You mean that Target wasn’t closing stores because of theft after all?! I’m shocked.
That was just the coverup so they didn’t get backlash from laying everyone off after another round of C-Suite bonuses.
They probably closed the stores trying to unionize.
You don’t understand what it’s like for them. They don’t like sacking people for bonuses but they just can’t come up with any other ways to increase profit. What are they supposed to do? Get creative? Build a strong respectful work culture? Not take a bonus? You see. It’s not as easy as you think. Timmy can miss out on his toy train this Christmas. Besides, it’s just business
When little Timmy got a train
"twas put beneath a tree
Christmas day had fin’lly come,
Such fun for all to seeThe poor were done, they knew no fun All stolen by some jerk(s)
Their patience done, their time had come
And quickly went to workTimmy’s dad had been quite bad
He stole, and cheated and lied
When they burned the system down,
Little Timmy fucking died.Added context: “Little Timmy” is 35, has a cushy VP job in his dad’s company, and is lined up to be the next ceo. It was his suggestion to cut 50,000 jobs so he could collect a finders fee for “finding” unnecessary expenses.
This is the content I miss from Reddit
Timmy doesn’t need an entire full sized private “toy” train. Just get him some Lego ;)
I’ll give Target a bit of lee at here because they were only there first to admit they were wrong, they also shared a bunch of data about how their shrink calculation methodology, which much of the retail sector shares, is flawed.
I have worked for target. Their logistics methodology is incredibly on point. They are highly invested in getting things right, if no other reason, for the sake of their own profitability.So as there are being open, they have some credibility here, I would say, especially given that others here are so closed. This interest certainly serves their profit motive as much as it services our our motive.  There is, at least, for now, no reason to distress them.
Let’s practice this together, folks. “Corporations never put their employees or customers ahead of profits.”
If you believed them at their word, you’d be wrong.
Target: logistics methodology…
laughs in Canadian
No they don’t.
laughs in Canadian
eh eh eh
Canadian logistics sucks in general because Canada is one of the worst places, in terms of how population is scattered, to deliver any goods to.
As a result, Canadian drivers often get US transport authority so they can make more money, but American drivers will rarely get Canadian authority.
No, not really. 2/3rds of the population lives along the Great Lakes and the St Lawrence River. The only out of the way centers are Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. But goods coming from Asia are going through those anyways.
Target executives were explicitly told by HBC executives that their logistics weren’t up to par, before the company moved up here.
I have friends who worked for Target here who described their logistics as a bad joke. And they work for the government now in logistics.I worked in logistics for years and ran a decent amount of international (both from ports and into Canada). I’m commenting about why Canadian logistics, not Target specifically, is tougher than it otherwise would be
I’ll take your word on things regarding Target specifically for sure, because it isn’t my forte. Looking at your post, the Canadian gov probably knew their infrastructure wasn’t up to the different challenge from the jump.
HBC is Hudson’s Bay Company. Not the government.
Target has for the last 15 years or so owned a controlling share of the company hence the high degree of cooperation.
Ahhh makes sense. Also makes sense how they’d understand the realities of logistics there to a much greater degree than Target. Here’s hoping their influence helps.
A couple of regions aren’t enough to make it worthwhile, at least according to an article I read recently.
From the link:
- Economies of scale. Canada has a population of 39 million spread across a very large geographic area. Compared to other G-7 countries, retailers don’t benefit from economies of scale in Canada unless they operate across the entire country. A regional operator in the northeast U.S., for example, has a potential market of more than 125 million, while a regional operator in Canada is lucky to have a potential market of 15 million.
Probably doesn’t help though
Theft clearly doesn’t affect their overall profits considering how many chains have had record profits.
Looking at you Walmart
Of course it affects it.
Not meaningfully
Depends where you set the bar. Does it make it more likely that certain locations are closed? Probably.
Yeah but they’re only closing because they’re not bringing in maximum profits.
They’re still making profits they’re just butthurt they’re not making more and that was my original point.
If you can lose $3b in theft and still make record billions then no, theft does not affect you at all.
With all that said though if the store is legitimately being robbed to the point of affecting profits that much then yeah go ahead and close. But the companies that claim theft as the reason for closing stores are bullshitting you.
If you can lose $3b in theft and still make record billions then no, theft does not affect you at all.
But it does. You are using “at all” wrong lol.
Let me guess. The stores they closed tried to unionize, so they made up some shit about shoplifting.
This, with a generous side of pushing right wing narratives about urban crime panic because they think it will help Republicans win.
And yet this was all done by the “national Retain Federation”.
Literally complain, yell, cry, and fire people because of unions and yet they are in a corporate Union themselves.
Unions work.
I thought it was just because real estate is expensive af now
I’m not going to trust “boingboing.net”, but that’s just me
Holy shit, boingboing.net?
That’s a site I haven’t heard of in a long time.
It was one of the first websites I remember regularly visiting in the 90s, and looks like they haven’t changed much since.
That’s cool.
Been hanging in there, all the way from when they were in print in the late 80’s. https://i.imgur.com/4yMYB1u.png
If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.
I don’t know why they post the boingboing piece when it links to a much better Reuter’s article.
The only meaningful theft, by the numbers, is wage theft.
ITT: People who haven’t been on the internet long enough to know what BoingBoing is.
I’m old.
If you know what BoingBoing is, your knees probably crackle when you squat and stand.
Yup. I also groan when I sit down. You just had to call me out, didn’t you?
At least a decade old and still has a better reading experience than that “paid” news sites.
It really went downhill when Doctorow left
I feel seen
I wonder how Slashdot is doing…
Looks like it’s still going strong, but each article has like 15 comments. And the poll has a CowboyNeal option…
3 digit UID here, I still visit daily but rarely comment
I have a 5 digit UID, and I just checked that I can still log in. Looks like my most recent comment was in November of 2015, which is a lot later than I would have guessed.
I visited a few times right after the reddit blowup, while checking out other options for this sort of thing. I might have to go back more.
Oh wow, forgot about Slashdot…
Fark, Slashdot, and BoingBoing were pretty much my daily go-to in the pre-Digg/reddit internet
I skipped the Digg era. I didn’t join reddit until probably 2015, after I kept coming across extremely useful information there that wasn’t available elsewhere. I think it was the advice on what to do with asbestos that finally tipped it over for me.
I was an early reddit adopter. I preferred its hyper minimalist style, as well as the type of conversations I saw, to Digg at the time. Well before the whole Digg 2.0 debacle.
Remember when Cracked was good?
Fuck Auntiememe
If you liked that and aren’t aware of Some More News channel on YouTube, then… well you’re welcome I guess?
I’m tired, boss.
It’s one of those new upstart weblogs right
I remember getting something I did linked to on BoingBoing back in the day and I felt like I was famous for a little while.
Yeah I think i was visiting Boing Boing on the regular a couple decades ago or nearly so.
I was just thinking about 1up the other day
This turning out to be true is unsurprising, but if it were, follow it to its logical conclusion and you would see large retailers lobbying the government to increase wages. Like, we live in a fucking police state, the problem is not that we’re suddenly an outlaw country, the problem is that people don’t make enough money or have enough safety nets to live. It’s the same with all of the “Americans feel bad about the economy even though the dow is up, why?” Well, because we can’t afford housing and groceries. Simple fucking problem.
Those stock indexes only show how the top corporations are doing. A company gets removed from the index if it performs poorly and is replaced by another company that has increasing stock price. The markets as it is displayed in media only show how corporations are doing. So basically the ruling class is selling economic performance to everyone else to keep people in line and their heads securely on their bodies.
I was looking at Bidens approval rating compared to other presidents on 538 and it’s crazy seeing the last time this really was so bad, aside from Trump, was the Great Depression…which says alot about the disconnect today spouting Dow successes but normal people struggling to stay afloat.
They’re all insured for these kinds of losses anyway (I used to work in big box retail operations).
deleted by creator
And that’s a totally simplistic view of what I said. Overall, big box does well to keep theft down as to avoid paying. It’s all a big game.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Insurance isn’t going to cost less than what they’re losing. It just smooths out the losses and avoids any surprises.
They’re self insured for this… and it’s priced into the products they sell.
What do you suppose “self insured” means?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for sticking it to big corporations, but we could just be honest about what we’re saying: I don’t care if shoplifting costs retailers money.
You’re 100% right on the second point, though, they anticipate some amount of shrinkage when setting prices.
deleted by creator
they’re not paying premiums. there is no “insurance policy” to pay premiums. when a company self insures itself, what that means, is, they keep some capital on hand (or readily availible,) so that they can weather a problem.
because they price the loss into the merchandise they sell, if they expect x% of the pallet to be stolen, and the reality is a bit higher, they dip into that fund to buy the next pallet, which, they then price at y% loss, and a bit more to compensate for the extra they lost on the first pallet. Maybe this time it was a bit low. so they go back to x% on the third.
the costs are passed directly onto consumers with no insurance company meddling. because that would just be inefficient. they might have a clause in a policy against mass-loss if, for example, the entire store gets looted in a mass-theft or if the store somehow goes up in smoke or hit with a hurricane. but as a matter of normal operations, they’re not claiming insurance on every bit of lost product regardless the reason.
deleted by creator
it’s a bit more insidious this way. The insurance company would demand some pretty common sense resolutions, like putting valuable things (PS5’s, laptops, Ipads, cell phones, etc) In lockup and not on the sales floor. Sure, they could pass the cost of these changes on to the customers, but, like, the jewelry counter and those glass cabinets they keep things in… smash and grab central.
deleted by creator
Don’t worry, people will completely ignore the retraction and continue to blame their fellow poor people (just not themselves) for the outrageous behavior of our corporations.
Does this qualify as a news article?
It’s a parody website, I’m a bit surprised it isn’t marked as such as people seem to think otherwise
deleted by creator
They are talking about organized retail theft. Individuals stealing still could make up a large amount of loss. Article doesn’t seem clear to me on that point.
Stores have insurance to protect them against theft.
Having insurance isn’t a free money glitch. Insurance companies wouldn’t be able to operate if the insurance didn’t cost more than the claim payouts.
And the more they use the coverage, the more it costs.
Have you ever filed claims against your home or auto insurance? Even when it was fully in policy and not your fault, your rates likely spiked.
That type of knee jerk conjecture is really weak. The data collected on shrinkage, as noted in the linked Reuter’s article, is noisy. You can’t differentiate lose due to theft or shipping mistakes or cliericsl error.
More importantly, and not mentioned directly in the boingboing article, was the cited number of rising organized theft was based upon an analyst from a security firm. The report was created in partnership with that firm. With the recent redaction, there is no mention of that firm.
