Paul, I spent an entire career in the Grocery store business. Almost 45 years before I retired. From sacker to Store Manager, then on to being a VP for an international Food Broker working on both the buy and sell side of the desk. I know the business and you are correct on virtually everything, although I will say that even a measly 2-3% margin is closer to 2 than it is 3. In addition to the gaping financial hole from the get-go (that they'll never get out of without being eternally propped up) just imagine the lack of upper management talent, poor store management and unmotivated store personnel...Chicago tried this...and yeah. You need grocery people to even think about attempting something like this not corrupt lifetime government bureaucrats who don't know how to buy, how to sell or how to run it. Great essay. Really enjoyed it.
Thanks, Jim. I sold Gallo wine for a year to high-volume grocery stores, and I was always amazed at how hard store employees worked. They show up early and work late. The busiest time of year is the holidays, when everyone else gets to be with their families. Will be interesting, but I fear not pretty, to see how all this shakes out.
Here's what I keep going back and forth on: does he know it's a bad idea and just figures the voters love it, or does he really not see it?
And it's bad for more reasons than the money. Sure, the stores open in a hole and lose money on every sale. But they also put subsidized competition next door to immigrant-owned bodegas scraping by on 2% margins, and all the time and cash he pours into this is time and cash not going to schools and roads, the stuff that's actually the city's job.
My answer is neither. He doesn't buy the premise. To him a grocery store is a public service like the fire department, and nobody asks if the fire department made money this quarter or whether it crowded out private fire brigades. That's why you can't tell conviction from vote-buying with this guy. The idea polls great and it fits his ideology, so he never has to pick.
The real test comes in a few years when the pilot misses its numbers. A cynic lets it die quietly once he's gotten his ribbon cuttings. A believer says five stores proved the concept and asks for fifty. I think he's a believer. Which is the worse answer.
Oh I agree that he's a believer. And he does not buy my assertion that tax money is finite. All things are possible of we tax evil rich people their "fair share."
RFK Jr accused Dana Bash last week of parroting out what she hears democrats say is “truth” and while I don’t like most of what that guy says I agreed with him there. This seems the same on the grocery stores. I think I heard every point here on Fox over the past week. Maybe it’s good to keep saying the same things over and over again - blogs and podcasts all saying the same party lines - but I kind of hope we (collectively) can come up with new reasons why this won’t or will work. Better yet laying out potential reasons why this time might be different - “might” being the key word.
JP, you know as well as anyone that, mathematically speaking, this isnt’ going to work. So the question becomes, “how much are we willing to lose on this experiment and how long do we keep it going?” Which would beg the question of what the real goal here is…and it’s not getting poor people groceries for less money. Because, if it were, there are 100 better ways to do that, including eliminating regulations preventing more retailers from opening stores. My argument, which I have’t heard many people make, but you must watch more Fox News than I do (smily emoticon), is not small government for small govt’s sake. It’s for a govt that is FOCUSED on BIG issues or services that only govt can deliver, e.g. roads, public safety, sewers, education (for at least part of the population). This experiment is irresponsible and a massive distraction.
Bravo. This piece by Stephen Smith explaining some much easier fixes that wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime is worth reading if you haven't already: https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/nyc-grocery-cost-explained/
Wow, this is fascinating. The more you peel back the layers, the less sense it all makes.
Paul, I spent an entire career in the Grocery store business. Almost 45 years before I retired. From sacker to Store Manager, then on to being a VP for an international Food Broker working on both the buy and sell side of the desk. I know the business and you are correct on virtually everything, although I will say that even a measly 2-3% margin is closer to 2 than it is 3. In addition to the gaping financial hole from the get-go (that they'll never get out of without being eternally propped up) just imagine the lack of upper management talent, poor store management and unmotivated store personnel...Chicago tried this...and yeah. You need grocery people to even think about attempting something like this not corrupt lifetime government bureaucrats who don't know how to buy, how to sell or how to run it. Great essay. Really enjoyed it.
Thanks, Jim. I sold Gallo wine for a year to high-volume grocery stores, and I was always amazed at how hard store employees worked. They show up early and work late. The busiest time of year is the holidays, when everyone else gets to be with their families. Will be interesting, but I fear not pretty, to see how all this shakes out.
So well written!
Thanks, Anna. I had a good Grammar teacher!
Here's what I keep going back and forth on: does he know it's a bad idea and just figures the voters love it, or does he really not see it?
And it's bad for more reasons than the money. Sure, the stores open in a hole and lose money on every sale. But they also put subsidized competition next door to immigrant-owned bodegas scraping by on 2% margins, and all the time and cash he pours into this is time and cash not going to schools and roads, the stuff that's actually the city's job.
My answer is neither. He doesn't buy the premise. To him a grocery store is a public service like the fire department, and nobody asks if the fire department made money this quarter or whether it crowded out private fire brigades. That's why you can't tell conviction from vote-buying with this guy. The idea polls great and it fits his ideology, so he never has to pick.
The real test comes in a few years when the pilot misses its numbers. A cynic lets it die quietly once he's gotten his ribbon cuttings. A believer says five stores proved the concept and asks for fifty. I think he's a believer. Which is the worse answer.
Oh I agree that he's a believer. And he does not buy my assertion that tax money is finite. All things are possible of we tax evil rich people their "fair share."
RFK Jr accused Dana Bash last week of parroting out what she hears democrats say is “truth” and while I don’t like most of what that guy says I agreed with him there. This seems the same on the grocery stores. I think I heard every point here on Fox over the past week. Maybe it’s good to keep saying the same things over and over again - blogs and podcasts all saying the same party lines - but I kind of hope we (collectively) can come up with new reasons why this won’t or will work. Better yet laying out potential reasons why this time might be different - “might” being the key word.
Know what I’m saying my funny old friend? 😊
JP, you know as well as anyone that, mathematically speaking, this isnt’ going to work. So the question becomes, “how much are we willing to lose on this experiment and how long do we keep it going?” Which would beg the question of what the real goal here is…and it’s not getting poor people groceries for less money. Because, if it were, there are 100 better ways to do that, including eliminating regulations preventing more retailers from opening stores. My argument, which I have’t heard many people make, but you must watch more Fox News than I do (smily emoticon), is not small government for small govt’s sake. It’s for a govt that is FOCUSED on BIG issues or services that only govt can deliver, e.g. roads, public safety, sewers, education (for at least part of the population). This experiment is irresponsible and a massive distraction.
Ugh.
Please elaborate.