Is everyone really a racist?

[YitzyS]

Let’s say for arguments sake you are correct and the store must lock up the white products as well despite the fact that they are never stolen (seems pretty absurd to me) to avoid the appearance of racism. That works when it’s a question of a couple of shelves of product. What about the next step when retailers simply won’t open stores in minority communities because of a history of theft. They can’t be expected to not open stores in the affluent neighborhoods either just to make everyone equal. Does social justice demand that they open the same stores with the same products and square footage in the minority neighborhoods and suffer the financial consequences, or risk being branded racist?

I think it's totally acceptable for stores to have a solid, open business model (for example, we only open stores in precincts that have less than x crimes per capita) and they stick to it.

[CountValentine]

Considering I never said that I’m not going to bother reading the rest of your post.

If we all use this as a yardstick 90% of the JS posts would not get read fully. 

[CountValentine]

I think it's totally acceptable for stores to have a solid, open business model (for example, we only open stores in precincts that have less than x crimes per capita) and they stick to it.

Very bad idea. It will just make things worse for minority communities.

Interesting story. Had my haircut the other day. The hairstylists mom went shopping in the morning. She was confused (being PC) because the store that has 90%+ white customers on this occasion had mostly black customers. The answer was simple. This chain of stores was looted in there community so they had to go elsewhere.

[S209]

https://www.the-sun.com/news/958863/african-american-hair-products-locked-up-white-people/

 So the stores claimed they only lock up products that have had a high incidence of theft in the past. Just happens to be that those products are all African-American hair products and not white ones. Is that racist or realist? Should they be unlocking these items just to treat everyone equally even though they know they will suffer losses in this category? Is that fair? How far should social justice go?

By the way, an interesting social observation- these are hair products being stolen. Presumably it is not for resale (hair products for whites should resell at the same rate, so there would be no specific need to target hair products for blacks) so we seemingly have a large cohort of people resorting  to stealing to obtain personal hair products. How *doesn’t* that point to a glaring deficiency in our system? A large segment of a community in the US can’t afford basic personal care necessities?

[yzj]

I think it's totally acceptable for stores to have a solid, open business model (for example, we only open stores in precincts that have less than x crimes per capita) and they stick to it.

I’m not sure that is acceptable if the result is that minority communities end up without access to healthy fresh food options, access to banking, and reasonably priced retail. One could make the case that just as phone companies were always required to provide service to sparsely populated areas, even at a loss, as the cost of doing business, perhaps retailers with a certain reach should be required to service minority communities even at a loss. Locking up product at the end of the day may be uncomfortable but it’s still providing access.

These are thorny questions.

[S209]

If we all use this as a yardstick 90% of the JS posts would not get read fully. 

The world would be a better place

[CountValentine]

I’m not sure that is acceptable if the result is that minority communities end up without access to healthy fresh food options, access to banking, and reasonably priced retail. One could make the case that just as phone companies were always required to provide service to sparsely populated areas, even at a loss, as the cost of doing business, perhaps retailers with a certain reach should be required to service minority communities even at a loss. Locking up product at the end of the day may be uncomfortable but it’s still providing access.

These are thorny questions.

A great example is USPS.

[YitzyS]

Very bad idea. It will just make things worse for minority communities.

Interesting story. Had my haircut the other day. The hairstylists mom went shopping in the morning. She was confused (being PC) because the store that has 90%+ white customers on this occasion had mostly black customers. The answer was simple. This chain of stores was looted in there community so they had to go elsewhere.

The question wasn't if it's a bad idea. The question was if it's racist. If it's driven by profit alone, it's not racist. However, yes, stores should have a social conscience and not implement this. But it's not wrong.

[AJK]

By the way, an interesting social observation- these are hair products being stolen. Presumably it is not for resale (hair products for whites should resell at the same rate, so there would be no specific need to target hair products for blacks) so we seemingly have a large cohort of people resorting  to stealing to obtain personal hair products. How *doesn’t* that point to a glaring deficiency in our system? A large segment of a community in the US can’t afford basic personal care necessities?

I find it interesting that you believe theft only occurs due to an inability to afford the item.

[AJK]

(As an aside, you’re presenting a false dichotomy here- the other option could just as easily be to lock up all products despite the inconvenience, instead of not locking up any).

Let’s say for arguments sake you are correct and the store must lock up the white products as well despite the fact that they are never stolen (seems pretty absurd to me) to avoid the appearance of racism.

Considering I never said that I’m not going to bother reading the rest of your post.

Hmm...

Would you mind elaborating?

[aygart]

I’m not sure that is acceptable if the result is that minority communities end up without access to healthy fresh food options, access to banking, and reasonably priced retail. One could make the case that just as phone companies were always required to provide service to sparsely populated areas, even at a loss, as the cost of doing business, perhaps retailers with a certain reach should be required to service minority communities even at a loss. Locking up product at the end of the day may be uncomfortable but it’s still providing access.

These are thorny questions.

Utilities are regulated and basically guaranteed a profit. When they have additional expenses such as from a hurricane they get to pass it on to the public. Therefore there is no profit equation for them to make regarding sparsly populated areas. It will be subsidized by everyone overall.

Who should pay for the unprofitable grocery store?

[AJK]

stores should have a social conscience and not implement this. But it's not wrong.

So what would you have them do? Lock everything up? Not sell the item in the first place? Close the store?

[S209]

I find it interesting that you believe theft only occurs due to an inability to afford the item.

If it was purely a cost benefit analysis shouldn’t they steal and then resell at the same rate as stealing for personal use?

[S209]

Hmm...

Would you mind elaborating?

You’ve proven over time that you actually do possess proper reading comprehension skills. Reread what I wrote and see if you still have a question.

[YitzyS]

If it was purely a cost benefit analysis shouldn’t they steal and then resell at the same rate as stealing for personal use?

I could be a mentality of "I need it but I can easily just take it so why pay"

[S209]

I could be a mentality of "I need it but I can easily just take it so why pay"

Or it could be “I need it but I’m too poor to afford it”. Well, which is it? I don’t know, but something tells me poverty rates would line up nicely in this equation..

[YitzyS]

So what would you have them do? Lock everything up? Not sell the item in the first place? Close the store?

"Should" means in a perfect, charitable world, where people are willing to lose money to help society. Obviously, it's not always feasible fiscally, and it's not wrong.

[YitzyS]

Or it could be “I need it but I’m too poor to afford it”. Well, which is it? I don’t know, but something tells me poverty rates would line up nicely in this equation..

You and Gov. Murphy.

"Something tells me" "this feels different"

[S209]

So what would you have them do? Lock everything up? Not sell the item in the first place? Close the store?

Work to make society a more equitable place with less theft and poverty?

[S209]

You and Gov. Murphy.

"Something tells me" "this feels different"

I was trying not to be too harsh. I know exactly how it would line up.