the cheapest goods are sold as loss-leaders to attract high spenders to the biggest supermarkets on the outer peripheries of towns. Supermarkets use those loss leaders to pull the spending power of the well off towards the cheapest ground rent and away from high street competitors, encouraging them to spend all their money in one shop, rather than in one street. The poorest consumers don’t have cars to drive there, and the goods available to them locally are much poorer value, and become increasingly poorer value as the high street and the distribution networks are striped of their viability.

But this is just rubbish – it’s just not true that the poor don’t have cars, don’t access big box stores and that supermarkets don’t have town centre footprints. Neither is it true that lower profits for old retailers are bad for poor consumers.

its not true that the poor dont have cars

you’ll have to talk me through this one.

the best tariffs currently are reserved for the credit-worthy. Electricity and gas is much more expensive if you don’t have a credit meter or the stability of income to sign up for direct debits.

it’s more to do with a low cost to serve, lower debt risk and higher average consumption as well as a higher likelihood of switching (or not being able to switch if there is debt on the account)

if you believe there is a class war utility conspiracy to fleece the poor go to Ofgem/ Ofwat

the cheapest goods are sold as loss-leaders to attract high spenders to the biggest supermarkets on the outer peripheries of towns.

like konabunny, I just dont agree with this.

Supermarket margins are tiny, just a few percent.
The agressive market is primarily aimed at staple products to get ANYONE with any discretionary spending into the stores to try and sell higher margin goods to. Whilst this is to the benefit of everyone who enters the store (since nearly every household needs to buy the staples) it disproportionately favours those who spend less. It’s akin to the VAT environment where staple goods are exempt but “Luxuries” not.

As for utilities, Id certainly like to see household allowances based on targeting reduction in consumption. Set a feasible consumption threshold that lifts as many as possible out of fuel/water poverty, but after which the price ramps up quickly punishing excessive consumption.