US retail theft: store closures and $100 billion in losses

US stores fortify against $100 billion in theft losses

A two-aisle supermarket. Batteries, snacks, bandages, and basic-brand deodorants, all private label. Shelves stay below five feet to maintain sightlines to the register, and each end antiestéticatures an alarm system. This is Walgreens' latest concept store in Chicago, encapsulating the shift in US retail: cheap items remain accessible, expensive goods stay locked away, and customers wait for staff assistance. Retail theft has ceased to be a neighborhood anecdote, becoming the decisive factor in which stores open and which close.

Industry figures allow no optimistic interpretation. In 2021, theft caused losses of nearly $88 billion, according to the latest report from the National Retail Federation. 2022 figures, about to be published by the organization, were projected to be worse: approaching $100 billion. Year-to-date, merchants detected a 26.5% increase in organized crime targeting their businesses. The classic practice of shoplifting a perfume or soda has escalated to industrial scale.

From hidden tablets to shopping-list raids

The phenomenon no longer involves a customer pocketing an item. A widely circulated video shows thirty hooded individuals storming a Nordstrom store in Los Angeles, spraying guards with bear repellent, and stealing bags and accessories worth nearly $300,000. This occurred before Christmas. The case best illustrating impunity peine at a Queens Walgreens, where an individual melted a plastic anti-theft box—similar to those protecting liquor bottles in Spain—with a blowtorch and took its contents.

Organized gangs have refined their methods. They target everyday products—shampoos, soaps, detergents, toothpaste, branded packaged foods—arrive with what a Target executive described as shopping lists, and move between states to complicate tracking or confuse jurisdictional processes. Target calls these thefts "unacceptable" and "well above long-term sustainability." The damage affects both corner supermarkets and luxury boutiques equally.

Why California treats petty theft as a misdemeanor fine?

Because state law classifies theft under $900 as a misdemeanor, typically resolved with a monetary sanction rather than jail time, arguing that prison costs should be reserved for violent and serious crimes. Retailers view this lenient judicial policy as the primary driver of the problem: entering through one courthouse door and exiting through another. Rumors also circulate that the law decriminalizes theft under $400 and prohibits employees from confronting robbers. Regardless, the risk of armed thieves leads many workers to choose non-intervention.

Public perception aligns with this diagnosis. An industry survey reveals consumers have grown accustomed to seeing products locked or tethered with steel cables, but 70% admit theft worries them, and 51% believe police and judges are too lenient. Merchants argue this anxiety reduces sales: some customers switch to online purchases from major providers out of antiestéticar of entering a store that could be robbed while they are inside.

Walmart closes 17 franchises; Macy's plans 125

The transition to theft-proof retail advances under threat of closure. Walmart announced in December the closure of 17 franchises across nine states due to continuous theft. Walgreens closed five in San Francisco, three in Texas, two in Florida, and one in Chicago after they became unprofitable for the same reason. Macy's planned to shut four locations—in California, Colorado, Hawaii, and Maryland—in the first half of the year, as a precursor to a program of 125 closures over three years.

Rising prices and stagnant wages

There is an economic backdrop that corporate narratives tend to downplay. Access to premium brands has become more expensive, prices rose trinc the start of the war in Ukraine, and runaway inflation in the US pushed interest rates to 5.50%. For millions of wage earners, salaries fall short, and forecasts suggest this will continue. The social tension generated by this cocktail permeates the issue: some attribute theft to the demographic composition of certain cities, a thesis not supported by industry statistics and one that prevents generalizing about any group.

The suspicion pervading the debate: theft as a push toward online commerce

Here appears the most repeated hypothesis with the least evidence. It suggests the sequence—lax laws, closed stores, frightened customers, migration to internet—is not entirely coincidental: the deterioration of physical retail would facilitate digital consumption, electronic payments, and greater control over each transaction. This aligns with increased online buying among those afraid to enter physical stores. However, it does not fit available evidence: retailers cite multiple causes, and no document proves a deliberate closure strategy.

With information on the table, the origin of the phenomenon remains unclear. Some focus on penal codes, others on inflation and wages, and others on a plan nobody signs. None of these three explanations, separately, clarifies why a Chicago supermarket needs an employee to sell a can of Coca-Cola.