1. It’s absolutely bizarre that the article starts by talking about how “we used to” have self-service stores, when actually historically the opposite predated that, where in the early part of the century you gave your grocery list to a clerk, and they got it for you from behind the counter. Self-service shelves are the newer invention than asking a clerk for a product. Additionally, a big difference is that now we have far more options to buy items than just giving your list to a clerk - there are usually multiple delivery options, pick up options, and usually self-service (unlocked shelves) options. Back when most consumers did not have most of the current options, were we not "able to buy things in this country"?
2. The article takes great pains to point out how consumer theft is only one kind of shrinkage, but then acts like locking up items could only help consumer theft, and not things like consumers damaging stocked products, nor employee thefts now being more obvious if employees can no longer blame missing items on consumer theft or consumers damaging products.
3. As the article points out, the stores knew from the outset that requiring an item to be unlocked would negatively impact sales - if businesses thought that was worth trying, let them do so.
4. The article blames some of this on propaganda but doesn’t explain the motivation for why companies would knowingly lower their sales in order to push a right-wing talking point - does the author believe that companies/investors care more about talking points than things like revenue and profit? Companies frequently try different things. Sometimes they will end up being beneficial, sometimes not.
5. The charts are just screenshots from another website, still with things like a portion of the word "Percent" highlighted in yellow where the author had searched for the word before screenshotting it.
6. The fact that they're screenshots from another site also means that clicking the "Get the data" "hyperlinks" in the screenshots don't actually allow you to get the data. Which is a bit more painful, as the charts have no grid line for example, between 1% and 2%, so I'd guess that pre-2019 the shrinking rate was about 1.3%, and after that it was perhaps 1.6%, which would be about a 25% increase, but it's more difficult to gauge with both no sub grid lines and the "Get the data" links not working.
no-name-here•36m ago
2. The article takes great pains to point out how consumer theft is only one kind of shrinkage, but then acts like locking up items could only help consumer theft, and not things like consumers damaging stocked products, nor employee thefts now being more obvious if employees can no longer blame missing items on consumer theft or consumers damaging products.
3. As the article points out, the stores knew from the outset that requiring an item to be unlocked would negatively impact sales - if businesses thought that was worth trying, let them do so.
4. The article blames some of this on propaganda but doesn’t explain the motivation for why companies would knowingly lower their sales in order to push a right-wing talking point - does the author believe that companies/investors care more about talking points than things like revenue and profit? Companies frequently try different things. Sometimes they will end up being beneficial, sometimes not.
5. The charts are just screenshots from another website, still with things like a portion of the word "Percent" highlighted in yellow where the author had searched for the word before screenshotting it.
6. The fact that they're screenshots from another site also means that clicking the "Get the data" "hyperlinks" in the screenshots don't actually allow you to get the data. Which is a bit more painful, as the charts have no grid line for example, between 1% and 2%, so I'd guess that pre-2019 the shrinking rate was about 1.3%, and after that it was perhaps 1.6%, which would be about a 25% increase, but it's more difficult to gauge with both no sub grid lines and the "Get the data" links not working.