^^^ I agree, the free market would not let an overtly racist business with any size to it exist. I contributed to and volunteered for both Ron Paul's last two presidential campaigns.
Black NYC shoppers claim racial profiling - Page 3
Because it's how I choose to waste/spend my time, but I appreciate your opinion. I would love to hear your views on the subject or experience around it, instead of parsing out my comment.
In America, as I hope you know, credit limit is spending power. But, I am not big on credit, I prefer cash for most of my transactions, although that leads to some hassles if I need to return something.
Continuing with the point, most stores track your purchases and returns, so when the item is returned, they see how much a consumer spends or has returned. They do this to eventually bar customers from returning items or actually from making the initial purchase. So, the sales associate will see that I can afford it.
Private entities have the right to do what they want, but to paraphrase TG, "it's when they impede on the rights of others that it becomes a problem."
On Wednesday, 21-year-old nursing student Kayla Phillips alleged four plainclothes officers accused her of credit card fraud in February after she bought a $2,500 bag from Barneys, according to the Daily News.
Phillips told the news organization that she'd been wanting the orange suede bag for awhile and when she received her tax return, she decided to treat hserself.
Philips said she purchased the but was approached by police three blocks away at a subway station.
A 21 year old nursing student decided to "treat hserself [sic]" with a $2,500 bag.
Holy irresponsibility, batman.
If an SA pisses me off, I complain to the manager. If I was still not satisfied or the offense was egregious, I would vote with my feet/wallet and not shop there anymore, and spread the news.
Once at Paul Stuart, at 5:45PM (6PM closing, Sunday), an SA walked behind me as I was shopping for pocket squares and repeatedly, loudly, said "time to go, closing time, etc." It was ridiculous.
I emailed corporate and a senior manager called me, apologized profusely, and asked for a desciption of the SA. Good enough.
We're getting into semantics here, but I think you understand what I mean. Your ability to get a $5,000 loan, temporarily use that loan to purchase something, return it, and cancel the loan, does not reflect much about your spending ability to me. I'm not trying to belittle or read into your financial situation, I am only making the point that buying and returning something proves nothing about your ability to afford it.
Is I was the SA and saw you buy and then return the item out of spite, I would be more likely to deduce that you could not afford it.
I never questioned your right to do it. Freedom is the best, I love freedom. I did describe it as a waste of time, however, because the exercize seems like a lot of time and hassle to accomplish nothing.
The takeaway is this: Don't worry about what the SA thinks of you, he/she is not your friend/colleague/peer/buddy, and you have no need to prove anything to him/her.
No this sh$$ again, already. He didn't say she shouldn't be allowed to, he implied it was IRRESPONSIBLE. Critiquing behavior is not the same as saying it shouldn't be allowed.
Good article on this here: http://tressiemc.com/2013/10/29/the-logic-of-stupid-poor-people/
Well, you would be wrong. It is quite clear that these stores are public accommodations. It is not just bad business for them to refuse to serve people with the wrong skin color. It is illegal.
I think this is, as others have noted, the race=class assumption. The sales staff probably would have no problem (most of them anyway) serving an African American who was both wealthy enough to buy their grotesquely overpriced wares, and famous enough that people would recognize him and know that he was not "a black man", but, say "Michael Jordan, or Barak Obama." By this measure someone like Vernon Jordan could have a problem. Plenty rich enough to shop at Barney's, but not sufficiently recognizable to be anything other than a "black man." But having "black men" in the store says that members of the underclass shop here, so if you are looking to buy at a place that reinforces your self image as a member of the upper class, then you should take your business elsewhere. Since the vast majority of their sales will go to people who are not black, turning off non-black buyers is bad for business.
As a practical matter, there are not that many black men who would be shopping at Barney's, so Barney's can do fine by alienating those who otherwise would have. The store might miss out on a few sales, but it would retain the air of (white) exclusivity, which is what they are really selling.
Not legal, but in a a truly free market this sort of intentional discrimination would make sense.
First statement is just wrong.
Also I vote to move this thread to CE. There's nothing here specifically about clothes and people are already talking about political campaigns they've been involved in.
No I am not wrong, I assure you that is my belief. I am aware of the Civil Rights Act, but disagree with it. Of course, according to Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton and whoever else on MSNBC that makes me a racist. But that is nothing new...
Don't like paying over half your income in taxes? - you racist!
Don't want the federal government controlling your savings or medical care through insolvent collectivized programs? - you racist!
Don't like FDA bureaucrats carrying guns and throwing Amish people in jail for selling raw milk? - you racist!
You prefer localized decision making over strangling edicts forced down from DC elites? - you're racist AND a terrorist!
Only someone from Washington DC would believe as you do. The assumption being the country is filled with a bunch of dumb hicks who can only be saved by the elite chosen few in Washington DC to save us from ourselves. When the real economic collapse comes, Washingtonians will realize the opposite is true, that nobody needs their unproductive shuffling and funneling other people's money around, and they are the parasites who need the rest of the country to do real work and the pay the taxes that keep them in the lifestyle they've become accustomed.
Ignoring your ranting and just returning to my original statement, it's easy to show that discrimination can happen in equilibrium in a free market. Suppose that you run a restaurant in a town that's majority blue people and they don't like eating in the same room as green people. Then it might be profitable for you to exclude green people from your restaurant. This point is accepted as at least a possibility, if not a reality, by pretty much the entire economic literature on discrimination. Some of the researchers in this field don't even live in DC either.