Noah Smith
· Noahpinion
· April 24, 2026 at 22:30
· ⏱ 17 min read
| Read on Substack ↗
Summary
The article argues that shoplifting harms the poor and working class—not the rich—by leading to locked-up merchandise, store closures, job losses, and price increases in low-income areas. It criticizes leftist commentators Hasan Piker and Jia Tolentino for defending shoplifting as a form of protest, asserting their simplistic economic models ignore real costs. For markets, the piece highlights a structural shift of consumer dollars from brick-and-mortar retailers to e-commerce (e.g., Amazon) as anti-theft barriers push shoppers online, but offers no explicit trade recommendations.
•Numerator survey: 61% of shoppers saw an increase in locked-up merchandise; 27% said they would switch retailers or abandon a purchase rather than wait for assistance.
•Author claims anti-theft barriers are direct evidence that shoplifting imposes real costs on retailers, citing that 17% of consumers would switch retailers (10% online, 7% in-store) and 10% would abandon purchases.
•The hypothetical example: if Whole Foods loses $20M due to shoplifting, evenly split among Bezos, executives, price hikes, and store closures—$5M in closures means roughly 100 lost jobs.
•Hasan Piker and Jia Tolentino, in a NYT roundtable, defended shoplifting from big-box stores, with Piker saying he is 'pro-piracy all the way' and Tolentino recalling stealing lemons from Whole Foods.
•Author critiques their consequentialist morality, arguing that individual shoplifting judgments rest on false assumptions about who bears the cost (e.g., assuming big-box theft hurts only shareholders, not workers).
•Tolentino suggested blowing up a pipeline could be acceptable for climate reasons; Piker downplayed the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson as a reaction to 'social murder'.
•Author argues that online retailers (like Amazon) have lower labor costs than brick-and-mortar stores, so shifting sales online reduces economic activity for workers.
•The piece concludes that pro-theft rhetoric stems from a flawed 'homo economicus' approach to morality, ignoring externalities and the value of the social contract.