One More Reason to not go to Walmart

[bleubird]

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-walmart-crime/
Another example of corporations externalizing their cost on to tax payers.
Capitalism is a wild horse,that must be trained.

 

[barbos]

I don't see it as externalizing their costs. I don't think they are doing less than Target, it's just people who go to Walmart are poor and more prone to stealing and such.

 

[RavenSky]

No board member agreed to be interviewed for this story, but the company disputes that it puts profit before people.

That is ALL they are known for

 

[Playball40]

I don't see it as externalizing their costs. I don't think they are doing less than Target, it's just people who go to Walmart are poor and more prone to stealing and such.

Did you read the article? Target actually pays for more security and sophisticated software to help curb crime. Target does NOT use the city police as much as Walmart so you are wrong. They absolutely ARE externalizing their costs. Greedy bastards.

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone with at least half a brain would understand that if the losses are that large, it make senses for WalMart to engage in more effective methods in reducing such losses rather than simply calling the police.

 

[barbos]

I don't see it as externalizing their costs. I don't think they are doing less than Target, it's just people who go to Walmart are poor and more prone to stealing and such.

Did you read the article? Target actually pays for more security and sophisticated software to help curb crime. Target does NOT use the city police as much as Walmart so you are wrong. They absolutely ARE externalizing their costs. Greedy bastards.

I read most of it. Spending less on security does not mean they are making taxpayers to pay for it.
I can see how walmart can be more attractive than Target to thieves but that's police's job to deal with caught (by Walmart) thieves.

 

[SimpleDon]

I don't see it as externalizing their costs. I don't think they are doing less than Target, it's just people who go to Walmart are poor and more prone to stealing and such.

So you are saying that Walmart has more criminally prone customers than Target. Wouldn't that mean that Walmart should do more than Target to keep from externalizing their costs?

It is pretty obvious that the authors of the article feel that Walmart is doing less than Target to prevent crime in their stores, which they are legally obligated to do. What is it about the argument that they presented that failed to convince you?

My attitude on reading the headline of the article was skepticism that Walmart was doing less too. It doesn't make any business sense to be known as an easy mark for theft. That would attract thieves no matter where the store is located or how criminally prone their regular customers are. But I found the article quite convincing.

 

[SimpleDon]

Did you read the article? Target actually pays for more security and sophisticated software to help curb crime. Target does NOT use the city police as much as Walmart so you are wrong. They absolutely ARE externalizing their costs. Greedy bastards.

I read most of it. Spending less on security does not mean they are making taxpayers to pay for it.
I can see how walmart can be more attractive than Target to thieves but that's police's job to deal with caught (by Walmart) thieves.

Externalizing the costs doesn't just mean that Walmart is burdening the police and the taxpayer, although I can say that they seem to be doing that. It also means that they are burdening their own honest customers too, through higher prices for the goods.

And Walmart is legally obligated to prevent crime in their stores.

 

[barbos]

I don't see it as externalizing their costs. I don't think they are doing less than Target, it's just people who go to Walmart are poor and more prone to stealing and such.

So you are saying that Walmart has more criminally prone customers than Target. Wouldn't that mean that Walmart should do more than Target to keep from externalizing their costs?

It is pretty obvious that the authors of the article feel that Walmart is doing less than Target to prevent crime in their stores, which they are legally obligated to do. What is it about the argument that they presented that failed to convince you?

I don't think they are legally obligated to do such a thing. Police is obligated and paid for doing that.

My attitude on reading the headline of the article was skepticism that Walmart was doing less too. It doesn't make any business sense to be known as an easy mark for theft. That would attract thieves no matter where the store is located or how criminally prone their regular customers are. But I found the article quite convincing.

Doing less does not mean they are making police do it for them. I think it's opposite, Police is just pissed off Walmart does not do their job for them.

 

[bleubird]

I work with former Wally employee.He told me, lax theft policy is part of the business plan.

- - - Updated - - -

So you are saying that Walmart has more criminally prone customers than Target. Wouldn't that mean that Walmart should do more than Target to keep from externalizing their costs?

It is pretty obvious that the authors of the article feel that Walmart is doing less than Target to prevent crime in their stores, which they are legally obligated to do. What is it about the argument that they presented that failed to convince you?

I don't think they are legally obligated to do such a thing. Police is obligated and paid for doing that.

My attitude on reading the headline of the article was skepticism that Walmart was doing less too. It doesn't make any business sense to be known as an easy mark for theft. That would attract thieves no matter where the store is located or how criminally prone their regular customers are. But I found the article quite convincing.

Doing less does not mean they are making police do it for them. I think it's opposite, Police is just pissed off Walmart does not do their job for them.

No the point is Walmart does this to reduce labor cost an increase profit.

 

[barbos]

I work with former Wally employee.He told me, lax theft policy is part of the business plan.

And it's perfectly legal and does not involve taxpayers paying for it.

 

[bleubird]

I work with former Wally employee.He told me, lax theft policy is part of the business plan.

And it's perfectly legal and does not involve taxpayers paying for it.

Who pays the police?

 

[barbos]

And it's perfectly legal and does not involve taxpayers paying for it.

Who pays the police?

Taxpayers

 

[barbos]

No the point is Walmart does this to reduce labor cost an increase profit.

That's their job as a corporation. Target does the same thing. It's just they can't do the same trick because their customers would not appreciate it.

 

[SimpleDon]

So you are saying that Walmart has more criminally prone customers than Target. Wouldn't that mean that Walmart should do more than Target to keep from externalizing their costs?

It is pretty obvious that the authors of the article feel that Walmart is doing less than Target to prevent crime in their stores, which they are legally obligated to do. What is it about the argument that they presented that failed to convince you?

I don't think they are legally obligated to do such a thing. Police is obligated and paid for doing that.

My attitude on reading the headline of the article was skepticism that Walmart was doing less too. It doesn't make any business sense to be known as an easy mark for theft. That would attract thieves no matter where the store is located or how criminally prone their regular customers are. But I found the article quite convincing.

Doing less does not mean they are making police do it for them. I think it's opposite, Police is just pissed off Walmart does not do their job for them.

From the article,

According to laws in every state in the U.S., Walmart has a duty to protect its customers from violent crime while they’re on store property. Under an area of the law known as premise liability, victims and their lawyers have argued in hundreds of lawsuits that Walmart failed to provide enough security. To prevail, plaintiffs must prove that a violent crime was reasonably foreseeable based on a history of violent crimes at a particular Walmart. “They’re not easy cases,” says Memphis attorney Bruce Kramer, who has sued Walmart multiple times on behalf of clients who were the victims of violent crimes occurring on company property. “Proving what the duty is and the foreseeability issue is always difficult. You have a certain mindset of jurors who say, ‘Why are you holding the business responsible for the acts of this criminal?’ ”

As the article points out, Walmart maintains a database of whitch crimes are committed in which stores, so it is hard to argue that they can't foresee which stores are more likely to have violent crimes in the future and which stores require more security.

Let's see, you think that Walmart is doing less and the article establish that they have have many more calls to the police than Target. But you don't believe that they are externalizing their costs on to the taxpayer, that the police are just whiny about having to work so hard. Is this right?

And I suppose that Target is foolish for spending money on security that they don't have to, that they should just rely on the police to prevent crime in their stores?

 

[ronburgundy]

So you are saying that Walmart has more criminally prone customers than Target. Wouldn't that mean that Walmart should do more than Target to keep from externalizing their costs?

It is pretty obvious that the authors of the article feel that Walmart is doing less than Target to prevent crime in their stores, which they are legally obligated to do. What is it about the argument that they presented that failed to convince you?

I don't think they are legally obligated to do such a thing. Police is obligated and paid for doing that.

It isn't simply a matter of whether they are legally obligated, but ethical obligations. That is the root problems with your corporatist ideology which doesn't recognize ethics as part of business beyond formal legal restrictions. They are ethically obligated not engage in reckless, negligence to cut costs and increase their billions in profits by increasing burdens on taxpayers. They eliminated security, employees, and even cashiers so that a person can enter the store, take an item and walk out without ever encountering an employee.

It is equivalent to placing gasoline, matches and kindling at the edge of your yard with a sign saying "I dare you to burn me.", and then doing nothing to put the inevitable fires out yourself and just claiming, "Hey, its not my job to put out fires, that for the Fire Department." Everyone else in your community would be morally justified in beating the shit out of you for doing that, legal issues notwithstanding.

What it illustrates is just one of the countless ways in which all economic exchanges are not actually private but depend heavily upon public resources and impact the public, often negatively. This is why libertarian principles of freedom in one's personal behaviors does not actually apply to economic exchanges, because even when they occur on private property, they are not in fact private, personal interactions. This is why all such exchanges can and should be regulated to protect the public interest without any violation of true libertarianism, despite objections by pseudo-libertarian corporatists.

As for legal obligations, it would be completely justified to place a formal legal burden on all businesses that invite the general public onto their property to have to make reasonable efforts to minimize attempted thefts of their merchandise and all other types of crimes. The police's job is to patrol public spaces and only enter private one's when called to. It should be the stores obligation to provide a reasonable level of security on their own property. To anticipate any false comparisons to each private house needing to have their own security guard, they are not attempting to actively attract as many people as possible to come in off the street into their private home. So, there is no problem having laws requiring minimum security measures that are specific to the particular context of "open-to-the-public" type retail establishments based upon their size and capacity.

s

 

[SimpleDon]

barbos, I don't mean to pile on you. As I said, I had the same thoughts that you had before I read the article. I didn't realize that the store is legally obligated to prevent crimes in its stores, for example. It makes sense, but I hadn't thought of it before.

I am interested in why the article convinced me and not you.

 

[barbos]

I don't think they are legally obligated to do such a thing. Police is obligated and paid for doing that.

My attitude on reading the headline of the article was skepticism that Walmart was doing less too. It doesn't make any business sense to be known as an easy mark for theft. That would attract thieves no matter where the store is located or how criminally prone their regular customers are. But I found the article quite convincing.

Doing less does not mean they are making police do it for them. I think it's opposite, Police is just pissed off Walmart does not do their job for them.

From the article,

According to laws in every state in the U.S., Walmart has a duty to protect its customers from violent crime while they’re on store property. Under an area of the law known as premise liability, victims and their lawyers have argued in hundreds of lawsuits that Walmart failed to provide enough security. To prevail, plaintiffs must prove that a violent crime was reasonably foreseeable based on a history of violent crimes at a particular Walmart. “They’re not easy cases,” says Memphis attorney Bruce Kramer, who has sued Walmart multiple times on behalf of clients who were the victims of violent crimes occurring on company property. “Proving what the duty is and the foreseeability issue is always difficult. You have a certain mindset of jurors who say, ‘Why are you holding the business responsible for the acts of this criminal?’ ”

As the article points out, Walmart maintains a database of whitch crimes are committed in which stores, so it is hard to argue that they can't foresee which stores are more likely to have violent crimes in the future and which stores require more security.

Let's see, you think that Walmart is doing less and the article establish that they have have many more calls to the police than Target. But you don't believe that they are externalizing their costs on to the taxpayer, that the police are just whiny about having to work so hard. Is this right?

And I suppose that Target is foolish for spending money on security that they don't have to, that they should just rely on the police to prevent crime in their stores?

I was talking about shoplifters. As for violent crime then I really really doubt Target can protect you from it.
Of course police have more calls from Walmart than Target. Anyone who have ever been to these stores knows why is that. Lack of security has nothing to do with that.

 

[bleubird]

Do the waltons sit around and talk about how to fuck the tax payers. Probably,not.Is there a corporate model that does?

 

[barbos]

I don't think they are legally obligated to do such a thing. Police is obligated and paid for doing that.

It isn't simply a matter of whether they are legally obligated, but ethical obligations. That is the root problems with your corporatist ideology which doesn't recognize ethics as part of business beyond formal legal restrictions.

LOL, nobody have labeled me as "corporatist" before. I am not advocating anything, I am just explaining the phenomena.