Ageism should we tolerate it?

G J

G J

Associate
Joined
3 Oct 2008
Posts
1,401
Check the Self Checkouts - Supermarkets thread loads of people happy to work for the supermarkets for free at no cost reduction with their shopping now some demographics get a discount and its a riot.

Many complains are that discounts are being subsidised by paying customers but these same customers are happy to subsidise the supermarkets for years by using self-serve / scan as you shop etc by passing the need to use checkout staff and no cost reduction to the customer. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,271
Many complains are that discounts are being subsidised by paying customers but these same customers are happy to subsidise the supermarkets for years by using self-serve / scan as you shop etc by passing the need to use checkout staff and no cost reduction to the customer.
that's invisible wealth transference though
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Posts
4,121
it's not asda etc giving the discounts out of their own pockets, it's other customers subsidising them.

Do you really think these discounts need to be subsidised? Do you think the retailers are going to make a loss on these customers?

I would be massively surprised if the retailer hasn't done the sums and worked out that these discounts are likely to increase their profits through additional sales and publicity, not decrease them.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,216
Location
7th Level of Hell...
I'm unsure why the need for "key workers" :rolleyes: only discounts.

This is as badly thought out as the council tax rebate for bands A-D as it takes no account of actual circumstances.

I know some are on low income but thats not always the case -

I seen the police woman try to make a point to Priti Patel a few days ago about going home with £2300 in her hand per month after paying her "pension and professional subscriptions" and complaining this was not enough.

It takes a cop 2 years service in E&W to get the average income of around £30k and, after a further 5 years, they are getting £41k (SOURCE) and she wants to bleat about being low paid and struggling to make ends meet? Then you get places like Asda offering discounts to people on this level of income?

To allay the "yes but we have to pay lots in pension contributions" people - I know this, but I also know police officers get generous pensions off the back of the generous contributions.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,918
Location
Northern England
You post one table allegedly from the ONS without a source article or data, then just keep making unfounded allegations from it.

The source is linked. The numbers are there. The source has also been linked by other people. It isn't my fault you lack the wit to be able to read.
Nor understand what unfounded means.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,507
Location
Gloucestershire
Is this through home ownership?
Certainly can't be disposable income, thus isn't comparing apples to apples.
Worth noting that 'disposable income' is defined as earnings after tax.

65+ (£32k) has a little less than 25-34 (£34k) age group, but more than 16-24 (£26k)
See here:

Of course, around 75% of 65+ own their homes outright (no mortgage), so pay no housing costs.

Clearly, as a group, after housing is taken into account, they will have a lot more 'disposable income'.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Nov 2003
Posts
5,290
Location
St Breward Cornwall
Worth noting that 'disposable income' is defined as earnings after tax.

65+ (£32k) has a little less than 25-34 (£34k) age group, but more than 16-24 (£26k)
See here:

Of course, around 75% of 65+ own their homes outright (no mortgage), so pay no housing costs.

Clearly, as a group, after housing is taken into account, they will have a lot more 'disposable income'.
Pretty much ,I am in 50s take home about £280 (30 hrs)but no mortgage and cheap bills ,no debt ect ect ,also potential pension drawdown kicks in at 57 now iirc
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Posts
22,213
Do you really think these discounts need to be subsidised? Do you think the retailers are going to make a loss on these customers?

I would be massively surprised if the retailer hasn't done the sums and worked out that these discounts are likely to increase their profits through additional sales and publicity, not decrease them.
Yes they absolutely do. No store is going to give margin away. They won't be making a loss but the last thing they want to report to investors is 'weve given some of your cash away'.

You're right revenue may increase due to increased sales, but folk will still be looking at the margin figure.
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
33,023
Location
Panting like a fiend
Yes they absolutely do. No store is going to give margin away. They won't be making a loss but the last thing they want to report to investors is 'weve given some of your cash away'.

You're right revenue may increase due to increased sales, but folk will still be looking at the margin figure.
IIRC Iceland stated a few months ago that they were going to do everything they could to hold their own brand pricing, basically even if it cost them "margin".

Apparently their research told them that a fair number of their customers couldn't afford a price hike, and would likely end up going to foodbanks and not another retailer if the prices rose too much.
So they made the decision to try and avoid increasing their prices which can for a company be a triple win, it's good for the PR (we're doing our best to help), it's good for the "ethical" shareholders (we're doing something to help even if it costs us a few percent in dividends), and it's good for the long term neutral investors (we're at least seeing the money being spent here, even if it's not quite as much profit). Companies can/do have a responsibility to make as much profit as they can, but you can look at that as "we're going to squeeze every penny in the short term" or "we're looking at more than just this financial year", often the latter* do better than the former as they'll be more likely to try and retain customers (which is often cheaper than trying to get new ones), and experienced staff etc

Retailers absolutely will sacrifice short term profits for longer term gains and potentially getting people to either stay with them, or move to them from a more expensive option.
It's a large part of how the likes of Amazon got to where they are, they were basically willing to sell almost at cost/for very little profit for years until they got enough of a foot hold to start increasing their margins.

From memory part of the reason the likes of B&Q used to do it was because their research told them that the older people tended to be willing to spend more time maintaining and improving their homes (and likely owned so were willing to spend on, whilst not necessarily having a huge amount of spare cash), so they probably worked out that by offering a discount it could increase their sales of high margin, high volume items, especially seasonal stuff and get the older customers to go out of their way to spend money with them rather than potentially an easier to reach retailer that was slightly more expensive after allowing for the discount. By doing it on the day they did it meant that the hoped for increase in older customers would be on a day when their store might have been a but quiet (but still needed full staffing) compared to say a weekend, and at the same time they might end up taking friends/family who would see things they might go back for another day.
It was also part of a company policy that was specifically aimed at making them look better, and friendly to the older folk, as IIRC they also had a policy of specifically trying to employ older people (OMG ageism!) especially those who had worked in various of the "trades", as it meant they were getting people who typically had a harder time getting a job, getting people who were less likely to have family issues. and getting people who were typically more knowledgeable than say the average 18 year old in who is basically working there as another "retail job" and often has no clue as to what they are selling.


*One of the huge problems in many once good companies is that they'll get a new CEO or something who is hired to "increase shareholder value" and does it by looking at what will give the short term increase, so they'll do things like cut the "non profit" making parts of the company, usually things like CS and R&D because they don't show anything in "sales", the damage is usually own seen a few years down the line when they don't have many new products and once loyal customers who were willing to pay a little more are now going to competitors because the competitors may not have quite as good a product (yet, but they may have retained their R&D) but have much better customer service so when something goes wrong it's sorted.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
9 May 2004
Posts
28,567
Location
Leafy outskirts of London
We're actually doing most of our shopping at Iceland and Lidl now (bar the odd thing that can only be had at Tesco or Waitrose), and are saving a notable amount.

£120 weekly at Tesco is more around £80 when we go to those 2, even factoring in Clubcard discounts.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
14,370
Location
5 degrees starboard
The source is linked. The numbers are there. The source has also been linked by other people. It isn't my fault you lack the wit to be able to read.
Nor understand what unfounded means.
The source is linked where? Any ONS data table will have paragraphs of explanatory text around it. I want the source paper linked otherwise it is garbage. You would not get away with that anywhere else. Try it in SC.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,918
Location
Northern England
The source is linked where? Any ONS data table will have paragraphs of explanatory text around it. I want the source paper linked otherwise it is garbage. You would not get away with that anywhere else. Try it in SC.
It's linked multiple times in this thread. In fact, think one was a reply to you. Use your eyes and fingers.
 
Back
Top Bottom