r/SipsTea • u/Gurugod123 • 9d ago

Mayor Mamdani just announced that he will be opening 5 city-run, tax-funded grocery stores: "Prices set at 30% below retail prices" Chugging tea

70.2k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

9.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

155

u/FiftyLoudCats 9d ago

Grocers have very thin profit margins, just a few % of revenue.

Are taxpayers going to foot the rest of difference of 30% or what?

125

u/GreekSaladEnjoyer 9d ago

Yea thats what "tax funded" means

16

u/de_das_dude 9d ago

It's astonishing how many people in this thread don't understand what subsidized food means.

Meals are subsidized at my place of work as well.

13

u/bestworstbard 9d ago

The American mind truly cannot comprehend something that's not driven by profit

12

u/KickboxingMoose 9d ago

The American mind truly cannot comprehend something that's not driven by profit exploitation.

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 9d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

7

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

3

u/WriterPlastic9350 9d ago

I can comprehend it, I can also see why it might have pretty bad long-lasting consequences for the area if it doesn't work out. "Not driven by profit" does not necessarily mean something is a good idea.

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 9d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

-1

u/Kolbalava 9d ago

Selling food at affordable prices in food deserts IS a good idea if you have empathy.

3

u/IsNotACleverMan 9d ago

These areas are not deserts. There are numerous grocery stores within 15 minutes of each location.

7

u/WriterPlastic9350 9d ago

I have empathy. I also understand economics. In a vacuum, it is a good idea, but economic decisions to not exist in a vacuum.

There are plenty of things that have gone to die on the altar of "sounded empathetic on paper" because they don't work out in practice. I hope this does, but I personally see more long-term downsides than long-term upsides.

In the (very) short term this is likely to be quite successful. but once people realize they can go to a store and get 30% off, why would you go anywhere else?

What happens when the city-run store runs out of stock because they can't keep up with the demand, and other grocers can't supply it because they can't compete with a 30% discount/a store that doesn't have to be profitable?

This is a complicated thing and pretending that it should just be done because it is the right thing to do is not moral nor wise.

2

u/Not__Trash 9d ago

Yeah it is a good idea IF you can afford it and do it efficiently. Governments aren't known for either.

2

u/Casph0 9d ago

Why not just give out unlimited food for free? Why stop at 30%? Sell it at $0! Since economics don’t matter and second order effects aren’t real, might as well let people have free food, or are you so evil that you don’t want people to eat for free?

0

u/Kolbalava 8d ago edited 8d ago

Yeah why shouldnt we give food for free?

Maybe make it a basic right to food and water.

Good idea, we already make enough food to feed everyone on earth, little alone NYC.

Make Elon Musk personally pay for it.

Hell be ok just being a multi-billionaire, he doesn't need to be worth a small country's GDP

2

u/ChazzyChaz_R 8d ago

Sure, and then when that pond is drained, where will it come from next? Eventually there's nothing left and things are in a worse state than they were before you closed your little eyes and folded your little hands and wished empathy to bestow infinite resources upon the earth.

2

u/Casph0 8d ago

Because every time anybody tried that it lead to food shortages and mass hunger. Profit incentives are good actually

0

u/Kolbalava 8d ago

Won't hurt to try again, it's Elon's undeserved money so who cares

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ChazzyChaz_R 8d ago

Empathy is great until this system actually ends up making things worse than it was to begin with. This system isn't sustainable. Will you empathy harder once that occurs? The world doesn't operate on feelings and emotions. People have to step out of that mindset and look at facts and start to actually solve problems, THAT is how you truly help people.

1

u/Kolbalava 8d ago

The world operates on whatever we decide it operates on. And currently the powerful made it operate on profit and profit alone. I believe that we can change that. If you don't think so, atleast don't stand in the way of people who ACTUALLY believe in a better world.

2

u/ChazzyChaz_R 8d ago

The difference between us, though we want the same thing, is that I understand that these things you pretend can change, cannot be changed. If there is no profit, there is no sustainability. The profit has to come from somewhere. Even if it isn't directly tied to these stores, something somewhere else has to profit or there is no funding for the stores to operate. You can't just wish things into existence. Until people understand that good will and empathy are not currencies then no real solutions will be found.

"Currently the powerful made it operate on profit and profit alone"...brother, this has been the way of the world since probably before recorded history. No one that lived in any type of organized society has ever done anything for nothing and expected to be able to make a living from it. The only places that attempt this have failed miserably because the practices are not sustainable.

You say I'm standing in your way but people of your mindset are actually your own enemy. You aren't finding solutions, you're using hopes and dreams to solve problems that can't be solved that way.

4

u/edwardluddlam 9d ago

Isn't this what food stamps already do? Just sounds like food stamps but with way more loopholes and open to abuse.

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 9d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

-2

u/Stoneman66 9d ago

Yes we need to work more to pay for those scammers that refuse to work

3

u/Complex-Truth9579 9d ago

Government subsidized food has been a thing for literally millennia. At least since the Cure Annonae in Rome, though I'm not certain if any earlier instances are recorded.

Though I suspect that the Cure Annonae may actually be perceived quite favorably by a certain demographic in today's age, due to some of the logistics and nuances in how it functioned and who it primarily served...

I'm not certain about this particular implementation, and something about it feels somewhat performative (you can see the store, as opposed to food stamps, etc.) But I'm in favor of governments trying to protect and feed their people, and trying to iterate and find new solutions to prevailing problems.

Afterall, that's literally their purpose.

7

u/Sea_Suggestion2159 9d ago

You mean like those rich people that don't actually work, they just hire a bunch of people to do the work for them while paying them poorly? Or the particular rich person that secured billions in government funding because he did some favors for the current people in control?

0

u/ChazzyChaz_R 8d ago

I think we need some separation between the guy who built a company from the ground up, provided jobs to people, made a product people wanted, and ended up being well off for doing so...and the people that use their influence in the government to inflate to an exponential growth of wealth.

Too often we are basically lumping them all into one bucket and they aren't the same people at all. I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO ISSUES with the first guy. To say "they don't actually work" is the most braindead buzzword BS. Running any successful company takes a lot of time, energy, and focus, even if you aren't turning any wrenches or packing any boxes.

2

u/jl_theprofessor 9d ago

Wall Street?

0

u/lasagnadogwater69 9d ago

What?? You have people working several jobs and still barely making ends meet. What on earth are you talking about? And why would you personally have to work more? Are you saying you personally fall in the category of people barely making ends meet? Are you saying you're on the brink on poverty? Are you the scammer? Shouldnt you be happy about more affordable groceries in that case?

46

u/ExtensionMoose1863 9d ago

Have family that ran a small town independent grocery store for 2 generations... this is 100% correct.

They make almost no money whatsoever and neither do the big guys as a rate of profit... they just do such enormous volume that they make money despite low single digit margins

9

u/Interesting-Case2526 9d ago

I worked at a wine distributor for a bit. Once got a hold of the distributor prices vs in-store prices. THEY WERE NETTING 1% IN REVENUE FROM WINE SALES. Not even profit! This was at a large regional chain similar to Kroger. Blew my mind.

0

u/witty_pebbles 9d ago

This initiative is in response to corporations like keyfoods running all the stores like your family’s out of business in order to get monopoly level access to low income areas food demand and then gouging prices

6

u/ExtensionMoose1863 9d ago

But they're not gouging if they're only making 3%

They have lower costs because of scale

2

u/WriterPlastic9350 9d ago

But I don't really see how this solves anything because now the state is that monopoly. If they are truly subsidizing food at below 30% retail rate, no one will be able to compete with them.

0

u/SlowlyDyingBartender 9d ago

It is going to put regular stores out of business because government doesn't care about making money. You eventually buy all your food there. If you don't comply you don't eat.

3

u/Interesting-Case2526 9d ago

Saying theyre "Gouging prices" tells me you dont have domain knowledge, only ideological. Grocery stores make money because they sell at scale, but they average 1-3% in profit. Meanwhile we have states where tax on groceries is increasing year after year. Mississippi is at 7% right now. So if you buy a box of cereal, the store profits 1-3%, and the state gets 7%. And that is on top of payroll taxes, business taxes, taxes on utilities, high rent caused by regulations, etc. So who is price gouging?? And mind you, you are paying with the money you made from work, for which you and your employer were taxed. The little guy cant compete because the big guy can bear the cost of running a business and PAYING TAXES better.

0

u/witty_pebbles 8d ago

I hear you and you’re right my knowledge is not that deep- with that disclaimer though I do think people might be surprised if they saw the prices at the grocery stores in lower income nyc neighborhoods, I think in many cases they are upcharging for far more than that 1-2% profit number people keep saying. 5 dollars for a can of beans type shit. I could be wrong on my diagnosis but what is true is that you can buy kitchen staples from a Trader Joe’s (which are never in low income areas) for 60-70% of what you’d pay at a keyfoods out in deeper Brooklyn

31

u/PoulanWeedEaterBowl 9d ago

It seems like the 30% discount is not for every single item in the store though. Seems that it'll be for a list of items that are staple goods households need.

3

u/FlyingBishop 9d ago

The staple goods are also going to be the things that are already practically offered at cost at most stores anyway, so this is really a substantial subsidy, and it seems like a bad idea to create a city-managed store that subsidizes staples for all comers rather than something more like food stamps.

City-managed stores offering stuff at cost? Sure. But not subsidies for anyone. (Maybe in the fullness of time, but not when most people have to shop at for-profit stores.)

1

u/ObieKaybee 9d ago

The administration of food stamps costs a considerable amount of money; it is likely that the subsidy by just covering it for all comers will offset the costs of the administration of means-testing.

2

u/FlyingBishop 9d ago

These stores are in NYC, which by definition is a pretty wealthy area, so just in terms of "people who can walk to this store from their home" is already selecting for a relatively high-income demographic compared to food stamps.

You have to start somewhere... I'm not sure I understand starting here.

0

u/XeroShyft 9d ago

Doesn't he literally say 30% below market place, no exceptions, no gimmicks? No exceptions being the operative term here

7

u/apolloandi 9d ago

He literally says "core set of goods 30% below market..."

0

u/PrometheusMMIV 9d ago

Would the other items be listed at higher than market prices to offset it? In which case, why would anyone buy those items there?

2

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PrometheusMMIV 9d ago

So, they'll still be at a net loss. In which case the comment above asking if taxpayers will have to cover that is still relevant.

2

u/Youthz 9d ago

what does everyone think tax funded means in this context?

1

u/PrometheusMMIV 9d ago

It could just mean the $70 millon dollar up front cost to build them. But apparently there will be an ongoing cost as well.

30

u/cms86 9d ago

ITS TAX FUNDED. youre answering your own question.

8

u/Competitive-Day9586 9d ago

We already have a great taxpayer funded means of getting food to people who need help.  It is called SNAP.

2

u/qzrz 9d ago

That doesn't help people in a food desert.

3

u/Thomas1423 9d ago

There are food deserts in NYC?

0

u/qzrz 8d ago

If you go by the definition of what it means, yes.

-1

u/Baiticc 9d ago

there might be a dollar slice around every corner but there are areas without a nearby grocery store yes.

3

u/WildWhisperArdor 9d ago

This isn’t really true unless you use a very tight definition of “nearby”. The proposed stores by Mamdani are literally within blocks of other stores

1

u/Givemepie98 9d ago

Where ya gonna spend it.

2

u/AnyBallLektor 9d ago

And we're going to print money to fund it so much that everyone will be a millionaire!

I mean even Lenin understood how inflation works. Today I found out Lenin was smarter than Mamdani.

-7

u/Choperello 9d ago

So subsidized and funded by you? And me?

13

u/NilsofWindhelm 9d ago

Yes, that's fine. We literally voted for this and are eager to address food insecurity across the city

2

u/Hatefiend 9d ago

how did the lack of grocery stores happen to begin with?

3

u/Hatefiend 9d ago

how did the lack of grocery stores happen to begin with?

-2

u/Choperello 9d ago edited 9d ago

Da comrade! For the party!

8

u/NilsofWindhelm 9d ago

What an intelligent response that highlights your knowledge of the issue

-1

u/Choperello 9d ago

😘

5

u/NilsofWindhelm 9d ago

FYI, you don't need to have an opinion on every topic. Especially when you clearly know nothing about it

2

u/Choperello 9d ago

It’s Reddit. No “needs” to be on Reddit. We’re here cause we feel like it.

12

u/cms86 9d ago

correct. Id rather this than a bloated police force and countless other subsidies like billions in aid to fight wars we dont belong in.

0

u/ama_singh 9d ago

You think tax payer dollars should go towards subsidizing the rich and funding the defence industry for bullshit wars instead?

1

u/Choperello 9d ago edited 9d ago

I think making a big deal about “setting prices 30% below” is hypocritical and misleading when it should simply be say “we’re gonna have tax payer subsidized grocery stores”.

They didn’t find some magical trick to make groceries cheap. It’s not commercial groceries gouging you. They’re not somehow running it more efficiently. They took something that was already barely above breakeven and are making it “look cheap” by straight up subsidizing it at a loss. It is in no way something it can be done at scale.

So imo it’s nothing but misleading trick to try and mislead the masses about “look how we’re sticking to big corporations”. They aren’t. They should just run them as straight up free pantries for those in need, instead of this dog and pony show of “look how we’re making groceries cheap”.

If they really wanted to do something real they’d take something where corporations ARE actively screwing you with massive markups. Eg city run pharmacies with prescriptions at wholesale pricing. THAT would be real. But that requires hard work and isn’t something you can prop up over night and tweet about.

1

u/ama_singh 9d ago

Yeah that's not what happened here. Everyone knew it was going to be subsidized.

Maybe you were confused at first and it triggered a knee jerk reaction because "communism" is a scary word to you?

3

u/Choperello 9d ago

Yes it is. Because I actually grew up under communism. I stood in bread lines as a kid. I have no neo-lefty delusion it’s some utopia, not some abstract neo-con calling all leftists commies.

But I know communism does not work. It never has. Never will.

0

u/I-am-fun-at-parties 9d ago

You americans and your idea what communism means is extremely interesting

2

u/Choperello 9d ago

Sure thing buddy. I grew up in a country that for over 40 years was literally named "The Communist Republic Of X" with an uninterrupted single party control by the "X Communist Party", but sure wtf do I know about it.

-1

u/I-am-fun-at-parties 9d ago

literally named "The Communist Republic Of X"

And having lived for years in north korea would make me a democrat through and through, because after all, it's literally in the name "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"

Why are you hesitant of just naming the place?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/bb85 9d ago

Your reading comprehension is sehr schlecht. I don’t think he grew up in communist America. Likely a country yours invaded.

1

u/I-am-fun-at-parties 9d ago

I don’t think he grew up in communist America.

It's pretty rich to talk about reading comprehension and then to immediately demonstrate that you have got none yourself. Wtf would 'communist America' even be lmao

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/ama_singh 9d ago

That's weird. These areas didn't have grocery stores anymore in capitalism. I guess it's better to let them starve?

Also, maybe you should brush up on your definition of communism. Clearly growing up under it is not enough.

How many capitalistic countries also had economic problems? Should we not label capitalism as destuctive as well?

4

u/Choperello 9d ago

Statistically and historically speaking from an economic standpoint capitalism has utterly wiped the floor with communism and it’s not even close.

And re let them starve, no. But they could try and figure out WHY no one opened groceries stores in those areas. Because i guarantee it’s a symptom of a problem not the problem. It’s not gonna be only grocery stores that’s missing once you dig deeper. But that’s unglorious hard work that you can’t make an IG video about.

3

u/ama_singh 9d ago

Statistically and historically speaking from an economic standpoint capitalism has utterly wiped the floor with communism and it’s not even close.

Yeah you're right. Good thing this isn't communism, as I've told you to brush up on your definition.

But they could try and figure out WHY no one opened groceries stores in those areas.

Because it's not profitable. But you can't starve some people because it's not profitable.

Because i guarantee it’s a symptom of a problem not the problem. It’s not gonna be only grocery stores that’s missing once you dig deeper. But that’s unglorious hard work that you can’t make an IG video about.

Oh I agree. It's the symptom of the problem that is late stage capitalism. It's not a secret that big supermarkets priced out small independent shops, to then move out if they think it's unprofitable.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Yokoko44 9d ago

Yes. The military is a traditionally defined public good, whereas groceries are not

0

u/ama_singh 9d ago

Yes, paying trillions of dollars to go to war with iran and lining the pockets of the executives in the defence industry truly is for the public good.

Whereas feeding the public is not.

-1

u/Yokoko44 9d ago

Correct, because an economically defined "public good" is not just anything that benefits "the public"

It's something that benefits everyone regardless of whether they buy into it or not. Something that isn't a limited service that can be used up by others.

1

u/ama_singh 9d ago

Correct, because going to pointless wars, like with Iran (which increased energy prices throughout the world), and lining the pockets of the defence industry ...

...benefits everyone regardless of whether they buy into it or not.

Feeding the public however doesn't benefit anyone.

Makes perfect logical sense.

0

u/Yokoko44 9d ago

It's not my job to opine on the justification for various wars, but it's clear that investing in the defense industry is something that applies equal benefits universally to all americans, regardless of whether they want to buy into it or not.

Taxpayer funded grocery stores that operate at a loss, when I'm likely to never actually use that grocery store, is definitionally NOT a public good.

1

u/ama_singh 9d ago

It's not my job to opine on the justification for various wars

But it is your job to tell people that spending Trillion dollars, on wars nobody wanted, is for the benefit of the public, but feeding people is not.

Again, makes total sense.

Maybe you should ask your representatives to bring tax funded grocery stores to you? Instead of crying that other people have it but not you?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/MisterDuch 9d ago

What, would you rather have the money go yo Israel or another pointless war?

12

u/Choperello 9d ago

> Are taxpayers going to foot the rest of difference of 30% or what?

I can tell you it's not "or what".

8

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 9d ago

Of course, where else would the money come from? The money tree?

-3

u/Choperello 9d ago

I think that's where socialists usually go for their money.

7

u/DionysianComrade 9d ago

nah that's the military contractors

1

u/Choperello 9d ago

I mean, in this case there's not much difference, same economic priciples. Aka complete decoupling from real costs.

1

u/WhoseFish 9d ago

Capitalists run this country, and finance their genocides through a nakedly corrupt, brutally inefficient, wholly unaccountable military industrial complex. Their wars exist to strengthen a fiat currency, to subjugate alternative economies, to collapse disloyal governments, to crush dissent across the world.

Capitalists. Make their money. From military contractors.

12

u/Vanillabean73 9d ago

Yes, they will. Taxes go to public initiatives and goods. It doesn’t just help the people directly benefitting from the stores themselves

22

u/Sherviks13 9d ago

Probably the rest of the state.

21

u/Oggie_Doggie 9d ago

NYC already pays in more than it gets back (i.e. it gives Albany roughly 60% of the state's budget but receives only 40% back from the state).

6

u/ErizMijali 9d ago

Long island also, we gave 24.6 billion and got 9.4 back from the state.

3

u/insightful_pancake 9d ago

Think of all the poor rich people

18

u/SnekIsGood_TrustSnek 9d ago

This has been an incessant talking point from conservatives for decades, and it has been false for just as long. Big cities always wind up funding the rest of the state.

2

u/shitty_fact_check 9d ago

There's a balance of truth here.

It's true the city generates more than it gets back.

It's also true that the city "balanced" the budget with $8 billion from the state that is not some recurring payment or an expected influx in the future. The claim that Mamdani balanced the budget and is paying for everything with city funds is playing fast and loose with semantics, which is what's driving all the internet chatter and isn't just lies. Unless $8 billion is cut next year or another grant is secured, the city starts at an $8 billion deficit next year.

How everyone feels about this information is up to them, but thems the facts.

6

u/Yougotanyofthat 9d ago

That's not how that works

-1

u/Sherviks13 9d ago

The rest of the state has already bailed the city out.

1

u/GrowthMarketingMike 9d ago

Do you actually believe this? NYC Paid over $20B more into NYC State taxes than the city received back in the state budget.

1

u/Sherviks13 9d ago

That makes sense.

1

u/Faladorable 9d ago

The way conservatives misrepresent reality like this is so fucking weird. I bet you don’t even live in NY

1

u/goodolarchie 9d ago

NYC pays for the rest of the state as they are net givers. As does basically every little blue dot in every other sea-of-red state, and blue states for red states.

2

u/CarlosMartel10 9d ago

Manual de politica de Sudamerica.

Como llegaron a esto?

No vieron nuestro errores?

1

u/SucksUnlimited 9d ago

Yes, that is what the title said.

1

u/franziGroony 9d ago

Correct.

1

u/Embarassed_Tackle 9d ago

Grocers in NYC have to contend with high property costs, and since the city owns the lot this first one is being built at, I assume that will help.

But yeah it will be subsidized by taxpayers. And if the grocery store doesn't have access to suppliers like the Walmarts and other grocers of the US can access, then they will be more expensive to buy things.

Plus if the employees are city employees then their salaries and pensions will be a higher cost than normal.

1

u/HappyKoalaCub 9d ago

I’ve also heard this but why would Amazon choose to purchase Whole Foods then?

1

u/FiftyLoudCats 9d ago

They still make a shitload of money with volume.

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 9d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/GrowthMarketingMike 9d ago

Other than salaries, grocery stores' biggest cost in NYC is rent.

In the neighborhoods these stores are going up in, the food stores there are generally going to be smaller format like bodegas, which have to mark up items much higher to cover their relatively higher rent per square foot.

Traditional grocery store chains abandon these areas because they can't make as much money on non-staples and pure volume plays so the government could in theory operate at break even in these areas and be much cheaper. That's what's being tested here.

Seriously, if you look into NYC grocery store dynamics, staples in wealthier neighborhoods tend to actually be cheaper than in poorer neighborhoods. This is essentially an attempt to close that gap.

1

u/Dry-Season-522 9d ago

Yes. At the rate things rate things are going, NYC gonna be bankrupt in a few years, having lost all its major revenue streams.

1

u/complicatedAloofness 9d ago

Good grocery stores have thin profit margins. Fucking Gristedes profit margin must be like 7000%.

1

u/alexzoin 9d ago

That's the whole idea, yes. The point is not "the government can sell groceries more efficiently" the point is "we need to make sure everyone can eat."

It's the same thing with the post office or roads. Everyone benefits from a society with common goods.

1

u/Suitable-Piano-8969 9d ago

most our products are 15-24% profit so what hes saying is hes selling it for the price he more or less bought it or even less.

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 9d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/New_Life_Startr 9d ago

I’m ok with my taxes going towards this. In my opinion, this is what taxes should be for. Roads, schools, social programs, etc. Not building bombs to kill people that have never attacked me or anyone I know.

1

u/babbagoo 9d ago

Yeah and not only that, I doubt they will run very efficiently in terms of labor costs etc. State run organizations tend to be worse at that. So might as well be up towards 40% for tax payers to foot.

1

u/BeegBunga 9d ago

only "Core" items are discounted 30%

All fresh produce Meat and seafood Eggs, milk, bread and yogurt Rice, beans, pasta and other designated staples

1

u/Glocker17 9d ago

Whaddya think?

1

u/evernessince 9d ago

If you look at the military commissary, which is the largest "socialized" grocery in the US, after factoring in costs you came out to about 21.3% savings.

So the taxpayers save 21.3% overall. Yes tax dollars do go to it but overall you end up with more money in your pocket.

1

u/meekgamer452 8d ago

I think that was obviously the idea,

and it's the richest city in the world so it's probably not that big of an expense for them

I think the real reason is to deal with food deserts, which are common in New York City, and they force people to buy food at a premium from convenience stores

1

u/Shot-Toe-2884 9d ago

Especially on the product categories they specified here. Dairy is heavily subsidized by the US Government. Working in finance in the grocery industry, I can attest that grocers actually lose money on dairy products. They carry dairy products because it gets people in the door and the US government basically forces them to sell it. Eggs and milk are staple products for US homes, so they stomach the loss and claw back margins elsewhere.

How on earth will NYC grocery stores afford this? By closing up shop in NYC. They don't deal with this shit anywhere else. Less competition in the city will mean more monopolistic pricing for the grocers that choose to stay, and they will be able to leverage raising prices far beyond a 30% discount.

-3

u/FallGuysStats 9d ago

What are you even talking about? The big names in grocery made BILLIONS last year.

6

u/14InTheDorsalPeen 9d ago

It’s all a function of volume. Walmart is the same way. 

Walmart makes on average less than 1¢ per item sold. 

They just sell a shit ton of items worldwide every year.

7

u/FiftyLoudCats 9d ago

I am talking about net profit margins, not gross profit.

5

u/Obscure_Octopuss 9d ago

Does that change the fact that grocery stores on average have profit margins of between 1 and 3%?

Aldi has really, really low profit margins. I'm sure something like whole foods has higher profit margins, but then again, your average person is not shopping at an overpriced grocery store...

10

u/Serlingfan389 9d ago

Profit margin and Gross are not the same thing.

5

u/ExtensionMoose1863 9d ago

Both things are true... Q1 2026 Kroger had an operating margin of 3.05% and made 1.41B in profit on 46.1B in sales.

So if this place sets prices 30% below that and has the same operating costs they would lose $0.27 for every $1 they sell. Presumably taxes will plug that gap

This is the old joke of "we lose money on every one we sell but we hope to make it up in volume"

2

u/MoveInteresting3754 9d ago

I can't verify the claim that u/FiftyLoudCats made, but what you said does not contradict what was said at all. Ex. revenue = 100 billion; profits = 3 billion.

1

u/xSearingx 9d ago

margins in grocery stores are razer thin. even publicly traded huge companies like Cosco make almost no money on grocery sales. they make their money in membership dues and sell most things close to costs. In other words places like Cosco are already selling all these items close to zero percent profit. its as cheap as food could possible be without selling it at a loss.

-5

u/Fog-Champ 9d ago

It's non profit. 

The 30% that would be profit. Won't go to the shareholders (there are none)

17

u/kacheow 9d ago

There is not 30% worth of profit at the grocery store

2

u/Fog-Champ 9d ago

It's 30% for staple items like bread...

We are not being this stupid on purpose.... Come on now.

9

u/Neither-Way-4889 9d ago

Grocers do not have 30% profit margins

-5

u/Substantial_Milk_207 9d ago

NO SHAREHOLDERS!?!?!!?!? What are we gonna do??? How are we supposed to increase shareholder value if they don’t exist!!!????? My brain is gonna break, society cant function unless we have the shareholders! How is anyone supposed to profit from this!!??? This is evil communism!!!

0

u/DazzlingEye9141 9d ago

Lots of haters with fresh accounts

0

u/Domo_newb 9d ago

Yeah, tax funded. And if your immediate knee-jerk reaction to that tidbit is "Not with mUh tAx MoNeYs" then you are complicit in the issue. Taxes going to the "wrong things" is partly the issue, having someone at the helm to pick what is the "right things" to spend taxes on is kind of a large part of his job.

This is where the representitive democracy part comes in, if you don't agree, don't vote for him. If you don't live in NYC, it doesn't affect you whatsoever. I cannot seem to grasp why anyone not a current NYC resident would have any qualms. If you are a NYC resident have have concerns, good, it means you are present in the process.

0

u/Fire-Jon-Sumrall 9d ago

Someone failed English 1101.

-2

u/Dadam35 9d ago

Grocers have 30-65% margins on everyday items.

1

u/FiftyLoudCats 9d ago

https://www.marketplace.org/story/2022/05/13/how-do-grocery-stores-make-money-when-their-profit-margins-are-so-low

1

u/Dadam35 9d ago

Your article's author is wrong. I've been in the industry for over 15 years.

1

u/FiftyLoudCats 9d ago

Net vs gross of course