46

Giving money to Amazon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Google .etc

It's like, you can't have an argument for price gouging, when you're enabling them by spending. If people were smart, they'd stop giving them money 10 - 15 years ago and they'd be right now, trying to reconstruct so they can be more economically friendly than how they are now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

“If people were smart they would stop buying the most cost-efficient option” is really not feasible.

In fact, more and more people don't have the luxury of buying more expensive options.

Of course, stealing is an option, and I think 'If people were smart' they would accept that stealing from Walmart is not an ethical or pragmatic problem, but it's a risky behavior so I wouldn't criticize people for not stealing. [edit: see Fubarberry's reply]

[-] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 month ago

Stealing from walmart also isn't sustainable if many people are doing it. For example there were a ton of walmarts and other stores in the Chicago area that recently closed due to high theft at those locations. Now whole communities there are left without convenient shopping options, which can be a big problem for people with limited transportation options.

[-] Didros@beehaw.org 18 points 1 month ago

That Walmart CLAIMED were closed for high theft.

[-] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You can look up videos of some of the stores that were closed, they were basically being straight up looted.

I remember seeing the videos, and thinking to myself how I didn't understand how they could afford to stay in business like that. So when they announced they were closing those stores for theft, I didn't really think the given reason was ever in doubt.

[-] Didros@beehaw.org 10 points 1 month ago

"“The decision to close a store is never easy,” company officials said in a statement. “The simplest explanation is that collectively our Chicago stores have not been profitable since we opened the first one nearly 17 years ago.”

The stores lose tens of millions of dollars a year, according to the company, a figure that nearly doubled in the last five years despite numerous strategies to boost performance, including building smaller stores, offering local products and building a Walmart Academy training center."

https://news.wttw.com/2023/04/12/walmart-closing-4-chicago-stores-company-says-losses-have-doubled-last-5-years

Doesn't sound like theft was ever the problem here according to them?

[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

Good point. If there aren't other local stores remaining to fill the gaps, then that would be a critical problem.

[-] SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Walmart, Kroger, etc.'s entire business model is to undercut other local stores to drive them out and become local monopolies. If they exist in a location there likely aren't many, if any, local stores remaining...

[-] mke_geek@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Stealing isn't right.

The Walmart near me closed due to high theft. There were actually people stealing from the construction site when the store was being built, so it really was a ticking clock as to how long the store itself would even last.

Some people are just awful.

[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

Stealing isn’t right.

I conditionally disagree. In fact, there are many real situations where stealing is the right option. There are valid reasons why folk lore glorifies figures like Robin Hood. And when it comes to international conglomerates like Walmart, which hoard astronomical wealth while others who can't afford bread starve nearby, theft of the hoard is justice in its most appropriate form (if one values human survival more than legal property rights).

[-] mke_geek@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

Even stealing from Walmart isn't right.

[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago
[-] NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 1 month ago

Look. There was a subreddit that got banned because it was a bunch of shoplifters, dumb ones, showcasing what they stole. They all claim that they're doing it to hurt corporations.

If anyone had a clue at all about working retail - that's not how it works. The corporation is going to be sailing just fine. It's you, the worker and the store that's getting hurt.

And that's why these shoplifters are absolute assholes. They steal enough, the store is closed, many jobs lost.

How the fuck is that hurting the corporation?

[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

I'm curious that you said if people were really smart, they would stop giving money to Amazon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Google, etc., and then suggest that taking their stock without giving them money is bad. This seems contradictory to me. If stealing wouldn't hurt the company, then why would not giving money be a smart thing? If not giving them money is good, stealing would just increase those loses further and also be smart.

They all claim that they’re doing it to hurt corporations.

Personally, I think hurting dominant anti-social corporations like Walmart is a smart thing for society to do, but that's besides the point. There are plenty of far more accepted reasons to steal, such as preventing starvation (like stealing basic food from supermarkets). I assert that stealing essentials is more socially beneficial than allowing oneself and dependents to starve or die, and it's far more ethical to steal from multi-billion dollar income megacorporations than other households or smaller businesses (the alternatives). I would go as far as to say they are socially obliged to steal, because they are more useful to society alive than dead and the cost to achieve that is trivial to the theft victim.

They steal enough, the store is closed, many jobs lost.

Honestly, if we're talking about companies like Walmart, then I say good that the store is closed, those workers are now forced to enter (or even recreate!) jobs which benefit society rather than destroy other local businesses. This is clearly unfortunate to those who are temporarily unemployed as a result, that's real pain and it's valid, and it's unfortunate, but the store closure is still an overall positive.

How the fuck is that hurting the corporation?

Losing sales isn't profitable. Closing a store certainly isn't profitable. If theft didn't hurt the corporation, they wouldn't spend significant money stopping it.

Furthermore, for a publicly traded company, reputation damage is real financial damage. Reporting high theft and closing stores has a real reputational impact to investors.

this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
46 points (80.3% liked)

Asklemmy

44173 readers
1816 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS