Zohran Mamdani

[Segnosaur]

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?

First of all, while I am sure that for some people saving even a couple of percent on their food bill might be beneficial, it is not going to be a game changer.

More importantly though... you have totally ignored the context around my statement. My statement was about questioning about the feasibility of offering such huge discounts on food when they are going to be saving so little on eliminating dividends.

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.

Ummm, that may help with initially promoting the location of the store. But you will want to advertise weekly prices for those who feel the need to price-compare.

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.

First of all, keep in mind that giving people vacation time adds to expenses. If benefits (such as time off) are greater at the publicly owned "Mamdani-mart" than at your local supermarket, it could eliminate the supposed cost savings from "not having shareholder dividends".

Secondly, I never said that higher labor costs would be an issue. I said it was a POTENTIAL issue. I do not know the pay and benefits that these employees will get, and how it compares to those in the private sector. But then NEITHER DO YOU.

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 cann't imagine someone being so dense that they take "hey maybe we should wait to see how things turn out" somehow gets converted to "OMG! You have a raging hate boner!"

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.

Because any business (even a government-run one) will have fixed expenses that have nothing to do with the number of customers?

Seriously, do you not understand anything about how a business runs?

Do you honestly think stores turn out the lights and send everyone home during business hours if there aren't people in the store? No, they remain open, paying their employees, paying their utilities, etc. Then there are losses if the company has to get rid of expired food that cannot be sold if there are no customers. (According to google AI, that can be up to 4% of their potential revenue.)

So yeah, a company can both lose money AND have no customers.

The idea is not for this store to make the city money. It's going to cost the city money.

I never expected his stores to be a money-making venture. Its not even that bad if they lose a LITTLE money. But if they are huge losses, requiring hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies, that means less money available for other government programs. That means the potential of tax increases (which could impact many poor people who are simply too far to travel to Mamdani-mart.)

Who are these cult members? The only ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ person feverishly posting about Mamdani in this thread is you, guy. You're it.

yes I post about Mamdani. And you are right there to post after me. The difference is, I actually examine his actions with a critical eye. You just accept that "everything will work out", regardless of whatever red flag exists.

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.

I call people like you a cult member not because "Mamdani is out to destroy people", but because of your slavish attitude. And if anyone should say anything about "maybe there is a red flag here" or "here is something he did wrong", instead of addressing the issue you get a bunch of crap about how "oh my god you are attacking our god!"

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?

Here is the thing...

Yes it is true I do not know about his entire business plan. BUT NEITHER DO YOU. The difference is, I am smart enough to see that "hey saving 2-3% on shareholder dividends is not likely going to make up for steep 30% discounts in food, without causing serious financial problems down the road".

 

[Segnosaur]

Are they? I would hope they are, and it makes sense that they are. I just haven't seen anything specifically about where the new stores are located and where they are in relation to other supermarkets. (Most of the information I have seen has been about food pricing rather than location/availability.)

I do not know the landscape but the mention of food deserts was very much the point of these things being made in the first place.

Do you have a reference for that?

I am not saying you are wrong. In fact I suspect you are probably right. (It would make sense that it is.) I just like to see some verification of things.

They might not have luxury items, but they still may need adverts (just so people can do price comparisons).

Why?

I already said why. Because some people (such as those on a fixed income) might want to do some price comparisons before they make purchases. (Remember, not all prices Mamdani-mart will be '30% less', only certain staple foods. You don't want a person to go there to buy something that they could have gotten cheaper elsewhere.

By the way, a question that should be asked is "why not have luxury items"? Depending on the item and its price, it might actually be beneficial to sell it at the store as a way to offset discounted items elsewhere.

Your average poor person might not want to buy that tin of caviar. but if a rich person happens to shop there and they buy it, you earn a profit on it, you can then take whatever profit you got from it to offset the cost of basic necessities. The luxury items don't necessarily "cost" that much to stock, except for maybe some shelf space (assuming they do not spoil.)

They would need to be larger than those micro-supermarkets that can pop-up in wealthier neighborhoods, but smaller than your average Safeway/Giant/Acme. My thoughts would be something the size of an Aldi store without the center aisle - or a center aisle with foodstuffs.

But like I said, I haven't seen the business plan.

In my opinion, if the main goal was elimination of "food deserts" then miro-supermarkets would have been better. A big supermarket will eliminate the problem in one neighborhood (which is a good thing, before the Mamdani-cultists assume "oh no he has such a rage boner!", but if its 5 stores over 300 square miles, that will leave a lot of areas that still do not have readily available supermarkets.

 

[plague311]

First of all, while I am sure that for some people saving even a couple of percent on their food bill might be beneficial, it is not going to be a game changer.

More importantly though... you have totally ignored the context around my statement. My statement was about questioning about the feasibility of offering such huge discounts on food when they are going to be saving so little on eliminating dividends.

Because dividends aren't the only thing they're saving on. I thought that would be clear Mr. Critical Eye, is it not? The other savings have been pointed out in this thread, and it will be easier for them since they aren't profit driven in the first place. They can focus more on the actual needs of the people rather than the random wants and best way to make money. We call that common sense.

Ummm, that may help with initially promoting the location of the store. But you will want to advertise weekly prices for those who feel the need to price-compare.

No, they won't need to advertise weekly prices because there won't be a need to price-compare. It's already been said that the prices will be 30% lower than at the standard grocery store. There is no cost comparison needed at all. Put it on the local news, as it has been, and we're good to go.

First of all, keep in mind that giving people vacation time adds to expenses.

No ◊◊◊◊?

If benefits (such as time off) are greater at the publicly owned "Mamdani-mart" than at your local supermarket, it could eliminate the supposed cost savings from "not having shareholder dividends".

If my grandma had wheels she could be a bicycle too. I doubt they're going to be handing out a ton of vacation to the people working there. It will be just like every other local government and the job will be slightly less than market value.

Secondly, I never said that higher labor costs would be an issue. I said it was a POTENTIAL issue. I do not know the pay and benefits that these employees will get, and how it compares to those in the private sector. But then NEITHER DO YOU.

Right, but since I have common sense I understand that Mamdani isn't going to be paying the employees some outlandish wage because they don't do that anywhere else in the NYC government, at scale. That seems pretty logical, right Mr. Critical Eye? Mamdani turned down more money and I can't see any reason to think he'll be paying out the ass for grocery store help.

I cann't imagine someone being so dense that they take "hey maybe we should wait to see how things turn out" somehow gets converted to "OMG! You have a raging hate boner!"

Because you aren't "waiting to see how things turn out". That's just your catchphrase that you're using to fall back on...well that and "I didn't say I wanted him to fail, I've just only talked about how he would fail."

Because any business (even a government-run one) will have fixed expenses that have nothing to do with the number of customers?

Seriously, do you not understand anything about how a business runs?

Very, very well. In fact, I actually have a few years experience working in a grocery store.

Do you honestly think stores turn out the lights and send everyone home during business hours if there aren't people in the store?

They do, they can, I've seen it multiple times. Do I think they will here? No.

No, they remain open, paying their employees,paying their utilities, etc. Then there are losses if the company has to get rid of expired food that cannot be sold if there are no customers. (According to google AI, that can be up to 4% of their potential revenue.)

I hope they know someone that can get them a good deal on utilities! I wonder who can help with that?

I'm getting whiplash here because you can't stay consistent. So far these stores may simultaneously put neighboring grocery stores out of service, run out of food, get sniped by restaurants and other stores so that real people can't get food. I mean ◊◊◊◊ me, what isn't going to happen with these places? Now they're throwing away 4% of potential revenue. Can we pick a lane here and go with it?

Also, it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ city run store. Worse case scenario is the food gets donated to a food shelter if it's close to expiration. I mean, again, common sense stuff here.

So yeah, a company can both lose money AND have no customers.

Yeah, it usually loses money because it has no customers but you guys are trying to have it 6 different ways here and none of them can happen at the same time. So far, if you guys are to be believed, this is one hell of a paradoxical grocery store so far.

I never expected his stores to be a money-making venture. Its not even that bad if they lose a LITTLE money. But if they are huge losses, requiring hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies, that means less money available for other government programs. That means the potential of tax increases (which could impact many poor people who are simply too far to travel to Mamdani-mart.)

Hundreds of millions? Why do we have these ridiculous, exaggerated numbers? It's 5 ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stores, guy. You think they're popping $100 million per store? Now you're just being ridiculous and this goes back to the "anything Mamdani does is probably going to just end up being terrible and destroy NYC" attitude that you've perpetually shown.

yes I post about Mamdani. And you are right there to post after me.

Sometimes. You still got me by a bunch of posts.

The difference is, I actually examine his actions with a critical eye. You just accept that "everything will work out", regardless of whatever red flag exists.

Lol yeah, you're a real critical eye type of guy. Now you just have to show where I said "everything will work out". Despite you saying that you have a "wait and see" mentality, I'm the one here saying, "You have no idea what you're talking about and we haven't even tried most of this yet." You've said it's been tried and failed.

I call people like you a cult member not because...

...you have no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ clue what a cult is or what their members do?

"Mamdani is out to destroy people", but because of your slavish attitude. And if anyone should say anything about "maybe there is a red flag here" or "here is something he did wrong", instead of addressing the issue you get a bunch of crap about how "oh my god you are attacking our god!"

Oooohhh that's what you're doing? You're just pointing out red flags and I'm talking about Mamdani being my god?

Do you even listen to the stupid ◊◊◊◊ you say sometimes or do you just check in and out?

Here is the thing...

Yes it is true I do not know about his entire business plan. BUT NEITHER DO YOU. The difference is, I am smart enough to see that "hey saving 2-3% on shareholder dividends is not likely going to make up for steep 30% discounts in food, without causing serious financial problems down the road".

Right, and I'm here saying "this seems like it will work" and you're here saying "it's not going to work" while walking back to your "I'm saying wait and see" nonsense.

 

[mumblethrax]

It's bizarre that people act as if rent control/stabilization is one of Mamdani's ideas. It's been the status quo in NYC since 1969.

 

[kookbreaker]

Do you have a reference for that?

I am not saying you are wrong. In fact I suspect you are probably right. (It would make sense that it is.) I just like to see some verification of things.

I mean what will you accept? Here is a basic article about it.

How City-Owned Grocery Stores Can Tackle Food Insecurity

As private grocers abandon low-income neighborhoods, Zohran Mamdani’s public ownership proposal offers a solution to market failures.

inequality.org

"New York City is home to more than two dozen neighborhoods that are classified as food deserts. These localities are predominantly Black and Hispanic and rely on both bodegas and dollar stores for their grocery needs, creating “food swamps” where unhealthy food options vastly outnumber nutritious ones. Mamdani’s proposal seeks to fill the void left by the market. He is offering city-owned grocery stores as a public option to low-income residents in neighborhoods that the private sector has abandoned. "

I already said why. Because some people (such as those on a fixed income) might want to do some price comparisons before they make purchases. (Remember, not all prices Mamdani-mart will be '30% less', only certain staple foods. You don't want a person to go there to buy something that they could have gotten cheaper elsewhere.

You do understand the issue with a "food desert", yes?

By the way, a question that should be asked is "why not have luxury items"? Depending on the item and its price, it might actually be beneficial to sell it at the store as a way to offset discounted items elsewhere.

Your average poor person might not want to buy that tin of caviar. but if a rich person happens to shop there and they buy it, you earn a profit on it, you can then take whatever profit you got from it to offset the cost of basic necessities. The luxury items don't necessarily "cost" that much to stock, except for maybe some shelf space (assuming they do not spoil.)

Some "luxury" items should be considered depending on the makeup of the neighborhood. Read about how the stores in Philly adapted quickly (or started adapted in place already) to their respective regions. But at the same time you don't need 4 brands of high-end mayonnaise or 3 brands of soy milk on the shelves.

In my opinion, if the main goal was elimination of "food deserts" then miro-supermarkets would have been better. A big supermarket will eliminate the problem in one neighborhood (which is a good thing, before the Mamdani-cultists assume "oh no he has such a rage boner!", but if its 5 stores over 300 square miles, that will leave a lot of areas that still do not have readily available supermarkets.

Micro-supermarkets can be quite expensive and have trouble carrying more than some essentials. I have had several around me over the years I've lived in Philly and most of them were kind of weak - one barely served the community of the high-rise in was based in. I think I remember only one that was really adequate and I know a lot of people preferred to drive elsewhere if they had cars.

 

[theprestige]

It'll be interesting to see some of the implementation details.

Is this going to be a new department, staffed and managed by the city? Or will they contract with a service provider to manage and staff the stores? If so, what will the bidding/contracting process look like?

What about the land and structures? Will the city be buying property? Leasing? From whom? How will the beneficiaries of these property transactions be chosen? Are we looking at re-using/remodeling existing structures, or is this going to be demolition and new build? Etc.

Mamdani says the 30% below market prices "will include all fresh produce, meat, and seafood, along with 20 other essential items like cheese, milk, and bread." So it'll be interesting to see what actually ends up on that list.

Mamdani also says the stores "will set prices for this core set of goods at 30% below typical retail prices. No exceptions, no gimmicks." So it'll be interesting to see how they determine "typical" retail prices, and how close reality gets to "no exceptions, no gimmicks". I figure a setup like this is going to be too complicated and finicky to actually get implemented with no exceptions and nothing that might look like a gimmick. But I think a certain amount of aspirational language at this point is totally fine.

It will also be interesting to see what brands and what products are actually on the list. He says "all meat", but I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean they're going to be sourcing and selling every conceivable cut of beef at 30% below retail. So what will be included? Will it be just the cheap cuts, the stew meat and pot roast stuff? Or will there be steaks as well. Pork chops, probably, but what about bacon? Premium brands of cheese, or generic only? Etc.

Of course, the things I'm most interested in, that no politician on either side of the aisle, at any level of government, ever bothers to include, are the success metrics, and the rollback/divestiture plan if the metrics don't meet the criteria for success.

---

None of these are details I expect Mamdani's team to have all figured out yet. But I assume they're in the process of figuring ou these details, and it will be interesting to see how things shape up as the team figures them out and informs the public about them.

 

[theprestige]

Because dividends aren't the only thing they're saving on.

Not paying dividends isn't a savings. Lots of corporations don't pay out dividends. Lots of investors don't care about dividends. They're an entirely optional way to divide up profits after all other costs and re-investments have been accounted for. Not paying dividends won't make these stores any cheaper to operate, in any way.The entire "they won't be paying dividends" argument is a red herring.

The only way dividends make sense is if Mamdani plans to run these stores at a net profit, and then share those profits with taxpayers. Which he doesn't, so Susheel was just completely off the reservation with that idea. Feel free to take the idea out back and shoot it any time you like.

 

[mumblethrax]

Is this going to be a new department, staffed and managed by the city? Or will they contract with a service provider to manage and staff the stores?

The latter.

If so, what will the bidding/contracting process look like?

Open RFP.

What about the land and structures? Will the city be buying property? Leasing? From whom? How will the beneficiaries of these property transactions be chosen? Are we looking at re-using/remodeling existing structures, or is this going to be demolition and new build? Etc.

The plan is to use under-utilized properties that the city already owns.

 

[theprestige]

The latter.

Open RFP.


The plan is to use under-utilized properties that the city already owns.

Thanks! I appreciate you doing the legwork.

Honestly, if this works out, I'll be very pleased.

 

[kookbreaker]

Mamdani says the 30% below market prices "will include all fresh produce, meat, and seafood, along with 20 other essential items like cheese, milk, and bread." So it'll be interesting to see what actually ends up on that list.

Mamdani also says the stores "will set prices for this core set of goods at 30% below typical retail prices. No exceptions, no gimmicks." So it'll be interesting to see how they determine "typical" retail prices, and how close reality gets to "no exceptions, no gimmicks". I figure a setup like this is going to be too complicated and finicky to actually get implemented with no exceptions and nothing that might look like a gimmick. But I think a certain amount of aspirational language at this point is totally fine.

As I mentioned previously, "30% below" has a lot of leeway. I mean a lot. All he has to do is compare the prices to a more expensive mini-supermarket in a wealthier part of Manhattan and it would be pretty simple goal to meet.

Its like when a product is being sold for "x% below the retail price" when really it is being sold for the MAP (which everyone else is selling the item at) and the retail pricing is the keystone price.

 

[theprestige]

One assumes, perhaps naively, that Mamdani's team plans to take an average of a selected group of "representative" stores, or something sensible like that.

Kind of like how the NYT Bestseller list isn't something simple like a list of the books that have sold the most copies in the previous month.

 

[The Atheist]

ETA: There's no way this goes forward without a half million dollar contract with a major marketing firm. Not that there's anything wrong with that, other than it will burst Susheel's bubble.

You're not busting his bubble, just displaying your ignorance.

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

Because dividends aren't the only thing they're saving on. I thought that would be clear Mr. Critical Eye, is it not? The other savings have been pointed out in this thread, and it will be easier for them since they aren't profit driven in the first place.

Not only that, I can see it being a case of small suppliers using visible supply to the stores as a loss-leader to build their brand.

There are hundreds of reasons why it should work, from using fruit & veg that don't meet supermarket chains' aesthetic standards to companies not run by oligarchs who want to be altruistic.

I'd also imagine there are plenty of retired hippies and lefty types who will volunteer their time for free, as they already do at food banks.

Honestly, if this works out, I'll be very pleased.

Now you're outright lying.

 

[theprestige]

You're not busting his bubble, just displaying your ignorance.

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

You'd think, but I guarantee there will be hundreds of thousands spent on marketing. The city spends about 30 million dollars annually, marketing its services. This doesn't include the millions the city also spends on tourism marketing.

Not only that, I can see it being a case of small suppliers using visible supply to the stores as a loss-leader to build their brand.

I'm pretty sure staple commodities are already priced about as low as they can be.

There are hundreds of reasons why it should work, from using fruit & veg that don't meet supermarket chains' aesthetic standards to companies not run by oligarchs who want to be altruistic.

You seem to be assuming that the region has all these food suppliers who could be charging lower prices at wholesale, but haven't bothered so far, even though it would certainly help lots of people, which is what you imagine they really want to do.

I'd also imagine there are plenty of retired hippies and lefty types who will volunteer their time for free, as they already do at food banks.

This is too funny.

Now you're outright lying.

Now you're just being rude.

 

[dirtywick]

i'm a little curious how this is going to work. though i think there's some areas where the government can eliminate costs where private companies can't, 30% is significant.

"New York City is home to more than two dozen neighborhoods that are classified as food deserts. These localities are predominantly Black and Hispanic and rely on both bodegas and dollar stores for their grocery needs, creating “food swamps” where unhealthy food options vastly outnumber nutritious ones. Mamdani’s proposal seeks to fill the void left by the market. He is offering city-owned grocery stores as a public option to low-income residents in neighborhoods that the private sector has abandoned. "

i will say though, being as how the private market has failed here, seems like a reasonable place for the government to step in

 

[The Atheist]

i'm a little curious how this is going to work. though i think there's some areas where the government can eliminate costs where private companies can't, 30% is significant.

I can save 10% without even trying:

Profit 3%
Head office costs 5%
Advertising 3%

Throw in cans and other completely safe food past "best by" dates, fruit & veg as noted, volunteer labour and reduced regulatory costs and 30% doesn't seem impossible.

Emmett Grogan opened his Free Store in the 1960s and that seemed to work ok. Some people are altruistic and will jump on. I'd certainly make a case for a supplier to generate goodwill by being associated with the brand. Not everyone is a far-right loon.

 

[dirtywick]

I can save 10% without even trying:

Profit 3%
Head office costs 5%
Advertising 3%

Throw in cans and other completely safe food past "best by" dates, fruit & veg as noted, volunteer labour and reduced regulatory costs and 30% doesn't seem impossible.

Emmett Grogan opened his Free Store in the 1960s and that seemed to work ok. Some people are altruistic and will jump on. I'd certainly make a case for a supplier to generate goodwill by being associated with the brand. Not everyone is a far-right loon.

i didn't say it was impossible, i said it's significant. which it is, meaning it's going to be very difficult

 

[Trausti]

i will say though, being as how the private market has failed here, seems like a reasonable place for the government to step in

How has the private market failed? Does demand not exist in these areas? If there was high demand for nutritious foods, rather the unhealthy processed food, the markets would adjust accordingly. That's what markets do. And to what extent does crime and government taxation/regulation play a role in inhibiting these bodegas from selling cheaper items? That's something the government could do something about, but, of course, won't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sorry, but those walls of text may be interesting, but I'm too busy chuckling:



Maybe 4 or 5 times the next-highest number.

Seems like you don’t want to actually talk about Mamdani at all, you just want everyone to join you in approbation?

 

[Segnosaur]

i will say though, being as how the private market has failed here, seems like a reasonable place for the government to step in

How has the private market failed? Does demand not exist in these areas? If there was high demand for nutritious foods, rather the unhealthy processed food, the markets would adjust accordingly. That's what markets do.

Yes, markets adjust. But they adjust to issues of supply, demand, costs, expenses, etc. Issues of "human health" are often not a part of the market adjustments.

Foods that are "nutritious" often have more difficult (and more expensive) storage issues. (Shorter shelf life requiring either more turnover or food getting discarded, more prone to "damage", etc., sometimes leading to higher prices.) There may be some people who WANT to (for example) have a salad with their dinner, but because they are on a fixed income, the higher cost of "fresh food" means they cannot afford it often enough to have a store want to stock it.

So something might need to be done to make such foods available. Increasing people's income might work (allowing them to purchase higher quality foods so that they can afford to buy better quality food more often (which in turn will cause more stores to carry it). Subsidizing stores to carry a larger mixture of foods might also work. Setting up a government store (as this program does) might also work, but again, we need to see results before we call it a success.

Of course the people who "want good food but cannot afford or find it" are only part of the equation. There are people who might ignore salads in favor of potato chips not because "I cannot afford or find anything else" but because they have no interest in eating healthy. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but cannot make them drink.

 

[The Atheist]

i didn't say it was impossible, i said it's significant. which it is, meaning it's going to be very difficult

That's fine, I wasn't accusing you, just making a point that there's a lot of room for change.

Seems like you don’t want to actually talk about Mamdani at all, you just want everyone to join you in approbation?

As I've already stated, criticism of a succinct nature is welcome. If I don't respond to anything you say it's simply because I have no interest in your personal opinion.