politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
And how is he able to do that?
People are giving you uninformed answers, but to be fair, you just could have searched it yourself.
The stores haven't even opened yet. The first are expected to open by the end of 2027.
The plan says they get the real estate from the city for free or very cheap. Also subsidies for groceries in the "core basket".
So the answer is city subsidies, payed for with tax dollars.
Where those dollars will be coming from within the city budget has not yet been announced, but seeing as they have time until end of 2027, there's likely going to be a lot of budget-shuffling and negotiations until a budget-position is going to be revealed.
Might be in the NYC budget already, but I don't see reporting on it, nor do I have the time to go over that.
In my opinion it's a relatively good and easy way of redistributing money from top to bottom. You know, like schools, libraries, public pools (or free universities in better countries). Because it directly addresses a need of the poorest New Yorkers without just handing them money and implements a "food as a human right" response to corpos profiting off of societies need for groceries.
There are enough rich people in NYC that taxing them properly will be enough to cover the subsidies
Biggest savings are free real estate probably though
Yes, that's my guess too, rent in NYC has to be a huge part of any supermarket budget. But this is still a subsidiary as loss of income is budgetary the same as an expense.
Thank you for looking into that.
You’re thanking the guy because he spent three minutes searching for the answer you were so clearly sealioning for.
Good job I guess.
I thanked them because they actually provided an answer that no one else did, as they pointed out in the first sentence. You still don't know what sealioning is.
First off, the headline on this post does not match the current one on the article.. The current headline on the article is:
So the discount is not on everything. It's basically on healthy foods and staples. I would assume that the margins on the rest of the items will be set to cover the costs of the discounted ones. Also, a store like this is not supposed to be a profit center.
It's supposed to make healthy foods available to people who struggle to afford it. If the store breaks even after rent, utilities, and payroll, then I would call it a glorious success.
That didn't answer my question?
The 'extra' money comes from jacking up the prices in other items in the same store, like candy and sodas. And from not spending as much money on other stuff like marketing and bonuses.
There are two sides to the profit equation: expenses and revenue.
In order for a store to make more profit, they can either increase their revenue (by raising prices, for example), or they can decrease their expenses (by laying people off, buying from cheaper suppliers, or paying executives less, for example).
So these stores are lowering prices on some items. And making it up by some combination of RAISING prices on other items, and LOWERING their costs in other areas like marketing, executive bonuses, etc.
Hope that helps.
Then rephrase your question, please. What exactly are you asking? Are you suggesting he doesn't have the authority to set the prices at these stores?
I'm asking where the money is coming from to support these subsidies
leaving aside the answers other people have given, if NYC can afford a world class private military with a ~$10B USD budget, they can afford to cover a minor deficit in food budget. It's like food stamps but cuts out a layer of bureaucracy and thus lower cost.
This is what taxes should actually be funding.
I see no reason to assume there is a subsidy involved. Grocery stores make money. The initial outlay to build and stock the stores is going to come from city taxes, I assume. But the discounts, as my prior post said, are only on some items. The revenue from the higher margin, non-discounted items can cover the costs of the discounted ones assuming they price things right. The store only needs to break even to be a resounding success.
The money has to come from somewhere. These groceries don't just magic themselves onto the shelves...
Based on the posts in this thread you are either sealioning, or are just dense.
If the goal of the store is not to make a profit (and either break even, or have some tax dollars allocated to it), the prices go down.
Where are all your posts asking for where the NYPD’s cosplay warrior gear comes from? That certainly doesn’t magic itself into existence.
Believe it or not, everyone you disagree with is not "just dense". You obviously have no interest in engaging in a good faith discussion since you immediately came in here and began slinging insults so you're being blocked, goodbye.
Sealioning it is.
And now reporting your alt account for harassment.
It's OK he's me now
In all fairness, you had your question answered very clearly, twice.
Sort of. Where specifically are the subsidies being pulled from? Even if you neglect profit, you have operating costs before you break even. Asking these types of questions is not criticism or direct opposition to the concept
You understand the groceries still cost something right? Your acting like their giving them away for free. A public option doesn't have to support billions in profit for the CEO, executives, and investors, so reducing price is much much easier if your only goal is to break even. The goal is no cost to the taxpayer, no profit for the city.
Did you reply to the wrong person? That's the exact opposite of what I'm doing.
How is this supposed to explain where the money is coming from? No one is talking about billions, I'm asking where did the 30% extra money come from?
If a loaf of bread costs $5 at a for profit grocery store that had inflated executive salaries and profit for investors to worry about, that same loaf of bread costs less at a store that doesn't need to show a huge profit. They can sell it at 3.50 and break even. Its not money "coming" from somewhere, its just product being sold at cost, instead of for profit.
If I had to wager a guess, this 30% off is just marketing. They probably realized their cost outlay is lower than they anticipated and they are passing those savings on to the consumer. Turns out cutting out greed saves consumers money.
Sure, but we're not talking about for-profit and not-for-profit. We're talking about the same store.
Your reading comprehension through all of this has been abysmal, possible explanations have been given by me and others and you are still sea-lioning.
Others have suggested they are absorbing those discounts in non essential items.
You can disagree with these explanations, but you instead keep sidestepping them and choosing to pretend your question wasn't answered.
Asking a question is not sealioning. I don't even think you know what that word means. No one has answered the question. Yourself included.
You provided a flawed explanation, which I then explained to you. Instead of providing some sort of counterargument, you then go on the offensive and blame me for it. It seems like you're just offended that anyone wouldn't just accept what you say and not ask questions.
This is not an explanation, this is speculation, as denoted by the word "probably".
Congrats on actually addressing an answer. I have hope for you. Maybe go back to the person you claimed never answered you, with your response to them as well.
Any answer any of us give is going to be speculation, we don't have their financials in front of us. If you want more than speculation your best option is to research the topic yourself or go to New York and foia request the grocery store financials. No one on Lemmy is going to do that for you just because you asked a question. People are going to respond what they think while they take a shit and go about their day.
A speculative explanation is still an explanation. We are not obligated to give an academic response to a half asses question to a person too mentally lazy to research their own question. If this is so important to you, that you will attempt to annoy dozens of commenters and readers on the internet, you could have used that time to try to answer that question yourself if you need a thorough accounting of their financial outlay. No one here will do that for you just because you are, "just asking questions".
You can try to annoy me all you want though, I enjoy responding to people looking for pointless arguments.
Actually not correct at all. Someone did come and actually provide a factual answer. You could learn something from them.
They did though. Because that's precisely what forums like this are for.
Wrong again.
You're not obligated to give me anything. And yet here you are, making up answers that don't even answer the question I asked. If you don't have an answer, just keep scrolling.
Sorry to disappoint. Will have to look elsewhere.
Likely the same reason "Chinese groceries" are so cheap...
The absolute vast majority of Americans get their food from the same handful of corporations that all have insanely high markups at every step of their vertical integration to obfuscate profits.
The "Chinese groceries" have built up their own infrastructure that buys from small farmers all over the nation and transporta fresh produce more effectively than corporations. Because corporations just prioritize shelf stability and looks over flavor and nutrition.
Now, to be fair this is also true to a lesser extent for Hispanic and other "ethnic groceries" as well, but more often than not they're plugged into the Chinese infrastructure as well, especially for produce that isn't in season locally. It's really the only option a small restaurant has to make it these days.
Which means they're the safest to eat at during widespread outbreaks like were seeing now. Because all the chains use the same giant suppliers.
Probably less profit
Less profit for whom?
yes
Thanks for confirming you don't know.
That was a joke answer. You probably aren't familiar with the western internet meme culture. This was a mockery of people not wanting to answer your question.
Oh no, I got it. And your joke answer confirmed that you didn't have a real one.
For the city. If it was owned privately, the owner would min-max everything for more profit. Having it run by the city could mean just operating at break-even
So how much money was the city making before? And what were they doing with those profits?