Here, let me translate for you:

"I, as a representative of a majority African American district, am making the public and my voters aware that I am involved in a popular issue that they will remember. I can also tie this to the real concern of food deserts because Whole Foods is a grocery store, and it allows me to find relevancy even if only marginally."

If Amazon Whole Foods is freed from the need to be profitable (like the rest of Amazon), and has the access to all of Amazon's other infrastructure, it will have a powerful competitive advantage against all other major grocery chains. Even if Amazon Whole Foods continues to focus on the upper end of the grocery market (which they may not), that will still make it even harder for other chains to compete in those markets, which I assume are more profitable than markets full of poor people.

If a given chain is only able to compete in the markets with the least purchasing power, that could have the effect of causing those chains to go out of business, which would in turn mean store closures in the poorest places. If I'm in charge of Ralph's as they're getting outcompeted in wealthier urban areas with high rents, I have to make up that profit by closing the least profitable stores, right?

Also, why assume that Amazon will keep Whole Foods' pricing or even brand alignment? Maybe they are simply buying a massive infrastructure for Amazon Fresh or whatever, and they intend to compete further down the line? I don't think there is any reason to assume that Amazon Whole Foods will have the same price range as Whole Foods.

By definition, there is no great business to be had selling groceries in poor areas. That's why there are food deserts now. If Amazon drives down margins and helps consolidate the grocery market, there may be even less likelihood that stores in poor areas will open or stay open.

Edit: read the actual letter, which makes very direct points about the potential pitfalls and merely asks for them to be studied (not for the merger to necessarily be blocked):

http://www.ufcw.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/61/files/2017/07/Lt...

This is the status quo today, it's not like we have incredible diversity of grocery chains serving each and every market out there. Whole Foods, Wegmans and Bristol Farms dominate the top tier, Costco inserted itself to serve upper middle class suburban communities, Safeway and equivalents vie for middle and lower-middle markets, while Walmart Supercenters, 7-11s, corner bodegas and Chinese/Korean grocers operate in lower-income markets.

It is the opposite. It is the argument that Amazon would make IN FAVOR of the merger.

I don't care about if a bunch of for profit businesses lose money.

What I care about is consumers and low prices.

It doesn't matter if it is fair. What matters is what is best for consumers.

What you are effectively arguing is "Amazon is too awesome, and too good for consumers. Their prices are so low, that other companies, that offer a WORSE product for a WORSE price, are unable to compete". And that to me makes no sense.

- Whole Foods no longer needs to be profitable because it's a subsidy of Amazon

- Whole Foods will thus drive down prices

Hold on, why? Because driving down prices will drive out competition. There's ample historical evidence for the inevitable result of this, which is

- Whole Foods leverages its new monopoly after murdering all competition by raising prices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing

This is one of those claims that sounds plausible, but I've yet to encounter a historical case of it actually occurring.

(Edit: remove FTC comment, as it is besides the point and not strictly accurate)

At most, that's evidence of a new dynamic coming to a market, but I don't see the evidence of consumer harm from the phase 2 raising of prices in the browser market.

At what point in history did microsoft drive out all its competitors, and then raise prices?

Oh wait. Never. They never raised prices and kept internet explorer free forever.

Also, the premise that "consumers" are a monolithic group is mistaken. What's good for comfortable consumers in wealthy places is not necessarily also good for poor consumers. Is Amazon Whole Foods going to serve 100% of the United States? Can you imagine them destroying the business of a company and then choosing not to serve all of that company's customers?

Amazon's "awesome" prices are artificially low (like Uber's, for example) due to subsidy from investors. This indicates an intent to compete and then raise prices.

And people have been saying that the inevitable price increase is just around the corner.

And yet those price increases have yet to come.

So tell me, when will THESE price increases come around?

Maybe in Another 20 years?

Amazon has been around for 20 years "monopolizing" every market that it enters. And those doomsday price raises have yet to materialize.

> What I care about is consumers and low prices.

You are being short-sighted then. Come in, drive the others out of business, then feel free to raise prices with no competition. It has happened multiple times before.

True, but the restriction of choice is. And Amazon is NOT going to stay upmarket long. They're going to wipe out smaller players.

This merger drives down some consumers costs (generally the wealthier who already have plenty of choice) while increasing the costs of others (wiping out marginal stores in areas that are less affluent).

WalMart is a good analogy. When WalMart comes into an area costs go down--until all the alternatives are driven out of business. And, quite often, WalMart isn't even the cheapest. In addition, by wiping out those businesses WalMart wipes out jobs and those people don't care that groceries are 10% cheaper because they now have no income at all.

So, it basically boils down to the people who already have plenty, get things cheaper, while the people already hurting, hurt worse.

Regardless, Amazon might cut Whole Food prices if they do anything with prices. There's no way they'll ever raise them.

Even though Trader Joe's* has so far catered to certain people, if that was the company in question of merging, there would be a case.

*I know Trader Joe's is a subsidiary of one of the Aldi companies.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

Delivery costs are a real issue, but I have a hope that we will get self-driving trucks in the near future and delivery prices will fall.

The kinds of foods needed in those areas are fresh, cheap, high spoliage items aka unprofitable to touch unless in bulk.

That is, by lower quality standards and working conditions.

If its own internal (non technical) sectors are to be taken as any indication.

If Whole Foods is currently getting a 10% margin on a product and Amazon says we'll sell it for a 5% margin, nothing else has changed in the store or the product, but the price and margin are lower.

> “Full repeal of the estate tax would allow African Americans to pass the full fruits of their business success to the next generation and thereby laying the foundation for a permanent minority ownership class that can contribute to the economic growth and development of the United States economy,” Robert Johnson, whose worth has been estimated at more than half a billion dollars, wrote to the House Ways and Means Committee last week.

>Since it was announced in 2013, Whole Foods' plan to open a store in one of Chicago's most economically depressed South Side neighborhoods has drawn praise, excitement, scrutiny and some doubt. The big questions — Will the community support it? Will the store be affordable to residents but still turn a profit? Will it work? — won't be answerable for months or even years.

>But Wednesday was reserved for exuberance and unchecked optimism. Many shoppers applauded the store's presence in a community with few options for fresh, healthy food. And more than 35 South Side vendors sampled their wares that will be sold in the store. Whole Foods is hoping that local connection, plus significantly lower prices on select items, keeps shoppers coming back after the hoopla has died down.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-whole-foods-englew...

(edit quote marks)

1) Whole Foods will continue to keep its prices as high as it does. Poorer/disadvantaged communities will continue to not shop at Whole Foods as it is out of their price range.

2) Amazon lowers Whole Foods prices. Whole Foods becomes affordable for more communities. If Whole Foods expands into poorer communities with these lowered prices, it will give poorer communities more access to groceries. If Whole Foods does not expand into these poor communities, storefronts like Smart & Final, Walmarts, Big Lots!, Ralphs, VONS, etc will continue to exist.

I really fail to see the problem here.