• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    27 months ago

    Yeah but they’re only closing because they’re not bringing in maximum profits.

    They’re still making profits they’re just butthurt they’re not making more and that was my original point.

    If you can lose $3b in theft and still make record billions then no, theft does not affect you at all.

    With all that said though if the store is legitimately being robbed to the point of affecting profits that much then yeah go ahead and close. But the companies that claim theft as the reason for closing stores are bullshitting you.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -17 months ago

      If you can lose $3b in theft and still make record billions then no, theft does not affect you at all.

      But it does. You are using “at all” wrong lol.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        27 months ago

        No just understanding that they’re making so much money the theft is doing essentially nothing to their profits.

        Lemmings really need to stop this whole shtick about not understanding the nuance in word choice. Everyone here acts like a fuckin lawyer when it comes to breaking down and analyzing specific word choice.

        It’s clear through the context of everything else I said what I mean by “at all”. It’s such a negligible impact on the company as a whole that it’s not even worth mentioning 90% of the time. Like a guy who just won the lottery dropping a nickel. It’s completely inconsequential.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          It’s not nuance to just use the wrong words. Also no, it’s not completely inconsequential either. It does matter when considering what stores to keep and which ones to close. It’s one of the aspects you’d consider.