So you and I get to pay double or triple the price to subsidize the cost for thieves and share holder profits.
That pisses me off more!
Or would you rather pay a higher price to compensate for the reduced sales caused by the 'security measures', plus the costs of those security measures?
My experience is that most shopkeepers are paranoid morons who assume everyone who comes into their shop is a shoplifter, unless proven otherwise. Lost count of the number of times I've been falsely accused of shoplifting over many decades. Going right back to being falsely-accused as a child by the local sweet-shop owner (after he short-changed me).
"What's that bulge in your pocket?" "it's my wallet" (pulls wallet out to prove it).
Once got accused by a security guard of stealing the shoes I was actually wearing at the time. Presumably the insinuation was I'd gone in there in my socks and put the shoes on while in there. Had to show them the obviously-worn soles before they'd accept otherwise (they were actually shoes I'd bought from that very shop several weeks earlier).
Got so used to facing that accusation when browsing in bookshops (and having to turn out my bag to prove there was not purloined book in it) that I took to preemptively offering to check in my bag at the counter - though when I did that in central London once (days after an IRA bomb attack) the staff looked panicked and refused to take it, suggesting I might have a bomb in it.
Most recently it happened in a charity shop after I was browsing their second-had CDs (nothing in there I was interested in, I turn to leave and the idiot running the shop snaps something like 'what about that cd in your pocket' - there was no such CD, and why would I want to nick some crap 25p second-hand cd anyway?)
Shopkeepers and shop staff are all paranoid nut cases, in my experience, so I don't believe a word the media says about shoplifting. Most thefts from stores are probably the work of the staff themselves.