Seriously though it's a pretty odd situation. Would I do something different if I were in control of Whole Foods? Absolutely. Can I hold this bizarre set of apparent standards against them? Maybe. If their tacit condoning of this behavior leads to increased criminal activity in the areas surrounding their stores, this could definitely be an issue. Barring that I've got no problem with continuing to see how it plays out.
Read the Gothamist article it links to. It's fucking appalling. The guy claims he is stealing food "to survive" but he's stealing fancy ass stuff from Whole Foods. The comments on the article are outraged and rightfully so.
This guy is an exception to the general question. This guy is choosing to live in NYC instead of moving somewhere cheaper and to steal food that's way more expensive than what most people eat. This guy is just a scumbag.
As to the general question, there are precious few places in the continental US where it is necessary to steal food. There are church and nonprofit food banks, soup kitchens, organizations like the Salvation Army and that's before we even consider welfare and food stamps. I lived for 4 months picking up change under drive-thru windows at night and using it to purchase cheap food at Shop N' Save or White Castles.
Understand, firstly, that these companies factor theft into their cost/profit equations. I worked at Speedway and it was clear that it would be a violation of company policy to stop a shoplifter. I was, however, supposed to fill out a lengthy report about it after it happened (which I never did, because a) I'm a bad employee and b) because really, fuck that.)
I think that there may be a perception that shoppers would be disturbed if they saw a dispute over shoplifting and that might have more of a negative impact over time than the loss suffered from the stolen goods.
I'm wondering if I should take this as a signal to just start stealing. The loss of goods is already factored into the price of the goods, and no one is going to stop me. The way it is set up currently makes the paying customer suffer the burden of the thief, so the incentive is to be the thief. The paying customer is apparently the sucker in this situation.
Comments 7
Reply
Reply
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64425827@N00/3195262056/
Reply
This guy is an exception to the general question. This guy is choosing to live in NYC instead of moving somewhere cheaper and to steal food that's way more expensive than what most people eat. This guy is just a scumbag.
As to the general question, there are precious few places in the continental US where it is necessary to steal food. There are church and nonprofit food banks, soup kitchens, organizations like the Salvation Army and that's before we even consider welfare and food stamps. I lived for 4 months picking up change under drive-thru windows at night and using it to purchase cheap food at Shop N' Save or White Castles.
Reply
I think that there may be a perception that shoppers would be disturbed if they saw a dispute over shoplifting and that might have more of a negative impact over time than the loss suffered from the stolen goods.
I'm wondering if I should take this as a signal to just start stealing. The loss of goods is already factored into the price of the goods, and no one is going to stop me. The way it is set up currently makes the paying customer suffer the burden of the thief, so the incentive is to be the thief. The paying customer is apparently the sucker in this situation.
Reply
Reply
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5066JY20090107?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
Reply
Leave a comment