Australian retailers add security tech amid rising theft, aggression

Lee Duna@lemmy.nz to Technology@beehaw.org – 31 points –
Australian retailers add security tech amid rising theft, aggression
reuters.com
12

You are viewing a single comment

What the person said but fuck.. both (Coles and woolies) get enough in this country.

(3) if you do steal from them, take my share too

... they don't pay for the theft. They are businesses not charities.

It's ordinary aussies who pay. Coles and Woolies set their prices high enough to cover the cost of the stolen items.

This is a vicious cycle. Cost of living goes up, theft goes up, cost of living goes up, theft goes up, etc. Eventually theft is so bad the store can justify hiring police officers to supervise the self checkout section all day long.

And who pays for the police officer at every coles/woolies in the country? Yep. Ordinary aussies pay. And the current price is $116.19 per hour (in NSW). And the people who are arrested? We pay for their arrest. We pay for the laywer who argues against them in court. We pay for the legal aid defence lawyer who defends them in court. We pay for the judge. And we pay for the jury. And we pay for their prison costs... fuck. Wouldn't it be better if they just didn't steal that loaf of bread?

These are the things the reserve bank is trying to avoid when inflation is too high. It can lead to the collapse of our entire society. I'm not talking hypotheticals either. Go to a woolies or coles in the northern territory. There's often a police officer standing at the checkouts and stopping people to search their bags. And in some parts of the NT you can pay 70 bucks for a tin of instant coffee (theft isn't the main reason for that, but it's part of the reason - people steal a lot of food when it costs that much).

If you're hungry, there are charities who will give you food. Don't steal food.

Coles and Woolies set their prices as high as they know they can sell them for to maximise profits.

If they didn’t have to pay loss costs, they would pocket the difference instead of altruistically passing the savings onto the consumer.

Wouldn’t it be better if they just didn’t steal that loaf of bread?

Or, you know, if we took the money much earlier on in the chain, and used it to give them food so they don't need to. Bread sure doesn't cost $116 an hour. Charity cannot solve systemic failures of government policy (like not taking care of its citizens).