Zohran Mamdani

[Helen]

It was an honest question, after Darat asked

I thought these were to be put in "food deserts" locations as much as about cost of goods in them?

And you answered

Yeah, people in this thread need to figure out what problem they're trying to solve here. The metrics for judging the success of a social safety net program are very different from the metrics for judging the success of a breakeven business proposition.

 

[theprestige]

It was an honest question, after Darat asked

And you answered

Glad we got that cleared up. Did you have an argument to make, or are you just asking vague questions?

 

[Helen]

Glad we got that cleared up. Did you have an argument to make, or are you just asking vague questions?

I was asking if you did not think it was possible to do both, you know, get rid of food deserts and lower prices, but perhaps I shouldn't have expected an answer to such a very vague question.

 

[theprestige]

I was asking if you did not think it was possible to do both, you know, get rid of food deserts and lower prices, but perhaps I shouldn't have expected an answer to such a very vague question.

It's obviously possible to both get rid of food deserts and lower prices. All you need is to cover the shortfall, such as through charitable donations or raising taxes. As far as I can tell, that's the essence of Mamdani's plan.

What's in doubt is whether you can get rid of food deserts and operate a profitable grocery store in the process. I don't think that's possible, and I don't think that's what Mamdani is trying to do.

Which is why I'm saying that the people coming up with all these hypotheticals and rationalizations about how Mamdani could run a food oasis at a profit need to take a moment to figure out if that's even a goal of the program.

In response, you vaguely asked if it's possible to solve two problems at once. It's like you haven't been following the conversation, have no idea what Mamdani's actually trying to do, and have no idea what argument you'd actually like to make. It's tiresome and I'm over it.

 

[mumblethrax]

I don't disagree but he talks and acts like he supports it, so it is his policy even if he didn't invent it.

The rent freeze is his policy, but that's distinct from rent stabilization. There was lots of evidence to support a rent freeze this year. Despite all the handwringing about landlords not being able to afford basic repairs, landlords saw a 12% year-over-year increase in net operating income. Tenants, meanwhile, saw an overall drop in income.

I'd say say Mamdani has a very firm grip on the fundamental problem here, which is that we just don't have enough housing in NYC. He's very gung-ho about incentivizing developers to build more.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If it comes off, there will not need to be a single cent spent on marketing.

Kind of like how having a highly subsidized, government managed marketplace for tightly controlled health insurance didn't need any marketing...

Oh wait...

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's actually nothing like that at all considering it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ PILOT program that he's testing out with 1 location to see the effects. That's the definition of not thinking he has figured out the world. It definitely looks like he's trying, and I ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ love, Love, LOVE how mad that makes you guys. It's fun seeing the mounds of butthurt happening in this thread because a NYC mayor is trying to keep his people fed and healthier. It just really, really gets to you guys that he's not just sitting on his hands, which you would also bitch about.

Honestly, I don't think anyone in this thread is mad other than you.

Skeptical, absolutely. But angry? That seems to be all you.

 

[The Atheist]

Kind of like how having a highly subsidized, government managed marketplace for tightly controlled health insurance didn't need any marketing...

Oh wait...

In enlightened countries, we call that normal health care.

Communistic as I'm sure you see that, it actually works and poor people are entitled to identical care as rich people.

Horrible, isn't it?

 

[angrysoba]

It's actually nothing like that at all considering it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ PILOT program that he's testing out with 1 location to see the effects. That's the definition of not thinking he has figured out the world. It definitely looks like he's trying, and I ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ love, Love, LOVE how mad that makes you guys. It's fun seeing the mounds of butthurt happening in this thread because a NYC mayor is trying to keep his people fed and healthier. It just really, really gets to you guys that he's not just sitting on his hands, which you would also bitch about.

Look at the stupid ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ complaints. "The food won't be perfect. The people don't want salads they want bad food. It might cost the city money. He thinks he knows everything" and on, and on, and on.

Mamdani is also making a difference already. He's gotten people, who are known racists, to advocate for the "immigrant grocer on the corner"! He's already unifying people. This thread is more of an example. Look at the way he's brought together the anti-progs, the "centrists" and the right-wing loony toons on this forum to piss and moan about something they have no idea if it'll work or not. It's outstanding. The man really is a unifier of men.

The city run grocery stores just seem like a silly idea to me. Margins are already small, the savings to the overall community will be negligible etc.

Not sure how grocery stores have gotten a bad rap. Its an incredible service at a low price to consumers. I have access to any kind of food imaginable, fresh and in season, for what amounts to 10$ a month in profit for the business.

So, first off, I hope it is a big success. Presumably if this is a pilot project then it will serve as determining how feasible these kinds of projects could be as opposed to working from tried and tested models. Maybe this has been done, I don't know. My total knowledge of this comes from what I am seeing in this thread and also this article written by a philosopher, not an economist, titled: I don't think Mamdani's grocery stores are going to work

Given it is out of his specialist area, he is fairly tentative about his conclusions, but the main problems he foresees are:

1. Making it impossible for other businesses to compete with prices (if, as mentioned by rdwight and also footnoted in the article, the profit margins for stores tend to be 1-3% then obviously 30% off those prices on staple goods would act like a huge loss leader - and furthermore one that by design cannot be competed with because even if those stores reduce their prices by more than they could afford the government shops would reduce them even further, presumably funded by taxes).

2. Long lines, literally bread queues, would necessarily form at the few locations if their prices are that good. Now, maybe that would have the effect of turning away people who value their time more than their money, but to alleviate that would require more shops, presumably again at the cost to the taxpayer.

Why not instead use food stamps for the staple goods? This would have the effect of lowering prices for those people who need them without also adding disincentives to open businesses and the cost of lines. Are food stamps stigmatizing? Maybe, but then so standing in line for bread like in Soviet Russia. Shirley!

And one more thing, claimed in the article...

One more thing. Don’t expect Mamdani’s stores to pop up in so-called “food deserts” bereft of private grocers; these have turned out to be overhyped. The New Yorker got it right: “there is little evidence to support the idea that bringing supermarkets to neighborhoods that lack them has a measurable effect on what residents eat.”

I'm just throwing this out there. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[dudalb]

Let's wait and see what he does. he is being demonized on the one hand, and proclaimes almost as a politicla Messiah on the other.

 

[dudalb]

The rent freeze is his policy, but that's distinct from rent stabilization. There was lots of evidence to support a rent freeze this year. Despite all the handwringing about landlords not being able to afford basic repairs, landlords saw a 12% year-over-year increase in net operating income. Tenants, meanwhile, saw an overall drop in income.

I'd say say Mamdani has a very firm grip on the fundamental problem here, which is that we just don't have enough housing in NYC. He's very gung-ho about incentivizing developers to build more.

Which means he is beginning to back away from DSA policy, which is massive amount of government owned housing.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

So, first off, I hope it is a big success. Presumably if this is a pilot project then it will serve as determining how feasible these kinds of projects could be as opposed to working from tried and tested models. Maybe this has been done, I don't know. My total knowledge of this comes from what I am seeing in this thread and also this article written by a philosopher, not an economist, titled: I don't think Mamdani's grocery stores are going to work

Given it is out of his specialist area, he is fairly tentative about his conclusions, but the main problems he foresees are:

1. Making it impossible for other businesses to compete with prices (if, as mentioned by rdwight and also footnoted in the article, the profit margins for stores tend to be 1-3% then obviously 30% off those prices on staple goods would act like a huge loss leader - and furthermore one that by design cannot be competed with because even if those stores reduce their prices by more than they could afford the government shops would reduce them even further, presumably funded by taxes).

2. Long lines, literally bread queues, would necessarily form at the few locations if their prices are that good. Now, maybe that would have the effect of turning away people who value their time more than their money, but to alleviate that would require more shops, presumably again at the cost to the taxpayer.

Why not instead use food stamps for the staple goods? This would have the effect of lowering prices for those people who need them without also adding disincentives to open businesses and the cost of lines. Are food stamps stigmatizing? Maybe, but then so standing in line for bread like in Soviet Russia. Shirley!

And one more thing, claimed in the article...



I'm just throwing this out there. Don't shoot the messenger.

Lad is confusing what he wants to happen with what will happen.

 

[mumblethrax]

Which means he is beginning to back away from DSA policy, which is massive amount of government owned housing.

No, that's incorrect. Left-YIMBYs are not rare within the DSA, and this is where Mamdani has sat throughout his candidacy (and before).

 

[Segnosaur]

The rent freeze is his policy, but that's distinct from rent stabilization.

In my opinion its a distinction without difference.

Whether it is a "rent freeze" or "rent stabilization", it is all doing the same thing... telling landlords "We are artificially going to put limits on the profits you can make". And when you do that, you will cause at least some of them to decide "You know, I can earn more profit by turning my land into a parking lot, and I won't have to deal with all sorts of tenant-related headaches."

Now, I am sure that there are lots of far-left folks who will say "good riddance". But whether you think those landlords are greedy capitalist pigs or honest businessmen scraping by, the fact is they were offering something that was needed. And now there will be less of what is needed.

There was lots of evidence to support a rent freeze this year. Despite all the handwringing about landlords not being able to afford basic repairs, landlords saw a 12% year-over-year increase in net operating income.

The problem with that particular metric... it is an average. Not all units had the same increase, and it likely depends on the neighborhood, if there is a mix of rent-controlled and non-rent controlled units, etc. There are also other issues: that 12% may not be adjusted for inflation, that "increase" covers maintenance that have also been increasing, etc.

(also, I am not sure where you got your 12% figure from... nationwide or just NY, all rental units or just rent-controlled, but it differs from values that I have seen.)

From: https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/nyc-landlords-report-6-2-164654085.html
For the third consecutive year, the financial health of rent-stabilized housing in New York City appears to be on the up—at least on paper. Net Operating Income (NOI)...for buildings containing stabilized units climbed 6.2% citywide in 2024,... But in the Bronx, NOI dipped by 0.1%, with some neighborhoods like Hunts Point seeing a staggering 13.1% collapse... even though net operating income is up overall, growth is thinnest among buildings that are entirely rent-stabilized units, at just 2.2%. The report also shows that expenses are growing fast—up 4.2% since 2023... Inflation is also eating into incomes. Citywide NOI growth drops from 6.2% to just 2.2% when adjusting for inflation, Taxes represent one of the biggest drivers, accounting for 26.3% of all costs. It's a significant finding, given that there are at least two proposals currently being shopped by the Mamdani administration that would raise taxes for property owners... ... the city's so-called "ghost apartments"—an estimated 50,000 rent-stabilized units sitting vacant because the cost of rehabilitation far exceeds the potential return...

Notice that? thousands of units that are sitting empty because the landlords figure they won't earn enough back to make fixing them up worth while. And that's with various increases in operating income over the years. Now there is a rent freeze, and even more buildings will fall into the same category.

Tenants, meanwhile, saw an overall drop in income.

I am sure lots of tenants did see a drop in their income.

Yes housing affordability is a problem. Yes, lots of low and middle income people have seen stagnant wages while other expenses go up. But when you go and deliberately make one group (the landlords) largely responsible for "fixing" the issue, you will have side effects.

I'd say say Mamdani has a very firm grip on the fundamental problem here , which is that we just don't have enough housing in NYC.

That is... debatable that he has a "firm grip" on the problem. There is plenty of evidence that rent controls contribute to housing shortages, and a rent freeze is an extreme version of that. That rent control reduces housing availability is an idea that many left and right wing economists accept. Mamdani is doing something that the majority of economists say is wrong. That doesn't sound like he has a "firm grip" on the problem, it sounds more like he is taking the populist approach. "I'll do what sounds good rather than what the experts say"

He's very gung-ho about incentivizing developers to build more.

Actually I would say he is doing just the opposite. A rent freeze the reverse "incentivizing developers to build more". Instead, he is telling them "I am willing to limit your profits if you build housing." They would be better off to use their resources to do other things if they want to maximize their investment.... stick money in the stock markets, build retail instead of residential, develop a death ray in order to blackmail the world, etc.

Now, he may have some other ideas to create more housing. But rental units constructed and run by private individuals and companies will always be a major factor in the housing market.

 

[mumblethrax]

1. Making it impossible for other businesses to compete with prices (if, as mentioned by rdwight and also footnoted in the article, the profit margins for stores tend to be 1-3% then obviously 30% off those prices on staple goods would act like a huge loss leader - and furthermore one that by design cannot be competed with because even if those stores reduce their prices by more than they could afford the government shops would reduce them even further, presumably funded by taxes).

Why would the gub'mint store reduce their prices even further? The pressure to lower prices will only be felt by proximate businesses (grocery stores in NYC exhibit clear price discrimination), and are unlikely to show up as anything more than rounding error in however the municipal markets end up pricing those goods.

2. Long lines, literally bread queues, would necessarily form at the few locations if their prices are that good. Now, maybe that would have the effect of turning away people who value their time more than their money, but to alleviate that would require more shops, presumably again at the cost to the taxpayer.

I think the word 'necessarily' is being used rather casually here. The author isn't really accounting for how difficult it is for most New Yorkers to get to an out-of-the-way grocery store (food deserts significantly overlap with transit dead zones). And the Soviets, if they didn't want to stand in the bread lines, didn't have the option of just going to Magnit instead.

Yes, "anyone" will be able to shop at a Mamdani Mart. Does that mean I'm going to spend two hours on the train getting to and from Far Rockaway for up to 30% off of whatever I can fit in a granny cart?

I'd maybe go to one or two of these stores once, to see how they are. And then, most likely, never again. I can already go down to King's Highway and get better, cheaper fruit than I can get in my neighborhood. I do so approximately never.

Why not instead use food stamps for the staple goods?

I mean, we do, but there are some problems here, specifically related to the fact that SNAP is a federally administered program that the city has no control over, and that many bodegas don't accept them.

And one more thing, claimed in the article...

Here the author just ignores what he's been concerned about throughout--the 30% price reduction on fresh produce, meat and dairy. It's well understand that lower-income people tend to purchase on a price-per-calorie basis. Reducing the relative price of more nutritious options has the potential to upend that pattern.

 

[jimbob]

In enlightened countries, we call that normal health care.

Communistic as I'm sure you see that, it actually works and poor people are entitled to identical care as rich people.

Horrible, isn't it?

Yup and there are insurance based models and ones like the NHS where there might or might not be nominal fees for prescriptions if one is a can afford it and aren't long-term ill (mine cost about £10) but where most is free with no bills anf thus no bureaucratic overhead to process payments from patients.

 

[Segnosaur]

It's actually nothing like that at all considering it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ PILOT program that he's testing out with 1 location to see the effects. That's the definition of not thinking he has figured out the world.

Yes, its a pilot project. But even though it is a pilot project, it is going to cost the NY taxpayer millions of dollars.

I think people should be willing to look at the business plan for any large-scale project that costs millions of dollars, to see if the project is practical, rather than just accepting that government is wasting money because you called it a "pilot project".

If someone had a plan to sell snowmobiles in saudi arabia, I would hope that the people funding it would take a good hard look at the proposal to see if the proposal makes sense, rather than just accepting it because "well, its a pilot project".

Look at the stupid ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ complaints.

Keep in mind that at least some of the complaints are because Mamdani cultists have made idiotic suggestions.

"The food won't be perfect.

Someone suggested the stores won't lose money because they can save money selling expired food. But doing so would might the store liable for any illnesses that occur. And companies have been sued over this issue before.

It might cost the city money.

That is because math is not on the side of the Mamdani cultist. If Mamdani-mart is selling stuff at a 30% discount while the average grocery store operates on a profit margin of less than 5%, your pretty sure that your store is not going to be profitable.

Here is the thing... if the Mamdani cult members here said that "yeah the stores could be a money-loser but it will still be beneficial to society", it would be understandable. I know I certainly wouldn't complain about profitability. (After all, we do expect the government to help the disadvantaged even when it is not profitable.) The problem is when they try to cook up these bizarre fantasies to suggest why the stores will not lose money... "they will cut labor costs by using volunteers" (despite the fact that one of the goals is to give workers a 'living wage', i.e. the opposite of volunteering), "They can get free food from suppliers", etc.

 

[Darat]

How is the pilot going to cost millions?

 

[Segnosaur]

How is the pilot going to cost millions?

The plan to set up the 5 initial supermarkets is being funded by $70 million from the city's capital budget.

Now, Mamdani cultists are trying to defend the stores by suggesting they can save money (and turn a profit) by selling expired food and using volunteer labor. But given the fact they plan on selling staple foods at a 30% discount, and the average profit margin of a commercial grocer is below 5%, it is unlikely the stores will ever run at a profit. So you have the initial setup costs plus whatever the regular annual loses are.

 

[angrysoba]

Why would the gub'mint store reduce their prices even further? The pressure to lower prices will only be felt by proximate businesses (grocery stores in NYC exhibit clear price discrimination), and are unlikely to show up as anything more than rounding error in however the municipal markets end up pricing those goods.


I think the word 'necessarily' is being used rather casually here. The author isn't really accounting for how difficult it is for most New Yorkers to get to an out-of-the-way grocery store (food deserts significantly overlap with transit dead zones). And the Soviets, if they didn't want to stand in the bread lines, didn't have the option of just going to Magnit instead.

Yes, "anyone" will be able to shop at a Mamdani Mart. Does that mean I'm going to spend two hours on the train getting to and from Far Rockaway for up to 30% off of whatever I can fit in a granny cart?

I'd maybe go to one or two of these stores once, to see how they are. And then, most likely, never again. I can already go down to King's Highway and get better, cheaper fruit than I can get in my neighborhood. I do so approximately never.


I mean, we do, but there are some problems here, specifically related to the fact that SNAP is a federally administered program that the city has no control over, and that many bodegas don't accept them.


Here the author just ignores what he's been concerned about throughout--the 30% price reduction on fresh produce, meat and dairy. It's well understand that lower-income people tend to purchase on a price-per-calorie basis. Reducing the relative price of more nutritious options has the potential to upend that pattern.

To be sure, some of the writing is my gloss on the paper. I wasn’t quoting him.

As for why would the government shops reduce the prices…that’s what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to reduce their prices to 30% lower than market price. I doubt local shops can reduce their own prices that far, but if they did, then the act of doing so would reduce the market price, no?