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

361–370 of 763 posts

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

#361

Post by prepend »

adrr wrote: post #349
anonu wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who wants to buy a $10 deodorant from a NYC CVS when you can buy the same thing for much cheaper online. The thieves are only accelerating the demise of overpriced brick and mortar stores. Plus the experience of going into a CVS and having to press a button and wait for an employee to hand you a deodorant is horrible. (Not condoning theft, but at least the free market is speaking here somewhat)

I challenge you to find deodorant for under $10 on Amazon.

The first result on Amazon searching “men’s deodorant” is 4 for $15.66 [0] so less than $4 per stick.

These are about $10 in a bodega or cvs in Manhattan.

[0] Dove Men+Care Antiperspirant Deodorant With 72-hour sweat and odor protection Extra Fresh Antiperspirant for men formulated with vitamin E and Triple Action Moisturizer | 2.7 Ounce (Pack of 4) https://a.co/d/dR2J1B0

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

#362

Post by bradleyjg »

Spooky23 wrote: post #196
bradleyjg wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s a new company doing selling old spice deodorant? What possible legitimate angle could it have?

There used to be a pretty active market in selling clearance stuff on Amazon and eBay.

Amazon knows that the deodorant it’s selling is not discontinued or clearance. It knows Old Spice isn’t giving some mom and pop a better wholesale deal than the world’s largest retailer either. There’s no legit reason for there to be “other sellers” for that product, or really most any product it itself sells.

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

#363

Post by dls2016 »

axutio wrote: post #161

Most of the comments here are ignoring the difference between regular old shoplifting and the trend driving the increase discussed in the article, which they're referring to as "organized retail crime". I think it's very fair to have differing attitudes/moral thresholds for an impoverished mother shoplifting a week's worth of baby formula versus "a couple in Alabama [which] pled guilty to shifting $300,000-worth of s…

> Most of the comments here are ignoring the difference between regular old shoplifting and the trend driving the increase discussed in the article, which they're referring to as "organized retail crime".

I guess, but conversely I'd argue that organized retail theft has been around pretty much as long as supply chains have existed. That's the mob's bread and butter. The phrase "riding shotgun" is in common use. Perhaps mass shoplifting from the store is a new tactic, but personally I look at this situation and ask, "what has changed"?

For one, we've sort of collectively realized how terrible modern jails are (Rikers anyone?). And that's good.

A second conclusion I draw is that retail stores have been gutted... walmart-ized... every ounce of efficiency wrung out of them. Have you ever been to one of these massive retail outlets and had trouble finding anyone that works there? A few months ago everyone was clutching pearls about some 150 yd stretch of train track in LA that was continually being robbed... and I can make a wild guess that this was the result of 1) skeleton crews, 2) minimal security on the ground and 3) shipping containers that are running with sub-standard defense mechanisms because they're simply too much work (slows down loading, probably break a lot, etc.).

Yes organized crime should be punished, but these companies seem to throw up they're hands and say "Gee golly, we have no idea why $20 million dollars of merchandise watched by 5 overworked, low wage employees and 1 loss prevention officer is such a target! It's a mystery!"

I don't hate mega corporations (ok maybe a little), but they definitely have a hand in creating this situation. And it's rarely commented upon when discussing the recent rise in shoplifting.

(Edit: I forgot my favorite shoplifting fact... up until recently, reports showed that both shoplifting and wage theft "cost the economy" around $40 billion per year. Comparing prosecution rates of the two crimes is left as an exercise for the reader.)

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

#364

Post by magicalist »

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.”

> having the person is released same day, it’s essentially the same as not prosecuting them

No, it's called not imprisoning someone who isn't an imminent threat for weeks or months without a trial while they're waiting for one.

Reform the court system to get to trial faster if you want a change, in the meantime cash bail is an affront to everyone's rights.

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

#365

Post by public_defender »

LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #291
public_defender wrote: post #159

Expert in stolen goods here. I was talking to a NYC colleague the other day about how there are trends in favor of not punishing people for certain criminal activity in the city. We were talking about driving with a suspended license, but I asked about shoplifting. She said, "Oh, no. That's on the opposite trend. Not only are they prosecuting it to the maximum, but they just changed the law to make it easier to hold…

> the street-level shoplifter will be the target of most policy interventions here, which is the least effective and least humane strategy. Getting a low-level criminal or junkie off the street, alive, is worth a lot. You can then offer them a chance to turn their sentence into rehab or something if they don't need jail. And there's no reason we can't go for the higher ups too, there's (jail)time for everyone!

> Getting a low-level criminal or junkie off the street, alive, is worth a lot.

Off the street and on to Riker's Island. A jail so dangerous that it has a high likelihood of being put into federal receivership in the next year. People are safer on the street. Full stop.

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

#366

Post by rootusrootus »

prvit wrote: post #335
ransom1538 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea how a prosecutor can take down these organized rings. The entire method prosecutors use for say exotic drugs, guns, etc: "Ok we have you for 5 years here, who do you work for, make these phone calls, we can get your sentence down to parole". This allows prosecutors to work their way up. But if a prosecutor is sitting in front of a low level shop lifter - who gets out that day - i don't see any prosecut…

Quoted post unavailable.

Somehow in Europe they have a similar shrinkage rate to the US.

https://www.retailresearch.org/crime-comparisons.html

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

#367

Post by hellfish »

meanmrmustard92 wrote: post #184

Some speculated that prosecutors had gone soft on looting after the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. But it is hard to see any such trend in the data: generally states with more shoplifting prosecute more shoplifters The claim is about the time-series comparison, and the rebuttal is about the cross section comparison. Is the journalist in question stupid, gaslighting, or both?

You just don't get the message ig? Maybe if you just stop thinking and accept that 2+2=5 it will make sense :)

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

#368

Post by balls187 »

z9znz wrote: post #268
8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my coworker is from turkey. wears a hijab. or did until very recently, interestingly enough. nice woman. very smart. fiesty.

In a brief recall such as the parent post, certain details would seem either superfluous or meaningful if they don't appear to relate to the topic. If you mentioned that the guy at the counter of the CVS was wearing a baseball cap, we would wonder why that was a significant detail, or maybe "what team was on the cap". Saying someone had a hijab is clearly leading with some meaning, but the post didn't go into that de…

My interpretation was simply painting the picture of who helped him, and not commentary about muslim beliefs.

As another commenter said—humanizing the part of the locked deodorant, and that they did not mind because at the end of the day “we’re all in this together.”

Post reply on HN