Additionally, we here in the US seem to have all gone mad wrt shoplifting and smash and grabs, as well as porch pirates from the on-line retail, all creating significant loss for retailers. Recently, retailers have been battling unprecedented losses. Organized retail crime (ORC) is running rampant. A National Retail Security Survey (NRSS) shows that total shrink in 2021 reported by retailers is now almost a $100 billion problem.Shoplifting Has Become A $100 Billion Problem For Retailers
$100 BILLION! Anyone else think this bodes poorly for a decline in inflation, for investing in retail, as stores on and off line recoup their losses through higher prices? Just who sucks up the loss on those successfully delivered packages that then get swooped up by Porch Pirates? The homeowner? The delivery service or retailer? Home insurance not likely to have a deductible low enough.
Seems to me that retail, at least in the US, is in crisis.
The contribution to the increased cost of doing business is the growth in theft, not the total theft. If theft increased 10% last year, (don’t know the actual number) then the increase in cost is 0.15% of sales.
Why do you think that will stop retailers from hiking prices much higher? Heck, was at a Kroger looking at all the wrinkled disgusting produce that had been marked up 70%, and I asked the guy stocking shelves, (yes, futile I know as he is not a corporate decision maker,) if he thought the fact they had raised prices 70% was causing people not to buy and produce to wilt. He chose to blame the hike on gasoline prices, no doubt the corporate line they have been fed. No comment when I pointed out that gas prices were again sub $3/gallon, which meant that yellow squash should be back to $0.98/lb, not $1.69!
You can expect that 1.5% loss to be multiplied to a 10% increase in price.
I think this is a function of a more wide-spread issue - the tacit permission, promoted by the actions of some politicians, many now see in breaking the law. NYC operates on the unwritten “law” that pedestrians have the “right” to ignore traffic lights if there are no cars coming, but drivers of automobiles are expected to observe traffic lights (as well as the prohibition of right turns on red lights).
Recently, over the past few months, I have seen more drivers go through red traffic light, stop signs and whip around turns and so on than I have in the totality of my life. The only possible cause, other than complete abandonment of the rules which have prevailed for decades is that post-COVID traffic has been worse than pre-COVID because of a reduction in Subway riding coupled with significant enforcement of speeding by the deployment of thousands of cameras on main streets (which may be increasing thee subconscious frustration level of drivers).
Human nature encourages the emulation of leaders and we now have a new model to emulate in a local newbie to the House of Representative who feels it was permissible to use a completely bogus resume to get elected and the protection I suspect he will receive from his party.
No subway here yet I can back up that anecdotal evidence with the same here in Charlottesville. Many road rage incidents with guns getting pointed at opposing drivers, blowing through red lights, increased DUI probably due to the increased number of pot shops, given alcohol related incidents are on the decline.
On the other hand, there was a dad with his teen and pre-teen sons ringing the bells at the Salvation Army donation point outside the grocery store. I blew past them and returned after dropping off my groceries, putting my last $20 in the kettle. (I don’t carry cash, not that I am destitute, or that it was a great sacrifice.) I am a sucker for childhood development exercises…reasonably sure not just a sucker, though there’s plenty of panhandling going on around here too. Perhaps a sign the world isn’t all gone to seed.
Which is the real problem - those who failed to uncover the lies, or the one who did the lying?
While this isn’t exactly the same, it sounds a lot like victim shaming. The blame belongs on the one who did the wrong, not on the victim or the ones who failed to discover the wrong.
Is it wrong to assume your political opponent is a reasonably honest person rather than a bold liar? Is it wrong to run a campaign on issues rather than looking for any little (or not so little) error in their claimed background?
With that out of the way, yes, the opposition research on this candidate failed. As to the media, I took a quick look for articles in the month before the election and mainly saw coverage that did nothing more than report what was happening in the campaigns and some results of polling. That could be considered a bit of a failure of our fourth estate. On the other hand, really digging into the background of every congressional candidate is a huge undertaking. With 435 races every other year and double that (or more) in candidates, is it possible to look into every candidate for every race? More correctly, is it profitable to spend the time of reporters looking into backgrounds when most of that time investment will turn up nothing interesting? Keep in mind that this isn’t the 1800s any more. Real investigative reporting is no longer profitable for news outlets.
So while there are clear failures in both the other party’s research and in the news media, the actual blame for the problem lies squarely on the shoulders of the liar. An admitted liar who will soon be sworn into Congress because his party leadership lacks the backbone to even consider refusing to seat him for this egregious breach of public confidence.