[colechristensen]

This is the argument the article is making too.

WalMart markets itself to a demographic most likely to commit crime and doesn't adequately set up it's own security to prevent crime in and around it's stores.

That is, instead of spending money on internal security resources it offloads it's security problems on the local police. Crime is being punished instead of prevented.

It should be put into law that businesses with lax security share a greater portion of the public cost of the crime which results as well as punitive measures for the irresponsible situation they created.

[marknutter]

> It should be put into law that businesses with lax security share a greater portion of the public cost of the crime which results as well as punitive measures for the irresponsible situation they created.

That sounds like a fantastic way to disincentivize any company from providing goods and services to the poor.

[colechristensen]

WalMart is #1 in revenue and #15 in market cap, I don't think there are any problems with incentives there.

Giving the population most vulnerable to falling into crime an easy opportunity to steal is bad for the poor.

Providing goods and services to the poor but not ensuring a crime-free environment is bad for the poor.

If not enforced, companies that _do_ take the responsibility for crime prevention will be at a competitive disadvantage.

You're not helping the poor by allowing slums and shitholes to exist on the false premise that the small apparent savings to them is worth the degraded conditions. You're just allowing profiteering from the poor because poor customers are much less able to demand better conditions.

[marknutter]

No, they will simply stop serving low-income areas if it becomes unprofitable for them to do so. What then? Pass laws to force Walmart to sell to the poor? They're a company, their singular goal is profit (as it should be). They pay their taxes and follow all the regulations set out by the government and in return they expect that the government will protect them from criminals.

> WalMart is #1 in revenue and #15 in market cap, I don't think there are any problems with incentives there.

This is because we haven't passed ridiculous laws like the one you are proposing.

[colechristensen]

There's a huge demand for low-income retail.

WalMart can't effectively compete in the middle-income market. It has image problems, it would have to do a huge overhaul, the space is already filled with many others. If it leaves the low-income space it will leave a huge opportunity for others to enter.

Nothing can legislate away the low-income market and as long as it exists there will be companies who want to enter it. Laws can shape what that market looks like and what environment is for the people in it.

[marknutter]

> WalMart can't effectively compete in the middle-income market. It has image problems

It has image problems because it competes in the low-income market. If that weren't a profitable space for them, they would change their image overnight.

> If it leaves the low-income space it will leave a huge opportunity for others to enter.

If Walmart can't make it work, I doubt any other company could.

> Nothing can legislate away the low-income market and as long as it exists there will be companies who want to enter it. Laws can shape what that market looks like and what environment is for the people in it.

This is just objectively false. Of course you can legislate away the low-income market. It's done all the time. The state can absolutely strangle a market with too many policies and regulations or take it over completely.

[bbradley406]

The issue is private security can be a large liability, since they do not have the same legal protection as police. At the wages Wal-Mart pays, you would have poor training, and all the police academy dropouts who still want to have some authority. Should they offer better wages? Probably, but it won't happen.

It seems like paying off-duty cops would be the best solution. Lots of businesses with security gates already do this.

[hga]

Should they offer better wages?

Errr, they did, back in January, at some majors costs in hours people are allowed to work, their bottom line, but not their absolute stock price (weasel words because I didn't check to see how they're doing compared to the general market).

We can be sure this also came at a cost in their anti-shrinkage and general anti-crime efforts.