Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ajay-p | Hacker News Reader

I am sympathetic to a person stealing food or clothing but not iPhones and consumer products, but theft appears unsustainable for retailers. What is the answer to this problem? Options are:

a. More prosecutions and stronger enforcement of existing laws;

b. Greater security within the store environment; or

c. Closing the stores in areas with high crime.

The last option would not be productive for the community. Option B has its limitations such as profiling, potential hostile encounters, and civil liability for America retailers. I do not know what it was like for shoplifters a decade ago but one person has told me it was more stringent. Shoplifters were prosecuted and punished, therefore it is possible that the only solution is greater enforcement of the law, and aggressive prosecutions.

View on HN

Don't take this as me defending the shoplifters, but I don't think the smash-and-grab iphone thieves are doing it because they want dozens of phones. They are fencing them and use the money, which can buy food (and of course anything else).

This matches my brief experience. When I worked at a Lowe's store, which was a big target for serial shoplifters, the security staff said the process usually went like this:

1. Steal a small but expensive item, usually by hiding it in another item's box (return the big one later for a refund).

2. Return the stolen item at a different Lowe's, or even Home Depot. Without a receipt, you'll get a gift card with the item's value.

3. Sell the gift card at a discount, either online or to somebody in the parking lot.

I don't remember any problems with people stealing the basic things every good toolset should have, like hammers or drills. It was a lot of drill bits and attachments.

Mostly drugs and alcohol. There is huge overlap between shoplifting and substance abuse.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4104590/

> They are fencing them and use the money, which can buy meth and fentanyl

FTFY

> They are fencing them and use the money, which can pay rent

FTFY

Even with option B, the cost for that security could rise to the point where it doesn't make sense to keep the store open, and it turns into option C. A and B would really need to work together.

I've seen a non-trivial number of people online who work in retail say they are looking the other way on shoplifting, and others should do, because people are in need. However, this is short sighted. When all the stores close, there are no more places to shoplift from, the jobs go away, and even the people who did pay lose their options for buying goods. It's bad all the way around.

Maybe local governments can work with retailers and the community to setup local food banks, and shops for donated food, clothing, etc to give people an alternative to theft.

You are missing option d), raise the standard of living so that no one lives in poverty, and no one feels that stealing is the best way to get what they want.

We have the highest standard of living in the world. There will always be thieves. Even in a post-scarcity utopia there will be thieves.

By what measure? Every standard of living / quality of life measurement I look at doesn't put the United States even near the top 10.

You're right after all it's not like there are people all over the world risking their lives for the shot to come to the US. The US is a late stage capitalist hell hole that no one really wants to live in and is worse than every where else in the world (by which we mean a few handpicked countries in Western Europe that have much smaller population and borders).

Asking for some form of proof isn't accusing the US of being a hell hole, and I can't help but feel that a people that actually felt confident in their standard of living supremacy wouldn't be so touchy about it. Belligerence isn't an argument, and "People wants to be there" is only proof of good PR.

Speaking as a foreigner, it seems to me that this whole "USA #1" mentality is keeping a lot of people from reflecting on the reality of their situation and from being willing to try and make things better, as is evidenced by the person I was responding to - to paraphrase a bit their take seems to be "we're the best so we can't possibly fix the problem". That argument doesn't really make sense if you're actually not.

GP forgot to consider what life looks like outside of the “I have a Masters Degree in CS/Engineering” bubble.

The problem with the USA is that those "highest standards of living" are not well-distributed, and there is a lack of a safety net at the lower end. 13% of the population lives below the poverty line. 1 in 400 people has to live on less than $2.15 a day.

I completely agree that there will still be thieves in a post-scarcity utopia, but those will basically just be bored housewives looking for a thrill. We should definitely work on reducing the number of people who resort to stealing in order to survive, though.

No offense. But you clearly have not seen the abject poverty millions upon millions of people are living in. Here. In America.

Maybe he skipped that since eliminating poverty is an impossible solution.

UBI

That gives them money, but doesn't fulfill the requirements he set forth.

The requirements of “nobody lives in poverty” or the requirement of “no one feels that stealing is the best way to get what they want”

Because ubi would 100% eradicate poverty as we currently define it: making under a certain income level. Would it improve living situations or get rid of stealing as a “best way to get what you want”? Idk - but it seems clear it’d work better than what we’re currently doing (systematically impoverishing millions because otherwise nobody would get to own a superyacht)

I did not consider poverty elimination as an option, but thinking about it now, I don't think eliminating poverty is feasible, nor a short term solution to a serious quality of life issue. It is also questionable, given other comments, that this is a poverty issue. I recognize some may steal to feed themselves, or to sell to gain money to purchase life sustaining goods, but I do not believe that is something we can know for sure.

Duuhh it was so obvious the whole time, why don't we just fix poverty. It's so simple.

I mean it's not like there are dozens of confounding factors that make it a complicated problem like mental health issues, disabilities, immigration, substance abuse, or a dozen other things.

No it's probably all just the evil capitalist class, if we just got rid of them then everyone would be equal and joy and peace would exist forever just like in the Soviet Union known as a bastion of joy and freedom and peace, and they had practically no crime to boot. Was it because of a totalitarian police state that banished people to die in the frozens wastes of Siberia for life? No it was because the capitalists were gone that's clearly the solution.

I think enforcing the laws will do it. Prosecution of shoplifting seem to be down, and police and resources have been diverted to other crimes. It’s created a self-fulfilling cycle of unpunished stealing.

We know that most shoplifting is committed by a small group[0], so we don't need to profile anybody, we can just ban people when they are convicted of their second theft (so as to avoid youngsters being stupid).

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/15/nyregion/shoplifting-arre...

> I am sympathetic to a person stealing food or clothing but not iPhones and consumer products

I understand minimizing consequences for people in difficult situations. But in those cases the government needs to reimburse the shop and provide services to help the theif get out of their difficult situation.

Simply turning a blind eye is not an act of sympathy. It's apathy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com