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

541–550 of 763 posts

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

#541

Post by Broken_Hippo »

capitalsigma wrote: post #404
dls2016 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Perha…

Understaffing doesn't justify crime. You probably understaff your home security, leaving it empty all day while you're at work. Do you deserve to be robbed?

These aren't the same.

Understaffing and such things are like having locks on your house, yet only locking the windows while leaving the house, garage, and shed doors open. You may not deserve to have your stuff taken, but everyone can understand why they chose your house instead of the one next door. If you aren't willing to do the bare minimum - shutting doors and locking them - you were minimally more OK with the risk.

And to be fair, retail places usually aren't "robbed". They have their stuff shoplifted and stolen: Robbing a store generally creates images of armed intruders, and most of it isn't like that.

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

#542

Post by Ekaros »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #397
jakelazaroff wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually wrote another comment in this thread about Singapore [1]. The subway there was particularly interesting to me. While the New York media has used subway deaths to drum up support for police, Singapore has entirely solved the root problem in a non-carceral way by investing in infrastructure. Plenty of other countries have done the same, actually. The knee-jerk response of adding more cops actually makes soci…

You know Singapore unabashedly beats the shit out of thieves, right?

I have started to think that corporal punishment might not be actually worst option.

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

#543

Post by UncleEntity »

webnrrd2k wrote: post #505
nradov wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A database of serial numbers alone wouldn't be sufficient. Counterfeiters frequently copy real serial numbers and print them on fake products. There are more effective means such as tamper resistant RFID tags, but those aren't cost effective for cheap items. And often no one bothers to check anyway.

I think serial numbers would be enough to stop the vast majority of people selling stolen items. It would require companies to track serial numbers that go into the store, and serial numbers of items put on shelves, or otherwise legally leave the store. After a while, it'll be clear which items & serial numbers were legelly sold vs. stolen. And, to address the original point, copied stolen serial numbers still aren't…

So, I drive a truck.

It’s hard enough to get them to unload you when all they have to do is count pallets like “yep, 22 pallets of potatoes” even harder when they have to break down pallets to count individual cases and would be impossible if they had to verify every single item by serial number.

Even when I used to deliver to individual grocery stores it was difficult because they didn’t plan for unloading the truck on the schedule and they had to stock the shelves before the store opened so more often than not they just got their stuff off the truck as quickly as possible without even doing any sort of verification, just pull the pallets with their store number and let the department heads deal with it in the morning.

It sounds like a valid idea but the amount of labor would be astronomical.

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

#544

Post by thablackbull »

JamesianP wrote: post #504
jakelazaroff wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually wrote another comment in this thread about Singapore [1]. The subway there was particularly interesting to me. While the New York media has used subway deaths to drum up support for police, Singapore has entirely solved the root problem in a non-carceral way by investing in infrastructure. Plenty of other countries have done the same, actually. The knee-jerk response of adding more cops actually makes soci…

I would have thought Singapore had more policing in all respects versus US cities. Also the subway stories are probably more about general fear of whatever criminals are apparently lurking down there. It can get kind of scary in the subway when it's deserted. especially Upper Manhattan where it's so deep down. Meanwhile when I travel in developed Asian cities, it's not scary at all. Just really really crowded.

> I would have thought Singapore had more policing in all respects versus US cities.

You only see police occasionally doing their patrols, so it can be argued there is less of a police presence than say NY. There is no need, there are cameras everywhere and its a small Island, you can't run anywhere.

With respect to the parent's comment on subway deaths: > Singapore has entirely solved the root problem in a non-carceral way by investing in infrastructure.

There are barriers that only open when the train has arrived, so there quite literally cannot be deaths from people pushing others onto the tracks. I presume that is what he means by infrastructure.

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

#545

Post by prvit »

Kbelicius wrote: post #525
prvit wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly, except pretrial detention for minor crimes is unfortunately still not that uncommon in Europe. The lack of bail often makes this worse, a weird obsession with “fairness” forces us to continue locking up people with sufficient assets to insure against absconding. Poor people can’t afford bail? Better make everyone else suffer too.

So what you are basically saying is that poor people should suffer more for committing the same crime as someone rich.

> So what you are basically saying is that poor people should suffer more for committing the same crime as someone rich.

Do you believe that rich people should suffer more because poor people can’t afford bail?

If you break a leg, should everyone else have their legs broken too? That’d be fair, right?

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

#546

Post by thablackbull »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #397
jakelazaroff wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually wrote another comment in this thread about Singapore [1]. The subway there was particularly interesting to me. While the New York media has used subway deaths to drum up support for police, Singapore has entirely solved the root problem in a non-carceral way by investing in infrastructure. Plenty of other countries have done the same, actually. The knee-jerk response of adding more cops actually makes soci…

You know Singapore unabashedly beats the shit out of thieves, right?

> You know Singapore unabashedly beats the shit out of thieves, right?

They don't...first offense you basically get off with a warning. Recent headlines was a case of Australian school girls shoplifting [1]. Although they're foreigners, same goes for locals.

[1] https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/6-austra...

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

#547

Post by leni536 »

ryandrake wrote: post #470
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 stolen baby formula on eBay". I’ve also noticed a weird tendency to downplay theft lately, either through projecting a theoretical moral justification on to the shoplifter or by insinuating that retail…

> I’ve also noticed a weird tendency to downplay theft lately, either through projecting a theoretical moral justification on to the shoplifter or by insinuating that retail stores are evil corporations and therefore deserve no sympathy. Let me try to convince you without defending the morality of the shoplifter or declaring corporations evil. 1. On the totem pole of crimes, petty shoplifting (without violence) is pr…

> These corporations that are being robbed already build shrinkage into their budgets.

Doesn't this just mean that it is priced in? So thiefs are stealing from paying customers.

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

#548

Post by tomalpha »

webnrrd2k wrote: post #505
nradov wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A database of serial numbers alone wouldn't be sufficient. Counterfeiters frequently copy real serial numbers and print them on fake products. There are more effective means such as tamper resistant RFID tags, but those aren't cost effective for cheap items. And often no one bothers to check anyway.

I think serial numbers would be enough to stop the vast majority of people selling stolen items. It would require companies to track serial numbers that go into the store, and serial numbers of items put on shelves, or otherwise legally leave the store. After a while, it'll be clear which items & serial numbers were legelly sold vs. stolen. And, to address the original point, copied stolen serial numbers still aren't…

This is what happens (in theory) with GSM mobile phones. GSM devices have a serial number in the form of an IMEI which can be blacklisted from networks if stolen [0]. There are, of course, still ways round it as detailed in the wikipedia entry - e.g. the blacklists are national ones, and organised groups can "just" ship the phones to another country and sell them there.

Even so, as you intimate, it does make it _harder_ to resell stolen phones.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mobile_Equipment...

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

#549

Post by bryanrasmussen »

endominus wrote: post #448
selimthegrim wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t Satan really mean like cross examiner or something

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan , it means "Accuser" and "Adversary". Apparently (according to my foggy memories of a video essay about some high-art film) Satan was originally just the dude that would accuse you of all your sins you committed while mortal.

In essence Satan is the prosecuting attorney, Welcome to America!

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

#550

Post by Eleison23 »

mattigames wrote: post #47
MichaelCollins wrote: post #33

> "The stores are insured bro, why do you care if people steal from them? It's not your problem maaan." This is why I care. Criminals degrade society and we all suffer for their greed.

But society first needs to be in a degraded state for most criminals to exist, as most only meet their basic needs through criminal means, such as food, shelter, health and education.

Society has been persistently degraded since time immemorial, because of the presence of organized crime. The only thing that's changed since Prohibition is the genetic makeup of the gangstas who are in charge.

#BlackLivesMatter came about because the police have been--somewhat unwillingly--waging open warfare against gangbangers for decades in the inner city. The gangbangers all have guns and the cops have heavy weaponry that sometimes protects them and oftentimes blows away a few low-ranked gangbangers who might've just completed initiation, or weren't even affiliated but just hanging out at a party.

So what #BLM and #DefundthePolice people are saying is, enough is enough with this open warfare, you're killing children and innocent people, the cops are too powerful.

But gangs offer societal structure: they offer belonging, they offer community, they offer encouragement and brotherhood. They offer economic opportunity. They offer lifelong careerism. That flavor of opportunity can't be had in a public school or a legitimate job.

So gangs aren't going away; gangs are part of the fabric of society because they're providing tangible benefits for many members and non-members alike.

But how will they disarm themselves? How will they offer truces to the cops and reconcile, swords into plowshares? If gangs don't go away then they need to be pacified or the open gang warfare will continue to get cops involved, and the gangs will continue to shoplift and fence and operate all sorts of low-level criminal enterprise with impunity. So what to fix?

Save the family - save the world.

Post reply on HN