Since this is the Pragmatic Leftist Theory, I will say this:
Mamdani is not really enough, sure, he's doing a lot, but I don't think he can carry the movement alone. But that's fine. What the Left desperately needs is to regain trust lost after the decades of being run by authoritarians that didn't give two shits about workers. The Left needs someone who can attract and unite different people. We need a surplus of left-Liberals that can be radicalized. And I don't think Mamdani is doing a bad job in that.
Yeah, Mamdani isn't a savior, but he's an extremely positive figure for the left's PR in the USA, and a sign of hope for the younger generation's views, the same way that Bernie's surge of support in 2016 was after decades of 'socialism' being a poison word in US politics.
Mamdani is how you rebuild that trust and then get to "really enough". After decades of normalizing extreme right and corporate oligarchies, he is even a quite large jump in the correct direction as can be measured by reaction of other politicians, including democrats, to him. Purism is the enemy of change.
Don’t be dense. Food is already subsidized in multiple ways, but those subsidies go into corporate profit margins. This store offers the benefits of subsidy to the common person.
Don’t change the subject. You didn’t ask for details. You said “so subsidized food?”, which is pointing out the obvious. Seems like you’re here to continue arguing instead of just googling the answer, so I’ll fetch the info for you and anyone else who might be curious:
Mayor Zohran Mamdani said during a press conference on Tuesday that New York City’s planned city-run grocery stores would not be traditional municipally staffed supermarkets. Instead, the city would own the land, cover major overhead costs and bring in a private operator to sell staple foods at discounted prices, starting with a Manhattan site near La Marqueta in East Harlem.
…
“The city will subsidize a core set of staples,” he said. “A private operator will run the store, but they answer to the standards that the city will set.” Those standards, he said, would mean lower prices on basics like bread and eggs.
If you're looking for specifics, you could have short circuited this whole thread by typing your original comment into a search engine, instead of posting it in a discussion forum
if they hadn't asked the question, we wouldn't have this discussion and i wouldn't have bothered to even learn something about this topic. so i learned about the project in more detail than if it had only been mentioned in a headline and i forgot to search for it myself.
“Just asking questions” can very easily come across in a way that you didn’t intend. Perhaps you were genuinely curious, but more often than not jumping into a controversial topic it can come across not as genuine curiosity and willingness to know more, but instead more like:
If you're thinking that means government run grocery stores are unrealistic keep in mind that they already exist for the military. They're called commissaries and they sell groceries for significantly cheaper prices than private grocery stores, but they are open only to service-members and their families. We are perfectly capable of providing robust social services, but the state wants to keep it exclusive so they have an incentive for people living in poverty to join the military.
It mostly means government run doesn’t necessarily mean cheaper.
Grocery chains have huge economies of scale and sophisticated automated management of stocks, ordering, deliveries driving costs down.
A handful of government shops will likely have more overhead costs and inefficiencies than for example ALDI.
I’m not against government run shops or serving underserved communities at all. However the government doing it doesn’t mean it’s cheaper overall.
Also keep mind that some of the underserved areas have high crime rates, which is one reason for commercial business to stay away. A government run grocery store would likely need to also pay for extra security measures or guards.
US military commissaries are also cheaper because there‘s no sales tax. Of course the scale also help. Do you know if military commissaries operate at a loss or break even?
This video by More Perfect Union talks about them at length. If I remember right, it is literally required by law to be cheaper overall (25% savings across the board) with a default pricing of cost plus 1% and a variable pricing model where common staples like eggs and milk are sold at a loss and it's made up for on more niche items. They're tax-subsidized through the military, and it's an incredibly tiny portion of the budget. Some locations operate at a loss but they're not allowed to close any stores so that's why they need the subsidies.
So in short, yes, government run shops are cheaper because they're tax-subsidized, and are not required to profit or even break even. Personally I don't see any problem with government operating grocery stores at a loss to provide the working class with affordable groceries and having the rich foot the bill. In fact, I'd say that's the whole point.
I assume it is low or no profit and therefore apart from paying salaries is aimed at getting essential needs to people for as cheap as possible. Being non/low profit and to keep prices low it will likely need support from taxes. So your taxes, instead of going to things like Elon's failed hyperloop will go to something like cheaper affordable essentials. You yourself might not benefit from it that much if you are economicalpy ok but the city will and as a result you will be living in a better city.
i personally think that social housing and public transport are more important than a city-run grocery store because especially housing is something that lots of people pay painful amounts of money to, but city-run grocery stores are certainly an interesting concept that could help people to lower their cost of living. which i think is better than giving the money to billionaires.
The NY major should just force everyone to make a living wage!
...
I think a city run grocery store, social housing, and public transport are all far more in reach of a major's influence than regulations which forces the economy to pay people a living wage.
Reminds me of the Kat situation. Was getting flanked by Democrats, but also the most anti-Democrat Tankies because of not supporting Hamas (despite being Palestinian). I do think it's our imperative to realize that no matter whether the Tankie movement is CIA-bankrolled or not, we need to leave it behind, as it only hurts us all with no benefit to us (really, the only benefit is to their accounts social media numbers), and start doing a proper peristalsis towards the Left, not a policy of rejecting the politicians closest to us.
Well, quicker ones so far are the rent freezes and the 100k potholes fixed because he's offering proper compensation for work. Next up are the city owned supermarkets and the tax on >5 mil 2nd houses on NY.
He is actually opening up a city run grocery store and putting all the pieces together right now. Takes a bit more time than fixing potholes to organize, but it is happening.
Besides the other answer that has more substance. He shoveled snow after a snow storm. It was after he got elected so it wasn't only for PR. He was legit helping at the basic level. Showing people that is a good way to lead. The small things add up.
Yes but what about his goal of implementing Shakira Law in NY???
What will you do if it’s illegal for hips to lie?
Praise be to her hips!
They dont lie!
Tax evasion is a form of lying
Did her hips do tax evasion? BLASPHEMY!
Wait, that's illegal? Mine lie... Whenever! Whereever!
Sorry, Shakira was in 2010. Best we can do now is Jelly Roll.
They’d probably celebrate it as an anti trans win
Since this is the Pragmatic Leftist Theory, I will say this:
Mamdani is not really enough, sure, he's doing a lot, but I don't think he can carry the movement alone. But that's fine. What the Left desperately needs is to regain trust lost after the decades of being run by authoritarians that didn't give two shits about workers. The Left needs someone who can attract and unite different people. We need a surplus of left-Liberals that can be radicalized. And I don't think Mamdani is doing a bad job in that.
Yeah, Mamdani isn't a savior, but he's an extremely positive figure for the left's PR in the USA, and a sign of hope for the younger generation's views, the same way that Bernie's surge of support in 2016 was after decades of 'socialism' being a poison word in US politics.
So naturally the "no matter who" wing of the party tried to sink him, after the primaries.
Lol, Puggy downvoted you. He really hates you even though it's pragmatic leftist to acknowledge the rat fucking the DNC does to keep trump in power. https://lemvotes.org/comment/lemmy.world/comment/23318694
Mamdani is how you rebuild that trust and then get to "really enough". After decades of normalizing extreme right and corporate oligarchies, he is even a quite large jump in the correct direction as can be measured by reaction of other politicians, including democrats, to him. Purism is the enemy of change.
Authoritarian and control by wealth, whether it be corporate or billionaire.
The money propping up the authoritarians is the issue.
Having been a rapper works well for him. The dude has way with words and knows how to roast others.
He is absurdly eloquent
TIL.
Why does he want a city run grocery store?
So that working class people will have a place where they can afford to buy groceries at
So subsidized food?
Don’t be dense. Food is already subsidized in multiple ways, but those subsidies go into corporate profit margins. This store offers the benefits of subsidy to the common person.
Don’t be dense yourself. I‘m just asking a question.
I would like to know more about these groceries store plans. Apparently you don’t know anything specific.
Don’t change the subject. You didn’t ask for details. You said “so subsidized food?”, which is pointing out the obvious. Seems like you’re here to continue arguing instead of just googling the answer, so I’ll fetch the info for you and anyone else who might be curious:
…
Source: AMNY.com.
I, for one, learned something from this response. Thank you for posting it. You've saved maybe dozens of people from having to search themselves.
Oh god the terror of searching for information myself
Thanks for actually answering.
If you're looking for specifics, you could have short circuited this whole thread by typing your original comment into a search engine, instead of posting it in a discussion forum
https://www.amny.com/news/how-mamdanis-city-run-grocery-plan-would-work/
Oh no asking questions on a discussion forum, what have discussion forums come to?
If you really just wanted information, you wouldn't be so confrontational right now.
You did not want a discussion. You wanted someone to spoon feed you information.
JuSt AsKiNg QuEsTiOnS
Then why are you asking Lemmy instead of a search engine? Or just reading the mayor's platform?
only one you responded to was someone reacting negatively, yah your not good at hiding your bad faith.
You really can't be bothered to spend 30 seconds googling something?
if they hadn't asked the question, we wouldn't have this discussion and i wouldn't have bothered to even learn something about this topic. so i learned about the project in more detail than if it had only been mentioned in a headline and i forgot to search for it myself.
“Just asking questions” can very easily come across in a way that you didn’t intend. Perhaps you were genuinely curious, but more often than not jumping into a controversial topic it can come across not as genuine curiosity and willingness to know more, but instead more like:
https://medium.com/westenberg/nobody-who-says-theyre-just-asking-questions-actually-wants-an-answer-5f4cee4d74d4
The only two nations in the entire world that voted in the UN against a resolution to recognise food as a human right were... the USA and Isreal.
STOP spreading these LIES! The USA and Israel are ONE Country!
How is some symbolic UN Resolution relevant to groceries in New York?
It's not, it's relevant to the asinine aversion most Americans have to the idea.
Non-profit food. Huge difference.
And if the city owns the land, there will also be significant cost savings long-term in rent and property tax.
No, it's run at cost, but what's so wrong about subsidizing food at the consumer level? We already do it for the owners of megafarms.
Do you live every day in terror of poor people being able to eat?
Subsidies can make sense if other policies don’t work, sure.
Well, good news then. Supply-side economics has failed.
It's not subsidized if it runs at cost.
Imagine how much 'profits' is absorbed by shareholders that could've went back to the public.
Groceries are a low margin business.
More reason to remove drain revenue.
If you're thinking that means government run grocery stores are unrealistic keep in mind that they already exist for the military. They're called commissaries and they sell groceries for significantly cheaper prices than private grocery stores, but they are open only to service-members and their families. We are perfectly capable of providing robust social services, but the state wants to keep it exclusive so they have an incentive for people living in poverty to join the military.
It mostly means government run doesn’t necessarily mean cheaper.
Grocery chains have huge economies of scale and sophisticated automated management of stocks, ordering, deliveries driving costs down.
A handful of government shops will likely have more overhead costs and inefficiencies than for example ALDI.
I’m not against government run shops or serving underserved communities at all. However the government doing it doesn’t mean it’s cheaper overall.
Also keep mind that some of the underserved areas have high crime rates, which is one reason for commercial business to stay away. A government run grocery store would likely need to also pay for extra security measures or guards.
US military commissaries are also cheaper because there‘s no sales tax. Of course the scale also help. Do you know if military commissaries operate at a loss or break even?
This video by More Perfect Union talks about them at length. If I remember right, it is literally required by law to be cheaper overall (25% savings across the board) with a default pricing of cost plus 1% and a variable pricing model where common staples like eggs and milk are sold at a loss and it's made up for on more niche items. They're tax-subsidized through the military, and it's an incredibly tiny portion of the budget. Some locations operate at a loss but they're not allowed to close any stores so that's why they need the subsidies.
So in short, yes, government run shops are cheaper because they're tax-subsidized, and are not required to profit or even break even. Personally I don't see any problem with government operating grocery stores at a loss to provide the working class with affordable groceries and having the rich foot the bill. In fact, I'd say that's the whole point.
Sounds like a good argument for more government run grocery stores.
We've seen that in a lot of cases, corporate-run means not present at all.
Ah, the Mossad shill at it again...
If that's what you want to call "ensuring working class people have access to food", then yeah, sure, subsidized food.
Because profit-motivated grocery stores can't afford to service these areas, but people still need to be able to eat.
Thing that raises red-flags for me is that it's going to be a contracted model, instead of being run directly by the city.
I don't live in the USA, I'm just tired of outsourced government.
Overall, still seems positive though, just nitpicking.
Expensive basic goods and food deserts are a big problem in urban America.
I assume it is low or no profit and therefore apart from paying salaries is aimed at getting essential needs to people for as cheap as possible. Being non/low profit and to keep prices low it will likely need support from taxes. So your taxes, instead of going to things like Elon's failed hyperloop will go to something like cheaper affordable essentials. You yourself might not benefit from it that much if you are economicalpy ok but the city will and as a result you will be living in a better city.
Are you genuinely stupid or merely pretending to be stupid so you can argue with people in bad faith?
Be specific; cite sources.
Why do you ask bad-faith questions?
i personally think that social housing and public transport are more important than a city-run grocery store because especially housing is something that lots of people pay painful amounts of money to, but city-run grocery stores are certainly an interesting concept that could help people to lower their cost of living. which i think is better than giving the money to billionaires.
People making a living wage is the actual solution.
The NY major should just force everyone to make a living wage!
...
I think a city run grocery store, social housing, and public transport are all far more in reach of a major's influence than regulations which forces the economy to pay people a living wage.
Why do you want a living wage?
Making a decomotized cashless anarchist society is the actual solution.
Is something only the utterly naive dreamers, that know nothing about how economies work, think is a good idea.
Says the guy who is all over the thread shitting on the very idea that the poors should be allowed to eat.
I never did anything like that.
If you set up an economy without money, people will reinvent it instantly because it’s very useful.
Oh, sorry. I should have put a question mark at the end so I could pretend to be persecuted when you said this.
Wasn't Mamdani the one condemning his wife for her open support for Palestine?
Sounds like misinformation spread to fight the only politician in america actually doing shit for its constituency
Reminds me of the Kat situation. Was getting flanked by Democrats, but also the most anti-Democrat Tankies because of not supporting Hamas (despite being Palestinian). I do think it's our imperative to realize that no matter whether the Tankie movement is CIA-bankrolled or not, we need to leave it behind, as it only hurts us all with no benefit to us (really, the only benefit is to their accounts social media numbers), and start doing a proper peristalsis towards the Left, not a policy of rejecting the politicians closest to us.
Kat situation? I speak as n outsider looking in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kat_Abughazaleh
What positive actions has he actually taken? Speech not included.
Well, quicker ones so far are the rent freezes and the 100k potholes fixed because he's offering proper compensation for work. Next up are the city owned supermarkets and the tax on >5 mil 2nd houses on NY.
He is actually opening up a city run grocery store and putting all the pieces together right now. Takes a bit more time than fixing potholes to organize, but it is happening.
Besides the other answer that has more substance. He shoveled snow after a snow storm. It was after he got elected so it wasn't only for PR. He was legit helping at the basic level. Showing people that is a good way to lead. The small things add up.
What makes you say that?
I saw a snippet in the same format as this post earlier saying that
Friend, WHAT
So a twitter post. You saw a twitter post.
My dude...
You need to get better about what you repeat if that's your bar.
They saw it in their shill script.
Probably has the Hasan 9/11 quote on the same list.
'isn't Yliaster only here because he got banned from reddit for being too annoying??'
If he's got paid assassins like you rolling around then he must be doing something right
you know what go fuck yourself with your attempt to pitch people against each other by asking leading questions