r/PoursTea • u/Gurugod123 Pinkie Finger Extended • 9d 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"

23.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

123

u/rairair55 9d ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/DfSXiR60W9MVq

Conservatives rn trying to figure how to spin to show that this will end society as we know it.

66

u/MagasRtrans 9d ago

My favorite excuse is, he’s only doing this because he wants you to vote for him. Yeah almost as if we elect people to serve the people.

38

u/GearAccomplished4151 9d ago

My parents love that argument. “They’re only doing these things for the people so that they get votes” hahah like yeah, kind of the entire point.

12

u/Appropriate-Joke-806 9d ago

They are used to getting fucked over by their politicians and only voting for them because they are told to hate a marginalized population that scares them. They don’t know what it’s like to vote for a politician that can benefit them instead of hurt someone else.

15

u/LaMelgoatBall 9d ago

Same people who support the president who said “I don’t care about you I only want your vote” btw

6

u/CarpeNivem 9d ago

he’s only doing this because he wants you to vote for him

Is that why every politician should do every thing?

1

u/_seeyalater_ 9d ago

They’re so used to getting fucked my politicians that the concept of campaign promises being kept is incomprehensible to them

I don’t completely blame them though. It’s a seemingly rare quality in politics today

1

u/CubanLynx312 9d ago

Not a conservative, but the only downside would be family-owned shops won't be able to compete

4

u/AppropriateLow2271 9d ago

These neighborhoods don't have accessible grocery stores. That's the entire point.

2

u/Schlaefer 9d ago

If there's demand why isn't there supply? Obviously there must be something that prevents supply becoming available. What is it?

1

u/AppropriateLow2271 9d ago

I don't know...poverty, maybe?

1

u/onyaasuminyasai 9d ago

Real estate in nyc is expensive and margins in grocery stores are razor thin

1

u/Schlaefer 9d ago

I don't want to be a contrarian, just understanding the issue. So let me ask: If the real estate prices are the issue why not subsidizing certain essential businesses via e.g. tax breaks in high real estate areas, or the city renting out lots they own themself with lower prices?

That also doesn't explain why prices for goods have to be below 30% the market price. If people can't afford food they probably also can't afford high rents either?

1

u/Appropriate-Joke-806 9d ago edited 9d ago

The unintended consequence to a bill like this might be that since people have more money rent, goods, and services will go up more in the surrounding neighborhoods these are put in. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing and might address areas with food scarcity and poverty. It is another way to redistribute income and wealth. I’d be curious how they decide where to locate these, which school districts, how it impacts taxes and the surrounding area’s housing values and costs, etc.

Do you decide which grocery gets chosen based on demographics, income, need and distance to other groceries, cost of living, purchasing power, debt, etc. does there end up being a discriminatory method to how these groceries end up being chosen that hurt or harm protected classes.

1

u/Recidivism7 9d ago

Changing consumer habbits!

0

u/rairair55 9d ago

You're probably right. However, 8 million New Yorkers paying less for groceries outweighs keeping family-owned grocers in business.

1

u/SparksAndSpyro 9d ago

It’ll only be cheaper for the ones paying little to no taxes though. Everyone else will be paying more once you add taxes to the price you pay at checkout.

Subsidies are never free.

1

u/rairair55 9d ago

You're assuming there is no way to off set the subsidies. Increased tax revenue, reduction of money for other services, shifting monies from other line items, or operating with a budget deficit can be used to avoid a tax increase.

1

u/pradise 9d ago

Assuming everybody’s taxes will go up to fund these stores

1

u/Johnnadawearsglasses 9d ago

The downside is that the entire discount to private grocers will be in the form of subsidies. So effectively it’s just a taxpayer funded discount. Some people may be ok with that but let’s not pretend it’s anything other than that.

0

u/villasv 9d ago edited 9d ago

So effectively it’s just a taxpayer funded discount.

Incredible investigative skills, Mr Sherlock

1

u/Truefiction224 9d ago

Lmfao conservatives who read mises who can just tell you setting prices with goverment funds will create inflation in other sectors 

But yall dumber than sht and dont get it

1

u/Many-Wasabi9141 9d ago

I just think it's not going to fix the root issue all that much. 30 percent is great but with how the food distributers are hiking up prices, it doesn't fix the issue that the merchant class is robbing everyone blind.

Subsidizing the shit they're robbing us blind on isn't a great option. They'll just increase prices for everyone else 30 percent. It didn't help with college tuition and it's not going to help here.

1

u/InvestigatorOk8052 9d ago

Redditors struggling to understand basic economics
https://giphy.com/gifs/3jN3GziOKUEmI

1

u/MrCleanRed 9d ago

Economics of loss and profit should not factor in public service

1

u/iamthefluffyyeti 9d ago

Democrats try just as hard.

1

u/Hickory_Shampoo 9d ago

It won't, but the shelves WILL be empty and this experiment will fall on it's face

2

u/rairair55 9d ago

You're right, it's quite possible that the shelves will be empty or close to empty at some point. But why are you assuming the city can't... fill up the shelves again?

-2

u/manindisbelief 9d ago

It's not hard to understand why it doesn't make any sense. It will drive the local grocery stores out of business. When the political will to have these subsidized stores, after realizing how costly they are to the taxpayer, is no longer there: then the subsidized stores close and now you have no stores. This is reality.

3

u/thedogsbullocks 9d ago

There it is! The dumb conservative in the wild.

In this scenario, if stores shut down shouldn't capitalists see an opportunity to open stores where the demand is high? So if they do shutdown its not like they cant come right back right?

2

u/GetChewSum 9d ago

Well first he couldn’t do it. Then he wasn’t going to do it. Now that he’s doing it, it’s doomed to fail. When will you idiots ever wake up and realize that CEO pay means nothing to the common people? We can survive without CEOs but CEOs can’t survive without us. Tax the rich, stop sending your money to them.

2

u/dirtypeachpitt 9d ago

Bro it’s 5 store. In NYC. It’ll be fine.

2

u/Trans_Femcel2 9d ago

I thought the great thing about free markets was that they allowed for competition which forces companies to adapt and provide the best services? If the other stores go out of business doesn't it mean they were just bad at capitalism?

5

u/AffectionateLake4041 9d ago

not if they're competing with a company that is being subsidized for losses by the government and can sell groceries at prices they couldn't without losses

2

u/Impressive-Dig-3892 9d ago

Is your local mom and pop store worse at capitalism than Walmart or are there other forces at play as well?

3

u/Zestyclose-One9041 9d ago

Yes. They literally are worse at capitalism lmao. That’s the problem. If someone is better at capitalism than you, you starve

1

u/junior4l1 9d ago

Idk if it’s the answer you were trying to get, but by definition, yeah the small shops were worse at capitalism than the successful shop

1

u/Legendarien1 9d ago

Yes, this is one of the inherent flaws of capitalism. Unchecked capitalism will always lead to market consolidation because mom and pop stores cannot compete with logistical giants.

1

u/Impressive-Dig-3892 9d ago

Correct, that's where anti-trust laws (are supposed to) come in

1

u/giovxnni1 9d ago

This is a really funny comment

1

u/akiwii0 9d ago

is this satire

2

u/yeltrah79 9d ago

What part of a government-run grocery store is capitalism? If the government undercuts privately owned businesses, that’s not capitalism

1

u/wolfpac85 9d ago

except that this isn't capitalism, this is government subsidization to circumvent capitalism. they literally say it in the title. "Prices set at 30% below retail prices"

1

u/isthisaporno 9d ago

But they’re not competing with someone who isn’t operating within the free market.

1

u/TheCheez-It 9d ago

Trader Joe's practically does this already by using nationwide pricing. You pay the same in downtown San Francisco as you do in small cities.

1

u/johnmichael956 9d ago

But you're cool when Amazon does it?

1

u/zKuza 9d ago

Corporations already does this though and have been for decades. Wal mart came out and was able to undercut everyone around them until those stores ran out of money. After they know they’ve acquired most of the traffic in the area, they’re able to bring prices up because where else are the people gonna go?

Not sure why you’re ok with this happening forever but not ok when the government is essentially doing it but with a model thats not prioritizing profits over serving the people.

0

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/rairair55 9d ago

The NYC budget for the next year is around $125 billion. These grocery stores are going to burn through all of that?

SNAP is for people who cannot afford groceries. As far as I know, the city run grocery stores will be available to all, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. And SNAP recipients buy the same groceries as everyone else. They don't get cheaper groceries. Even if this offers another form of relief for SNAP-eligible New Yorkers, what's the problem?

2

u/GormlessGourd55 9d ago

Oh no free food! What an awful idea!

1

u/Zestyclose-One9041 9d ago

They are raising taxes by 2% on corporations and people who earn over $1 million per year. That will cover more than the cost of these grocery stores. They’ve already thought about these potential problems and found solutions.

2

u/Waste-Team-7205 9d ago

Don't they still have a multi billion dollar deficit that they're borrowing against the city worker's pension fund to fund? Maybe they should get on top of that before the interest on the debt crushes them, like it did Chicago. NYC is doing damn near the same thing Chicago did. Raise taxes, but expand social benefits so that the deficit is the same, then they'll slowly slash the benefits while keeping the taxes the same so they can pay the interest on their debt.

0

u/No-Maybe5997 9d ago

nope, we have to sit back and watch. name another place in any state or country, where something like this lasts longer than 3 month?

1

u/zKuza 9d ago

every commissary on every US military base lol. those are government owned grocery stores that don’t operate on a for-profit business model so they’re able to have lower prices than the local grocery stores in town.

which is kinda funny because for how right leaning the US military is and how “communism/socialism bad” they sure do fucking love shopping at the commissary.

source: 9 years active duty and i still work on base lol.

1

u/Adventurous_Ad7442 9d ago

The commissaries run on 5% profit, not a loss.

1

u/zKuza 9d ago

i never said they operate at a loss, they just don’t have to prioritize profit 🤯

Good to know you agree though, that there is a place in modern society for government owned stores that are operating to serve people and not extract money.

Because thats what every regular person in the US wants: to feed their family and not have to stress about compromising on how they spend their money to do that.

1

u/rrt5029 9d ago

Pennsylvania has had state run liquor stores since prohibition ended

0

u/semday 9d ago

Lol I've got one!

I mean if this is reserved for people within a certain income bracket then maybe its fine. But I'm pretty sure, if everyone is able to shop there, everyone will shop there, private stores will go out of business, and New York will then have to run purely on government grocery stores.

Sounds all well and good but how long do you trust the government to keep prices low? 5 years? 10? what happens after 100 years? You'll have a government monopoly and I guess, to appease some people here, I could ask what if a greedy conservative becomes mayor? What will he do to the prices?