Store owners in certain "low crime" areas are taking up the serious cost of locking merchandise because they think the problem is really that bad. Maybe they're wrong, but I trust the money more than the public stats.

▲

jnovek 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Businesses do make irrational decisions with their money, that’s a big part of why enterprise sales works.

	▲	traderj0e 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Even in those cases, they aren't wildly off the mark, at least the ones that survive. Maybe they spend a little extra on some overpriced enterprise solution, but it at least works. Locking up items is a big decision, cause it not only costs money but also discourages customers.

▲

chaps 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Then you might be surprised to know that a lot of those numbers were exaggerated. If you're trusting people to tell you accurate things based on numbers that they won't share.... you're gonna have a bad time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/business/organized-shopli...

▲

scythe 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This also distorts the shoplifting statistics. If two stores have equal rates of shoplifting but one has boxes and the other doesn't, they are not at equal risk. The one with boxes is at more risk. Flat shoplifting rates while boxes proliferate mean things got worse. (You can argue that boxes do nothing, but you would need strong evidence, cf parachutes.)

The number of shoplifting incidents is also a weak metric. Most shoplifting is not of serious economic concern. The problem is with repeat offenders and those doing it for profit. The value of merchandise lost is a much better metric but stores may be reluctant to share this due to concerns about insurance rates and public perception.

Crime statistics are very hard. And state capacity is declining, sadly. We can't expect bloggers to pick up the slack.