[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.