[wpietri]

> I wish we'd get over blaming things and get to being honest and admit the problem is people.

The problem has always been people. That's why we have civilization in the first place: to create a structure where people are reasonably safe from the predations of other people.

People were still people 10 or 20 years ago, but Walmart didn't have the same crime problem. Asking them to return to previous staffing levels so that their stores are safer for customers and the community doesn't sound like a shocking burden to me.

[douche]

There's a lot less crime in general in the rural/suburban areas that Walmart was primarily serving 10-20 years ago. And a lot of even those areas have more poverty and petty crime than they did 10-20 years ago, with the local industries and economy taking a huge punch in the face, and meth and opiate abuse spiraling.

You could blame Walmart for some of the economic woes, but they aren't the ones shuttering the auto plant, or the steel mill, or the shoe shop, or automating the old labor-intensive, natural-resource sectors so they require vastly fewer, more highly skilled people.

[mhurron]

> People were still people 10 or 20 years ago, but Walmart didn't have the same crime problem

But is that actually a problem of Walmart's creation, or is it that the pressures that encourage shoplifting became higher among those that Walmart attracts and in the areas Walmart builds in the past 10-20 years.

Increasing staffing would probably benefit the people shopping there more than it would prevent shoplifting. And the greeters? They hired 60+ year olds for that, no one was dissuaded from shoplifting because of them.

[davidf18]

The crime at Wal-Mart is a manifestation of a systems problem that was not of Wal-Mart's making but rather the export of jobs to China and Mexico and the substantial increase in immigrants from 9 million in 1970 to 43 million today (not counting the 11 million illegal immigrants). The immigrants generally are uneducated and complete for jobs and drive down income for America's poorest citizens.

Diagnose and solve the problem, don't treat the symptom of the problem.

[citrin_ru]

Exporting jobs to China allows poor to buy cheap goods. Without moving production to countries with cheap labor American poor will earn more, but able to buy less.

[davidf18]

I'm glad you mentioned this. Some people have lost their jobs to workers overseas. People can't always be "retrained" and so for these people, since they are now unemployed they are not able to buy more.

In addition, lack of employment correlates (and presumably causes) and increase in crime, in drug use, in depression. These are all externalities that are borne not only by the former worker and their families but by taxpayers and society at large. Someone has to pay for the increased crime and protection, someone has to pay for the additional health care costs, and so on.

These negative externalities of exporting jobs to China, to Mexico, and soon possibly to other Asian nations through TPP are never part of the economic equation.

In order to address a problem, it must be fully analyzed. In this case, there is much finger pointing at the victims of a broken system.

So, when a company exports a worker's job overseas, who is supposed to pay the additional healthcare costs cost by the unemployment? Should us the taxpayers or should those that caused the problem in the first place? Someone has to pay and we shouldn't just let events decide but rather make a conscious choice.

[menlo75]

Trump 2016: Blame the immigrants

[davidf18]

Blame economics. An increased supply of uneducated labor drives creates more competition for jobs performed by the poor, uneducated and also drives down wage rates. Illegal immigrants, since they can't complain, will work in illegal conditions and even lower wage rates.

H1-B visa abuse is used by firms (see Disney World in Florida and Abbott Pharmacueticals in Illinois for example) to drive down IT and STEM labor rates.

You might dislike Trump, but he is against H1-B Visa Abuse and H2-A and H2-B (blue collar) Visa abuse. Meanwhile Hilary has used H1-B Visas in the Clinton Foundation (I love patriotism :-) ).

So, instead of being emotional about an issue, be analytical. I assume that most of the people reading HN are analytical and just don't emotionally lash out.

[hjck]

You mean the 2 visas/year filed by CGI? http://www.myvisajobs.com/Visa-Sponsor/Clinton-Global-Initia... Or the 685 by Trump's WPB hotel, including almost 100 last month for which he rejected US workers http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election... ?

Since most Trump voters are uneducated, this is my tip: Go to Stanford/MIT/Columbia, get a CS degree and then you won't have to compete with illegals for a job. And always remember:

"Of course foreigners steal your job, but maybe, if someone without contacts, money, or speaking the language steals your job, you're shit." ~ Louis C. K.

[davidf18]

CGI tried to hire 7 public relations specialists, 2 community service managers, and 1 fundraiser. CGI is in NY State where I live. Hilary as NY Senator promised to increased the number of jobs in NY State by 200,000 and she should show by example.

Trump has admitted it was a mistake for him to abuse the H2-A and H2-B programs and he is against increasing H1-B (STEM) H2-A and H2-B. Whereas Hilary is for increasing the H1-B program (her backers want it increased).

Sanders agreed with Trump's position of not increasing H1-B, H2-A, and H2-B Visa programs.

The truth is that the position of Trump and Sanders care more for the jobs of professional STEM and working class than Hilary.

Be analytical and not emotional.

"... you're shit." ~ Louis C. K."

Don't know Louis C.K. but he's a jerk.

The IQ curve is a normal distribution around 100 and it takes an IQ of around 110 or so to get into college and get a degree. Many people lacked the intelligence/intellectual endowment that readers of HN has. That doesn't mean they're shit. It means that they struggle in this world in ways that many here can't fully understand.

[mason240]

Walmart didn't have large presence in urban areas 20 years ago.