What in the hell did you expect...

Didn’t Walmart get in a load of trouble when they started locking up the most commonly stolen items?

 

yep

"Tucson Walmart self-checkout shoppers cited and sent to court for mistakes"

https://www.kgun9.com/news/local-ne...shoppers-cited-and-sent-to-court-for-mistakes

"TUCSON, Ariz.(KGUN) — Imagine checking out at a store, only to discover you accidentally missed an item. It's an easy mistake to make, but for several people KGUN 9 spoke with, their mistake cost them a ticket and a hit on their record."

 

No it is not that they do not prosecute shoplifting under $1,000 ( unless you're in kim Fox's Chicago and probably places like Portland OR la )

It becomes a misdemeanor under $1,000.
It is still a prosecutable offense and often is in most of the country except for areas ran by soft on crime da's who don't think prosecuting misdemeanors should be a priority.

I guarantee you if I go to Walmart and try to steal something worth 50 bucks and get caught, in addition to going to jail I'm going to be prosecuted..... As I rightly should be.

But then again I live in a small town where there is some sanity left and things like theft are not ignored.

 

They were of course accused of racism when they started locking up the hair care products marketed to black people.

Although I am sure the reason they started locking them up is because they were frequently stolen.

 

That’s what happened.

as you know when you do inventory what’s missing becomes totally clear. When you locked up the most stolen things, it made some people really fussy. Obviously not the people paying for it.

 

Yes, but the customers were the ones complaining the most.

 

Maybe or maybe not. But given resources are limited, especially in Chicago because their tax base has decreased significantly, I can see why they choose through prosecutorial discretion not to do so. But given that shoplifting has been and will always be a major concern for any retailer, businesses do what they should. It is not the community specifically, or blacks, or the DA or anything else. It is quite literally a combination of things. And it would be interesting if Walmart has an internal analysis of which stores have the highest shoplifting incidents, but they won't release that type of data. But I bet it is there. And that data may or may not give weight to your argument if it is released.

But since you live in Florida, I can see that. Texas, not so much, and depends on where you live, who you are, well sort of, and who you know if you live in a rural area.

 

yes. There are many items behind lock and key. However, it was complaints about black hair care products that made the news. The most commonly stolen item. Thieves complaining about making it harder for them to steal.

 

And back to the 3 word answers that do nothing for the discussion, are unsupported, and pointless.

 

So those same people would be making more if they worked at McDonalds? Or Kroger? Since you choose to ignore the demographics of who earns 'just' MW and why they earn 'just' MW, then how about more educational programs that benefit that same group, which would increase their skillset, and actually make them worth more in the employment market? And, while we are that this, are you willing to pay more for goods and services, so you don't have to contribute to government run assistance programs?

 

I've heard people say this, though I don't know anyone who has done it.

I rarely use a self check out, I dislike them for the inevitable variations of 'incorrect scan please see attendant' that defeat the purpose.

 

This I agree with. Survival cost varies from place to place, so that would have to be taken into account , or people would have to be moved (which itself isn't cost free).

And yes, want and need isn't the same thing. UBI should be enough to live on, not enough for luxurious lifestyle.

 

Agreed, but how do you tell? How do you prove they can?

Hindsight is 20/20. That foolish choice may not have seemed so foolish at the time. And if they are desperate now and we don't help them, crime is far more likely to occur, including violent crime. And yes, some will resist that way out. Others won't, especially if there are no remaining alternatives.

 

They briefly tried locking items up here. It meant customerd had to find a worker, ask them to get the thing for them, etc. It was inconvenient and I think it lost a lot of sales, so they went back on this.

 

Tariffs on cheap foreign goods as Trump tried is another idea. So again is UBI.

 

Its not socialism. In a socialist system the government owns and operates means of production (no private businesses). Soup kitchens as social services, not socialism.

 

The bolded isn't socialism. It is communism.

 

No. Communism is the above + abolishment of private property (government owns your house, car, and everything else).

 

Bold by me.

Again, 'enough to live on' isn't the same for two people, even if they live next door to each other in identical apartments. One person is 130 pounds, generally healthy, and likes vegetables. The neighbor is 190 pounds, generally healthy, and believes diets high in protein is healthier.

Their COL is not the same. Let's add a bit more variables. One has a child, the other doesn't. One has a health condition, the other doesn't. One doesn't fit into a sub-compact car, the other does. The list goes on....

 

Some of those variables can be accounted for, but not all, true.

So make it what the higher cost person needs. Err on the side of the other person getting more than they need rather than somebody getting less than they need. Injustice over somebody getting more than they should doesn't equal injustice of somebody not getting enough that they need to survive.

 

Until the US rebuilds it's manufacturing infrastructure, tariffs on 'cheap foreign goods' is a bad move, and IMO Trump's tariff was a poor idea. The only thing that happens when we (US) aren't able to provide the supply by demand, people will buy the imported goods, pay more for them, and the government gets more money from the tariffs.

Matter of fact, us Yanks fought a war over tariffs...

 

They could use that tariff money to help the people while the economy adjusts and production ramps up domestically. How do you otherwise get production to ramp up domestically while allowing companies to exploit cheap labour overseas in a race to the bottom?

 

So without expanding into healthcare, if you were to 'subsidize' for the top tier, where does the incentive go to increase one's own value? The more one receives based on 'need' creates exactly what we deal with in regards to existing assistance programs. Current discussions in regards to Social Security not being needs based should be main stream, but it's not.

One thing that comes to mind, is basic, and I live it. My boss likes the office temperature near cryofreezing. I prefer to be to the warm side. Regardless of who is paying the bill, one costs more than the other. Which one should be part of the 'survival' line?

 

I think one aspect of this discussion is I don't believe the government is benevolent, has the citizens best interest in mind, nor will refrain from pork spending any extra funds sent it's way by coercion.

Ramping up domestic production can only happen when the environment is a positive to do so. Loans at reasonable rates, realistic and minimal regulations, and availability of supply for capital purchases. Yes, some of those capital purchases will happen from undesirable overseas suppliers until the US manufacturers can meet demand.

The other aspect is reducing the 'need' for consumption. The phrase I use is 'knowing the difference between need and want'. I may want that nice new car, I may be able to afford it, but I don't need it. The economic environment currently is all about spend spend spend, and the breaking point is nigh upon us.

 

Bold by me. So where does it stop?