acting in a highly defensive manner. It's pretty offensive of them a…

Walgreens could easily respond by putting up historical store revenues and profits that show year over year increasing tear from each store they closed. The DA put up numbers showing that in the past 2 years thefts have gone down. I’ll for now trust the one that puts up the numbers.

I have no idea who is telling the truth, but wouldn't it be fair to say that people working for the city do have more of a motivation to spin this than Walgreens?

If Walgreens is doing what the city claims, then Walgreens doesn't need to blame the city. They might anyway, but there's no big incentive. If they have a lot of stores that aren't closing, wouldn't it even be potentially harming their business for no reason?

Whereas, if the situation is what Walgreens says, then the city does need to blame Walgreens.

I have never been to SF and don't have any idea about the facts on the ground. Just, coming from ignorance, it seems logical to me to bet the opposite way from you.

One response to a decrease in reported theft and an increase in viral videos of theft is that the number of videos is misleading and "the numbers" prove it.

Another is that people aren't reporting theft as much because it's either out of control or perceived as such due to the videos. And/or the authorities have ways of manipulating the statistics.

I don't know that one or the other interpretation is correct, but if someone presents the first one as obvious without delving into why it is certainly true, then I tend to distrust them overall.

Re: Analysis of Walgreens' stated reasoning for closing SF stores

#20

Post by taurath »

sjwalter wrote: post #17
taurath wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A society where people don’t need to steal to survive, if you are truly asking. A Walgreens takes money from a community and gives it to their shareholders. They pay minimum wage. The desperation people have across this country should be responded to with policies that lessen desperation, rather than jailing people like we have been for the last 60 years - 25% of the prisoners in the world are in the USA which has 5%…

You are building the assumption that the thieves are super-poor and starving. Food distribution is already very good for the poor and hungry. It is possible some of these thieves are just down on their luck. But when there are zero consequences to stealing, many folks will just steal in order to get more stuff/make more money. You seem to believe the world is populated by nice, well-meaning people who would never ste…

> Food distribution is already very good for the poor and hungry.

It is not.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2020/11/14/tho...

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-un...

> But when there are zero consequences to stealing, many folks will just steal in order to get more stuff/make more money.

I don't think there are zero consequences to stealing, even under a "cops won't show up for low amounts of theft" policy.

> You seem to believe the world is populated by nice, well-meaning people who would never steal were they not hungry.

Not the case. I believe thefts are almost finely tuned along with economic problems.

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232084.pdf - see page 52, and 53.

The less people have, the more burglaries they do. Also page 53, the more income inequality in an area, the more robberies take place. SF is one of the places with the highest income inequality in the country.

To summarize: more poor people, more burglaries. Take the reverse, robberies are primarily carried out by poor people.

> They aren't hungry at all. Your view is just incredibly naive.

I would say your view is naïve about some inherent evil of people from a moralistic perspective directed at the poor. You seem to think its that people are greedy - sure, everyone is greedy to a point. Who are the most greedy in society? Who gets the longest prison terms? A white collar criminal embezzling a million dollars or someone who takes a coke from a convenience store? My view is its a condemnation of our extremely rich society that people must resort to shoplifting.

I'm not an idealist, I'm a realist. Broke people are gonna steal more often - that shouldn't be controversial. The study above, shows that places where EVERYONE is poor people steal less. In places where some are very poor compared to the richest, people steal more.

You will see some anecdote about some band of merry professional thieves who live in a nice apartment somewhere - that is the outlier, not the norm. Just like the idea of the "welfare queen", its time to stop thinking along jingoistic terms about criminal justice in the US. Again, we have 25% of the prison population IN THE WORLD.

Post reply on HN