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
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.