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

741–750 of 763 posts

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

#741

Post by 1MachineElf »

thegginthesky wrote: post #740
1MachineElf wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The least remote, most-managed places have security locks on items over $15. It is impossible to run a friendly, neighborhood-run store when any new customer is a potential thief. When theft goes uncontrolled, owners begin to look at their customers with suspicion. Those who don't like theft leave for more peaceful places and are replaced by owners who will tolerate theft with a big insurance policy and force. There…

A few blocks away from John Hopkins right? I find that city so bizarre, you have mansions, one of the top universities in the country, and a few blocks away it's pure ghetto. People go from being friendly to staring at you as if you are an alien. Baltimore is so weird, sometimes feels like living in Rio de Janeiro but only the bad part of Rio. None of the music scene, night life or beaches of Rio, but all of the ineq…

Yes, that's the area I'm talking about. Interesting perspective about Rio de Janeiro!

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

#742

Post by polski-g »

everforward wrote: post #687
kriskrunch wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have it backwards. Saying it's the store's fault is like blaming a victim of rape. Once I chased a thief out to the waiting car, and blocked the door from closing, leaned into the car, and came to my senses... I let them go. It was only worth $750. And I wasn't about to brawl inside a car with two thugs. I could have been stabbed or shot. It's not worth the risk. And I was the store owner. Let me tell you straigh…

> And your favorite shoplifting fact is down-right offensive. If you were more balanced in your counterargument you'd also ask the reader: What is the cost to the public for added security, staff, deterrence tech, and lost merch? And lost sense of safety and security? Those are priceless in the eyes of most reasonable people. Sure, and the counterpoint is how much does it cost to provide those services publicly? The…

If they extended castle doctrine to place of business the problem would solve itself quickly. And it would cost tax payers nothing

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

#744

Post by internetter »

sbarre wrote: post #621
solar-mariner wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deodorant has a shelf life. If you stock too many, some go bad before you get to use them.

Do you know what that is? I typically buy 4-5 sticks at a time when my local pharmacy has a sale on the one I like, so I buy deodorant like once a year. Never noticed any problems with them.

> Do you know what that is

Mine is 2 years

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

#745

Post by TheRealPomax »

philwelch wrote: post #718
TheRealPomax wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No isn't. It's to impose sanctions on those who steal things. They have zero involvement in making in harder to do so. Neither laws nor police make it more difficult to steal things, they merely raise the cost of doing so, and as long as that cost is less than the benefit derived from stealing things, thievery will be there to do its thing.

Make it difficult for people to steal things and get away with it, then.

Arguably still no, that's the responsibility of the owners to help facilitate (through video surveilance, etc), mostly required by insurance. Government's role really is just the part that formalizes what the punishment is, should you get caught. Society is who decides how hard, or easy, it is to steal things.

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

#746

Post by sershe »

1MachineElf wrote: post #710
quacked wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Few people live in what can reasonably called a "community" any more, so the link between anonymous theft and the erosion of social culture doesn't make sense to everyone. The most remote, homestead-y places will have unattended "stores" where you leave out goods and people come by and leave money in the basket and take what you have. The least remote, most-managed places have security locks on items over $15. It is…

>The least remote, most-managed places have security locks on items over $15. It is impossible to run a friendly, neighborhood-run store when any new customer is a potential thief. When theft goes uncontrolled, owners begin to look at their customers with suspicion. Those who don't like theft leave for more peaceful places and are replaced by owners who will tolerate theft with a big insurance policy and force. There…

This (minus the bulletproof glass) is how most stores worked in Soviet union. Most of the wares were behind the counter and you asked for what you wanted and the counter person would give it to you. I guess robbery was not a big risk but theft was.

Or e.g. in Seattle in an otherwise-normal store they have alcohol under lock and key and you have to get an employer to give it to you - a hybrid model.

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

#747

Post by abvdasker »

chriscjcj wrote: post #727
abvdasker wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already tried this. It was called The War on Drugs and it failed totally, completely and unambiguously. If there's one thing to understand about the last 60 years of United States drug criminalization and enforcement, it's that those policies have utterly failed to curb drug abuse and addiction. There are a mind-boggling number of studies which show that criminalizing drug use doesn't create fewer drug addicts.

Decriminalizing drugs doesn't mean that addicts would suddenly be able to afford them. How would drug decriminalization mitigate retail theft? Who is going to purchase their Fentanyl for them?

You're arguing against a claim which I never made. I didn't say that decriminalizing drugs would "mitigate retail theft", just that criminalizing drugs doesn't do anything to prevent drug abuse and addiction.

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

#748

Post by wink »

leni536 wrote: post #547
ryandrake wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Pretty sure it's meant as "they're pricing in a (low single-digit) percentage of theft" and not "every week someone grabs 90% of the deodorant".

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

#749

Post by ryan_lane »

LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #732
ryan_lane wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a cop-out, it's exactly how other countries have eliminated this problem. The US is the largest incarcerator in the world, yet it still has these problems. Your suggestion is that we can imprison our way out of this, but prison makes people poorer, in some cases permanently, which ultimately makes the problem worse.

And yet not imprisoning people isn't a solution either. Weird. Portugal and the NL other countries who are supposedly soft on druggies are actually far stricter with them than Canada or the USA - but by imprisoning the drug user on first use they provide a better outcome than going easy on them until they manage to commit serious crime and have to do hard time.

You seem to think that prison time somehow rehabilitates people, but data simply doesn't back you up on that. People are categorically worse off and more likely to commit more serious crimes after being imprisoned.

If we want to lower crime, we need to address the source of the crime, and that's primarily poverty. There's plenty of research that shows strong correlation. Law & order approaches have historically been quite ineffective, and are very likely to help increase, rather than decrease crime.

This isn't to say there should be no crime enforcement, but concentrating on violent crime, and less on petty crime would be a step in the right direction. Hell, one of the most effective places we could set our sights is wage theft.

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

#750

Post by LawTalkingGuy »

ryan_lane wrote: post #749
LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet not imprisoning people isn't a solution either. Weird. Portugal and the NL other countries who are supposedly soft on druggies are actually far stricter with them than Canada or the USA - but by imprisoning the drug user on first use they provide a better outcome than going easy on them until they manage to commit serious crime and have to do hard time.

You seem to think that prison time somehow rehabilitates people, but data simply doesn't back you up on that. People are categorically worse off and more likely to commit more serious crimes after being imprisoned. If we want to lower crime, we need to address the source of the crime, and that's primarily poverty. There's plenty of research that shows strong correlation. Law & order approaches have historically been…

> You seem to think that prison time somehow rehabilitates people, but data simply doesn't back you up on that.

That's a cop out even if it was true. "We can't put them in jail [so you have to suffer the break-ins and violence]". If you can't help then step back and let people who either can or are at least still willing to try.

Portugal imprisons, and has great results, but it imprisons you in a rehab program and doesn't give criminal records from the drug-use portion of your charges. (If you stole to buy drugs then you get a record for the theft.)

> People are categorically worse off and more likely to commit more serious crimes after being imprisoned.

People are categorically worse off after being preyed on by a criminal. Please consider the actual victims here.

If your prisons are that bad then you should pay to ship them off the countries that run humane prisons, but you still need to do something.

> If we want to lower crime, we need to address the source of the crime, and that's primarily poverty.

Once citizens are safe on the streets and can work on community wealth-building programs then sure. Many people are poor because of crime and need help too.

> one of the most effective places we could set our sights is wage theft

Now you're in the spirit of the thing. Recognize more crime and punish more criminals to make things better for everyone.

Post reply on HN