[wat0n]

How so?

Do you really not get it?

[Pants-of-dog]

Do you really not get it?

Please spell it out for me clearly. Thanks.

[Patrickov]

Please spell it out for me clearly. Thanks.

Maybe you should just say it straight that, in your perception, he is talking unintelligible bullshit, or whatever you get from his post is against your belief.

[wat0n]

Please spell it out for me clearly. Thanks.

Sure.

If a retailers' association, which does not have an incentive to overstate the industry's losses (since it would negatively affect its stock value, leading to far greater losses than whatever funding California may provide to the security of retailers there), estimates losses ~$35 billion due to larceny yet the FBI itself reports ~$5 billion then the latter is facing undercoverage.

This becomes even more apparent when, on top of victims being under no obligation to report theft to local police, the police departments themselves are under no obligation to provide their data to the FBI.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure.

If a retailers' association, which does not have an incentive to overstate the industry's losses

This has already been contradicted with evidence in this thread. We literally observed them overstating the industry losses.

We also observed in this thread the exact incentives and how they successfully accomplished them wth iver-reporting.

(since it would negatively affect its stock value, leading to far greater losses than whatever funding California may provide to the security of retailers there), estimates losses ~$35 billion due to larceny yet the FBI itself reports ~$5 billion then the latter is facing undercoverage.

So you are assuming, without evidence and even in contradiction to the evidence, that the discrepancy is die to under-reporting by retailers when you have already established that other under-reporting by cops is happening.

This becomes even more apparent when, on top of victims being under no obligation to report theft to local police, the police departments themselves are under no obligation to provide their data to the FBI.

Yes, that is the other, more logical reason for the discrepancy.

And I notice that you have abandoned your threshold argument.

[wat0n]

This has already been contradicted with evidence in this thread. We literally observed them overstating the industry losses.

We also observed in this thread the exact incentives and how they successfully accomplished them wth iver-reporting.

No, we didn't. I am even quoting from the report your article considers to be true.

So you are assuming, without evidence and even in contradiction to the evidence, that the discrepancy is die to under-reporting by retailers when you have already established that other under-reporting by cops is happening.

Both are happening.

The former are underreporting to the cops, latter are in turn underreporting to the FBI.

Yes, that is the other, more logical reason for the discrepancy.

And I notice that you have abandoned your threshold argument.

The threshold argument is still applicable.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, we didn't. I am even quoting from the report your article considers to be true.

The fact that you quoted from some other source does not eradicate what other sources said and how they also explain the discrepancy.

Both are happening.

The former are underreporting to the cops, latter are in turn underreporting to the FBI.

You have only shown evidence of the latter.

The threshold argument is still applicable.

Do you agree that changing the felony threshold had little to no effect on shoplifting rates in California? Yes or no?

[wat0n]

The fact that you quoted from some other source does not eradicate what other sources said and how they also explain the discrepancy.

Don't be dishonest. The LA Times uses the NRF as its reference, which is what I've cited here.

You have only shown evidence of the latter.

Maybe you could do it. You could provide evidence that all larceny is being reported to police.

Do you agree that changing the felony threshold had little to no effect on shoplifting rates in California? Yes or no?

No, I don't. Not when considering unreported thefts.

[Pants-of-dog]

Don't be dishonest. The LA Times uses the NRF as its reference, which is what I've cited here.

Since you are again being rude, I will ignore this until you rephrase your rebuttal politely.

Maybe you could do it. You could provide evidence that all larceny is being reported to police.

Please see the aforementioned article in the LA Times that shows over-reporting, as well as the article on Newsom and his reward of billions of taxpayer dollars that he gave to retailers for their efforts.

No, I don't. Not when considering unreported thefts.

Yes, the unreported thefts that you have no evidence for save one discrepancy that is more easily explained by other factors. And please note that you have not provided any evidence supporting the claim that the discrepancy is due to under-reporting.

[wat0n]

Since you are again being rude, I will ignore this until you rephrase your rebuttal politely.

I'm being quite politely pointing your dishonesty out.

Please see the aforementioned article in the LA Times that shows over-reporting, as well as the article on Newsom and his reward of billions of taxpayer dollars that he gave to retailers for their efforts.

And, again, it's relative to the RFI's data.

Yes, the unreported thefts that you have no evidence for save one discrepancy that is more easily explained by other factors. And please note that you have not provided any evidence supporting the claim that the discrepancy is due to under-reporting.

Except for the fact that the reported losses to the FBI are far below those reported by the RFI. That alone should raise some eyebrows.

Of course, if you actually do have evidence suggesting otherwise, please share it.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm being quite politely pointing your dishonesty out.

And, again, it's relative to the RFI's data.

Except for the fact that the reported losses to the FBI are far below those reported by the RFI. That alone should raise some eyebrows.

….if it was not already explained by other factors that we have evidence for.

And you have no evidence for your under-reporting claim.

Of course, if you actually do have evidence suggesting otherwise, please share it.

Since you asked nicely:

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-a ... thresholds

The Effects of Changing Felony Theft Thresholds

More evidence that higher values have not led to increased property crime or larceny rates

Overview
Since 2000, at least 37 states have raised their felony theft thresholds, or the value of stolen money or goods above which prosecutors may charge theft offenses as felonies, rather than misdemeanors.1 Felony offenses typically carry a penalty of at least a year in state prison, while misdemeanors generally result in probation or less than a year in a locally run jail. Lawmakers have made these changes to prioritize costly prison space for more serious offenders and ensure that value-based penalties take inflation into account. A felony theft threshold of $1,000 established in 1985, for example, is equivalent to more than twice that much in 2015 dollars.2

Critics have warned that these higher cutoff points might embolden offenders and cause property crime, particularly larceny, to rise.3 To determine whether their concerns have proved to be true, The Pew Charitable Trusts examined crime trends in the 30 states that raised their felony theft thresholds between 2000 and 2012, a period that allows analysis of each jurisdiction from three years before to three years after the policy change. Pew also compared trends in states that raised their thresholds during this period with those that did not.

This chartbook, which updates and reinforces an analysis published in 2016, illustrates three important conclusions:


-Raising the felony theft threshold has no impact on overall property crime or larceny rates.
-States that increased their thresholds reported roughly the same average decrease in crime as the 20 states that did not change their theft laws.
-The amount of a state’s felony theft threshold—whether it is $500, $1,000, $2,000, or more—is not correlated with its property crime and larceny rates.

[wat0n]

….if it was not already explained by other factors that we have evidence for.

And you have no evidence for your under-reporting claim.

Only if you continue to dishonestly deny the data.

Since you asked nicely:

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-a ... thresholds

The Effects of Changing Felony Theft Thresholds

More evidence that higher values have not led to increased property crime or larceny rates

Overview
Since 2000, at least 37 states have raised their felony theft thresholds, or the value of stolen money or goods above which prosecutors may charge theft offenses as felonies, rather than misdemeanors.1 Felony offenses typically carry a penalty of at least a year in state prison, while misdemeanors generally result in probation or less than a year in a locally run jail. Lawmakers have made these changes to prioritize costly prison space for more serious offenders and ensure that value-based penalties take inflation into account. A felony theft threshold of $1,000 established in 1985, for example, is equivalent to more than twice that much in 2015 dollars.2

Critics have warned that these higher cutoff points might embolden offenders and cause property crime, particularly larceny, to rise.3 To determine whether their concerns have proved to be true, The Pew Charitable Trusts examined crime trends in the 30 states that raised their felony theft thresholds between 2000 and 2012, a period that allows analysis of each jurisdiction from three years before to three years after the policy change. Pew also compared trends in states that raised their thresholds during this period with those that did not.

This chartbook, which updates and reinforces an analysis published in 2016, illustrates three important conclusions:


-Raising the felony theft threshold has no impact on overall property crime or larceny rates.
-States that increased their thresholds reported roughly the same average decrease in crime as the 20 states that did not change their theft laws.
-The amount of a state’s felony theft threshold—whether it is $500, $1,000, $2,000, or more—is not correlated with its property crime and larceny rates.

Those crime rates also come from the UCR, and therefore suffer from the same issues.

So, how do you explain retailers themselves are reporting otherwise?

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

I feel that you are no longer attempting to engage in respectful debate.

Have a pleasant evening.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog I take it you have no more ways to back your claims up.

By the way, it's good you acknowledged a greater chance of detection does indeed deter crime. I recall you were denying that some months ago, when you were advocating for defunding the cops.

[Pants-of-dog]

So, to summarize:

There is no detected rise in shoplifting.

The retailers have been shown to over-report numbers.

This has resulted in billions of taxpayer dollars being given to retailers in the form of additional security and retrieval of stolen items all by police.

And the evidence shows that changing felony thresholds has no impact on larceny rates.

[wat0n]

Allow me to provide a better summary:

- Experimental evidence suggests both monitoring and penalties deter theft
- Theft reported by retailers suggest FBI data suffers from undercoverage so it's unclear it is to be relied on to make causal claims and @Pants-of-dog is unable to prove otherwise
- Retailers report theft has increased more in jurisdictions where thresholds were raised, in line with the experimental evidence
- @Pants-of-dog tacitly accepts policing deters crime

[wat0n]

So it turns out Walmart is leaving Portland, alleging that it's partly because of shoplifting

https://news.yahoo.com/walmart-set-clos ... 23875.html

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/20 ... 014252002/

A Walgreens executive said Thursday that the drugstore chain may have overplayed concerns about shoplifting at its stores in 2022.

“Maybe we cried too much last year,” Walgreens' global Chief Financial Officer James Kehoe told investors on an earnings call. Walgreens and other retailers have sounded the alarm in recent years about the threat of organized shoplifting to their bottom lines as viral videos of brazen shoplifting raids have swept the internet.

Walgreens in 2021 said it shuttered five San Francisco stores, citing disputed claims about an uptick in theft.

A year ago, Kehoe told investors the company in 2020 and 2021 experienced a 52% increase in shrink – an industry term that refers to lost inventory, either by mismanagement or theft – compared to pre-2020 levels, attributing it to “organized crime.”

It's not somebody who can't afford to eat tomorrow,” Kehoe said in a Jan. 2022 conference call. “These are gangs that actually go in and empty our stores of beauty products,” adding that the issue was felt across the retail industry.

Noncompete agreements:FTC files first suits to stop companies from making workers sign noncompete restrictions

But shrink at Walgreens recently has come down to 2.5-2.6% of sales from 3.5% in 2022, according to Kehoe, who said Thursday he was “quite happy” with current shrink levels.

Kehoe said Walgreens would consider rolling back investments it made to beef up its stores’ private security, which he called “largely ineffective.” It would instead look to further partner with law enforcement, he said.

Even as retailers tout a shoplifting crisis that threatens business, shrink has remained largely unchanged industry-wide in the last five years, according to the National Retail Federation.

[wat0n]

Why didn't you quote the full news piece?

Here's the remainder you left out:

The median retail shrink percentage was 1.2% in 2021, the same as in 2016, according to the NRF’s 2022 retail security survey.

Still, 70.7% of retailers in the survey said stopping theft, including organized retail crime, had become more of a priority in the last five years. The survey found that shoplifting accounted for 37% of shrink in 2021, and retailers reported a 26.5% increase in “organized retail crime incidents.”

Overall, shrink accounted for a $94.5 billion loss industry-wide in 2021, according to the report.

While Walgreens signaled its retail theft concerns might be allayed, other big name stores have continued to portray shoplifting as a major existential threat.

During an interview with CNBC last month. Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said theft was “higher than it has historically been,” and “prices would be higher and/or stores will close.”

Rite Aid said it lost $5 million more from shrink in September than it did in the same period a year earlier, and weighed putting all items behind showcases or reducing store operations in some communities to offer pharmacy services only.

Target similarly reported a $400 million loss due to shrinkage in November.

Big name retailers had lobbied Congress to pass the INFORM Act, which aims to combat retail crime by requiring verification of high-volume online sellers who may offer stolen goods. President Joe Bidensigned the bill into law last month as part of a larger government funding bill.

[Pants-of-dog]

Funny how the whole problem just faded away.

Like a mirage.