Stores places where few people steal are nice and open, have nobody watching the doors, and basically rely on the honor system to ensure that you pass by a cashier before you leave. Stores in places where theft is common have all sorts of unpleasant security measures.
Society only works because most of us behave. Look around you, and you'll see an incredible number of structures that only work because 99% of people are basically decent and honest. Don't be in the 1% who aren't, and definitely don't encourage that 1% to grow.
Yep, and people can easily see this for themselves. It is incredibly telling to note the difference between going into the Rite Aid on Rainier Ave S in Seattle and the Rite Aid on 35th Ave NE in the same city. They're almost directly due north/south of each other and separated by less than ten miles.
However, the Rainier one has at least one visible store security guard, tags on the shopping trolleys to prevent leaving the store with them, locked-down shaving razor refills and baby formula and small electronics, and "you are being recorded" security televisions prominently placed.
The one on 35th has none of those. If there is a security guard or loss-prevention specialist, that person is often hidden. Shave refills are easily accessed (though do have removable security tags), there are corrals outside so customers can use the trolleys to load purchases into their vehicles, and the store simply feels more open and accessible.
This is dangerous thinking.
People don't generally steal because they're bad vs "nice", they steal because they have an incentive to do so (economically speaking). Heaping moral judgement on them is unhelpful and in many cases actively detrimental [because it obscures causal underlying issues and excuses bad policy designed to address symptoms].
'I mean, have you noticed that like, in white, "nice" places, where people are "nice", the stores are all open and nice and people are friendly, but in those dirty poor black neighborhoods the corner stores have got bars on the windows and grills in front of the cashiers, because blacks steal more and make up more of that nasty 1% obviously' </valleygirlvoice> I hope it's obvious where this line of reasoning leads. Dangerous places.
Theft controls are functions of behavioral economics, not how "nice" people are (store owners included). ALL stores suffer from some level of theft, and thus _could_ implement HYPER security to eliminate the problem. They don't, mostly because the costs (direct and indirect) outweigh the benefits of deterring a given level of theft. So for most stores, the expenditure on theft prevention comes down to the minimum spend necessary to reach a tolerable level of theft. And levels of theft have everything to do with a very careful balance of cost:benefit to do with economic and social incentives for the actors involved. This "most people are nice but 1% of people are bad and mess it up for everyone else" type thinking excuses awful systemic abuse and places blame in entirely the wrong place.
No. "Cost" in behavioral economics is never purely monetary. It includes social, emotional, cultural, personal, moral and relational calculus too. The entire spectrum of the human condition really.
> As soon as the cost for the security controls is lower than the cost of the theft then it will be implemented?
Yes, but where "cost" includes the aforementioned factors. Consider it by way of example, you standing in front of the Airport Lounge, QR code cracker hand, asking yourself one critical question: "Is it worth it?" (what will my friends think, what if I don't and have to spend the next 4 hours in a plastic airport seat, I'm tired, what if I get caught, but oh man I could snapchat me in a biz class lounge and Sarah would see, etc etc).
Store owners and businesses in general have to ask the same question. "Is it worth it?"
> Yeah in the end it all comes down to profit.
Does it? Many of the comments here are people incensed by some version of _moral_ or _social-code_ violations by the QR cracker. Their sentiment and that of any prosecuting 'store owner' is not to do with the marginal "cost ($)" of his offense (which is likely close to zero, and arguably net positive).
> But being nice to your customers also had an impact on your bottom line.
I agree with you.
> What exactly is the crux of your reply?
Humans intuitively see correlation as causation and jump to apply moral judgements leading to (often devastating) social consequences to the wrong people because of it. The line of reasoning that "we're all nice, it's just a handful of bad people out there who are the problem" is the problem.
I thank you for including the word "basically" in your assertion, as it infers you understand that it does require a leap to connect the dots in my reply to an accusation of racism.
To be clear, '</valleygirlvoice>' was specifically included to define that speech as being an example of someone-else confusing correlation with causation and (this is the critical bit) the ease with which we (all) jump from there to moral judgements and social consequences.
It's pretty hard to root for a corporation when it's smart individual vs faceless multinational ineptitude. Human nature perhaps?
I think it's more akin to buying terrible cheap seats to a show and moving into a better yet unoccupied section once it starts.
The internet has always seemed to have a lot more moralists than the real world.
Tangentially, I really hate buying good seats and getting to a show to find some cheapo sitting in them because they're proactively hoping no one shows up. If you want good seats, buy good seats. Lots of people in the real world feel that way, and respecting other people's wishes (even, and especially, when you think it's unreasonable and can't relate) is a basic part of being a grownup.
As for the tangent, if you can't be bothered to show up for a show by the time it starts you can at least be bothered to say "Hey, these are my seats." I've been on both sides of that interaction many times. Every time it's been resolved immediately and amicably.
That might be too much human interaction though. Maybe we should get further away from humans talking to each other and invent another app to solve this "problem".
If you've really never torrented a song, used a friend's Netflix account, snuck onto the floor of a concert, took an extra travel bottle of shampoo from a hotel maid's cart etc. etc. etc... Then I truly commend you. The world needs more people like you.
But I highly doubt that's the case. Meanwhile I'll be the monster over here creating a terrible society by using some free wifi and a place to charge my laptop to get some work done halfway through a long trip.
No, I stopped doing that kind of stuff around my second year of college after some economics and ethics classes. I objectively evaluated these types of actions and realized in nearly every case where I hand-waved away with "nobody will notice because its trivial", I was basically justifying theft of small amounts of resources by claiming it was negligible.
>Meanwhile I'll be the monster over here creating a terrible society by using some free wifi and a place to charge my laptop to get some work done halfway through a long trip.
I can tell you're trying to be sarcastic, but when people behave like you it does make it miserable for everyone else. You increase the costs for honest people or at a minimum deprive them of some of the value they would have received if you weren't there (more seating, shorter bathroom queues, more available outlets, less congested wifi).
Also, in most clubs it's not free wifi, it's wifi provided for people legitimately allowed access to the club. You are just stealing it.
Pro tip: Bring candy or snacks for flight attendants on long flights, they appreciate it and may even reciprocate in kind.
Are you that fuzzy on the concept of "stealing" that you don't see the difference here?
And I didn't mean you should bring candy for the FA's solely in expectation of getting something in return. You should really do it because they work surprisingly stressful jobs with absurd hours. They often have to deal with the worst kind of people and could really use a metaphorical hug every once in a while.
Source: Dated a FA for a long time. Know many others.
Forging a ticket is just not equivalent to asking nicely if you can have something.
And GP thinks otherwise.
You are merely stating an opinion.
Do you think "disruption" is a peaceful, happy, 100% beneficial process for everyone involved? Is Uber stealing by taking business from incumbents that play by a different (regulated) rulebook?
Not that sneaking into airport lounges is some huge theft, but acting like it's completely okay isn't cool either.
My personal ethics apply to how my actions impact other living things. I don't lose sleep worrying if I've wronged an entity created solely for the purpose of maximizing shareholder value.
I'm honestly surprised how many people don't agree with that. To each their own I suppose.
Edit: You're totally right about the futility of trying to shove all of us into any one descriptive bucket though. That was a mistake.
You're advocating for stealing from businesses. When enough people like you do this, it results in either higher prices for honest people or the loss of a service entirely.
At some level, most people think everyone else thinks and behaves similarly to them, and are surprised when they find out that they don't. That's why projection is a thing.
Because in the end, even big evil mega-corporations have human stakeholders. For some of them that's their livelyhood. Not everyone is in it out of greed.
Sitting in an airport lounge you shouldn't have access to isn't stealing. Piracy isn't stealing. Using ad blockers on a site that supports itself through ads isn't stealing.
Theft is wrong for well-known reasons. Most of those same reasons apply to these situations.
What do you think of random people occupying your house while you are gone out to work or grocery store? Is that okay too?
> Using ad blockers on a site that supports itself through ads isn't stealing.
I agree with this because browsers are "user agents" not "website agents".
If curious, consult a qualified legal representative in the appropriate jurisdiction.
So opposing trespass is now rooting for corporations?
1. Getting into an area you don't have access to: Trespassing.
2. Tricking the security they have in place: Fraud.
3. Taking snacks from the lounge-area: Stealing.
You are consuming a resource that's finite. You are literally taking value from the provider without asking or paying for it. What do you propose we call this?
Edit: sorry, this was kind of a flippant remark that I made without thinking a lot.
And yes, when the man refused to get off the United plane, he should not have been beaten. Big deal, hundreds of millions of people fly every year. The fact that that happened sucks, but the reality is that 99.99% of people will at worst just deal with incompetent customer service during a cancelled or heavily delayed flight. That doesn't give you justification to steal from the airliner.
This is a discussion I feel you would have with a teenager.
Though, to be a bit more generous, I'd interpret that people hate airlines without really having a conscious reason, so they make something up that's visible and easy to be upset about. E.g. Cost of flying, leg-room, crappy service, "run by evil corporation". I'd posit that they somehow see something wrong with it, yet can't pin-point what that is. In my view, somehow they realize that a government-enabled and enforced monopoly makes the whole thing unfair. And if only we had no intervention and prevention of competition, they'd finally see "nice" airlines. But until they actively "see" that, they'll always think that it's the government that's preventing the really nice peachy happy people from running an airline that they'd enjoy using.
You wouldn't see this kind of thing on a lockpicking forum, "Airport lounges will let anyone in, provided you brink your kit."