Rick Bayless and Burger King - Part 2

[Michel Nischan]

If you're existing on government cheese BK is most likely a step up. It has also occured to me that that some of the low-income people being pontificated about on this thread are probably working at BK, not just eating there.

This leads to a much more complex and [unfortunately] perpetual societal problem. It is the wages that large fast food companies pay that result in people living in housing that has either no stove or a stove that doesn't work. Strange that the econimics of their product is designed to support a treshold that allows these low wage earners to afford a junior whopper, yet they can't afford to pay rent.

[Fat Guy]

My casual observation in New York City, Soba, is that McDonald's is dominant in both markets, but that it's more dominant in the middle-income market than in the lower-income market. And certainly, if you look for example at the McDonald's and Burger King around the corner from each other on 86th Street near Third Avenue, the Burger King seems to attract a higher percentage of lower-income black and hispanic customers than the McDonald's. Not that I've taken a census, but the visual first impression I get is such.

[Jason Perlow]

For example, why is it that McDonald's seems to identify more with a white/middle-class socio-economic group while Burger King seems to identify more with a black or minority/lower-middle class to lower-income class socio-economic group?

Thats interesting, I've always seen it the other way around. At least in Mcdonald's commercials in the last 10 years, they've been highly focused on the black demographic.

[pjs]

Soba,

My guess would be because McDonald's became the 600 lb gorilla in the fast food industry in large part due to their real estate holdings and the income it generates for further expansion. They own--or at least they used to--all the land the restaurants were built on and lease it out to the frachisees. It does wonders keeping the troublesome owners singing the company song. Areas with depressed real estate values would be seen as a bad investment to corporate.

Just my take.

PJ

[SobaAddict70]

Like I said, maybe it's just me.

It always seemed to me that McD's appealed to white/middle-class persons (on a narrow basis) and to mainstream America (on a broader basis), and that BK appealed to a black or minorities/lower-middle to lower-income persons (on both a narrow and broad basis). Perhaps, as Jason sees it, it's that McD's has been more successful in its media outreach efforts than BK. Perhaps its because McD's has been on sound financial footing, moreso than BK. Perhaps its a combination of all of these theories.

Then again, many of you are more attuned to the media than I am.

Soba

afterthought: can you HIYW with a McDonald's sandwich? Can you go into a McDonald's and order a Big Mac, hold the special sauce and onions? Because I was under the impression that you can't.

Edited October 21, 2003 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[Fat Guy]

can you HIYW with a McDonald's sandwich?  Can you go into a McDonald's and order a Big Mac, hold the special sauce and onions?  Because I was under the impression that you can't.

You can. It's particularly easy to accommodate special orders now that the whole chain has gone over to the holding-bin/assemble-to-order approach.

[mags]

[

I suppose it is now traditional in this thread to end every post with something like: werd to yo' mutha © tiresome device, inc...

You're not the only one who finds this device -- and the entire Ghetto Adorable shtick -- tiresome.

[fifi]

I am not sure that looking at McDs and BK positioning in Manhattan will give anyone a good idea about their demographics when considering the country as a whole.

My personal experience (definitely not scientific) here in the Houston area and in suburban areas of other cities that I travel to is that there seems to be one of these things on every corner in suburbia. They seem to cluster in the middle to upper-middle class areas. If that is, indeed, true then that kind of blows the theory that the poorer folks are dumping money on the fast food joints. When I go into the "poorer" parts of town to visit an ethnic grocery or whatever, I don't see the FF joints.

There was an article a few months ago about how the poorer parts of town are underserved by the major grocery chains, etc. Well, that is not entirely true. Fiesta grocery chain figured out a long time ago that there was a market in these "poorer" parts of town and went there. Fiesta is well known for great produce and a "creative" butcher department. (You can buy a pig's head there.) A major developer here also figured out that the census figures on income in some of these areas is not exactly correct since a lot of the economy is "underground" (read... cash, not reported) and is making a killing putting some really great shopping venues in unexpected places.

My point is, I would be wary of jumping to any conclusions about the "poorer" parts of our society depending upon the FF supply until that can be confirmed by real data.

[mags]

logic aside, i can't help but think that egullet, in some way, on a personal level, is pissed off at rick.  call me silly. 

i think a lot of this anti-bayless rhetoric is nonsense, and certainly not applicable to those outside of the "CC", but this whole discussion seems strangely personal.

Thank you.

[mags]

It would be even better if there were more scantily clad men running about.

I recall reading that images of women on magazine covers always outsell the alternatives (men, food, solid gold Cadillacs, etc.) regardless of the magazine's intended audience. I guess that's obvious, considering the covers of the majority of women's magazines.

Must be one of those unconscious, primitive-brain instinctual sorta thingies.

It's pretty simple. Women identify with the women on the covers of the magazines: We briefly, usually unconsciously, imagine ourselves having THAT body, wearing THAT dress, having baked THAT cake, whatever.

Basically, when a (straight) woman sees a picture of a woman on a magazine cover, she puts herself in the picture. When a (straight) man sees the same picture, he puts himself in bed with the picture.

At least, that's MO.

[mags]

I am not sure that looking at McDs and BK positioning in Manhattan will give anyone a good idea about their demographics when considering the country as a whole.

My personal experience (definitely not scientific) here in the Houston area and in suburban areas of other cities that I travel to is that there seems to be one of these things on every corner in suburbia. They seem to cluster in the middle to upper-middle class areas. If that is, indeed, true then that kind of blows the theory that the poorer folks are dumping money on the fast food joints. When I go into the "poorer" parts of town to visit an ethnic grocery or whatever, I don't see the FF joints.

There was an article a few months ago about how the poorer parts of town are underserved by the major grocery chains, etc. Well, that is not entirely true. Fiesta grocery chain figured out a long time ago that there was a market in these "poorer" parts of town and went there. Fiesta is well known for great produce and a "creative" butcher department. (You can buy a pig's head there.) A major developer here also figured out that the census figures on income in some of these areas is not exactly correct since a lot of the economy is "underground" (read... cash, not reported) and is making a killing putting some really great shopping venues in unexpected places.

My point is, I would be wary of jumping to any conclusions about the "poorer" parts of our society depending upon the FF supply until that can be confirmed by real data.

It's been pretty well established for a while that poorer parts of town (and why the quote marks? -- you're suggesting that folks in Harlem don't really make less money than those on Manhattan's Upper East Side?) are underserved by retail chains in general and grocery stores in particular. The tend to have to rely on small bodegas -- mom-n-pop-operated stores with limited inventory and, typically, a very limited inventory of fresh meat, fish, and produce. To a large extent, this is basic capitalism in action: It takes a lot of dough to open a large chain store, and the owner needs to assume a given level of sales per square foot in order for the decision to make financial sense. If the neighborhood doesn't generate a lot of disposable income, the likelihood of his making his nut goes way down. So he doesn't open there. The small stores that do open don't have economies of scale, they can't buy in quantity and thus get bulk discounts, and their prices are thus often higher than in the large chains.

A few years ago, Fairway -- to great, and rather self-serving fanfare -- opened a large branch in Harlem. (Which, of course, is rapidly gentrifying, and thus not entirely a poor neighborhood any longer.) I don't know what their P&L looks like. But I do know that when The Body Shop opened a branch on the same street at about the same time, the company was very clear that the store was expected to be a "loss leader" -- that is, it was expected to lose money. The Body Shop owes a lot of its success to its Do Good image, and any financial losses it made on that one store could well be outweighed by the PR gains generated by Bringing Peppermint Foot Scrub to Impoverished Black Teens. Most chains don't have that equation to work with, so they stick to where the incomes are higher.

[pjs]

They seem to cluster in the middle to upper-middle class areas. If that is, indeed, true then that kind of blows the theory that the poorer folks are dumping money on the fast food joints. When I go into the "poorer" parts of town to visit an ethnic grocery or whatever, I don't see the FF joints.

What about Church's and Popeye's? It's kind of obvious their target market is low-income households and for the most part that is the neighborhoods they are located in.

Not that there is anything wrong with their product, I love the chicken from both even though it's more deadly than the burger joint stuff if consumed on a regular basis. I only eat there once or twice a month. Someone living down the street from one with limited means may not have that option.

PJ

[SobaAddict70]

A query then:

Would a person from a low-income household who had Internet access (and there probably are households out there who fit that description in this day of the computer age) find this thread -- if not the thread, specifically the direction that this thread has taken -- useful or enlightening or vaguely amusing?

I'm not sure where I stand on that.

I'll get back to you though.

Soba

[hillbill]

A query then:

Would a person from a low-income household who had Internet access (and there probably are households out there who fit that description in this day of the computer age) find this thread -- if not the thread, specifically the direction that this thread has taken -- useful or enlightening or vaguely amusing?

I'm a low-income household with internet access who finds this thread vaguely amusing, enlightening, and useful (in that order.)

Of course I'm not the stereotypical low-income household (whatever that may be) because I come from a middle-class background and I have middle class sensibilities and exposure to media and knowledge; and also because of extenuating circumstances I'm insulated from many of the tenuous and capricious aspects of living that the poorest are often subject to. But "there but for the grace of god go I" so I'm very aware and observant of the gross economic and social inequities in our society.

[Fat Guy]

The tend to have to rely on small bodegas -- mom-n-pop-operated stores with limited inventory and, typically, a very limited inventory of fresh meat, fish, and produce.  To a large extent, this is basic capitalism in action: It takes a lot of dough to open a large chain store, and the owner needs to assume a given level of sales per square foot in order for the decision to make financial sense.

What it is is basic anti-capitalism in action. The large supermarkets have long been eager to open in Harlem. The politicians and lobbyists in Harlem, however, have fought tooth and nail to keep the large supermarkets out. They fought against Fairway. They fought against PathMark. They fought to preserve the stranglehold the bodegas and the worst supermarkets had on grocery sales in the neighborhood, because that's who was financing them: .

Forces Against Progress, editorial by Jose Rivera:

When the PathMark supermarket idea first sprang up, forces in East Harlem began to align themselves against it.  When a Home Depot/Cosco mega stores were suggested for the old Washburn Wire Co. site, forces sprung up to stop the development. When tourism is mentioned for East Harlem, the same forces get their juices going to prevent it too.

Rita Kramer in the City Journal:

In the case of the new big-box supermarkets, a small group of well-heeled food wholesalers has organized to fend off the competition. . . . This formidable interest—a big business if ever there was one—has formed groups with names like the “Neighborhood Small Business Association” and the “Puerto Rican Asian Hispanic Development Corporation” to hold press conferences and to testify before the City Council. . . . . The big food wholesalers also rank among the largest contributors to City Council campaigns.

Let's not be so quick to blame capitalism for all our woes, especially those that have occurred so clearly outside the free market. Opportunism exists outside of capitalism, and the convenience of anti-capitalist opportunism is that it doesn't have to compete. Remember, a major impetus behind the growth of fast food has been our trusty government. Small Business Administration loans, corn subsidies . . . these are the governmental programs that allowed McDonald's, Burger King, and their ilk to take over. We'll never know if they could have competed and flourished effectively in a free market. That corporations attempt to use government programs to their advantage is predictable. That the government lets it happen is unacceptable.

[hillbill]

Let's not be so quick to blame capitalism for all our woes, especially those that have occurred so clearly outside the free market. Opportunism exists outside of capitalism, and the convenience of anti-capitalist opportunism is that it doesn't have to compete. Remember, a major impetus behind the growth of fast food has been our trusty government. Small Business Administration loans, corn subsidies . . . these are the governmental programs that allowed McDonald's, Burger King, and their ilk to take over. We'll never know if they could have competed and flourished effectively in a free market. That corporations attempt to use government programs to their advantage is predictable. That the government lets it happen is unacceptable.

From the reviews I've read this book seems to support your comments. I believe that one review inferred that true believers in capitalism have more to fear from self-proclaimed "capitalists" than from liberals, socialists, communists or any other popular scapegoats.

Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists

From Publishers Weekly

Because the authors view political support for the free market system as always tenuous, they offer suggestions on how to combat antimarket sentiments by promoting a stronger international market, which would reduce the ability of economic "incumbents" to persuade governments to suppress competition while offering workers some protection against the risks of failure.

“Free markets aren’t free. Those of us who live and work in the world’s most advanced market economy tend to take them for granted, much as a fish does water. Rajan and Zingales help us look anew and see just how politically vulnerable and fragile markets are. Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists is at once erudite, insightful, and prescriptive, as it moves our understanding of markets far beyond the stereotypical arguments of the right and the left.”

—Barry Nalebuff,

Milton Steinbach Professor, Yale School of Management,

Coauthor of Co-opetition and Thinking Strategically

Edited October 21, 2003 by hillbill (log)

[Fat Guy]

Maybe I'll lend my copy to Rick Bayless.

[mags]

I'm not blaming capitalism nor crediting it (and FWIW, I am far from a true believer in the market economy). However, in a largely capitalist system, businesspeople tend to open stores in areas where they believe they are most likely to make a profit. And, as Mr. Sutton reminded us, that's where the money is.

You may well be right with regard to community politics in Harlem; beyond a piece I did on The Body Shop some six years ago, that's not something I've spent any time looking at. But the same phenomenon -- of poorer communities being underserved by chain retailers -- tends to prevail both across the country and to a large extent across the world. My ex has powerful memories of growing up poor in Cincinnati, and taking long bus-trips with his mother every week to get to a decent grocery store. Friends who grew up broke in Chicago and Boston have similar memories. And hell, when I lived on a student's stipend in bleakest Somerville, lo these several years ago, schlepping to the Star Market was a major event. I was reminded of those trips every time I read a segment of the Julie/Julia project that dealt with the trials of grocery-shopping in Long Island City.

It's really not any different from the system in NYC that allows the better-heeled to buy their subway tickets in bulk for a 10% discount, while those who can't afford to buy in bulk have to pay full price. Them as got shall get, and it still is news.

[hillbill]

It's really not any different from the system in NYC that allows the better-heeled to buy their subway tickets in bulk for a 10% discount, while those who can't afford to buy in bulk have to pay full price.  Them as got shall get, and it still is news.

De facto regressive taxes. They're all over the place. Not only do people who don't need breaks often get breaks, and vice versa; but if you're income is low enough the cost of basic essential services such as transportation loom huge as a percentage of total resources available.

There are times when I've debated whether or not I should spend the money for a subway or bus when I had already walked for miles, was exhausted, and had miles more to go. (I usually chose to walk.)

[eliotmorgan]

I'm not blaming capitalism nor crediting it (and FWIW, I am far from a true believer in the market economy).  However, in a largely capitalist system, businesspeople tend to open stores in areas where they believe they are most likely to make a profit.  And, as Mr. Sutton reminded us, that's where the money is.

You may well be right with regard to community politics in Harlem; beyond a piece I did on The Body Shop some six years ago, that's not something I've spent any time looking at.  But the same phenomenon -- of poorer communities being underserved by chain retailers -- tends to prevail both across the country and to a large extent across the world.  My ex has powerful memories of growing up poor in Cincinnati, and taking long bus-trips with his mother every week to get to a decent grocery store. Friends who grew up broke in Chicago and Boston have similar memories.  And hell, when I lived on a student's stipend in bleakest Somerville, lo these several years ago, schlepping to the Star Market was a major event. I was reminded of those trips every time I read a segment of the Julie/Julia project that dealt with the trials of grocery-shopping in Long Island City. 

It's really not any different from the system in NYC that allows the better-heeled to buy their subway tickets in bulk for a 10% discount, while those who can't afford to buy in bulk have to pay full price.  Them as got shall get, and it still is news.

Is it really a mystery why any service provider from a mom and pop grocer to the NYC Subway system would rather you pay a large sum in advance for use of a product or service? This solves cash flow problems and reigns in operating costs. Do you rally think the discount at Sherry-Lehman on the 2000 Bordeaux futures, or the 10% case discount on 1995 Y’quem is offered as a way to stick it to the poor? I trust not. The same economic principle applies to public transportation, something else largely funded by the people who get those measly “discounts.”

I’m enjoying the fact that this thread has become a raw discussion of its thesis finally. From the romance of the Chef’s Collaborative mission statement and Rick Bayless to the idealized adult poor, who through no fault of their own find themselves in poverty, conspired against by evil business folk who’d deny them organic produce, artisanal breads, and almond flour.

We too took long trips to the grocery store (like your friend), but we went for lower prices, relative safety, and selection. Something not realistically to be expected from shop owners who have to pay for alarm systems, Plexiglas, and horrific insurance costs which by economic necessity must be passed on to the consumers by way of product markups. All this before theft drives the prices up even higher. Best of all, these mom and pop organizations are usually rewarded by thin margins, threats of violence, and charges of racism.

“I lived on a student's stipend in bleakest Somerville, lo these several years ago, schlepping to the Star Market was a major event,” you write.

Though Somerville is a pit, it’s truly vile to compare a walk to Inman Square on a student’s stipend to poverty. From what you've relayed it sounds like you were broke, not poor, and yes there is a difference.

EM

"The strong do as they will; the weak suffer as they must," Thucydides

Edited October 21, 2003 by eliotmorgan (log)

[hillbill]

Two interesting articles in this week's Business Week are tangentially related to the latter part of this topic, and each has some reference to food.

An Inner-City Renaissance  

The nation's ghettos are making surprising strides. Will the gains last?

Take a stroll around Harlem......  New restaurants have opened on the main drag, 125th Street, not far from a huge Pathmark supermarket, one of the first chains to offer an alternative to overpriced bodegas when it moved in four years ago. There's a Starbucks.......

No mention of the battle for Pathmark that FG commented on, one would think that all of a sudden Pathmark decided to jump on the bandwagon (I remember the articles over the past years about the conflict.)

An online extra to this article

Pitting Markets vs. Poverty  

Harvard's Michael Porter talks about some surprising strengths in inner cities and how capitalist forces can help improve their lot

....Our goal broadly is to make markets work better, to get market forces to bring inner cities up to surrounding levels. ....

....companies have been putting retail stores in poor countries like Mexico, even though purchasing power is multiples higher in our own inner cities. ....

....The study found surprisingly high incomes in inner cities.....

.....We're trying to get people to understand that revitalizing inner cities is good for the economy and business. It's not just a social fairness thing. ...

The flip side is bringing the inner city to the mainstream:

The CEO of Hip-Hop

Impresario Russell Simmons has brought urban style to mainstream America--and helped other big marketers do the same. An inside look at his growing influence.

....Simmons, more than anyone else, has helped bring an urban sensibility, with its bravado, its exaggerated desires, its urgent longing for the good life, to popular culture: It's the Nu American Dream.

There is hardly a major consumer company around that isn't trying to cash in on hip-hop's singular popularity, if not its edgy authenticity. Hip-hop music, and its signature style, rap, emerged from mostly impoverished, largely African-American urban neighborhoods, grew into an entire way of life, and today dominates youth culture. It's not about race or place. It's an attitude, a state of mind. Marketing experts estimate that one-quarter of all discretionary spending in America today is influenced by hip-hop. Coke (K ), Pepsi (PEP ), Heineken, Courvoisier, McDonald's (MCD ), Motorola (MOT ), Gap (SE ), Cover Girl -- even milk: They all use hip-hop to sell themselves.

Edited October 21, 2003 by hillbill (log)

[Lita]

Speaking of sleeping with the enemy, Bob Greene (exercise physiologist and Oprah's fitness guru) is partnering with McDonald's now:

http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/wha...2003/index.html

Quote:

“At McDonald's, we have a longstanding commitment to our customers, proven food quality and a strong social responsibility record,” said Ken Barun, McDonald's Corporate Vice President who leads McDonald's Healthy Lifestyles activities. “We are thrilled to partner with Bob Greene. He not only shares many of our same values and commitments, but he also is a strong leader in the campaign to promote healthy, happy active lifestyles.”

[hillbill]

Speaking of sleeping with the enemy, Bob Greene (exercise physiologist and Oprah's fitness guru) is partnering with McDonald's now:

Dr. Phil (pop psychologist and Oprah's psyche guru) is the new weight-loss expert (and is profiting by plastering his face and name on books, diet plans and diet elixers and other products.)

Bog Greene and Dr. Phil should go mano a mano in the boxing ring and may the best lifestyle win: McDonalds vs. Diet-scheme!

[mags]

I'm not blaming capitalism nor crediting it (and FWIW, I am far from a true believer in the market economy).  However, in a largely capitalist system, businesspeople tend to open stores in areas where they believe they are most likely to make a profit.  And, as Mr. Sutton reminded us, that's where the money is.

You may well be right with regard to community politics in Harlem; beyond a piece I did on The Body Shop some six years ago, that's not something I've spent any time looking at.  But the same phenomenon -- of poorer communities being underserved by chain retailers -- tends to prevail both across the country and to a large extent across the world.  My ex has powerful memories of growing up poor in Cincinnati, and taking long bus-trips with his mother every week to get to a decent grocery store. Friends who grew up broke in Chicago and Boston have similar memories.  And hell, when I lived on a student's stipend in bleakest Somerville, lo these several years ago, schlepping to the Star Market was a major event. I was reminded of those trips every time I read a segment of the Julie/Julia project that dealt with the trials of grocery-shopping in Long Island City. 

It's really not any different from the system in NYC that allows the better-heeled to buy their subway tickets in bulk for a 10% discount, while those who can't afford to buy in bulk have to pay full price.  Them as got shall get, and it still is news.

Is it really a mystery why any service provider from a mom and pop grocer to the NYC Subway system would rather you pay a large sum in advance for use of a product or service? This solves cash flow problems and reigns in operating costs. Do you rally think the discount at Sherry-Lehman on the 2000 Bordeaux futures, or the 10% case discount on 1995 Y’quem is offered as a way to stick it to the poor? I trust not. The same economic principle applies to public transportation, something else largely funded by the people who get those measly “discounts.”

I’m enjoying the fact that this thread has become a raw discussion of its thesis finally. From the romance of the Chef’s Collaborative mission statement and Rick Bayless to the idealized adult poor, who through no fault of their own find themselves in poverty, conspired against by evil business folk who’d deny them organic produce, artisanal breads, and almond flour.

We too took long trips to the grocery store (like your friend), but we went for lower prices, relative safety, and selection. Something not realistically to be expected from shop owners who have to pay for alarm systems, Plexiglas, and horrific insurance costs which by economic necessity must be passed on to the consumers by way of product markups. All this before theft drives the prices up even higher. Best of all, these mom and pop organizations are usually rewarded by thin margins, threats of violence, and charges of racism.

“I lived on a student's stipend in bleakest Somerville, lo these several years ago, schlepping to the Star Market was a major event,” you write.

Though Somerville is a pit, it’s truly vile to compare a walk to Inman Square on a student’s stipend to poverty. From what you've relayed it sounds like you were broke, not poor, and yes there is a difference.

EM

"The strong do as they will; the weak suffer as they must," Thucydides

You seem to be riding several high horses at once, Eliot.

Horse #1: No, of course I don't believe there's any mystery as to why businesspeople would prefer customers to buy in bulk, nor did I suggest there was. And I certainly don't believe that this preference grows out of a desire to "stick it to the poor." Nevertheless, that is often a regrettable outcome of the preference, and I do find it appalling that city government would blatantly collaborate in said sticking. Which doesn't mean, of course, that I give up the groovy 10% discount to which my comparatively fat income entitles me. And I suspect I'm liable to get knocked for thread drift here.

Horse #2: Why the quote marks around "discount"? If I buy 20 subway rides at one shot, I get a 21st ride for free. In what linguistic universe is this not a discount? If you want to turn it around, I suppose you could think of it as an instant, guaranteed 10% return on my investment, but in either instance, it's a benefit that's not available to people who can't afford to shell out for all 20 rides at once.

Horse #3: Your characterization of "the idealized adult poor" and "evil business folk" is yours, not mine. And why, BTW, confine those idealized poor to adults? Is it ok to idealize poor teenagers? What's the cutoff age? Oh, and purely for what it's worth, I'm a business folk. In April, we celebrate our tenth anniversary. We'll be throwing a big ole' party. If you're in New York, you're welcome to drop by.

Horse #4: You mention taking long trips to the grocery store in order to have access to "lower prices, safety, and selection." I would say that accords pretty much with both my statement and -- contrary to your suggestion -- my friends' childhood experience. Lower prices, safety, and selection are pretty much the benefits provided by large chain stores over neighborhood bodegas. And they're the benefits to which the poor -- as your post indicates -- typically have less access to than the rich and middle class.

Horse #5: Ok, so you're suggesting that the reason bodegas typically have higher prices than chain stores is that the mom-n-pop operations have to pay for "alarm systems, plexiglass, and horrendous insurance costs." What, you think WalMart doesn't pay for security systems? Of course, they're able to get a good price on those security systems (guards, cameras, what-have-you) because they buy in bulk, and they pass the savings on to their customers. Which is, oddly enough, exactly what happens with milk and potato chips and toilet paper that WalMart also buys: They get a volume discount, and pass the savings on to customers. And before you conjure up another horse here, understand that I'm not suggesting there's anything inherently wrong with volume discounts. I offer them in my business as well. But I do think there's something wrong -- or intellectually dishonest, if you like -- about pretending that those volume discounts don't penalize stores that aren't able to take advantage of them (and, by extension, the smaller stores' customers). We're back to the discount on subway rides again. Oh, and retail margins are almost always thin, particularly when it comes to grocery stores. It's a classic volume business.

Horse #6: I agree, it would indeed be "truly vile to compare a walk to Inman Square on a student's stipend to poverty." I'd be thoroughly ashamed of myself, had I done so. Happily, I didn't. And Somerville is much less of a pit these days, by the way. Even JP is getting gentrified.

Horse #7: Oh, I was absolutely broke rather than poor. And there's a difference? Gollies, who knew?

Edited for typos

Edited October 22, 2003 by mags (log)

[jbraynolds]

On the subject of how that BK chicken sandwich that Bayless is pimping actually tastes, get the Popeye's Crispy Chicken Strip Po Boy and compare it to that BK monstrosity. The roll is of a high quality, distinctly of the New Orleans variety and light years beyond the BK "baguette", the chicken is cooked (okay, fried) to order almost every time and is crispy to the point of tooth-shattering every time I've had one, the lettuce is crunchy and seems to be only recently shredded, unlike the BK condiments which are wilted, soggy and lifeless...and, at least here, it's $2.99 instead of the BK $3.29 tariff. Check out Popeye's to see what a fast food sandwich can be.