So Zohran Mamdani could be the next mayor of the Big Apple, and one of his proposals is to stop subsidizing private grocers and use the money for grocery stores run by the city. It would eliminate the need for increasing profits, and provide an actual benefit to the taxpayers funding it. Currently, those taxpayers subsidize private grocers, taking on some of the liability for the businesses without gaining anything for it (indeed, prices are even higher now). City stores could provide cheaper groceries, which benefits anyone who eats.

I know TFG is calling him a Communist, which is horribly wrong, and even Zohran calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but this isn't even really Socialism. It's a socially aware business model injected into a mainly Capitalist society. Even the progressive outlets I've looked at seem doubtful or even outright against the concept, but I think it's a great step in the right direction to curb this unsustainable greed that Capitalism has led us to.

There are many ways a system like this could go wrong, but if it's handled correctly, it's success could mean a big win for working and middle class families. What do you think of the concept?

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

So Zohran Mamdani could be the next mayor of the Big Apple, and one of his proposals is to stop subsidizing private grocers and use the money for grocery stores run by the city. It would eliminate the need for increasing profits, and provide an actual benefit to the taxpayers funding it. Currently, those taxpayers subsidize private grocers, taking on some of the liability for the businesses without gaining anything for it (indeed, prices are even higher now). City stores could provide cheaper groceries, which benefits anyone who eats

My understanding was that this was to address the so-called grocery deserts, where there are no grocery stores within a reasonable distance, and if so, these wouldn’t really compete with local businesses.

Just being able to walk to the store to shop, instead of taking transit, is a win and cost saving. The groceries don’t even have to undercut other stores for this to be a win.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

My understanding was that this was to address the so-called grocery deserts, where there are no grocery stores within a reasonable distance, and if so, these wouldn’t really compete with local businesses.

Sure, for now. If the system is successful though, how long before the other Big Applers demand lower prices? But you're right, the purpose is not to replace all the private stores. Still, these stores would compete with local businesses just because folks in these deserts still buy food, they just have to travel to get it, and often end up in the big retailer's stores.

I like the proposal that cities stop subsidizing private grocers who are overcharging despite having their risks reduced. I was amazed to find out that most big private retailers, including Amazon and Kroger, get federal, state, and local subsidies to offset <insert trumped up reason>. Taxpayer funded city stores would be able to stock items people need but aren't very profitable to a private retailer. And in general, it seems more efficient to have the government use taxes in a way that helps taxpayers rather than retailers.

There are also models for part private ownership/part city-run groceries, to help current bodega owners, who don't get subsidies, to compete, which seems similar to the arrangement Germany has for state gas/rest stops on the Autobahn. I find the concept inspiring, especially when compared to the taxpayers giving funds to big companies that overcharge them. Groceries are such a staple of life, it would be a real boon to the masses, who suffer when access to food is controlled only by private companies.

There is also the struggle of people on special diets finding niche items on shelves (GF, low salt, low/no sugar, low FODMAP, etc) at supermarkets where the focus is high turnover items. Those folks can experience partial food deserts even where there's a grocery nearby. So these CoNY stores could possibly also make that step away from the purely profit centered selection and possibly give a boost to public health. (That relates to one of the gripes about dollar stores - they have groceries but it's almost all ultraprocessed crap)

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

There is also the struggle of people on special diets finding niche items on shelves (GF, low salt, low/no sugar, low FODMAP, etc) at supermarkets where the focus is high turnover items. Those folks can experience partial food deserts even where there's a grocery nearby. So these CoNY stores could possibly also make that step away from the purely profit centered selection and possibly give a boost to public health. (That relates to one of the gripes about dollar stores - they have groceries but it's almost all ultraprocessed crap)

You made such a good point about how even regular grocery stores can feel like "partial food deserts" for people with special diets. I never thought about how the profit-driven selection leaves so many folks behind - that's so true about dollar stores too, just shelves full of junk food masquerading as solutions.

The idea that city-run stores could actually stock those harder-to-find items (and maybe even healthier options) is really smart.

It's difficult to find information about distilled water that isn't focused on past shortages, but it's always made me wonder why my local Kroger affiliate has quite a bit of shelf space devoted to distilled water. It's heavy, cheap, takes up a lot of shelf space, and can't be nearly as profitable as almost anything else in the store.

Lots of folks need it for medical devices and such, but I don't think it's enough of a draw on its own. I suspect my store and others are being paid subsidies to stock such items, in which case the taxpayers are all paying to decrease the risk to these retailers. No evidence, but if anyone can find some, I'd love to hear it.

i am in full support of this proposal. nyc has become more and more unaffordable over the years and policies staying within the confines of the capitalist model have done nothing to stop this trend. drastic action is needed, and fast, and these government owned grocery stores sound just like what the city needs. of course, i don't live there, so take this with a grain of salt, but if he is elected and this proposal succeeds i have high hopes that it will serve as a model for other cities struggling with rising costs of living.

Congratulations, Mayor Mamdani! It will be interesting to follow how this proposal develops. Most of what I've read is opposed to city-run groceries for capitalist reasons, which mostly seem like extreme wealth sneering at anything that threatens their investments. The only reasonable arguments in that vein are about the impact on small businesses and gig workers. The bodegas may end up as part of the taxpayer funding strategy, but gig workers are currently filling a void that hopefully won't exist soon.

A more neutral and meaningful argument is the historic rate of failure such ventures have in larger cities. I hope Mamdani has studied what not to do in those instances. Getting the wealthy to pay for this should help. My state just passed a measure to feed public schoolchildren by taxing households making over US$300K.

32 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Congratulations, Mayor Mamdani! It will be interesting to follow how this proposal develops. Most of what I've read is opposed to city-run groceries for capitalist reasons, which mostly seem like extreme wealth sneering at anything that threatens their investments. The only reasonable arguments in that vein are about the impact on small businesses and gig workers. The bodegas may end up as part of the taxpayer funding strategy, but gig workers are currently filling a void that hopefully won't exist soon.

A more neutral and meaningful argument is the historic rate of failure such ventures have in larger cities. I hope Mamdani has studied what not to do in those instances. Getting the wealthy to pay for this should help. My state just passed a measure to feed public schoolchildren by taxing households making over US$300K.

Yeah, I was curious about that and there are reports of a fairly wide range of issues. But essentially in all cases they need significant subsidies. But assuming that there are indeed addressing issues, these might be worth it.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Most of what I've read is opposed to city-run groceries for capitalist reasons, which mostly seem like extreme wealth sneering at anything that threatens their investments.

The mayor-elect said something to the effect that there were people spending more to defeat him than they would pay in increased taxes. The commentary was that they were opposed because their money would no longer grant them access and influence, which seems spot-on. It’s less about him being socialist, and more about the lack of corruption that a true public servant represents. Let’s hope he lives up to that billing.

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Yeah, I was curious about that and there are reports of a fairly wide range of issues. But essentially in all cases they need significant subsidies. But assuming that there are indeed addressing issues, these might be worth it.

If the location were profitable it probably wouldn’t be a food desert. It will be interesting to see the ripple effects of addressing this problem. Solving one problem might lead to reductions in the severity of other problems. People ending up with a little more money means it gets spent elsewhere in the city.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

The mayor-elect said something to the effect that there were people spending more to defeat him than they would pay in increased taxes.

Ya, and they are likely to spend even more to try making sure everything he does, fails. It's just a shame that the leadership in the Democratic Party is so bought and paid for by corporate interests that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into supporting him.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

If the location were profitable it probably wouldn’t be a food desert.

I think one of the original ideas is that if set up as non-profit, they would be sustainable, but not profitable. But from what I remember they made significant losses. What I don't remember if whether they managed to address the challenges of food deserts. I.e. whether e.g. local and especially low-income folks were using them (or could use them).

Somewhat independent of that some food banks have started to set up grocery hubs, essentially free grocery stores like other food banks, but giving folks more of a grocery experience in order to promote agency and reduce stigma. But of course, it is an entirely different idea.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

The commentary was that they were opposed because their money would no longer grant them access and influence, which seems spot-on. It’s less about him being socialist, and more about the lack of corruption that a true public servant represents. Let’s hope he lives up to that billing.

That is one of the things I am looking most forward to. That is, an alternative to a system where unlimited money provides unchecked power.

It would be interesting to see where these grocery 'deserts' are.
This being New York city, I can imagine Manhattan being considered one such desert.
No grocery store is going to be profitable if they need to pay $1 Million per year rent on a 10 or 20 000 ft² building.
And I fail to see why the rest of the citizenry need to subsidize the willingness to live there.
If they can afford to live there, they can afford delivery.

Also keep in mind the willingness of American governments to succumb to 'ideology'.
We've seen some already in previous posts in this thread, with the idea of making only foods that are deemed 'healthy' available.

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

It would be interesting to see where these grocery 'deserts' are.
This being New York city, I can imagine Manhattan being considered one such desert.

At the northern end, not so much the southern

https://food-deserts.com/food-deserts-in-new-york-city/

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

https://food-deserts.com/food-deserts-in-new-york-city/

Thank you for the education.
People should be able to afford, and have available, the food they want.

I still don't see how it is profitable to operate a grocery store in downtown Manhattan.
I guess any rich people that can afford to live there don't home-cook much.

8 hours ago, MigL said:

Thank you for the education.
People should be able to afford, and have available, the food they want.

I still don't see how it is profitable to operate a grocery store in downtown Manhattan.
I guess any rich people that can afford to live there don't home-cook much.

I’d guess that if you can eat out at nice restaurants, affording food in general is not a problem.

10 hours ago, MigL said:

I still don't see how it is profitable to operate a grocery store in downtown Manhattan.
I guess any rich people that can afford to live there don't home-cook much.

Unlike health care, grocers don't have a government subsidized "affordable" care act to assure their profits. IMO it is the notion that one has to directly profit as much as possible from every activity, including ones necessary for human survival, that is the biggest problem. When the reason for doing something is profit rather than helping fellow humans, this is what you get. I think if Mamdani puts people who know how to successfully run food cooperatives rather than capitalist grocery stores in charge, he will have a very good chance of success, even with the opposition of all those who have already stated they will do whatever they can to undermine everything he tries to do.

14 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

IMO it is the notion that one has to directly profit as much as possible from every activity, including ones necessary for human survival, that is the biggest problem. When the reason for doing something is profit rather than helping fellow humans, this is what you get.

I'm most interested in seeing how this shift in priorities affects various endeavors. What happens when variety or high quality or freshness or healthiness in groceries is more important than profit? How will healthcare change if the patients aren't just a bank account to be drained? And most of all, will we start thinking further ahead now that younger people are filling these political offices instead of old farts who don't want change?

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm most interested in seeing how this shift in priorities affects various endeavors. What happens when variety or high quality or freshness or healthiness in groceries is more important than profit? How will healthcare change if the patients aren't just a bank account to be drained? And most of all, will we start thinking further ahead now that younger people are filling these political offices instead of old farts who don't want change?

I was a member of a food coop in a town that had enough grocery stores. We operated successfully for almost a decade distributing orders once a week from a member's garage. It wasn't until the BoD decided to move into a store and operate 7 days a week that there was any real financial struggle. Even then, it took another decade until the enterprise finally folded, owing <$10,000, mostly in back rent. It seems like the politics of running a volunteer-run organization was a bigger reason than economics for its demise since $10,000 really isn't that much money for an organization with several hundred members.

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Thank you for the education.
People should be able to afford, and have available, the food they want.

I still don't see how it is profitable to operate a grocery store in downtown Manhattan.
I guess any rich people that can afford to live there don't home-cook much.

As I understand it the problem is poor neighbourhoods where supermarkets, which forced most smaller food shops out of business decades ago, don’t find it profitable to put a store. This tends to leave the field for convenience stores and fast food outlets only, which in turn leads, over decades, to loss of a culture of cooking, and thence to obesity, Type 2 diabetes and other health conditions in the local population. Small greengrocers, butchers etc can only get enough footfall when they cluster together to create a “high street” type shopping destination, which is very hard to re-establish once it has gone, or which may not even have been thought about at all in the case of many poorer modern housing developments.

The legacy papers, including WaPo, have been attacking Mamdani and as the Columbia Journalism Review put it, generally acting like scared suburbanites....

"purses clutched tight to their sides, their hands grasping pepper spray as they descend into the threatening depths of the Times Square subway station, vigilant to the possibility of an attack from a homeless person. These types of visitors, their view of the city shaped by too many urban crime dramas, are common. We welcome them. We do our best to soothe their fears. We even try to gently persuade them to go to Jackson Heights and try some Indian food. But we do not let them tell us how to run our city. "

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/legacy-papers-have-been-weird-and-hostile-toward-zohran-mamdani.php

The Post resorted to childish epithets in their Saturday attack on the mayor-elect, and I realized it was finally time to pull the plug on my subscription. As the writer notes, the Post is "a paper that has been the victim of an explicit ideological purge this year, in which owner Jeff Bezos made clear that the paper’s editorial stance will now reflect his own business interests."