If you lowered, say, food prices purely to accomodate poor people, is it technically an act of generosity?

Question

You would still be getting something in return; it isn't free. Does it constitute generosity?

Answer 1

You're still getting something, but if you're not selling for more than you purchased the food for, then you're suffering a loss, which could be considered an act of charity (but is a stupid business decision).

Even if you're making a profit, by selling for less than the maximum potential your price, you're still forgoing some of your potential profit, so people might still consider that generous.

The problem is that rich people could come into the store and buy the food for cheap too, even though they could have afforded the higher prices too. If you really want to be generous, you would create a system where people paid in proportion to their income or wealth.

Answer 2

An act of generosity on who's part? The only way to do that would be by the government. Who would pick up the tab that would need to be paid to the grower, the supplier & the market.
Contrary to thought, most poor people don't want to be made to feel as though they owe someone. They would rather the government, local & Federal, allow them to obtain their food via food stamps etc. Besides, there are many food banks where food is given out for free. You can make a donation, if you have any money, if not, it's free. I can't see the American public going for your idea. Those of us who can pay will pay the going price or do without. I think the poor feel the same way.

Answer 3

There are stores such as Aldies and Save-A-Lot that actually do cater to people with less money. Their prices are more realistic and even though the brands are not the same, in many instances I've seen Kroger trucks delivering in the back. So, I believe just because it's an off brand doesn't make it any less of a good food, just cheaper.

I go to both and I can spend $80 and come out with 3-4 times as much as I would if I were buying brand names. The produce is much, much less and it is just as good. Keep in mind, Oranges and Grapes don't have to have a Sunkist sticker on them because all that does is raise the price. In fact there have been times when I've bought better produce at the less expensive stores that are better quality then at a Kroger. So, this is good.

Answer 4

I would say so. If you lowered the food prices, the larger number of people that would start buying them would most likely only compensate for the profit loss. If there was any gain it would probably be minimal.

Answer 5

They pay farmers in subsidies in order to keep food prices low. But it would be generous if you lowered prices, below what you could sell them for, for the benefit of the people.

Answer 6

Sometimes it helps increase the repitoire of your store. Everyone loves lower prices just look at Wal-mart.

Answer 7

No. Generosity is when you spend your OWN money and buy food and give it to poor people. When you try to intervene in the market that's coercion.

Answer 8

I think you can't let poor people starve, or else you will have a revolution on your hands. Everyone has to eat, or they start to get upset.

Answer 9

It would be called "Compassion" which no longer exists in America as far as I can see.