1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Economy

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by TigerVols, May 14, 2020.

  1. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Story: The records paint a startling picture of the frequent crime at the locations. But they also show a clear trend. Nearly every store the retailer closed saw less police activity and fewer reported crime incidents than the locations it kept open nearby.

    SJ poster: Another possible way to look at the story is in a way that agrees with my preconceived opinion.
     
    Driftwood likes this.
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    What exactly do you think my "opinion" is?

    The idea that unless they simply closed the highest crime stores (with nothing in that story accounting for how much theft -- $ losses -- there was in the stores, something only Target would know, and which is an important detail), there is a smoking gun of some sort (which nobody is coming out and just stating) is absurd.

    First, when you have more foot traffic, it wouldn't be that surprising to have more crime. ... just by virtue of more people coming through. In absolute numbers, Grand Central Station has way more crime than the bodega on Avenue A and 5th Street. Grand Central gets more foot traffic.

    What is the crime rate relative to the foot traffic? It could tell a much different story. It also would be a much more meaningful way to look at it than what they did with absolute numbers.

    Then, stores with higher foot traffic and higher income shoppers are almost certainly going to drive higher revenue per store. They are going to be way more suited to overcoming a high crime rate and still being financially viable than a store that is running in a marginal way even without high crime rates.

    I suspect that Target feels it has to talk around some "Well, duh" realities, because they get accused of racism or discrimination because of where some of those stores are located.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2023
    TigerVols and justgladtobehere like this.
  3. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

  4. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    $750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people

    Well, I guess SOME questions were asked.
     
  5. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

  6. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I can't read it because of the paywall, but while the 12% thing sounds intriguing ... perhaps it shouldn't be. Those numbers might be in line with what is normally seen.
     
    Azrael likes this.
  7. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Azrael likes this.
  8. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

  9. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I saw that in the meanwhile, but it didn't really answer my question, which is of two parts. The first part is numeric and informs the second, more substantive part.

    The article says that "Of the 30% who started the program unsheltered, only 12% remained unsheltered at the six-month point." So is that 12% of 30%? Or 12% of the total?

    Why is that important? Because based on some very cursory interwebs sleuthing, if it's the former, that's a pretty substantive departure from the norm. If it's the latter ... not so much.
     
    Dog8Cats and justgladtobehere like this.
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I had the same immediate thoughts.

    1) Only 12 percent were still homeless. How many would have still been homeless without their experiment? Was there any sort of control group?
    2) Then along the lines of @BTExpress 's "no questions asked." When you ask people what they were spending the money on, it's not quite the same as observing what they spent the money on. The only reason I bring it up, is that in reading the story, they breathlessly rushed out their results, not to prove that giving people handouts helps them meet basic needs, which would be a "who woulda thunk it?" but because they wanted to prove that it's a myth that people will use their handouts for illicit purposes. Does asking them what they used it for really prove that?
     
  11. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

    Gas from 2.29 to 2.77 in two days. Merry Christmas
     
  12. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    Probably tied to the Red Sea attacks going on.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page