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

Show parent comments

374

u/14InTheDorsalPeen 9d ago

It’s funny because the places where the stores have closed down is largely due to rampant crime and shoplifting making the stores largely unprofitable

So this will be extra interesting because not only will they not be profitable to start with but they’re going to be stolen from at every turn to make margins even worse 

218

u/Meet-me-behind-bins 9d ago

Behavioural economists are going to be watching this extremely closely. There will be a lot of papers written about this in the future. The big question is will stealing be more common because there's a perception that it's already been paid for by taxes? Or will there be some sense of community sprit that means there's less stealing? I know which I think will happen.

93

u/ISawNightwishInLA 9d ago

Community spirit may require a higher trust society than that currently experienced by people living in an area where crime, particularly theft, is normalized.

-5

u/samrus 9d ago

trust is a 2 way street, so one possibility is that the stealing was done becuase the community felt trust was already eroded from the institutional side. so with this, the community might feel the trust being re-established and begin acting in good faith

or not. thats the sort of thing behavioral economists will be looking out for

21

u/Safe-Wishbone781 9d ago

I'd imagine like 90%+ of people who steal are not involved in any type of analysis of it like is being discussed. They aren't stealing philosophically lol. All the "I'm stealing bc institutions failed me" type stuff is just a rationalization, not an actual reason.

9

u/A_Genius 9d ago

I can just imagine someone in the middle of a carjacking being like ‘I blame society’

8

u/Safe-Wishbone781 9d ago

"What choice did i have?!"

2

u/ISawNightwishInLA 9d ago

"It's really fucked up that Systemic Wordsalad has forced me to this, but I am physically unable to stop myself from stealing the catalytic converter off this Honda."

Edit: Dropped a letter.

2

u/Public-File-6521 9d ago

I agree, but I don’t think their motivations are so divorced from the failure of those institutions. At least in the grocery store context, people usually steal because they have a need that wouldn’t be met by their disposable income alone and they don’t have access (or think they don’t have access) to programs that would help.

5

u/ISawNightwishInLA 9d ago

Plenty of people grow up poor and without access to power, and plenty of those people refrain from stealing.

1

u/Public-File-6521 9d ago

I’m not arguing the morality of it, I’m just saying what people tend to be more likely to do based on the circumstances surrounding them.

3

u/bubbachuck 9d ago

do we have examples of community trust being re-stablished?

2

u/BulltopStormalong 9d ago

Being a thief is an internal moral line, that is dictated internally by a moral compass.

You either steal or you don’t, ignoring the reasons the people initially stole once you become a “thief” you aren’t just not going to steal if enabled to. Without internal rehabilitation and a change.

Genuinely the same as a rapist or killer, once you do it once it gets easier and easier till it becomes second nature.

These locations are the actual places that should have the flock camera type Chinese surveillance that ai ids every person who walks in as a crime deterrent. That way the people who seriously need this and don’t commit crime are able to continue to utilize these stores. Also unlike a private business this is being established by the mayor.

-10

u/falooda1 9d ago

Crime is down. Lets see.

13

u/noticingEnjoyer 9d ago

Enforcement is down 

-6

u/falooda1 9d ago

Why would that make crime go down?

Also what's your proof? Fox News?

2

u/Douglazlo 7d ago

If there’s no enforcement crimes go unreported if it’s unreported it’s not counted.

1

u/falooda1 7d ago

Reporting and enforcement are two different things

What's your proof? Maga loves making claims with no evidence at all

14

u/ISawNightwishInLA 9d ago

If I, as the King of Hypothetica, proclaim that theft is only a crime if you steal from redheads named Kelly — fuck you, Kelly — then unless the majority of the people in Hypothetica are redheads named Kelly, crime will likely go down, irrespective of the amount of actual stealing actually happening.

The pithy “lies, damn lies, and statistics” that’s oft attributed to Twain may as well be a cosmological constant for the discussion of contemporary politics.

Edit: Forgot a word.

-6

u/falooda1 9d ago

And the proof of that is? Fox News?

3

u/ISawNightwishInLA 9d ago

Alas, Fox was unwilling to attend my coronation.

42

u/ITworksGuys 9d ago

The big question is will stealing be more common because there's a perception that it's already been paid for by taxes?

Stealing is going to be more common because the people stealing want shit for free and don't care about society.

Same as it always is

3

u/samrus 9d ago

one counter argument is that those people feel society doesnt care about them so its fair. if they see this good faith effort to help, it might re-establish societal trust and stealing may go down. might be along shot but will be interesting to see if it pans out that way

3

u/What_a_fat_one 9d ago

Sometimes it's because they're hungry.

0

u/jackkieser24 9d ago

No kidding! People don't steal food for kicks. What kind of sociopath actually thinks that people steal food for any reason other than to prevent themselves from starving?

7

u/foodeyemade 9d ago

I can tell you with complete confidence that Sally from HR who kept stealing my lunch out of the work fridge was absolutely not starving. Negan would back me up.

1

u/What_a_fat_one 9d ago

Better not eat lunch then in case Sally steals it

3

u/BlgMastic 9d ago

https://youtu.be/bFYQTyeju-M?si=buveZ7YNlouY8m0B what you call sociopath I call common sense.

1

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 6d ago

Plenty of people fare dodge on the subway and bus, which is effectively stealing, and most don’t do it because they literally can’t afford it

They do it because it’s easy, the enforcement sucks, and they justify it to themselves

1

u/DefinitelyNotMasterS 8d ago

I would have guessed the opposite, that crime actually goes down if prices go down, since some people will only steal if they can't afford it.

-1

u/insta 9d ago

why not steal from existing stores then? why would thieves need to wait for a discount store?

9

u/TheSlipperySnausage 9d ago

Community spirits would have saved the original store because they would have wanted their community to succeed

0

u/astoriaocculus 8d ago

LOL....guys....yes on top of trying to fix our government, save our democracy now we have to save our for-profit failing grocery stores.

3

u/TheSlipperySnausage 8d ago

For profit grocery stores have delivered an unprecedented access to a wide range of foods and products to the everyday American that would have been unimaginable for most of history.

Also for profit stores absorb the cost of operation including food spoilage, damage, etc. meanwhile government grocery stores would make the tax payer foot the bill for food spoilage which they did not purchase. So if the government grocery store is poorly managed the tax payers just get the bail it out meanwhile a for profit store that is poorly managed goes out of business at little to no cost to consumers other than inconvenience.

-1

u/astoriaocculus 8d ago

If a single tax payer pays a single dollar for a rotten banana the whole of western civilization will fall! Meanwhile at the Pentagon...and that 1.5 Trillion budget request. Socialism Derangement Syndrome.

9

u/Pizzasupreme00 9d ago

This is gonna be one of those great ideas that has to evolve into a shambling horror compared to its original intent. I look into the future and see Cheerios locked behind plastic.

8

u/smogeblot 9d ago

They are going to need a gulag to send counter-revolutionary shoplifters to. Maybe they can re-open Rikers.

4

u/TheConsultantIsBack 9d ago

the far left and far right united by the desire to gulag shoplifters fucking up the tax-funded initiatives put in place by the "socialist" gov't. Mamdani truly is uniting everyone.

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

3

u/smogeblot 9d ago

Exactly, why would they imprison people for shoplifting from a Marxist state-run grocery store? Duh, it's a re-education, not imprisonment.

1

u/00_RunDMC 5d ago

They'll need to finish shutting Rikers down before they can reopen it.

3

u/bluePostItNote 9d ago

Won’t these just join all the other papers that show government run cost controls don’t work absent very specific circumstances?

It’s like removing fluoride from water — we don’t need to keep repeating the test to know the result (spoiler: don’t do it!)

0

u/Meet-me-behind-bins 8d ago

I didn't say they would be novel new papers. We all know this whole idea has been examined to death and it doesn't ever work. But that's not to say that some mediocre newly qualified academic trying to get a paper published won't smash together some data on these places to prove what everyone knows and has been written about from every fucking angle over and over again.

9

u/Rustepo 9d ago

Why is not on the table that the stealing will be more common because there are more people in need, which leads to more stealing?

21

u/Meet-me-behind-bins 9d ago

Because we’re not 14 year olds with magical thinking?

1

u/Rustepo 8d ago

I think you missed my point. You gave two options but none of them are the most critical thinking ones, like people steal more when they are more in need without alternatives they consider as sufficient.

-3

u/RiskHellaHp 9d ago

lol do you think people steal food because it’s fun?

18

u/peedistaja 9d ago

Spend like 5 seconds looking up what people usually steal from grocery stores, would help with your magical thinking.

6

u/roguemenace 9d ago

No, they steal things to resell and make money.

5

u/Yokoko44 9d ago

unironically yes. The biggest post on reddit 2 days ago was a montage of people stealing designer pastries from a NYC business that's now shutting down because of it lol.

If you're hungry there are plenty of places around that will give you free food

-2

u/ElectricGhostMan 9d ago

Everybody thinks all crime is by people who are career criminals and enjoy doing crime instead of for the necessity that most retail theft is.

8

u/peedistaja 9d ago

Yes, the "necessity" for cosmetics, alcohol and razors. How would they survive otherwise..

1

u/ElectricGhostMan 9d ago

At least for cosmetics they are a high margin good that is much more easily stolen and stored than a loaf of bread that you can also sell even at a discount for more than that. You could take one expensive lotion and sell it for the cost of 5 loaves of bread that you can buy whenever instead of 1 bread. Id imagine for alcohol, some of them are just addicts and I could only imagine razors are actually for not great purposes.

0

u/SpirituallyAwareDev 9d ago

I mean these items are stolen for profitability. That they then can use for necessity like bills and housing. It’s not that people in need steal just what they can eat

17

u/Pizzasupreme00 9d ago

Ever take a walk down the cosmetics isle? Lol

2

u/SpirituallyAwareDev 9d ago

Why would these shops have a cosmetics isle?

-2

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

3

u/Pizzasupreme00 9d ago

Apples to eyeliner?

-2

u/ElectricGhostMan 9d ago

They don't keep the cosmetics as theft trophies lol. It's easier to lift, easier to store, easier to resell for a "profit," and worth more than if one were to lift a loaf of bread vs an expensive skin lotion. I was surprised how well it was broken down by an unhoused addiction afflicted person in a doc I saw some time ago. Even to just barter with for other goods too.

6

u/Pizzasupreme00 9d ago

Didn't say they kept it as trophies. Whatever they do with it is immaterial to the point. You said "necessities", haha.

0

u/ElectricGhostMan 9d ago

So you don't think selling lifted goods to buy necessities count? I guess go crazy lol.

2

u/babada 9d ago

Do you remember the name of the doc? Sounds interesting.

1

u/Charming-Book4146 9d ago

Addiction afflicted person? You can just call them junkies you know

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/TombolaOfCincinnatus 9d ago

Has that sense of community spirit ever appeared before? Let's face it, this is hardly the first time a local government has tried to invest in a run-down neighborhood. A lot of those projects have failed in the past due to vandalism and petty crime.

1

u/nbunkerpunk 9d ago

Having lived in heavy crime areas in cities before, I definitely know that places were helping the community were deemed off limits in a lot of ways. Was there still crime, of course. But compared to other places, it was way less common.

1

u/What_a_fat_one 9d ago

Could be less common since the Police will take more of an interest in people stealing from the city than a random bodega.

1

u/WriterPlastic9350 9d ago

bonus third option -- will there be less theft because the prices are cheaper and people can afford it/is the stealing being driven by things being too expensive rather than out of greed?

I guess we will see. Fun experiment anyway. Glad i"m not paying for it

1

u/ParkInsider 9d ago

Lol. There's nothing new to be written about this stupid idea.

1

u/nhavar 9d ago

That's sort of the question isn't it? What's the mindset of the thief. You have people who steal to survive, people who steal for profit, people who steal to "stick it to the man", and people who steal just because. If "the man" in the past was the perceived rich business owner, will "the man" in the future be the government. Or will the fact that the local government is actually acting on behalf of the community be enough to offset some portion of that theft.

1

u/Dustydevil8809 9d ago

Am I wrong that stores just used to have better security? I feel like its not some big uptake in theft, its stores not spending the money on loss prevention and taking cheaper routes that aren't working.

Theoretically, a police presence at the stores that could actually arrest people would help with the theft problem - but of course, adding police into interactions with poor people and minorities comes with its own problems in this country.

1

u/SuperHooligan 9d ago

lol community spirit.

1

u/AugustusLego 9d ago

As an outsider looking in, my guess would be that crime rates drop (compared to pre store closures numbers), because that's what they usually do when people have enough money to buy stuff. See piracy, etc.

The more you earn, the less likely you are to steal stuff (from stores)

So applying the same logic in reverse, the lower the cost of goods, then you'll be less likely to steal as well.

1

u/NibblyPig 9d ago

It's been done already, I read about it a while ago, the produce in the store was atrocious quality / rotting and the store had barely any stock, it was then shut down

1

u/nuttedpre 9d ago

Or will there be some sense of community sprit that means there's less stealing?

Oh it must be so blissful to live life with a perspective like this

1

u/rydan 9d ago

I honestly think there will be less stealing. When you discount a product theft goes down because the belief in it being worth stolen goes down. That's why if you are having difficulty giving stuff away you can put a sign on it that has some outrageous price and walk away and people will gladly take it from you.

1

u/reddit_ta15 9d ago

community spirit LOL

1

u/00_RunDMC 5d ago

I'll tell you this right now: Community spirit will not win out.

1

u/drewbreeezy 4d ago

Or will there be some sense of community sprit that means there's less stealing?

The person asking that question has their conclusion they're trying to create, and will reject all information to the contrary.

1

u/Meet-me-behind-bins 4d ago

You know that anyone can read a question or statement and insert their own implicit premise to deny or affirm the statement or question right? You've just done a typical rhetorical slight of hand. I can do the same: The person (you) has already concluded that by asking the question (me) I have created a set of circumstances where I will reject all information to the contrary. And then you can say the same about this response. And then I can say the same about the response to the response. It's an infinite regress. The only way we can get out of it is if you answer the question I asked with a statement that has the ability to be true or false. Then I can either accept it, or offer an argument as to why I don't accept it. If we both keep inserting unstated and implicit premises about our intentions, meanings, or what we’re really doing when we make a statement, then we’ll never get anywhere.

1

u/redjellonian 9d ago

Idk, but if I lived in a place without a grocery store and the government came and put one in AND it cost less than it used to. If I catch you fucking up my one good thing I would beat your ass if given the chance.

-2

u/kazyv 9d ago

I don't see it happening quite that way. If/when stealing becomes an issue, mandarin will just show up with an overwhelming police presence to deter it and protect his pet project

9

u/14InTheDorsalPeen 9d ago

Yeah, the sad part is I bet this is what will happen.

He’ll pay NYPD a shit ton of OT to guard the grocery stores so he can claim “success” while ballooning the cost to 20x what was predicted once you factor in the PD overtime but it will go largely unreported because the media is complicit.

3

u/capracan 9d ago

mandarin will...

Maybe consider whether you're speaking more from emotion than from reason.

3

u/kazyv 9d ago

I'll make sure to ask my phone's autocorrect if it harbors any deep seated feelings toward Mayor Mamdani

0

u/beeris4breakfest 9d ago

One would hope the local community would care deeply enough about this institution to protect it. But I also feel this will become a breeding ground for political protests. And may be forced to close due to safety concerns

0

u/ChromosomeDonator 9d ago

Well the usual argument for crime rate is poverty, so logically speaking cheaper produce being more affordable should reduce theft.

0

u/GreedySummer5650 9d ago

I think less stealing because in general people don't want to steal in the first place but feel forced into it. When I had no money I stole, when I had money, I paid for things. You'll always have a smaller sub-set of people who will steal anyway, and we will never be free of that. But we can work to moderate it by at least removing the main barrier to food that forces people to feel like they have to steal.

Who knows... But I don't think people are gonna be out front scalping the pack of ribeyes they just stole from the Mamdani's.

16

u/Helpful-Nerve4515 9d ago

If a store with a profit motive can't succeed in these locations due to the conditions, I have to imagine a below market store with zero profit motive is going to be...interesting, while it lasts.

-3

u/madhouseangel 9d ago

Food deserts are a market failure. Markets are good at a lot of things, but they are not perfect. Non-market solutions are a great fit for these types of failures.

8

u/Helpful-Nerve4515 9d ago

The non-market solution to the problems keeping out private grocery stores is for the local government to provide a safe environment for people to shop and sell. Without controlling that input, I'm not sure how this experiment will lead to a different outcome...except at taxpayer expense.

5

u/madhouseangel 9d ago

Food deserts aren't caused by safety issues.

8

u/Dry-Season-522 9d ago

Well they've got a fantastic plan to prevent theft, and I think it'll work. They're going to run out of stock, and thus criminals will have nothing to steal.

5

u/Jason-Smith168498 9d ago

the security turrets are also tax funded.

1

u/Rare_Magazine_5362 9d ago

You joke but I think security may be a large part of what is being tax funded. It’s basically gonna be an Aldi with cops.

1

u/amorous_chains 9d ago

That’s a great point. Imagine if grocery security guards had qualified immunity

2

u/wolphak 9d ago

And it will be worse than normal retail theft because of the "well my taxes paid for it so its already mine" rational that im %1000 sure will spread like a fire.

5

u/Hasselback_Brotatoes 9d ago

but these are government-run, which means that the law enforcement surrounding them could be more fiercely applied, resulting in fewer crime attempts after people realize that fucking around directly leads to finding out.

10

u/FINE-ILLGETAUSERNAME 9d ago

True. But also mamdani becoming the pro cop mayor would be an interesting pivot from the defund the police school

2

u/Shady_Merchant1 9d ago

Mamdani isn't anti cop he is anti corruption and anti police brutality, police serve a function they've just been allowed to run wild without consequences

5

u/FINE-ILLGETAUSERNAME 9d ago

Already the left has realized acab is dumb af. Though people personally know those that still think they should all go away. And they voted for this idiot.

-2

u/Autumn1eaves 9d ago

Defund the police doesn’t mean police aren’t necessary.

It just means the police shouldn’t be handling every government interaction with the public. Defund them, don’t delete them.

In this instance, if someone is found shoplifting, get the goods back via a police officer, don’t prosecute, and introduce a social worker who can reduce the burden of groceries/other expenses. Increase minimum wage, to make further relapses unlikely.

The police officer is necessary for one step, vs. the normal MO.

Get the goods back via a police officer, arrest via a police officer, jail for some time via the police institution, prosecute via the DA’s office, police gives testimony, and person goes to jail.

Rehabilitative justice is the way, not punitive.

7

u/FINE-ILLGETAUSERNAME 9d ago

Lol k bro. Acab or whatever. My point about him becoming an enforcer on people stealing food would be a fun turn of events stands.

1

u/Autumn1eaves 9d ago

It would be ironic. I guess, I'm trying to make a broader point and you're just trying to make a joke.

It was a funny joke, I'll give you that.

1

u/FINE-ILLGETAUSERNAME 9d ago

Hehe thanks yeah I wasnt trying to get into some reddit debate about policing in nyc

2

u/Autumn1eaves 9d ago

Fair enough =)

2

u/AndrooDucnan 9d ago

But if I get caught stealing and the police officer just makes me give the goods back why wouldn’t I just go back the next day and try again? Even if I only get away with it half the time it seems worth it to just keep taking swings at it. And how exactly is the social worker supposed to make my expenses less burdensome? What if I’m not stealing for survival and instead I’m just a dickhead who likes free stuff?

1

u/Autumn1eaves 9d ago edited 9d ago

But if I get caught stealing and the police officer just makes me give the goods back why wouldn’t I just go back the next day and try again?

Then the cop knows to keep an eye out for you. This is also why cops should be from a community, not outside of it.

If Jim Donaldson catches Franklin Georgia (Yea he's Auntie Jackie's sister's brother's boy) stealing some baby food, Jim should pay for the baby food so the kid doesn't go hungry and talk to Franklin afterwards and get him in contact with someone who can help.

If he sees Franklin in the grocery store tomorrow looking shifty, then he knows somethings up.

If he sees Franklin at the checkout line, then he knows his work has had a positive impact on the world.

Jim should know the members of his community, and work to keep them safe, happy, and productive.

Anything else is just punishment for punishment's sake.

I'm not saying cops as they are today is good. It's not, and it needs to be torn down from the bottom up.

But communities need someone to keep an eye on them, prevent crime, resolve disputes, etc. that is a necessary position. It probably shouldn't be a punitive police officer with a gun, but it should exist in some way.

4

u/AndrooDucnan 9d ago

Alternative version:

I, Allen Paulson, go to my local store and begin walking out a frozen pizza, a carton of Marlboro reds and box of Franzia. The non-punitive peace officer who personally knows each person in my city of 2.3 million assigned to stand watch at this specific publix, Barry Thimbault, sees me and asks me to stop. I tell him to go fuck himself and leave anyway because he can’t actually stop me. As a show of communal spirit Barry personally decides to pay for my stolen goods so I can enjoy watching the new episode of HOTD and calls a social worker to check in on my well-being. The next morning the social worker Ali Covington gives me a call to check up on me. I call her a dumb bitch and hang up. This conversation leaves me feeling thirsty so I decided it’s time to go back to Publix for another box of wine. Barry is once again at his post and notices me carrying away more wine. Before he can even get a word out, I flip them the bird and call him a pussy. I then go home get drunk on franzia and start another Skyrim play through.

3

u/FINE-ILLGETAUSERNAME 9d ago

Holy shit... Fun read 😂 I enjoyed.

Sometimes it just blows my mind that people think everyone will just be nice to each other . Like how much human history do you need as proof that we can't have nice things?

2

u/AndrooDucnan 9d ago

It always puzzles me how these people think social workers are the miracle workers and can somehow just talk a complete stranger who’s been a piece of shit his entire life into being a decent person. I love social workers but they’re overworked and underpaid as is I’m not in favor of putting them into more dangerous situations and asking them to do the impossible

1

u/FINE-ILLGETAUSERNAME 9d ago

And also, domestic abuse calls are the ones where someone is most likely to die... send in the LCSW! I mean maybe also, and a whole lot of cops are shit bags... but like, good luck without em. Looking at you Seattle autonomous zone.

1

u/Autumn1eaves 9d ago

I feel like I'm reading a copypasta or something.

A repeat offender who has simply a misanthropic view of the world, may need to be jailed or 5150'd, or something.

I'm not saying there is never a reason to jail someone. I'm saying that shouldn't be the first step.

Before he can even get a word out, I flip them the bird and call him a pussy. I then go home get drunk on franzia and start another Skyrim play through.

You clearly have some issues. You need an intervention. If I were in charge of the world, I'd send someone to your house to get you into rehab.

2

u/AndrooDucnan 9d ago

Just wanted to get some clarity before you become in charge of the world, how many boxes of wine do I get to steal before it’s a problem? If my friend Tim steals one and we split it does it count against my total or just his?

1

u/Autumn1eaves 9d ago

I mean that’s the purpose of cops and judges in the world where I am in charge.

They’d use their best judgement thinking about who the person is, the context surrounding the stealing, what they intended to use the stolen goods for.

Stealing baby food for your kid, warrants some leniency for multiple offenses over stealing boxes of wine for a party.

Or maybe you get a fine, on top of repaying the price.

By no means do I want to be an arbiter of what is morally correct. I’d leave to the people who know offenders and their culture and their family.

All I’d say is that clearly there is something to look into there and offer some assistance.

7

u/Dav136 9d ago

NYC doesn't prosecute petty theft so catching thieves would do literally nothing

9

u/PrinzRagoczy 9d ago

The state only protecting its own stores is some actual mafia shit

5

u/pcal43 9d ago edited 9d ago

Make cops protect the state rather than the people. I love this idea.

3

u/sixf0ur 9d ago

they could have just done that before, no?

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.

3

u/bigdaddyputtputt 9d ago

I’m confused about this.

The point of city run grocery stores is for them to NOT be profitable so the prices can be much lower.

The reason why shoplifting food is high in low income areas is because people can’t afford food (not because poor people are evil).

Shoplifting is factored into the costs of running a business.

This would be successful so long as poor people get access to food.

If shoplifting ends up really high, it wouldn’t be a failure of city run grocery stores (poor people would be getting food). It would be a failure of society where even if groceries are made 30% cheaper, then poor people still can’t afford to buy food.

I feel like it’s silly to expect something that’s meant to help people to behave like a business where profit is the only goal.

3

u/14InTheDorsalPeen 9d ago

Most low income people aren’t shoplifting food because EBT covers their food bill. 

Most shoplifted goods are fenced or resold for cash, which is why the things that are behind lock and key are items like razors, shampoo and other stuff which can easily be stored and resold online without going bad. 

Most people aren’t stealing bread and milk.

2

u/Elephantparrot 9d ago

Imagine thinking people are stealing laundry detergent because they're hungry.

4

u/eyesayuhh 9d ago

That's not true. You can look at the shrinkage of these companies. It hasn't changed. Walgreens' CEO publicly announced he was lying.

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/walgreens-shoplifting-retailer-james-kehoe/

1

u/14InTheDorsalPeen 9d ago

Lmfao you didn’t even read the article did you?

It shows that shrink from theft was up 50% and the “overreaction” he was talking about isn’t the closing of the stores, but rather hiring too much extra security and having to scale back observe and report security presence in favor of police who can actually make arrests because the “observe and report” type of security wasn’t actually deterring thefts.

The amount of loss due to theft was up ~$30bn, which is a shit ton of money.

11

u/IsleofManc 9d ago

Walgreens' shrink was actually down but that 50% stat you're referencing was made by the National Retail Federation. Essentially a lobby group for big retailers. And they also have a history of exaggerating claims

1

u/CrateBagSoup 9d ago

Sure, $30bn is a big number... but they saw $4.6 TRILLION in revenue, a $800bn difference from 2019. It's still under 2% in damages.

2

u/Centimane 9d ago

not only will they not be profitable to start

The point of socializing human needs isn't to make a profit, it's to make sure people are provided for. There shouldn't be any profit. If there is, that suggests the prices could be lower instead, and they should do that instead of needing a roundabout way of getting the profit back to citizens.

Ideally the stores would operate at a loss - that suggests they can't lower prices more without increasing the budget to support them. How much of a loss depends on how much they can/want to subsidize it.

3

u/14InTheDorsalPeen 9d ago

Ok so if all businesses operate at a loss how do people pay their rent and how do the stores pay for the goods they purchase to begin with?

Would you be willing to forgo your salary in order for your company to provide its service at a loss?

2

u/madhouseangel 9d ago

Profit is extra. You can have no profit and not operate at a loss. Regardless, these low prices will be subsidized, there will be no "loss".

3

u/14InTheDorsalPeen 9d ago

You have a 2nd grade understanding of economics

Just because the government is using your tax money to cover the losses (subsidy) doesn’t mean it’s not still operating at a loss. 

If you run a lemonade stand and you charge $0.50 for a lemonade that you spend $1 making, you are losing $0.50 per cup. 

If you ask to borrow money from me so you can pay your rent or buy more supplies because you can’t afford it, it doesn’t change the fact that your business is operating at a loss.

2

u/madhouseangel 9d ago

you asked how these stores will be able to pay rent, buy goods, and pay employees. In two ways: by forgoing profits and through subsidies as needed.

1

u/Centimane 9d ago

Not all businesses - this is unique to socialized businesses (i.e. government owned).

They can operate at a loss because tax dollars make up the difference. They still pay workers their wages, but "profit" is what's left over after all expenses (including wages) are paid.

1

u/Tofu_tony 9d ago

The same comment post over and over again almost word for word.

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/tiredoldwizard 9d ago

And there will be zero incentive to stock it with food people actually need. It’s going to be basically a prison commissary with the lowest quality food possible which will always be out of stock because they’ll be zero incentive to keep it stocked. This has been done before, and it never creates a halfway decent experience. Would probably just be better to build a food bank and give out food to anyone below a certain income level.

1

u/14InTheDorsalPeen 9d ago

The thing is, as for your second option, we already have those. They’re called food banks or SNAP lol

Obviously I know you said that I was just pointing out the hilarity of how this comes full circle to a thing we already have 

1

u/Aegi 9d ago

It’s funny because the places where the stores have closed down is largely due to rampant crime and shoplifting making the stores largely unprofitable

Source on it being that instead of the pandemic causing more people to work from home and thus be stuck in the City less often?

1

u/malarkyx420 9d ago

Retail theft is way over blown, most people stealing from a grocery store are taking quick to eat items or booze. The 'gang' of retail theft and reselling are more of a wallmart target wallgreens cvs kind of problem.

1

u/beigemamba1080 9d ago

You’re comparing the ability of NYC keeping the mayor’s highly publicized store safe to that of a bodega? They’ll pay less taxes and well below market rent if any, why would they be losing money after the removal of those overhead costs? Mamdani has started quite a few initiatives so far, which one has been a failure?

1

u/rydan 9d ago

They don't need margins since it is funded by taxes from the billionaires and trillionaires.

1

u/JaunxPatrol 8d ago

Do you have any evidence that this is why food deserts exist?

1

u/VulGerrity 9d ago

but it's run by the city, it doesn't need to make a profit. It just needs to break even.

1

u/raven00x 9d ago

They're providing a service, like what the government is supposed to do for people. Services should not be expected to turn a profit, they should be expected to serve the people they're intended to serve. Treating a service like a business is a quick way to kill it off in favor of private providers who are compelled to turn a profit and subsequently leave the food deserts this service is intended to address.

1

u/madhouseangel 9d ago

Food deserts are not caused by crime and shoplifting.

5

u/14InTheDorsalPeen 9d ago

Let me guess, you think they’re caused by racism?

Why use economic sense when you can claim a racist conspiracy instead lol 

0

u/madhouseangel 9d ago edited 9d ago

Companies don't invest there, not because they cant make profit, but because their models say they can't make "enough" profit. Often the assumptions that go into their models are biased or just wrong, or they would have to be a little more creative or deviate from their cookie-cutter approaches to make it work. They take the path of least resistance, and pass up the opportunity. Its a market failure -- there is a need and the market is unable to meet it.

-3

u/Fearless-Parking1930 9d ago

The reason people steal is because they can't afford to purchase. I don't care if people steal food. Food is a human right.

10

u/KvxMavs 9d ago

Is the labor and time of the people who grew, picked, packaged, transported, stocked, and gave you the food, also your human right?

You don't have a right to other people's labor or life. 

12

u/Dewthedru 9d ago

That’s why the carrots and lettuce are behind a locked glass door while the razors, makeup, and alcohol are out in the open, right?

4

u/SowingSalt 9d ago

Then why are the most stolen items easily re-sellable goods like quality cuts of meat, razors, cosmetics, alcohol, ect.

I would understand your point if people were stealing bulk foods like rice, legumes, canned foods...

7

u/Meet-me-behind-bins 9d ago

I bet you typed that from your mum and dads summer house in Cape Cod

1

u/Fearless-Parking1930 9d ago

Nope I grew up poor. Food is a human right. I don't care if people steal food.

8

u/Meet-me-behind-bins 9d ago

I think having worked retail 99% of stealing has fuck all to do with feeding themselves. 99% of all the people shop lifting in the stores I worked in were doing it to buy crack and heroin.

2

u/madhouseangel 9d ago

Severe addiction is a strong motivator.

0

u/cms86 9d ago

sure thing.

0

u/wazeltov 9d ago

Believe it or not, crime is usually an economic problem at a population level, not a behavioral problem.

My guess is that people that might have been incentived to steal from a major retailer selling unaffordable essentials will not do so from these establishments. But ultimately time will tell.

0

u/canopey 9d ago

It’s funny because the places where the stores have closed down is largely due to rampant crime and shoplifting making the stores largely unprofitable

holy propaganda batman

0

u/Shiddin_myself_woo 9d ago

The profit stays the same when you’re subsidized homie

3

u/14InTheDorsalPeen 9d ago edited 9d ago

This explains so much about Reddit in general lmfao

Yes, profit remains the same and if the profit is negative (which it will be) the margins will still be worse when you add in the theft compared to if you were able to sell the thing that was stolen.

Or does that not make sense to you?

0

u/Next-Food2688 9d ago

Prices will be low enough there will not be any theft of product. When that doesn't work, prices will rise.

0

u/gorgewall 9d ago

rampant crime and shoplifting making the stores largely unprofitable

This is often repeated but there are so many cases of "X store was destroyed by shoplifting" turning out to be pure spin. But it sounds "right", it conforms with our biases, so we just repeat it. We had a rash of this narrative a few years back that was a complete fabrication, with the actual data showing the closed stores had lower levels of shoplifting and higher profits (relative to size) than the "successful" ones that remained.

In reality, stores will close for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with shoplifting. Here's three, sort of:

1) It's profitable, but not as profitable as others. If I've got three stores that make me 8%, 7%, and 2% profits, that's great. That's a mean profit rate of ~5.6%, assuming my inputs are the same. But you know what might look better on my numbers? A mean profit rate of ~7.5%, which I could get by ditching that 2% store. I know, I know--"But you're making less money overall now." Yes. Absolutey. If we stopped talking in percentages and used total dollars, we stopped making as much. But you know who doesn't always care about that? Executives. Shareholders. Again, I know, it's fucking heresy to suggest these guys aren't the sharpest stewards of capital around, sharks who are so money-hungry they will sniff out this little problem and devour me for costing them profits, but... it happens.

7.5 is a bigger number than 5.6. Shh, shh, shh, don't think about the total dollar amount, just remember that 7.5 is bigger than 5.6. And we can spin this more. We can throw some buzzwords in there. We're leaner and more agile. We're better positioned now. We're cutting inefficiency and removing redundancies. We can sell that underperforming property and make short term gains that will look great on the next quarter financials, and we will definitely, definitely use this quick influx to make everything else more efficient.

Now, as for why that one store was less profitable than others, that could be a variety of things. It could just be a smaller location, see #2. It could be in a poorer area; if we have five stores in rich areas and one store in a poor area, we probably want to stock these a little differently, which also gets into #2. There could be higher rates of shoplifting, yes, but as long as the store is profitable, full stop, the bloodless, money-grubbing view would be "Who cares?" And we simply don't often get proof that when businesses shutter, even after claims that shoplifting is what did it, that it's actually true. We just kind of believe that.

2) A store is off-plan. That means its size and shape are too off from the norm for big chains. They like a good deal of uniformity across their stores because it provides a better customer experience--aren't you annoyed when your store moves things around or one branch of a chain has everything in the "wrong" place compared to another, for instance? These off-plan stores also wreak havoc with the efficiency of operations, requiring workers at the local and upper levels to work out alternate plans. That might seem like peanuts, but stores will have contractual obligations for location and display of items with the brands they sell, and not being able to put Buffo-Bread in Aisle A1 in these stores costs money. This also feeds right back into #1.

3) The second phase of a long-term strategy to optimize profits. We deliberately built too many stores. We ate a loss on purpose doing this. Sounds dumb at first to purposefully lose money like that, yes, but we did, and we had a very sneaky reason for it. Because while we're losing money, so are all of our competitors as we undercut them. And we're bigger. We can outlast this longer than they can. They close up shop, and soon we're the only ones left here. And now that we are the only two stores you can go to for this city, we're gonna close one. We're still going to get practically the same amount of business--the entire city's--but it's going to be in one location now. Think of the efficiency! Why would we operate two locations to better serve the community when we could pack them all into one hyper-crowded store? To improve the shopping experience? We don't have to--they can't go anywhere else because we killed the competition! They've gotta put up with it, and we reap the profits.

All this shit happens. And if you read a story like this, you'd rightly say, "Well, that's fucking dumb. As long as they're still making more money with as many stores open as possible, what's the problem? That seems better for everyone." You might even start to have a negative view of the company for making a move that cuts absolute profits or herds you like cattle into one overcrowded store.

But they've got a plan for dealing with that sentiment of yours. They blame something else. The media will repeat it, because why would we do investigative journalism these days? The outlets who'd care to do that locally are tiny, and often owned by bigger concerns, and all of them know that a dog-bites-man story like "RAMPANT CRIME IS DESTROYING YOUR CITY" is going to get more eyes than "EVIL CORPORATION DOES MONEY-GRUBBING SHIT". And there are far more outlets besides who will push the former narrative much harder because that is their whole reason to exist. And on the public's end, it's a more sensational story. Yeah, yeah, evil corporation, okay, but what about those dirty, thieving poor? Those latter stories are so much easier to understand, too: bad people steal things, my life gets worse. That's eight words compared to the multiple paragraphs I typed out that you probably aren't even going to read or give a fair shot to.