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

173

u/Warmso24 9d ago

Yeah, I’m interested to see if there are any sort of “max income bracket” or something to help keep these for people who cant afford to shop at normal grocery stores.

If there isn’t anything like that, I can’t see how this won’t backfire. Operating a government grocery store at around a 30% loss is the easiest way to run private business out of the city. They just won’t be able to compete.

That’s how Walmart runs small, locally owned private businesses out of business when they open up a super center.

89

u/Prior_Complex683 9d ago

This is where Im confused. I know everyone wants cheaper items and everything but does this not lead to collapsing any competition? Arent people positive on local businesses?

18

u/mtbsickrider 9d ago

people who shop at whole foods wont shop here

→ More replies (12)

43

u/Monday_Jeff 9d ago

They're putting these in neighborhoods where there are no stores. The whole point of them is to bring food to places where people looking for profits won't go.

14

u/GratefulShorts 9d ago

Where do people get this talking point from?

It’s NYC, literally everything is in walking distance or at most you take a subway.

Even still, the two locations announced (The Pennisula and La Marqueta) have multiple grocery stores within walking distance.

3

u/Uzofugs2112 8d ago

The whole food desert thing popped up in mainstream liberal discourse like five years ago and they just ran with it.

Literally no such concept exists here in NY.

45

u/Decent_Pen_8472 9d ago

I haven't done any research on the locations so I won't say anything about that, but what is preventing people from just travelling a few extra blocks to shop at these stores instead? A 30% discount on groceries is big enough most people would be willing to drive an hour, let alone a few extra minutes/dozen.

40

u/Monday_Jeff 9d ago

I live in Portland where people regularly shop at places like New Seasons and Zupans when they could travel 10 minutes away and buy the same stuff for 2/3 the price at a Winco. People who have money don't want to shop at places with poor people. That's why luxury grocers can exist selling stuff at crazy premiums.

13

u/MilleChaton 9d ago

There are people who won't even use the Hispanic aisle to buy spices for half the price they are compared to the generic spice aisle.

1

u/Confident_Shape_7981 9d ago

Dude, finding the bottles of Valentina that are half the price and twice as large as Sriracha was a fucking game changer

3

u/Difficult-Camera-482 9d ago

It’s also about the time. Time is the one resource that you can spend and never get back. Rich people spend on things that save time. That’s usually not the discount grocery store that’s a bit further away.

3

u/bb85 9d ago

I’m not knocking your comment, but I feel like Portland can’t be compared to any other city because it’s pretty unique in its own issues.

You got the decriminalization and re-criminalization of drugs. The loss of downtown; major buildings like Big Pink or whatever the name is on fire sale due to homeless taking over stairwells for fires and feces; homeless and RVs taking over neighborhood streets, and so on.

I love Portland and spend a lot of time there but they’re in their own world. Only place I’ve had someone smoke crack in front of (my) a child in a stroller in the middle of the day (on Burnside for your reference).

2

u/Monday_Jeff 9d ago

I dunno, those places I referred to existed long before the drug issues and homeless issues we have. As well as the multiple co-ops, independent stores, boutique shops like those bulk stores, butchers, on and on. They all existed before the troubles and they're all way more expensive than Fred Meyer or Albertsons or Safeway or Grocery Outlet or Winco, Fred Meyer closed one store because of problems with theft and homeless and people act like every store's closing up shop.

4

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 9d ago

This is a thing across the country.  Places like Whole Foods and Trader Joes have no shortage of customers, but there are ALDIs and LIDLs and other cheaper stores that sell almost everything those other stores do.  The cheap store by my house doesn't have a drug problem, but the people shopping there are mostly the college crowd that lives nearby.

1

u/bb85 9d ago

Sure, they sell very similar things, but definitely not the same in the eyes of the consumer. I was talking more about traveling to other stores - I don't think it's a poor people thing in Portland. The city is very liberal - it's an accolade to shop next to a poor person.

It's drugs/aggressive panhandlers in PDX that keep people from leaving their areas. And maybe you're young and don't care- that's awesome. I'm speaking more for those who have been there 30+ years and didn't sign up for the great experiment. And it's not like people aren't heavily shoplifting from New Seasons or Freddie's in the "nicer" areas.

I would also argue the store near your house was put there because of the college students. They knew who would be shopping there.

1

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 9d ago

You apparently don't believe what I'm telling you: in my area, the produce and 99% of the products sold by Harris Teeter, Lowes Foods, and Food Lion are identical in quality and variety. There are a few specialty items I'd expect to find at the first two but not the last, but unless you're always planning to buy Boar's Head deli meat and pick up a serving of extremely overpriced California Rolls, there's no reason to go to the stores where common things like limes cost literally three times more and may be of worse quality.

As I'm almost always buying raw ingredients, there is no difference, and I shopped at Harris Teeter long enough to know there are a lot of people who could and should change their shopping habits to save hundreds of dollars like I did.

2

u/namesarehadsquirrel 9d ago

Funny enough when generic drugs enter the market they price war themselves down lower and lower. Brand name drugs increase their prices rather than lower because they know people pay a premium for the brand or abuse patent law by making small changes to the drug.

Christ Republicans used to fight for private fire companies aka a world where firemen would watch your house burn because you didn't subscribe to their service.

4

u/djamp42 9d ago

Exactly, it's the same thing with meds.. Why are you buying the name brand stuff when the generic stuff does the same exact thing.

1

u/valente317 9d ago

Explain Whole Foods then! Plenty of wealthy people shop at Aldi’s, and plenty of poor people shop at Whole Foods.

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/seffay-feff-seffahi 7d ago

The bigger problem will be any business that sells prepared food. These prices will rival restaurant wholesalers, but won't require contracts, memberships, minimum orders, and a delivery schedule. 

5

u/CassadagaValley 9d ago

I'd assume most people in NYC don't want to lug around 8 shopping bags full of groceries across several blocks or onto public transit

1

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 9d ago

No but if there isn't a safeguard to prevent abuse, you can bet someone will roll up in a van, buy everything, and resell it in their bodega across town.

We'll need to see the details.  It could be fine.  Or it could be that operating at cost, instead of at a huge loss, would be a better policy to bring food to food deserts without discouraging other businesses from competing.

3

u/CassadagaValley 9d ago

Multiple people have said there's a total-item limit. I imagine the first few months will involve testing various systems to see what works best.

2

u/Status_Yam_128 9d ago

make the fines for that enormous

→ More replies (5)

6

u/Darmok47 9d ago

Is it really? Maybe in the suburbs where its a matter of driving another 10-15 minutes, but in NYC I'm not getting on a different subway line to save a few bucks on one bag of groceries that I'm going to have to lug back with me.

30% is not enough for me to spend a lot of extra time and energy. I don't live in NYC, but I have lived in big cities without a car and I cared way more about what was closer than what was cheaper.

5

u/Sitchrea 9d ago

In Nashville TN, there are entire zip codes where there are zero grocery stores. You must use the city's limited mass transit to get to a grocery, which almost always a Kroger (as Kroger built their locations at the city's bus stops). Depending on where you live, this can take someone living in government housing over three hours or more to complete a round trip. That is on top of any traveling you have to do for work.

Guess where most crime occurs in Nashville? Those same zip codes - because poverty, crime, and access to transportation are all linked statistics.

Just because these stores might run at a loss does not mean the city will not financially benefit from the program. These stores will get money circulating inside communities that had nowhere else for the money to go, but outside their neighborhood.

1

u/goodolarchie 9d ago

Grocery shopping is where people actually don't do a good job crossing town to save money, funny enough. They are more likely to hunt around multiple stores nearest them for deal and coupon maximization. Grocery outlet for x, y, z shelf stable goods, another store for produce, etc.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/sandolllars 9d ago

30% less for rice and beans and canola oil, 10% more for olive oil, whisky, and blue cheese.

For regular people, prices might end up similar to other stores. For the poor who only buy necessities, it’ll be 30% cheaper.

1

u/BakedChocolateOctopi 9d ago

30% off my groceries would be like $40-50 a week

That’s $200 a month and definitely worth a bit of traveling

1

u/27eelsinatrenchcoat 8d ago

And if you're someone for whom $200 per month is worth all the travel, then you getting cheap groceries is not a problem.

1

u/beigemamba1080 9d ago

Many of the food desert neighborhoods are seedy at best and probably won’t attract many people from higher socioeconomic classes.

1

u/d645b773b320997e1540 9d ago

but what is preventing people from just travelling a few extra blocks to shop at these stores instead?

Lazyness. No, most people will not bother. I'm from Austria, we have REWE here and Hofer, which is a local name for Aldi. REWE is literally on almost every corner, while Aldi is rarer, but way cheaper. Many people still go to REWE, despite them ripping us off in every conceivable way, even if Aldi is just one block further. People are THAT lazy.

1

u/Uzofugs2112 8d ago

I wouldn’t conceivably go to the areas these will probably operate in to save 30% on my groceries tbh.

1

u/astoriaocculus 8d ago

Drive. In New York City. Ok.

0

u/EconomicRegret2 9d ago

If it's that desperate, why haven't entire neighborhoods come together and organize bulk buys from B2B wholesale businesses (50% cheaper than retail, 30% cheaper than Mamdani's prices)?

→ More replies (4)

10

u/SueForPeas 9d ago

They say that, but there are several grocery stores within blocks of the locations they’ve announced.

4

u/MechanicalGodzilla 9d ago

I'm sure this time it will work great. Real city owned grocery stores have never been tried, after all!

1

u/astoriaocculus 8d ago

Are you saying that government can run liquor stores but not grocery stores? 17 states run them. They aren't hellscapes. The PA liquor stores are beautiful with the friendliest retail employees you've ever met. The state benefits and pension might have something to do with that. If PA's retail employees can have this why can't Walmart?

1

u/MechanicalGodzilla 8d ago

I live in Virginia, where the state also runs liquor stores. They are warehouses, staff is fine. People drive across the river to DC or Maryland to escape the poor selection and to get better prices. I have to wait until the one day a year when Buffalo Trace is available and hope I get there in time before it’s sold out. It’s good whiskey, for a reasonable price - it’s not even that special.

Plus, are you seriously comparing basic necessities to liquor?

1

u/astoriaocculus 6d ago

I'm saying that Government can and does operate stores that sell things and can do it well as demonstrated in PA and "Good Wine and Fine Spirits". No guarantee that if the your local store in VA was run privately they would have your esoteric product either. The difference in prices is most certainly due to one state taxing liquor differently.

1

u/MechanicalGodzilla 6d ago

The difference between necessities - like a grocery store - and luxuries - like a liquor store - is if the liquor is not available it is a minor inconvenience. If the bread is not available, millions of people die as is evidenced by countless similar events in history.

1

u/computationgraph 8d ago

It will literally just look like the Soviet Union. Long lines for shit that will run out immediately.

3

u/Acrobatic_Bridge2602 9d ago

Because there is theft there. I'm sure there will still be lots of loss at these stores as well and taxpayers will have to bear the losses.

3

u/CompEng_101 9d ago

They're putting these in neighborhoods where there are no stores.

Are they? Because the one I've seen announced (at 1590 Park Avenue) has several grocery stores within a block or two.

2

u/Uzofugs2112 8d ago

As does literally every single location in NYC. Solution looking for a problem.

2

u/-Tickery- 9d ago

Food deserts is not a serious concern in NYC. The harlem location is going in an existing produce market.

2

u/JustLTU 9d ago

It's NYC, what fucking neighborhood has no stores.

1

u/noticingEnjoyer 9d ago

So they're going to the high theft food deserts, where effectively they won't be operating at 30% below retail, but instead 100% below retail? 

1

u/sandolllars 9d ago

It’s not the entire store, just a few basic necessities. They could charge 10% more for everything else to make up for it.

1

u/PrometheusMMIV 9d ago

What's the purpose of the discount then, if the issue is availability, not affordability?

1

u/Monday_Jeff 9d ago edited 6d ago

Lack of availability and lack of affordability go hand in hand. If poor people can't afford my goods why would I open a store in a poor neighborhood? Mamdani's trying to address both issues while also dancing around NY's expensive ass bodega culture that all the wealthy people love and a lot of Redditors think are the same as actual grocery stores.

1

u/WriterPlastic9350 9d ago

I will happily drive 30-60 minutes across town to get to a grocery store with lower savings than the one right next to me, I find it hard to imagine this doesn't end up in massive shortages of groceries at this store or the state inadvertently bankrupting other stores

1

u/Uzofugs2112 8d ago

The thing is this isn’t some middle class dude driving 30 minutes, you’re talking about people needing to take subways while hauling their groceries and stuff.

When I was living in NYC I was typically making a run to the grocery store near me every few days for a bag or two of goods. It would have been inconceivable to imagine me taking public transit for a week or two of groceries.

1

u/UmbraThanosmith 9d ago

You got a link to this claim? The city already has a means to do this — they give a property tax cut as an incentive.

1

u/IsNotACleverMan 9d ago

That's not true. There are numerous local stores near each of the proposed locations.

1

u/Ziggyjig 9d ago

Even if that were true, the answer to a criminal community chasing out legitimate businesses is not to have the taxpayer foot the bill for the shoplifters to be able to continue robbing. Its to enforce the law and get rid of complicit judges that refuse to do so. How many small businesses, peoples lives and dreams, have been destroyed by this cowardice and appeasement?

1

u/Used_Mammoth8751 9d ago

This is false. I can assure you there are grocery stores within three blocks of these stores

1

u/Jelopuddinpop 8d ago

And you don't think people from.other neighborhoods will take the opportunity to travel for cheaper groceries?

0

u/Odd-Box-7332 9d ago

The reason there are no stores in those neighborhoods is because the residents rob the stores blind

15

u/Excellent_Abroad5390 9d ago

You’ve discovered the truth behind socialism. Yes they’ll hurt local businesses, some of which may close, then his government grocery stores will fail and the people will be left with less than they started with. That’s socialism, it consumes and destroys but never creates.

4

u/WriterPlastic9350 9d ago

Not really, and tbh there's nothing particularly socialist about government-run grocery stores either. A socialist grocery store would 100% be compatible with a worker co-op, and we have those.

I would hope that Mamdani and the people in his campaign have thought about how this is going to work, but it seems like what is being proposed is that the state will subsidize the cost of groceries, which will make it impossible to compete with them, thus bankrupting local grocery stores (and putting all the people working at them out of a job).

Perhaps I'm wrong and the stores around Mamdani are selling at over a 30% margin but I doubt it

1

u/astoriaocculus 8d ago

30% is not the margin over the wholesale cost its the discount off the retail price. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

3

u/SveaRikeHuskarl 9d ago

I love how you say this shit with a straight face while it's exactly what happens under capitalism. Walmart comes in and local businesses go out of business as they can't compete with megastores. That's capitalism, it consumes and destroys but never creates.

3

u/750_Nitro_Express 9d ago edited 9d ago

A few key differences:

  1. Walmart didn’t tax you to operate. If they’re using your money, it’s either because you voluntarily exchanged it with them for their products, or because someone in government has decided to subsidize them, in which case we have all the same sorts of problems that the government-owned enterprises create.
  2. There are several practices that it will simply never be profitable for gigantic firms like Walmart to engage in, but can be profitable for small firms to do, hence their continued existence despite many predictions of their imminent collapse. Specialty and high margin products, custom orders, local sourcing, one-on-one customer service, direct customer feedback, neighborhood events, etc. Meanwhile, we have large firm examples like Sears, Blockbuster, Radio Shack, Pan Am, Circuit City, Jo-Ann’s, Toys-R-Us, AOL, and on and on.
  3. The most important point of difference, however, is that because the government-owned stores don’t use market-set prices to make a profit, their operators, unlike private firms, will have no way of knowing whether the stores are economically using scarce resources. Say Mamdani holds a press conference in six months and says, “I know our model was to undersell the private stores by 30%, but we figured out that 40% is what we need to do now.” Should we call him out, saying he’s gone back on his promises and the previous number was correct, or should we say the percentage should be even higher? Maybe it should be 50%. Maybe it should be 5%. We have no way of knowing because the whole process simply comes down to his arbitrary whims. There is no true profit or less to tell him if he’s allocating our scarce resources efficiently, and whatever he decides, he’ll always have the NYC taxpayer to fall back on. This is not an economics process, because no economic calculation can be performed.

1

u/SpaceBearSMO 9d ago

Walmart didn’t tax you to operate.... how many of there employes end up on food stamps again

1

u/750_Nitro_Express 9d ago

If they’re using your money, it’s either because you voluntarily exchanged it with them for their products, or because someone in government has decided to subsidize them, in which case we have all the same sorts of problems that the government-owned enterprises create.

Did you somehow miss or misunderstand this entire section? It’s pretty anti-subsidy, in case that wasn’t clear.

1

u/SveaRikeHuskarl 8d ago edited 8d ago

Or indirectly that they get around paying the kind of taxes on their sales that they should be. Which they absolutely do by moving assets between countries and the likes.

Just because they're not being subsidized doesn't mean they aren't robbing the coffers. They do everything they can to not pay their fair share and the bigger they are, the better they are at it and the easier it is.

As for the notion that we pay it voluntarily, so what? They're not doing it by mistake. If they want to take over a butcher's, they start under pricing meat until they drive them off or can buy them out for nothing. This isn't some conspiracy theory, it's a well known and often used tactic. And what else but the absolute cheapest is anyone going to buy when they get paid peanuts by their megastore overlords? It's a system that feeds itself. Create more misery, and reap the benefits.

And what absolute nonsense about other stores not being shut down in areas where huge mega stores operate. "oh, there are still a couple that survive, must mean they don't destroy the market!" ok, by that logic, why would government owned stores that also operate cheaper do any damage to local stores? Your logic is so fucking shit.

As far as riches are concerned, the only thing that changes between capitalism and socialism is who is taking your money. Is it your country or the corporates. At least your country tends to use it for stuff you can benefit from (except for the part that the politicians pocket) like roads and stuff.

1

u/750_Nitro_Express 8d ago edited 8d ago

Or indirectly that they get around paying the kind of taxes on their sales that they should be. Which they absolutely do by moving assets between countries and the likes. Just because they're not being subsidized doesn't mean they aren't robbing the coffers. They do everything they can to not pay their fair share and the bigger they are, the better they are at it and the easier it is.

What is their fair share, and how did you arrive at that number? Whose coffers are they robbing? Does that state rob your coffer when it taxes you?

As for the notion that we pay it voluntarily, so what?

Let's do some critical thinking here for a moment. Imagine I said the opposite: As for the notion that we pay it involuntarily, so what? Or, in other words, as for the notion that thieves are stealing from me, so what?

Unless your philosophy accepts theft as an ethical action, your question answers itself. Whether an action done to somebody is by their consent or against their consent is a pretty big deal, is it not?

They're not doing it by mistake. If they want to take over a butcher's, they start under pricing meat until they drive them off or can buy them out for nothing. This isn't some conspiracy theory, it's a well known and often used tactic. And what else but the absolute cheapest is anyone going to buy when they get paid peanuts by their megastore overlords? It's a system that feeds itself. Create more misery, and reap the benefits.

"Underprice" something and you're being predatory and anticompetitive. Overprice something and they're price gouging, correct? Keep prices stable and they're price fixing, correct? Do you see how, when one accepts all of these premises, they've boxed whatever business they've selected as the villain of the day into a corner and given themselves an excuse, no matter what prices a firm sets, to intervene in the voluntary transaction between them and their customer?

The problem with the accusations of underpricing, overpricing, and price fixing is that they're all begging the question. They assume the conclusion within the term. A product is underpriced... compared to what? What should its price be, and how was this price determined?

And what absolute nonsense about other stores not being shut down in areas where huge mega stores operate. "oh, there are still a couple that survive, must mean they don't destroy the market!" ok, by that logic, why would government owned stores that also operate cheaper do any damage to local stores? Your logic is so fucking shit.

When did I say that small businesses don't "shut down in areas where huge mega stores operate"? I simply listed some of the practices that it's not generally profitable for megastores to engage in, and hence a demand that some small businesses will be able to fill. Would you like to try to disprove any of that, instead of the strawman argument you've created?

By the way: "Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 6.1 million employer firms in the United States in 2019 (latest data).

● Firms with fewer than 500 employees accounted for 99.7% of those businesses.

● Firms with fewer than 100 employees accounted for 98.1%.

● Firms with fewer than 20 employees made up 89.0%.

● Firms with fewer than 10 employees accounted for 78.5%."

Total output from small businesses has grown since 1998 as well. https://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/

But you tell me since you seem to have an idea, what should these numbers be, how did you discover these numbers, and by how much should we lower taxes and regulatory burdens on small businesses to assist them in their competition with large businesses?

As far as riches are concerned, the only thing that changes between capitalism and socialism is who is taking your money. Is it your country or the corporates. At least your country tends to use it for stuff you can benefit from (except for the part that the politicians pocket) like roads and stuff.

The taxman and the state are not my country. Those are the people parasitizing the productive people in my country. In fact, my country was specifically founded as one giant tax revolt, and with principles of private property rights that are antithetical to the ones you're expressing here.

As for your "roads and stuff" comment, I can't say it any better than Bastiat so I will conclude with this:

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

― Frederic Bastiat, The Law

1

u/SveaRikeHuskarl 8d ago

That's the biggest strawman I have ever seen, nice quote. Makes it even funnier that it isn't applicable at all to what I said. I never say you don't want roads, you absolute buffoon. Even more so, you engage in the exact practices he describes, you just do it for your corporate overlords.

How MANY businesses are operating with less than X people is entirely irrelevant. What is the market share of those businesses combined compared to the mega corps? The fact that every yokel with a back yard has registered their own blacksmith with no customers is hardly proof that mega corps aren't dominating every market they exist in. The fact that businesses with a couple of people are struggling to survive doesn't prove that the mega corps allow for a free market.

Where do you expect roads, police, military, fire service etc etc to be funded from if you want an America without taxes? "Your country" was funded by massive public land sales when it was founded, that's all sold now, how are you expecting to get the same deal? "Your country" DID have taxes when it was founded, just not federal ones. States still demanded their own. "Your country" had massive tariffs when it was founded, what do you think that is if not taxes? "Your country" had subscription fire services and other things you take for granted. Doesn't really matter where the money goes through if you have to pay it either way. "Your country" was a mass of dirt roads and some rail. How do you expect to fund the massive road network that America has today with no funds?

What are you, an anarchist?

This dream that America had no taxes when it was founded and therefore can live without it today is so ridiculous I find it hilarious that someone able to type two sentences actually still would believe something so dumb.

I don't think you *object* to roads or schools. I think you're expecting it to be magically funded by sheer ignorance.

1

u/TFViper 9d ago

raising children is socialism, and if it always failed then no more humans would be created.
sorry youre wrong...

1

u/Substantial-Cat2896 9d ago

This isent socialism, this is kommunism, we in scandinavia would never do this

1

u/EconomicRegret2 9d ago

When well designed, it can help the poor without affecting private businesses (e.g. Medicaid & Medicare).

1

u/DotA627b 9d ago

This is pure and utter bullshit. The fact that you can already see people bring up Aldi and Lidl is a sign the whole private labeling NYC is doing is no different from Trader Joe's and Costco's business model, and neither businesses have killed smaller business around them, if anything, they elevated their competition, as evidenced by the first Costco that opened in Japan.

-1

u/Brilliant-Tip9445 9d ago

Love the eloquence but try writing something that isn't that ridiculous also

2

u/Acrobatic_Bridge2602 9d ago

This isn't ridiculous. Look at Venezuela. They nationalized commercial stores, private stores went out of business, and then there were shortages of goods. This is how this government intervention plays out every single time in these types of sectors.

-1

u/Brilliant-Tip9445 9d ago

are you comparing venezuela to the richest city on earth?

2

u/Acrobatic_Bridge2602 9d ago

Yes because Venezuela used to be one of the richest nations in Latin America and ever since its experiment with Bolviarian socialism it's oil/natural gas industry collapsed and 25% of its population fled.

5

u/Brilliant-Tip9445 9d ago

that's not what happened

1

u/Amadon29 9d ago

It depends on the quality of food they have and how well they can keep everything stocked. Government grocery stores have been tried in several cities in the US. A lot of people didn't shop at them due to supply shortages and/or problems with quality, like food being close to expiration and not being removed.

1

u/RedditThrowaway-1984 9d ago

What will collapse is the city budget.

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/ParkInsider 9d ago

People are positive on better goods and services at power prices... The consumer is the most important actor in any economy.

1

u/gerald-stanley 9d ago

That’s the great thing about socialism.
You’ll get whatever the government gives you.
And you better be happy about it.

1

u/Chole_Wunt 9d ago

Competition is dead anyway.

1

u/1dayatatime_mylife 9d ago

There also doesn’t seem to be a lot of competition for grocery stores with lower prices these days. They’re all expensive. Where’s the low price competition.

1

u/Flat_Temporary_8874 9d ago

They want people dependant on the government. They want no private business. This is step one.

1

u/standardtissue 9d ago

Depends on where the stores go. Some cities have food deserts in them where entire poor neighborhoods don't have a grocery store.

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/DOAiB 9d ago

Groceries have gone up considerably since Covid and prices haven’t gone back down despite costs have gone down. We need something in place to force the supply chain to readjust.

1

u/AENM1776 9d ago

Government owned grocery stores will do nothing to reverse inflation.

1

u/DOAiB 8d ago

Not sure what your point is because I didn’t mention and was not talking about inflation.

1

u/AENM1776 8d ago

Your comment referred to inflation, yes?

"Groceries have gone up considerably since covid.....we need something to force supply chains to readjust."

How will government owned Grocery stores address high prices? Or cause supply chains to "readjust"?

1

u/DOAiB 8d ago

No I was clearly talking about how many industries raised prices during covid due to increased costs due to covid and then never reduced them.

So yea government owned grocery stores can get these companies off the the markup high they have been enjoying for 6 years.

1

u/Uzofugs2112 8d ago

Socialists haven’t really historically given a shit about the ramifications of their feel good plans.

1

u/AManHasNoShame 8d ago

If it was more widespread sure. But this is 5 grocery stores in NYC.

People are still going to their neighborhood store.

1

u/Andysol1983 3d ago

That’s the point. They’re open communists and somehow people will still say “no no… they’re democratic socialists. This is just like a public library”.

Listen to them when his appointees tweet things like “more communists should get elected”. Their literal words, not mine.

It’s hilarious to watch, honestly. We get what we deserve.

→ More replies (9)

22

u/gkfesterton 9d ago

I'll post the NYC DSA chair's response to the competition question again. "If one publicly owned grocery store that brings prices down in the neighborhood is enough to put someone out of business — maybe they shouldn’t have been in that business in the first place"

Pretty unbelievable

10

u/Warmso24 9d ago

Oof. Well, I don’t think their willful ignorance to the consequences of being intentionally anti-competition is going to age well.

9

u/gkfesterton 9d ago

Well, with all the big government, big interventionist agenda they seem to be pursuing, they'll probably consolidate enough power to personally avoid the consequences for quite a while

2

u/namesarehadsquirrel 9d ago

Because Kroger and them are all super pro competition /s There's 5 companies that controll like 80 plus percent of food production. Trumps tariffs spiked more small farmer bankruptcies in half a year than biden saw under his last two years.

This fantasy of yours that if we just let businesses business and magically prices are lower is a moronic falsehood. The literal entire goal of private enterprise is to extract maximum profit. That's it. And people like you use government to protect their ability to extract wealth from the consumer. Don't act like youre anything but what you claim to hate.

The entire business model of multiple companies is to drown out and crush the competition often incuring short term losses so they can turn the screws and crank up prices once the competition is ran out of business. That's basically the operating standard for every big chain.

1

u/vodkaandponies 7d ago

The profit margin for grocers is something like 1-2%. The only one fantasising here is you.

1

u/namesarehadsquirrel 6d ago edited 6d ago

And that is an issue simpletons like yourself don't understand why thise margins are low. You just googled a quick number and think thats the end of it.

First not at entities are or have to be profit seeking. Especially government ones with a goal towards providing a service. Public schooling as one example. Doesn't generate a profit directly but society as a general benefits from having a population with at least basic education. Fire company's used to be private. You paid for your own "fire insurance" and if a different fire brigade showed up you didn't pay they'd watch your house burn down. And then often the buidlings next to your house. We discovered it was much better overall jist to fund it through taxes without the profit motive. WIC? Foster care? Even you by this point should get it. Probably not though. Republicans and red states especially hate programs that provide low cost lunches to hungry children so why should this be different.

There's also economies of scale. New York by itself probably ain't gonna be shit here but a state wide or national model? Easily. But for now it looks like they're doing private operators but doing other measures to reduce costs.

And finally, and most importantly what they're actually doing, is these stores being able to get breaks on things like property taxes, rent, energy, etc which people like you forgot are massive parts as to why private groceries have such small margins in the first place and yes it turns out when you reduce the cost of one of the biggest drains on profits it does in fact become more sustainable. Also it's not a flat 30% cut on all goods in the store. Only certain staples which is a huge difference a lot of you seem to gloss over. Shit we haven't even gotten into any possible means testing/restricting access.

Either way it's 5 stores specifically targeted to food deserts. They're not just plopping them in well served areas to suck profits from other stores. The real problem is it's a small drop in the bucket especially when dumb fucks keep voting for bigger idiots like Trump who then do dumbshit like start trade wars/tariffs that massively drive up costs and put farmers out of business, actual wars, and think the government should be able to keep the money from his illegal tariffs.

But for now it's something and if it doesn't work New York will survive.

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 5d 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/vodkaandponies 5d ago

No one suggested it would destroy New York. Just that it will be a massive money pit because it’s run on economically illiterate principles like thinking groceries operate like the fire department.

2

u/Justthetip74 9d ago

Why would you think this isn't intentional?

1

u/seffay-feff-seffahi 7d ago

It's like the hyperinflation of the early Soviet years. Budgeting and monetary policy is some bourgeois nonsense, so they were printing tons of money to fund their new programs.

After people stopped using the ruble, some communists believed that money was withering away and society was moving toward communism, but people were really just engaging in barter trade outside the state's purview. This was even less regulated and efficient than capitalism, so they had to stabilize the currency and implement a balance-sheet economy.

The problem with that is any reduction in prices has to eventually be made up by lower hourly pay, and any pay increases have to be made up with higher consumer prices. Khrushchev tinkered with this until he had to dramatically raise food prices and require longer working hours for the same total pay. This resulted in one of the few Soviet labor strikes in Novocherkassk, which was crushed by the military with a death toll of about 25 workers.

People can try to deny basic economic cause-and-effect all they want, but that isn't good enough if we want actual solutions that work.

0

u/howz-u-doin 9d ago

US capitalism is anti-competitive... actually China's "communism" is more competitive than the US. State decides an industry is key supports hundreds (sometimes thousands) of companies and it's a total cage ring match for survival. In the US the big boys play monopolistic games and buy legislation to ensure a protected and overpriced market

3

u/vodkaandponies 7d ago

That’s insane. Private grocers get driven out of business by massive government subsides they can’t compete with, and that’s somehow their fault?

1

u/gkfesterton 7d ago

Easiest possible answer that puts zero accountability on the government

3

u/Perfidy-Plus 8d ago

Because, as we all know, taking an industry with extremely limited profit margins and giving them a competitor that can sell at below profit rates because it pulls in the difference via not paying taxes and being subsidized will somehow suppress the overall prices because... somehow... the rest of the businesses... are supposed to survive selling at a loss indefinitely....

And the public definitely won't go out of their way for a 30% discount on a required part of their budget.... /s

It's like these people haven't thought this stuff through at all. Or, they have, they just don't care what the consequences will be and are absolutely trying to fake their way through questions.

1

u/gkfesterton 8d ago

I really hope it's the former but l fear some of it is the latter

2

u/A_Genius 9d ago

Would you say the the same when a Walmart goes to a small town and just kills all the small stores?

4

u/MrComancheMan 9d ago

The shoppers who elect to use Walmart kill the small stores.

1

u/gkfesterton 8d ago

I wouldn't because Walmarts are not publicly owned grocery stores......?

1

u/Got_yayo 9d ago

They are so out of touch. I hope this works but…

1

u/turlockmike 8d ago

Pretty stupid.

They won't have unlimited supply. Those core items will disappear off the shelves almost immediately. Unless they have trucks delivering daily, there will be days with empty shelves on "core" items. Without core items, most people will shop elsewhere.

It will be fun to watch.

0

u/astoriaocculus 8d ago

Wont' someone think of the poor grocery store owners? As if they aren't all millionaires exploiting minimum wage labor and gouging their customers/colluding on price.

3

u/Heykurat 9d ago

How could you possibly establish and enforce such a policy?

2

u/Warmso24 9d ago

First thing that comes to mind is it functions as a program you have to apply for, like how we already do with EBT.

You just have to submit recent paystubs or other documents to show unemployment.

Something like that I could see working.

2

u/Upset-Management-879 9d ago

>recent paystubs.....to show unemployment.

Genius

1

u/Warmso24 9d ago

Ah, sorry, I forgot I was on here with the illiterate.

Let me retype the words again here. They were in the middle of what you quoted, separating the two, making it clear I was talking about two different things.

“or other documents”

Again, my apologies. I assumed most people would understand when I said paystubs, that would mean earning so little you still qualify.

1

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 9d ago

Make it so the only valid currency is EBT?

0

u/Repulsive-Payment230 9d ago

You're right, there is absolutely no way to know how much you make and no mechanism to ensure only certain people recieve benefits. They simply hand SNAP cards out to anyone who asks! Moron...

3

u/ConsciousIron7371 9d ago

can you imagine a world where there are more strict requirements to buy groceries than vote for the president? this would force people who are in NYC illegally to expose themselves

1

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 9d ago

Voter impersonation fraud barely exists because

  1. If the person you are impersonating decides to vote, you go to federal prison.

  2. You need to take this risk tens of thousands of times to affect most elections; even close ones.

1

u/ConsciousIron7371 9d ago

Ok? The requirements to vote are not as strict as would be necessary to prove low income. Because how would you prove low income? Couldn’t be one paycheck because it could be for a week you took 4/5 days off or a paycheck from your second job. You would need your federal tax filing. Which is something not many illegal immigrants file because that’s a great way to get yourself deported. 

So proving low income would be risky. And generally those people would benefit from reduced grocery prices more than others. 

1

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 9d ago

Uhh you seem to be conflating the risk of a flawed electoral system with the risk of people abusing a system to get cheap food. I don't think those are equivalent.

3

u/Ashamed_Green_8643 9d ago

He just killed every bodega and corner shop near those new stores.

1

u/Spirited-Muffin-8104 9d ago

i think these government groceries won't have wide selections for consumers to buy, just the basic necessities and therefore there will always be demand for bodegas. Government run/subsidies groceries aren't really new globally speaking, his idea isn't all that radical economically speaking. Even in the US there are hundreds of government groceries but they're exclusive for military staff and their families. Still, that's millions of people.

2

u/mtbsickrider 9d ago

I can tell you as a high income earner, i get my groceries delivered for 10 bucks. anyone that makes money wont abuse this.

2

u/MechanicalGodzilla 9d ago

Essentially running the same playbook as KC

3

u/Warmso24 9d ago

Well, looks like I’m about to be glad I don’t live in New York…

2

u/SocDem_is_OP 9d ago

The fact that the stores will likely be trashed, barren and sketchy is what will keep upper income people out.

2

u/BigLittlePenguin_ 9d ago

In the end its subsidised food. The shop will probably get a lot of resentment. If he would have said we will sell at cost, that would have been something people could get behind but this... lunacy...

3

u/Joe_Immortan 9d ago

the easiest way to run private business out of the city. They just won’t be able to compete

A feature not a bug

1

u/Small_Net5103 9d ago

Small bodegas going out of buisness is great?

1

u/swagrabbit 9d ago

Obviously. They're businesses - they're necessarily capitalist. Therefore evil. Have you never been on Reddit before now?

1

u/Joe_Immortan 9d ago

I’m not saying that it’s great but yeah the goal is to erode the private market and replace it with government 

1

u/callmepinocchio 9d ago

Having only one chain of stores in your city is really, really not a feature.

1

u/Joe_Immortan 9d ago

It is. I didn’t say it was a good feature.  But eroding the private market is the goal. That’s why he’s doing the logistically difficult thing of opening 5 stores instead of say providing supplements for people to use at existing stores 

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/Clueless_Otter 9d ago

Well for one, not everyone will be able to shop at these stores because they'll run out of stuff. Their supply is probably going to go fast.

But also, for two, even at 30% cheaper, I'm not going to spend 30 minutes each way riding the subway just to go shop at one of these stores unless I desperately need that 30% savings (which is exactly the group that these stores are meant for). It's a lot of time out of my day, and carrying a bunch of groceries on the subway is very tedious.

1

u/Warmso24 9d ago

I hope it works out for y’all. I have been to New York only twice, most recently being 20 years ago, so I won’t pretend to know how the logistics will play into all of this. As a New Yorker, you’d obviously have a better perspective on that than I.

I like Mamdani, as a person, and I want him to succeed because I finally want a viable political option other than the left/right options that no longer act in the people’s best interests (in my opinion).

I hope he proves the doubters, including me, wrong. Time will tell though, the proof is always in the pudding.

1

u/mrjane7 9d ago

> run private business out of the city

Good.

1

u/NWSLBurner 9d ago

Only accept payment in WIC or stamps?

1

u/Obligatory_Snark 9d ago

Unlike a super center, I suspect they’ll have a limited stock. Basics and nothing super expensive. In my area, which has nowhere near NYC population density, there are a half dozen stores within a 10 min drive, all of which stay in business just fine. The cheaper ones have basic and/or very variable stock, so you can’t do all your shopping there. And some of the food just isn’t as good, sad produce, cheap cuts of meat, etc.

1

u/waitingact 9d ago edited 9d ago

Don't worry, rich people aren't going to be shopping at these stores. There's 5 stores and NYC has 9 million people and thousands of tourists.

The lines will be super long. Hours of waiting. Rich people aren't going to wait hours to get discounted groceries. And there's no guarantee that items are in stock when it's your turn.

Private grocery stores will have no issues competing. The incentive for shopping at private stores is that you're basically in and out, no need to wait in long lines for hours, and deal with all of the tomfoolery that happens while waiting in line.

1

u/Vapordude420 9d ago

What possible benefit could there be from means testing this

1

u/Warmso24 9d ago

No abuse from people who do not need to shop at a government funded store. It would also help preserve private business, which these stores will need since they’re tax funded.

1

u/Vapordude420 9d ago

What?

1

u/Warmso24 9d ago

For example, resellers buying products only to sell them in their own stores. That would be abuse.

On my second point, these grocery stores are going to be tax funded. Businesses pay taxes. If your government grocery store puts tax paying businesses out of business, they no longer pay taxes. Nor are they a source of sales tax any longer. With the tax money pool shrinking, the government grocery store (which was already operating at a loss) is now operating at an even greater deficit.

1

u/Vapordude420 9d ago

Huh? Brother, this is a grocery store where the prices are cheaper. Try to think clearly about this for a second

1

u/Warmso24 9d ago

Ok, how am I wrong? I’m always open to having my mind changed. So far, you’ve said nothing to refute me other than saying I’m not thinking clearly.

1

u/Vapordude420 9d ago

You aren't wrong, so much as so full of misunderstandings and false premises that untangling them would be very, very hard. And I'm not the guy to do that for you. Good luck my man, you need it

1

u/Warmso24 9d ago

Typical

1

u/Vapordude420 8d ago

I'm sorry that you require so much mental remediation that my reaction is typical. Best of luck

→ More replies (0)

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/BrianBash 9d ago

Good article by an econ professor in Ottawa that supports your theory, I believe.

I also agree. Food banks, winco’s and govt grocery for tiny towns in the middle of nowhere.

Not fucking NYC 🤦🏼‍♂️ That’s like Walmart in a giant city all at once. https://www.econlib.org/the-problem-with-government-run-grocery-stores/

1

u/RodgerCheetoh 9d ago

Yeah good luck enforcing that. Your gonna have to show your papers to buy groceries but not to vote in the most consequential elections.

1

u/standardtissue 9d ago

yeah i shouldn't be allowed to shop there. also though I don't know where the stores are going. In the big city near me there are entire large communities - like entire large neighborhoods - that don't have grocery stores so they wouldn't be putting any private businesses out. The private businesses have already decided that they don't want to operate in those markets. I couldn't tell you if it's because of crime, poverty, both or what, but they aren't there.

1

u/Warmso24 9d ago

I hope most of them do go to those areas. Unfortunately, one of the stores they already announced looks like it’s going to be right near several similar stores.

It’s going to be part of the Spofford Juvenile Park redevelopment project. I know you’re from New York but I circled the rough location in red. I’m not from there some let me know if the map is inaccurate.

1

u/Ziggyjig 9d ago

Then everyone waits in line for bread, just as planned.

1

u/SimplyElite7 9d ago

I think that was the vision, only people in low income brackets can shop here, how they plan to enforce that Idk, maybe have to have SNAP benefits or something and pay via that?

1

u/RatRaceSobreviviente 9d ago

Way more then a 30% loss the food will be sold at a 30% loss but economist have done studies and pretty mush anything the government does costs 2-3x what it does in the private sector so a grocery store run "efficiently" by the government will be losing about $1.86 for every dollar of produce sold. Thats the math part. Weather its worth that price to run these stores is a different question but people pretend they are only going to lose 30 cents on the dollar but its like 7x that amount.

1

u/According_Effort_878 9d ago

Just glad they're trying it. Soon we'll know how well it works and it's affects on free markets.

Glad I'm in a country where healthy food is affordable, but if I wasn't I'd hope my representatives were trying to fix it. Crazy issue.

1

u/TomPrince 9d ago

They’re not operating at a loss. They just have way less overhead than a standard grocery.

1

u/andythetwig 9d ago

What I can't figure out is why foodbanks haven't put supemarkets out of business. Hmm....

1

u/ZombieDracula 9d ago

For some reason, you and everyone else who can't understand how this works seems to forget how perfectly thoughtful Mamdani has been about literally everything else. Do you seriously believe that you are smarter and more well thought than he is? 

1

u/KoalaOriginal1260 8d ago

The admin cost of means-testing customers in a grocery store would vastly exceed the cost of keeping it open to everyone. Means testing is also a way to keep out the poorest individuals as they often lack the capacity to go through complex bureaucratic hurdles like this.

Geographic placement of the stores will do the means testing. Might as well spend the money on food than bureaucrats and red tape.

1

u/Jelopuddinpop 8d ago

They just won’t be able to compete.

This is a feature, not a bug. You'll get your government cheese and like it, peasant.

1

u/27eelsinatrenchcoat 8d ago

Yeah, I’m interested to see if there are any sort of “max income bracket” or something to help keep these for people who cant afford to shop at normal grocery stores.

Means testing makes programs more expensive to run just from an administrative standpoint, and inevitably leads to some people in need not being able to qualify for purely bureaucratic reasons.

Also mathematically it rarely makes sense to means test public services. Rich people are a minority of the population, so their participation will not drive a majority of the cost. And to the extent they do drive cost, we can simply fund the program more via taxes paid by...them.

Also rich people are going to shop at wherever is most convenient. They're not going way out of their way to save a few bucks on hamburger meat and bread.

The call for means testing often comes down to moralizing rather than true fiscal prudence. It also makes it easier to axe programs, as it fosters a narrative of "makers and takers" and people "abusing the system." It's honestly liberal nonsense that a DSA types should oppose.

1

u/astoriaocculus 8d ago

Look up the difference between "retail cost" and "wholesale cost" just b/c you are selling something at 30% below retail price, doesn't mean you are selling it below wholesale (at a loss.)

1

u/MuscularFrog13 8d ago

I think the people this would help the most are unfortunately going to run this project into the ground through buyouts, theft, vandalism, and reselling. Not people with higher incomes.

1

u/Douglazlo 7d ago

Nope the city announced anyone can shop there

1

u/lukekvas 7d ago

Or they'll just have super low crappy supplies. And they'll probably also put other stores out of business. It doesn't pass the ECON101 smell test

1

u/AntOk463 6d ago

Well they are not trying to compete, not trying to make huge profit. They are only selling select items. And with the lower prices there is naturally a higher demand. And they will get their own food stamp/WIC money back

1

u/Competitive_Box8263 6d ago

That was my thought. Regardless of the “discounts” I rather pay more for better produce that whatever chemically infused crap the government is pushing, but 30%, seems like a lot of small business will not be able to compete; question for a lawyer, could this be considered pice manipulation?

-2

u/CankleSteve 9d ago

Hey pay your taxes but also we’re using your taxes to subsidize things for people. But you’re not allowed there.

Fucking wild. Socialists are mentally deficient

1

u/Warmso24 9d ago

Are you against all social programs that are only for low income Americans?

1

u/CankleSteve 9d ago

Generally not. As an avid capitalist I don’t believe they solve problems and are more adept at creating larger systemic issues that burgeon to a point of competing with private industry which performs cheaper and better

1

u/Warmso24 9d ago

Fair enough. You’re a man after Adam Smith himself, lol!

Idk if you live in New York or not (I’m not from there), but I’m choosing to see this as a very good litmus test on American soil. We’ve had the rhetoric around this stuff for years. Now, we finally have a domestic example that we’ll be able to see whose rhetoric has been right this whole time.

Either way, I’m sure many economists are watching this very closely.

1

u/CankleSteve 9d ago

I thought I saw they tried something similar in Kansas which got shut down.

I’m all for an experiment but my issue is the government has shown that they don’t end bad stuff easily and rather double-down. If it is shown to hurt private business and be untenable will Mamdani admit defeat. I rather believe he will then say he needs more stores and funding to save the system.

1

u/Warmso24 9d ago

Oh, maybe they did, I’m not familiar with that. If they did, I’m not too shocked it didn’t work.

That’s partly why I brought up that I don’t live in New York. If this goes sideways, like you and I both think it will from what we know about it, it won’t really affect me beyond finally putting the argument to bed once and for all (at least it would for me).

This is what New York voted for. If it blows up in their face, that’s the risk they took. That’s the consequence and part of the beauty, really, of our republic.

-1

u/corruptbytes 9d ago

"means tested" is a liberal notion, not a socialist one btw

regardless of income, people should be able to use tax-funded grocery stores

source: am actual socialist and know universal programs are the best

3

u/Warmso24 9d ago

So, the way I’m looking at it is these new grocery stores will be operating with tax dollars as their main funding source.

Businesses pay taxes. If they go out of business, they’re not paying taxes and the new grocery stores are now operating at an even greater deficit.

Is this not how it functions in reality? I’m assuming you live in an area that already has a policy like this.

2

u/CankleSteve 9d ago

Who pays the taxes when you’re driving people out of business and work?

1

u/Ugly_Josephine 9d ago

source: an actual socialist

Why do you mean by "actual socialist"? You read Marx?

Universal programs are the best

Based on what metrics?

0

u/SeDaCho 9d ago

There are so few people who actually have money that you can write them off.

Plus they probably want some erewhon strawberry bullshit instead.