Is there evidence that this is actually the case? Otherwise, this seems like there is no way for the stats to contradict a desired story:

If the numbers go up, it's a sign that crime is increasing. If the numbers go down, it's merely a sign that people have lost their faith in enforcement because of the overwhelming nature of the crime.

> After spending much time filing reports with police, people realize that they are wasting their time, and they stop filing reports.

People file reports for reasons beyond just expecting enforcement. For example: insurance companies often require a police report before they'll accept a claim for theft.

The problem is that the deductible on insurance claims makes it not worth filing, especially if it drives up your future premiums. I know lots of people who experience package thefts and bike thefts and car breakins who don’t bother reporting anything. It’s anecdotal, sure, but the logic checks out and where the anecdotal real life observations are so different from the claimed data (just look around you and see increased blight in west coast cities), something seems wrong with the data.

What evidence is there that this effect is more pronounced now than it was in the past?

For one, Walgreens has shuttered a portion of their SF fleet due to increased theft and lack of enforcement. I would trust their inventory theft statistics much more than the police department’s, and so do they.

On the other hand, what evidence there that this effect is not more pronounced than it was in the past?

Walgreens shuttered a portion of their SF fleet as part of a pre-announced plan to shutter 200 stores nation wide: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/06/walgreens-to-close-200-store...

I would consider their statistics, but I don’t think they have released any — they have just made claims that Shoplifting has increased.

Have they released data showing that shrinkage has increased nationwide or in California, and that shrinkage has been driven by increases in shoplifting?

> On the other hand, what evidence there that this effect is not more pronounced than it was in the past?

The viability of your claim that petty crimes are less likely to be reported now than they were in the past depends on you producing evidence to support it. You haven't offered this, or even a hypothesis to explain why you think it might be true.

Again, I'm not debating that petty crimes are under-reported, but whether this phenomenon of under-reporting has increased over the past few decades to the point that police statistics are now "completely unreliable," as you put it. On a personal level, 20 years ago, I had something stolen from me in SF. I didn't report it, but I'd be just as likely not to report a similar theft now- no more, no less. What changed for Walgreens?

I think a much more reasonable explanation for the perceived surge in crime in the face of police data indicating the opposite is 1) Walgreens was one of the few retailers that remained open during the pandemic, thus raising their risk profile, and 2) there's a self-reinforcing effect of viral videos showing people getting away with brazen shoplifting at Walgreens.