The mayor’s office says it would be the first major U.S. city to enact such a plan.
It’s funny how the solutions for the failures of capitalism often end up looking just like socialism
Reddit:Lemmy
Twitter:Mastodon
It’s sad seeing all the idiots excited to go to the proprietary platforms. I feel like they’re victims of viral marketing, similar to how red bull operates.
Some things never change with this generation.
Is city ownership socialist though? Are the workers unionized? Do they have the right to decide what is and isn’t stocked?
Is city ownership socialist though?
Not necessarily. That would turn it into something more like a public utility than like a for-profit business.
I mean, it’s “not socialism” when the fire department or the power utility aren’t private, for-profit corporations, but it is if the grocery store is? LOL
Are fire departments for profit?
You do get billed afterwords. At least my dad did when his house burned down 20+ years ago. However his insurance covered the bill.
That sounds kinda dystopian to me
Doesn’t look like socialism to me. Buiseness being city-owned isn’t enough.
deleted by creator
Socialism is ownership by the workers who run the store. What you’re describing is a customer cooperative, which is just replacing bosses with “the people”
deleted by creator
“I’ve never heard of foreign hires before.”
deleted by creator
That’s state capitalism, there is an owner class and a worker class, the workers do not have the sole ownership of the shop, nor do they receive the full share of the fruits of their labor.
It’s funny, because one of Marx best known works contains a diatribe against people carelessly talking about “full share of the fruits of their labor” and insultingly described the notion as Lasallean (see Critique of the Gotha Programme, chapter 1, where he utterly savages what became the German SPD over this).
He thought it was utter bullshit to talk about that in an organised society, because in practice in a functioning society there are in fact all kinds of necessary deductions and redistribution necessary in order to ensure the needs of everyone is met.
E.g. healthcare, funds for those unable to work, funding of societal needs such as schools etc.
Even that, he describes as constrained by “bourgeois limitation”, pointing out that"
“Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.”
The notion of “full share of the fruits of their labor” is not a socialist one at all.
On the contrary, the main socialist slogan used to be “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” which goes directly counter to the notion of giving everyone the full share of the fruits of their labour.
Fantastic comment
Lemmy has the largest group of socialists I’ve ever seen argue about the definition of socialism.
Tbf, we’re working with a stated definition that’s translated from 19th century German
Not to mention folks who imagine a definition in vision and spirit but not necessarily to the letter of what Marx described
Shit’s gonna get down to exact doctrine real quick even in a room full of socialists all supposedly of the same clade of ideas
This is why I try to avoid using words like socialism and communism. Everyone has their own ideas of what they mean, and most of them aren’t exactly wrong because these are broad terms with different sects. So many times a person mentions either word, and then guys like you come out of the woodwork to be like “umm, actually…” Lol.
I prefer to focus on real solutions to real problems (pragmatism.) This is a very pragmatic approach to solving the issue of corporations not meeting standards.
The stores all closed down due to high crime rate, I don’t blame them.
This is true. I don’t know why you’re being downvoted.
I know, the issue is well known. I’m sure I was down voted because the city is primarily black so to mention the fact of it’s high crime rate in a discussion that pertains to it is wrongly offensive to them, que sera sera.
Are they closed because of rampant theft?
As other people have pointed out, big companies target an area and set about establishing a monopoly using $$$
Then they realise “huh. There’s not so much profit here in Assfuck, Montana after all.” And make some lame excuse (theft) to pull out.
Citizens get fucked because : capitalism.
That has essentially never happened, that’s just a fraudulent PR campaign
Yes really
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/12/shoplifting-holiday-theft-panic/621108/
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-12-15/organized-retail-theft-crime-rate
Wage theft.
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.
Ironically, way back in the 70s Kroger successfully defeated a hostile corporate takeover, in part by issuing their employees stock
in some places
That’s an important caveat.
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.
I’m more than positive that food deserted areas could not afford Whole Paycheck and Walmart is never the solution. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If its successful then I forsee this being used in more than just Chicago.
Should just empower a local resident to build a local mom and pop grocery store. Subsidize them so they can compete against the larger chains if you have to, but that’s how it used to be done and can still be done. Eventually they probably wouldn’t need the subsidies because they’re going to focus on what they can sell. They might not have the selection of a big chain, but if they aren’t needing to compete with a billion dollar company that operates at a loss to drive them out of business, they’ll do ok.
Should just empower a local resident to build a local mom and pop grocery store.
The fundamental cause of every problem in the US always comes down to the zoning code. Every. Single. Time.
You know why those mom and pop grocery stores don’t exist? Because in most cases, they’re not allowed to because corner stores in residential areas were outlawed 75 years ago. Also, even when they are allowed to exist, the real reason they can’t compete is because the zoning code forces car-dependency in a whole bunch of other ways, which (figuratively and literally) drives consolidation into big-box stores with gigantic parking lots.
Why give a private entity money when you can just do it publicly? And in the process not sell only what’s profitable rather than what provides good health to residents. The existing mini-marts and what not are selling what’s profitable (non-perishable processed food).
The Post Office is a good example of how much easier it is to just run it publicly. The Post Office literally generates revenue, whereas subsidizing a private entity to do the same would be just throwing tax dollars down the drain with little return.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Small town in Kentucky did a similar thing with a municipally ran gas station.
Healthy food ftw!
paving over huge areas of the earth with concrete and forgetting how to grow your own food creates bad situations. every community/neighborhood should by law have a green/garden area of a certain size that is capable of growing most of the food required to sustain the local residents.
That’s not at all feasible for places with long, cold winters, or southwest areas without enough water, among others.
And before you say “well people shouldn’t live there then”, they live in those places because of the other resources. For example, let’s say logging in Montana, or oil fields in Texas. You’re not going to get the world to stop needing those resources any time soon.
That’s not at all feasible for places with long, cold winters, or southwest areas without enough water, among others.
I wonder how people in these areas survived without grocery stores, then.
They always had some kind of food importation. Unless you want to go all the way back to the first few people in the area who did subsistence hunting and gathering. But that’s also not feasible for more than a few people.
and yet people in all of those places manage to grow their own food. humans are a resilient and adaptable species. but anyway, this is a tangent. even if the land has a playground on it, it doesn’t matter. people can decide how to use a blank space in a neighborhood. if food grows well there, then grow food. if not, make it a farmers market and people can bring the food there. the point is…we shouldn’t pave over the earth and then complain about food deserts.
Removed by mod
did you ever think you’d grow up to be someone who berates and swears at people on the internet?
Removed by mod
fair. and i will piss off…to my garden to harvest my roma tomatoes because the ones at the local store, are shittier and super expensive! co-located food/housing is common all across the world and is super awesome. :D
Having a garden (even a community one) aint the same as having an agricultural industry to supply a city dicknips.
Tone policing is the lame retort of the person who knows they lost the argument.
if not, make it a farmers market and people can bring the food there.
The suggestion is that this is essentially what is happening. The exact real estate that these buildings will occupy are not likely to be greatly fertile lands. They might not be farmers markets, but it’s the same point you’re making here.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He’s going to find our real quick why those stores left in the first place
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?
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.
“Crime is fine so dw about working we’ll just pay more taxes!”
Fucking stupid take.
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
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?
Stop it! There’s no more straws left!
No, it means they’ll have to get in a car and drive to the next location, hopefully without stealing from there too.
Not everyone in poor areas has a car. Or easy access to one, or the spare money for gas to drive out of their way to find a grocery store.
Then stop stealing
The real Uncle Iroh would not like you, to put it mildly.
And I guess the people who can’t afford a car should just die, right?
Bus, walk, bike, if you cannot affort a car you’re likely not working enough so you have the time to use alternative modes of transport.
Where are you supposed to bike to when the nearest supermarket is 20 miles away?
And poor people often work 2 or 3 jobs. Again, you know nothing about being poor.
Or, like, get on a bus. Or walk. Or cycle. Or get food delivered from any one of many cheap delivery options. Or even a food bank or church. Or neighbour. Or family. Or friends. You think people without a car who don’t have a supermarket next door just die? I can’t even imagine the level of learned helplessness you seem to possess.
Buses take money. And walk where? Bicycle where? You think they could just walk to the nearest supermarket? Do you not understand that there isn’t food available for miles? Do you really not understand what the term ‘food desert’ means?
And delivered? Do you really not understand what being poor means?
Or … walk to the nearby city owned grocery store that the city is considering opening?
- Accused me of straw Manning
- Proceeds to assume everyone has a car
Read the thread before you comment lol
I keep hearing this excuse but I’ve yet to see any actual numbers or data to prove this.
Have you looked?
I’m not the one making the argument here, you’ve made a statement, you back it up.
Nah, I’m good. You can use Google.
You made the claim, you provide the evidence to back that claim.
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.
Because wehh corporations wehh mom and pop shop (which they don’t go to because it’s inconvient) bla bla poor people. People like thinking they have a deeper understanding of something even if it’s objectively not true because it makes them feel intelligent, no matter how stupid it makes then look. The reason these stores closed is really simple, crime in low income areas caused these stores to not be profitable or simply not worth the endless hassle. I don’t even get why they’re mad though, they cry about mom and pop shops and when the large corporations leave and there is all the space for them they get mad the large corporations left. Idiotic.
So I’d like to chime in here as someone who lives in a low income food desert. The food desert isn’t because of theft. In fact, many chains have tried to open up here over the decades. The city government is so hostile towards them though, that these stores don’t even get to the opening stages. The city wants to charge these stores exorbitant fees for no reason. Charge 10x as much for electricity than the town with a smaller population 15minutes away. Is this everywhere, no, but it is in more places than you’d think.
Let me guess, your response to that would be “Well just vote those people out! It’s your fault for keeping them in there!” And my response to that is, vote them out and replace them with who? No one has run against these people since they were first elected into office in the 1960’s. Oh sure we’ve tried to get people to turn against them, but they’ve stacked the system so it’s damn near impossible. The only thing we can do is wait until they die, which doesn’t seem to be any time soon.
You remind me of this guy I’ve debated with who had this outlandish claim that “If CEO’s are paid less, then they’d work less.” But there’s no actual proof to that, and trust me, he looked. He then went on to say he’d rather be paid in company stock than cash. Like he’d legit forego minimum wage to be paid in 100% stock.
So I’m going to say the same thing to you that I’ve said to him. You’ve been all up and down this thread blaming theft as the reason why food deserts are a thing, can you provide nonbiased studies proving that?
Sounds like a load of bullshit excuses to me.
Sounds like you can’t find anything to back your bullshit up.
A sav-a-lot even tried to open and they protested because it wasn’t good enough for them.
That’s fucking funny
