Posted on 10/15/2025 5:46:25 AM PDT by TigerClaws
To combat shoplifters using the five-finger discount, Long Beach is taking aim at self-checkout. Retailers aren't happy about it.
In August, the California city rolled out a first-of-its-kind US law limiting how many self-checkout registers major stores can install.
The regulation highlights a tension between the rich and the poor in a community that sees hundreds of multi-million-dollar real estate deals each year, while also being home to 22.8 percent of residents who live below the federal poverty line. symbol
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Those poor 22+% of course should be allowed to steal stuff to supplement their household budgets. It is only fair.
“The regulation highlights a tension between the rich and the poor.”
Not following the logic.
> The regulation highlights a tension between the rich and the poor <
Shouldn’t that be a tension between store owners and thieves?
Oh, well. I guess everything is Marxist class struggle these days.
Poor people have a right to steal and the rich people are against it. Yes, it’s confusing because it makes no sense.
EC
Why would the retailers be against this proposal?
Doesn’t make sense. Do they want to be ripped off at self checkout?
The logical assumption is that poor people should be allowed to steal from more affluent every now and then. That’s usually how the brain works for anyone even slightly to the Left of center in their politics.
If you are writing for the "Daily Marxist", yes.
Rich people pay for their stuff and want the convenience of self checkout.
Poor folks steal. ?
I guess that’s the ‘tension’?
Mostly it’s clueless politicians failing to attach consequences to criminal activity and then being shocked when it increases in frequency. Then further shocked when the stores decide to close rather than lose money.
Maybe somebody should think about the societal impacts of creating a culture in which more and more people lie and steal. In case nobody noticed we have a lot of people that commit constant fraud and cover up for wrongdoing by themselves and their family members all the time.
Many of those people you describe work in government.
For those of you old enough to remember Service Merchandise stores that is the model that stores in California will eventually use again. Basically have a small shopping area out front with displays, or at least fake displays, of the items for sale, but have the inventory in the back, secured tightly against DEI. The customers will then order and wait for their goods to arrive from the back. Using ‘technology’, such as a smart phone app, could make this very smooth.
The businesses really have no choice and they already have to lock up tons of stuff.
Long Beach is a weird city. Half the city is ghetto, the other half have mansions on Signal Hill.
I'm reading it as the stores like this proposal, they just don't want to say they like it. The stores don't want to say something that offends their young customers, even the paying ones.
The municipality also has the authority to tell store owners, "We will not have the taxpayers burdened with police and court system costs for shoplifting because you insist on using theft allowing devices (self-scanners)."
Some municipalities forced banks, for example, to install barriers to prevent robbers from jumping over the counter during holdups. Most laws were implemented more than a century ago but the issue came back up again when certain banks insisted they wanted no barriers for a "customer feel".
“Let them touch those things for once.”
> Why would the retailers be against this proposal? <
The proposal limits how many self-checkout registers a store can install. Self-checkout registers can save the store money IF there is minimal stealing.
But there’s something else to consider. Awhile back I was talking to the manager of my local Walmart. He said the store is having trouble getting employees (cashiers) to show up. They’re scheduled, then they call off.
So the store is forced to open the self-checkout lines.
Stores hate shoplifting. But another thing they hate is having to pay more workers than they believe are necessary to run their stores. I think they oppose this solely because it will increase their labor costs.
I think there's a tipoff in the story where they say that customers and worker unions support the measure. Obviously, the reason the unions support it is because the stores will have to hire more workers.
That's what this is really about - not shoplifting.
If you get caught stealing, you'll be trespassed any time you return in the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.