Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why it’s hard to buy deodorant in Manhattan

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 763 posts

Re: Why it’s hard to buy deodorant in Manhattan

#281

Post by qwerpy »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #214
partiallypro wrote: post #179

This is such a big nationwide problem that Target actually mentioned it during their earnings report (this is stated in the article.) Some states/cities have made it near impossible to prosecute these people, so the risk/reward is very favorable to stealing and reselling. Some stores have even closed down in certain areas because of it. When we talk about "food deserts" in some cities, it could one day be we have mas…

>and it will largely be a government policy failure. You mean feature. If you tell voters in no uncertain terms what will happen if they piss on the electric fence and they piss on it then it's safe to assume they wanted the results. Make no mistake, people were told certain policy would lead to businesses leaving these areas resulting in deserts. Voters voted for it anyway.

I’d be fine with this as long as people then don’t decry the eventual deserts as discriminatory.

Re: Why it’s hard to buy deodorant in Manhattan

#282

Post by listenallyall »

ryan_lane wrote: post #197
ksenzee wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so this is a hugely political issue right now. Don't be surprised to get wildly differing answers. Republicans are pointing at public disorder and screaming about crime, and Democrats are accusing them of being fragile suburbanites who can't handle normal urban life. I'm a left-leaning independent, and I tend to agree with Democrats on a lot of their talking points, but I will say that everywhere I go I see mo…

I'd like the organized retail theft (gangs of people robbing a store) cracked down on, but in general I'd prefer a softer touch on general petty shop lifting. These are different things, with different motivations, and cracking down on someone stealing because they have nothing doesn't actually prevent that from happening more (you need to address the underlying issue). The organized crime, however, should be harshly…

Although I generally agree there's little positive effect from harshly punishing very petty thieves, saying "address the underlying issue" is a major cop-out basically indicating you have no interest in fixing anything.

What do you think the "underlying issue" is? Drug abuse? Lack of education? Paucity of low-skill jobs? Not enough affordable housing? Discrimination? Lack of opportunities for ex-prisoners? Inflation? Point is, there are plenty of reasons, not just one, that could lead a person to steal a few items from CVS, and they are far too numerous and widespread to believe you'll be able to do anything meaningful to "address" them.

Re: Why it’s hard to buy deodorant in Manhattan

#283

Post by russellbeattie »

What is behind this unwelcome article on HN? Some speculated that HN is increasingly filled with the type of right wing extremists who lose their minds at the mere thought of BLM. But it's hard to see any such trend in the comments...

Weasel word dog whistles are fun, no?

Re: Why it’s hard to buy deodorant in Manhattan

#285

Post by jakelazaroff »

bityard wrote: post #175
jakelazaroff wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s one perspective. Another is that the truly greedy thing is to construct a society such that some people can’t afford basic necessities, and that inflicts far more suffering than people stealing what they need to live.

Ah, the old "two wrongs make a right" defense

I’m not saying that two wrongs make a right. I’m saying that you can easily view the situation such that the “other side” is actually in the wrong.

Re: Why it’s hard to buy deodorant in Manhattan

#286

Post by z9znz »

wand3r wrote: post #277
someguydave wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you are a big fan of judging people on the basis of superficial appearances.

Not op. I frequently do, all the time. You seem to indicate this is a bad thing. Maybe I misunderstood but its just data. As long as you don't draw huge conclusions with no room to adjust, then in my book its basically par for the course. We reason from heuristics, its difficult to analyze every possible person from first principles, especially in a casual interaction...

This has nothing to do with the hijab. This is a matter of mixing perspectives.

All of the descriptions of the situation are rather mundane and bland. Only two extra details stand out: "Upper East Side of Manhattan (think pooches inside Gucci bags)" and "in a Hijab and was studying medicine and was helping her parents who immigrated from Turkey".

A significant percentage of "regular" stores in big cities are owned or at least managed and operated by immigrants from very different backgrounds.

These details being present in the brief story seem to have some significance, so my question was, "Why is this significant?"

This is not a judgement on the people running the store or of people in hijabs. It's a question for the poster about why those details were significant.

Maybe it was just the ramblings of an old person (which I can say as I'm an old person). But it is still fair to ask for clarification.

Re: Why it’s hard to buy deodorant in Manhattan

#288

Post by vinyl7 »

standardUser wrote: post #156
lmm wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, or worse. Fuck 'em, frankly.

We have been, obviously. That's why we have the largest prison population in the world (and we have to pay for it). It just doesn't work. So if you actually care about reducing crime, and not just getting petty revenge, shouldn't we try something different finally?

Why not both instead of relying on one? Fix the broken economy, and punish people. That should reduce crime, lower the prison population, while still punishing those who actually deserve it.

Unfortunately economy is boring and the media/congress would rather talk about stupid side issues that effect no one.

Re: Why it’s hard to buy deodorant in Manhattan

#289

Post by acdha »

nxm wrote: post #256
SpelingBeeChamp wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know of any states that have made it near impossible to prosecute shoplifters. What are you referring to?

Having the penalty be a slap on the wrist and having the person is released same day, it’s essentially the same as not prosecuting them. NY state bail reforms, and in San Fran; “ In 2014, a ballot referendum passed that downgraded the theft of property less than $950 in value from a felony charge to a misdemeanor.”

That’s not the same claim at all - those people can and are being prosecuted: bail wouldn’t matter if they weren’t! Similarly, changing the threshold for a felony theft charge doesn’t prevent anyone from being prosecuted.

Re: Why it’s hard to buy deodorant in Manhattan

#290

Post by PragmaticPulp »

mbreese wrote: post #148
nostromo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming Amazon is misplaced. Blame the people stealing and the system that refuses to prosecute them.

You can tackle a problem from multiple directions. So while direct prosecution is important, cutting off a method for converting stolen goods to money is also important. As soon as that method become unprofitable, the activity will either stop or switch to something else.

This is one of those statements that feels good when no specifics are on the table, but if it was ever implemented we’d be seeing countless HN stories complaining about how Amazon is requiring sellers to provide too much documentation or closing their accounts for suspected dealing in stolen goods or something.

Heavy handed regulation always sounds better in hypothetical perfect knowledge scenarios, but kind of sucks for everyone in the real world.

Post reply on HN