• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is This Discrimination?

Is This Discrimination?

  • Total voters
    24
Xelor said:
Were the store to lock up all hair-care products, fine. Locking up only the ones overwhelmingly (if not exclusively) sought by black folks is discrimination in the nature and extent of access to the products offered in the store. It'd be different were white folks, or white, Asian and black folks, both buying hair care products tailor made for black folks' hair type.
  • Hair Types and Race Differences

    Diagram-Showing-Hair-Fibre-Characteristics-by-Race.jpg
Examples of racially generic hair products:
  • Cleansers
    • Some cleansers are made to deal with the vagaries of other products that one may use. For instance, some are made to attenuate the impact of perms and others are made to do the same re: relaxers. Some cleansers are designed to remove more oil while others are designed to remove less oil.
  • Color changers
Examples of racially specific hair care products:
  • Chemical treatments:
    • Curl removers (relaxers) -- Black folks buy these
    • Curl providers (perms) -- Non-black folks buy these
    • What's the difference?


  • Hair "smoothing" (tangle reducers) products (mostly oils of some sort) -- Black folks buy these
  • Products designed to combat the effects of racially specific treatments and preparations.


Even as hair differs roughly by race, hair structure/type has no impact on the behaviors relevant to whether hair care products need to be secured. Behavior is a consequence of mindset. What makes people form a mindset whereby they, in turn, act to steal things? Well, a variety of factors, but one's race isn't among them.

It's probably worth noting that what is and isn't inappropriate discrimination is the issue, and one must know (via sound or cogent reasoning) what be the reason for any given form of discrimination to say whether it's morally reprehensible.
Click to expand...


The primary factor in locking up retail items is the rate of shrinkage (employee theft or shoplifting). If the shrinkage rate on some products is higher than others then it matters not who buys those products but simply that they are the products more often stolen. The 'discrimination' is based on that product's shrinkage rate - not on the characteristics of those that buy that product.
 
looks like a hyperstupid PR move, especially if that Just for Men picture is real. if it is, then that was guaranteed to go viral. if you're worried about theft, put up a scanner at the exit. ****, i don't steal anything and it still catches me sometimes and makes me show a receipt.
 
Moderate Right said:
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe the article technically ever provided any proof that these products were getting stolen more than other similar products. I wish the story had actually addressed that definitively. Obviously the store was at least worried that these products would get stolen more but the article could have clearly stated if inventory and sales records backed that up. They were kind of vague about that.
Click to expand...

The intent of the writer(s) was to show racial discrimination thus why bother to ask about shrinkage rates?
 
Moderate Right said:
I voted "other" because I believe it is discrimination if they are just doing it to do it but I don't believe it is discrimination if their inventory records prove there is far more theft of these products than other similar products. If this is the case, the policy is justified and too bad if people get offended.
Click to expand...

Most pharmacies lock up condoms and shaving products. Is that discriminatory?

What is discriminatory is to focus on "black products" and not high-dollar, easily pilfered items.


that is straight up racist.
 
Is This Discrimination?
Click to expand...

If the items in question have a history of being stolen more than other items, no...I dont see it as a problem.

Its common sense to secure easily and often pilfered items.

I dont think its any more discriminatory than locking up mens razor blades.....they are small and easily stolen.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
The primary factor in locking up retail items is the rate of shrinkage (employee theft or shoplifting). If the shrinkage rate on some products is higher than others then it matters not who buys those products but simply that they are the products more often stolen. The 'discrimination' is based on that product's shrinkage rate - not on the characteristics of those that buy that product.
Click to expand...

Absent empirical data on Walmart and the specific store, I have no reason to think the primary impetus for the lockup is shrinkage.
Trend and empirical data do not militate for thinking that black hair care products are among the things typically stolen from retailers, yet plenty of things that are aren't secured. Thus absent data indicating that Walmart's (or that specific Walmart store's) experienced shrinkage profile differs materially from the national trends' -- and given Walmart's dominant position in the retail market, it's hard to fathom that observed behavior at Walmart is anything other than consistent with national trends -- it strains credulity to think, assume or accept that shrinkage rates alone or primarily catalyzed the management decision to secure black hair care products.
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
Absent empirical data on Walmart and the specific store, I have no reason to think the primary impetus for the lockup is shrinkage.
Trend and empirical data do not militate for thinking that black hair care products are among the things typically stolen from retailers, yet plenty of things that are aren't secured. Thus absent data indicating that Walmart's (or that specific Walmart store's) experienced shrinkage profile differs materially from the national trends' -- and given Walmart's dominant position in the retail market, it's hard to fathom that observed behavior at Walmart is anything other than consistent with national trends -- it strains credulity to think, assume or accept that shrinkage rates alone catalyzed the management decision to secure black hair care products.
Click to expand...

Cosmetics was high on the list of shoplifted products and that may (or may not) have included hair care products.
 
Moderate Right said:
I voted "other" because I believe it is discrimination if they are just doing it to do it but I don't believe it is discrimination if their inventory records prove there is far more theft of these products than other similar products. If this is the case, the policy is justified and too bad if people get offended.
Click to expand...

IMO, no. It's really no different than cigarettes being locked up or behind the counter, or small high dollar items in Lowes. Inventory control is inventory control. Nothing to do with race.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Cosmetics was high on the list of shoplifted products and that may (or may not) have included hair care products.
Click to expand...
Red:
Cosmetics and hair care products fall into different product categories, from finished goods (retail), transportation (import/export) and manufacturing standpoints:

Finished Goods (Global Product Codes -- the codes that are used to make UPC codes/bars) -- See the attached screenshot to identify the query model I used to obtain the hierarchy below. If you drill down through the levels, you'll find that there's no categorization based on race (i.e., say, "black folks' XYZ product" and "non-black folks' XYZ product).

  • Segment: 53000000 - Beauty/Personal Care/Hygiene
    • 53220000 - Beauty/Personal Care/Hygiene Variety Packs
      • 53220000 - Beauty/Personal Care/Hygiene Variety Packs
      • 53200000 - Body Products
      • 53200000 - Body Products Collapse
      • 53160000 - Cosmetics/Fragrances
        • 53161500 - Aromatherapy
        • 53161000 - Cosmetic Products
        • 53161400 - Cosmetics/Fragrances Variety Packs
        • 53161300 - Fragrances
        • 53161200 - Nail Cosmetic/Care Products
      • 53140000 - Hair Products
        • 53141100 - Hair Care Products
        • 53141200 - Hair Products Variety Packs
        • 53141000 - Hair Removal/Masking Products
Manufacturing
  • SIC code 2840 -- Perfumes, Cosmetics, and other Toilet Preparations
    • 6-Digit level
      • 284401 Nail Polish
      • 284402 Make-up-masquerade & Theatrical
      • 284403 Perfume
      • 284406 Health & Beauty Aids
      • 284408 Fragrance
    • 7-Digit level
      • 844022 Colognes
      • 2844023 Perfume Concentrates
      • 2844024 Shaving Preparations
      • 2844025 Shaving Lotions
      • 2844026 Depilatories
      • 2844027 Lipsticks
      • 2844028 Baby, Face, Talcum Or Toilet Powder
      • 2844029 Toilet Preparations
      • 2844030 Pre-moistened Towelettes
      • 2844031 Hair Shampoos, Rinses & Conditioners
      • 2844032 Natural Or Synthetic Perfumes
    • 8-Digit level -- [I'm not listing them. Suffice to say they are even more detailed.]
There are other standardized classification systems. I'll leave you to review them. Suffice to say they all distinguish hair care products from what's generally (layman's terms) thought of as cosmetics, and those distinctions are used consistently in business publications and without regard to what terminology/taxonomy laymen may use/mean by any given term.
  • UNSPSC Product Categories
  • NAICS (unlike SIC code-levels, NAICS are hierarchically related)
  • International Harmonized System -- I wouldn't bother with this one, but you can. What you'll find is that products of the sort we're here discussing are delineated by chemical composition. That said, the chemical composition of hair care products differs from that of make-up, perfumes, etc.

So, no, cosmetics do not include hair care products. You can certainly query Walmart's product managers and ask whether they merge those two classifications, but I can tell you what they'll say, "no." Also, you can ask the authors of the reference sources I listed. You'll get from them the same answers. (If you have friends who have implemented MRP/ERP systems for major retailers, you'll find that they too will tell you that while at a high enough level -- "Beauty/Personal Care/Hygiene" -- the two classes of products become combined; however, at the level of referring to a group of products as "cosmetics," they are not combined.) There are multiple reasons why the two aren't merged into the group "cosmetics," but all of them have to do with comparability and consistency in terms of performing financial, budgetary, accounting, process/operations or sales/marketing quantitative and/or qualitative analysis.

So, as I wrote before:
Absent data indicating that Walmart's (or that specific Walmart store's) experienced shrinkage profile differs materially from the national trends' -- and given Walmart's dominant position in the retail market, it's hard to fathom that observed behavior at Walmart is anything other than consistent with national trends -- it strains credulity to think, assume or accept that shrinkage rates alone catalyzed the management decision to secure black hair care products.
Click to expand...
The information I've provided and linked-to above shows too that that there is no product classification basis militating for thinking that the authors of the information I provided said "cosmetics" when what they meant was "cosmetics and hair care products."
 
Walmart puts a fricken wall around it's makeup. You have to pay for it in that section, no matter if you have other areas you will be shopping in. I don't like that and just don't purchase makeup from them.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The intent of the writer(s) was to show racial discrimination thus why bother to ask about shrinkage rates?
Click to expand...

Which is what I don't like about the left leaning media. They have an agenda and they report with that agenda. Then lefties say the media are reporting factually but they present the facts in a biased matter to achieve the agenda they are trying to push.
 
1750Texan said:
Most pharmacies lock up condoms and shaving products. Is that discriminatory?

What is discriminatory is to focus on "black products" and not high-dollar, easily pilfered items.


that is straight up racist.
Click to expand...

They are focusing on shrink dollars, which every retailer has the right to do. They obviously have a problem in this area, for whatever reason. For all we know it could be a white employee stealing the stuff and reselling it to blacks. But, that doesn't change the fact that they have the right to lock up high shrink items. Hell, most all retailers do something with cigarettes because they will be a high shrink item without doing something. If more blacks buy cigarettes than do white people, the left would have you believe that that is discrimination if you have an anti-shrink procedure for stopping cigarette theft.
 
longview said:
If they knew who was stealing the products, they would have caught them,
they are simply securing those products which have ether a high value, or a high loss rate.
Like a high end store chaining the fur coats to the racks.
Click to expand...

High value? We're talking about Walmart. There are, AFAIK, no high value hair care products at Walmart "brick and mortar" stores, though online one can buy some pricey ones. Such things aren't part of Walmart's personal hygiene mix of offerings.

NM, in its stores, sells high value hair care products. Go visit one.


DSCN9966.JPG




You will find NM does secure the higher priced hygiene/beauty products and that it doesn't secure/not secure personal care/beauty products targeted specifically to any specific racial group.

Moderate Right said:
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe the article technically ever provided any proof that these products were getting stolen more than other similar products. I wish the story had actually addressed that definitively. Obviously the store was at least worried that these products would get stolen more but the article could have clearly stated if inventory and sales records backed that up. They were kind of vague about that.
Click to expand...
If the authors had that information, they could have included it. Did Walmart provide the inventory records to which you referred? (Sales records, by definition, indicate nothing about theft.) (See linked-to content in post 32.)
 
Xelor said:
High value? We're talking about Walmart. There are, AFAIK, no high value hair care products at Walmart "brick and mortar" stores, though online one can buy some pricey ones. Such things aren't part of Walmart's personal hygiene mix of offerings.

NM, in its stores, sells high value hair care products. Go visit one.


DSCN9966.JPG




You will find NM does secure the higher priced hygiene/beauty products and that it doesn't secure/not secure personal care/beauty products targeted specifically to any specific racial group.


If the authors had that information, they could have included it. Did Walmart provide the inventory records to which you referred? (Sales records, by definition, indicate nothing about theft.) (See linked-to content in post 32.)
Click to expand...

The value is only one factor, the loss rate is another.
People do not understand how theft and shoplifting harms a business, it is a big deal.
Let's say walmart sells a hair product for $10, that they bought wholesale for $8, a $2 profit.
If only 2 pieces out of a 24 case are stolen, the profit per item drops from $2 to $1.25.
 
longview said:
The value is only one factor, the loss rate is another.
People do not understand how theft and shoplifting harms a business, it is a big deal.
Let's say walmart sells a hair product for $10, that they bought wholesale for $8, a $2 profit.
If only 2 pieces out of a 24 case are stolen, the profit per item drops from $2 to $1.25.
Click to expand...

Well, were you or Walmart to show the model you've "if'd" about were instead of being subjunctive, existential, we'd say, "no, that's not discrimination." However, neither you nor Walmart has provided any details that so show and all the industry-level information -- multiple bits of which I linked to in post 32 of this thread -- about nature of retail theft (shoplifting and internally sourced shrinkage) indicates the proportionality model you've above lain out does not accurately depict the existential situation at Walmart as a chain or at the specific store noted in the OP's rubric article.
 
Isn't EVERYTHING discrimination to the victim class?
 
Xelor said:
Well, were you or Walmart to show the model you've "if'd" about were instead of being subjunctive, existential, we'd say, "no, that's not discrimination." However, neither you nor Walmart has provided any details that so show and all the industry-level information -- multiple bits of which I linked to in post 32 of this thread -- about nature of retail theft (shoplifting and internally sourced shrinkage) indicates the proportionality model you've above lain out does not accurately depict the existential situation at Walmart as a chain or at the specific store noted in the OP's rubric article.
Click to expand...
Simply locking up high loss items based on their loss rate in not discrimination by race.
It could well be discrimination against anyone, who feels they should not have to pay for merchandise!
 
And-If-Frogs-Had-Wings-4d624de292127_hires.jpg


longview said:
Simply locking up high loss items based on their loss rate in not discrimination by race.
It could well be discrimination against anyone, who feels they should not have to pay for merchandise!
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom