Where I Choose to Shop

Target has taken a hit for dismantling their DEI program.  Traffic in their stores is reportedly down, including my local store.  But association is not causation.  Whenever I go to Costco it is mobbed, with a DEI program preserved despite governmental pressure.  But they are two very different consumer experiences.  Both stores seem to have people of similar ethnic distribution as employees visible to shoppers.  And the apparent diversity of the people shopping at each place does not seem much different, though Costco shoppers are drawn to items of larger price tag and larger quantities, while Target has more selection.  Costco employees are harder to find but always helpful once located.  Target employees are around but amateur kids from HS trying to meet car insurance premiums.  Mostly not helpful to me.  Has nothing to do with popular or unpopular sociopolitical stances and everything to do with the priorities that the executive who make key decisions place on their shoppers' experiences.

I have two staples where Target offers the best price nearly always.  Each supply lasts about two weeks, essentially forcing me to the store about ten times a year.  I go to the shelves, both in the pharmacy department, and carry the items to the self-scanner.  I rarely leave the pharmacy department.  There have been times when it seemed convenient to get other things.  I needed laundry soap.  My supermarket undercuts the price big time for the premium brand and significantly for the secondary brands and house brand.  I wanted to get some clothing for an upcoming trip.  Minimal shirt selection and shoddy stuff.  I needed a thermal mug.  They had them, not competitive in price with what I eventually bought.  One time I needed ammonia to clean some glass.  They had no ammonia, just chemical concoctions designed by mediocre chemistry majors labelled as glass cleaner.  When they have what I come for, I buy it.  Mostly what I find is less competitive than what I can find other places.  The people who work there do not make the corporation's wholesale purchasing, stocking, or pricing decisions.  DEI, which I agree has not been implemented in the optimal way, has no bearing on any of my experience.

I've largely deep-sixed other retailers, though with no malice.  Best Buy, Kohl's each too expensive.  Local Walmarts often unkempt.  What I've needed I find locked behind glass with no accessible employee with a key to show it to me.  Costco is fun to browse, but empty nesters really need very little in quantity.  Moreover, there is little need to stand in a long line behind full mega carts when I have one or two items costing less than $30.  

So what are my preferences and why?  Depends what I need.

The easiest for me has been my pharmacy.  I chose it years ago due to walking distance from my office. Now it's a short drive with convenient hours. Top-notch pharmacists.  Medicines always ready.  Fully cooperative with my Medicare Part D.  I almost never buy anything else at that supermarket.

Groceries are in transition.  Shop-Rite established a Kosher section in conjunction with my Rabbi.  It began as a personal friendship between the Rabbi and the Shop-Rite's chief.  Both retired.  The kosher service hangs on with a loyal volunteer, a person not treated especially well by the Dominant Individuals of my congregation.  Selection has deteriorated, especially in the beef section.  I rarely buy beef.  But for general groceries, I find things easy to find and discounted more than the competing stores seem to.  I now buy more at Trader Joe's.  My staples there are eggs, bread, seltzer, bananas, and Roma tomatoes, plus greeting cards as needed.  I always like being in that store.  More recently an Aldi opened nearby.  I like being there too, though it's price-dependent.  Kosher is not on their radar, though certified products are available.  I look at my outings there as a treasure hunt.

Clothing is more problematic.  I do not buy much now that I am retired.  For browsing, Marshall's, TJ Maxx, and Boscov's.  All have more than clothing.  Things for my kitchen other than food tend to come from Boscov's.  Gifts for others from the other two.

My state restricts alcohol purchases to licensed stores.  Total Wine is the way to go, except for beer where a smaller store has a better selection from smaller brewers.  

I depend on the Home Depot, Lowe's, and a local hardware store for various things, but almost always know what I want to get before I head to any of these.  I have found Home Depot online preferable to going to the store.

My shoes have a difficult to find size.  Shoe stores display by style.  I much prefer display by size.  Amazon sorts this very well.  I also buy electronics and smart watches from there.  If I need a replacement part for anything, I can usually order it there.

At one time I purchased more Judaica and books than I do now.  Those are transacted online, and not very often.

Themes to how I seek stuff out?  If I do not know what I want, the places whose displays influence me seem to be Shop-Rite, Boscov's, TJ Maxx, and Marshall's.  The supermarket just has an immense array of items for all purposes, from good values in healthy eating to patio furniture to soil enrichment for my garden.  I read the ad each Sunday, make a list of must-get and might-get.  Despite a list, I still go aisle by aisle.

The three department stores must have a different acquisition system than Macy's or Walmart.  One month TJ Maxx will have Phillies caps and sturdy backpacks, another month grooming products that I had never heard of and a clearance on slacks.  Boscov's clothing has predictability.  The housewares and linens may reflect special deals that their buyers find on overstocks.  The selection changes significantly from month to month, as I found out when I needed to replace a toaster and steam iron.  I could not predict what brands would appear on the shelves.

To some extent, I find the surprise of what I might find appealing.  Target certainly does not have that.  I rarely need a salesperson to help, and most of the places where I shop really no longer have employees knowledgeable about what they sell, other than the Kosher deli guy at Shop-Rite.  Except for expensive items like major electronics, I don't miss the expertise that salespeople once had.

What I don't seem to care about is the political stance that the executives take.  These are mostly large corporations with dozens to hundreds of locations.  They are all going to hire a broad group of people in the stores.  They implement what somebody who I do not see decides.  So availability matters.  Target must have the two items I seek from them, as that is my only reason to go there.  I need to be able to find what I am shopping for.  Displaying by designer like the snooty stores sometimes do makes no sense when I prefer all items of my size sorted on racks by size.  And I've never abandoned my fondness for surprise, the ability to purchase something whose display makes me want it.  Those are fundamental retail strategy decisions which appear as shoppers browse but are made by a few people far removed from those shelves.

Each shopper probably has some blend of uniqueness and commonality.  Judging that probably explains why Costco has a lot of shoppers every time I go there while Target has fewer than the stockholders might like.  I think the DEI explanations are advocates pitching their own social preferences, not professional retailers dedicated to attracting customers.

Jewish American Heritage Month

Got a little testy with my professional organization, The Endocrine Society, which I continue to hold in utmost esteem, dedicated its latest issue of Endocrine News to Asian American and Pacific Islander Month.  No challenge to the worthiness of these professional colleagues or to the many contributions that people of that background have made to enhance American life.  Recognition is due, respect is ongoing.  A number of other organizations have posted parallel recognition in print and electronic media.

Concurrently, somebody also designated this Jewish American Heritage Month.  Recognitions are much fewer.  A Google search largely posts recognition to places where Jewish presence is already well established, as in towns or universities with substantial Jewish representation.  An exception might be Notre Dame.  But my medical alma mater gives a thumbs up to Asians but no recognition to Jews.  Same with the Endocrine Society.  

At present, we Jews happen to be the daily besieged.  Asians can walk across campus without threatening gestures from others walking in the opposite direction.  Not true for the Jews this past academic semester.  From time to time a report appears that the parent organization was receptive to recognition but subject to the veto of the DEI infrastructure.   I have no means of confirming these allegations, though they are at least plausible.  Asian achievements, which are many, are perceived to follow diligence.  Jewish achievements, which are many, are perceived to follow privilege.

Jewish history in America has its patchwork of alliances and rejections.  Every major city has a medical center, often an upper-tier destination in the annual Residents Match, with a Biblically derived name.  They exist because the premier academic centers excluded regional Jewish physicians from staff appointments.  We have law firms with Ashkenazi names because white shoe firms once spurned Jewish law grads.  We have experience in dealing with being overlooked.  Whether the snootiness of the first half of the 20th century or exclusion by DEI officers today, we succeed by tenacity and diligence, not privilege.

What disturbs me, though, has been the rejection of the opportunity by my professional organization and my Jesuit alma mater to use the designated ethnic month to affirm that their Jewish members, who are being publicly assailed right now, is simply not compatible with organizational standards.  A month was assigned for recognition of our contributions because there are substantial contributions.  Neither my alma mater nor professional organization is hostile.  But neither displayed boldness when they might have.

Underrepresented

I went to a terrific concert at a huge Presbyterian Church just outside our flagship State University.  Immense sanctuary, filled with a blend of concert lovers who wouldn't miss it and relatives of the volunteer musicians, including a high school contribution of singers who support their household members, if not fine music.  My wife loves choral music, currently serving as President of a local ensemble.  I always enjoy her concerts, though only go to hers.

My own fondness, though never developing into an expensive passion, are our National Parks and my state parks.  As a senior, I purchased lifetime passes to each.  On visit to Florida a year ago I reserved an afternoon to tour the Everglades.  In the past I've allotted vacation time for Zion, Bryce, Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and Volcanoes National Parks, all quite crowded with fellow tourists on each of my visits.  My regional Osher Institute has offered a course on the National Parks predating my own post-retirement enrollment.  Friday morning is reserved for the current National Parks presentation by one of the finest lecturers in the program, now an octogenarian.

Fine music, often Sacred pieces inspired by a Deity but still mostly created by musical masters and presented by dedicated performers with more of a spectrum of talent, does not easily connect to the wonders of nature, themselves studied and packaged by experts. The link may be the mostly unconditional offer for the public to elevate their minds and spirits from we offered, whether by non-profits that promote music or government that preserves and manages land.  Each are for presentation. 

Some major symphonies, operas, and theatrical agencies charge a substantial sum to partake.  Their attendance would reflect that, an audience dominated by moguls and elite professionals, with a subset of maybe student discounts or people of ordinary means who saved up all year for this personal treat.  Not so with our local productions, from High School annual musicals to church or community sponsored musical concerts.  Tickets are within the means of most wage earners.  The performers mostly need and have cars to get to rehearsals, while working people, at least in my locale, need and have cars to get to work.  The availability of these concerts would seem nearly universal, though in competition with what each person might be doing instead.

The National Parks, while more spectacular, are not as universally accessible.  I always see tour buses, some directed to foreign countries where vacation time exceeds what American employers allot.  Parking lots have plates from all over America and parts of Canada and Mexico, suggesting that people planned their visits to capture multiple places and allow substantial travel time.  More typically, tourists fly to the nearest major airport, then rent a car.  And hotel accommodations, often tied to the pleasures of a resort, make this a considerable expense for most visitors, though working people customarily allot for travel during their vacation weeks.  One can go overseas on a tour, take a cruise, visit a National Park, explore the magic of Disney, all for comparable expense.  And vacation has become a priority for Americans.  I have actually done all of these things over many years.

At the concert, the paucity of African-Americans, countable on fingers amidst a few hundred people caught my attentions.  Asians were also under-represented.  Ages of those in attendance perhaps trended toward older people, though not dramatically so.  And this is with parents supporting their participating kids.  The performers had some people colors, but not the audience.  Has concert music, unlike Spirituals or popular music, become a haven of the elite?  Those people who played in the school orchestra or took courses from the Music Department in college?   Travel or expense would not be an impediment, interest and preferences might be.

I make a parallel observation about my National Park visits, though slightly different.  Asians, whether by Japanese tour buses or visitors to the Western Parks are rather common.  African-Americans seemed few, even in Florida where the only people of color seemed to be those on class trips.  The nearest airport to the Utah parks is Las Vegas which has among the most cosmopolitan collection of visitors as anyplace.  Hotels in the towns surrounding the parks are not extravagantly priced.  Nobody is turned away.  I assume the National Park Service keeps some visitor data so perhaps my visual impression is in error, but I don't think so.  And the Parks are as likely to attract people of all political persuasions, so I don't suspect their enjoyment is top-heavy with the wealthiest most educated Americans.  

We have DEI as a political flash point, as it focuses on employment and blending of students.  But there are other opportunities for having a broader representation of the population than we seem to have now.  Nobody is turned away from a cultural event.  Nobody is refused entry to our public lands to enjoy the best nature can create.  Nothing controversial about this.  Yet there seems to be ethnically, economically, or perhaps geographic preferences.  Or perhaps the desire to bring the kids to the Everglades in competition with Disney reflects a parental perspective.  The concert and the parks each seem to have diversity shortfalls.  And each unrelated to any sense of entitlement or preference.  I think it would be better to make an effort to attract some of the portions of the population not currently seeking out these public treasures, so some may think me an overeducated snob for thinking that way.