The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported today on a recent survey that found location plays a role in how groceries are priced. The survey was conducted by a group of teenagers who have been meeting once a week this summer to learn "how food relates to race, class and social justice." The students visited grocery stores in the Seattle area and priced a common basket of goods. They found that stores in more affluent neighborhoods charge more money for the same products, even if the stores are part of the same chain.
I don't see anything very remarkable in the findings. What does surprise me is the reaction from one of the students conducting the survey.
Diana Estrada-Alamo, 16, shops for groceries near her White Center home but buys lunch in the wealthier, less diverse neighborhood around West Seattle High School where she is a student.
She assumed there would be some price difference because of the areas' demographics, but was shocked it appeared to be so large.
"I'm glad things are cheaper where I live, but I wish it wasn't like that," she said. "I kind of feel just a little like a charity case."
Does this person really feel bad that things cost less in her neighborhood? What kind of society fosters a sense of shame in someone because they aren't paying an inflated price? I suppose this mentality is the same one that leads dumb teenage boys to sink all of their income in car accessories or equally silly teenage girls to fixate on turning their bodies the right shade of fake bake orange.
Comments