Oligarchy Wrong Recipe for Area’s Food Stores

A very common conversation topic among ourselves and our neighbors and friends is the projected merger of Ralphs and Hughes markets [“Ralphs, Hughes Market Chains Plan Merger,” Nov. 7].

Within our circles, the opinion has been 100% negative! The loss of the Hughes logo, as noted in The Times, will reduce the major players in the Los Angeles area to a mere three. Three may be defined as an oligarchy, or near-monopoly. The standard tale that this will benefit the consumer is unadulterated malarkey.

Does Ralphs or any other concern that purchases a major rival for hundreds of millions or billions expect its immediate profits plus savings from “duplication” to cover the costs of an acquisition? Ralphs claims that it will better serve the consumer by getting better prices from suppliers.

Of items that were carried by both chains this may be a possibility. However, as shelf space is a limited commodity, we believe that numerous products, both major and secondary, will be dropped. As suppliers/distributors are reduced in number and profitability, we would expect that producers will experience profit drops.

Will some stores be closed or will Ralphs stores compete with Ralphs stores? Will this be a choice for the consumer? Will stores that close be allowed to reopen under rival banners, or will Ralphs continue lease payments to prevent an opponent from opening (and simultaneously destroy the small-business operations dependent upon an anchor store).

How many employees will suffer job loss or hours reduction? And what of the differences in service and style of the two concerns? Ralphs tends more toward a corporate mentality, while Hughes has an image of greater responsiveness to individual communities.

If the Staples-Office Depot merger was condemned by the federal government as being monopolistic, is the Ralphs-Hughes merger any less destructive of competition?

SHEL and ARLENE WEISBACH

Chatsworth