The municipality which has monopoly on land taxes and costs will compete with stores that must pay taxes and rent? Won’t it just cause neighboring stores to close?
Won’t a better option be subsidizing taxes for grocery stores, and let the discounts competitively pass unto the customers?
> and let the discounts competitively pass unto the customers
This is the same trickle down economics principle that has proven not to work over, and over, and over again. There's exactly zero reason to believe these businesses would pass on the savings to consumers.
Consider! Ingles (a supermarket brand here in NC) is criticized for holding huge amounts of abandoned/vacant/dilapidated properties [0], which stifles competition and lets them hold an effective monopoly and makes neighborhoods objectively worse. It's not about the taxes. Don't underestimate a chain's ability to eat costs by maintaining their market position.
Major grocers are more inclined to form cartels on price than to engage in organic competitive action. These businesses are too large and incentives too perverse for free market dynamics to apply anymore.
Government owned grocery stores already exist [1]. They are run by the U.S. military, have 200+ locations, and charge at least 25% less than other brands [1].
"Surveys consistently rate the commissaries as one of the military's top non-pay benefits." NYC wants to provide similar benefits for residents.
> Won’t it just cause neighboring stores to close?
Hopefully they kept all those profits around from the time they price gouging consumers in the name of “supply chain issues”, “transitory inflation”, “bird flu” etc. I still remember all the headlines about bird flu and how egg prices were doubling because of it. Turns out the egg production barely dropped and it was all a ruse to make more money.
He won by not being a capitalist. He campaigned on doing something to actually meet the basic needs of the people who elected him. This is the cost of that promise. This will force them to compete on those terms instead of directly on money.
Who knows, let's try it and see. I've heard all my life about how new ideas are potentially not economically viable, so we keep trying old ideas which proven not economically viable. My feeling is that the economy is such a large, chaotic, dynamic system that most people, including experts, have no idea what is theoretically viable or not viable. So making decisions based on "my first order analysis is that this is not economically viable" is misguided. You have to try it first and see how the system actually responds.
Oh no! Struggling Americans will be able to buy food cheaper! What will we do?
Also, if anyone has any reservations about a government run grocery store, go ask your representatives to come out against military commissaries. I bet you will not be able to find one active politician who will try to remove that. You know why? Because government run grocery stores work. End of story. Period. There is no discussion. You are wrong if you disagree. We do this. It exists. It works. And people love it. Try to find one politician that will end that service.
In some neighborhoods there are only luxury grocery options.
Groceries also form cartels as the other commenter mentioned. The biggest grocers in Canada did it for many years until they were penalized for it (though it’s likely still continuing in other ways - the same players are now under investigation for selling underweight meats)
The estimated cost to consumers from bread price-fixing was $4-5 billion
To anyone who espouses these claims that the government isn't capable of anything or that it's somehow a moral hazard I just have to ask: how's that working out for you in particular and society in general? Does it feel like things are going well?
What we have now is the result of unfettered private control. Private companies collude to raise prices and lower wages. The standard of living in real terms has been in decline for over 50 years. Education, medical, housing and food costs continue to spiral. Where we do have publicly owned alternatives, such as with municipal broadband, those publicly-owned alternatives are always far better.
Are we going to make the same argument that EPB in Chattanooga is somehow a moral hazard and has an unfair advantage to Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Spectrum?
Let's just say that it's true that they do. Why is that a problem? Why is it good that billion or trillion dollar companies can charge higher prices than the government can so their owners can buy another mega-yacht at the expense of the people who depend on that service? Because that's what's going on now.
You sound extremely privileged and frankly out of touch (not uncommon with the HN demographic).
Do you think working families in NYC don't deserve the same monetary relief that massive corporations get with their own welfare programs? Why should trillion multinational companies take our public money to subsidize their businesses and we can't do the same for workers?
Why do you prefer helping non human entities (corporations) over literal humans?
I was very skeptical of these plans at first—as a New Yorker, I don’t exactly have a lot of trust in our city’s government to run things well.
But I’ve come around. Let’s try something new! Let’s show people that local governments in the United States really are capable of making a difference in their daily lives. If it fails, well, we tried & we’ll keep trying.
Dumb populist idea, grocery stores make 2% margins, best case scenario you're saving people 2%, realistic scenario you introduce operational inefficiencies that the chains already optimized out and waste taxpayer resources.
If you don't like grocery stores gamifying or selling junk, regulate those aspects. Or put the taxpayer money towards something useful like building public housing.
Not a new idea and the intention seems to be good. I wonder how will the implementation go. Where does the stores source merchandises? What is the volume of the five stores in total? How do they plan to offer a better price -- is it a percentage lower than some other stores, or something else? What if they have to run them with a loss? Such and such.
Many people losing their minds over stuff like this... I'm just glad some people are finally trying out new ideas, because the status quo is not working for a large portion of the American population.
I just hope they properly track and monitor the outcomes and foster honest/open feedback. The gov't loves to throw money at problems, but never really does much to analyze, pivot, or admit when something doesn't work because that just gives the opposition ammo.
> “Some will insist that city-owned businesses do not work, that government cannot keep up with corporations. My answer to them is simple: I look forward to the competition. May the most affordable grocery store win,” Mamdani said.
Well it's interesting enough to try. Are they going to keep the stores open at a loss, that's not really competing then, is it?
If they sell things that are much cheaper, restaurants could start sourcing their food from there, too. Why get your chicken from some supplier if you can buy it from a cheaper government run store at much less.
But then, if these stores are not run at a loss, it means somehow there is this large inefficiency that other stores haven't tapped into. And if I had to guess, grocery stores don't seem like a large margin business, but perhaps that's just my ignorance as it's not something I ever looked into in detail.
This is Mamdani’s worst idea. Margins on most essential goods in grocery stores is incredibly low, sometimes it’s a loss leader. Does anyone know of any solid economic rationale for this move?
I visited Soviet Estonia in 1987, on an overnight from Helsinki. A treasured purchase was a simple stamped metal bottle opener. Even the price was stamped: 15 kopecks.
This told me that for the very simplest consumer items, they might easily be contracted out and sold at just above production cost. Consumers would be free to buy fancier bottle openers, but sometimes a hunk of stamped metal does the trick.
Likewise for many other consumer basics ? Like, a Gotham store brand ?
I wonder what the margin is on groceries and if the stores can sustain themselves by operating at cost. I also want to know how they plan to handle pricing during shortages, e.g. eggs.
I'm not opposed to this, but I'd rather have seen incentives and subsidies for local co-ops to succeed in this space. That's probably harder than it sounds, though.
The government already runs/oversees a variety of public grocery stores. Including:
- Armed forces commissaries. The op ex is subsidized by the taxpayer, but the cost of goods reflects the market wholesale price, plus a 5% fee to pay for capital goods/facilities upkeep.
- Grocery stores run by non-profits/charities. Eligible donations are a tax deduction, which represents a form of subsidy by the taxpayer. These stores are really popular in some places in the US.
- Food banks. Operate on a mix of private donations and taxpayer grants/tax receipts to some donors.
It all amounts to the same thing. The finance model is different in each case, but its all taxpayer supported no matter how you look at it.
180 comments
The municipality which has monopoly on land taxes and costs will compete with stores that must pay taxes and rent? Won’t it just cause neighboring stores to close?
Won’t a better option be subsidizing taxes for grocery stores, and let the discounts competitively pass unto the customers?
> and let the discounts competitively pass unto the customers
This is the same trickle down economics principle that has proven not to work over, and over, and over again. There's exactly zero reason to believe these businesses would pass on the savings to consumers.
Consider! Ingles (a supermarket brand here in NC) is criticized for holding huge amounts of abandoned/vacant/dilapidated properties [0], which stifles competition and lets them hold an effective monopoly and makes neighborhoods objectively worse. It's not about the taxes. Don't underestimate a chain's ability to eat costs by maintaining their market position.
[0] https://avlwatchdog.org/opinion-ingles-markets-often-raises-...
> Won’t a better option be subsidizing taxes for grocery stores, and let the discounts competitively pass unto the customers?
I'm sure this time trickle-down economics will work and not simply line the pockets of business owners
"Surveys consistently rate the commissaries as one of the military's top non-pay benefits." NYC wants to provide similar benefits for residents.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Commissary_Agency [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQOXdtPBGXI
> This sounds extremely non economically viable.
Many things government does are not economically viable. That's why they get left to government.
> Won’t it just cause neighboring stores to close?
The idea is to build these where that has already occurred.
> Won’t it just cause neighboring stores to close?
Hopefully they kept all those profits around from the time they price gouging consumers in the name of “supply chain issues”, “transitory inflation”, “bird flu” etc. I still remember all the headlines about bird flu and how egg prices were doubling because of it. Turns out the egg production barely dropped and it was all a ruse to make more money.
Also, if anyone has any reservations about a government run grocery store, go ask your representatives to come out against military commissaries. I bet you will not be able to find one active politician who will try to remove that. You know why? Because government run grocery stores work. End of story. Period. There is no discussion. You are wrong if you disagree. We do this. It exists. It works. And people love it. Try to find one politician that will end that service.
Groceries also form cartels as the other commenter mentioned. The biggest grocers in Canada did it for many years until they were penalized for it (though it’s likely still continuing in other ways - the same players are now under investigation for selling underweight meats)
The estimated cost to consumers from bread price-fixing was $4-5 billion
https://old.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1sjq9v9/mayor_zohran_m...
What we have now is the result of unfettered private control. Private companies collude to raise prices and lower wages. The standard of living in real terms has been in decline for over 50 years. Education, medical, housing and food costs continue to spiral. Where we do have publicly owned alternatives, such as with municipal broadband, those publicly-owned alternatives are always far better.
Are we going to make the same argument that EPB in Chattanooga is somehow a moral hazard and has an unfair advantage to Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Spectrum?
Let's just say that it's true that they do. Why is that a problem? Why is it good that billion or trillion dollar companies can charge higher prices than the government can so their owners can buy another mega-yacht at the expense of the people who depend on that service? Because that's what's going on now.
Do you think working families in NYC don't deserve the same monetary relief that massive corporations get with their own welfare programs? Why should trillion multinational companies take our public money to subsidize their businesses and we can't do the same for workers?
Why do you prefer helping non human entities (corporations) over literal humans?
But I’ve come around. Let’s try something new! Let’s show people that local governments in the United States really are capable of making a difference in their daily lives. If it fails, well, we tried & we’ll keep trying.
If you don't like grocery stores gamifying or selling junk, regulate those aspects. Or put the taxpayer money towards something useful like building public housing.
I just hope they properly track and monitor the outcomes and foster honest/open feedback. The gov't loves to throw money at problems, but never really does much to analyze, pivot, or admit when something doesn't work because that just gives the opposition ammo.
The Secret Life of Groceries: The Dark Miracle of the American Supermarket by Benjamin Lorr, and
Grocery: The Buying and Selling of Food in America by Michael Ruhlman
Extremely insightful about how much it cost to run a grocery store, where profits go, who the food suppliers really are, etc. Very eyeopening.
> “Some will insist that city-owned businesses do not work, that government cannot keep up with corporations. My answer to them is simple: I look forward to the competition. May the most affordable grocery store win,” Mamdani said.
Well it's interesting enough to try. Are they going to keep the stores open at a loss, that's not really competing then, is it?
If they sell things that are much cheaper, restaurants could start sourcing their food from there, too. Why get your chicken from some supplier if you can buy it from a cheaper government run store at much less.
But then, if these stores are not run at a loss, it means somehow there is this large inefficiency that other stores haven't tapped into. And if I had to guess, grocery stores don't seem like a large margin business, but perhaps that's just my ignorance as it's not something I ever looked into in detail.
This told me that for the very simplest consumer items, they might easily be contracted out and sold at just above production cost. Consumers would be free to buy fancier bottle openers, but sometimes a hunk of stamped metal does the trick.
Likewise for many other consumer basics ? Like, a Gotham store brand ?
- Armed forces commissaries. The op ex is subsidized by the taxpayer, but the cost of goods reflects the market wholesale price, plus a 5% fee to pay for capital goods/facilities upkeep.
- Grocery stores run by non-profits/charities. Eligible donations are a tax deduction, which represents a form of subsidy by the taxpayer. These stores are really popular in some places in the US.
- Food banks. Operate on a mix of private donations and taxpayer grants/tax receipts to some donors.
It all amounts to the same thing. The finance model is different in each case, but its all taxpayer supported no matter how you look at it.