[econjack]

When I was teaching econ at a mid-west university, there was an op-ed in the local paper that complained that grocery stores in the inner city were charging more than the same chain did in the suburbs. It seemed like a good topic for my students, so I had them "buy" a grocery basket of goods for a family of four in both target areas. On average, the inner city stores had an 11% higher cost than the same basket in the suburbs. Despite some economic benefit accruing to the inner city stores (e.g., lower property taxes, incentives, etc.) totals costs were higher for the inner city. The biggest difference between the two areas: 1) insurance costs, 2) theft. Still, even given the evidence, blacks still wanted to ignore the evidence, blame whitey, and play the victim card.

Sound familiar?

[SWAMPSNIPER]

The loss to theft in some stores is astronomical and the consumer pays.

[21twelve]

There was an old lady that ran the store near a lake in Northern Minnesota that I would frequent every time, just to give her some business. And chat. She told of the time a girl complained and yelled and swore about the price of a six-pack of pop. The old gal told her “Well, then you can just drive the 20-miles into town then.”

“Oh - that’s okay - I’ll buy it.”

“No you won’t. Get out of my store.”

It was many years later, at the age of 92 she was robbed and beaten to death by a couple of indians. I’m guessing she stood up to them during the robbery. Lived there all by herself year-round with an outhouse.

Now it takes 20 miles into town to get anything.

[bigredkitty1]

It does. Decades ago during high school, my sister worked part-time at a grocery store. At that time the store had a 3-5% profit margin due to damage, loss and theft in the store. Given how slim profit margins in grocery stores are, why would any company open a store in an area that would see higher than average theft rates?