Umm... dividends would normally be taken out of the profit margin. So even with no shareholders the most you could save is 2-3%.
Oh, well then ◊◊◊◊ it, right? Why bother even trying if we can't save more than 2-3% for people struggling, amiright?
They may not 'need' to take out ads, but they probably will. (After all, some notification to the community at large will be needed.)
News coverage on local stations will probably suffice. Look around, look at yourself, people can't stop talking about him and what he's doing. It's not tough to get the word out.
Another thing to consider: what will be the labor costs? Here in Canuckistan, people working for "the government" usually receive higher pay (and more benefits) than in the private sector. If these stores similarly have higher costs due to labor, then any savings they may have from "lack of shareholders/no ads" would disappear.
pffhahahaha well this isn't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Canada, eh? This is the US and as someone that works for the government, a local one at that, I can tell you that we aren't raking in the bucks. About the only benefit I get that *most* in the private sector don't is I get sick time and vacation time.
You're really trying here, aren't you? I can't imagine having such a raging hate boner for someone while trying to tuck it into my "I'm a skeptic" waistband.
I guess the question is going to be "how do you define successful".
Feeding as many people of New York City as possible, cheaper.
If the store is a huge money loss for the city, and the stores are empty of customers,
How the hell can both of these things happen at once? No one will be shopping there but it will still cost a lot? It doesn't even make sense a little bit. The idea is not for this store to make the city money. It's going to cost the city money. That's not even up for debate but I highly doubt it'll be empty. Even your naysayer friends are saying people will go in there and buy it out. Of course, in their version it'll be everyone
but the people that need it. Everyone has their own way to hate I guess.
its possible that even a Mamdani cult member
Who are these cult members? The only ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ person feverishly posting about Mamdani in this thread is you, guy. You're it. You have more posts in this thread than anyone. That's it. You. Top of the charts.
This is such a dumb ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ take too. Do you know why we call Trumpers cult members? Because they worship a man who is openly, and aggressively ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ over his own people. He's making their lives worse because, at best, he doesn't care, at worst, he wants their money. Mamdani doesn't have a cult. No one here is gushing over him as he works to destroy people around him. He's doing what he genuinely thinks is best for the people of New York, and a lot of people agree with him.
At least use the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ terminology right if you're going to talk down to others from your self appointed high horse.
If it gives cheaper prices, is popular but still operates at a loss? Some might think that is a "success", but its not as clear cut.
THE GOAL ISN'T TO MAKE ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ MONEY. God ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ damn why is that so hard to get?
The one thing that "government owned" stores could do is to take care of the problem of "food deserts". (These are areas of a city where the average citizen is not geographically close to a grocery store, and is forced to do much of their shopping at places like convenience stores, where access to fresh produce is limited.) But, I do not know where these stores are being built or if they would have a role in addressing the food desert problem.
So you literally don't even know if that's what Mamdani is doing, but you are still going to reflexively ◊◊◊◊ talk this whole process? Where's Taylor Swift at? She's got a song about this.
