Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Loss from stealing was called 'shrinkage' by retail industry people, in Sam Walton's autobiography 'Made in America'. As you say, they expected to have some. I wonder why it can't be prevented 100%.



Prevention to 100% would be costly. They have diminishing marginal returns.

Why would someone pay $50,000/year for a hypothetical system which would theoretically catch everyone and fill out the police report automatically when the store experiences a tiny $300 annual shrinkage loss?


Because stopping retail theft 100% requires an inconvenience to normal customers that is off-putting and will cause them to go somewhere else.


I certainly wouldn't shop somewhere that required my bags and pockets to be searched every time I left the store.


Lying for Money makes the case that the optimal amount of fraud in any real world system is non-zero. Fraud prevention has direct and indirect costs. At some point the costs of fraud prevention will exceed the cost of fraud itself.




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: