It's wild that chuds think it's the shoplifters bringing minimum wages down and not the actual people in control of their wages.
Like the CEO could eat that loss, he doesn't have to pass it down to his employees. Not only that, but covid kind of proved that even when companies are raking in profits, they don't increase wages, so shoplifting isn't going to change that.
It's just cowards blaming an acceptable easy to blame target (activists that disrupt the status quo) instead of a powerful hard to fight target (rich business owners)
Yep, my buddy owns a small farm. He leases the land and he has to work a day job because the farm makes just enough to avoid operating the at a loss. His customer base is mostly upscale restaurants who are willing to pay a premium for locally grown because the big chains only deal with the big farms. Every other weekend he holds a potluck where he feeds anyone who shows up... and there's always a lot to go around because so much produce goes unsold.
I'm not saying this guy is some shining bastion of ethical capitalism. He's a good dude but he's only able to do any of this because he comes from money, and ultimately, there isn't much room for scaling up while maintaining these practices. That said, farmers like him would be the first ones to benefit if chain supermarkets disappeared from our area tomorrow.
"Comes from money" but has to work a day job because he owns a farm.... for what purpose, exactly? Not money? He just got dissatisfied with the produce at Whole Foods?
Yeah, I wanna see this dude's tax returns. Farm owners are some of the biggest welfare queens in this country and half of Congress owns a bullshit farm to collect millions in "tax incentives" and subsidies from them.
"Comes from money" in that he has a comfortable safety net if he fails. The farm is not profitable yet - they don't even have any employees besides the co-owners - but if it sinks then he will ultimately be just fine because his mommy and daddy can lift him back up. There's less risk involved for him.
He was able to take advantage of an agricultural loan instead of a traditional mortgage on his house, so there probably are tax advantages. I'll ask him about that.
Excessive shoplifting is how you end up with food deserts tho.
That's not at all why food deserts exist in the US. Food deserts are a multi-part issue, and the two largest issues are the closure of small independent stores and the increased popularity of very large physical stores. Independent grocers were woven throughout urban and rural communities alike for much of American history, and were usually within walking distance or transit distance in cities. As larger corporate supermarkets began to take over the market and undercut competition, they killed off more and more independent grocers who could no longer afford to compete. At the same time, the format of grocery stores was shifting from a small storefront that carried most of the products you needed to a massive, sprawling warehouse with ridiculous variety. "You could go to five or six stores, or just one." With less available room for massive stores in urban areas, they became something that was more spread out, and thus something you'd need a car to travel to. A large aspect of the decision-making on where to purchase real estate for those larger stores was based on segregation and white flight. There's a reason that the issue of food deserts is also often called food apartheid.
Mass shoplifting could ruin your communities access to a wide selection of cheap essential and non essential food stuffs and short changes the people who actually created the food. Doing that just because they should pay the cart pusher more doesn't seem smart.
Dude, the whole tall tale about a "shoplifting surge" is absolutely fake. as. hell. People are not shoplifting en masse, and the only type of theft that large stores such as Walmart are not insured against is theft by employees.
if you genuinely managed to disrupt the the status quo at GROCERY STORES and drove your local locations away
This has literally never happened. Shoplifting is not a revolutionary act, but that's basically the only thing you've got correct here.
They are so addicted to having groceries in easily stolen piles that they aren't even willing to try any other ways. If they can't figure out how to run a business than they don't deserve it.
covid kind of proved that even when companies are raking in profits, they don't increase wages
Uhm, ackchewally, the Walmart by me (not that I shop there, ew) says they're hiring at $18 an hour so clearly they're increasing the wages. Inflation? Never met her.
The thought is that if a lot of people steal from a store, the store will shut down because of loss of revenue. The reality is that the stores are insured for shoplifting.
I would be surprised to learn that literally any store in history was forced to shut down because the losses from shoplifting were too expensive. I don’t think that’s ever happened. Not once.
Compared to the amount of revenue any store brings in, shoplifting is such a tiny tiny tiny amount it shouldn’t even register on your books.
usual lib brainworms about business practices making sense and being fair and operating on rigid rules that aren't arbitrarily thrown out when they're inconvenient for the owning class
Damn the original word bubble in the last panel must have been really shit, huh
Yeah, and wage theft takes billions more than shoplifting.
It's wild that chuds think it's the shoplifters bringing minimum wages down and not the actual people in control of their wages.
Like the CEO could eat that loss, he doesn't have to pass it down to his employees. Not only that, but covid kind of proved that even when companies are raking in profits, they don't increase wages, so shoplifting isn't going to change that.
It's just cowards blaming an acceptable easy to blame target (activists that disrupt the status quo) instead of a powerful hard to fight target (rich business owners)
the CEO doesn't pass cost of shoplifters down to employees as the employees are already paid the legal minimum they can be
deleted by creator
The farm owners, certainly, but what about the employees at those farms?
deleted by creator
Yep, my buddy owns a small farm. He leases the land and he has to work a day job because the farm makes just enough to avoid operating the at a loss. His customer base is mostly upscale restaurants who are willing to pay a premium for locally grown because the big chains only deal with the big farms. Every other weekend he holds a potluck where he feeds anyone who shows up... and there's always a lot to go around because so much produce goes unsold.
I'm not saying this guy is some shining bastion of ethical capitalism. He's a good dude but he's only able to do any of this because he comes from money, and ultimately, there isn't much room for scaling up while maintaining these practices. That said, farmers like him would be the first ones to benefit if chain supermarkets disappeared from our area tomorrow.
"Comes from money" but has to work a day job because he owns a farm.... for what purpose, exactly? Not money? He just got dissatisfied with the produce at Whole Foods?
Yeah, I wanna see this dude's tax returns. Farm owners are some of the biggest welfare queens in this country and half of Congress owns a bullshit farm to collect millions in "tax incentives" and subsidies from them.
"Comes from money" in that he has a comfortable safety net if he fails. The farm is not profitable yet - they don't even have any employees besides the co-owners - but if it sinks then he will ultimately be just fine because his mommy and daddy can lift him back up. There's less risk involved for him.
He was able to take advantage of an agricultural loan instead of a traditional mortgage on his house, so there probably are tax advantages. I'll ask him about that.
That's not at all why food deserts exist in the US. Food deserts are a multi-part issue, and the two largest issues are the closure of small independent stores and the increased popularity of very large physical stores. Independent grocers were woven throughout urban and rural communities alike for much of American history, and were usually within walking distance or transit distance in cities. As larger corporate supermarkets began to take over the market and undercut competition, they killed off more and more independent grocers who could no longer afford to compete. At the same time, the format of grocery stores was shifting from a small storefront that carried most of the products you needed to a massive, sprawling warehouse with ridiculous variety. "You could go to five or six stores, or just one." With less available room for massive stores in urban areas, they became something that was more spread out, and thus something you'd need a car to travel to. A large aspect of the decision-making on where to purchase real estate for those larger stores was based on segregation and white flight. There's a reason that the issue of food deserts is also often called food apartheid.
Dude, the whole tall tale about a "shoplifting surge" is absolutely fake. as. hell. People are not shoplifting en masse, and the only type of theft that large stores such as Walmart are not insured against is theft by employees.
This has literally never happened. Shoplifting is not a revolutionary act, but that's basically the only thing you've got correct here.
They are so addicted to having groceries in easily stolen piles that they aren't even willing to try any other ways. If they can't figure out how to run a business than they don't deserve it.
or I'm a poor person who is looking for any way to save money so I can afford to live for another month during an economic shitshow
And yeah, no, I've worked in these industries before, they don't play living wages.
Uhm, ackchewally, the Walmart by me (not that I shop there, ew) says they're hiring at $18 an hour so clearly they're increasing the wages. Inflation? Never met her.
In what way are workers getting screwed over by shoplifting, according to the original?
The thought is that if a lot of people steal from a store, the store will shut down because of loss of revenue. The reality is that the stores are insured for shoplifting.
I would be surprised to learn that literally any store in history was forced to shut down because the losses from shoplifting were too expensive. I don’t think that’s ever happened. Not once.
Compared to the amount of revenue any store brings in, shoplifting is such a tiny tiny tiny amount it shouldn’t even register on your books.
usual lib brainworms about business practices making sense and being fair and operating on rigid rules that aren't arbitrarily thrown out when they're inconvenient for the owning class