No, you are naive. Yes, grocery stores do calculate losses into their budget and thus are able to absorb a certain amount, but you know who pays for it? Everyone who doesn’t shoplift, by paying more than they’d need to so the store can afford the insurance policy. No store can absorb unlimited losses, they’ll simply close up shop if they can’t turn a profit, and then your neighborhood will turn into a food desert.
Cool strawman. Obviously unlimited losses would ruin anyone but that is impossible and most stores operate well within their expected loss margins, so markups are arbitrary or caused by inflation. Backing up a bit, you are again blaming the more vulnerable group in this. Be mad at the CEOs and politicians that keep people poor, not the poor people trying to survive. Crime drops in direct proportion to drops in poverty
Also, you keep repeating corporate propaganda. It is more common for these companies to use shoplifting as an excuse to close stores that they already intended to close rather than closing them because shoplifting was actually a problem.
That is the most bad faith interpretation of what i said. When i said it was impossible i meant that in reality the vast majority of people will not steal, not that everyone should steal all the time because there will never be consequences. And i am not saying that stealing is morally good in all cases. I am saying that large corporations, their executives and the politicians they fund keep people in poverty so they can become ultra wealthy from the record profits these companies make (weird they can make record profits while everyone is apparently stealing so much stuff from them), so yeah, if a poor person steals from one of these companies to get medicine they need or food they can’t afford, i think they should and that we should not condemn them for it. I would rather a company lose a buck than someone go hungry. And even if it was true that it was happening at a scale where they had to increase prices, i would gladly pay that if it meant my neighbor could eat without being arrested. These companies are not struggling and theft of this nature does not happen on a scale to warrant any of their current interventions including increasing prices.
I find it interesting that you refuse to engage with my actual core argument and instead have opted for picking at random sentences. Engage with this: the systems that cause and deepen poverty are the problem, not the poor people tryong to survive. These systems are perpetuated by large corporations and the ultra wealthy, they are the ones you should be angry with. You are closer to the person stealing to survive than you are any billionaire.
No, you are naive. Yes, grocery stores do calculate losses into their budget and thus are able to absorb a certain amount, but you know who pays for it? Everyone who doesn’t shoplift, by paying more than they’d need to so the store can afford the insurance policy. No store can absorb unlimited losses, they’ll simply close up shop if they can’t turn a profit, and then your neighborhood will turn into a food desert.
Cool strawman. Obviously unlimited losses would ruin anyone but that is impossible and most stores operate well within their expected loss margins, so markups are arbitrary or caused by inflation. Backing up a bit, you are again blaming the more vulnerable group in this. Be mad at the CEOs and politicians that keep people poor, not the poor people trying to survive. Crime drops in direct proportion to drops in poverty
Also, you keep repeating corporate propaganda. It is more common for these companies to use shoplifting as an excuse to close stores that they already intended to close rather than closing them because shoplifting was actually a problem.
Okay, so if unlimited losses are impossible, everyone should just steal, right?
That is the most bad faith interpretation of what i said. When i said it was impossible i meant that in reality the vast majority of people will not steal, not that everyone should steal all the time because there will never be consequences. And i am not saying that stealing is morally good in all cases. I am saying that large corporations, their executives and the politicians they fund keep people in poverty so they can become ultra wealthy from the record profits these companies make (weird they can make record profits while everyone is apparently stealing so much stuff from them), so yeah, if a poor person steals from one of these companies to get medicine they need or food they can’t afford, i think they should and that we should not condemn them for it. I would rather a company lose a buck than someone go hungry. And even if it was true that it was happening at a scale where they had to increase prices, i would gladly pay that if it meant my neighbor could eat without being arrested. These companies are not struggling and theft of this nature does not happen on a scale to warrant any of their current interventions including increasing prices.
I find it interesting that you refuse to engage with my actual core argument and instead have opted for picking at random sentences. Engage with this: the systems that cause and deepen poverty are the problem, not the poor people tryong to survive. These systems are perpetuated by large corporations and the ultra wealthy, they are the ones you should be angry with. You are closer to the person stealing to survive than you are any billionaire.
Okay, in which cases would you say that stealing is morally good?
Please be as precise as possible. This is very important.