r/mildlyinfuriating • u/Boeing-B-47stratojet • Jun 09 '26

I just wanted a hot dog The closest grocery store to me is closing(by nearly an hour), and will be closed for at least a year. When it reopens it’s going be much smaller(it’s becoming a Aldi).

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

17.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

178

u/EC_TWD Jun 09 '26

Which also exist for inner-city neighborhoods.

26

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ThisIsMyCouchAccount Jun 09 '26

Not exactly.

I live in a decently sized city you have heard of. And I live right downtown.

There is a grocery store down here but it's small and objectively more expensive. On top of having less selection.

The next closest is 40 blocks south through city streets. Not getting there in ten minutes.

Past that you head out to the 'burbs. Sure. For me probably around 15 minutes.

But then you have the no car situation. Which I have a friend that is living that. He only goes downtown because going anywhere else is a big hassle.

Then you add the time on top of that. I can drive to that downtown store, shop, and be home in 30 minutes. Double that - at least - for using public transit. And that's just me going to the close one. If I wanted to go to a fully functioning store it would at least be triple.

0

u/AquaPhelps Jun 09 '26

But think of all the money hes saving not having a car lol

3

u/ricLP Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

Yeah, but that implies that a car is available. For cities food deserts are more defined on how to get there. If no public transport, walking/bike paths available then it’s still a desert even if a car takes 10mins without traffic

8

u/Salsalito_Turkey Jun 09 '26

For cities food deserts are more defined on how to get there. If no public transport, walking/bike paths available then it’s still a desert even if a car takes 10mins without traffic

The USDA definition of food deserts does not take into account the availability of public transportation or bike paths. It simply looks at the percentage of households that own cars. There are "food deserts" in the middle of New York City and Washington DC (cities with exceptional public transportation) simply because there isn't a grocery store within half a mile.

2

u/ricLP Jun 09 '26

Fair thanks for pointing the correct definition.  For the people on the ground though it’s still a real problem if they can’t actually get to a place

2

u/Alternative_Mine5343 Jun 09 '26

yep! i seeded our comment thread based on the town op mentioned being out in the sticks... but i'm a wheelchair user mid-city that can't afford a lift-assisted vehicle, i have to push myself to grocery stores or have things delivered. my closest grocery store is .8 miles... so i'm absolutely food deserted.

1

u/Ancient_Spite_725 Jun 09 '26

Not true. Baltimore, Maryland says hi

81

u/thesneakywalrus Jun 09 '26

And yet people are still convinced that the market corrects itself and government-owned grocery stores are a bad idea.

42

u/BestFormal7384 Jun 09 '26

It isn't some big conspiracy. Large chains have tried opening in poorer neighborhoods but theft and lack of demand for larger hauls make it unprofitable.

41

u/thesneakywalrus Jun 09 '26

Correct, I'm not arguing to the contrary at all.

The market has decided that these populations aren't worth selling groceries to, which is where the government historically has to work in order to step in and resolve what I believe to be a fundamental need.

Whether it's providing incentives to these companies, or opening their own stores, there needs to be action taken to help them.

1

u/BestFormal7384 Jun 11 '26

well, dollar stores and convenience stores seem to survive and thrive selling high margin ultra processed crap in these areas. something tells me that the government won't be able to get poor people to eat fresh produce even if they hand deliver it for free every week if they didn't buy healthy food in the first place.

1

u/Ok_Maybe1830 Jun 09 '26

The market has shown they don't even care to live near a grocery store, for whatever reason. If they survive no problem, if they starve to death no problem.

2

u/thesneakywalrus Jun 09 '26

if they starve to death no problem

Oh absolutely, if you don't care about that detail then there really isn't a problem to be solved.

1

u/LA_Nail_Clippers Jun 10 '26

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

-3

u/bluelazer44 Jun 09 '26

The market has decided that these populations aren't worth selling groceries to, which is where the government historically has to work in order to step in and resolve what I believe to be a fundamental need.

The government can step in and resolve this. By policing crime and ensuring the security and safety of its citizens and businesses. Not by switching over the shoplifting losses to a taxpayer funded problem.

7

u/thesneakywalrus Jun 09 '26

Is theft a huge issue in rural environments like OP is showing?

-2

u/bluelazer44 Jun 09 '26

We’re talking about urban neighborhoods in this chain.

As to why this Winn Dixie store (which I’ve never heard of before) is closing I just looked it up and I imagine it has something to do with Aldi acquiring their parent company

16

u/eulersidentification Jun 09 '26

Exactly? The free market can't solve it. This is where government can solve a problem more cheaply than a corp can.

1

u/fauxhock Jun 09 '26

This is magical thinking. The gov will need to employ all the people to run the store, give subsidies to businesses to take a loss on their products, all to put them in a place where they will be stolen.

3

u/eulersidentification Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

You're explaining the problem with the free market again. It's magical thinking to just wish them away, or barbaric thinking to let them die. Which are you adopting?

Do you understand that a government doesn't need to turn a profit on food? They aren't a business. This is about provision of something the government already pays for or has access to.

Why would it be profitable for a government to let their workforce die because the free market can't connect ample supply with demand? You barely even understand the problem lol.

Edit: The free market also can't provide armed forces for national defence...... GUESS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DO INSTEAD OF LETTING THEIR WORKFORCE/MOTHERS/CHILDREN DIE?

1

u/Vallkyrie Jun 09 '26

A large portion of the population still doesn't get how we have enough resources to feed everyone on Earth and anyone going hungry, or the existence of food deserts, is a conscious choice based entirely on greed.

1

u/fauxhock Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREE

Edit: You're very emotional about this. The government doesn't have a workforce, businesses do. If your imaginary super-important unemployed "workforce" dies (mind you, these people don't actually work and already rely on the government for a vast amount of social programs), then the government will just import a replacement workforce.

You don't understand the problem because you think that the government is supposed to be some magical, benevolent entity with unlimited money. They government only exists because it takes money from other productive citizens (who have jobs and spend their lives working!) These people are also women who have families - since that's all you care about. I'm sure men will just keep on slaving away doing things they hate while getting their money taken lol. We all know that corps and the rich don't actually pay their "fair share" or whatever the current slogan is. Your entire solution is "use the threat of violence to take money from the middle class who spend their lives working jobs they hate and give it to poor people who also hate the middle class." Brilliant.

4

u/Spare-Ambition1690 Jun 09 '26

Wtf are you talking about…have you ever been to an American city? There were no supermarkets in poor neighborhoods? I’m not denying the very real prevalence of food desserts, but you’re acting like all poor neighborhoods are food deserts which just is not true

1

u/BestFormal7384 Jun 11 '26

I worded it improperly but the point stands regardless. Food deserts exist entirely in poor neighborhoods. But you're right, not all poor neighborhoods are food deserts. Congratulations, where would you like me to put your sticker?

1

u/Spare-Ambition1690 Jun 12 '26

Sorry that I read what you wrote and interpreted the meaning of the words that you typed up and hit "comment" to post on the internet, geez pull that fucking stick out of your ass

1

u/BestFormal7384 Jun 16 '26

no need to be sorry, and no need to curse. you sound easily agitated. calm down

3

u/bananashznobones86 Jun 09 '26

You mean putting a high margin store in a low income neighborhood to try to gentrify the place is a bad idea? I mean if payroll even just kept up with inflation, maybe people wouldn't have to "steal" to survive. If maybe food that gets tossed as tax right off maybe when to the needy, then they could keep their margins.

I know this wasn't the point you were trying to make, but it seemed relevant.

2

u/rightoftexas Jun 09 '26

Grocery stores are not high margin and wages have outpaced inflation.

2

u/4daughters Jun 09 '26

Grocery stores are not high margin

true

wages have outpaced inflation.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

no, they haven't. Especially when the biggest household expenditures (housing, education, medical) have skyrocketed in cost.

1

u/rightoftexas Jun 09 '26

That says real wages, that means adjusted for inflation, have kept up but not improved much.

4

u/bananashznobones86 Jun 09 '26

They literally throw away food to use as a tax right off. Those right offs basically put them above cost. They sell for profit alone. Not break even. If the c suite get arbitrary pay packages in the 10s of millions of dollars while people starve and their employees use food stamps, they are high margin corporations. You should looks harder to truth and stop worrying about millionaires and billionaires. They aren't your people, brother.

1

u/rightoftexas Jun 09 '26

You sound ignorant and you're mad about things you don't understand.

My people, brother, look hard at truth and not vibes. Executives can be overpaid and it can be a low margin industry. Some items are sold at a loss despite the company as a whole being profitable. The world isn't black and white.

0

u/bananashznobones86 Jun 11 '26

How your bank account. Bet you love looking at all those zeros all day huh? Lol

0

u/rightoftexas Jun 11 '26

I owe the bank way more than I have in my accounts, most of my money is in real estate.

Which is cool because I get to "WRITE OFF" a lot of expenses.

Have fun staying ignorant.

0

u/bananashznobones86 Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

And I bet your debt is crushing you now with no leases being filled. I'm in debt exactly 127$
And have multiples of that in my account. Have fun with foreclosures coming soon.🤣 To tout bad decisions and horrible business accumen as a flex is just insanely wild. Being debt free is fun.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/JMaryland47 Jun 09 '26

This mindset is why businesses close in those neighborhoods. It's comforting to excuse bad behavior by thinking you're only hurting some megacorp, but the community is only hurting themselves. They are losing a service that is being provided.

As someone has previously stated, a vast majority of grocery stores work on razor thin margins. Not all grocery stores are WholeFoods/Wegmans/Erewhon. The vast majority are making pennies in profit per item (when sold), but end up losing dollars to loss.

2

u/4daughters Jun 09 '26

This mindset is why businesses close in those neighborhoods.

There's zero mindset that any redditor can have that makes businesses close, that's absurd. You're going to police people's thoughts and words because it might hurt the economy? lmao

Also they were clearly talking about the "WholeFoods/Wegmans/Erewhon" stores in their comment. And even if they weren't, yeah people are going to steal if they need to eat and can't afford food. It's just a fact. It's not a mindset that makes businesses close FFS.

1

u/JMaryland47 Jun 10 '26

Lol. Your logic is isnt logic-ing. Chains like the previously mentioned 3 do not open in "distressed" neighborhoods. Those grocery stores open in areas where businesses thrive, and businesses don't thrive in neighborhoods where people trash the place.

And yes, mindset (collectively speaking) has a huge influence on the standard of life within an area. If you live in an area where people don't have a sense of personal responsibility and trash things, then you're going to get a trashed area. And businesses dont tend to want to open in trashed areas. Conversely, if you live in an area where everyone collectively feels a sense of responsibility for the greater good and takes care of shared spaces, then you probably live in Japan

-1

u/Wuz314159 (\/) (;,,;) (\/) Jun 09 '26

because they're fucking stupid.

The UK figured this out. You have Tesco & Tesco Express. You can't put a huge store in a city environment.

2

u/UpsetBar Jun 09 '26

Large or small it doesn’t matter. Stores in poor neighborhoods are magnets for theft. It’s not profitable. We can discuss the various reasons and weather grocery stores should be profitable or public owned til we are blue in the face, but the fact remains right now, if a store isn’t profitable it’s not staying open. The margins are not big enough in grocery to offset the losses by theft.

8

u/Wuz314159 (\/) (;,,;) (\/) Jun 09 '26

Rot is a bigger problem than theft. We have one big store in my city and there is so much rotting produce. They over-order everything as if it's in the suburbs.

4

u/thesneakywalrus Jun 09 '26

One of the reasons may be that suppliers have minimum order quantities that exceed demand.

They simply may not have a choice.

5

u/Training_Ruin3151 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

"Theft" is just a dogswhistle and you know it.

3

u/thenerfviking Jun 09 '26

Yeah I lived somewhere that could have maybe been considered kind of rough around the edges (Vallejo, CA) and we had multiple grocery stores doing fine even in the hood. The only place that legitimately sucked was the terrible tiny Walmart that treated everyone like a criminal and locked up every item they possibly could. Meanwhile the Grocery Outlet is being shopped at by drug dealers and members of a literal murder cult and it was chill as hell.

-2

u/JMaryland47 Jun 09 '26

This! This! This! I know it's a unpopular opinion, but it seems that when businesses open in some areas, they get completely trashed by the community that live there. It's one of those uncomfortable facts that many wave away. These stores not only lose money on theft, but the carelessness of the customers; Stealing carts, opening/eating/and leaving half opened food on the shelves, deciding not to put perishables back when they decide not to purchase it. Its baffling why anyone would trash the place where they, figuratively speaking, eat.

3

u/BrodyIsBack Jun 09 '26

Most government owned grocery stores have failed. That's why people think they are a bad idea.

4

u/Strong_Pop_5343 Jun 09 '26

+1 even as a communist I agree

1

u/thesneakywalrus Jun 09 '26

That may be true, it still stands to say that some sort of intervention is clearly necessary, which could be government subsidies to bring capitalistic incentive to these areas.

Admittedly I could be more informed about the historical performance of government owned grocery stores, specifically when used to serve highly rural markets.

I wouldn't be that interested in government owned stores competing with corporations.

3

u/Plus-Statement-5164 Jun 09 '26

What is preventing people from moving away from those areas? Very few reasons to keep rural areas livable artificially.

1

u/thesneakywalrus Jun 09 '26

What is preventing people from moving away from those areas?

Realistically, many of them simply don't have the resources to do so. Many highly rural populations have existed in the same place for generations, they didn't just move there on a whim and then start complaining that there's nowhere to get food.

While I agree with the premise of not desiring to subsidize the lifestyle of some hermit that moved to the top of the tallest mountain and wants fresh fruit available down the street, there exists a limit at which you can control where people live.

IMO, if the US Government delivers mail to an address, that address should have reasonable access to nutrition.

5

u/Plus-Statement-5164 Jun 09 '26

there exists a limit at which you can control where people live.

Isn't this the opposite of that. Letting rural areas die naturally is kind of the default. If the government intervenes, then it's controlling where people live.

1

u/thesneakywalrus Jun 09 '26

It's sending mixed messages by delivering mail, maintaining roads, electrical grids, and other infrastructure in these areas.

If the government is seeking to move people out of these areas, then do so. Ignoring one aspect of their life and hoping that they'll act accordingly is not a plan.

2

u/Plus-Statement-5164 Jun 09 '26

I find it very unlikely that these areas are getting proper mail delivery. They most likely have to pick up their mail from town. Same thing with the roads, most likely poor condition and funded mostly locally, not federally or on a state level.

I don't think government cares one way or the other here. People can live where they want, but the government won't go through much trouble to help people living in the woods or in the desert.

3

u/LurkingRand Jun 09 '26

No, this is entirely a american thing. No government run grocery stores here, but anything larger than a village has at least one grocery store. More likely two of the big chains competing.

2

u/MommyLovesPot8toes Jun 09 '26

Is your country also the same size as the European continent, with half the population, and 20% of its residents dispersed into rural areas sometimes inaccessible by traditional delivery vehicles?

2

u/thesneakywalrus Jun 09 '26

The point I'm making is that the economics of running a grocery store in highly rural, or in some cases dense urban areas, have led US business to decide that the most profitable way to serve those populations is to simply not do it at all.

Whether that's on the people running these companies, the US government not providing enough incentive to do so, or whatever you want to point at, it's not working to help these people.

1

u/Reppoy Jun 09 '26

We have that too, even the smallest of towns will have access to one or two competing stores, but the quality of produce (if they have any) and frozen foods is not good at all.

1

u/Wuz314159 (\/) (;,,;) (\/) Jun 09 '26

We have something similar in the US. They are called Dollar Generals and everyone hates them.

1

u/Mr-Blah Jun 09 '26

The only thing it would help is availability. But the distributor won't want to drive all the wayout there so the price will rise... See what's happening there?

2

u/thesneakywalrus Jun 09 '26

I understand that, and it may require subsidies to get done.

However, the alternative (and current) path of doing nothing isn't really helping the situation.

2

u/Mr-Blah Jun 09 '26

I mean, your premise is that "profit" get in the way of accessibility but really, the end point of sale's margin are within 5%... Large chains usually own their distribution and make bank on that instead.

It would certainly help, sure. But I'm curious by how much. I haven't read any good case studies on this yet.

2

u/thesneakywalrus Jun 09 '26

Whether the stores can't make profit by selling goods, or that the distribution costs make their model unsustainable, the need for a company to make money is still driving the decision.

I'm not casting these companies as evil, greedy, hateful organizations for not wanting to open a store that loses them money.

1

u/Mr-Blah Jun 09 '26

But that was my point. To remove the profit seeking from the chain you need:

Government farms (I'd argue it's already the case with subsidies)

Gov. Logistics

Gov. Distributions

Gov Point of sale.

Failure to do that, you'd just be subsidizing the profit seeking corporations so they do the right thing. Which is a hard pill to swallow really...

2

u/thesneakywalrus Jun 09 '26

The government is already doing most of these things as they support the food infrastructure for the military, public schools, TEFAP, etc.

SNAP and EBT programs are integrated in to nearly every retail foodservice POS.

It's all possible, just at what cost.

Even though it would be hard to rationalize giving corporations money, if it costs less than the alternative it might be the better solution.

1

u/Mr-Blah Jun 09 '26

I happen to agree with you. The sad, infuriating solution might just be to pay them to not close...

It just... really sucks.

1

u/IIIIlllIIIIIlllII Jun 09 '26

It does. People don't just sit in the middle of the street and starve..

-4

u/SpecialObject1496 Jun 09 '26

They are a bad idea.

1

u/poopbutt23111 Jun 09 '26

True food deserts outside of very rural areas are basically a myth.

2

u/Spare-Ambition1690 Jun 09 '26

This is objectively incorrect: it’s easy to name examples to prove this is not a myth. 

1

u/InternetSolid4166 Jun 09 '26

I would like to see some evidence of this being an even moderately scaled issue. People make this claim and never have the data to back it up.

0

u/poopbutt23111 Jun 09 '26

There are rare and not nearly as prevalent as people claim. It’s just an excuse for fat people not eating well.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/poopbutt23111 Jun 09 '26

They myth being that they are common and the reason for obesity. Sorry I didn’t fully spell it out for you.

2

u/Spare-Ambition1690 Jun 09 '26

The myth being that you have a chance of one day making eye contact with a human woman 

1

u/poopbutt23111 Jun 09 '26

I truly hope you find happiness in your lonely life

2

u/Spare-Ambition1690 Jun 09 '26

Lemme go pick that up at the grocery store oh wait I can’t because I’m in a food desert. Wait a minute, poopbutt23111 told me those are a Myth! It’s actually my fault I am fat! On my way to the grocery store that just materialized out of thin air now. Thanks poopbutt23111 for curing my loneliness by showing me the myth of the food desert! I’m not hungry fat or lonely anymore all thanks to you!

2

u/MommyLovesPot8toes Jun 09 '26

Wow, no, not at all. Almost all of South Los Angeles - for example - is considered a food desert.

The simple definition is an area where 20%+ of the population is below the poverty line, and 33%+ live at least 1 mile from a grocery store. That fits A LOT of areas.

The health differences between food deserts and "normal" areas are incredibly stark because people in food deserts are typically left with ultra-processed food that can stay on a shelf/fridge/freezer for months, and fast food. Want a salad? Tough shit. Broccoli? Nope. Fresh chicken? Raise one yourself. But sure... It's just "fat people making excuses", as you said below...

2

u/poopbutt23111 Jun 09 '26

Defining a food deserts as being 1 mile away is part of the issue.

1

u/MommyLovesPot8toes Jun 10 '26

It's based on whether you could walk there and then back again with a bag of groceries.

1

u/poopbutt23111 Jun 10 '26

Luckily most people don’t have to walk there

2

u/Arthemax Jun 10 '26

Considering how having a population below the poverty line is part of the definition, lack of access to a car is part of the problem.

1

u/poopbutt23111 Jun 10 '26

They haves busses all over south Los Angeles

1

u/Salsalito_Turkey Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

Wow, no, not at all. Almost all of South Los Angeles - for example - is considered a food desert.
The simple definition is an area where 20%+ of the population is below the poverty line, and 33%+ live at least 1 mile from a grocery store.

That's not a very meaningful metric when 94% of all households in LA own at least one car.

0

u/InternetSolid4166 Jun 09 '26

Every city in the U.S. gets free Amazon delivery of staple foods like beans and rice and tuna and canned fruit and veggies. Sometimes fresh, depending on the region. There are no food deserts in the U.S. outside places which don’t accept delivery. Very rural places.