The mayor’s office says it would be the first major U.S. city to enact such a plan.
Since the pandemic I’ve been working from home and that gives me time to take food-shopping off of my wife’s share of the household work. I noticed pretty quickly that every supermarket under the Kroger group was gouging on prices, so when they acquired Safeway I discovered there’s a WinCo in my town. (WinCo is employee owned, has the feel of a warehouse/bulk store, and it beats Kroger/Walmart/Amazon/GoodFoodHoldings stores on price, by a lot. Plus, the employees don’t have the energy of beaten animals and that matters to me for some reason.)
Good on Chicago doing this but there are already alternatives to Walmart and Whole Foods in some places if you look.
WinCo is legit. The bulk section alone makes going in there worth it. Need oregano? You can pay $5.99 for the jar at Kroger (in my area, Fred Meyer) or you can go to the bulk section of WinCo and pay $0.37.*
* Numbers not exact, but it is literally that drastic a difference.
you can go to the bulk section
Yeah. I got a bunch of resealable/airtight bulk containers and will probably never buy spices in those little 2oz shaker-jars again. My pantry is a small store by itself now, it feels better to get like a pound of a spice for $7 than it does to buy 2 ounces at a time for $7- and all those trips I don’t have to make to get a spice I just ran out of is totally worth it- my restocking trip is… from kitchen to pantry, takes seconds.
in some places
That’s an important caveat.
Eh, where I live the employee-owned grocery store is of lower quality and higher priced than Walmart.
I went in expecting more, was sorely disappointed and left without buying anything.
It’s essentially the same products in a worse store for a higher price.
I know a lot of people like to beat the ‘employee-owned’ drum, but unless that translates to lower prices or better quality, I don’t see a reason for customers to subscribe to it.
I agree. At the end of the day it’s a business. But if two companies offer similar products go with the employee owned company.
The main thing about is decision making structure. Because employee or community owned stores are owned by the users. It means the end users have power over what is offered. As opposed to big box in which case it is non local non user shareholders.
But if two companies offer similar products go with the employee owned company.
Completely ignored my point about lower quality and higher prices.
It means the end users have power over what is offered.
What do you mean? The employees or the customers? I don’t really care if the employees have the power. That just moves who’s trying to take advantage of me.
As opposed to big box in which case it is non local non user shareholders.
It also doesn’t matter if they’re local.
What matters is if they give me a better deal. If they can’t do that, I will go with someone who will.
I almost completely agree with your first and last points. I was trying to say if they provide the same product at the same quality and price try to prefer the co-operative. I say similar because, personally I’d give some leeway to the co-op. But there are limits and co-ops are businesses and if they give sub par products and services than we shouldn’t buy from them.
The power is held by the owners. If it’s a consumer co-operative it is controlled by the consumer and a worker cooperative is owned by the workers. So the end users of products or the ones who have jobs. It depends on how it’s structured.
I somewhat agree with your last point. The big thing is ownership is wealth and control. If you control your store you get to chose the available options if someone else owns it it means someone else has control. So I’d rather I have control over it. Again with the previous thing. If someone else can do it sooo much better than I than I should someone’s product.
But we have to be careful because you can lead to the problem with data and big tech. I use an alternative to Google Cloud that is a cooperative but I have to pay. But with Google I don’t pay but loose my privacy. In that instance you have to determine what’s more important, given what I need it for is comparable to what I need what is important and I chose ownership and privacy over having neither of those.
Food, shelter, water, power shouldn’t he for profit.
Medicine, education…
Holy shit…what have the Romans ever done for us?
And the aquaducts!
I’ll toss in that I’m fine with the luxurious versions of those things being for profit where it applies. But that’s the rub, the ruling class is probably going to define anything past a cardboard box and gruel as “luxury.”
Anyone else remember government cheese?
That melty golden-orange loaf of processed cheese product. 🧀 We call it Velveeta now.
Not me, but Im not American.
I’m more than positive that food deserted areas could not afford Whole Paycheck and Walmart is never the solution. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If its successful then I forsee this being used in more than just Chicago.
Should just empower a local resident to build a local mom and pop grocery store. Subsidize them so they can compete against the larger chains if you have to, but that’s how it used to be done and can still be done. Eventually they probably wouldn’t need the subsidies because they’re going to focus on what they can sell. They might not have the selection of a big chain, but if they aren’t needing to compete with a billion dollar company that operates at a loss to drive them out of business, they’ll do ok.
Should just empower a local resident to build a local mom and pop grocery store.
The fundamental cause of every problem in the US always comes down to the zoning code. Every. Single. Time.
You know why those mom and pop grocery stores don’t exist? Because in most cases, they’re not allowed to because corner stores in residential areas were outlawed 75 years ago. Also, even when they are allowed to exist, the real reason they can’t compete is because the zoning code forces car-dependency in a whole bunch of other ways, which (figuratively and literally) drives consolidation into big-box stores with gigantic parking lots.
Why give a private entity money when you can just do it publicly? And in the process not sell only what’s profitable rather than what provides good health to residents. The existing mini-marts and what not are selling what’s profitable (non-perishable processed food).
The Post Office is a good example of how much easier it is to just run it publicly. The Post Office literally generates revenue, whereas subsidizing a private entity to do the same would be just throwing tax dollars down the drain with little return.
It should be used everywhere because capitalism fucking sucks.
Those stores left because of crime. Instead of fixing the root cause of major social issues, their Band-Aid is taxpayer funded stores? Why not just skip the middle man and send food to people directly? Or just set up taxpayer funded food banks. That’s effectively what these “stores” will turn into anyway. This just seems like performative nonsense, not intended to solve anything.
Is it “performative nonsense” because it’s Chicago, or was this city in Florida doing it years ago and this one in Kansas also “performative nonsense,” too?
Why do you think these examples are analogous? The stores in the towns described in the articles you linked didn’t shut down because of poverty or crime. In the examples you provided, collective supermarkets seem to be a good fit. Contrast this with the Chicago mayor, who cites poverty. If people can’t afford food anyway, and the business is going to face sky high theft, the plan doesn’t make sense. Cut out the middle man and just send poor people food. It would cost far less than trying to set up supermarkets from scratch and running them at a loss in perpetuity. Plus it means helping poor people, rather than forcing them to shop lift if they’re hungry.
If the stores are government run, there is no profit motive. That means lower prices, which means more accessibility for the people who need it.
And who will be sending poor people food? Let me guess, we need to leave it up to churches and charities? Lol
Look at you tripping over yourself to lick the boot. Sad.
If the stores are government run, there is no profit motive. That means lower prices, which means more accessibility for the people who need it.
If these stores are going to be run at a loss anyway, why waste enormous sums of money on premises and other costs when they could just start food banks and give people the food directly? Or, as I suggest above, the government could send people food directly.
I’m suggesting that we give people free food and I’m the boot licker? Okay Bezos.
No, you’re just pushing the tired old, “religious groups and charities should be feeding people, leave the government out of it” bullshit. It doesn’t work.
No, you’re just pushing the tired old, “religious groups and charities should be feeding people, leave the government out of it”
I’m literally saying the government should give people free food. You’re arguing with a straw man.
you’re pushing the tired old… “leave the government out of it” bullshit.
They literally said government was the solution in the message above yours. Regardless of the merits of @JasSmith@kbin.social 's argument, you’ve mischaracterised what they’ve said and that isn’t fair or productive for discussion.
why waste enormous sums of money on premises and other costs when they could just start food banks
This runs into the problem of charity out-competing potential business ventures. Government subsidized private groceries, or public-private partnerships or just plain government run grocery stores can alleviate the problem of a food desert while still bringing the benefits of an active business to the area. The local government can increase or reduce its investment as needed, and it doesn’t create a service that inherently can’t be competed with by private business in a space that’s already unprofitable/too risky to operate a business within
This runs into the problem of charity out-competing potential business ventures.
But this is moot as the city is planning to run loss-making stores where private stores are non-viable. There is no risk of outcompeting businesses which aren’t even there. And if there is a concern of outcompeting private stores, running stores offering cheaper products than any private store could do so in the area would destroy those businesses just as effectively.
The decision has been made to entirely sacrifice any pretence of private enterprise in the supermarket space in certain areas in Chicago. I’m merely arguing that, given this decision, there are more effectively ways to use public funds.
Lack of shopping opportunities and an inability to pay for food are two separate things. They may often co-occur, but just sending food too poor people doesn’t solve food deserts.
And separately from that, poor people deserve to be able to look at their produce, buy stuff last minute, or browse and buy what strikes their fancy too. All the reasons everyone else uses supermarkets should be available to poor people as well.
Those stores left because of crime
Not always…
For decades now developers have been buying commercial property and shutting down the business. This makes the area less desirable and lowers residential prices
When those are “low enough” developers buy them up
The next step is usually getting tax money to “redevelop” the area and then they’ll reopen businesses and sell the residential at a high markup as an “up and coming neighborhood”. It’s just a money shuffle that hurts the majority of Americans and funnels wealth to the wealthy.
It’s weird people still don’t understand this…
Do you have some examples? IMHO, few shareholders are willing to weather decades of losses like that in the hope that one day their investment pays off. I’m not buying it. No one buys property and then intentionally devalues it.
Hmm… products and services still cost the same but now there are less people in the chain to make a profit.
Sounds like a win-win for me.
If there are less people In the chain, shouldn’t everything cost less?
That’s what they’re saying. Wholesale price is the same, retail should go down due to less people in the chain.
They just phrased it poorly.
you would think so
I was referring to the overall cost of products, like what the businesses pay to bring them to market.
Yes, things should cost less for customers because businesses are making less profit.
He’s going to find our real quick why those stores left in the first place
Wal-mart regularly closes stores that try to unionize.
Whole Foods is a division of Amazon, and their store decisions generally float around hurting labor until labor gets fed up.
But that is only the pattern that both of those employers have shown repeatedly for years now so maybe I am prejudice against companies owned by multibillionaires.
It sounds like you do have a prejudice against those store chains. Those stores were closed because there was an insanely stupid amount of theft.
Source?
Their official statements etc. The one in Chicago hadn’t been turning a profit for 18 years due to theft.
Now show me the investor reports where they say the same thing, if you can find them
Go look for em yourself lol. You don’t mean shit to me I’m not doing anything for you
Look at my link dump elsewhere here where people did in fact check. Tldr they’re lying
So you think they went “hey it’s only been 10 years, this theft problem is going to clear up any time…” ?? Change your username, you’re disgracing it.
“Theft”
You are screaming at a brick wall. Assume everyone you talk to here is a tankie or at least a commie.
I always try to forgo people’s political stance and just debate them on issues as humans. Sucks that these particular humans ignore everything that doesn’t fit their agenda and they all have no fucking responsibility and claim innocence and blame everyone else. It’s pathetic.
If you actually debated people as humans maybe you’d have some empathy for the common people affected by this issue rather than bootlicking
Not selling something is usually less profitable than selling something, it’s not bootlicking to say there may be a reason so many stores closed.
Americans going to the government owned post office that isn’t profitable: Wow, I sure am glad that there is a way for me to send and receive mail, it’s a service everyone needs.
Americans considering the government opening a grocery store that might not be profitable: This is totally unsustainable and there is too much stealing for this to exist. People do not deserve access to a conveniently located grocery store.
I’m not sure where I said that 🤷♂️
Implying that a government opening a grocery store in an area because companies closed thiers being some sort of extremist commie take when the government already does this with things like libraries and postal offices and nobody bats an eye.
The topic at hand is socialism. You should understand the difference.
A lot of people do critize USPS, several years ago Republicans tried to privatize it but there was heavy push back. It’s not exactly hypocritical here.
https://reddthat.com/post/4806295
Show some data
A sav-a-lot even tried to open and they protested because it wasn’t good enough for them.
That’s fucking funny
Why?
Because of the exorbitant amount of theft at those locations.
Bullshit. Those large stores come in to an area and drive out local competition, then when they don’t make the % to keep the shareholders happy they fold up and leave. Mom and pop shops are the backbone of communities and these pricks destroy that.
Does high crime in an area mean that people shouldn’t have access to stores that sell food?
Excellent point. If stealing is what keeps people fed, then the taxes that keep that store open are worth it. But also I think the reported rates of theft are wildly overstated, here in Australia we had our two largest stores basically admit they made up the whole “epidemic” so they’d have an excuse to raise prices.
It’s usually just an excuse over in the US, too.
“Crime is fine so dw about working we’ll just pay more taxes!”
Fucking stupid take.
If businesses are operating at a loss they cannot sustainably remain open.
Do you believe every USPS office is profitable? No, many are not, but people need access to mail. Roads don’t generate a profit either. Government services shouldn’t need to be profitable.
Sorry guys, this grocery store isn’t profitable, guess you don’t really need access to food
It’s almost like we should care more about people instead of profits
Cute strawman
They definitely seemed to be implying the city shouldn’t do this in their top post, so no, not a straw man.
Since when is the city in charge of businesses moving?
I keep hearing this excuse but I’ve yet to see any actual numbers or data to prove this.
Have you looked?
You made the claim, you provide the evidence to back that claim.
This is the e real reason, I don’t get why you’re being downvoted.
Because Stores say shoplifting is a national crisis. The numbers don’t back it up. The surge in theft is mostly just made up, and what isn’t made up is kind of an irrelevantly small number.
Stores expanded too much and then got hit by the pandemic, a tight labor market, and changes in buying patterns. Those sort of things have a lot larger impact on their profitability than whether shrink was 1.6% or 1.4%.
It’s capitalism…
If they admit they overreached, it will hurt stock prices and their bonuses.
So they blame crime, knowing a significant amount of the population will go along with it because it’s victim blaming and psychologically that makes people think it can’t ever effect themselves.
I dont know why else people would take Walmart PR as gospel
The average shrink rate says nothing about a single store or single area’s shrink rate.
Some stores are higher than 1.4%, but it’s still in the low end of single digits, not like 15%. Raising prices a couple percent to compensate wouldn’t even be noticed.
Does shrink include the cost of security, security measures, vandalism or injured employees? You have this one thing you think describes the whole thing and the reality is you’ve chosen your bad guy and you’re going to confirmation bias yourself there.
Because wehh corporations wehh mom and pop shop (which they don’t go to because it’s inconvient) bla bla poor people. People like thinking they have a deeper understanding of something even if it’s objectively not true because it makes them feel intelligent, no matter how stupid it makes then look. The reason these stores closed is really simple, crime in low income areas caused these stores to not be profitable or simply not worth the endless hassle. I don’t even get why they’re mad though, they cry about mom and pop shops and when the large corporations leave and there is all the space for them they get mad the large corporations left. Idiotic.
So I’d like to chime in here as someone who lives in a low income food desert. The food desert isn’t because of theft. In fact, many chains have tried to open up here over the decades. The city government is so hostile towards them though, that these stores don’t even get to the opening stages. The city wants to charge these stores exorbitant fees for no reason. Charge 10x as much for electricity than the town with a smaller population 15minutes away. Is this everywhere, no, but it is in more places than you’d think.
Let me guess, your response to that would be “Well just vote those people out! It’s your fault for keeping them in there!” And my response to that is, vote them out and replace them with who? No one has run against these people since they were first elected into office in the 1960’s. Oh sure we’ve tried to get people to turn against them, but they’ve stacked the system so it’s damn near impossible. The only thing we can do is wait until they die, which doesn’t seem to be any time soon.
You remind me of this guy I’ve debated with who had this outlandish claim that “If CEO’s are paid less, then they’d work less.” But there’s no actual proof to that, and trust me, he looked. He then went on to say he’d rather be paid in company stock than cash. Like he’d legit forego minimum wage to be paid in 100% stock.
So I’m going to say the same thing to you that I’ve said to him. You’ve been all up and down this thread blaming theft as the reason why food deserts are a thing, can you provide nonbiased studies proving that?
Sounds like a load of bullshit excuses to me.
Sounds like you can’t find anything to back your bullshit up.
Main streets with Mom and Pop stores are really nice. It seems like you’d get more soul from than a government store. But I don’t know how you would incentive then sufficiently, as it’s really tough to run a small storefront when competing with online.
The real problem is that we fucked over main streets 75 years ago with deliberately car-dependent zoning policies and massive subsidies for car infrastructure. Now all we’re allowed by law to build are shitty stroads with big-box stores.
Grocery stores are still largely an offline business. Industry sales dropped from 65B during civic peak to 40b after COVID. Also I very much doubt the prime affected by this were going to be paying the 20% markup that it costs to use those services. Finally most of those services are really just white label instacart and the store does not need to invest anything substantial if they wanted to offer those services.
Problem with mom and pop stores is the owners are still operating to maximize profit.
This intrinsically involves giving the least while charging the most. They’re going to be screwing everyone over as much as they can, while hiding behind the ‘mom and pop’ shield.
Small town in Kentucky did a similar thing with a municipally ran gas station.
Removed by mod
Healthy food ftw!
It’s funny how the solutions for the failures of capitalism often end up looking just like socialism
There are less than 6500 food deserts in the country. Having access to cheap healthy food is available to the vast majority of people living in the US. We’re talking edge cases, capitalism has been quite successful with the food supply chain here.
Do you think 6500 is a low number? It’s not like each food desert affects only one person each. More likely than not, each is affecting more than a thousand people. Especially in a population dense area like Chicago. We are talking millions of people living in food deserts.
Also, after reading a bunch of your comments, I’m not sure you are fully aware of what a food desert is. But hey, that’s Capitalism.
About 5% of the population. Whereas the rest enjoy the best supermarkets on the planet. This should be about fixing the edge cases, not trying to pretend we don’t have amazing choice and wealth in food for the vast majority.
So you’re talking about “edge cases” and also claiming it effects over 17 million Americans. That’s a lot of human suffering.
We should strive to improve. But the modern food system which is overwhelmingly capitalist has produced the most food secure system to the most people ever. Calling it a failure over 5%, especially without context and scope is foolish.
The modern food system is not capitalist. We extensively subsidize farming, so that farmers will produce excesses despite a lack of corresponding market demand. This socially-funded excessive production is the foundation of our food security.
Capitalism does not produce such a system. Capitalism sees production in excess of actual demand as wasteful, and seeks to eliminate it.
We subsidize farmers, so we don’t have a famine. Has nothing to do with it being socially funded.
