The mayor’s office says it would be the first major U.S. city to enact such a plan.
Food, shelter, water, power shouldn’t he for profit.
Medicine, education…
Holy shit…what have the Romans ever done for us?
And the aquaducts!
I’ll toss in that I’m fine with the luxurious versions of those things being for profit where it applies. But that’s the rub, the ruling class is probably going to define anything past a cardboard box and gruel as “luxury.”
Anyone else remember government cheese?
That melty golden-orange loaf of processed cheese product. 🧀 We call it Velveeta now.
Not me, but Im not American.
Since the pandemic I’ve been working from home and that gives me time to take food-shopping off of my wife’s share of the household work. I noticed pretty quickly that every supermarket under the Kroger group was gouging on prices, so when they acquired Safeway I discovered there’s a WinCo in my town. (WinCo is employee owned, has the feel of a warehouse/bulk store, and it beats Kroger/Walmart/Amazon/GoodFoodHoldings stores on price, by a lot. Plus, the employees don’t have the energy of beaten animals and that matters to me for some reason.)
Good on Chicago doing this but there are already alternatives to Walmart and Whole Foods in some places if you look.
WinCo is legit. The bulk section alone makes going in there worth it. Need oregano? You can pay $5.99 for the jar at Kroger (in my area, Fred Meyer) or you can go to the bulk section of WinCo and pay $0.37.*
* Numbers not exact, but it is literally that drastic a difference.
you can go to the bulk section
Yeah. I got a bunch of resealable/airtight bulk containers and will probably never buy spices in those little 2oz shaker-jars again. My pantry is a small store by itself now, it feels better to get like a pound of a spice for $7 than it does to buy 2 ounces at a time for $7- and all those trips I don’t have to make to get a spice I just ran out of is totally worth it- my restocking trip is… from kitchen to pantry, takes seconds.
in some places
That’s an important caveat.
Ironically, way back in the 70s Kroger successfully defeated a hostile corporate takeover, in part by issuing their employees stock
Eh, where I live the employee-owned grocery store is of lower quality and higher priced than Walmart.
I went in expecting more, was sorely disappointed and left without buying anything.
It’s essentially the same products in a worse store for a higher price.
I know a lot of people like to beat the ‘employee-owned’ drum, but unless that translates to lower prices or better quality, I don’t see a reason for customers to subscribe to it.
I agree. At the end of the day it’s a business. But if two companies offer similar products go with the employee owned company.
The main thing about is decision making structure. Because employee or community owned stores are owned by the users. It means the end users have power over what is offered. As opposed to big box in which case it is non local non user shareholders.
But if two companies offer similar products go with the employee owned company.
Completely ignored my point about lower quality and higher prices.
It means the end users have power over what is offered.
What do you mean? The employees or the customers? I don’t really care if the employees have the power. That just moves who’s trying to take advantage of me.
As opposed to big box in which case it is non local non user shareholders.
It also doesn’t matter if they’re local.
What matters is if they give me a better deal. If they can’t do that, I will go with someone who will.
I almost completely agree with your first and last points. I was trying to say if they provide the same product at the same quality and price try to prefer the co-operative. I say similar because, personally I’d give some leeway to the co-op. But there are limits and co-ops are businesses and if they give sub par products and services than we shouldn’t buy from them.
The power is held by the owners. If it’s a consumer co-operative it is controlled by the consumer and a worker cooperative is owned by the workers. So the end users of products or the ones who have jobs. It depends on how it’s structured.
I somewhat agree with your last point. The big thing is ownership is wealth and control. If you control your store you get to chose the available options if someone else owns it it means someone else has control. So I’d rather I have control over it. Again with the previous thing. If someone else can do it sooo much better than I than I should someone’s product.
But we have to be careful because you can lead to the problem with data and big tech. I use an alternative to Google Cloud that is a cooperative but I have to pay. But with Google I don’t pay but loose my privacy. In that instance you have to determine what’s more important, given what I need it for is comparable to what I need what is important and I chose ownership and privacy over having neither of those.
Hmm… products and services still cost the same but now there are less people in the chain to make a profit.
Sounds like a win-win for me.
If there are less people In the chain, shouldn’t everything cost less?
That’s what they’re saying. Wholesale price is the same, retail should go down due to less people in the chain.
They just phrased it poorly.
you would think so
I was referring to the overall cost of products, like what the businesses pay to bring them to market.
Yes, things should cost less for customers because businesses are making less profit.
Small town in Kentucky did a similar thing with a municipally ran gas station.
Main streets with Mom and Pop stores are really nice. It seems like you’d get more soul from than a government store. But I don’t know how you would incentive then sufficiently, as it’s really tough to run a small storefront when competing with online.
The real problem is that we fucked over main streets 75 years ago with deliberately car-dependent zoning policies and massive subsidies for car infrastructure. Now all we’re allowed by law to build are shitty stroads with big-box stores.
Problem with mom and pop stores is the owners are still operating to maximize profit.
This intrinsically involves giving the least while charging the most. They’re going to be screwing everyone over as much as they can, while hiding behind the ‘mom and pop’ shield.
Healthy food ftw!
It’s funny how the solutions for the failures of capitalism often end up looking just like socialism
There are less than 6500 food deserts in the country. Having access to cheap healthy food is available to the vast majority of people living in the US. We’re talking edge cases, capitalism has been quite successful with the food supply chain here.
Do you think 6500 is a low number? It’s not like each food desert affects only one person each. More likely than not, each is affecting more than a thousand people. Especially in a population dense area like Chicago. We are talking millions of people living in food deserts.
Also, after reading a bunch of your comments, I’m not sure you are fully aware of what a food desert is. But hey, that’s Capitalism.
About 5% of the population. Whereas the rest enjoy the best supermarkets on the planet. This should be about fixing the edge cases, not trying to pretend we don’t have amazing choice and wealth in food for the vast majority.
So you’re talking about “edge cases” and also claiming it effects over 17 million Americans. That’s a lot of human suffering.
We should strive to improve. But the modern food system which is overwhelmingly capitalist has produced the most food secure system to the most people ever. Calling it a failure over 5%, especially without context and scope is foolish.
The modern food system is not capitalist. We extensively subsidize farming, so that farmers will produce excesses despite a lack of corresponding market demand. This socially-funded excessive production is the foundation of our food security.
Capitalism does not produce such a system. Capitalism sees production in excess of actual demand as wasteful, and seeks to eliminate it.
We subsidize farmers, so we don’t have a famine. Has nothing to do with it being socially funded.
He’s going to find our real quick why those stores left in the first place
Wal-mart regularly closes stores that try to unionize.
Whole Foods is a division of Amazon, and their store decisions generally float around hurting labor until labor gets fed up.
But that is only the pattern that both of those employers have shown repeatedly for years now so maybe I am prejudice against companies owned by multibillionaires.
It sounds like you do have a prejudice against those store chains. Those stores were closed because there was an insanely stupid amount of theft.
Source?
https://reddthat.com/post/4806295
Show some data
“Theft”
Why?
Because of the exorbitant amount of theft at those locations.
Bullshit. Those large stores come in to an area and drive out local competition, then when they don’t make the % to keep the shareholders happy they fold up and leave. Mom and pop shops are the backbone of communities and these pricks destroy that.
Does high crime in an area mean that people shouldn’t have access to stores that sell food?
Cute strawman
They definitely seemed to be implying the city shouldn’t do this in their top post, so no, not a straw man.
Since when is the city in charge of businesses moving?
Excellent point. If stealing is what keeps people fed, then the taxes that keep that store open are worth it. But also I think the reported rates of theft are wildly overstated, here in Australia we had our two largest stores basically admit they made up the whole “epidemic” so they’d have an excuse to raise prices.
It’s usually just an excuse over in the US, too.
If businesses are operating at a loss they cannot sustainably remain open.
Do you believe every USPS office is profitable? No, many are not, but people need access to mail. Roads don’t generate a profit either. Government services shouldn’t need to be profitable.
Sorry guys, this grocery store isn’t profitable, guess you don’t really need access to food
It’s almost like we should care more about people instead of profits
This is the e real reason, I don’t get why you’re being downvoted.
Because Stores say shoplifting is a national crisis. The numbers don’t back it up. The surge in theft is mostly just made up, and what isn’t made up is kind of an irrelevantly small number.
Stores expanded too much and then got hit by the pandemic, a tight labor market, and changes in buying patterns. Those sort of things have a lot larger impact on their profitability than whether shrink was 1.6% or 1.4%.
The average shrink rate says nothing about a single store or single area’s shrink rate.
Some stores are higher than 1.4%, but it’s still in the low end of single digits, not like 15%. Raising prices a couple percent to compensate wouldn’t even be noticed.
Does shrink include the cost of security, security measures, vandalism or injured employees? You have this one thing you think describes the whole thing and the reality is you’ve chosen your bad guy and you’re going to confirmation bias yourself there.
A sav-a-lot even tried to open and they protested because it wasn’t good enough for them.
Those stores left because of crime. Instead of fixing the root cause of major social issues, their Band-Aid is taxpayer funded stores? Why not just skip the middle man and send food to people directly? Or just set up taxpayer funded food banks. That’s effectively what these “stores” will turn into anyway. This just seems like performative nonsense, not intended to solve anything.
Is it “performative nonsense” because it’s Chicago, or was this city in Florida doing it years ago and this one in Kansas also “performative nonsense,” too?
Why do you think these examples are analogous? The stores in the towns described in the articles you linked didn’t shut down because of poverty or crime. In the examples you provided, collective supermarkets seem to be a good fit. Contrast this with the Chicago mayor, who cites poverty. If people can’t afford food anyway, and the business is going to face sky high theft, the plan doesn’t make sense. Cut out the middle man and just send poor people food. It would cost far less than trying to set up supermarkets from scratch and running them at a loss in perpetuity. Plus it means helping poor people, rather than forcing them to shop lift if they’re hungry.
Lack of shopping opportunities and an inability to pay for food are two separate things. They may often co-occur, but just sending food too poor people doesn’t solve food deserts.
And separately from that, poor people deserve to be able to look at their produce, buy stuff last minute, or browse and buy what strikes their fancy too. All the reasons everyone else uses supermarkets should be available to poor people as well.
If the stores are government run, there is no profit motive. That means lower prices, which means more accessibility for the people who need it.
And who will be sending poor people food? Let me guess, we need to leave it up to churches and charities? Lol
Look at you tripping over yourself to lick the boot. Sad.
If the stores are government run, there is no profit motive. That means lower prices, which means more accessibility for the people who need it.
If these stores are going to be run at a loss anyway, why waste enormous sums of money on premises and other costs when they could just start food banks and give people the food directly? Or, as I suggest above, the government could send people food directly.
I’m suggesting that we give people free food and I’m the boot licker? Okay Bezos.
why waste enormous sums of money on premises and other costs when they could just start food banks
This runs into the problem of charity out-competing potential business ventures. Government subsidized private groceries, or public-private partnerships or just plain government run grocery stores can alleviate the problem of a food desert while still bringing the benefits of an active business to the area. The local government can increase or reduce its investment as needed, and it doesn’t create a service that inherently can’t be competed with by private business in a space that’s already unprofitable/too risky to operate a business within
This runs into the problem of charity out-competing potential business ventures.
But this is moot as the city is planning to run loss-making stores where private stores are non-viable. There is no risk of outcompeting businesses which aren’t even there. And if there is a concern of outcompeting private stores, running stores offering cheaper products than any private store could do so in the area would destroy those businesses just as effectively.
The decision has been made to entirely sacrifice any pretence of private enterprise in the supermarket space in certain areas in Chicago. I’m merely arguing that, given this decision, there are more effectively ways to use public funds.
No, you’re just pushing the tired old, “religious groups and charities should be feeding people, leave the government out of it” bullshit. It doesn’t work.
No, you’re just pushing the tired old, “religious groups and charities should be feeding people, leave the government out of it”
I’m literally saying the government should give people free food. You’re arguing with a straw man.
you’re pushing the tired old… “leave the government out of it” bullshit.
They literally said government was the solution in the message above yours. Regardless of the merits of @JasSmith@kbin.social 's argument, you’ve mischaracterised what they’ve said and that isn’t fair or productive for discussion.
Removed by mod
