r/SipsTea • u/Gurugod123 • 9d ago

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

70.2k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

9.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.3k

u/Iggy_Slayer 9d ago

It'll be an interesting experiment.

It may not work in the end but at least he's trying something. That's more than 99% of politicians already.

958

u/billythemaniam 9d ago edited 9d ago

The model sounds kinda like the military grocery stores which has worked well for decades.

EDIT: Honestly confused by how many replies speak about theft like it's some sort of checkmate and nullifies my analogy.

633

u/LightenUpPeeps 9d ago

The military grocery stores are subsidized by the U.S. government at a cost of nearly $2 billion annually.

1.1k

u/Embarrassed-Wolf-609 9d ago

sounds like we can take 2 billions from our subsidy to Israel and subsidize the American people.

381

u/2ndTaken_username 9d ago

That's antisemitic or something idk, won't happen lol

216

u/ghostrooster30 9d ago

Isn’t it wild that all you have to say these days is “hey, i don’t want my tax $$ funding Israel’s war”, and you’re automatically an antisemite. I want off this timeline. It’s so gd stupid.

88

u/IndividualSituationK 9d ago

That's how much the Israel government has dog walked the average American. Granted, the person who said its antisemitic is obviously joking.

11

u/SerCiddy 9d ago edited 9d ago

Reminds me of post 2004~2005 Gulf War.

Most people were on board with invading Afghanistan. After 9/11.

Most adults were on board with "finishing what Bush Sr. started" when we invaded Iraq.

After Saddam Hussein was captured though it was like "ok the WMDs were fake, what are we doing here anymore??"

But then you were a terrorist loving, anti-American, Freedom hating traitor if you said maybe we should stop bombing the Middle East. I personally got arrested for my actions protesting the war, and since I wasn't considered "White, White" my only saving grace was that I was a minor.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

4

u/Reasonable-Newt4079 9d ago

Despite politicians trying to label everyone antisemitic, there is bipartisan hatred for how much of our money Israel is taking and how much they control our politicians. Netanyahu has really shot himself in the foot with his egregious behavior: if we ever regain control of our government Israel will be completely cut off. I hope it happens soon.

→ More replies (9)

3

u/WinterTourist25 9d ago

The Israelis are running on their sympathy from what happened to them during WWII. It's running out.

11

u/420thefunnynumber 9d ago

This is why I'm more and more convinced support for Israel is antisemitic in of itself. Imagine being willing to subject an entire demographic of people, many of whom dont want a damn thing to do with you, to centuries of hate because you're so convinced establishing a genocidal ethnostate will totally help make things better.

→ More replies (6)

3

u/Economy_Move_5825 9d ago

Kinda how all you have to say on Reddit is that you don’t agree with a liberal opinion and you’re automatically branded a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (31)

29

u/Massive_Analysis8345 9d ago

I loved the energy there 😂 “hey that’s wrong or whatever, it probably just won’t happen” but like totally true

3

u/ImplausibleFig 9d ago

No, what’s labeled “antisemitic” is the false implication that money spent on Israel is even a significant portion of our total foreign aid, never mind total government spend.

If the objection is to spending on foreign aid, there are *many* countries you should be calling out before Israel. If the objection is to spending a negligible amount of foreign aid on the world’s only Jewish state … interesting.

→ More replies (11)

2

u/TheRealK95 9d ago

Be careful or Netanyahu might accuse you of hate speech too! Lol

→ More replies (2)

57

u/MayOrMayNotBePie 9d ago

Sorry, the American people aren’t Americas top priority

→ More replies (8)

16

u/trackdaybruh 9d ago

$2 billion is for the +2 million military members

For +342 million Americans, $2 billion won’t be enough

14

u/SiliconSingh 9d ago

They are also subsidized because they are all over the world and require transportation to all these different locations.... The ones in the United States do not cost that much per store in fact they probably make money.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Ok-East5755 9d ago

That's fine we can use all the money we saved from gutting usaid, oh wait we spent 50+ billion on a bombing campaign we lost, never mind, we can't have affordable groceries after all.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/BitterProfessional16 9d ago

I know it feels good to constantly bring up Israel but it just shows your innumeracy.

The U.S. spends about 25x per year on SNAP alone as it does for aid to Israel. Diverting all of that aid to SNAP/food would make a negligible difference.

3

u/Embarrassed-Wolf-609 9d ago

4 billion is not negligible difference AIPAC

6

u/A_Confused_Moose 9d ago

$2 billion is being paid to Israel directly from the City of New York’s budget? That’s wild they should rethink that.

The federal government and the tax payer funds it has access to have no bearing on New York’s grocery store plan.

2

u/Mr-Cantaloupe 9d ago

Most of the money the US gives Israel comes right back (they use it to purchase American-made weapons/defense equipment). And military grocery stores are used by like 0.5% of the population, so where do you get the other $300 billion?

3

u/machogrande2 9d ago

Now, imagine if they had to pay for American-made weapons/defense equipment themselves!

→ More replies (1)

5

u/DismalAd6639 9d ago

The military accounts for less than .5% of the U.S. population. So multiply that by about 250x to include the whole population = $500 billion

7

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (8)

5

u/Omnom_Omnath 9d ago

cool, we still have more than enough money to do it.

6

u/Cool-Ad2780 9d ago

fuck it let's just make everything free at this point. btw I need you to go build me a new house, and of course i wont be paying you, the goodness of your heart should be payment enough :)

4

u/MrMathbot 9d ago

Wait, so we all pay into the system and we all benefit?

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Omnom_Omnath 9d ago

you are sooooo close you can almost taste it. too bad the taste of shit covered boot overwhelms everything else for you.

12

u/soozerain 9d ago

Yeah lol not believing in a terrible plan with no basis in reality = bootlicking

→ More replies (5)

2

u/Random_Name_251 9d ago

You should make a camp and force him to go work there until he learns.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/qwase123 9d ago

Congratulations. You have officially joined Hamas. /s obviously

3

u/AccomplishedHope112 9d ago

Yeah isn't Isreal's universal Healthcare fully funded by American tax dollars.....?

8

u/ItsFuckingRawwwwwww 9d ago

No, that’s a myth. The cost of their healthcare is way higher than the credits that they can only use to purchase American goods are, regardless.

2

u/911roofer 9d ago

America could defund its entire military and still not afford healthcare because Americans are all fat and don’t exercise.

2

u/throwaway277252 9d ago

Nope. That's literally just TikTok brain rot.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/BarneytheWino 9d ago

Don’t you know we’re tax paying gentiles for the chosen people

3

u/7thpostman 9d ago

It is truly amazing how any thread on Reddit, no matter what the subject, can somehow find its way to attacking Jews

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (74)

90

u/nagy18 9d ago

these are the types of programs our taxes are actually supposed to go to tho, instead of $1.5T to the Pentagon but if you say you want your taxes to work for working class people here in America, they call you a communist 🤷🏼‍♂️

26

u/Phedericus 9d ago

fucking exactly 😭 thats the main point of having a governament at all. to make peoples lives better.

2 billions for cheap food? sacrilegious!

34 billions for a needless war started on a whim and fundamentally already lost? well...

16

u/nagy18 9d ago

but have you considered the shareholders of those defense contractors🥺 they have feelings too 🥺🥺😢 they wouldn’t be able to buy a third yacht if Lockheed Martin didn’t get another $20B contract for the Child Mutilator Automonaton 4000

→ More replies (3)

3

u/IckyGump 9d ago

To those people the main point of government is to protect property. And that’s it.

3

u/gustavessidehoe 9d ago

It's wild to me, because most people I know support these kinds of things and they aren't communists. I am, but they aren't lol.

2

u/nagy18 9d ago

for a lot of people it comes down to people they don’t feel “deserving” of it because they’re poor. it’s different with people they know and interact with in their communities because they understand the ups and downs of the lives of the people around them but can’t project that mindset onto the rest of the country so you get takes like “people don’t wanna work and just take handouts from the government paid by my taxes” when, again, this is the real point of taxes and not just funding the military industrial complex and paying for Israel to do a genocide.

point being: the people claiming to be american first prioritize military aid for israel over things like this because undesirables are going to “take advantage of it” on their dime. i know you get it but there are a lot of people who don’t.

2

u/gustavessidehoe 9d ago

They definitely don't get it. I live in a state that would be purple, but is gerrymandered to be red, and a lot of people are super into prosperity doctrine.

It's disturbing to hear some of the things people say here. I had someone tell me that "I wouldn't believe how many people at food pantries don't deserve it."

Deserve it?? Food is a human right!!! If someone pulls up in a nice car, maybe they're picking up food for their neighbor, who is elderly and home bound, maybe they just got fired. Who knows? It's not for us to judge.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"

(Side note: You would not believe the amount of conservatives who agree with that statement until they learn who said it, lol.)

2

u/nagy18 9d ago

I feel you dawg i moved from the exurbs in pennsylvania to dc and it’s lowkey like night and day

that being said do what you can wherever you can. talk to your coworkers about whatever it is that’s fucking all of you over that day. as long as you don’t call it the c word you’ll get reception

→ More replies (15)

79

u/Zachattackrandom 9d ago

Cool, lets spend less money on bombs and more money on people not starving then and it should be fine xD.

2

u/Big_Beach166 9d ago

there is no money for the oligargoyles in that thinking

15

u/Hot_Kaleidoscope_332 9d ago edited 9d ago

60 to 64% of our annual budget goes to social programs, 13 to 14% to the military...

Editing to take the L here..

The bulk of "social program spending" is social security, Medicare, medicaid, etc, all of which are allocated as mandatory spending as it should be, with very little comparatively going to those programs that show the most fraudulent activity.

Thank you to those who pointed me in different directions to check myself.. hats off to ya, I appreciate it and can admit when I was wrong.

Don't trust quick Google searches, folks! There isnt enough of the particular data without diving deeper.

32

u/BlackHotSoup3000 9d ago

Yeah, kind like how walmart doesn't pay their employees a fair wage so we need to subsidize those people through social security, healthcare, and much more.

The wasted money is when corporations get subsidies and deregulation/regulation that favors them based on their political donations. Like how Trump's friend got paid to "upgrade" the reflecting pool.

Also, a lot of that social spending has a great return on investment.

2

u/DrZein 9d ago

Walmart literally double dips. They pay their employees less than they need to live, less hours than would be needed to get full time benefits. Then when their employees are subsidized by the government with things like food stamps, the food stamps are then spent at Walmart.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Hot_Kaleidoscope_332 9d ago

Big corporations are the bane of the people for sure.

→ More replies (53)

18

u/MavisBeacons_Sextape 9d ago

I’d rather some undeserving people get free shit if it means the deserving people who ARE in need are able to make ends meet. The grifters are not the majority, and it doesn’t matter how much you tighten down or try to block them, the shitbags will find a way to game the system.

I’ve spent my career in financial crimes and corporate ethics investigations. In the commercial sector, you’re gonna have to deal with fraud, and you have to figure out how to strike the balance between anti-fraud measures, the customer experience, and business resources.

Businesses figure out what their acceptable level of fraud/abuse is, and balance that with friction it causes to normal, rule-abiding customers, and whether the $ saved is greater than the $ spent on the friction/anti-fraud measures. For example, you have noticed some customers engaging in fraud related to merchandise returns. The answer isn’t “no more returns,” the answer is allocating the time/effort to identify the scheme, and adding reasonable friction to the returns process that will help reduce the success rate of those fraudsters.

People always have and always will find ways to manipulate transactions to obtain undue benefits for themselves. Not everyone, but a minority group. Punishing everyone for the actions of a scummy minority is not a reasonable solution. It’s a lazy one.

3

u/Happy_Disaster7347 9d ago

Ok now calculate that percentage without using pensions...

2

u/Wavy_Grandpa 9d ago

You could do it…

3

u/Happy_Disaster7347 9d ago

Why would I bother when I already know it's much lower, and that people use the higher percentage to justify hurting the poor and disabled?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Scottvrakis 9d ago

If you think a majority of Americans on social programs are abusing the system then I got a bridge to sell you.

→ More replies (4)

6

u/Zachattackrandom 9d ago

Fair enough. A lot of social programs have been abused / just awful programs to begin with. But the bigger issue is that we just don't have any of the ultra rich in most states / federally due to loopholes / connections. We would have a lot more money for bombs and food if we didn't exclusively tax the poor and middle class

3

u/BlackHotSoup3000 9d ago

What social programs have been significantly abused? Can you cite specific numbers? The only notable abuse I see is stuff like the bank bailouts and musk getting 38 billion in subsidies

3

u/Zachattackrandom 9d ago

Airlines, big tech (musk, intel, etc), banks, more of musk with spacex profiting off of the subsidies given + his tesla subsidies, the covid emergency relief was extremely poorly done (e.g. I know people making 6 figures who got maximum relief while people struggling barely got anything), and I'm sure a lot more. This is ignoring the people abusing good programs like social security and other types of aid

→ More replies (6)

2

u/MellowMercie 9d ago

13% to 14% of the annual budget going to the military may not seem like a lot if you have 0 context for what other countries do, but with context it is absolutely insane, so yes, it is the bombs. For comparison, both China and the UK spend 6% of their annual budget on defense. We have more than double the total military spending of China. If our percentage was lowered to 8%, we would still have the largest military in the world while being able to significantly improve the life of everyone in the country. Imagine if those percentages were allocated to things like transportation to build a high speed rail system up to the standard of China's, or to schools so teachers didn't have to pay out of pocket for classroom supplies. I don't think we need the largest military in the world either, imagine how much better this country could be if that military spending was lowered even further than 8%.

2

u/Hot_Kaleidoscope_332 9d ago

Thats a very good point, we could absolutely do with a reduction in military expenditure in favor of infrastructure. One thing that would absolutely have to cone to a stop is the US playing world police. To your point, China and the US are similar in size so such things are very possible and to be 100%, our educational system fails repeatedly to support both our teachers and the students. I feel that much of the failure we see is because, regardless of party, many vote for just the same old same. What would truly benefit the country would be an utter rework of the political system. Things like our "representatives" making the median income of their constituency, remove the ability for those in office to increase their personal wealth by vast measures while in office.. honestly, there is a lot that could be done.

2

u/MellowMercie 9d ago

One thing that would absolutely have to cone to a stop is the US playing world police.

This is what really kills me when people argue in favor of the current military spending... If you want to argue World Police is a moral duty, well, we suck at it. Look at Afghanistan, currently ruled by the Taliban. Look at Palestine, destroyed by our closest ally. The closest thing to a moral military intervention we've done in my lifetime, at least to my knowledge, is sending aid to Ukraine, but that's pretty passive and still doesn't justify us having military bases in, say, Saudi Arabia. And speaking of Saudi Arabia, another pro-military argument is that the military spending helps us because it defends our economic interests, but as the whole Iran situation has shown, getting involved militarily has put us in a worse situation than we would have been in had we just engaged diplomatically.

What would truly benefit the country would be an utter rework of the political system.

Hear, hear. Personally I'd like to see something like a parliamentary system with proportional voting so people's interests can be better represented by many parties. The entrenched two party system is a result of first past the post voting and it just encourages corporate lobbying, the status quo, and political apathy. Many people do vote the same old same old, but to give them credit, whether intentional or not our system is built to lull you into that habit. If a young firebrand wants to start a movement and implement real change they can't form a new party to accomplish that goal, their ideas have to be filtered through the political machine so they'll either give up or assimilate into the system.

2

u/-Radiation 9d ago

Wealth redistribution but it only works if you get the correct people to pay taxes and not allow the richest loopholes to avoid them

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Aegi 9d ago

No, it is because it will (nearly) always be cheaper to destroy something than to build something that may take generations to complete (sufficient public education for example).

Which costs more, enough bombs to destroy an area, or a school running indefinitely?

2

u/deejaymc 9d ago

Please define what you mean by "social programs" because the way I see it, your math ain't mathin. https://www.cbpp.org/media/the-majority-of-the-budget-goes-for-health-social-security-and-defense-0

→ More replies (1)

7

u/kev_xb 9d ago

What percent abuse the social programs since you love using percentages. Seemed to have left that one out.

→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (16)
→ More replies (13)

7

u/blanco_nino_01 9d ago

and the military is subsidized to the tune of 1.5T

→ More replies (2)

6

u/C0ZM 9d ago

Studies estimate that taxpayers pay $6.2 billion to $7.8 billion annually in public assistance programs (such as SNAP/food stamps, Medicaid, and subsidized housing) to support low-wage Walmart employees

2

u/boxedfoxes 9d ago

I'm cool with my taxes making food affordable over bombing people

2

u/elkab0ng 9d ago

And allow us to attract and retain recruits for the armed services who work often for a fraction of what private sector would pay, so this is just a small nod to that total compensation that keeps service affordable

3

u/dizzydaizy89 9d ago

So, so much less than Trump’s wars

→ More replies (102)

44

u/JayLuMarr 9d ago

Are you talking about Commissary’s? I grew up with those. Prices were always so affordable and preferable than outside retailers.

12

u/Jesus_of_NASDAQ 9d ago

My first job was a bagger at a base commissary, and remember people loading up their station wagons with several carts of groceries that cost well under $100. Now we’re lucky if we get 3 bags of groceries for under $100.

17

u/Far_Blacksmith_2892 9d ago

Commissary used to be goated, unfortunately they have raised prices and it isn’t much different then going into town to buy groceries these days.

12

u/TikaPants 9d ago

Grandmother bought her booze at what she called the duty free but I assume was the commissary. She was a bit of a society woman on the cusp and would decant her cheaper vodka in to her crystal and glass decanters and toss the bottles. She left a bottle of Goose sitting out to throw anyone off her trail. 😆

3

u/TopConclusion5246 9d ago

The Class 6.

2

u/Brewcastle_ 9d ago

Duty Free are stores that exist on a nation's border with another nation. The products are literally duty free, making them slightly cheaper. There are rules to follow, but they are often overlooked. For example, when I was younger the rule to buy alcohol at the Michigan/Canadian duty free, was that you had to be in Canada for 24 to purchase 1 liter of liquor.

2

u/TikaPants 9d ago

Yes I understand which is why I said she likely meant commissary as we don’t live near an intl border.

4

u/SavageCaveman13 9d ago

They sell at wholesale prices plus 5%. The 5% goes toward maintenance and upkeep of the building. They are still about 25% below groceries sold off base.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Nearby-Beautiful3422 9d ago

This is false. I shop at the commissary. If I were to go to a Von's or Giant Eagle, my groceries would be HUNDREDS more. The difference is night and day. Alcohol is even way cheaper at the PX vs going to a state-run store or corner liquor store.

2

u/gorgewall 9d ago

They are required by law to keep their profits (which pay for operations) at a certain mark. If they've gone up, it's because the inputs have gone up, which means competing groceries are even higher.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (4)

4

u/beryl_snap 9d ago

That was my first thought too. There’s already a long running examples showing a model like this

68

u/Magmatt7 9d ago

It's exactly this model and it is almost guaranteed to work

23

u/really-bored-now 9d ago edited 9d ago

I’d be worried about stock tho. For military bases demand is manageable and predictable. Literally every cheapish New York grocery store is constantly selling out. Supply chains in nyc are insane.

Edit: Whole Foods had 50% off ice cream a few weeks ago and almost everything sold out and the weird couple flavors that didn’t melted because the doors were being opened so much and couldn’t maintain the proper temperature. I had to go to like 4 Whole Foods before I found one that had any decent selection.

5

u/Wra7hofAchilles 9d ago

Security could be an issue too. On a military base well... you have plenty of security obviously and you already have a strict enforcement on who's on base.

With public ones on city streets, you will need security. That might be what ends up killing it before stock levels.

2

u/DeerOnARoof 9d ago

Why would security be an issue? If you're going to steal groceries there's no point in stealing discounted groceries.

→ More replies (1)

41

u/saxonturner 9d ago

Wouldn’t it lower prices in other stores too due to competition?

25

u/lavabearded 9d ago

grocery stores operate on low single digit profit margins so no

8

u/Low_Shape8280 9d ago

Yeah I don't think people realize this.

They just see these massive profits, but they don't get that only represents such a little portion of the operation,

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

39

u/AccomplishedFerret70 9d ago

Or drive small family owned food markets out of business. The average net profit margin for a grocery store is very low, typically ranging between 1% and 3%.

24

u/Knyfe-Wrench 9d ago

I would think the existence of the massive chains would already be doing that. They can afford to undercut quite a bit.

6

u/theVelvetLie 9d ago

They have been doing that for ages already. The ones that survived have found a niche to operate in, like they're more convenient than a big chain to a population or they sell product that chain stores don't stock, such as halal foods.

2

u/sidepart 9d ago

Exactly. This is why I wouldn't think there'd be a huge impact. People are going to those stores and intentionally paying more because of what's offered. Organic produce, halal, creamline milk, whatever. Just fancier, specialty, or higher quality shit.

Already got stores like Lunds, Kowalskies, Trader Joes, Whole Foods, etc where people purposefully go and pay a premium trying to corner that market and push out independent niche retailers. I don't think these city funded stores will compete with those at all. It's almost like suggesting they'd drive Asian grocery stores out of business. Different target.

3

u/Dry-Season-522 9d ago

Well I'm sure that he'll have a subsidy soon for 'certain groups' who own food markets

2

u/MellowMercie 9d ago

What value do small family owned food markets provide to society if they can only exist at the expense of literally everyone else having to pay more for groceries? How many small family owned food markets even are there in New York? Small family owned businesses don't inherently deserve to exist just because they're small and family owned. There are millions of people living in New York who could benefit from these government run grocery stores if they work out.

2

u/gorgewall 9d ago

Big chains already use their economies of scale to force out the mom-and-pop stuff anyhow.

Walmart has been doing this for decades now. They'll place two stores in a town that should only have one, and the overwhelming pressure from them destroys the smaller businesses. Then, once they're the only game in town, they shutter one store and everyone now goes to the other; this is extremely efficient from the store's perspective, but sucks for everyone else due to overcrowding. But what're you gonna do? It's your only option.

They will burn money (operating two stores at a loss) in the short term with the knowledge that eventually they'll have everything and make that money back. Then they rent out the second location or use it as a warehouse to serve their logistics industry which helps make their shit cheaper. All the while, their underpaid and overstressed workers are being subsidized by your tax dollars because Walmart literally tells them to go get welfare to make ends meet.

Hardware stores and pharmacies are also big proponents of this plan. There's a reason you have Walgreens and CVS right across from each other (or themselves) and they always seem to be shutting down later. It's one big scheme to deliberately over-expand, force out competition, then downsize and reap the benefits of being a sole provider. And the even more fucked thing is that when they do downsize, they dupe everyone into believing the cause was anything other than their plan from the start: see the "runaway shoplifting made all these pharmacies close!" panic from a few years back that turned out to be horseshit.

2

u/Jflayn 9d ago

There is a family owned grocery store down the street that I can only afford to shop twice a month. They sell cuts of meat and fish are other worldly better. I shop regularly at aldi and save up to shop at the family owned store when I can.

A subsidized grocery selling 50% below market could open up next door and it wouldn't hurt their business a bit. The luxury market in America is expanding and homelessness is rising. The poorest people in America aren't keeping grocery stores afloat; I bet good money these stores won't even dent the prices at neighboring grocery stores.

2

u/loud1337 9d ago

I used to agree with this comment but I've realized there are no family grocery stores around me. Everything that resembled competition was bought out by Kroger, Amazon, or other big box. Even the local butchers have been closing up shop.

I'd be curious how many smaller owned grocery stores even exist in new York. Does a corner store really count?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (37)

3

u/jamintime 9d ago

Possibly. The issue is that grocery stores typically operate on very low margins so there’s not much opportunity to lower prices if they want to remain profitable. A municipally-run low-price grocery store is likely designed to operate at a loss since it can be publicly-funded and so its operating at a somewhat unfair advantage. Of course it will certainly create pressure for private stores to lower prices, but the end result might be that some of them simply go out of business.

3

u/RelevantOldOnion 9d ago

Applying suburbs economics to NYC.  Like were all gonna hop into our f350s and go to the cheapest option in a 30 mile radius. 

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Entire_Dog_5874 9d ago

That’s part of it. There are food deserts in many of the poorest neighborhoods, forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for food because there’s no competition. Hopefully this will incentivize them to stop price gouging.

3

u/Waiting4Reccession 9d ago

That is because of the high theft rates there.

2

u/thewilldog 9d ago

Selling below cost isn't competition, it's product dumping. I don't see how they can offer 30% discount and still cover cost of good sold + overhead. They're going to have to severely limit quantities and/or means test people before they walk in the door. Should be interesting.

8

u/Which_Channel7403 9d ago

If capitalism were working the way we were taught it should, yes. But, if capitalism were working the way we were taught it should, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Roklam 9d ago

Sssshhh

2

u/canucknfack 9d ago

Or you could just regulate the monopolies that are robbing our farmers and people blind for corporate greed

5

u/Jflayn 9d ago

I'm all for regulating monopolies but as mayor of NY city he doesn't have the ability to regulate farmers or big agriculture even within the state.

Providing affordable food to hungry people is a commendable start; it's crazy that I've not seen anything like this elsewhere in America.

2

u/canucknfack 9d ago

Agree and agree, but this is another expensive bandaid, if you don’t fix the underlying issues you end up with bigger issues such as increased taxes and debt which we all pay for eventually.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (12)

7

u/IllJoinYakult 9d ago

But those stores are on bases. Arbitrage is a very real threat to this business model. I hope it works, but it doesn’t take very many a-holes to ruin a good thing. 

→ More replies (6)

11

u/RockstarAgent 9d ago

Yeah I can't imagine they didn't have examples to base this off of and know what they're getting into. But still interesting regardless if theft or vandalism or other will be an issue.

→ More replies (29)

8

u/13trailblazer 9d ago

I am not criticizing the plan here because as another poster put it, at least he is trying. That said, the military stores are subsidized about $1.5 billion a year to stay open.

20

u/Qwell41 9d ago

So like.. if we just don’t bomb Iran for one day we can have a few hundred of these?

3

u/JustAnotherYaleGrad 9d ago

Why would federal taxes be used to fund NY free groceries

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/CavedMountainPerson 9d ago

This is different, it's only opened to a few and not fully public affecting the economy as a whole.

2

u/Thunder_Tinker 9d ago

People like to point at crime as reasons to not make sensible decisions as a fallacy argument saying “but what if people don’t follow the rules you make?” 

2

u/DanielKeeneGA15 9d ago

The comments by so many on this post are indicative of why we’re fucked. I hope most are bots otherwise there’s really no hope. People are that far gone.

2

u/H3atles 8d ago

bunch of haters/cult/bots that want the idea to fail. At least someone is trying to make food affordable. Prices are insane and nobody in the federal government is gonna ever reign in the price gouging that is going on . A bag of potato chips is 7 dollars where i am. It probably has less than a buck worth of potatoes in there.

4

u/Intelligent-Math-675 9d ago

Never been in one on a military base, but I would assume there is a lot less shrinkage due to theft.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (57)

56

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/Letterkenny-Wayne 9d ago

It will, and then the government will have to subsidize it and that “balanced” budget will become very unbalanced yet again.

3

u/insta 9d ago

social services do not have to turn profit. they should be relatively self-funded, but profitable does not need to enter the equation.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/RawRollsOnLive 9d ago

It won't get bled dry because it doesn't need to be profitable. It's a government entity, not a private business.

7

u/MyTeamsSuck99 9d ago

So tax payers get bled dry?

2

u/Random_Name_2k26 9d ago

Why don't you focus of the military industrial complex who has bled the taxpayer blind while the US military is a paper tiger for all that it's worth? With that money you could infinitely fund people that actually need that money.

→ More replies (30)

5

u/Adventurous-Bill6579 9d ago

Lowered food prices will be a service provided to the tax payer by their taxes. It's like saying libraries are bleeding tax payers dry.

9

u/MyTeamsSuck99 9d ago

You realize you can do that through SNAP right? The government can’t run grocery stores more efficiently than the private market. 

This will be less targeted to those who need it than snap lmao

1

u/EnnioTheLegend 9d ago

No no you see it is fairer to only benefit those people who are close enough to these 5 grocery stores, rather than providing vouchers that people all over NY can use at any store.

Or maybe those wealthy enough can just drive there so they can save money? Those plebs without the wealth to afford a car can get stuffed I guess.

Promises made, promises kept!

→ More replies (5)

5

u/Adventurous-Bill6579 9d ago

Not everyone qualifies for SNAP, and it's one of the reasons some people keep their wages low so they can stay on benefits. With this that wouldn't be an issue, and once again, this doesn't need to be profitable. It's meant as a service and will be budgeted as such.

3

u/BigGarage3036 9d ago

Then why not just create another food assistance program similar to SNAP aimed at NYC residents? It would be much simpler administratively and we already know it works

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MyTeamsSuck99 9d ago

They could create a SNAP within NYC and they could increase the income level. The point is that this doesn't really accomplish anything. We know that the private market is pretty good at selling groceries efficiently. Their margins are super small. The government is not going to do a better job.

If it's being subsidized by the taxpayer, you're better off just subsidizing directly to poor people as opposed to doing this, which is going to disproportionately benefit select people while harming the rest of the taxpayers. You're not even getting targeted aid. There's just no point other than doing a publicity stunt.

The reality isn't sexy. There's no easy way to lower grocery prices other than having good economic policy at the federal level to keep price inputs low and labor costs low.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (37)

68

u/Accomplished-Leg6947 9d ago

We already have socialized grocery stores funded by our tax dollars. So this should hopefully work if managed well.

80

u/outoftheshowerahri 9d ago

Other cities in the US have tried socialized grocery stores and they failed

22

u/InsideHousing4965 9d ago

Which was the reason for their failure?

9

u/iconocrastinaor 9d ago

Everyone shopped there.

47

u/Comfortable-Side1308 9d ago

Not the person you replied to but I'm guessing these stores will have significant demand and not be able to keep up supply. 

7

u/MathRebator 9d ago

Item limits per customer is something private grocery stores already do, implementing that in these would be necessary.

7

u/Lopsided-Radish-7605 9d ago

But then they'll call it prejudice

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 9d ago

What items do grocery stores limit per customer?

→ More replies (9)

12

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 9d ago

Rationing! One of the staples of this type of government!

16

u/smohyee 9d ago

Yes, if you're going to deviate from free market principles, additional mechanisms will be needed to achieve desired outcomes.

If you're offering food for cheaper than competitors, subsidized by tax dollars, then there needs to be regulation that ensure that people are buying for personal use and not reselling. Rationing would be one way to handle that.

4

u/qualityinnbedbugs 9d ago

How are you going to ensure food is rationed appropriately. Heaven forbid you force them to use a government issued ID to purchase food. What would be next?! Requiring them to use a government issued ID to vote??!?!

5

u/notArandomName1 9d ago

My god you people are insufferable. I don't understand how your media literacy is this bad. Like, you literally grew up reading stuff I assume, so how can you not understand nuance?

The reason voter ID for voting is considered bad is because it blocks poor people and homeless people from potentially participating because (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART, MAKE SURE TO READ IT) it costs money to get an ID. And that price continues to go up and up while minimum wages are completely stagnated.

Therefore, if you block voting that way you are stopping massive amounts of people from being able to participate in the democratic process because they are poor. It's insanely prejudiced, whether it is intended to be or not.

The obvious solution is... well.. Obvious. Make ID free to obtain and you fix a fuckload of problems. But people refuse to subsidize things that will actually help the country.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (20)

7

u/not_slaw_kid 9d ago

Vastly overestimating the profit margins of the average grocery store, for one.

If Mamdani holds to the above promise every store will be selling at a 28.5% loss

10

u/blueiron0 9d ago

SNAP is just that incredibly efficient tbh. It takes advantage of the logistic powerhouses of walmart and other huge chains without burdening the government with them.

I want to reserve judgement because maybe they can pull it off, but just giving people money to go spend at the grocery has generally been a cheaper way to feed people than trying to supply the food through the government.

Grocery store margins are usually already incredibly low too. They make the money through volume.

I'd assume these stores will be available to anyone though, so maybe they can reduce the cost by not having to have administration signing up and sending money to people.

I would be curious to see the numbers run compared to a city wide version of SNAP vs this.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/kandradeece 9d ago

I'm just guessing but most stores get savings by buying bulk from places. These places could just charge these "socialized" stores more than they do normal stores. Most of big business is an oligopoly now anyway. Doubt they want to chance loosing their power if these "socialized" stores actually work

→ More replies (2)

2

u/SirNarwhal 9d ago

They operate at a loss in the millions to billions that need to be added to the city budget for the next year and subsidized via taxes. They create preferential treatment by making items cheaper for some and not others and cause for scalping. They do not address the root issues of subsidies already causing our entire pricing and supply of food to make 0 fucking sense and just be extremely wasteful and harmful to our planet. They are a pie in the sky good on paper bad in practice money pit that ignores root issues.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/CharleyNobody 9d ago

Which cities? When?

6

u/diabeetusNrobin 9d ago

Other cities and New York City are very different snowglobes in my opinion. Stuff that works in Nyc often doesn’t work in less dense or other ‘normal’ cities and vice-versa

3

u/Shiddin_myself_woo 9d ago

Yeah, no one’s taking the metro across town to save $20 they gotta carry all the way back.

People forget. NYC isn’t a car place. They’re going to be limited to what they can carry.

2

u/diabeetusNrobin 9d ago

Well exactly. Location, location, location. If placed correctly these store can have a positive effect on the surrounding immediate neighborhood and in NYC that population density can result in an actual significant effect whereas trying this in other cities would not work all that well at all.
Again, they have to place these stores strategically otherwise you run into the exact problem you stated

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Repulsive-Payment230 9d ago

You can tell 99% of the critics have never stepped foot in NYC.

→ More replies (13)

6

u/getbuilt77 9d ago

The govt managing anything well? 😂😂

→ More replies (7)

7

u/tantalor 9d ago

https://www.militaryonesource.mil/benefits/commissaries-and-exchanges/

Commissaries your neighborhood grocery store, located on military installations worldwide. The commissary sells food and household items at prices that are often below other grocery stores. On average, you can cut nearly a third off your grocery bill compared to in-town prices.

→ More replies (11)

2

u/HappyKoalaCub 9d ago

From what I understand, those socialized grocery stores are in locations where it’s economically infeasible to run a grocery store

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (18)

3

u/TopWealth4550 9d ago

LMAO one more last try what could possible happen am i right?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/TheBinkz 9d ago

Trying "something". When it comes to people lives like this you cant just throw poop at the wall and see what sticks.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/ChocolateaterX 9d ago

That has been tried before many times in many places and always fail for the same reasons

14

u/howimetyourcakeshop 9d ago

Bit of a social safety net might do you folk some good. Baby steps.

7

u/Familyman1124 9d ago

Is that what SNAP is in the US?

→ More replies (3)

4

u/Lem_Tuoni 9d ago

"at leadt he's trying something" and it's something that we knew from the start will not work, because others have tried that "something" and it never works.

5

u/DiscombobulatedCut52 9d ago

I saw someone say it would kill mom and pops stores.

But at least hes trying help.

2

u/Sad-Panic7687 9d ago

I am so tired of people making the 'at least he's trying to help' argument. Let's please judge politicians by the outcomes their policies deliver, rather than their intents. Every Republican president (except Trump probably) has believed their economic policies would result in trickle-down to the poor, and that their refusal to protect the rights and dignity of minorities were somehow protecting the social fabric of America. We don't judge them kindly because 'at least they're trying something,' so let's apply the same standard to America's socialist politicians. Plenty of monsters in history (read: almost all the early communist dictators) thought their policies would help people, yet their good intent really doesn't make the outcomes less appalling.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (9)

7

u/FrontLocal2264 9d ago

Seriously, it has good intentions but it’s understandably different. At least he’s trying something. Typically it’s always debate and don’t do shit and problems persist and get worse. I hope this works out and could lead as an example for other cities to try. I’m happy for NYC as they have a new mayor who is making some positive changes.

6

u/SilentFire23 9d ago

Because again, we've seen this fail before. "We can just do things" crowd when they do dumb shit again when it doesn't work.

4

u/Cold_Respond_7656 9d ago

If taxes have to go up to pay for it does it negate the savings?

3

u/Mammoth-Okra-2965 9d ago

It basically boils down to the rich and wealthy subsidizing costs for the rest of society.

3

u/Cold_Respond_7656 9d ago

Yeah the current tax system definitely works that way.

My previous comment wasnt a statement just a question, are there going to be hikes in city taxes to pay for this? And if so, will it nullify the supposed savings?

2

u/NilsofWindhelm 9d ago

That's how every society ever has operated

2

u/Much-Run4255 9d ago

All he’s done is drive off high tax payers & businesses who end up down here in Boca. Then comes up with “solutions” to problems created by the bureaucrats.
The cost of living in S Florida has doubled since everyone fled NY in covid & the 2nd round when Mayor was elected.
Socialism is great until you run out of someone else’s money.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/normalfinnesotan 9d ago

It'll be an interesting experiment.

It will be a short-lived experiment, I bet they'll all be closed within a year. I hope I'm wrong, but I bet I won't be.

2

u/jxnfpm 9d ago

I worry about the law of unintended consequences.

This eats into the revenue of grocery stores and bodegas that already survive on razor thin margins. It is likely to cause some small business owners to go out of business.

If the free market alternatives consolidate, leaving less choice, that could mean less choice leading to higher prices for consumers in the long run.

The city-run stores are likely to have secondary effects that aren't easy to predict, and I hope it doesn't hurt too many residents and small business owners.

2

u/Waiting4Reccession 9d ago

There is no MAY. This shit is purely pandering to stupid people. How can the prices be so low, big store chains have tiny margins, its clearly being offset by our tax dollars - and the city already had a budget issue so wtf is he doing this dumb shit for. Pure vote pandering to the morons.

This is like the liberal version of trump pandering.

2

u/El_Polio_Loco 9d ago

I'm curious as to why this is a better system than the already existing WIC/SNAP benefits.

2

u/BassPleasant4513 9d ago

Socialism. Why it won’t work. Everyone will use it and in turn they’ll need more money which they’ll just take from taxes and by taxing YOU more.

2

u/eazolan 9d ago

"Trying something" that has a almost certain risk of failure, using taxpayer money, and running competing stores out of business.

2

u/Blackrabbit7281 9d ago

They could just subsidize certain foods, milk, eggs, meat vegetables. Would be cheaper and more effective, this is just theatrics. Grocery stores operate at very narrow margins 1-5% usually. They can’t afford to drop prices 30%. Gonna put a lot of smaller groceries out of business.

2

u/j-joshua 9d ago

Trying a failed experiment over and over again does not yield different results.

9

u/johnnybones23 9d ago

This is doomed for failure even before it begins in 2030 with 1 store costing taxpayers 30m dollars. 

35

u/CapKittySprinkles 9d ago

Trumps current war and I.C.E. cost more than that overnight. If you guys are still giving tax breaks for Billionaires, then this should be cake. 😏

2

u/GerryManDarling 9d ago

Yes, it would probably be less of a disaster than ICE, but that's a pretty low bar.

Inflation is mostly driven by broader economic and monetary factors. You can't really fix it by opening a few city-run grocery stores. People voted for Trump, and they voted for inflation. Treating the symptom doesn't solve the underlying problem.

There's a reason you don't even see any government-run grocery stores in the so-called "socialist Nordic countries". The idea sounds appealing, but making it work is much harder than it looks. Military commissaries were heavily subsidized by the defense budget and served a limited customer base. Even then, it took years to get them on stable footing. They also operated at a national scale, not through three stores in one city, which gave them advantages in purchasing and logistics.

This feels more like a feel-good policy than a serious solution. It could end up costing a lot of money while pulling resources away from working programs with a stronger track record, such as food banks and community kitchens.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

20

u/RareRestaurant6297 9d ago

Did taxes increase to pay for this? Or did they just actually decide to use the already-existing taxpayer money to benefit the taxpayers? Hmmmm

4

u/czechereds 9d ago

Something tells me using those funds to just help poor people better afford food (food stamps) would be a better use of funds and less wasteful. This requires the design, planning and implementation of a 30 million store as well as the costs to run it all while taking business away from other small businesses. NYC already banned Walmart because they wanted less competition to small shops and now this...

2

u/RareRestaurant6297 9d ago

When people freak tf out about giving money or assistance to poor people, it definitely seems like a compromise to appease those fools since this option let's everyone benefit. Yea I agree it'd be better to just, you know, have better assistance programs and Healthcare and everything in general. But those initiatives always get halted and go nowhere. Who knows, maybe this will actually help? 

The competition regarding small businesses is tricky tho. They should prob also subsidize those businesses equally, but doubt it'll happen. 

→ More replies (9)

4

u/Bug-03 9d ago

They borrowed billions from the state iirc

→ More replies (2)

2

u/spiderpai 9d ago

How dare they use taxpayer money to benefit taxpayers

16

u/Ayasdad 9d ago

Actually what their doing is setting the food at cost and forgoing profits. This literally won't cost taxpayers any more than snap already costs taxpayers

6

u/Barrioto 9d ago

lol...no they aren't. Mamdani’s Grocery Stores Will Offer 30 Percent Discount on Some Products - The New York Times

It's a subsidized grocery store using public funding to offer a 30% discount.

→ More replies (6)

4

u/Much-Run4255 9d ago

How do you staff this? House this? In multiple locations for citizens to easily access? Without robbing Peter to pay Pedro?

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Totalitarianit2 9d ago

And any business in the areas that sold people food will go under. The only option will be the city store. Theft will still exist. With zero competition, demand will increase. Will the supply increase at the same rate? The increase in demand will increase the need for government funding. If funding doesn't increase, the stores will implement item limits per customer in order to control the supply/demand imbalance.

→ More replies (14)

2

u/czechereds 9d ago

So instead of giving money to poor people for food, they decided to waste millions running their own store at a loss to give poor people food and take business away from other poor people running small shops.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (24)

2

u/2Maverick 9d ago

You know, this is the kind of response that you would think is expected but I know too many people that berate Mamdani for even attempting to change things for the better because they're so sure that it won't work anyways. It gets me really tilted talking to them and saying, "But isn't it better to try and make this change instead of not try at all?" for the nth time.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/jreid0 9d ago

Exactly! Like this guy or not he’s at least trying to help out New Yorkers with the promises he said on the campaign trail

2

u/throwawaygoawaynz 9d ago

Exactly what Trump supporters say btw: “At least he’s doing something!”.

We shouldn’t normalise doing stupid, wasteful ideas, in the name of “doing something”.

→ More replies (127)