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.
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.