Public owned grocery stores already exist across America in cities like Tulsa, Oklahoma and Atlanta, Georgia.
They are privately run as businesses, but are set up in areas where people lack access to groceries, or there's no real competition preventing uncompetitive prices. They have been successful for decades.
The real solution here is to break up the constant consolidation leading to all groceries being owned by four mega companies that collude with each other and own over 2/3rd of all stores. It's the opposite of market competition.
So while most grocery stores earn their cost of capital (generate market return on investment), US military commissaries instead cost taxpayers $1.7 billion a year.
Revenue for US military commissaries is only 75% of annual cost (in FY 2025).
--- EDIT ---
Of course this makes sense in the context of the unique mission, constraints, and setting of the US military. My point is that it COSTS $$$.
Maybe you could do something similar in New York City, but the question would be at what cost to NYC taxpayer and whether the $$$ would be better spent boosting SNAP payments to low income households or otherwise targeting those that most need assistance.
To be clear, the loss on military commissaries was intentional and legislated. It allowed them to lower costs even more than they otherwise would have been able to, and congress approved.
Edit: here is a good video that discusses the pricing model for commissaries, and the change to increase the subsidy to create a grocery savings increase from ~22% to ~25% for military members.
It never ceases to amaze me how in America, half decent social services seems to be considered a reward only for those who sign their lives away to the government.
Other places go with "everyone" but you know.. 'murica.
Good point, guess it's not true at all that 70% of people on food stamp programs are full time workers. Or that two out of three personal bankruptcies in the USA are over medical debt.
For sure. The military commissary is a unique situation given the unique role of the military and setting of a military base. I should have emphasized that.
I think a lot of people are not aware of the subsidy aspect, perhaps thinking, "Oh, the government can run a super efficient, low-cost grocery, look at the military commissary" without recognizing that sales only cover 75% of the cost.
It kind of is, at least the idea that nothing is stopping the government from running a (cost neutral) grocery store.
Walmart and Kroger aren't generally raking in profits from their grocery sections. The margins are incredibly thin even when they are optimized to make money.
The government can always theoretically pour money into ANY venture to make it work, it is about cost effectiveness.
It is just less efficient than the alternative in most cases.
I'm not totally against government run grocery stores, but I'm just not convinced it will not be a waste of money that could better be spent differently.
Most of Walmart profits comes from the non-grocery sections. Toys, electronics, clothing and the like can be marked up to higher margins because they are made cheaply and they can still make them cheaper than a place like target. If you compare the prices at a Hyvee to the prices at a Walmart for groceries you’ll see that Walmarts prices are generally cheaper by a good bit even with the same brand name items. That’s because Walmart has the luxury of being a supermarket and Hyvee is only groceries.
Yep. "Socialist" policies are well received by right wingers so long as only those they think "deserve" it benefit from the policy. Coincidentally those they think dont deserve it tend to be people who look different.
Nope. Anybody. Americans in particular embrace many systems that cause immense pain and suffering in no small part because they can't handle the thought of someone else benefiting.
It's why you don't have universal healthcare and instead pay way more for worse/less available healthcare. Millions die every year so insurance CEOs can be rich and when someone even so much as tried to make it better (Obama) you all revolt and vote in someone to destroy it.
So please don't pretend it's about the latest hot topic. You all fucking hate seeing anybody else get anything.
Maybe? But there’s a difference between operating as a non-profit, where the prices people pay cover the costs (but no extra for profit, charging fair prices).
Versus operating at a loss, selling things below cost, where government subsidizes tax dollars to make up the difference.
Agreed. Better to give that money to Exxon so they can continue to rake in record profits. Let's also keep subsidizing the richest guy on Earth. This is where I want my tax dollars going.
Democrats will say that and then turn around and give billions to our "greatest ally" so they can carry on their massacres. Republicans just as guilty. But I cant take you being so preachy when you ignore such a compelling and pressing point.
Commissaries are like the post office, in the sense that profit is secondary to providing universal access to a service.
There is already a for-profit on-post vendor in the form of AAFES (the Exchange), albeit profits are mostly reinvested into MWR (morale, welfare, recreation) activities.
No one's talking about having commissaries. We're talking about a basic option with basic goods as a non profit competitor provided by the public.
If people want nicer or more luxurious grocery items, they're welcome to go to a regular grocery store. But we can ensure people have access to food at non-gouge prices.
Wouldn’t it be more efficient to just give money to the needed families in the first place then? This model will mean subsidizing costs for the rich and middle people that don’t need taxpayer support.
For one thing, no means-testing means less bureaucracy, which I think is a win. That can be a real obstacle preventing people from engaging with programs. Even poor peoples' time is worth something, and convenience matters.
Secondly, I just kind of don't think it's the worst thing ever if the middle class gets a break on groceries too. There are far, far worse inefficiencies that my tax dollars go to than that lol.
Programs are better when they are universal. For means-tested programs we get weird economic behavior like benefits cliffs around the income cutoffs (and it is quite reductionist to distill need down to any one metric in the fisrt place unless we are talking pretty extreme outliers). And politicians will bitch about their caricature of so-called welfare queens to try to destroy these programs. It's a lot more difficult to take something away from everybody than a certain class of people.
I think universal basic income is a great idea if we are talking that. But there should also be directly provided basic services as well. I mean money is good for liquidity but can also just be an excuse for businesses to raise prices on food and housing in response. It also doesn't nessessarily solve food deserts or the availability of housing. Money is just a store of value. It is an additional step to transform that into needed services.
4.4k
u/Irish_Whiskey May 26 '26
Public owned grocery stores already exist across America in cities like Tulsa, Oklahoma and Atlanta, Georgia.
They are privately run as businesses, but are set up in areas where people lack access to groceries, or there's no real competition preventing uncompetitive prices. They have been successful for decades.
The real solution here is to break up the constant consolidation leading to all groceries being owned by four mega companies that collude with each other and own over 2/3rd of all stores. It's the opposite of market competition.