One, it's literally the closest store to my home with any inventory. It's around the corner in my backyard. So that's a plus.
Two, I was introduced to this mode of shopping when I told my friend I needed to purchase a greeting card. Of course, cards cost $4-5 retail and she protested, saying the Dollar Tree would have cards for $1 and under. I found this to be true; they have two-for-ones, and they even have packs of ten. So I pick up all my greeting cards there.
There are other items that are ideal to source from the Dollar Tree. When you want some tacky, simple holiday décor. When you want books full of glittery stickers or markers for a kids' project. Crystal Geyser spring water, or a simple sore-muscle cream that only contains capsaicin.
I don't think choosing where to shop is a question of being needy, but judicious about value vs. cost vs. effort. I do plenty of thrifting and big-box shopping as well. There are certain things where I simply insist on purchasing new/retail and you won't catch me pulling it off the shelf at a thrift.
>Or as he puts it: I suspect everybody has what they need at all times based off of the fact that I’ve never known anyone that is starving.
He's making fun of the guy in the original comment, who questioned whether anyone needs to shoplift, because his personal friend circle didn't include people who had to shoplift out of necessity.
For one thing, shopping at Dollar Tree is not an antisocial behavior that harms other people, so you do not need to justify it by saying you needed to do it. You are free to shop at Dollar Tree whether you "need" to or not if it pleases you to do so.
The equivalency you're trying to draw between shoplifting and shopping at Dollar Tree isn't there.
Clearly, anyone who believes “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” would disagree. A fair number of the people who would readily acknowledge that there is ethical consumption under capitalism, and even those that see consumption under capitalism as presumptively-but-not-categorically-ethical would also disagree. [0]
[0] for some reasons they might, https://time.com/6273646/dollar-stores-osha-labor/
If you read an article about Dollar Tree and it makes you feel bad and you don’t want to shop there, that’s your prerogative.
For me, I’m not interested in being guilted into assuming ethical responsibility for the decisions of the Dollar Tree management. I presume they are adults of sound mind so the responsibility for their choices is theirs alone.
FWIW I can probably count on one hand the number of times in my life I’ve shopped at any dollar store so it’s a moot point.
I’m not arguing that starvation doesn’t exist. I’m arguing that most shoplifters aren’t starving. And if they were, they wouldn’t shoplift food from dollar tree as the food is all in small packages. People who starve don’t become stupid and would likely shoplift more expensive, nutrient dense items.
Starving people are just as rationale as the next person, there’s no reason to think they stop making decisions the same way a non-starving person would.
I made no logical statement about whether stealing indicates you’re starving or not. I said that starving people are less likely to steal from the dollar store.
Logically, these are very different things.
This makes sense, the answer is certainly not “the one that’s in front of them at a store that’s likely in the part of town that they live in.” The first thing a starving person does is sit down and do a SWOT analysis of various foodstuffs that factors in location, transportation, and nutrient value. After they finish their individual analyses they compare notes with other members of their criminal cohort and split up territory based off of who is hungry and who is saving up for a Lamborghini Urus.
I’m nothing thinking that shoplifters are Jean Valjean stealing bread.
If you’re starving, then there are many better ways to get food than stealing from a dollar tree.