I'm sure their prices could have been lower if they didn't have up to 15% shrinkage as well.
Yes, that's what I said.
I find it interesting that in one sentence you admit something with no proof is not a given but the other part with no proof, that supports your negativity towards this store, IS a given.
They already dominate their market at the current prices. They have no need to lower the prices - doing so would only create a backlash if they ever needed to raise the prices again. Keeping them artificially high is part of how you have sales anyway, which drive consumer interest.
Yes, it would be nice if they didn't have theft, and had extra money (were you looking for that as a kind of admission of compassion?). But the ability to lower prices does not at all imply that they would.
Um, yes? Most businesses actually work that way in an attempt to maintain customer loyalty. I'm not saying every business works that way, but that doesn't mean there are none at all.
>> Do you understand how capitalism works?
Yes.
>> They already dominate their market at the current prices.
That does not mean they wouldn't want to offer the best value to their customers. Just because a business dominates a market doesn't mean a competitor couldn't move in to undercut their artificially high prices to gain market share. Unless they have a monopoly provided to them by law, a business is at its best offering the best value to their customer while maintaining a decent profit. As free market capitalism suggests.
>> Keeping them artificially high is part of how you have sales anyway, which drive consumer interest.
I think you misunderstand the point of sales for many stores. Some unethical places may keep their prices artificially high so they can have "sales" to bring in customers. These types of businesses are run by stupid people. The traditional and proper use of sales is to have loss leader items that bring people into the store in hopes they will purchase something else at regular prices while they happen to be in the store to get the sales items they came for. Loss leader items in terms of items sold at near cost or even maybe below costs. Wal-Mart and many other grocery stores do this very well, as an example. Black Friday in the US as another.
>> were you looking for that as a kind of admission of compassion?
I honestly don't understand the point of this comment.
>> But the ability to lower prices does not at all imply that they would.
This is totally true, I never claimed anything different. They are free to set their prices at anything they want and their customers are free to react to it in any way they want. That is the whole point behind the usage of the word "could" that was used by both of us.
A great example of the point-and-splutter method of argumentation.
In a greedy capitalist system, the traditional answer to "why in God's name would they lower their prices??!?" is "to sell more stuff". You can reverse the question: why in God's name don't they raise their prices now?!??!?
And, having known several people who worked in loss prevention, it is well-established that the lion's share of that theft -- both of cash and goods -- is by employees.
Lets say, I'm an Italian businessman. I have a vending machine that costs 5,000 euros. Your feel good ruling told all the drug addicts they could smash it for the snacks inside. You arrest them and whether or not you convict them doesn't matter to me because I'm out 5,000 euros now and the government isn't going to reimburse me. I can't sue them because they have no assets.
So yes, there are social consequences here that are not address by the court system.
There are many unintended consquences here you're obviously not thinking through. The reality is that this ruling is a game-changer and many will interpret it in different ways. There's no hollywood style theft where you just steal bread cooling itself on the window sill. It will involve breaking and entering, fights with the shop owner, collateral damage (a child trampled during a chase), tempers leading to weapons use, etc.
I don't think you've thought through these extra cases you're worried about. They all involve extra crimes, which they would be convicted for, because the decision in this case was very specific. Judges do actually think about these things before they make decisions.
Also, judges are not perfect and are known to make mistakes.
So now a homeless guy reads "Food is free if you're hungry!". He goes... really?? Walks into store. Right away, the store security is eyeballing him, because he's homeless, and the store owner reads the news, too. So now the homeless guy has a decision: since he's being watched even closer now, does he give up early, or make a brazen attempt? He makes the attempt... now the security catches him. "I'm hungry!" he says. "Too bad", security says. They take the food back and call the cops. One court case later, the guy is released. The store still has their goods.
There is plenty of recourse to cover theft (that which already exists and resulted in the guy getting caught the first time), food is not free, insurance doesn't go up. And pricing is already adjusted to offset theft, like I mentioned in another thread. The effect on the bottom-line for markets is nearly zero. Everything is the same as before this judgement, except the prison isn't full of homeless people who can't pay their fines.
Like someone else mentioned, either homeless people will be banned from stores, or they will be scrutinized more, and outdoor markets may retain some new form of controls or increased security. Or their culture will simply adapt to this new way of life, since not every person who can steal will steal (a weird idea for the US, but many foreign cultures work this way).
But there will not be roving gangs of hungry homeless trampling children and busting down stores. Business will not decline from the ravages of the hungry. And in a weird twist of the judgment, if they stole to have food, they'd no longer be hungry, and therefore would be committing crimes again. The judgement's language is very specific about the nature in which this took place and what it means.
Some people thought a similar thing a few years back in the US. The thought was that since sometimes innocent people are injured due to police chases that there should be restrictions on such chases, most of them involved giving up. The leading argument against was that you are essentially telling criminals to always run because the police will break off. I believe cooler heads prevailed that instituted new policies that did not allow such nonsense.
As for your example; do you think the store just returns the attempted stolen item to be placed back on the shelf to sell to another customer? Even if the thief is caught, there is a form of loss due to the product likely being useless to them.
Finally, yes the guy was caught but not punished. That is not necessarily a recourse for the owner of the stolen property, they are still out the stolen property. It's not like the neighbor's kid stealing your bike that can be returned, they can't sell food handled by a thief, security, and or police. If the effect on the bottom-line is nearly zero then why bother trying to prevent theft at all?
Theft is commonplace in markets and supermarkets. It's calculated into the cost of doing business. Back when I was a teenager working in a supermarket, one store claimed 15% of its revenue was lost to theft every year. (Its prices were also among the highest for any food store, so i'm sure they still did well)
I doubt they'll just let people ransack their stories, but they may decide to be more lenient in terms of calling the cops when they catch them.
Fun anecdote: Working in front of the store, you would sometimes notice people trying to pull scams. The best scam I ever witnessed was over chicken nuggets. There was one guy finishing paying for some food, one cashier, and me bagging the food. Right as this first guy was paying for his food, another came up right behind me and barked in my ear that he couldn't find something in the frozen food aisle. I turned and tried to explain where to find his item. When I turned back around, the last item for the current customer - a box of frozen chicken nuggets - had.... disappeared. Just gone off the counter. The customer was still there, though, and the cashier hadn't seen anything. So we had to get him a new item. It wasn't until he and the distracting guy left that we realized they were working together.