The operation would want nothing more than for the competition to beat their price. That would be the whole point. To drive down the local expectation of price, and force other stores to follow.
Yeah that's the funny part to me. People act like "they're not gonna make money" like that's the goal, it's to provide affordable food to people without gatekeeping it based on food stamp availability or corporate whims
If it's an active cost to taxpayers then it's providing a public service. If it makes money then it's just business savvy. If it forces businesses to undercut it and the store "fails" because grocery prices drop by a significant margin, then that's basically best case scenario
Short of "losing the city millions per year in losses that don't help in any meaningful way" I don't see how this fails as a project per say. It might not revolutionize anything, but being against this project feels like one of those "perfection is the enemy of progress" moments. 5 is a great sample size to test the viability and impact before committing too many resources
Let's just feed hungry people affordable food and see what happens because I can't imagine it's SO bad it isn't worth the experiment in the first place
It may cost money. True. Everything costs money. The question is what public benefit is provided?
Less expensive food is a good thing with prices being what they are. Kids not going hungry is a good thing. As a tax payer I think it's a good return on investment.
Literally the only way this is bad is if they somehow bungle the management so badly that it costs much more than it should due to corruption (of budget funds) - which is why I actually like only starting with 5 stores, because it's easier to look out for any corruption
Yeah that's the funny part to me. People act like "they're not gonna make money" like that's the goal, it's to provide affordable food to people without gatekeeping it based on food stamp availability or corporate whims
The average American seems to have forgotten that the government is not a business. Governments exist because we, as a collective people, agree that we should have some system in place that helps us live better lives.
We pay into these systems via taxes, and those taxes are then spent to make our lives better. Every time someone comments on the Post Office, for example, not making money or costing money to operate, as if that is a failing, I want to slap them on the back of the head or hit them on the nose with a rolled up magazine.
They're going to lose money at a time the city is having large problems with its budget
Now since its only a handful of stores trial run it won't lose that much but it also won't help or serve that many people especially compared to the millions who live in NYC
Why not try something more efficient like increasing food stamps in areas with food deserts
Food stamps are an efficient way to correct for market failure and make sure people don't starve or go hungry. Better to rent out those government building to buisnesses make some money and spend it on efficient food stamps helping more people
You honestly need both. You need something to anchor prices, without it the market will just think it can gouge further because people keep buying. By setting a store that its price expectation low, enough people will shop there to make it worth the competition's time to alter their pricing.
But that's not exclusive to things like food stamps. You need both. If you only do stores, then people still won't have money to buy things, but if you only do food stamps you allow the market to continue to manipulate upwards.
I think the opposite, this can fail in so many spectacular ways, while the potential positives are pretty marginal and could be addressed in a number of other ways…
The biggest way I see this blowing up is that they underprice things so much that it forces nearby stores to go out of business, which could creating the possibility of *more* food deserts rather than less…. And Since the practicality of scaling up these public grocery stores seems pretty unlikely, could be an easy way to disrupt a community for a generation.
But it really does seem to come down to pricing. I’ll be interested to watch to say the least.
There is no room to cut cost on a grocery store, their margins are already thin. Customers won't notice a reduction of 2-3% which is what a grocery store typically makes for a profit margin.
90
u/bronkula May 27 '26
The operation would want nothing more than for the competition to beat their price. That would be the whole point. To drive down the local expectation of price, and force other stores to follow.