The environment of work is a challenge from various perspectives including productivity, expenses, sales, staffing, safety, and more. Management or owners struggle persistently with maintaining a work environment that is amenable to the customer, the employee, the supplier, and the goals of the owners. And business of all sizes is impacted by the actions of government, state, local, and federal. Each influences the environment in which the business strives to persist and perhaps thrive.
The news is persistently, presenting us with examples of misdirected youth, lawlessness, and challenges. In the words of one tech entrepreneur, America “is going full joker.”
The impacts are being seen across the country. I have written about the closures of retailers in the past. See Evolutions in Economy (January 2022). However, the pace and pervasiveness seem to be increasing. One major retailer recently announced plans to close outlets in various locals. In other locations, it is locking its valuables behind cages. Once upon a time, such valuables included electronics, gems, jewelry, and similar. No, this retailer is locking up laundry detergent, baby, formula, and razors.
The latest example of youthful exuberance occurred in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Apparently using the convenient communication tool that is modern social media, "mobs" of miscreants descended en masse upon retailers and wreaked destruction. Catching a shoplifter, deterring a lone, miscreant is difficult. Confronting a massive gang is simply impossible. And when insurrection arises, government may be impotent to respond. As violence and even battles rage in America, there is little publicity or news reporting to support that those responsible for death, mayhem, and destruction in the supposedly "peaceful" demonstrations of 2020 have been brought to justice or even pursued.
The symptoms are all around us. I recently had the opportunity to visit one of the grandest malls in this country. It is a multi-level, conglomeration of some of the ugliest, goriest, and most expensive materials one might ever experience. I like my purses more staid and reserved. My distaste for such conspicuous consumption is apparently rather unique, as I can assure you many of my fellow mall patrons were not browsing, they were buying. I struggle to understand how one earns enough money for a $500+ handbag (For example only, I saw a lot of expensive merchandise).
But I was surprised there, to find my access to stores limited. Gone were the open and welcoming mall store entrances of my youth. Instead, the stores had glass display windows and lockable front doors. Most store doors were attended, and access was limited ("two at a time please"). Some stores, for whatever reason, had delegated an employee to this potentially dangerous task of access control. Others had engaged some third-party vendor in a security uniform. Two of those were armed security (nine-millimeter pistols with multiple visible extra clips).
How did America reach this stage? As I dictated that, I was drawn towards the word "nadir," but hesitated because I was uncertain we have reached the bottom. How? It began in the 70s, to my knowledge. (I don’t remember a great deal before the 70s, so it’s possible it started sooner but without me. The apologists of that era began explaining persistently that there were no bad people, only bad circumstances. They excused the "demonstrators" and made excuses for the assailants.
These social science advocates persistently pushed the narrative that everyone in society should be afforded every opportunity for rehabilitation and re-acceptance. In their enthusiasm and zeal, they were often heard to rely upon emotional arguments regarding some past wrong, misfortune, or disadvantage suffered by the unfortunate. The social scientists were adamant that tragic circumstances, humble beginnings, and more compelled us as a society to be understanding, forgiving, and complacent to the infractions of some (or all).
50 years on, no shock to many of us, America has grown into an increasingly lawless society. California has essentially endorsed shoplifting. In their efforts to avoid the emotional turmoil of dealing with wrongdoers, they have simply redefined “wrong.” This is an easy way out. There is a legal argument called the "slippery slope" that advocates use to argue against exceptions to rules and laws. Once you begin to make exceptions, they argue, you are on a "slippery slope" and may thus slide to the bottom eventually. Detractors find the argument unpersuasive at best and fallacy at worst.
Other jurisdictions find themselves plagued with roving bands of young people. We will refrain from referring to them in the pejorative “gangs,“ in order to preserve their impressions of self-worth, value, and equality. Video outlets are filled with examples of these mistaken, misdirected, and unfortunate youth temporarily procuring (in no way, casting dispersion, nor alleging their specific intent to deprive) automobiles that belong to others. Through no fault of anyone but these coddled, and enabled, miscreants, vehicles are stolen and driven at ridiculous speeds. People and property are damaged and law-abiding citizens are threatened.
Customers are deterred. People do not wish to visit shops in a location that threatens safety. People do not want their cars stolen. They do not want miscreants driving at ridiculous speeds in the streets, parking, or otherwise. Their high-speed antics are dangerous and a deterrent. Like that or don't.
These jurisdictions find themselves, unable to confront these threats. Too many have undermined, constrained, and vilified their law enforcement professionals and departments in recent years. They find those ranks diminished and ineffective (some claim "scared" to engage). They struggle to staff a police shift. And the police are at least somewhat reluctant to become involved for some reason. Some might cynically suggest that reluctance is based on the potential of becoming themselves vilified for having taken the miscreants to task.
What municipalities don’t lack is lawyers. There’s always plenty of lawyers. And therefore these cities are facing the miscreant theft problem with lawsuits. No, they are not suing the miscreants or their families or guardians. These municipalities have elected instead, to file lawsuits against the companies that build the automobiles. These cars, you see, are allegedly, simply too easy to steal. In the law, we might perceive this as an allegation of those cars being akin to an "attractive nuisance." That would be fallacious, but there it is.
The logic is predictable. The blame for poor behavior lies not with the perpetrator. The blame lies with those who suffer it.
Perhaps municipalities can begin to bring lawsuits against retailers, who failed to post armed guards at the door to their premises. In time, perhaps unguarded retailers will face increasing litigation pressure, and the financial impact of damages. Those damages will, similar to blaming the car producer, be based on that retailer having had the gall to place their goods in such a theft-ready posture. Retailers will perhaps shut down. They may close facilities, quit producing, or increase costs to all consumers in order to finance the resulting loss(es).
There may also be recriminations. As prices increase and availability diminishes, there can be complaints as to the decision. Jurisdictions may see repercussions. Those may be decreasing retailer populations. Those may be increasing prices of products (I designed a "100% safe car" years ago. It would be improbable to suffer any injury while driving it. It had a strange resemblance to an army tank but with much thicker armor. As designed, the vehicle had a top speed of 7 mph and took three gallons of fuel to travel a mile. But safe? Oh my! it would be safe). What a dumb idea. I have chided myself for the lack of environmental consciousness that led me to that impractical design.
Who should decide if an inexpensive vehicle should be on the market to facilitate different income brackets? Is there value in affordable cars? Some well-paid union members have complained that they cannot afford vehicles. They lament the challenges of the middle class. What of those struggling to reach the middle? Who is to blame when the most basic vehicle is priced out of reach due to all the gadgets and gizmos legislated?
Will anyone forego the recriminations for the producers and sellers? Will anyone suggest that theft, destruction, and ineffective justice contribute to encouraging the miscreant? In any population of cars, some model will always be the safest and another the least. One model will be the easiest to steal and the other the most difficult. If the manufacturers toughen a model in response to the cities' litigation, will that stop the miscreants or will they just move to the next easiest model to steal? Well, human nature being what it is, the miscreants will likely admit defeat and just quit stealing cars. Bravo cities! (Apologies for sarcasm, on the upside, the cities can just move to the next lawsuit).
“Full Joker?“ Some, perhaps, interpret that characterization as referencing caricatures. Perhaps that reference evokes intrigue and even humor. The mistaken, collective, belief at the root is that punishing convicted miscreants is somehow inappropriate. The punchline is our willingness to punish the law-abiding while we ignore and coddle the criminal. We punish people who cannot shop in their own neighborhood. We punish people who cannot afford the overbuilt safety. It is deemed appropriate for those to pay the price in order that the miscreant is not put-upon, prosecuted, or prevented.
There will be those who expressed disagreement with these perspectives. They are perhaps the forgivers, the enablers, and the excuse-givers. They are maybe the folks who think everyone can have everything and the cost does not matter. They ignore the reality that if you make one substance hard to obtain, there is some population that will not forego, they will just switch. Have you tried to buy spray paint lately? Bring your identification, I kid you not.
Perhaps, instead, we might consider personal responsibility? Perhaps we might bring communities together to support the rule of law? What if we prosecute and punish the miscreants who are stealing the cars? Well, perhaps you can just call me mean or naive (I have been called worse, regardless of what adjective you might choose).
The alternative is pressure on the business. That pressure adds to the cacophony and distraction from the essential equation of employer, employee, safety, appeal, sales, profit, and persistence. By ignoring bad behavior, we threaten personal safety, workplace safety, and the existence of both employers and jobs. By ignoring, we create environments in which businesses do not thrive. Then we lament and complain when they close, when jobs are lost, when access is lost, when communities suffer. In the end, it is the customer and the employee that bears the burden of such decisions, but employers are impacted as well.
