All content is copyright © 2000-2008 Seldo.Com and licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-sharealike license. Remix away!
Written with Code Igniter in PHP. Fuelled by tea.
From a recent post on a messageboard I frequent (used with permission):
I hate Tesco with a passion. They got control of the UK food market by building edge of town Superstores in the late 1980’s by bribing Tory councillors. Closed all their in town stores or ran them down to be really so naff that no one wanted to shop there. Pandered to the petrolheads with huge car parks, discounted petrol by adding a bit to grocery products to counterbalance the loss. They then ran Free buses from towns and villages to there new Mega-Extra stores so people were sucked in by the perception of lower prices and greater choice, and stopped using local bakeries and butchers. Then in the late 1990’s they bought the failed village/suburban bakers and butchers and opened Tesco Express/Metro stores which carried such a limited range, you were encouraged to shop for other stuff at the Mega-Extra. At the same time they squeezed money paid to farmers, food producers and imported more goods from overseas where labour is cheaper to exploit and food standards are lower. (Ever wanted to know why Dutch Bacon is cheaper than UK or Irish Produced? look at the way the pigs are clamped into their pens)
At last it seems the government is looking into the practices and pitfalls of out of town shopping. These practices are in no way unique to Tesco, BUT they certaintly are the largest culprits.
This heartfelt rant is pretty typical of the low-grade anti-globalization felt by lots of people. Let's examine it, shall we?
They got control of the UK food market by building edge of town Superstores in the late 1980’s
For this, read: they built large stores in the 80s, in line with global trends towards economies of scale made possible by greater mobility through increased car ownership.
Pandered to the petrolheads with huge car parks
Read: provided parking at these stores.
They then ran Free buses from towns and villages to there new Mega-Extra stores
Read: also catered for those not rich enough to afford a car.
stopped using local bakeries and butchers
Read: made further steps towards economies of scale, making good food more affordable for all.
opened Tesco Express/Metro stores
Read: in line with falling car ownership in inner cities, moved back into smaller shops closer to population centres.
they squeezed money paid to farmers, food producers and imported more goods from overseas where labour is cheaper to exploit
Read: reaped the benefits of globalization, namely even cheaper food and products, not being limited by arbitrary national boundaries.
At last it seems the government is looking into the practices and pitfalls of out of town shoppingRead: is making a populist sop towards Daily Mail readers who complain bitterly about the lack of selection and prices, not noticing that food is much cheaper now than it was 20 years ago. And whom, despite local shops still being very much in evidence, shop at Tesco every Sunday—because it’s cheaper, and they only have to go to one store.
All content is copyright © 2000-2008 Seldo.Com and licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-sharealike license. Remix away!
Comments
Stephen
ed
It's not like they were pulling a Walmart and locking janitors in the store overnight and whatnot.
Chez
Could it have been by.... choice?!!
Clare
Anyway, the point I was trying to make - cheaper food isn't necessarily the best option.
Laurie
And as long as you buy organic food for the taste and not because it's "better for the environment" (the bit I dispute) you're okay.
Also, ASDA? They're Wal-Mart!
Ade
A
Clare
ed
Secondly, Laurie, you didn't have any objections to environmental arguments re: organic food until someone else we know spoke about that, so don't try to grasp at some straw of rationality here.
Ben
Robert
I'm not sure it is a right versus left issue, but a middle class foodie-cult versus people on budgets, or with limited time. I do eat some organic food, but largely because there's a convenient grocer on the way home - were there a Tesco Metro I'd go there as I did last year. The point is, if you're shopping for a family, with maybe 40 minutes to do a week's shopping, you'd be crazy to go any but your nearest supermarket. The people who benefit most from the eonomies of scale in food are those who spend the largest proportion of their income on food, i.e. the poor.
And by the way, Laurie's not THAT right-wing, he's just a liberal (in the proper rather than woolly sense of the word)
Ben
Besides, I would say that if there are people who really can't afford to buy decent (not expensive or fancy, just ordinary, honest, decent-quality) food then benefits need to be higher. Food is a basic necessity which any civilization should provide its citizens with.
But then, I'm a socialist, which I understand is out of fashion nowadays :). And yes, I do realise that Laurie is a(n English) liberal. I consider that right-wing: Thatcher was all for free market capitalism and damn the consequences.
Ben
Robert
While I agree there are environmental implications of food miles, I'm not sure that this is exclusive to supermarkets. An independent florist, for instance, will have flown-in flowers, or even a local grocers might well have imported food as well as supermarkets. Central distribution also cuts optimises food miles once the food has arrived, but I take the point about food imports.
On a more general level, once the state starts controlling things like food (interestingly a Labour policy back in the early 80s) it has far too much power over our lives - and as many governments have proved bigger is not necessarily better (Home Office, East Germany or European Commission as good and varied examples). But then I'm a liberal Tory...
Chez
Now, you may argue if you choose that what people want is cheap decent food. But that's not the case - YOU are saying they SHOULD have decent food. The food they get from Tesco is decent enough for them. Is it, objectively speaking, good enough nutiritionally? That is a seperate issue. If the customers demand (your standard of) "decent" food, then Tesco's will happily oblige and provide it, and then all the economies of scale will kick in to drive down the price of "decent" food.
If Tesco's, as some claim, do not provide nutritionally "decent" food, that's because their customers aren't demanding it. Tesco would lose custom to shops prepared to offer lower-quality food for less, even if they did try to unilaterally impose better standards.
On the subject of "higher benefits": the fact that such people choose to spend part of their benefits on mobile phones, alcohol, TVs, and other things they need less than decent quality food shows that they value it less than decent quality food. Higher benefits are hardly going to help.
On the subject of time: For all but five hours of the day I'm a nurse to dependant family member. I'm not going to trudge round lots of little disparate shops to buy goods of unknown quality, style or standard, just to satisfy someone else's social guilt.
matthew
But actually, why should we have to go to all that trouble? When I go shopping, I don't have to shop around to make sure I am buying something that won't electrocute me. We have laws to make sure that products are safe - why can't we have laws to make sure that products weren't produced in way that harms the environment, or exploits the poorest people in the world? Are we saying that some people's lives are worth less?
There doesn't seem to be an in-principle problem with regulation - companies are subject to lots of regulations and still make billions of pounds of profit for their shareholders. Most regulations in fact protect companies - limited liability, indemnity against bankruptcy, copyright protection. So what's the problem with regulations that actually help ordinary people?
Chez
You're quite right to point out that consumers need as much information as possible to make the best choices (the "best" choice is one that most satisfies the needs of the person making the choice). If air miles covered, or the wages paid to the producers matter to you, then you should have that information.
However, when you say "why should we have to go to all that trouble? ... why can't we have laws to make sure that..." What you are really saying is "why can't we have laws to impose *my preferences* on everyone else."
The choices we make are compromises based on value. YOU value the wage paid to the producer. Someone else may not, and I don't see why you should get to impose your values on them.
So long as we have all the information we feel relevant (and the true costs are internalised to the price as much as possible) then suppliers will provide the products we actually demand. No laws are necessary. Unless you're claiming to be able to decide for people what they want and need better than they can for themselves, that is.
"Most regulations protect companies" is palpable nonsense. Prove that assertion. Besides which, you're talking about Companies Law, not Regulations. The more you regulate, the higher costs go for companies, and thus the higher prices go. Cut the regulation, and prices will come down (no really - because if Tesco's don't, Sainsbury will. Therefore Tesco will too.) So yes, there IS an in-principle problem with Regulations.
matthew
The point I was trying make was that ethical consumerism doesn’t work because people do not have the information they need to make an ethical choice. It is not possible for anyone to get access to the information needed to make an ethical choice if you would like to. And that’s for someone like me, who’s job it is to do so, let alone someone busy, who would prefer not to put money in the pockets of union-busters or poverty-wage payers, but who doesn’t have the time to find out about the background of the 50 items in their basket every week.
Yes regulations can contribute to an increase in cost. Banning the use of children in mines probably did mean a rise in the cost of coal. I am sure that the regulations stopping the use of sharp edges in children’s toys meant a raise in their cost. But isn’t it about what we value? If we’re saying that supermarkets can damage the environment, and their local community, and their own staff, as long as they keep beans at 16p and garden hose at £1.99, that’s your view, and its fair enough. But actually I think people would like the government to set a higher standard.
Chez
On ethical consumerism: I could make the argument that if our hypothetical shopper doesn't have the time to find out this information, then they do not value it highly enough to make a compromise with their other activities. I suspect that won't cut much ice with you, so let me extend it.
Given this class of people who, when asked, would probably say they would like to take these factors into consideration, but in practice cannot, the answer is not to legislate or regulate. What they lack is information, or rather the time and energy to find it. So give them that information - form a think tank, or research group, or other such organisation funded by people like yourself who would like people to have this information.
Then, those who care the most - i.e. value it the most - can demonstrate this by funding it. Legislation or regulation forces the cost on to ALL consumers - whether they value it or not.
Such information organisations are just as much a part of free market capitalism as the profit making companies are.
On regulation: Yes, it is about what we value. But here's the problem - different people value different things. We all value the protection of children (mines and sharp edges), since they can't look after themselves, but what is a problem to one person is a not a problem or even a benefit to someone else. But supermarkets damaging their local community, and their staff? That's your claim, and not a view I share. (I leave off the environment, which I assume you mean is damaged by the supermarket's logisitcs system, rather than the shop itself, and that's a different discussion.)
Why is the responsibility on the government to "set a higher standard"? Give people the information, and let them make their own decisions about standards. One size simply does not fit all.