Comments by "William Innes" (@williaminnes6635) on "Actual Justice Warrior" channel.

No wonder Patrisse Cullors was clinking bubbly with her buddies. She got paid and she stepped aside before anything she was doing would be subject to regulatory action. Very smart woman.
5
I don't know. I have an older relative who stumbled in college and got into food service prior to eventually moving over to IT. The middle of his first career involved managing restaurants for Domino's Pizza. This was back in the 1980s, inside the District of Columbia. The first restaurant he managed had a homeless man who camped out in the parking lot. He was homeless because he had been released from prison for murder. The restaurant always prepared one pizza each day for the homeless man, and never had any problems with its operations on site.
5
@mechaman7818 well if you were in some place like the District of Columbia was back in the 1980s, you had to do what you had to do. Ideally, you're someplace with professional, competent police officers given the legal tools they need to enforce the law and provide security, or where you are free from the state to provide equivalent arrangements for yourself. In practice, most places are on a continuum between Japan and South Africa.* I expect fewer are to the Japanese end of the spectrum. *Mexico has individual homicide pockets worse than the South African average, but when Mexican farm hands form armed militias to make their small towns seem like less inviting targets for cartels, the Mexican state leaves them alone to do so. In South Africa, the state not only fails to handle security, but actively harasses and impedes private attempts to do the same.
2
so if you live someplace where you depend on your security system and you're with Amazon and you actually need it, thieves could accuse you of racism to disable it in order to attack your house
1
well I hope they are forced to take back the shop girls because that is intuitively unfair. However, Lululemon more likely afford to eat the loss of some merchandise in the short run in a way that for instance Walmart in the long run can not. Walmart's margins are razor thin. That's how it delivers lower prices for customers. Chronic ongoing looting of Walmarts in specific areas inexorably drives affordable groceries and unskilled jobs out of an area as chronically looted stores become dead weight on all the other stores to keep them going. Lululemon in contrast has a huge markup on its products. In terms of impact on the community on the ground, even if Lululemon does get driven out by the looting despite its better operating profitability, it removes a luxury from consumers, as opposed to a necessity. People can drive to a different one, or order online, or just wear cheaper leggings. Lululemon also trades heavily on its brand in a way that Walmart doesn't. If the Walmart brand evaporated and Walmart stores all of a sudden had the same supply chain engineers, cashiers, stockboys, and truckers under a big red sign that said "Cheap Stuff Here" in yellow Times New Roman font, the same managers of and shareholders in Cheap Stuff Here (NYSE: CSH) would be fine. If Lululemon loses its brand, its ability to market its products with Veblen pricing is merked. Nobody is paying that much for some weird leggings brand that might be from Wish. Not to nit pick the framing of this one too much.
1