An economics professor with Sudbury’s Laurentian University says a grocery store chain’s choice to lock up certain cheeses and instructing customers to ask a cashier for assistance is an indication of a broader problem.
Louis-Philippe Rochon says the issue points to a much bigger societal issue than simply trying to deter theft.
The signage, spotted at a Vancouver No Frills store owned by Loblaw, shows the locked up 250g wedges of President’s Choice Splendido Parmigiano-Reggiano and President’s Choice Splendido Grana Padano, priced at $9.99 each.
[…]
“As much as [theft] is a problem for the supermarkets, I think it points to a bigger issue in society, which is the fact that the prices of groceries have gone up by 10 per cent on average or more… People can’t afford to eat… People have to resort to stealing to feed their families,” said Rochon.
The Greater Sudbury Police Service does not have specific numbers on people stealing from grocery stores but notes an overall rise in reported thefts over the past five years. Sarah Kaelas, a spokesperson with the police service, reports the number of thefts under $5,000 was 609 in 2019, but that figure rose to 834 last year.
However, Rochon believes the focus should be on the root causes of these crimes rather than on the acts themselves.
“This is a reflection of deep inequalities and food insecurity. We should not concentrate on shoplifting and theft. These are symptoms. What we should be concentrating on is what causes those.”
He believes rising production costs and supermarkets’ reactions are exacerbating the problem.
[…]
Supermarkets have increased the price of the goods in order to compensate. But there’s also a little bit of greed going on in the supermarkets. The packages have gotten much smaller," said Rochon.
Rochon suggests the government should consider price controls to address these challenges. He says it is easier for the government to introduce such a policy now than it was 30 years ago.
I have never seen someone shoplift food and I never will.
When I described seeing an apparently unhoused woman conceal food and didn’t speak up, a co-worker described it as an ethics issue. I hadn’t developed my thinking enough to see it that way and was surprised. I will never out someone for stealing necessities. Good on you.
The supermarkets are just catering to their actual customers: the stock market.
Price controls don’t address the root cause either. We need massive anti trust action to break up the agrifood and food distribution monopolies.
do you have supermarket monopolies in the US though? it seems like you have heaps of choices
like there’s some big companies for sure, but they’re not really monopolies are they?
heck in australia we have a duopoly: cole’s and woolworths… we also have aldi and some independents, but they don’t really move the needle… point being we’re much closer to monopoly and still call it a duopoly
i think the term is important, because the solutions are different
do you have supermarket monopolies in the US though?
I’m not in the US. And the post is about Canada. But the problems are global.
You are right, it’s not a monopoly in the strict sense. In most countries, including mine, there are a few serious choke points in the supply chain. Basically, there’s two or three supermarket chains, a handful of specialized logistics companies (turns out here they’re one that handles all packaged cheese distribution for all supermarkets) and then a very small number of producers per item (most detergents and soaps you’ve ever heard of are from one of two companies world wide).
If you dig deeper, it doesn’t really get any better. Yes, there are a lot of farmers, but consolidation is happening as we speak. Also, all fertilizer, herbicide and most of the seeds come from the usual suspects. So, yes, there are many companies involved, but there isn’t a whole lot of actual competition.
This decision sucks.
As a general rule, I don’t like to ask for help when I’m out shopping. More of a “get your shit and get out” shopper. No fancy cheese for me, I guess.
There’s a ton of people this affects too. Like, what about refugees who aren’t confident speaking English? People with anxiety disorders? The non-verbal and other disabled people?
And never mind the people who can’t ask for help, what about the trend to keep stores understaffed on a skeleton crew? How can you ask an employee to unlock the frickin’ cheese if there’s no employees to find?
I really hate this trend of treating customers like criminals. I just want to eat - so selfish of me, but I’m afraid I’ve gotten used to it.
I am shocked that some people are not protesting by filling carts with meat and just leaving them in an aisle and walking away, also ice cream.
Ice cream is better imo because you’re less likely to kill somebody
So you are assuming that the greedy store would just put the warm meat back on the shelf… That says a lot.
I would worry about it yeah. Also nobody buys a pint of haagen daas with the money they need to survive, and it will be obvious to them that it’s been melted and refrozen.
The packages have gotten much smaller
Blatantly so in some cases. Nature Valley granola bars reduced their size by like a third but still kept using overstock of old wrappers so you’d get a box full of wrappers partially filled with tiny bricks of granola.
Nature Valley granola bars reduced their size
I buy the “crunchy” variety and haven’t noticed this. And we go through like a dozen boxes a month, and I’d definitely notice!
Which variety have you seen this happening to?
The Sweet and Salty kind. They’ve consumed their wrapper overstock so the wrappers fit the new sizes properly now though.
Never tried those, but if that’s what they’ve done, I guess the Crunchy are next. They’ve been having promos for them for some time, and that usually leads to some rage-inducing change.
Oh I wondered. I didn’t have any for a few years and bought a box. Thought they looked smaller.
“Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.” - anonymous quote
These problems are never originated by the poor, they are created by the wealthy. It’s an age old practice of the wealthy to create inequality and then blame the poor for not being lucky enough to be rich. Many writers and thinkers have understood this problem for centuries but too many powerful people take advantage of the ignorance of the population.
Who is the smart ethical individual?
Someone who steals food because they have no other way of getting any?
Or the billionaire who doesn’t need any more wealth to live a long fruitful existence but still decides to consciously increase the cost of the food he sells in order to make himself even more wealthy?
“If the soul is left in darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin but he who causes the darkness” - Victor Hugo.
I’m also curious about the logic of what items get locked up.
I went in a few shops recently, and all the toothbrushes were locked up. I know personal-care items tend to be the first things in the cages. Yet plenty of other items with higher value and margins are out in the open.
Is there some virtue-agenda in play? Don’t make it too easy to steal your way into healthy or presentable?
Stores all have internal inventory systems. There’s a record kept of every product that’s ever gone missing off shelves without someone paying for it. The companies know exactly what and how much people are stealing.
Source, 4 years working in retail.
I would guess the response surface is a function of wholesale cost, profit margin, and previous year’s losses (or current theft).
So something that is frequently stolen and has a high wholesale cost and/or low margin will be locked up first. Toothbrushes are easy to conceal and likely have a low margin so lock them up.
Something else might sell for more, but has a higher margin or lower loss rate. You might lose one, but selling another 5 makes up for the loss.
It has to cost less to install an expensive cage and pay for the labor to open it up everytime a customer wants something from it than losing the item to theft.
Maybe if they weren’t taking advantage of people and recording record profits then people wouldn’t have to steal.
Maybe don’t hold your wealth in a constantly inflating fiat currency and only switch back when you need to purchase something. As an example, instead of holding everything you own in fiat currency, hold what you own in gold, or silver, and then have just a couple of months worth of your fiat expenses at any one time in fiat. That way, most of your net worth is in something that is not losing value constantly.
“Hold your wealth”?
Have you met any actual people? A lot of people have one month’s worth of “wealth” at the start of the month. If they are lucky.
This is not the topic for your 1970s goldbug pontifications.
Then the people who are in that situation and don’t have to be are irresponsible. I understand some people are in that situation and can’t avoid it. But there’s a lot of people who live paycheck to paycheck because they buy cigarettes and beer and smartphones and other things that they don’t need but that they want. I’m not against buying the things you want to have in life. What I am against is not having any kind of fallback in case of an emergency because emergencies do happen.
No one:
You: SCREW THE POORS AND THEIR SMARTPHONES
I live on government assistance due to disability so i dont make much and yet i am perfectly capable of saving money every single month. I promise it is doable.
No one:
You: I LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE DUE TO DISABILITY SO I FONT MAKE MUCH AND YET I AM PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF SAVING MONEY EVERY SINGLE MONTH. I PROMISE IT IS DOABLE.
Yep. It’s absolutely poor people’s fault for not being able to save up anything for food and other monthly expenses when the prices of basic items have risen 10%, 20% or more over the last handful of years, because tHeY hAvE a SmArTpHonE!
Gold has kept up. So in gold terms its the same as it was. Inflation is not items getting more expensive its the value of your fiat decreasing. The US dollar haams only existed completely depegged from gold for 53 years and yet has lost almost all its purchasing power in that time frame.
Very helpful advice for anyone who can’t afford food presently and had in the past lived within their means. Saving up beer money for a month could get you, what, 1 gram of gold at best?
Instead of your plan, poor families should have put any extra savings into S&P500 index funds every year, forgoing a smartphone, any celebrations, gestures of good will, and occasional comforts of life (and not to mention any unexpected big expenses) to feed market forces. They’d be in a great spot today for sure.
just a couple of months worth of your fiat expenses at any one time in fiat.
That isn’t really a solve for people who are stealing food to eat. They don’t have one month’s expenses on hand.
That way, most of your net worth is in something that is not losing value constantly.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/gold-price/
Over shorter time periods, the inflation-adjusted price of gold fluctuates dramatically, making it a poor near-term hedge for inflation.
From 1980 to 1984, annual inflation as measured by the consumer price index averaged 6.5%, but gold prices fell by an annual average of 10% over the same period. Gold’s returns not only fell short of inflation, but also underperformed real estate, commodities and the S&P 500.
