Author: Kim du Toit

In another one of those “Custer Having Difficulties With The Sioux” headlines, we have this nonsense from the Truly Ignorant:

Supermarket bosses are under fire for charging higher prices in shops serving the UK’s poorer communities while customers in leafy suburbs pay less. An investigation by MPs found food can be up to 38% more expensive in smaller “local” or “express” stores, which typically serve lower-income customers, than in full-blown supermarkets owned by the same company, often in wealthier areas or accessible to customers with access to transport.

There’s so much foolishness in this article that I even hesitate to talk about it.  But what the heck, here we are so I might as well.

Actually, as I’ve said before, “zone pricing” is not only common, it’s ubiquitous.  That policy is very much driven by market forces — whether it’s a higher incidence of shoplifting, or the higher cost of doing business (compare the rental cost of a city vs. suburban store, for example) — the simple fact remains that in order to maintain profitability (e.g. sales per square foot at x% gross profit), some stores will have to charge more for the same items than others.

Ignore too the wealth envy in the article — “poor people aren’t as mobile as wealthy people, so they’re trapped into paying higher prices” — because it isn’t relevant:  organizations don’t charge more because of profit opportunity unless they’re a monopoly and can afford to do so.

Of course politicians (and journalists) are going to get involved because it’s an easy way for them to garner both publicity and popularity.  The facts of the issue aren’t important as long as they are Seen To Be Doing Something.

And of course when inner-city stores are forced to close because of government action, the Pore Folx are going to find themselves in a “food desert” that is entirely of their own and their politicians’ making — and I for one will have a simple reaction to this situation:

Stupidity should be punished and not rewarded.