Quote:
Originally Posted by Donfoolio
While that is nice theory I have real life examples of family members and friends who own corner bodegas and liquor stores. And my own experience as a Pepsi route route worker. The more you order the less you pay and the better the middle man you can deal with. For instance in NY State there is only 1 liquor supplier in the whole state, all liquor stores get from this company (albany based I believe) now the friend I know orders a LOT of volume so he beats almost every liquor store I have ever been to. The one by me however is small and crappy and they sell for like 3 to 8 dollars more per bottle of certain stuff. It's not because they are douchebags, both stores are family owned and operated so they have no overhead there or thieves in employment, both are in good "hood" areas where liquor sells well, but the difference is one can get better deals from the supplier.
The same goes for my uncles bodega, I ran it many times for him when he took trips home. They order set stuff, the biggest selling thing is cigarettes and liquor and junk food, so they get SHITTY deals from the market supplier who sells all kinds of fruit and food, but they get GREAT deals from the Lays guy and the Pepsi guy and the Budweiser guy. The market is controlled in trickle down, it always has been. The thing is that now it is more efficient and that means it is less human.  |
It wasn't a theory I espoused, it was historical fact.
Which data set do you think is larger and has a more realistic chance of representing the overall reality of the American economy, the research Chris Anderson (editor of Wired magazine) did for his book, or your personal experience with a pepsi route and a couple of family businesses?
In this state, and in most others, prices for alcohol and tobacco are fixed anyways. There is a minimum markup required by law for both the distributors and retailers, so the local convenience store can sell beer at the same price as Wal-Mart.
A more efficient market may have had short term negative consequences for you and your family, and I understand that. But to think it's a bad thing that people are paying less for things like food is pretty absurd.
You said "the big bastards are the problem", but they're only a problem for the "small bastards" that are getting put out of business, they're great for the other 99% of the population.
If I came out with a product that increased life expectancy by 10 years, would you feel bad for the undertakers who lose business because of that?