Saturday, July 09, 2011

Retailers Complain About Shoplifiting...Stupid "Journalists" Report On The Complaints

"The federation estimates that retailers lose as much as $30 billion a year to organized retail crime"

Bullshit. Plain and simple. Retailers don't "lose" a red cent; we the consumers do. Every last retail chain has what is called a "shrink" dividend built into the price of what's on the shelves. It's why one Wal-Mart will sell an item for $40 and the one 3 miles away will have the same item listed as $41.20, or 3% added for that store's shrinkage from theft. 

A buck twenty doesn't seem like a lot, but to Wal-Mart, and Target and BestBuy et al, it adds up. Multiply the 3% times all the business the box giants add to their pricetags, and viola! $30 billion smackeroos. 

Each and every store is forever on a frantic pace to lower their shrinkage because that adds to the company's bottom line, but NEVER affects what the consumer shells out. Or, I should say, it never results in lower prices to the consumer. 

Not to say the retailers don't have the right to make money off their wares, of course they do; but stupid articles such as this one written by stupid writers who went to stupid journalism classes at stupid schools just tic me off. And quotes from the detweiler running some stupid "National Retail Federation" tic me off too.

"Most people think about little Johnny stealing a pack of bubble gum," said Joseph LaRocca, senior asset protection adviser at the National Retail Federation. "This is anything but that -- these are professional criminals." The federation estimates that retailers lose as much as $30 billion a year to organized retail crime"

Now how insulting is that? "Little Johnny"? First off, send the crooks to jail. For a loooooooooong time. Keep raking in them profits because it's it's your right to but for heaven sake stop the inane bullshit.

It insults my intelligence. So tell me; who approached you. Was it Barzini or Tagalia?

1 comment:

David said...

"Shrinkage" adds so little to the cost to the end user of goods compared to what the "feddle gummint" lifts from our pockets through higher prices (the costs of paying "feddle gummint protection money") passed on by every link of the supply chain as a cost of doing business, that it's a silly thing for dumbass journos to write about anyway.