Matthew Yglesias (February 26, 2007) - Price Discrimination (Domestic Policy)

"Being Hispanic, we both like rice," said 46-year-old Lopez.

What a racist.

Posted by neil | February 26, 2007 2:24 PM

The comparison to students only stacks up if one thinks that a person who can speak Chinese--or other foreign language--is less capable of paying. They don't seem tightly correlated.

Posted by dj moonbat | February 26, 2007 2:25 PM

It's weird that they felt a need to justify the desire to have rice with their Chinese food.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 26, 2007 2:26 PM

I'm not really sure what's wrong with this kind of business practice; it's no different from offering student fares on airlines or senior citizens' discounts at movie theaters.

What strikes me about this is that language-based differences feel like proxies for discrimination based on race. Try imagining this the other way: if an English-language menu at your local Burger King had lower prices than the Spanish-language menu, there would (and should) be questions about whether this is acceptable practice.

Posted by brad | February 26, 2007 2:29 PM

The real scandal is that the Chinese-language menus frequently offer better food than the English-language menus.

Posted by blah | February 26, 2007 2:29 PM

"I'm not really sure what's wrong with this kind of business practice."

I'm not really sure you quite meant to say that, did you, Matt? There's generally nothing unlawful about student airfares or senior film discounts. But of course it has long been the case under federal law (i.e., since 1964), as well as under state and local law, that discrimination based on race, ethnicity and national origin is unlawful. (I assume you're not calling the Civil Rights Act into question, right?)

The restaurant here could, I suppose, argue that it is engaged in discrimination based on language rather than race or ethnicity -- but it won't do so, because language is so obviously a proxy for what is plainly prohibited (and there's a substantial line of cases so holding).

Posted by Marty Lederman | February 26, 2007 2:29 PM

And a new theme emerges at Matthew Yglesias' blog. Along with basketball, the use of statistics to examine same, hipster rock music, various movies, anti-semitism, false accusations of same, warmongering in an Iranian direction, etc., we find a new obsession: People Aren't Paying Enough For Their Stuff.

Posted by Quarterican | February 26, 2007 2:31 PM

I thought everybody knew this as well.

I always kind of filed it under, "Quaint, kind of funny, but really who cares."

Posted by Patrick | February 26, 2007 2:33 PM

How could most people know this?

Posted by Cryptic Ned | February 26, 2007 2:42 PM

I'm not really sure what's wrong with this kind of business practice; it's no different from offering student fares on airlines or senior citizens' discounts at movie theaters.

Or, you know, making people who can't speak English, come from a different country, or look different pay extra, stand in the back of the bus, or not get served.

I think your illness is messing with your critical reasoning abilities.

Posted by right | February 26, 2007 2:44 PM

Brad, you've got this backward. Chinese-speaking customers typically have lower incomes than English-speaking customers. If Burger King's Spanish menu was cheaper than its English menu, I'm not sure what would be wrong with that. It asks less of people with less disposable income and asks more of people with more disposable income. It's market segmentation to maximize profit, but in this case, it benefits the relatively less well off. I'm pretty okay with it.

I mean, sure you can frame it as "our language" vs. "their language," in which case it looks racist, but if you frame it in terms of economics, it's neither offensive nor bad.

Posted by jhupp | February 26, 2007 2:45 PM

So nobody here would shit a brick if a white run business was charging non-whites more? Good to know.

Posted by Gatchaman | February 26, 2007 2:46 PM

The point is that locals get to eat cheaper than the tourists, which may not be right, but it's not the end of the world either. All these silly analogies are completely beside the point.

Posted by Steve | February 26, 2007 2:48 PM

If Burger King's Spanish menu was cheaper than its English menu, I'm not sure what would be wrong with that.

Interesting, my sister-in-law, who owns a cafe in a gay neighborhood should charge the gay couples more, because it is safe to assume a gay couple with no children has more disposable income than a heterosexual couple with kids.

Posted by Gatchaman | February 26, 2007 2:49 PM

helpfully provide you with an English-language menu featuring higher prices

I've heard stories of this sort of thing. I've also heard stories about it going the other way too -- e.g. in some countries, to put on a good face for foreigners (as a matter of national pride), a foreigner can get a taxi for a reasonable price, without much bargaining required, from an airport to his/her hotel, but with a native, the taxi drivers will collude to keep the prices high, require lots of bargaining (in bad faith) etc.

I shall not mention the country or counties involved, but when I myself have been to restaurants of these persuasions, I have noticed a phenomenon that when I'm a random white guy at such a restaurant, the service is far better than when they get to know me and that I, through various friendships and even in-laws, am de facto one of them, the quality of the service goes down!

*

As blah's point about the real scandal (with which point I generally agree) ... in all fairness, I know many non-Chinese who, even if the full menu were available in English, really wouldn't go for the sorts of things that you cannot get on the English language menu. There may be some stereotypes made as to what we non-Chinese might not like, but what's left off the English language menu ain't left off for no particular reason.

Posted by DAS | February 26, 2007 2:56 PM

Two different menus aimed towards two different groups of people with two different prices. Sounds very separate but equal to me.

What's the harm?

Posted by jerry | February 26, 2007 2:58 PM

Gatchaman, as soon as I posted that comment, I knew I had oversimplified the point. Obviously, none of this is universally true, and as soon as anyone enters into the practice of market segmentation, you get that very problem. E.g., why should poor Americans pay more for drugs than rich Zambians? But unsegmenting that market, for instance, would also be problematic, wouldn't it? Because poor Zambians can't really even afford their own price, let alone some world market equilibrium. (Note: this is not an attempt to defend drug companies, who are mostly scum. It's just the quickest example that comes to mind.)

All of which is to say, yeah, there are some problems here, and it's not cut and dry whether this is right or wrong. But it does make some economic sense, I don't think it's an attempt to be racist, and it isn't the end of the world.

Posted by jhupp | February 26, 2007 2:59 PM

I assumed everybody knew this too. Calvin Trillin wrote about it years ago, mainly complaining that the Chinese menus had lots more dishes that the proprietors thought would only appeal to native Chinese speakers (or at least readers), cheating him not so much out of a fair price as the better food. Or what blah said.

Posted by Antid Oto | February 26, 2007 3:01 PM

My first corollary to the Gatchaman Theorem: those of mixed-races would pay prices apportioned according to their constituent races. My second corollary to the Gatchaman Theorem: those who know a little of the foreign language would receive the lower price, but be suspected of being from some sort of government agency of some kind.

P.S. Maybe Matt could provide an answer to my ("Meet your friends") comment here.

Posted by TLB | February 26, 2007 3:02 PM

I don't think the issue is one of different menus with no overlap in what they offer. The issue is one of two different menus that contain some of the same items where those items are priced differently.

Let me say a bit more about this. The people suffering from the discrimination here are people who can't speak Chinese. It's not as if we non-sinophones are some kind of incredibly put-upon and powerless minority here in the United States that needs city officials to be zealously defending our rights.

Yes, I agree. Since I'm a white male, I really have no need for the Bill of Rights and frankly, it's a waste of my tax money to have city officials defending them.

Posted by jerry | February 26, 2007 3:02 PM

'blah' brings up a useful point. If this is wrong and unacceptable, then is it any more acceptable for them to print a Chinese menu with different items that English-reading people don't ever order? I don't see a bright line between those two cases.

Nor is it impermissible for restaurants to offer the same food at different prices depending on how you order it. A combo meal at a fast food restaurant always costs less than the individual items ordered a la carte.

Posted by neil | February 26, 2007 3:05 PM

Matthew,

There's a long history in the South of certain white businesses overcharging blacks to discourage their patronage. Even after the Civil Rights Act, there was an investigation, I believe, that showed places where all sticker prices would be set high, and then reduced at the counter for whites in the community.

Presumably, the Chinese menu would be open to American whites, blacks, etc. who could speak Chinese. But it's the practical effect that's important for the law-- and the practical effect of the separate pricing structure is that those of Chinese nationality/race will be afforded special treatment over non-Chinese.

I don't think it's a big deal in this instance. (What's an extra buck for a good Chow Mein?) But setting the precedent of allowing de facto discrimination in this case, even if it is relatively harmless, could be exploited en masse and quickly become burdensome on a minority race or religion.

Posted by bchurch | February 26, 2007 3:05 PM

You know, it's really not that hard to learn enough Chinese to order a meal, if the difference in price is important to you. Some people seem to be thinking that it's as hard as changing your skin color.

Or could it possibly be that this has something to do with privilege?

Posted by James Killus | February 26, 2007 3:08 PM

You find two-tiered pricing like this anywhere in China. On any number of occasions I've been told by Chinese acquaintances that it's an embarrassing bit of racism, and that I should refuse to pay more as a foreigner.

Posted by Wade | February 26, 2007 3:09 PM

I can't believe Matt is serious about this.

Would it be okay if:

(a) the Chinese people were charged more?
(b) there was a third menu, in Spanish, that charged even more than the English one?
(c) you could only order off the Chinese menu if you looked Chinese?

If the answer to all these is somehow yes, please post next about how the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional, immoral and should be abolished. Then you'd have a logically consistent point of view.

Posted by right | February 26, 2007 3:11 PM

Some restaurants will give regular customers special treatment, for instance better tables or making special requests that don't appear on the menu. Does anyone really have a problem with that?

Posted by Peter | February 26, 2007 3:11 PM

What this really boils down to is: if you know Chinese, you get a better deal at Chinese restaurants than if you don't know Chinese. Not only does this not seem wrong, it seems to be an inevitable consequence of capitalism.

Posted by neil | February 26, 2007 3:11 PM

This has absolutely nothing to do with being Chinese or not-Chinese. And, I sniff, I detect a hint of racism amongst those who leap to the assumption that there is a one-to-one correlation between 'people who look Chinese' and 'people who speak Chinese.'

Posted by neil | February 26, 2007 3:13 PM

Amazing how the discrimination is always a crystal-clear injustice when it's your own ox being gored.

Posted by Steve | February 26, 2007 3:14 PM

"Nor is it impermissible for restaurants to offer the same food at different prices depending on how you order it. A combo meal at a fast food restaurant always costs less than the individual items ordered a la carte."

Obviously, the difference between this case and getting a bulk discount (which is what a value meal is), is that a value meal is available to anyone who wants it, regardless of race, creed, nationality, etc. Printing discounts for Chinese speakers, while it may allow certain non ethnic Chinese speakers to receive a reduced price, has the general de facto effect that ethnic Chinese receive special treatment over non Chinese Americans.

Of course it's only one dollar and it's only Chinese food. But if this is legal, what would prevent a Mexican-hating grocer from printing up special spanish language prices that were prohibitively expensive, in an effort to keep the damn Mexicans out of his store?

Posted by bchurch | February 26, 2007 3:15 PM

According to my roommate, who speaks a little Chinese, you also get better service at some Chinese restaurants if you speak Chinese. Shocking, I know!

Posted by Joel | February 26, 2007 3:16 PM

My understanding is that the Chinese busboys are being paid more than the hispanic busboys too. I guess that's okay and is just an inevitable consequence of capitalism. The hispanic busboys should stop complaining just because they don't get the privilege that are accustomed to.

The male Chinese busboys are paid more than the female Chinese busboys, but they have families to support so that's okay too.

Posted by jerry | February 26, 2007 3:16 PM

A value meal is only available to people who know how to read the menu and understand that it's being offered, just like in this situation.

But if this is legal, what would prevent a Mexican-hating grocer from printing up special spanish language prices that were prohibitively expensive, in an effort to keep the damn Mexicans out of his store?

Numbers are the same in Spanish and English.

Posted by neil | February 26, 2007 3:17 PM

A combo meal at a fast food restaurant always costs less than the individual items ordered a la carte.

Okay, I know this is mad petty, but not at In-N-Out.

Posted by Senescent | February 26, 2007 3:18 PM

"I'm not really sure what's wrong with this kind of business practice; it's no different from offering student fares on airlines or senior citizens' discounts at movie theaters."

Oh, totally. Because every student (or at least most students) are the children of wealthy parents attending elite prep schools or the Ivy League, just as most senior citizens are liable to be well off retirees rather than formerly middle and working class people living on a fixed income.

Posted by Linus | February 26, 2007 3:18 PM

Of course it's only one dollar and it's only Chinese food. But if this is legal, what would prevent a Mexican-hating grocer from printing up special spanish language prices that were prohibitively expensive, in an effort to keep the damn Mexicans out of his store?

I think the point being made is that hating Mexicans is wrong. Though hating* whites would be somewhat quaint and in line with true liberal values.

*Ofcourse I don't think the Chinese menu has anything to do with "hate" -- but people who would flip the f*ck out if a menu was charging Chinese people more than whites seem OK with it being the other way around.

Posted by Gatchaman | February 26, 2007 3:19 PM

Orders placed in Chinese can be more efficiently processed by non-English-speaking staff. English speakers are paying a translation surcharge.

Posted by Chris Conway | February 26, 2007 3:19 PM

All of those "it's only a dollar" arguments, those are the ones coming from the "like my new iPod? my new car? my new Mac? going to the arcade fire concert?" people.

elitist yuppies.

Anyway, Matt, I lost the logic in your argument at:

Let me say a bit more about this. The people suffering from the discrimination here are....

Forgive me, but I put in "Jews, Blacks, Gays, " instead of whom you met, rich white yuppies.

Posted by jerry | February 26, 2007 3:20 PM

Ofcourse I don't think the Chinese menu has anything to do with "hate" -- but people who would flip the f*ck out if a menu was charging Chinese people more than whites seem OK with it being the other way around.

Once again, note the assumption of an exact correlation between 'people who speak Chinese' and '[ethnically] Chinese people.' Personally, I have known a lot of ethnically Chinese people who don't speak any more Chinese than I (whitey) do.

Posted by neil | February 26, 2007 3:21 PM

This is all starting to remind me of the Monty Python Dennis Moore sketch: "Wait a tic... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought."

Posted by Jeff | February 26, 2007 3:21 PM

This makes me want to be Chinese. I'm Indian American. Indians would charge other Indians more if they could get away with it. Forget any sort of racial solidarity.

On another note, do you suppose Chinese drycleaners admit a drycleaning error to their Chinese customers?

Man, this post is filled with ethnic joke possibilities.

Posted by Amitava Mazumdar | February 26, 2007 3:23 PM

A combo meal at a fast food restaurant always costs less than the individual items ordered a la carte.

So that actually is price discrimination, which offers different prices for different bundlings of the same object depending on attributes of the order, especially quantity, or form of shipping.

It is basically legal, because it is different from noxious forms of discrimination that are based on petty attributes like race, religion, color, national origin, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation.

Posted by jerry | February 26, 2007 3:23 PM

In re: to the "just learn Chinese if this bothers you" comments.

You're right that language is not necessarily tied to race or national origin. But it is tied to race/national origin as a matter of fact.

So for example, if I owned a building in a section of town with alot of gay couples, could I keep them out by permitting only opposite sex roomates? What if I further stated that I didn't allow women with short hair, or men who like Broadway musicals (just to pick two commonplace stereotypes). Now surely, some gay people who jumped through the right hoops might still be able to rent from me. But if I'm successfully prohibiting enough gays from moving in, then I'm engaging in de facto discrimination. In the same way, if only an extremely small fraction of non ethnic Chinese are able to take advantage of the discount, then it's a defacto discrimination against non Chinese-- the existence of a possible rare exception doesn't change that.

And in regards to Matthew's update: it's not a big deal that people get a dollar off of Chinese food. The point is that allowing this kind of behavior in "harmless" situations can quickly turn into a widespread and more harmful discrimination.

Posted by bchurch | February 26, 2007 3:24 PM

Nor is it impermissible for restaurants to offer the same food at different prices depending on how you order it.

Seriously, comparing racial/ethnic discrimination to (Matt's) matinee movies or Combo Meal promotions is moving the goalposts out of the stadium.

Or could it possibly be that this has something to do with privilege?

I'm amazed at the idea that race-discrimination (by proxy) is only reprehensible if the victims are poor. This plays with fire a little bit, too. Much antisemitism is justified by perceived wealth or power of the group.

But it does make some economic sense, I don't think it's an attempt to be racist, and it isn't the end of the world.

Whether or not this behavior is economically rational has little to do with whether it is or isn't morally wrong to discriminate based on race. It's not the intent, it's the outcome.

Posted by brad | February 26, 2007 3:25 PM

Chris Conway makes the only conceivable argument as to why this form of price discrimination might be okay.

Orders placed in Chinese can be more efficiently processed by non-English-speaking staff. English speakers are paying a translation surcharge.

The rest of you are just apologizing for and defending a form of race based discrimination.

Pretty shameful.

Posted by jerry | February 26, 2007 3:26 PM

Linus: You know the student fares and senior citizens are are LOWER right? I don't really get the point of your sarcasm.

It's obviously discrimination, (one can't deny the clear intent), and since it defends a minority most of us would care less, yes really. I in general find local parochialism distasteful, but I don't find this any different than "cops in your neighborhood won't give you a ticket for speeding because they know your car" and a thousand other ways everyone acts out tribal preferences.

And it really is nothing compared to actually visitting these other countries (or I imagine foreigners visitting us). Tourists are apparently fair game to everyone.

Posted by Tony V | February 26, 2007 3:26 PM

At my diner we charge Chinese speakers twice as much. Don't even get me started on how we overcharge the gays and blacks -- but I will admit I put my daugther through Bible college on the money we made selling sugar packets and napkins to lesbians (the Gay Menu is 100% al a carte).

Posted by Marcus Wellby | February 26, 2007 3:32 PM

Sounds like a job for Ralph Nader -- consumer advocate! Oh, wait, he's spending his time trying to destroy the nation. Again. Never mind.

P.S. Actually, non-native speakers are fair game no matter where you go, so I can't really build up too much of a head of steam about this.

Posted by IP Guy | February 26, 2007 3:32 PM

Nothing is stopping any of you non chinese speaking people from learning chinese. It would be one thing if the discount was only for ethnic Chinese, but it is not, anyone who can learn chinese can earn the discount. I remember McDonalds giving away gift certificates for getting A's on report cards. Think of this as the same type of incentive, gain knowledge get a good deal. Furthermore, you could request a chinese menu even if you don't speak the language and order something random.

Posted by nathaniel | February 26, 2007 3:37 PM

It seems to me like if you start getting freaked out about anything of the form "A person who knows x can get a better deal on y than a person who doesn't know x", for any values of x and y, you're going to find yourself on a dreadfully slippery slope.

Posted by neil | February 26, 2007 3:38 PM

"I cut my finger. That's tragedy. A man walks into an open sewer and dies. That's comedy." -- Mel Brooks

Posted by James Killus | February 26, 2007 3:45 PM

"But if this is legal, what would prevent a Mexican-hating grocer from printing up special spanish language prices that were prohibitively expensive, in an effort to keep the damn Mexicans out of his store?

Numbers are the same in Spanish and English."

But the items they correspond to are not . . .

I guess I don't get Chinese food often enough to care (I prefer Thai and Vietnamese). But in principle, there's something not quite right about charging people of different ethnicities (most Chinese speakers are Chinese, most non Chinese speakers are not Chinese) different prices. You'd almost think there was an American history theme here.

Posted by aleks | February 26, 2007 3:46 PM

Wow, Matt says he thought "everybody" knew this goes on.

Yet, from the article we learn that "Eric Ng, president of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, said most businesses and restaurants in Chinatown are "honest and fair."

"We have never heard of something like this before."

So should we assume that Mr. Ng is a liar?

Posted by Brian | February 26, 2007 3:48 PM

Neil,

When knowledge x is sharply divided on racial lines, again, you've got de facto discrimination. The Jim Crow voting laws never came right out and said they weren't allowing blacks to vote. They just gave everyone a "test", and it just so happened that almost all blacks-- newly freed and almost entirely uneducated-- fared poorly on the test. Those defending the law could have (and probably did) say that blacks should just study harder. But the de facto effect of the law was discrimination against blacks, and again, the possibility for a few rare exceptions doesn't mitigate that.

Posted by bchurch | February 26, 2007 3:48 PM

There you have it -- having a Chinese-language menu in a Chinese restaurant is like Jim Crow.

Posted by neil | February 26, 2007 3:50 PM

Neil,

I didn't say the situations were the same. Just that the exact same logic you're using to justify this situation could be applied in favor of Jim Crow laws. If that seems ridiculous to you, maybe you need to take another look at your reasoning.

Posted by bchurch | February 26, 2007 3:52 PM

"There you have it -- having a Chinese-language menu in a Chinese restaurant is like Jim Crow.
Posted by: neil on February 26, 2007 03:50 PM"

The problem with anonymous discussion is that no one feels their reputation is at stake and therefore there's no reason (beyond personal integrity) to be any more honest about your opponent's arguments than that.

Posted by aleks | February 26, 2007 3:54 PM

The "I thought everybody knew this" people remind me of that New Yorker cover from a few decades back that shows the New Yorker's view of the world.

Of course most people don't know this. That's the sort of local knowledge that no one outside NYC would have much reason to know. (And fewer people than you think read Calvin Trillin.)

Anyway, put me down for: (1) I presume this sort of discrimination is illegal; (2) whether it is or not, it damned well ought to be, to prevent more odious forms of discrimination from being legal; but (3) in and of itself, it's not particularly worth my getting worked up about. It's Somebody Else's Problem, and hopefully they're on the job, but if they're not, it won't break my heart.

Posted by RT | February 26, 2007 3:55 PM

"Linus: You know the student fares and senior citizens are are LOWER right? I don't really get the point of your sarcasm."

Indeed sir. Discounts for students and old people are a crude and probably inefficient attempt at class-based affirmative action but at least they are making some effort to be class-based. Variable pricing based on language is a kind of ethnically based affirmative action aimed at a minority who tend to outperform whites on any number of measures.

Posted by Linus | February 26, 2007 3:57 PM

There you have it -- having a Chinese-language menu in a Chinese restaurant is like Jim Crow.

Is there no principle strong enough to stand on for its own sake?

Posted by brad | February 26, 2007 4:00 PM

aleks, it seems to me the biggest problem with online discussions like these is that to make a compelling case on what is a rather odd case, or at least one that is out of the mainstream of most American commerce, takes a lot more fleshed out, full arguments than two paragraph responses back and forth interrupted by other two paragraph responses that continually divert the line of thought. I mean, hell, it seems to me that as long as we're going to compare this to Jim Crow, we may as well compare it to affirmative action. But to fully justify either comparison takes a lot more than four sentences.

Posted by jhupp | February 26, 2007 4:09 PM

I always thought this was something that was known by everybody, too. I certainly experienced my fair share of price discrimination travelling abroad. (Has anyone been to the Taj Mahal lately? I believe the price ratio is 37.5:1, foreigner to native.) I'm not going to weigh in on either side of the argument except to say it doesn't worry me but you have to apply the law in all cases.

Posted by eriks | February 26, 2007 4:13 PM

This has absolutely nothing to do with being Chinese or not-Chinese.

So there's no problem with charging spanish speakers more. Super.

Posted by jpe | February 26, 2007 4:13 PM

"So should we assume that Mr. Ng is a liar?"

Yep. I will also assume that he's a terrible driver. You see, it's not that he's chinese that proves out the stereotype; it's that he speaks chinese. And, as we've been reminded throughout this thread, basing something on language is totally different than basing it on race.

I would also like to add that I'm quite sure, based on his ability to speak Chinese, that he's an asshole on the subway.

Posted by jpe | February 26, 2007 4:17 PM

I'm not sure if aleks was dissing me for being flippant, or bchurch for making such a ridiculous comparison, but either way it was probably well-deserved.

Posted by neil | February 26, 2007 4:17 PM

Can't we just call it a proxy for their extra service costs as the waitress stands at your table for an hour trying to figure out what you're trying to say in your stupid hick accent, while the chinese speakers just say "ching chong bing bong" (did I pronounce that correctly, Rosie?) and that's it?

Posted by dbt | February 26, 2007 4:18 PM

I'm a NY'er, and I never really knew this practice went on. I mean, I'm not terribly surprised either. And to some extent, it just seems to me like members of an ethnic group giving fellow immigrants a hand. I'm sure this has been done for ages. And while I don't know if it should exactly be legal, I also don't think it should be terribly high up on the enforcement priority list.

A related thing I've noticed -- and this is only noted, I don't see anything wrong with it -- is that you'll see signs on the subway (usually public service announcements) in both Spanish and English, and the two versions will have slightly different messages. I guess sometimes it's thought that different messages will be more effective with different ethnic groups.

Posted by Glenn | February 26, 2007 4:22 PM

Jeez, there's a lot of outraged white people in this thread.

I think Matt's point is fundamentally right--of course this is against the law, and it's wrong, and it Should Not Be Done.

But give me a freaking break, it's one of the few times that racism works against white people as opposed to working to their advantage. And the net consequence is that unbelievably cheap specialty food that we only eat occasionally is marginally less cheap.

Yeah, it should be addressed, but it's just not that big a deal. In our society of limited resources, we certainly shouldn't respond to it as aggressively as we should respond to disenfranchisement of black voters. That would be like throwing the book at all people going 60 in a 55MPH zone, but ignoring all the people going 95.

White people paying $1 more for rice than Chinese people when they go to Chinatown is wrong, but it isn't The Horrors of Discrimination. It's the minor inconveniences of prejudice. You wanna suffer The Horrors of Discrimination, try having a name like Shaniqua Williams, having a "black" accent, and getting a decent paying job, okay?

Ideally, the people who are getting all upset now while their legitimate concerns about discrimination are being blithely dismissed will have a little empathy the next time a Hispanic person complains about what a pain in the ass racial profiling is, and how they're worried their kid is gonna get shot dead by police.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2007 4:22 PM

Charging Spanish speakers more? What do you mean by that? Surely you don't mean 'charging more to people who have the ability to speak Spanish' because that would not be analogous to the situation.

So you probably mean, what if you charged people more if they ordered in Spanish? I'm quite sure it's the case that in general, if you go to American restaurants and insist on ordering only in Spanish, you will receive an inferior level of service, for entirely pragmatic reasons. More generally, if you are somebody who doesn't speak or read English, you will be unable to get the best possible deal at the American restaurants you go to, for reasons that have nothing to do with anti-Hispanic prejudice and everything to do with the simple fact that a more informed consumer will get a better deala more informed consumer will get a better deal

Peeking around the corners of the posts by outraged people is the unstated assumption that it's plainly unfair for sneaky Chinese folk to refuse to provide all the relevant information in a way that English-speaking Americans can understand. This principle doesn't seem nearly as easy to defend as Jim Crow is to attack, for some reason.

Posted by neil | February 26, 2007 4:24 PM

I'm not really sure what's wrong with this kind of business practice; it's no different from offering student fares on airlines or senior citizens' discounts at movie theaters.

Anon, I think you and I are reading two different Matts.

I think you are right when you suggest that people that read this blog that disagree with you are probably closet white supremacists. I think Matt's reading public is mostly white supremacists. They are not arguing from a principled position, and in fact they are mostly hateful, ignorant, bigoted people. Especially when they disagree with you.

Posted by jerry | February 26, 2007 4:29 PM

JHupp,

I doesn't take much more than 4 sentences to flush out the argument here. Neil says that de facto discrimination is OK, so long as the standard used isn't race itself, but rather some proxy that happens, as a mere matter of fact, to strongly correlate to race. I pointed out that this sort of reasoning could be used (and in all probabilty, was in fact used) to justify early Jim Crow laws, which didn't explicitly discriminate based on race, but used various reading and writing tests as a proxy. Neither you, nor Neil, have seen fit to address the substance of my argument, but dismissed it as ridiculous out of hand-- in Neil's case, without even properly understanding what it is that I was arguing.

By the way, if you could make a compelling argument comparing this situation to affirmative action in any amount of sentences, that'd be a pretty neat trick.

Posted by bchurch | February 26, 2007 4:30 PM

Actually, Neil, it's the fact that there are two sets of books. If I went into a Chinese restaurant where there was nothing in English, hey, no big deal. And if the service is worse, again, not unanticipated and no big deal.

Where it changes is where there are two sets of menus. As noted above, this isn't the Horrors of Discrimination, but it's fucked up and should be addressed by the city in a timely manner.

Posted by jpe | February 26, 2007 4:30 PM

The conversation here seems to sidestep the fairly obvious
reason some Chinese restaurants charge less to Chinese language speakers and more to others. It's certainly not that they are trying to account for income disparities. And it's not that even that they are discriminating against non-Chinese speakers (although that gets a little closer to the truth). And it certainly is not a translation fee.

The fact is that the ability to read and speak Chinese is a damn good proxy for willingness to pay a certain price at a Chinese restaurant (note the word willingness not ability). As a general rule, Chinese people (especially recent immigrants -- those most likely to prefer Chinese language menus) are pretty damn particular about their Chinese food and its cost. Chinese restaurants know this and adjust their prices accordingly.

They also know that those foolish Westerners who are too dumb to know that fortune cookies aren't actually served after meals in China are also too dumb to notice sometimes not so slight differences in quality in their Chinese dishes and will be willing to pay a bit more than their Chinese reading and speaking counterparts.

Posted by Brian | February 26, 2007 4:31 PM

I think Neil is right to seize on the whole complexities of language translation make it okay for price discrimination. That's why I charge people that can't speak English more rent -- it's because I can't understand what the hell they are saying.

So English speakers get a better deal at my apartment complexes, and rightfully so, eh Matt?

Posted by jerry | February 26, 2007 4:33 PM

I think Matt didn't analyze his initial response to that sufficiently enough to produce a more nuanced version of what he was thinking.

I think the issue is the difference in practice and principal. In practice, I often go to chinese restaurants in San Francisco where I know the prices are a bit better on the notices on the walls, which are written in chinese. But it doesn't bother me personally. (It helps that the prices at the chinese-food restaurants I go to are already vastly lower than most non-chinese restaurants.) And I have no emotional sense whatsoever of ill-will when I walk in the door, as opposed to, say, some bars I've walked into where people just didn't know me. Think American Werewolf in London. Furthermore, I imagine that if you were a person who was not ethnically chinese but did speak it, and you ordered off the chinese-language menu, you'd get the cheap price and perhaps a look of embarassed apology. This is different from Jim Crow type discrimination, where the racial animus is such that the discriminator would likely just think up another reason to exclude you.

Given the emotional tenor of these experiences, I think it's legitimate to say that there's some sort of non-raced-based social information hidden in the varying prices, which would add validity to Matt's idea about students and seniors, especially since it seems to me that most of this dual pricing takes place in big cities where there's a large community of people actively immigrating. In this context, language would be a more effective proxy for ability/willingness to pay. Now, I know that non-chinese speakers are not explicitly privy to this fact, but if they were, and the menus were labeled as "recently arrived" and "been here for a while," and the prices were not wildly different (as is the case with the two language menus) it wouldn't be so upsetting.

And that, I think, dilutes the racial/jim crow side of this. Not entirely, but to an extent that probably (I would think, at first glance) makes the costs it incurs with respect to very minutely reducing the consistency of application of equal rights laws less than the kind of rancor that making a big deal out of this would produce, especially to the degree that it casts the differences between people who speak chinese and those who don't as a difference that is definitively racial and one whose antipathies are significant enough to require legal mediation.

Posted by Tim Sullivan | February 26, 2007 4:37 PM

Here's an interesting (and potentially totally off-base) point.

John Liu, NYC's first politically prominent Asian, recently announced a shockingly large $1m war chest, and has said that he's going to run for "citywide" office.

New York City's ethnic groups tend to vote in blocs, but no one group has a perfect bloc or a statistical majority. So it's all about inter-ethnic alliances. If there is antipathy between ethnic groups, it makes it harder for the politicians leading these ethnicity-linked blocs to form the ethnic coalitions necessary to win.

I've got zero idea if politics is behind this. It's the kind of thing a savvy non-discrimination office would probably go after, because it's a "dog bites man" story that's going to get a lot of play.

But it's also immediately obvious that getting non-Chinese ticked off at Chinese is to the political advantage of everyone who supports candidates other than John Liu.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2007 4:40 PM

The "bed of rice" part of the initial complait is interesting. Typically (at least in California) if you get your food over a bed of rice, that's a "lunch menu" item. You can also get the same item, but more of it, in "a la carte" form without the rice. Some places do charge more for rice if you order off the "a la carte" menu, and not just for non-chinese people. Places I frequent regularly will let me order a "lunch menu" meal even while other people are only given the "a la carte" menu. You have to know the rules though - it would be shameful to order a bunch of lunch plates for a group, while if you're by yourself that's quite acceptable. And for a celebration, it would be shameful to order rice at all - it's cheap to expect your guests to fill up on cheap starch and not pay for them to eat real dishes. The question of cultural literacy is as important as that of language.

Posted by Homechef | February 26, 2007 4:41 PM

Jeez, there's a lot of outraged white people in this thread.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we are not in fact upset about the dollar. I don't live in NY, and my food tastes run in a different direction, so this impacts me not the slightest.

That would be like throwing the book at all people going 60 in a 55MPH zone, but ignoring all the people going 95.

Huh? You mean, because I find this offensive, I don't find any other forms of discrimination offensive?

What's wrong with thinking that we should be consistent, and that this sort of discrimination is just wrong, in whatever direction it runs? And, in fact, that drawing a bright line is important for the sake of the enforceability of these cases in general?

I think you misjudge the motive: I suspect no one is upset about their lost dollar here, or the injustice of (their) being persecuted. It's a bad practice, it has echoes of worse forms of discrimination, which frequently still show up. That's all.

Posted by brad | February 26, 2007 4:42 PM

Remember, too, that the post started with this particular challenge:

I'm not really sure what's wrong with this kind of business practice

In this context, it feels as though Matt is accepting the use of language as a proxy for race in general, which is pretty odious, even if the consequence in this instance seems small.

Posted by brad | February 26, 2007 4:46 PM

Cultural literacy? Obviously it's racist to operate a restaurant that doesn't draw on exclusively American culture.

Posted by neil | February 26, 2007 4:47 PM

I think it's legitimate to say that there's some sort of non-raced-based social information hidden in the varying prices

Yeah: they're ripping people off because they can. Similarly, I'm sure a contractor that relies on unconscionably low wages paid to undocumented hispanics is pleased as punch when he can get them. The lack of animus doesn't mitigate the immorality of the advantage taken.

Posted by jpe | February 26, 2007 4:51 PM

Like many others, I had no idea this went on. I'd assumed it was illegal and therefore less blatant.

One suspects that this is not just an ordinary case of price discrimination where you charge people are likely willing to pay less lower prices and people who are likely willing to pay more higher prices. But we don't allow price discrimination based on certain factors, like race and sex. That means you also can't price discriminate by using something else as a proxy for race or sex. You can't, for example, make a list of the names most likely to be given to black people and charge people with those names different prices than you charge everyone else, even if the "black"-name prices are lower.

One suspects that in this case language proficiency is being used as a proxy for race/ethnicity. Perhaps it's not, but I find that claim pretty implausible.

Posted by Elliot Reed | February 26, 2007 4:52 PM

"So should we assume that Mr. Ng is a liar?"

He's the president of some sort of organization doing damage control. Yes.

I don't suppose anyone would be interested in the distinction between "probably wrong" and "something the city Civil Rights Commission" should spend its time worrying about?

Posted by witless chum | February 26, 2007 4:54 PM

No wonder Limbaugh has so many listeners. God, the injustices that get perpetrated against white people in this country.

Posted by Steve | February 26, 2007 4:55 PM

Tim,

"This is different from Jim Crow type discrimination, where the racial animus is such that the discriminator would likely just think up another reason to exclude you."

You're right, and we can all recognize that this isn't motivated by egregious racism. And I think you recognize in your comment that anti-discrimination laws are based on principle-- not gut feeling, no matter how common sense. Our decision as a country to disallow de facto discrimination seems to catch this store's policy, however unintentionally or unfortunately; the principles involved are directly analogous to Jim Crow, even if the violations themselves are of a vastly different degree.

In other words, it would be impossible, in a practical sense, to craft a law that would allow this Chinese restaurant to continue this practice, and at the same time prevent Jim Crow laws against blacks in the South. If we're going to continue to prohibit de facto discrimination as a matter of law, we're going to run into situations like this. And if we value consistency in the application of the law, we've got to enforce it in this situation. Now of course it's not the most pressing thing going on in NYC right now, and some amount of prosecutorial discretion may be OK, especially if the store agrees to voluntarily stop this practice.

Posted by bchurch | February 26, 2007 4:56 PM

The big hoopla over this trivial case reflects the tension between the stated and unstated versions of what Polite Society in 2007 stands for:

Explicit: "Discrimination is abominable."

Implicit: "Discrimination against minorities is abominable."

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 26, 2007 5:08 PM

Well, shoot, learn to read Chinese numbers. There's only ten of them, and 1-3 are pretty much freebies.

Posted by scarshapedstar | February 26, 2007 5:09 PM

I am reader from Philadelphia who reads this with the whole "Joe Vento / Order in English" fiasco from this past summer...

Short story: Joe Vento, proprietor of Geno's Steaks, prominently displayed a sign at his cheesesteak stand which stated (paraphrasing), "This is America. When you order, please do so in English." The city had a huge problem with this, cited discrimination, and the whole thing is still working its way to a conclusion. The owner states that he has not turned anyone away for not ordering in English and is merely making an anti-illegal immigration statement.

The traditional progressive line is that the owner here is discrimating against hispanic immigrants.

Does Matt (or anyone else taking his viewpoint) feel that this situation is equally silly? I mean, in this case, no one has even been materially injured (i.e. no one has been denied service). Or is this situation not OK, because the group of people have been naturally disadvantaged (i.e. Hispanic immigrants)?

Posted by JF | February 26, 2007 5:09 PM

Yeah: they're ripping people off because they can.

It hasn't been proven that the Chinese menu contains the same quality of the same item for a lower price, so I think people are quickly jumping to unwarranted conclusions (and histrionic ones at that). Several people have proposed legitimate reasons why a different-but-similar menu could have different prices.

Similarly, I'm sure a contractor that relies on unconscionably low wages paid to undocumented hispanics is pleased as punch when he can get them.

Just out of curiosity, you are aware that these guys get low wages because they're undocumented, not because they're Hispanic, right?

In other words, it would be impossible, in a practical sense, to craft a law that would allow this Chinese restaurant to continue this practice, and at the same time prevent Jim Crow laws against blacks in the South.

Nonsense.

Posted by neil | February 26, 2007 5:10 PM

As liberals, I suppose we should all adopt the broad "outcome, not intent" standard for racial discrimination. And as a lawyer, I understand the need for universal application of legal principles.

But excuse me if I can't share in the shock, shock that discrimination goes on in ethnic businesses. Look, there's all kinds of preferential treatment that goes on in these businesses. In Southern California, home to huge ethnic immigrant populations, job openings for Chinese restaurants are advertised only in Chinese language newspapers. Isn't this discrimination against non-Chinese-reading job applicants? Shouldn't we be outraged?

The reality is that most of these restauranteurs prefer Chinese-speaking employees for ease of communication. And just as importantly, for a lot of Chinese and non-Chinese alike, a restaurant that has a number of non-Chinese waiters don't "feel" authentic; I know my Chinese relatives would never deign to eat in a Chinese restaurant staffed by whites. So you've got an important economic rationale for ethnic preference. The actual practice makes a heck of a lot of sense for these businesses. On the other hand, you have discrimination that affects, what, maybe 0.001% of the entire population? Outcome-based discrimination looks at the actual discriminatory effect, remember.

As for the differential pricing of Chinese food, besides the "translation surcharge", there's another economic justification for the difference: Chinese restaurants will often prepare the same dish differently for non-Chinese patrons, who are assumed to have non-Chinese tastes. So in some restaurants, you have non-Chinese kung pow chicken that's appreciatively dissimilar to a Chinese kung pow chicken in taste. I would think that this alone justifies the pricing differences.

Posted by Ryan | February 26, 2007 5:10 PM

Thank you, Ryan. It is quite interesting to see how quickly the commenters (and, to be fair, Matt too) leap to the assumption that the yellow devils desire to use their inscrutable trickery to 'rip off' whitey, entirely bypassing the possibility that the prices are different between the two menus because the food is different.

Posted by neil | February 26, 2007 5:13 PM

No wonder Limbaugh has so many listeners. God, the injustices that get perpetrated against white people in this country.
Posted by: Steve on February

Price Discrimination

Comments (225)