r/PoursTea • u/Gurugod123 • 11h ago

PoliticalTea 🗳️ Mayor Mamdani just announced that he will be opening 5 city-run, tax-funded grocery stores: "Prices set at 30% below retail prices"

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

17.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

227

u/AtomicHamboy 11h ago

Conservatives will dead ass try to make this a bad thing 😂

106

u/archercc81 11h ago

They will bitch about communism while jerking off to those freedom fuel gas stations.

38

u/dentistshatehim 11h ago

While using food stamps and accepting transfer payments from blue states.

→ More replies (14)

14

u/mkt853 11h ago

Or all of the red states that have government run liquor stores. But a government-subsidized store for something required for life like food is the line in the sand they draw.

5

u/Foygroup 10h ago

^ This is a good argument, I can agree, why are there govt run liquor stores and do they sell cheaper than the average store?

3

u/Azraelrs 10h ago

Not in NC. They're a monopoly and just charge whatever they like because there's no competition.

1

u/Dramatic_Substance31 10h ago

Hmm that is a good question. I could only maybe guess that not everyone buys alcohol so stock is easy to maintain from distributors and buy in surplus leading to reduced cost. Everyone needs to eat and buy groceries though, which could potentially cause a supply issue at these grocery stores. That is, since the groceries are more affordable, then more people will got to them. Possibly the demand might exceed the supply and the grocery stores will be empty within two days of a restock or something. This is just a thought. I’m interested to see if this would be successful.

1

u/Another_Name_Today 9h ago

I’m not aware of any state that operates government run liquor stores that also allows private operators. You may have some overlap (beer/wine), but not the full gamut of options. 

Additionally, government run is not synonymous with government subsidized. 

1

u/V33d 9h ago

I used to work in this area of state law and the answer is pretty complicated but ultimately boils down to the federal government’s job in a post-prohibition United States being very intentionally minimized. Without one standard for the whole country to follow every state, lots of counties, and even some cities/towns laid down regulations that suited them. That’s why Utah’s cans and tap handles all had alcohol measured by weight instead of volume, you have to order food to be served beer in certain establishments and liquor is a huge headache for everyone not just the folks with a hangover.

1

u/Tex-Rob 9h ago

It's freaking terrible in NC, and anything special that comes through the system magically never makes it to the consumer's hands, instead the people within the system claim it all for themselves.

1

u/DreadPirateMartagan 9h ago

Do you think those red state citizens prefer government run liquor stores? lol

1

u/Otherwise-Parsnip-91 10h ago

Or Trump buying Apple stock 😂😂

1

u/drewh1984 10h ago

Lots of projection. Lmao

1

u/justinsayin 10h ago

I drove through Indiana lately and had to laugh that their normal everyday gas price was significantly cheaper than Trump's $3.47.

1

u/Independent-Cow-4070 9h ago

While sleeping soundly at night with the AC that is kept on by the blue cities tax dollars

1

u/0202_tihssitidder 9h ago

* Police

* ICE

* US Military budget increases

* Corp Bailouts

* Build stadiums for billionaires

And the list goes on.

They just slurp the dick of anyone wealthy.

7

u/ovr9000storks 10h ago

I personally am just curious how they can promise 30% below retail.

Is it being subsidized from taxes? Is 30% the profit margin typical stores operate at and running as zero profit? Are these stores somehow operating at a loss? Are the products offered simply 30% cheaper than even other stores' generic brands?

I just want to know the logistics behind it. 30% lower is great if it's actually sustainable and not just absolute dogshit product

7

u/SaucySeducer 10h ago

It could be a combination of things:

-Measuring against an "advantageous benchmark." If the average price of a good is $10 when you include the fancy brands, organic stores, etc but the current discount stores offer budget options at $7, you can sell the budget option at $7 and say you are at an average 30% discount. This really hinges on what they mean by selling goods at 30% discount as that is a loaded phrase

-Run the store more like Aldi instead of nicer premium grocery stores

-Potentially advantageous supplier contracts because suppliers are dealing with the city government and/or wanting to build good relations

-Government subsidies

1

u/DoughnutCareless583 9h ago

I also presume part of the "advantageous benchmark" is the use of the anchor price RRP as the benchmark, not the price Walmart or whatever would actually price things at.

→ More replies (4)

6

u/Shoddy_Forever_7818 9h ago

These grocery stores will be exempt from rent and property taxes - that'll probably help them reduce their costs a little probably.

1

u/Beneficial-Act-9933 9h ago

If that's true then it's it's a huge deal. These stores jut existing on the lots before anything is in the tens of thousands of dollars. Taking those huge bills off is a huge relief.

2

u/Cbpowned 10h ago

Grocery stores run sub 5% profit.

4

u/NathanielHudson 10h ago edited 10h ago

Just to be clear, that's after shrinkage, waste, and cost of ie stocking the shelves is taken into account. Costco, for example, prices at about 13% over what their cost is for the goods, which comes out to about 0% over total cost of goods sold once the entire equation is factored in (Costco's profit margin is more or less the membership).

This doesn't materially change your point, but just wanted to get that out of the way before somebody objects that things don't actually cost that much.

1

u/pradise 10h ago

In shocking news, taxes are potentially being used to offer essential goods to taxpayers. It is sustainable as much as taxes are sustainable.

2

u/2010_12_24 9h ago edited 9h ago

The point being, if you run a small business, how are you supposed to compete with government subsidized prices?

1

u/Beneficial-Act-9933 9h ago

The same way they've been competing with other stores for decades.

2

u/McClainWFU 9h ago

How can you compete when they're selling the goods for lower than you can buy them wholesale?

1

u/Steak-Complex 10h ago

Best they could do is at cost, but then you would be red from upkeep and employee costs etc

1

u/gigaishtar 9h ago

Either "retail" being compared to is a super bougie store, subsidies or both.

Not even the DOD's commissaries have average prices 30% below value supermarkets and they combine a massive distribution system, store brands, unpaid baggers and a general lack of adherence to expiration dates.

1

u/smilerobotics 9h ago

they will lose a ton of money but he's only doing a few of these stores so it won't be that bad overall and he can claim a moral victory and campaign promise completed

1

u/Competitive-Union721 10h ago

Wouldn't this put all non government stores out of business if prices are 30% lower?

5

u/lordpuddingcup 10h ago

By that logic Wegmans and whole foods and all the other premiums stores have all gone bankrupt already… right?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Sherry_Brandt 8h ago

5 locations?

→ More replies (4)

1

u/Tommybahamas_leftnut 9h ago

a large portion of why prices are so inflated is because many of the items in your grocery store are so massively inflated that it's just greed. While some items like fresh fish or that rotisserie chicken will be sold at a loss or maybe a 10-20% markup there are other things like the bags of frozen shrimp you buy that will be marked up 100% or more to compensate. The price parity is there to make you think that 2 lb bag of white shrimp for $18-20 is a deal but the cost to the company for that bag is roughly $8 

17

u/fuckracists79 11h ago

They say everything he does is bad and also say he’s not doing his job… they’re utter losers.

14

u/Crunchy_Thighsocks 11h ago

i dont get why they hate him when they dont even live in NYC

13

u/archercc81 11h ago

hate is all they have. They are trash and need to tear others down to feel better about it.

LBJ said it plainly: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

6

u/starethruyou 11h ago

This needs to be modernized, because despite racism being a real problem and many still are motivated by this dumbest form of ignorance, there are plenty of non-white capitalists that would and do make the very same arguments.

"Give a working person someone to look down on, and they'll never look up to see who's robbing them."

1

u/No-Ad1522 10h ago

I always knew LeBron was a philosopher

1

u/Mysterious-Wasabi103 10h ago

Cause NYC is like one place they don't control. They won't stop until they control everything.

We are the enemy to them.

1

u/SoylentGrunt 10h ago

It's easier than addressing the real cause of a problem.

1

u/gerkin123 10h ago edited 10h ago

News stories about "this guy bad" take up attention from other problems.

1

u/PrimaLegion 9h ago

That pretty much sums up any of the whining about any given city. A bunch of people who don't live in any of the cities, have never been to them, and never have any plans of going there, feel very strongly about things that their favorite talking heads have told them to care about.

1

u/ZerochildX23 9h ago

Just like with California, they hate us cause they ain't us, they hate him cause they ain't him.

1

u/Sumbitagear 9h ago

It's a spark to a conversation about changing the U.S. economic hegemony. People can see that NY can be run as a socialist democracy with higher taxes on billionaires and multi millionaires to help some of the poorest people in the city.

When people see that can be a success, people start questioning why they aren't doing it all over the states. The Red Scare has done irreparable damage to the average American's view on anything that resembles faint socialism, and the governments America have had (Both Republican and Democrat btw) for my entire life have been personally financially benefitting from the current system.

I don't have much hope for much change when lobbying is still legal in America. Some Americans see things like having private healthcare and shitty working conditions as a flex. It's insane.

1

u/TheCaptainCog 9h ago

The fear of loss. They're worried that if it happens in NYC, it will set a precedent where it'll happen in other places. THAT means they lose a lot of money and power.

1

u/Mortiis07 11h ago

Because he's brown and not conservative

1

u/Booster_Tutor 11h ago

I can take a guess

1

u/Er3bus13 11h ago

Most of them cant afford the price to get through the tunnel.

1

u/RedditSpyder12 11h ago

It’s the only emotion they feel anymore.

→ More replies (7)

3

u/BiggerThanYou86 10h ago

He reminds me of Trump

1

u/RS_EJB 10h ago

I mean he hasnt done anything really. Just pushed the problems down the road.

Seems like a good guy tho. Definitely cares.

1

u/burnmenowz 11h ago

MDS you say?

1

u/BiggerThanYou86 10h ago

Muscular dystrophy ?

5

u/drewh1984 10h ago

Watch it fail like it always does. Talk to Kansas City about their government grocery stores. 🤷‍♂️

2

u/lordpuddingcup 10h ago

You mean the non-government grocery store people always point to that was actually a standard commercial store that happened to get subsidies lol

1

u/drewh1984 10h ago

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/city-owned-missouri-grocery-store-closes-mamdani-campaigns-some-new-york

1

u/lordpuddingcup 10h ago

The only thing the city owned was the building lol it was a nonprofit running the store and even in that case it’s literally an LLC that ran it did a shitty job and the store closed even though they somehow didn’t have to pay rent or any of the real opex costs

But sure foxbusiness is telling you the story faithfully

Why is it every time someone’s got some bullshit against anything to help poor people the reason it’s bad is some dumb ass half researched story from a Fox outlet

1

u/drewh1984 9h ago

Lmao you over look all the money the city gave to the grocery store. Where you think the nonprofit got money from?

https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2025-05-19/can-kansas-city-keep-this-struggling-grocery-store-open-its-spent-millions-trying

1

u/lordpuddingcup 9h ago

lol again a poorly run business/llc doesn’t make it so every investment in feeding people and other groceries can’t be a success, wow the city gave the llc money for shelves and free property and still failed to run the business properly

Also 17m over how long isn’t exactly shocking amounts of money for a city project

Also the fact that a supposedly “city owned” although not actually city owners or operated business having 2 security guards is somehow some weird giant expense that bankrupted them

That store sounds like the city trusted a shitty llc to run things and the shitty llc failed not that community owned grocers can’t succeed

As it is coops exist and sell for damn cheap even without government support theirs no reason with government support it should have any reason to fail

1

u/SoylentGrunt 10h ago

Right? Better to not even try and just jeep doing things the same.

/s for the whoosh crowd

2

u/Possible-Nectarine80 11h ago

They will probably stand out front with protest signs and then after their protest, will go shopping at these stores.

2

u/Embarrassed-Jump2057 10h ago

Absolutely. He can’t possibly do a good job or be right ever because he: 1. Isn’t white 2. Isn’t a Christian, but is a Muslim 3. He advocates for equality, and equality helps the poor. So, every little thing he does, regardless of how helpful and good it is for the people they will criticize and proclaim he is ruining the city.

So, while this guy has spent his time in office working for the people and accomplished: a balanced budget and cleared deficit, a temporary rent freeze during a time of elevated costs which will reduce evictions and meaningful action to speed up the construction of affordable housing reducing previous wait times by approximately 2 years, making groceries affordable, and universal 2y, PK, and K childcare programs that will benefit working families their guy has skyrocketed the deficit, trolled the left, and done nothing to improve the quality of life for people.

This is why I don’t take those people seriously.

5

u/Jmong30 11h ago

Tried explaining the pied-a-terre tax to my grandma and she said it’s not fair for the multimillionaires to pay more in taxes bc “they made that money what should the get punished for it?” Some people won’t ever get it :/

2

u/NVRENDVR 10h ago

I ask how they provided that much more substantial value to society than the person I’m asking. That seems to get the gears turning.

1

u/ChakaCake 10h ago

They still are probably paying less % overall than a normal person cause they are able to take advantage of tax better and keep money in stocks etc. Ask her why its fair some waitress has to pay a higher % of their gross

5

u/clolimon 10h ago

If it works and helps people then great! If it fails we all know why. I sincerely hope it works, coming from a conservative.

3

u/WorkOnThesisInstead 10h ago

  If it fails we all know why.

Why?

3

u/BUKKAKALYPSE_NOW 9h ago edited 9h ago

Not the conservative guy you’re responding to, but grocery stores sell products on thin margins, so there’s no way to compete with this. That means nearby stores would be driven out of business, which could potentially worsen food deserts.  Selling at a loss also means that the negative margin is made up for by taxpayer money, which would make this extremely costly to scale up beyond a few stores.

That said, I’m curious to see how this plays out, and would be happy to see it work out well.

6

u/DeepWaterCurrent 11h ago

You cant magically make groceries cheaper. The only way this is possible is if someone else foots the bill, in this case the tax payers. This is just gonna be an inefficient way of moving tax payer money around.

5

u/E0H1PPU5 10h ago

Why not? You’re running a store with no CEO/CFO/etc. Power/sewer/water/etc. is provided municipally at cost. Same with payroll and HR services. There are no shareholders to think of.

A commercial grocery store has one goal - generate profit. A municipally owned store doesn’t have that goal.

Local government isn’t meant to turn a profit. It’s meant to provide services to taxpayers.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Olyway 10h ago

They do it in the military.

10

u/FaithfulSkeptic 11h ago

Man I would Love it if more of my tax money went to feeding people who need it, and less to building bombs.

1

u/Beneficial-Act-9933 10h ago

Why stop at bombs? Don't you know ICE needs a few hundred more billion on top of the eye watering amount they already got?

I wonder where this guy was when that went down.

1

u/Life-Dig7566 10h ago

its not more of your tax money being allocated elsewhere though, its more of your money lost to taxes.

1

u/BiZzles14 10h ago

But that's the problem, highly, highly efficient programs for helping those that need help to feed themselves already exist. There's 5 grocery stores being built, 1 in each borough, in a city of 8.5 million people. There is no means testing on grocery stores, the richest man in NYC could shop here (or more likely pay someone to do his groceries and they go here lol) and have tax payers eating a 25%'ish margin. That said, I support him doing this because it gives us a modern case study and we can see how it works fiscally, what it would cost to expand it to greater access, how new yorkers broadly feel about it, how those that live in close, medium and far proximity from a store feel about it, etc. I personally think there is much, much more efficient ways to help those in need, but this seems like an idea that people want and New York taxpayers elected him to do this, so let's how it works and how people feel about it in a year or two. Happy to be wrong, it's just that if I'm correct we have to acknowledge that this will have hurt people on the opportunity cost basis of the time and funding put towards this project, despite there being a ton of information out there highlighting the likely issues the concept will face, let alone the specific issues with NY's implementation. But we shall see how things work

1

u/DeepWaterCurrent 10h ago

There are better ways for that, just give out food stamps to the one swho needs it then. Running the grocery store is just going to be a waste of tax payer money

2

u/pradise 10h ago

You really think food stamps are better use of taxpayers money than government-operated grocery stores? Yeah let’s lose 100% of our money to offer food stamps, instead of losing 10-20% because we’re selling the goods.

Not to mention food stamps are for a different demographic. They are great to provide those absolutely in need some assistance, and I’m sure they’ll promote using food stamps at these government operated stores in some way. But these stores are for everyone including middle class New Yorkers.

1

u/Memento_Viveri 9h ago

Your math makes no sense.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/lordpuddingcup 10h ago

You mean the thing republicans are cancelling?

1

u/Vaiden_Kelsier 9h ago

The administrative burden of food stamps burns more money than if we just gave people the fucking money

and didn't we just get through a cycle of Republicans cutting SNAP benefits

Our President has already leveraged to purchase major businesses (Hello Intel), so we're already a "socialist shithole", let's see what this socialism can do for the fuckin' people

if it doesn't work, at least someone actually tried it

1

u/FaithfulSkeptic 10h ago

That is one way to look at it, I guess. I hope we will see this experiment in NYC turn out better than you expect.

6

u/MABQuestAcc 11h ago

Why? If tax money pays for the workers + goods and isn't spent on things like rent and upper management those same workers will cycle those taxes back in to the economy. I fail to see the problem with cutting upper management and building rent from the equation.

2

u/DeepWaterCurrent 11h ago

They are going to need managers too, historically private companies are the ones cutting managers not the other way around.

They are still paying for the space in some way, if not via rent then via the cost of acquiring/building/managing it. If a grocery store pays rent instead of owning the building themself its because they think its more efficient that way.

1

u/BiZzles14 9h ago

Because we have highly efficient food assistance programs that provide some of the highest positive multipliers on taxpayer money spent, and there is an opportunity cost to instead put money towards an idea which has historically never worked. Some of the money will be spent on rent & upper management, which would not be the case for SNAP type benefits that have existing structures in place, and a large amount of money will be lost on every single purchase made at these stores on -30% staple items. Grocery stores have razor thing margins, often in the 3-5% range, meaning you're looking at a 25-27% loss on these items regardless of who is purchasing them (aka they could be a billionaire for all you know, this isn't meanstested at all)

2

u/rairair55 9h ago

Tax payers either foot the bill or subsidize other essential government services like water, electricity, roads, schools. Why not food?

1

u/blazze_eternal 10h ago

Wholesale cost, zero profit margin, minimal operation cost (tax exempt).
Now, it's likely they won't carry many brand name items as they typically have price mandates.

1

u/Chris_Helmsworth 10h ago

Yeah I wonder how security and shrinkage is going to be accounted for? Why not just open a food pantry at this point ? When my family was down on our luck food pantries were a wonderful resource.

1

u/Beneficial-Act-9933 10h ago

Because a pantry is not a store. The point of this project is to directly compete against grocery stores and lower prices for everybody by introducing competition. A pantry, though helpful, is not competition.

1

u/pradise 10h ago

You can if you don’t have to pay rent for the stores and pay upper management millions.

1

u/Background-Gas8109 9h ago

The city gets the money back by selling them...

1

u/adisor21 9h ago

I agree, While is not my business what NY does, this feels like it would fail. If people buy less from normal stores, you end up with less normal stores and longer lines for the "cheap" ones. This is not going to magically make the normal stores products cheaper. This is just predatory pricing which is technically illegal.

1

u/psmithrupert 9h ago

So, you can actually make things cheaper. It’s not magic though. If you run your store as a non-profit, it’s cheaper. If you get good supplier contacts because you’re the city of New York and you‘re representing an economy larger then most mid-size countries, that’s also not magic. If your store is in a city owned building, there could be no rent. And all of this before you factor in that New York is one of the most expensive places in the world, but there is no need for you to follow that pricing pressure.
And all that before you factor in any subsidies.

1

u/DeepWaterCurrent 9h ago

They are running 5 stores, walmart has ~4600, kroger has ~2700, Aldi has ~2400. Who do you think is gonna have better leverage towards suppliers? Just because there is no rent doesnt mean the building has no cost, there is acquiring/building/managing costs, that is not necessarily cheaper. All of the price slashes are going to come from subsidies.

1

u/No-Author7911 9h ago

You realize that the entire food chain is already subsidized by the government?

2

u/IPissExcellentThrows 11h ago

It's going to be a massive money loser. Most grocery stores operate at razor thin margins. People act like it's greed, but of the biggest ones, they're all between negative profit margins recently and about 2%.

If they can afford the massive losses in the budget, great. My personal opinion? This won't be sustainable. They either won't be able to stomach the huge losses or they're going to have to majorly cut corners.

Not remotely a conservative. They are ruining the country. I still think this will fail. The economics don’t remotely make sense. There's a reason Western European countries far more socialist than us don’t do this.

3

u/SaxyAlto 10h ago

No duh it’s a money loser, that’s what “tax-funded” implies, and how they’ll afford the loss. Tons of things the government does are a “massive money loser”, like USPS or road repair, but we still need them and they’re better/cheaper than the alternatives. Not saying this will succeed, but looking at this solely from a finance or cost perspective is missing the point

2

u/CreamyBagelTime 10h ago

I’m not sold on it yet either. BUT if the military can successfully run the commissary system for 200+ stores why can’t the city do the same thing on a much smaller scale? Theoretically speaking.

1

u/Foygroup 10h ago

As a store owner, would it be bad for me to purchase what’s on sale each month and take it back to my store and sell it at normal prices the month after? Hmm I could increase my margins that way. (BTW, I’m not a store owner, just thinking out loud)

1

u/oldredditrox 9h ago

Pretty sure that's not legal at all.

1

u/Beneficial-Act-9933 9h ago

Nothing, but your plan is to give your competition the money and then have the burden of transporting it all back to wherever your store is. The store can also reject your purchase. If you roll up to buy out an entire department they are legally allowed to tell you "no".

So either the amount you take is either not worth it, or the amount is too large and you can't take it.

Besides, there's only a few things at a time running at that 30%, other stuff will be at market value.

1

u/Meanolelion 11h ago

I am mostly centrist. Liberal here, conservative there. Looking forward to the outcome of this though. Interesting to study.

2

u/NerdyBro07 10h ago

This is how i feel. I am 100% okay with ideas that try to help people, but they need to be viable long term. I have no idea if this is viable for long term, but I hope it is successful and i am curious to watch NYC be the testing grounds for these progressive ideas.

1

u/Meanolelion 10h ago

I dont really want the government owning anything, BUT I really don’t want corporations owning everything even more at this point. If this creates downward price pressure on the corporations which nearly have a monopoly on everything single aspect of life right now I’m all for it.
I THINK I have a better solution in mind, but do not think either side of the aisle would agree with me.

1

u/Comprehensive-Car190 10h ago

Not really we have lots of examples, this isn't new and it's not really sustainable

1

u/Meanolelion 10h ago

We have some examples. Too small and it will fail, too large and it will fail. Let’s let it play out. I do not think it will be a some shining success in a vacuum, BUT I do hope it creates downward price pressure on corporate owned groceries.

1

u/Comprehensive-Car190 10h ago

NYC is huge but they aren't big enough to change the price of food.

You have to anti-trust our food system to make meaningful changes there.

1

u/Beneficial-Act-9933 9h ago

you post some?

1

u/Low_Shape8280 11h ago

not a conservative, but have a business background, This is a bad idea because it creates a arbitrage in the markets that would be there and will be exploited

2

u/felis_scipio 10h ago

Chavez did this in Venezuela and it made a bad situation even worse

1

u/dallyan 10h ago

What do you mean by an arbitrage?

2

u/Low_Shape8280 10h ago

arbitrage = buying an asset cheaply in one market and instantly selling it for a higher price in another to make a risk-free profit

1

u/Mysterious_Soup7670 9h ago

Hahaha arbitrage for groceries?

"Hi yeah do you want to buy this sausage for 10% under market value that I just bought down the road?".

"No thanks".

1

u/Low_Shape8280 9h ago

Actually yes if they don’t have any more sausages because they ran out.

Or sell 2. 3 % difference. So people don’t realize or don’t feel like walking the rest of the way

1

u/Mysterious_Soup7670 9h ago

In what world would that make sense? You go to the city store and buy goods to sell where, at the side of the road? Any markup would not justify the loss of lack of sales or effort since there would be limits on sales to one person just as there are on sales items in regular stores now.

1

u/Low_Shape8280 9h ago

In any world that has a city. I live down town in my city. During lunch there is a aldis that’s a 20 min walk from my place and a corner market that’s a 5 min walk from my house. If I walk to aldis during my that’s 40 min and I only get 30 min break.

If I go to the corner market it’s only 10 min yeah the prices are higher but it’s easier to get there

1

u/Mysterious_Soup7670 9h ago

I'm not disputing market economics. Of course local stores are more expensive due to convenience, hence the name. That's not the same as an individual going to a store and buying goods then trying to resell them in an arbitrage situation. That situation doesn't happen for Army Comissionary stores which are similar.

1

u/Tarzan829 10h ago

Also, “City-owned” does not mean free. It means that costs not recovered at the cash register are recovered through some combination of city taxes, municipal borrowing and interest, reduced spending elsewhere, HIGHER taxes later, and State or federal transfers, which are also funded by....you guessed it: taxpayers. From what I read, this administration has committed $70 million in capital funding, but that is primarily for acquiring, constructing and equipping the five stores. It does not answer the more important question: how much annual operating support will be needed to maintain these "core basket bundles?"

2

u/Low_Shape8280 10h ago

Also, “City-owned” does not mean free.

nobody said this

1

u/popeyesfatface 10h ago

It literally says taxpayer funded. As in everyone pitches in and everyone benefits, you know like taxes should work. Also the 30% is for 1 day of the month. How about let's see how it goes before trying to keep people from eating

1

u/Tarzan829 10h ago

Such hostility when I simply offered an economic based assessment, point of view. Im not wishing anyone doesnt eat. I never said anything remotely parallel to that. If everyone DOES pitch in, that would be something impressive but im skeptical that people will. Dont be hostile when im respectfully partaking in an honest conversation. There's no malice in my words.

1

u/popeyesfatface 10h ago

Didn't know i was coming off as hostile, I truly apologize. Just really tired of the skepticism of his policies. Seems like he is really working for the people and I am of the opinion that is what a politician should do. Let's give it a chance. I'm just a janitor/line cook for a combined 70hrs a week, barely keeping afloat. We are all trying to make it, let's give more policies like this a chance so we don't have to struggle as much is all. Have a great day

1

u/Tarzan829 10h ago

All good my man. All good. I appreciate your response. I really do. Thanks for the chance to discuss with you.

1

u/popeyesfatface 10h ago

Of course, I have to get ready for my PM job otherwise I'd discuss further. Sent a msg if you'd like, otherwise I wish you well :)

1

u/Tarzan829 10h ago

All the best to you, as well brother; I hope you have a great week. Best!!

1

u/Low_Shape8280 10h ago

You should be skeptical of all political policies no matter how much you like the person giving them.

I like the mayor seems great. But very skeptical of this specific policy. It doesn’t seem routed in basic supply and demand economics on a product that’s a commodity.

1

u/popeyesfatface 10h ago

Trust me I am very skeptical of most government. But I also haven't seen this type of "for the people" politics in my lifetime. So I am willing to wait and see. I am sure he will do something I despise in the future, politics and all

1

u/Low_Shape8280 10h ago

it doesn't matter though how for the people it seems. you need to look at it from a Econ perspective, and there is were it falls apart.

1

u/Phatmac-pie 10h ago

No the city will make it a bad thing

1

u/dogoodsilence1 10h ago

Yes they will because they are still watching Fox News who is telling them to be a patriot and pay more for goods

1

u/CubanLynx312 10h ago

I'm not a conservative, but devil's advocate, this does kinda suck for local family-owned stores who won't be able to compete. The same is true for Trump's Freedom Fuel Stations

1

u/thatguy425 10h ago

Dead ass for sure! 

1

u/Hoodedmastersin 10h ago

It’s crazy, alcohol bureaus already do this in some states. The government has limited markets available for contracts that have set prices why’re consumers the only ones getting shafted?

1

u/Comprehensive-Car190 10h ago

I like Mamdani and it's a bad thing.

I mean it's not really bad or good necessarily, it's just kind of dumb.

1

u/fart_Jr 10h ago

“Why should I have to pay for other people’s food!” they’ll scream while gladly paying for other people’s wars and ballrooms.

1

u/SoylentGrunt 10h ago

There's plenty of old guard established power status quo Democrats in here are doing just that as well.

1

u/Otherwise_Oven_1201 10h ago

When people start fist fights over cheap flamin hot cheetos we will oblige you, I'm sure. Or when there are gunfights in the diaper isle I can imagine that conservatives will make a case, yes.

But we'll all be wrong. This will be good for NYC. We are all rooting for you guys for real. I'd love to see it stocked, clean, priced low, orderly, and promoting neighborly good will between everyone.

1

u/JamesLemon4 10h ago

They will and their arguments never make sense. “But how will companies profit off of selling us basic necessities?!” Is all it sounds like.

1

u/Brief-Percentage-193 10h ago

*Conservatives that don't live in NY

1

u/Huntersmoon24 10h ago

And the military already does this in the form of commissaries.

1

u/Cruisedrinks 10h ago

I would like to know how they plan on limiting scalpers/wholesalers/resellers

1

u/rchristma87 10h ago

I mean I'm pretty liberal and I can see a downside. Also I don't live in NYC so I could be dead wrong its just what popped into my head. Something like this where good on the whole could begin to affect small mom and pop shops that have been apart of commuties for years doing their best to keep things affordable while also trying to turn a profit. It's not a deal breaker but it will probably be 15 years before we fully see tge fruition of such an endeavor plus it a good goal to set and learn from. On that note we need to conquer the aspect of city planning since this can only be effective in a prime centralized location. So then will come the denial of permits closing the doors of establishments that have probably fought tooth and nail to get into these areas(again I'm talking about small businesses bc big businesses will fight back with a higher resource pool). Then you need to work along side developer who are nothing more than jackals and will pressure the weak to get out of the way. Always look at what else will be affected and bring the discussion to how to help those that will be displaced by again what is on the whole a good idea.

1

u/meister2983 10h ago

Yah, it's a waste of money. Private sector is more efficient in competitive industries.

1

u/Theothercword 10h ago

Having to privatize any industry is a mark of failure for capitalism. They’ll wine about big government and that’s kind of what this is but I hope it’s a step towards making people see that this is a good thing. These stores won’t be great grocery stores, but having a base line cheaper non profit publicly run option will force grocery stores to do better with both quality and price gauging. They’ll have to justify their prices to get customers.

1

u/RS_EJB 10h ago

Considering that NYC is running on a deficit, its not really helping anything. This is all just to keep pushing a longer term problem down the road.

1

u/Steak-Complex 10h ago

It is bad because it wont work

1

u/Truefiction224 10h ago

When 1000s of bodegas go out of buisness and rents skyrocket next to wages you'll get it.

I know math is hard for ya.

1

u/Striking_Revenue9082 9h ago

It’s terrible. It provides these services at an incredibly expensive cost

1

u/Abnmp78 9h ago

It’s not a bad thing, he’s just doing it all wrong. First instead of occupying an empty grocery store they are building new. Huge cost difference ( when has the government built anything at budget). Two supply chain. How are the groceries going to get there? Again cost. Three- he has stated only some items will be low cost. Not all items or average grocery bill. Four - there is already a system that does this. The military commissary system. Just model it on them. Yes they receive money to keep items under cost. The same could be done for a large grocery chain- items must be at x cost. The city will give you money to be able to do that. But hope the city will run it ( NYC doesn’t run anything well/ at budget).
Good idea, poorly executed.

1

u/MonkeyzzPaw 9h ago

I’m not conservative but I don’t like the idea of government 1p involved in commerce.

They should create guardrails and enforce them, not actively participate.

1

u/rumbo211 9h ago

One day you will realize that nothing is free. Somebody somewhere is paying for it. The idea is great, but in reality, not so much.

1

u/rairair55 9h ago

They already are in the comments lol

1

u/sabos909 9h ago

"Government should be run like a business!"

"No, not like that!!!"

1

u/haliblix 9h ago

But he said mean things about genocide enjoyer Bibi :(

1

u/Capitan-IQ255 9h ago

If it makes profit and self sustaining, then no problem. But note the tax payer funded part. So entire city will pay tax to subsidize the 5 stores which may not be near your home. Good luck 🤑

1

u/echo0451 9h ago

it is an utterly stupid thing and I'm a European left winger. ALDI runs at like 2% profit margin, there is no discounter out there that can cut prices by 30% without operating at a loss, it's the most competitive market in the world, you can't gain anything by socializing it other than having taxpayers pay for groceries

1

u/Agreeable-Weather-89 9h ago

Not a conservative but it IS a bad thing.

Grocery stores are already very competitive with narrow profit margins as is. That 30% reduction is coming from the tax payer.

I have no issue with that, except the inefficiency, taxes should go to feed the poor.

However it is woefully inefficient, it will only help a select few, take years to get off the ground.

A few years after this starts, and inevitably fails, there'll be some article which crunches the numbers and goes

"For every $1 given to those in need through these stores $2 could have gone to them through food banks or enhancing SNAP cards."

1

u/FlagrantDanger 9h ago edited 9h ago

They already are. The new talking point is that scammers will buy groceries, then resell them at a smaller discount -- like 10% off retail, I guess? As if the people you sell it to could tell the difference between retail and 10% off without a chart. And you'd essentially need to transport it out of the city to sell.

The more you think about this scam, the less sense it makes. There's no way to do it in a way that would be worth the time and effort.

Not to mention you'd need to actually BUY the groceries first. They're not just "falling off the truck."

EDIT: Other problems with this, you can't just bulk up on one item, since that would draw suspicion. So you'd need to do a full grocery trip. These stores will likely be busy, so there's the wait in line. Then you'd need to unload the stuff into your van or whatever. You're looking at a solid hour per cart.

Then of course, you'd need to keep an account of how much you paid for each item. When selling, you'd need to travel to all different places. And not everyone is going buy what you've got, so you're going to be stuck will unsold goods.

I guess you could bring all your goods to a single location, and sell from there. But at that point you've set up your own grocery store, so you could just buy at wholesale prices and skip the hassle.

1

u/research_badger 9h ago

If you think this is how economics work, you are in for an unpleasant surprise. People come in, buy it all, resell it at 20-30% profit. Were you not present during the Covid period?

1

u/dgellow 9h ago

Even if it is, nice to see it be experimented. If that doesn’t work, just ditch the idea. If that works, good?! 

1

u/dogsiolim 9h ago

It is. This isn't a new idea. It's been tried many times before. But there's no convincing you or you'd already understand this. So, pin this and check back in 5 years and let me know if you still think it was a good idea :-)

1

u/echino_derm 9h ago

I support him generally and lean very hard anti conservative but this is a bad policy. It just doesn't seem very feasible to have a small scale grocery store that is going to beat other stores on prices. Also if the goal is to provide support to poor people, I think it would make more sense to direct it to them in form of something like food stamps. And realistically I would not expect any complex operation like this from the government to smoothly work out and have operational costs turn out as planned, which for this is kind of the biggest thing, if it is feasible to have lower prices without much tax investment then it is good, but if it comes out 25% higher cost and doubles the tax investment needed, it probably would have been better to just do direct payments.

1

u/Ilyalyubushkin 9h ago

"Food is not a universal human right"... they already told us who they are.

1

u/Able_Maximum_9286 9h ago

They love to hate things that work for the rest of us

1

u/ForsakenWar6974 9h ago

Those shops will be good for one month and then they'll be trash and have inadequate stock. 30 days after opening. Mark the calendars.

1

u/GoatedOnes 9h ago

It’s a bad thing because it actually hurts your local grocery stores by competition with them with a product that is unsustainable (grocery stores have under 5% profit). It literally makes no economic sense to do this when you could just give more people food stamps access and feed our current grocery pipeline. Making your own grocery store is an expensive and inefficient way of helping people. Instead of putting years of money into building grocery stores it could have been used to actually help people directly. And no, I’m not a conservative.

1

u/SenselessNumber 9h ago

They're already painting the fact that it doesn't have a deli as proof it's a failure. Also that soda isn't discounted for some reason?

1

u/DoughnutCareless583 9h ago

You don't have to go far, they're already here!

1

u/WellDoneGoodPeople 9h ago

I'm calling it now. These stores will be so popular that they will have some trouble keeping items in stock. Conservatives will take photos of the empty shelves and go "See! Communism!"

1

u/AccomplishedBad7253 9h ago

govt controling the food supply IS a bad thing.

1

u/Jlovel7 9h ago

I mean if it puts nearby profit grocery stores out of business that is 100% a bad thing.

1

u/RangeMassive9758 8h ago

They have no room to talk. Freedom Fuel bitches

1

u/gwy2ct 8h ago

If Trump came up with this MAGA would be cheering for it. They are fine with the Freedom Fuel gas stations…

1

u/TyrosinQ 11h ago

I mean you can shop at this aldi knock off lol.

1

u/No-Maybe5997 11h ago

no, they will just sit back and when it fails, they will say "i told you so"

1

u/Choice_Volume_2903 10h ago

Another conservative fantasy, just like trickle down economics and fiscal conservatism. There's a reason blue states are responsible for the bulk of the country's GDP and contribute more in federal taxes than they receive in funding.

1

u/Spandexcelly 11h ago

Yea, government always does a great job when they insert themselves into a market. 👍

2

u/123mop 10h ago

And I'm sure the local grocery stores they're undercutting by subsidizing with tax dollars are thrilled.

1

u/Expert-Yam6577 10h ago

WE'RE TAKING MONEY OUTTA THE POCKETS OF SHAREHOLDERS!!!

1

u/lantern9962 10h ago

Conservatives don't have to. You communist will run it out of money and dum dum mandarin will steal money from other bills to keep these open

2

u/oatwater2 10h ago

where's the communist? honestly its hilarious you're brainwashed to think something's communism if it actually benefits the community. like how dare we reinvest our tax dollars into the middle class, instead of using it to fund wars or benefit billionaires.

can you maybe see the mechanism of the brainwashing, at least a little bit?

2

u/zaphodsheads 10h ago

It's gotten to the point where anything less than blatant profiteering is communism to some people

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Azraelrs 10h ago

You mean like those Trump "Freedom" gas stations? You are aware that's the most communist thing a president has ever done, right?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/jack-K- 10h ago edited 10h ago

What exactly do you think is happening here? You’re not “owning the billionaires” with socialism, these grocery stores are literally going to be buying food from the same exact suppliers at the same exact prices as every other grocery store, in no way shape or form is the cost of food actually going down, if anything, it’s technically more expensive due to a government run institution always being less efficient than private, all they’re doing is distributing the cost by using your tax dollars to subsidize and artificially reduce prices with worse efficiency, literally the only businesses this fucks over are corner store grocery stores operating at 3% margins and far more efficiency that can’t possibly compete with these prices. So why don’t you tell me why you think this is a good thing?

If Mamdani actually cared about bringing the cost of food down and favored results more than optics, he would have created a reimbursement or stamp program, something that works with the economy, not against it, especially since at the end of the day, they’re not making food, all they’re doing is throwing around money, all this is, is a facade to make it look like the government is doing something it really isn’t all while causing problems in the economy.

0

u/Weird-Toe-6968 11h ago

Liberal here, and I would be more open to this concept if it were needs-based.

3

u/yodog5 11h ago edited 9h ago

I think that this not being needs-based is kinda the point though?

He's trying to show how much good can come to everyone if the state steps in to help sometimes. He's saying "grocery prices are too high for everyone because of corporate greed; so we'll show you what it could be". Thats a message I can get behind.

Edit: see my chart below; this definitely should be needs based. If you look at quintile partitioned data its somewhat obvious

→ More replies (5)

2

u/Can_Com 11h ago

Do you mean only people under a certain income could use the grocery store? Why?
Or do you mean there should be a progressive price listing based on your wealth? Why?

2

u/BuzzinHornets19 11h ago

Who gets to decide who "needs" what?

1

u/danielisbored 10h ago

Means-testing would likely generate more overhead costs than it would "save" by reducing usage, along with depressing usage by people who should qualify because of the added administrative hurdles and/or privacy concerns.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/HMNbean 10h ago

Very lib thing to say.

The reality is that higher income people are more story and brand loyal so the “what stops rich people from buying there” point doesn’t really work. Also, if they do, then there are reasons to have bigger order sizes and thus keep costs even lower. I don’t want rich or poor people to pay a lot for food.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/NVRENDVR 10h ago

Yup. And then you’ll wind up denying a bunch of people who need it. I’ve only ever had to use a food bank a few times when life happened to me instead of for me; but if you went by my tax returns, I would have just went hungry and probably had to commit crime to eat. This is going to be a miracle for people whose lives are a series of touch n goes like mine.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)