leaving aside the answers other people have given, if NYC can afford a world class private military with a ~$10B USD budget, they can afford to cover a minor deficit in food budget. It’s like food stamps but cuts out a layer of bureaucracy and thus lower cost.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They probably realized their cost outlay is lower than they anticipated and they are passing those savings on to the consumer.
This is not an explanation, this is speculation, as denoted by the word “probably”.
I’m asking where the money is coming from to support these subsidies
leaving aside the answers other people have given, if NYC can afford a world class private military with a ~$10B USD budget, they can afford to cover a minor deficit in food budget. It’s like food stamps but cuts out a layer of bureaucracy and thus lower cost.
This is what taxes should actually be funding.
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”.