Hacker News Reader

Comment by virmundi | Hacker News Reader

The big players also had the benefit of having themselves declared necessary for life while small companies that sold the same items were declared nonessential. This results in Walmart making money while mom and pop stores go out of business. Hence the lawsuit in PA. https://youtu.be/InCIyID5rkE

View on HN

During Pennsylvania's red phase, groceries and hardware stores were kept open (to name two examples). Mom and pop groceries and hardware stores were allowed to be open as was Walmart, which sells both. Pennsylvania has a lot of state-level corruption but that isn't it. The governor's overreach arguably prevented a lot of disease spread. Now tell me why the state run liquor stores were declared "essential."

Initially the state run stores were closed for quite some time.

Alcohol withdrawal can be fatal. Also taxes

Hence why WA kept weed stores open too.

Taxes and let people mellow out.

Not to mention homemade booze. That can kill you too.

A Super-Target selling groceries was still allowed to sell toys, linens, and everything else in their store.

A stand-alone toy store could not be open.

So what do you propose? An ever changing list of what, exactly, could be sold, or could not be sold, and fines for anyone who breaks it? That seems rather problematic too. Convenience stores having to tell customers they can't buy knick knacks, grocery stores telling customers they can't buy cards or flowers, etc. It was unpleasant enough for workers to deal with customers irate at only being able to purchase 2 things of toilet paper; I can't even imagine what trying to prevent the purchase, at all, of things the stores stocked would have caused.

They could have roped off the toy and game sections since toy stores were forced to be closed. It isn't exactly rocket science.

So the only reason we were allowed to buy video games at Target was to avoid inconvenience, and nothing to do with safety? If that's the case, why couldn't we buy them at GameStop too, to reduce inconvenience even further?

You could buy games at Target because if you have to allow the store to be open for people to buy essential items like groceries, drugs, and hardware there is very little or no increased risk in letting them pick up other, non-essential stuff while they are there. (It might even reduce risk slightly, by decreasing the average density of customers in the store).

GameStop only sells non-essential items.

How do you know people aren't coming in to Target just to buy non-essential items, thereby increasing the risk just as much as they would by going to GameStop?

Where I lived in New Jersey, they roped off non-grocery items EVERY SINGLE SUNDAY. Well not target, target chose to close, but Walmart, and a couple other supermarkets.

Yes. If a store’s point of sale system can prevent selling beer in Texas before 12pm on Sunday, it can be programmed to disallow the sale of goods outside of “this is essential” categories.

That would have been the fair way to do it, putting all market participants on the same footing. Courts in Germany and France even ruled exactly that. If some businesses can be open while others are not, the former must only sell the essentials because to do otherwise unjustly enriches those who are deemed “essential with extras.”

Selectively closing certain stores while leaving others open did nothing for public health. People were still buying the same stuff. They were just forced to do it at big box retailers (who also sold "essential" products) instead of small, independent retailers. In the end the virus exposure risk was there same.

In the long run it would have been better to leave all retailers open. Bad economic conditions literally kill people. They die slowly from deaths of despair (chronic disease, substance abuse, suicide) but in the end they're dead all the same.

That ruling was overturned.

No. It was stayed. There is a difference. Stayed means that it is not put into effect until a higher court reviews it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com