Anonymous #4 9w

A state owned one. Basically they get their product from the same places, they just have government backing to run a deficit (in the bad cases that might be necessary) while not raising prices a ton. Basically a grocery store that isn’t so much for profit (like a privately owned one) but more for feeding people affordably. Mamdani is trying some out to see how it works out, everytime it’s been tried republicans have fucked it up intentionally

29

Anonymous #2 9w

How would you guarantee that they don’t just become a resource dump over time? I’m pretty sure its not uncommon for the government to keep pouring in increasingly large sums of money into projects just for the PR (F-35 Lightning project was something like 500 billion over budget, etc.)?

-1

Anonymous #4 9w

Also, if farm companies know they can get government money, what’s to stop them from jacking up prices like they do with the US military (I think the military was once found to be paying 35$ for every paper coffee cup or something)?

5

Anonymous #4 9w

Oversight? The same way plenty of other government systems don’t become bloated. We hear about the ones that do but not the TONS that function perfectly fine. And I’d rather have the government bloating a system than a private corporation pocketing billions while extorting labor or other areas. At least with the government people can hold them accountable and reform can be forced and not just hoped for

11

Anonymous #4 9w

Farms are already dependent on subsidies and government support anymore. It’s a sad truth not really talked about but if it wasn’t for the government either pulling strings in tax breaks, outright giving subsidies and cash, or other support/extra rights farms wouldn’t be a livable profession even though they’re so necessary still. That and we already get so much food imported that it doesn’t have that huge of an effect on the grocery retail industry down the line

29

Anonymous #2 9w

Regarding oversight and reform, isn’t that the whole purpose of trade unions? There are massive farmers unions that exist solely to tackle the problems you’re outlining. Furthermore, the federal government restricts what workers are allowed to unionize. Wouldn’t creating a large scale, government run food production and distribution system risk depriving agricultural workers of the right to unionize and collectively bargain as their job status changes from private to public/government sector?

0

Anonymous #4 9w

Farmers unions can’t dictate larger change though, yes restricting them isn’t ideal either and I’m sure there can be a compromise made somewhere where everyone can benefit, however if changing a bit of our grocery industry into public ownership helps known issues while having room to accommodate for the obvious potential issues, I don’t see the problem with going ahead and trying it. We can always watch them fail and try something else if that’s what happens too, private owners would 100% return

1

Anonymous #5 9w

Why’s that lol they’re objectively doing more for the people

19

Anonymous #5 9w

We already have plenty of democratic socialist policies in place that have been very successful, and when this idea has been allowed to actually be tried it’s been moderately successful. The unique thing about New York is that it’s the first time it’s tried large scale and in an urban environment. Objectively his policies have been working, why the hate?

19

Anonymous #2 9w

The thing about unions is that they do work and can make massive change. OSHA was a result of successful union action, bargaining, and lobbying. The same goes for The Wagner Act, Family and Medical Leave act, and workers compensation laws. Nationalizing the grocery industry would risk reducing the effectiveness of labor unions, restricting the rights of workers to organize, strike, and bargain for better wages.

1

Anonymous #2 9w

Only about 39% of farms rely on government subsidies, with the wealthiest 10% collecting nearly 75% of them. This trend suggests that, if the government were to nationalize the grocery industry, the wealthiest farms would disproportionately benefit, diverting even more money back to the same mega corporations you’re aiming to combat.

-4

Anonymous #2 9w

Objectively, buddy had to get a $4b bailout because his policies had no revenue to back it long term

-5

Anonymous #4 9w

Not really though? There are plenty of government unions, and plenty of unions that work very closely to the government too. I understand the concern for it, but these are all just potential consequences and not that consequential at that. The rewards farrrr outweigh the potential cons in this book until tested otherwise imo

6

Anonymous #6 9w

If potus could give funding outside of partisanship agreement like an actual adult that’d be a lot easier, however we have a child in office that thinks denying disaster aid because the people voted blue is a reasonable thing to do 🙄

19

Anonymous #2 9w

Are you saying not really to unions not being effective? I’m not sure what you mean tbh

3

Anonymous #4 9w

To them being effected, mb. There’s plenty of government unions and the farmer unions themselves shouldn’t be harmed too much considering these would only be a fraction of the actual grocery stores out there anyways

6

Anonymous #2 9w

To your second point I disagree. I see your point and I too would like cheaper groceries. However, nationalizing the grocery industry, in my mind, represents more potential cons than pros. Sure, we may get cheaper groceries (for a bit), but the labor restrictions that come with that alongside giving big corporations another way of stealing taxpayer dollars outweigh the potential benefits. But I respect your point of view

1

Anonymous #2 9w

I think I maybe misunderstood your point. I thought we were talking about the federal government nationalizing grocery stores, not state ones. But, I still think you’d see similar effects even if state stores were government owned, although at a smaller scale

2

Anonymous #4 9w

I fail to see how it would allow corporations more foothold, it’s literally removing some of their locations for a more stable government competitor. They all get it from the same places too, so it’s only the distribution system that’s being tweaked here

8

Anonymous #2 9w

Because they’re not actually working. I live here and am witnessing it first hand

-3

Anonymous #2 9w

Holy change of subject lol. Ik you’re not talking about the disaster aid article for NY. Finish reading it if you are

4

Anonymous #10 9w

why?

8

Anonymous #9 9w

Because as a single individual, I already pay more in taxes than married couples or couples with kids. My siblings get a lot in returns for having dozens of kids. I don’t wanna be paying for your babysitter. If you’re planning on having kids, your financial situation should be discussed before you decide to get pregnant.

-4

Anonymous #4 9w

chat gpt generated response onfg we’re cooked

22

Anonymous #10 9w

By providing free childcare we are enabling parents to go back to work sooner and contribute to the local economy, which benefits everybody (including you)!

10

Anonymous #12 9w

No

-3

Anonymous #5 9w

Yes you live here and my girlfriend lives in Canada.

4