Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 8:41 PM
353 online now:
halibut, jar, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Rrhain (5 members, 348 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,364 Year: 23,970/21,208 Month: 1,935/2,468 Week: 28/416 Day: 28/24 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
131415
16
1718Next
Author Topic:   Why Do People Steal?
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 226 of 262 (643409)
12-06-2011 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by New Cat's Eye
12-06-2011 5:30 PM


Re: Theft and Entitlement
Not every hour of your life is worth that $16.

True, but you've got it backwards. The hours you don't work are the ones that are more valuable to you than $16. The hours you value at less than $16 are the hours you go to work and earn the $16.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-06-2011 5:30 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2011 10:19 AM crashfrog has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 484 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 227 of 262 (643447)
12-07-2011 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by crashfrog
12-06-2011 5:39 PM


Re: Theft and Entitlement
In the spirit of getting back to the topic, this will be the last post on this side topic.

Well, look. Watch the movie and tell me what you think they're lying about.

Fair enough, and when you get a chance, if you haven't already, check out Fast Food Nation that examines the on-going corrupt fast food industry and their targeting to kids.

quote:
Regarding the topic of child-targeted marketing, Schlosser explains how the McDonald's Corporation modeled its marketing tactics on The Walt Disney Company, which inspired the creation of advertising icons such as Ronald McDonald and his sidekicks. Marketing executives theorized this shift to market to children would result not only in attracting children, but their parents and grandparents as well. More importantly, the tactic would instill brand loyalty that would persist through adulthood via nostalgic associations to McDonald's. Schlosser also discusses the tactic's ills: the exploitation of children's navet and trusting nature.

In marketing to children, Schlosser suggests, corporations have infiltrated schools through sponsorship and quid pro quo. He sees that reductions in corporate taxation have come at the expense of school funding, thereby presenting many corporations with the opportunity for sponsorship with those same schools. According to his sources, 80% of sponsored textbooks contain material that is biased in favor of the sponsors, and 30% of high schools offer fast foods in their cafeterias.[5] Schlosser shares anecdotes suggesting that students who disregarded sponsorships could be punished, such as the case of high school student Mike Cameron. He was suspended from school for an incident on "Coke day"; while his fellow students wore red or white T-shirts and posed collectively as the word COKE while aerial photographs were taken, Cameron instead wore Pepsi-blue.

In his examination of the meat packing industry, Schlosser finds that it is now dominated by casual, easily exploited immigrant labor and that levels of injury are among the highest of any occupation in the United States. Schlosser discusses his findings on meat packing companies IBP, Inc. and on Kenny Dobbins. Schlosser also recounts the steps involved in meat processing and reveals several hazardous practices unknown to many consumers, such as the practice of rendering dead pigs and horses and chicken manure into cattle feed.

Schlosser notes that practices like these were responsible for the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, aka Mad Cow Disease, p. 202-3), as well as for introducing harmful bacteria into the food supply, such as E. coli O157:H7 (ch. 9, "What's In The Meat"). A later section of the book discusses the fast food industry's role in globalization, linking increased obesity in China and Japan with the arrival of fast food. The book also includes a summary of the McLibel Case.


Pointing out also, the obesity problem in the US and abroad that, while it may seem initially cheaper to buy fast food, costs far more in the long run. A cost that needs to be factored in when calculating the over-all value for your dollar.

What's the point of dining at a low cost when the health risk, like diabetis, high blood pressure and obesity are the end result?

t we're not always talking about middle class families, are we?

No, of course not. But then for the poor there are even cheaper options than fast food like, Ramen noodles and canned spaghetti, who's cost are far lower than even the $1 menu.

That's why I said baring the extreme case of poverty, it is cheaper to cook at home.

But I'll give you the last word and we can get back to Phat's OP.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2011 5:39 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2011 12:59 AM onifre has acknowledged this reply

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 262 (643449)
12-07-2011 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by onifre
12-07-2011 12:20 AM


Re: Theft and Entitlement
I don't disagree about the long-term costs, and I'll check out Fast Food Nation. Thanks for your thoughts.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by onifre, posted 12-07-2011 12:20 AM onifre has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 229 of 262 (643474)
12-07-2011 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by crashfrog
12-06-2011 5:46 PM


cost of time
I'm condensing the replies.

From Message 226:

Not every hour of your life is worth that $16.

True, but you've got it backwards.

But that's what I'm getting at... you can't just say that this particular hour is worth X dollars.

From Message 225:

Look, it's taking money out of your pocket. It obviously is. I'm not saying it's not worth it - where are you getting that? - but just like how food costs money, sleep costs money because it takes up some of your time. Just like your leisure hours cost you money. I don't understand the problem you have with this. Clearly you're poorer because you sleep instead of taking a second job. Clearly, that's worth it to you. What's the issue?

The issue is calculating the cost of a home cooked meal by considering the drive to the store to be $16/hr.

You need sleep. It's valuable. Why does it surprise you to learn that it has an opportunity cost?
Cause it doesn't
Of course it does. You're saying you've never in your life slept instead of doing something else? You're saying you've never in your life decided to get a good night's sleep instead of getting a second job? You don't know anybody who works 10-12 hour days and only gets 5-6 hours of sleep a night?

I wasn't really following you... and I didn't know "opportunity cost" was an actual economics term (I only studied math and science).

Like I say, sleep is valuable. Why does it surprise you to learn that you pay something for it?

"Pay" is a strage way to say "not earn" but whatever. Everybody has to sleep and is going to sleep, among other things. I don't think you should calculate the value of the time that you spend on doing things your going to do anyways (like going to the store) at the same rate you us for what you earn at your job. Not every hour is worth that same amount, especially the ones that are already accounted for by something else.

I finally got a chance to view that xkdc page you linked to (it wasn't running properly on my work pc), where it shows the McDonalds meal to be $30-something and the home cooked meal to be $40-something. But that's all based on that median US income.

I don't think that's a fair calculation, and I think its kinda what Oni was referring to as "fucking with the numbers". I don't think a general case can be made to say its cheaper to cook at home or its cheaper to get fast food. It all depends on the individuals circumstances and you can make either one cheaper than the other depending on what you buy.

Back to Message 226:

The hours you don't work are the ones that are more valuable to you than $16. The hours you value at less than $16 are the hours you go to work and earn the $16.

I wouldn't sacrifice a night's sleep for less than $30/hr. But I don't have an opportunity to make $30 an hour, or any money at all, in the middle of the night while I'd be sleeping. So how much would you say I should value that time?


To tie this into the topic, once I figure out how to assess this cost of time, I'll look into ways that people might be stealing from me with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2011 5:46 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2011 11:02 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 262 (643480)
12-07-2011 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by New Cat's Eye
12-07-2011 10:19 AM


Re: cost of time
But that's what I'm getting at... you can't just say that this particular hour is worth X dollars.

Well, you can (and do) certainly say that this particular hour in your life is worth X dollars to spend it one way, or Y dollars to spend it another. Time is money.

I wasn't really following you... and I didn't know "opportunity cost" was an actual economics term (I only studied math and science).

Oh, yeah. So, the "opportunity cost" of doing something is the value of doing the next-best thing. It's a little hand-wavey, to be sure, but the notion is basically that you're presented with mutually exclusive choices, and the cost of doing any one of them is, at most, the cost of not doing the most valuable alternative.

Example - you're trying to plan a vacation. Should you go to Vegas or New York? It's mutually exclusive - you can't be in both Vegas and New York at the same time. Going to Vegas means you don't go to New York. Going to New York means you don't go to Vegas. Going to Vegas means you have X amount of fun. Going to New York means you have Y amount of fun.

The opportunity cost (in "fun") of going to Vegas is -Y, and the cost of going to New York is -X. If you go to Vegas, the net amount of "fun" you gain is X-Y. If you chose rationally, that's more than going to New York, which is Y-X. If it would actually have been more fun to go to New York, then you chose poorly. That's a really stupid example but it kind of illustrates the concept - when you choose to do something, you're implictly chosing not to do something else.

I don't think this is strange or alien to you. Surely once in your life you considered staying home from work to play video games, but then it dawned on you - you're liable to make about $60-120 for a day of work, and playing video games wouldn't be worth being $60 poorer. So you went to work. Hell, I've made the same calculation. Some days I decided that, no, kicking back for a day was worth being $60 poorer than I otherwise would have been.

"Pay" is a strage way to say "not earn" but whatever.

Well, yeah. It is a little strange to think of "not earning" as an actual "cost".

I don't think you should calculate the value of the time that you spend on doing things your going to do anyways (like going to the store) at the same rate you us for what you earn at your job.

Well, I think it should be calculated at the job you could plausibly get during that time. For the most part, most people work jobs where they can get a few extra hours if they want, so it's plausible to suggest that most of the time they're spending to do something else could be spent doing more hours at their job. That's not always true for everybody. If you actually had to get a second job in order to work more hours - like, your place of work isn't open in the middle of the night - then the opportunity wage cost for sleep is the wage you could make at whatever most profitable second job you could be doing. I have a neighbor who has a 3 AM paper route. It's not that he needs the money, its that he realized how much of his life he was spending just vegging in front of the TV after work, and decided that he would rather shift his sleep schedule around to monetize those hours. He ran the opportunity cost calculation and decided he'd rather have the money. You and I run the numbers and decide we'd rather have the sleep.

I don't think either of us are "right" or "wrong." Our time has different value to each of us.

I wouldn't sacrifice a night's sleep for less than $30/hr.

That's fair. I don't think that changes anything. If an hour of sleep is worth $30 to you, you definitely shouldn't be trying to exchange that hour for $16 in wage. (Let's say that's the most you could earn per hour at a job in the middle of the night.) That doesn't make the sleep worth any less; exactly the opposite. You just told me that sleep is worth $30 an hour or more to you. How can you therefore think sleep has no value?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2011 10:19 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2011 11:58 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 231 of 262 (643485)
12-07-2011 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by crashfrog
12-07-2011 11:02 AM


Re: cost of time
Well, you can (and do) certainly say that this particular hour in your life is worth X dollars to spend it one way, or Y dollars to spend it another. Time is money.

Explicitly, not so much.

Oh, yeah. So, the "opportunity cost" of doing something is...

I read the wiki page.

I don't think this is strange or alien to you. Surely once in your life you considered staying home from work to play video games, but then it dawned on you - you're liable to make about $60-120 for a day of work, and playing video games wouldn't be worth being $60 poorer. So you went to work. Hell, I've made the same calculation. Some days I decided that, no, kicking back for a day was worth being $60 poorer than I otherwise would have been.

As an actual example of me doing this: In addition to my sick time at work, we have incentive time. If you go a whole quarter without calling in sick, then you get a free bonus day. There's been days where I was sick and maybe should call in, but I hadn't taken a sick day that quarter yet so to me, this one sick day was actually going to cost me two days off so I went ahead an went in to work. (good incentive, eh?)

Well, I think it should be calculated at the job you could plausibly get during that time.

I don't, because people are going to be going to the store anyways. That time is already accounted for as "going to the store" time, so its not accurate to factor in 2 hours at $16/hr to the cost of making a home cooked meal. Like if you stop at fast food on the way home from work, you were driving home from work anyways so adding in that time into the cost of the meal isn't accurate either.

For the most part, most people work jobs where they can get a few extra hours if they want, so it's plausible to suggest that most of the time they're spending to do something else could be spent doing more hours at their job.

To add another level of complication: I'm on a salary and I'm exempt from overtime. I get the exact same amount every week and I can't change that.

I don't think either of us are "right" or "wrong." Our time has different value to each of us.

My problem was with the claim that a home cooked meal cost more than fast food. I don't think that's generally true.

You just told me that sleep is worth $30 an hour or more to you. How can you therefore think sleep has no value?

Because I, personally, cannot make any more money during that time so I don't feel like I'm losing anything by spending it sleeping.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2011 11:02 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1761 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 232 of 262 (643486)
12-07-2011 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by New Cat's Eye
12-06-2011 10:30 AM


some kind of tough guy, huh. LOL

I miss old joe.

I still do not think they were targeting children. I went to the real source and read the document in its context, rather than the chopped up version on wikipedia.

They wanted to increase their sales among high-school students, teens and young adults (aged 14-24), but saying they marketed to children is a little silly. I don't care if a 6 year old knows who Joe Camel is or not, that is not marketing to children.

Nobody's talking about banning everything that is unhealthy. My point was about marketing. Marketing unhealthy and addictive products to children... like McDonald's does.

what kind of addiction? outside of caffeine, I cannot think of anything particularly addictive about the food, but I would love to see some evidence of the addictive properties of Mcnuggets.

I'm talking about the way things ought to be (we shouldn't market bad shit to kids) and you're talking about the way things are (bad things are marketed to kids).

gotcha, thanks for the link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-06-2011 10:30 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2011 12:29 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 233 of 262 (643487)
12-07-2011 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Artemis Entreri
12-07-2011 12:02 PM


I still do not think they were targeting children. I went to the real source and read the document in its context, rather than the chopped up version on wikipedia.

Now would be the time to quote the relevant material that shows that they were not marketing to children. But even then, can we really trust the accused here? Of course they, themselves, are going to claim that they weren't doing anything wrong.

They wanted to increase their sales among high-school students, teens and young adults (aged 14-24),

14 year olds are children.

but saying they marketed to children is a little silly. I don't care if a 6 year old knows who Joe Camel is or not, that is not marketing to children.

What would you prefer to call "provinding product information and a positive product image to children through an appealing cartoon character" if not "marketing"?

what kind of addiction?

Sugary and salty foods lead themselves to be desired over more healthy alternatives. Its not like heroin tho.

Making you hamburgers seem cool to kids and them loading them up with all flavor and no nutrition as cheaply as possible is not an honorable approach.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-07-2011 12:02 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-07-2011 2:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1761 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 234 of 262 (643497)
12-07-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by New Cat's Eye
12-07-2011 12:29 PM


Now would be the time to quote the relevant material that shows that they were not marketing to children. But even then, can we really trust the accused here? Of course they, themselves, are going to claim that they weren't doing anything wrong.

I live in a nation where you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I know you are from the People's Republic of Illinois and concepts like that are difficult to comprehend.

14 year olds are children.

I consider Mammals of breeding age to no longer be children. At what age do sexually mature mammals cease to be adolescents?

What would you prefer to call "provinding product information and a positive product image to children through an appealing cartoon character" if not "marketing"?

name recognition.

you probably do not own any makeup, or perfume. yet if you went to Macy's to buy some for a female, I bet you know of a couple brands. Is it because those brands were marketed to you? or is it because they have been around for a long time and you recognize the brand, the name?

Making you hamburgers seem cool to kids and them loading them up with all flavor and no nutrition as cheaply as possible is not an honorable approach.

i disagree. hamburgers are not healthy food. there is no honor in selling the fatty portion of oxen period. it shouldn't ought to be either, because its not healthy food. now if there goal was to take healthy food and make it unhealthy on purpose then you may have a point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2011 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2011 2:08 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 236 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2011 2:23 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 262 (643498)
12-07-2011 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Artemis Entreri
12-07-2011 2:06 PM


I consider Mammals of breeding age to no longer be children.

Yeah, but where you're from, they consider mammals of breeding age to be wife material. The sheepier, the better!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-07-2011 2:06 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-09-2011 10:46 AM crashfrog has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 236 of 262 (643501)
12-07-2011 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Artemis Entreri
12-07-2011 2:06 PM


I live in a nation where you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I know you are from the People's Republic of Illinois and concepts like that are difficult to comprehend.

You implied you had read something that suggested they weren't targeting children... and we're not in court. I realize readin' these letter-symbols and followin' a discussion can be hard.

I consider Mammals of breeding age to no longer be children. At what age do sexually mature mammals cease to be adolescents?

I don't care to quibble over whether or not a 14 year should be considered a child.

Ronald McDonald exists for children.

name recognition.

you probably do not own any makeup, or perfume. yet if you went to Macy's to buy some for a female, I bet you know of a couple brands. Is it because those brands were marketed to you? or is it because they have been around for a long time and you recognize the brand, the name?

The fact that a child knows about a product does not imply that it has been directly marketed to them, that's true. That's why you need to consider the other important part I posted where they go on to admit marketing to children. The fact that the children know the brand supports the position that they have been marketed to, but does not prove it.

But, brands that are for women most definately do market to the men because they know the men will be buying thier products for the women in their life.

i disagree. hamburgers are not healthy food. there is no honor in selling the fatty portion of oxen period. it shouldn't ought to be either, because its not healthy food. now if there goal was to take healthy food and make it unhealthy on purpose then you may have a point.

Even if its common knowledge that your product isn't healthy to begin with, I still don't see any merit in promoting it to children to hook them while they're young so you can have life-long loyalty. Its sleazy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-07-2011 2:06 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-09-2011 10:55 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1761 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 237 of 262 (643581)
12-09-2011 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by crashfrog
12-07-2011 2:08 PM


bitch please. Nebraska has no room to talk about anyone. That state sucks ass, and likes it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2011 2:08 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2011 7:02 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1761 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 238 of 262 (643582)
12-09-2011 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by New Cat's Eye
12-07-2011 2:23 PM


You implied you had read something that suggested they weren't targeting children... and we're not in court. I realize readin' these letter-symbols and followin' a discussion can be hard.

yeah, they were targeting young smokers. in the 14 to 24 age range, i linked it, if you have trouble reading, don't blame it on me.

I don't care to quibble over whether or not a 14 year should be considered a child.

Ronald McDonald exists for children.

of course you don't care to quibble, because I'll school you on this. I would shy from me as well. good call.

Ronald McDonald does exist for children, but I have not seen anything on the addictive nature of a bigmac.

That's why you need to consider the other important part I posted where they go on to admit marketing to children.

what you posted was some quoted mined material from wikipedia. I dug up the original document, and they were not targeting children, according to that document. you are supporting a fallacy.

But, brands that are for women most definately do market to the men because they know the men will be buying thier products for the women in their life.

show me an estee lauder add that targets men.

Even if its common knowledge that your product isn't healthy to begin with, I still don't see any merit in promoting it to children to hook them while they're young so you can have life-long loyalty. Its sleazy.

i still disagree. I got an Atari 2600 in 1983 when I 4 years old. I had thought it was from Santa (but it was my parents). I do not consider my parents or Atari a SLEAZY company for selling a product that is unhealthy to a child.

Do you think My parents are sleazy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2011 2:23 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5069
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 239 of 262 (643633)
12-09-2011 6:40 PM


Some Facts
Attempting to get back on thread:

More than $13 billion worth of goods are stolen from retailers each year. That's more than $35 million per day.

There are approximately 27 million shoplifters (or 1 in 11 people) in our nation today. More than 10 million people have been caught shoplifting in the last five years.

Shoplifting affects more than the offender. It overburdens the police and the courts, adds to a store's security expenses, costs consumers more for goods, costs communities lost dollars in sales taxes and hurts children and families.

Shoplifters steal from all types of stores including department stores, specialty shops, supermarkets, drug stores, discounters, music stores, convenience stores and thrift shops.

There is no profile of a typical shoplifter. Men and women shoplift about equally as often.

Approximately 25 percent of shoplifters are kids, 75 percent are adults. 55 percent of adult shoplifters say they started shoplifting in their teens.

Many shoplifters buy and steal merchandise in the same visit. Shoplifters commonly steal from $2 to $200 per incident depending upon the type of store and item(s) chosen.

Shoplifting is often not a premeditated crime. 73 percent of adult and 72 percent of juvenile shoplifters don't plan to steal in advance.

89 percent of kids say they know other kids who shoplift. 66 percent say they hang out with those kids.

Shoplifters say they are caught an average of only once in every 48 times they steal. They are turned over to the police 50 percent of the time.

Approximately 3 percent of shoplifters are "professionals" who steal solely for resale or profit as a business. These include drug addicts who steal to feed their habit, hardened professionals who steal as a life-style and international shoplifting gangs who steal for profit as a business. "Professional" shoplifters are responsible for 10 percent of the total dollar losses.

The vast majority of shoplifters are "non-professionals" who steal, not out of criminal intent, financial need or greed but as a response to social and personal pressures in their life.

The excitement generated from "getting away with it" produces a chemical reaction resulting in what shoplifters describe as an incredible "rush" or "high" feeling. Many shoplifters will tell you that this high is their "true reward," rather than the merchandise itself.

Drug addicts, who have become addicted to shoplifting, describe shoplifting as equally addicting as drugs.

57 percent of adults and 33 percent of juveniles say it is hard for them to stop shoplifting even after getting caught.

Most non-professional shoplifters don't commit other types of crimes. They'll never steal an ashtray from your house and will return to you a $20 bill you may have dropped. Their criminal activity is restricted to shoplifting and therefore, any rehabilitation program should be "offense-specific" for this crime.

http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/.../PublicEducStats.htm

I was surprised to see that drug addict were such a small percentage.


Life, don't talk to me about life.

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Phat, posted 08-13-2014 10:15 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 262 (643634)
12-09-2011 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Artemis Entreri
12-09-2011 10:46 AM


"Nebraska" is actually an Indian word for "wide-open state that sucks."

Hey, I'm moving to Maryland next week though. We'll be neighbors! (I'll keep my livestock indoors, though.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-09-2011 10:46 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
131415
16
1718Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017