I don't believe the data is accurate simply because most crime of this level is not reported because the victims accurately believe nothing will happen.
That idea-whatever its merits—wouldn’t explain statistics holding steady during a rise in actual crimes. Unless people are drastically less likely to report crime than in the past, for which there is zero evidence.
It’s just used when actual data doesn’t confirm what people want to be true.
> It’s just used when actual data doesn’t confirm what people want to be true.
You don't have to take my word for it. There are studies to support that property crime goes severely under-reported[1]. Also, people are drastically less likely to report crime when it is obviously nothing will happen and it cost more than the value of whatever was taken. Walmart loses millions on theft every year, they could stop it but stopping it would cost more than doing nothing.
I think the point is, since the numbers don't show an uptick in property crime while others are reporting an increase, the only explanation for that is for the reporting of property crime to decrease at the exact same time as the actual crime increases. Why would that happen?
The article itself gives a few plausible reasons with police blaming the DA and the DA blaming the police.
> Some former police officials said in interviews that officers don’t feel it is worth making an arrest in low-level cases because they assume the district attorney won’t file charges. They also point to a statewide ballot measure passed in 2014—Proposition 47—that raised the dollar amount at which theft can be prosecuted as a felony from $400 to $950.
> Mr. Boudin has pointed the finger back at the police, arguing that the certainty of arrest is low in San Francisco compared with other cities. More consistent arrests of criminals, he has said, would be a more powerful deterrent than the length of prison sentences.
Regardless of what side you take, combine an increase in crime with the fact it is unlikely that people will be prosecuted or arrested and it seems reasonable to think that could lead people to just deciding it isn't worth the time to report the crime.
Why file an insurance claim for petty theft when there's high insurance premiums in the area? Forget it - the time and effort for paperwork, and reporting, and paying premiums is greater than what you'll recover.
Insurance money doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from the people who are paying for a policy. If everybody is losing to the thieves then all insurance is gonna do is convert the lump sum losses into a monthly payment.
> This isn't true. Insurance companies make money from float too which allows them to run on a loss when only comparing premiums to claims.
You know what we call a business that makes enough money on float to cover its operating costs? A bank.
If the float was so lucrative they wouldn't need to charge "high enough to matter" premiums.
Insurance companies don't have magical investments they can make that other businesses can't. They're not going to be making $0.50 on the dollar you give them. They're going to be making pennies, just like literally everyone else. This will mostly go toward subsidizing operating costs. In no universe do insurance companies make enough profit from their money pile to even come close to offsetting payouts.
The fact of the matter is that theft affects the entire area so it WILL be reflected in premiums, the same way things like the climate and adverse weather are reflected in premiums.
>It should be obvious that insurance serves as financial benefit for the insured or else the insurance industry would have collapsed a long time ago.
Using insurance to cover routine expenses never makes financial sense. There's a reason businesses self-insure as much as they can.
Just because a financial product can be a net win doesn't mean that it will still be a net win if you use it exactly the wrong way. Speaking of things that should be obvious...
You are twisting my comment and pretending I said something I didn't.
I didn't say float was enough to cover their operating costs. I said insurance companeis can and often do run for long stretches in which premiums do not cover claims. Float is the way this is accomplished. If an insurance company goes long stretches in which premiums do exeed claims, customers will begin to turn away. Interest on float is free money and therefore float has value regardless of how small the returns. These companies want as much float as possible and offering favorable terms to their clients is a great way to increase total available float.
No, I don't think that many businesses have insurance that covers shoplifting. I don't know the norms for everywhere, but based on personal experience running a small retail business in the Bay Area, it's not common. I guess it's possible that larger businesses have such insurance, but I'm very doubtful. I've never heard of anyone filing for reimbursement. Product that walks out the door is just a loss that needs to be recouped from someone else. Do you have any evidence that would suggest that they are repaid for their losses?
As a smaller business you’re not gonna waste your time to organize a police report if the theft is $100 or $200 dollars. It would cost you more than what you get back. There will also be an insurance deductible so not sure if it will even work at all.
Unlikely that Walgreens files a report each and every time someone walks out with a few sticks of deoderant. They probably just log it and send a monthly report to the insurance company.
