Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

AztecSU

California not quite hell on earth....yet

Recommended Posts

On 6/19/2021 at 3:11 PM, Joe from WY said:

Hahaha. I just had a visitor from Oakdale yesterday. She raved the whole time about the weather here and kept reiterating how nasty the weather was over in the Valley. Spent the whole afternoon rather comfortably at Pacifica State Beach yesterday, which was fantastic. That said, here right now, it's maybe 70 degrees.

What's really crazy though is that if you go like 6 miles inland, it's like 30+ degrees warmer. Hell, it was like 105 in San Rafael even yesterday.

You know it's crazy when you can see the sun in Pacifica. This time of year, that almost never happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2021 at 11:31 AM, AztecSU said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-14/california-defies-doom-with-no-1-u-s-economy

1.3m jobs added

GDP up 21%, 

Manufacturing up

 

Lots of talk of people leaving and a bad business environment don't seem to be manifesting in the numbers.  

 

I think that stating Cali added 1.3M jobs and that they "easily surpassed also-rans Texas and New York." is a little misleading. California lost 2.7M jobs in 2020 and added back just under half of them (1.3M) back for a net loss of jobs of 8%. By contrast, Texas lost 1.4M jobs in 2020 and added back 1M jobs for a net 3.4% job loss.  A strong Cali is good for the U.S., but I think some of the numbers won't shake out until 1Q for 2022 to really see where they land. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

I can’t think of anywhere I’ve ever been that has such drastic temperature differences than the Bay Area. I remember leaving Walnut Creek one afternoon when it was 105 degrees to go watch a game at Candlestick wearing shorts and a tee shirt. About the 3rd inning the fog rolls in and I’m freezing my ass off. 

The coldest winter of my life was the summer I spent in San Francisco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

I can’t think of anywhere I’ve ever been that has such drastic temperature differences than the Bay Area. I remember leaving Walnut Creek one afternoon when it was 105 degrees to go watch a game at Candlestick wearing shorts and a tee shirt. About the 3rd inning the fog rolls in and I’m freezing my ass off. 

Southern Santa Clara County ---> Monterey Bay is even more of a pronounced difference. 

109 ° in Gilroy ----> 64° in Salinas 30 minutes later

 

ezgif-5-959914ff2250.gif.f0cc4fc558f5a154dc6ff5904c80bf34.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2021 at 12:04 PM, East Coast Aztec said:

Companies say a lot of things, but there is always more to it.  If they say it's because of shoplifting, instead of admitting it is primarily a part of their consolidation plan, it seems like less of a negative publicly.  They have insurance for theft, and I have to believe there are tax deductions for inventory losses as well 

 

On 6/16/2021 at 12:06 PM, renoskier said:

Maybe they could hire more employees/security?  :shrug:

I'm sure that self checkout and other cost saving measures have also lead to higher losses from theft.

Just let insurance cover it and/or hire more people to try and prevent it? Shoplifting is rarely covered by commercial insurance unless there is a use of force, which would technically fall under burglary or robbery. Even if it were, that would mean that insurance rates would then go up. Why should a company have to hire more people, pay higher insurance rates or incur a loss just because counties/cities/municipalities decide not to enforce or prosecute. I can't believe that people are making a case for companies willingly absorbing the costs for the failure of governments to prosecute criminals. This is insane and completely out of touch with reality, not to mention the fact that it disproportionately affects small businesses that can't afford such security measures or to take the financial loss. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

 

Just let insurance cover it and/or hire more people to try and prevent it? Shoplifting is rarely covered by commercial insurance unless there is a use of force, which would technically fall under burglary or robbery. Even if it were, that would mean that insurance rates would then go up. Why should a company have to hire more people, pay higher insurance rates or incur a loss just because counties/cities/municipalities decide not to enforce or prosecute. I can't believe that people are making a case for companies willingly absorbing the costs for the failure of governments to prosecute criminals. This is insane and completely out of touch with reality, not to mention the fact that it disproportionately affects small businesses that can't afford such security measures or to take the financial loss. 

Interesting then that we only seem to hear about the big boys closing up? Also you can deduct stolen items from your closing inventory so each item stolen is less taxes paid on a profitable business(or rolled on one that is still running losses). 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

 

Just let insurance cover it and/or hire more people to try and prevent it? Shoplifting is rarely covered by commercial insurance unless there is a use of force, which would technically fall under burglary or robbery. Even if it were, that would mean that insurance rates would then go up. Why should a company have to hire more people, pay higher insurance rates or incur a loss just because counties/cities/municipalities decide not to enforce or prosecute. I can't believe that people are making a case for companies willingly absorbing the costs for the failure of governments to prosecute criminals. This is insane and completely out of touch with reality, not to mention the fact that it disproportionately affects small businesses that can't afford such security measures or to take the financial loss. 

Is the government not treating shoplifting as a crime?  A lot of cities have lessened the severity of the charge, but hasn't decriminalized theft.  Right now, it seems like SF is having a booster issue, similar to what NYC used to have in the fashion district.  

So, which way to go?  Death penalty for thievery?  Trying to have staff stop these folks?  Did SF businesses lose their ability to protect their property, are they forbidden from asset protection like Houston can?  Or are they making their own business decision.  Are they hoping to pass the buck off on citizens who have nothing to do with this?  Fill up the jails and have taxpayers pay even more for housing thieves by going back to felonies?  Why should all these taxpayers pay more to protect a private business by filling up the jail cells for theft?  I don't live in CA or SF so it isn't my call on that, and it isn't yours.  Cities have probably done their cost-benefit analysis to get to their decision, and NPO's are probably forcing issues too.  I have done my analysis and choose not to live in SF, and so do some of these businesses.  My and their problem is solved

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, AztecSU said:

Interesting then that we only seem to hear about the big boys closing up? Also you can deduct stolen items from your closing inventory so each item stolen is less taxes paid on a profitable business(or rolled on one that is still running losses). 

You rarely hear about mom & pop business closing regardless of the reason. A larger company closing multiple locations would undoubtedly be more newsworthy, but beyond that, a larger company can close down locations that aren't profitable because of the rise in thefts and relocate or just abandon the area completely, but a mom & pop store with one location typically can't do that and if they are able to it's going to impact them financially. Even if a business deducts a loss from theft, it is still a loss and not a one-for-one offset. The business is still losing money on it. Would you be happy taking that loss? Probably not...so why should they have to? At any rate, it was my understanding that deductions for a loss from theft was suspended until 2026 unless it directly relates to a federal disaster AND the business is uninsured for theft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

You rarely hear about mom & pop business closing regardless of the reason. A larger company closing multiple locations would undoubtedly be more newsworthy, but beyond that, a larger company can close down locations that aren't profitable because of the rise in thefts and relocate or just abandon the area completely, but a mom & pop store with one location typically can't do that and if they are able to it's going to impact them financially. Even if a business deducts a loss from theft, it is still a loss and not a one-for-one offset. The business is still losing money on it. Would you be happy taking that loss? Probably not...so why should they have to? At any rate, it was my understanding that deductions for a loss from theft was suspended until 2026 unless it directly relates to a federal disaster AND the business is uninsured for theft. 

Actually it is a one-for-one deal(inventory deduction). But that said I would guess shoplifting could hurt your normal business activity if it got out of hand so that would probably be the real issue. To be clear no one is saying they have to do anything, they should do what is best for their business. That said if mom and pops were forced to close as a result of this I would bet local news will cover it. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2021 at 1:56 PM, AztecSU said:

 

Just now, renoskier said:

It's already started...

https://poweroutage.us/area/state/texas

note to self....read a little farther before posting :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2021 at 1:28 PM, AztecSU said:

Interesting then that we only seem to hear about the big boys closing up? Also you can deduct stolen items from your closing inventory so each item stolen is less taxes paid on a profitable business(or rolled on one that is still running losses). 

Your attitude toward stealing sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one "condones" shoplifting but...

Does prosecuting shoplifting as a felony do anything to prevent or even reduce shoplifting? Or does it just make you feel better about "law and order"?

How do stores prevent shoplifting now? And what do they do when they catch someone? How do they detain a suspect until the police arrive? Even in Texas it probably takes an hour or more for police to respond. What if someone resists or just says FU and leaves? I could imagine scenarios where it's much more dangerous trying to stop a suspect. 

And as someone else mentioned, what's the cost to society of prosecuting/incarcerating shoplifters? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, renoskier said:

It's already started...

https://poweroutage.us/area/state/texas

No rolling blackouts.  But there were concerns last week that they might be needed because use spiked at the same time multiple plants went off line unexpectedly.  ERCOT was asking people to dial it back a bit until the plants were back on.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Your attitude toward stealing sucks.

Because I provided factual information related to how businesses handle inventory theft? Ok. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...