« Should we consider a gold standard? | Main | Winter reading »
Robbery fact of the day
In 2004, the total cost of all robberies in the United States was $525 million...every year, employees' theft and fraud at the workplace are estimated at about $600 billion.
That contrast is from Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational. Even if you add in auto theft, burglary, and larceny-theft, the former sum does not exceed $16 billion.
Addendum: Some people are questioning the $600 billion number, see the discussion in the comments.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 9, 2008 at 01:38 PM in Law | Permalink
Comments
$600 billion sounds more like the sum of annual blue collar wages ... perhaps that's categorized as collective-bargained theft?
Who can believe such a preposterous contrast - a photocopy here, a notepad there versus the robbery figures read in the papers
every day?
Posted by: TomG at Feb 9, 2008 1:42:21 PM
Maybe that includes things like coffee-breaks, staring out the window, surfing the internet, and other 'thefts of the employer's time'.
I too find that figure very hard to believe.
Posted by: Tom West at Feb 9, 2008 1:49:06 PM
Tyler, is there a footnote for the $600 billion figure? I'll third the opinion that it's bullshit.
Posted by: Felix at Feb 9, 2008 2:03:29 PM
It is p.195 in the book, perhaps Dan can help us out with a more detailed back-up. Looking on my own I find this as the best source: http://books.google.com/books?id=bdUw3jZUt7AC&pg=PA370&lpg=PA370&dq=employees+theft+fraud+workplace+%24600+billion&source=web&ots=R6OTdl0zzZ&sig=5mU_Li-8LBWDpm6DsQ8v3uCb9HQ, from a book *Investigations in the Workplace*, by Eugene Ferraro, citing the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. It is not clear what they are counting as fraud but when I wrote the post I did not find the number outrageous.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Feb 9, 2008 2:13:12 PM
Just to add in my skepticism: $600 billion is $2000 per capita. That's a lot of ballpoint pens.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Feb 9, 2008 2:20:07 PM
This also raises the question of how many people are killed each year by ballpoint pen theft gone wrong.
Posted by: Greg Sanders at Feb 9, 2008 2:37:36 PM
This is better.
According to research conducted by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), U.S. organizations lose an estimated 5 percent of annual revenues to fraud. Based on the estimated U.S. Gross Domestic Product for 2006 – $13.037 trillion – this percentage indicates a staggering estimate of losses around $638 billion among organizations.Any top-down estimate like that is nearly always bullshit. Start with GDP and then take some percentage of it? Ahem.
Posted by: Felix at Feb 9, 2008 2:37:56 PM
The 5% figure, by the way, came from a survey of Certified Fraud Examiners. Who of course (a) live and breathe this stuff, so they're likely to consider it more common than it actually is; and (b) have every incentive to exaggerate how common it is, because that way they can scare potential clients into hiring them.
Posted by: Felix at Feb 9, 2008 2:45:04 PM
Thanks, Felix. If that is how they calculated the number it is very likely wrong; for one thing they apparently are not distinguishing between gross and value added.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Feb 9, 2008 2:49:02 PM
A quick look at the methodology suggests the figure is nonsense. They asked 11,000 members or so to report on the largest fraud they investigated over a two-year period. About 10% responded and they apparently extrapolated some numbers from this, though they don't explain how.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Feb 9, 2008 2:51:23 PM
The point being made is that internal losses are significantly higher than external losses. This is still valid even if the fraud number is off by an order of magnitude for either $16 billion number or the $525 million as the theft loss.
Posted by: PK at Feb 9, 2008 3:03:39 PM
600 Billion is pure garbage! Dan should be more careful with his facts. Maybe he should behave more like a scientist and less like a journalist out for fame and fortune
Posted by: bee at Feb 9, 2008 3:50:13 PM
Great comments. This is one reason why I love MR so much. By the way, note the "reciprocal nature" of theft: I wouldn't have to steal those ballpoint pens if my employers just gave them to me
Posted by: enrique at Feb 9, 2008 4:00:50 PM
What would be more interesting is how much is spent each year to prevent fraud and/or theft. This will give you an idea of the dead weight loss involved. The theft itself is just redistribution of wealth from rich to poor.
Posted by: Rob at Feb 9, 2008 4:02:27 PM
Isn't the spending on fraud/theft prevention just a redistribution to lawyers, security personnel, etc?
Posted by: at Feb 9, 2008 4:13:32 PM
Ballpoint pens etc are just (untaxed) implicit compensation.
Posted by: otto at Feb 9, 2008 5:24:49 PM
Rob is right: the true cost of a crime includes the measures that are taken to avoid it. People will impose costs on themselves to avoid street crime - more cops, security, guns but also spending more to live in a safer neighborhood. Same for businesses.
Posted by: tc at Feb 9, 2008 6:07:54 PM
I don't understand the problem people are having with the 600 billion dollar number. Especially with what appears to have been happening lately with home mortages and the bond rating agencies. I'd also guess fraud reduction accounts for a lot of the "savings" we see when a turn around artist takes over a company. If anything the 600 billion dollar number might be too conservative.
Posted by: Jason at Feb 9, 2008 6:09:14 PM
I agree with Rob. Becker talks about this in his Nobel Prize speech, I think, or either in his the original Crime and Punishment, I can't remember. But the costs can't be the actual transfers, since those are just redistributions of wealth. The costs are the resources used to prevent theft. Even if there were 600 billion dollars in losses, those aren't the costs of theft. all the spending on guns, security, dogs, and whatever else are though.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Feb 9, 2008 6:15:47 PM
"Isn't the spending on fraud/theft prevention just a redistribution to lawyers, security personnel, etc?"
No because those people could be doing something else with their time. Like producing more ball point pens.
Posted by: notsneaky at Feb 9, 2008 6:28:39 PM
I agree that this number seems outrageous, and iw as amazed to find it. But it is the best estimate I could fine (see the link posted by Tyler Cowen).
Regardless if the precision of this estimate (lets say it is ONLY 300 billion), the main point of the argument is the difference between this number and the cost of the "standard crime."
It seems to me that we are paying a lot of attention crimes with relatively small financial implications (the average income of a burglar is a few hundred dollars per house), and almost ignoring the actives that can have huge financial implications. We do this in the news, and also in the severity of punishment.
In my mind, this is the puzzle we should focus on
Dan
Posted by: Dan Ariely at Feb 9, 2008 6:57:18 PM
One more comment in reaction to Bee
I looked very hard for the best estimates on fraud, I talked to many people who are doing research in this field, but at the end this was the best estimate I could find.
Since we all FEEL this number is too high, I am wondering what number you would feel is the right one. In essence I am wondering what number you would intuitively feel is approximately correct (of course this would not make it accurate).
Posted by: Dan Ariely at Feb 9, 2008 7:23:52 PM
Assuming people are rational, we spend enough on crime prevention until the point where the marginal cost of preventing crime equals (or exceeds) the marginal cost of the crime. Why should I be surprised that our emphasis on preventing robberies leads to the activity not being all that profitable? Why ignore the possibility that we cannot prevent all robberies but we can suppress them to the lower number you cite? The numbers show a rational system successfully working to suppress criminal activity. Unless you want to test what the number would be if we stopped prevention measures.
Theft and fraud at the workplace is a different matter. Taking measures to lower the numbers may make the workplace less productive. Perhaps we tolerate a higher level of these crimes because the perceived costs - direct and indirect- are seen as more acceptable then creating less productive workplaces with more security. Since most companies are profitable, they must be keeping employee theft and fraud within some acceptable limits.
Posted by: DanC at Feb 9, 2008 8:01:46 PM
Regardless of how accurate the 600 billion number is, fraud certainly outweighs non white collar crime on a monetary basis. But that ignores the psychological costs--while the CEO may be frustrated by shrinking profit margins due to "lost" pens, imaginary sub-contractors and billed hours with the bartender, no one is traumatized.
The same cannot be said for the victim of a home invasion, mugging, etc. If there was some way to accurately monetize these effects, then maybe we could start making comparisons of where we spend our money doing prevention.
Posted by: Van at Feb 9, 2008 8:32:58 PM
"The theft itself is just redistribution of wealth from rich to poor." Nope, "Owner/Executives made up less than one-fifth of the perpetrators, but they accounted for the largest losses by far". Calling this "employee theft" is technically true (the boss is an employee, after all), but also fairly misleading.
Posted by: Anthony at Feb 9, 2008 8:48:45 PM
