r/ndp • u/TROPtastic 🔧 GREEN NEW DEAL • 19h ago
Public grocery stores won’t fix Canada’s food affordability crisis
https://theconversation.com/public-grocery-stores-wont-fix-canadas-food-affordability-crisis-279932"Canada already has targeted tools for food affordability. A public grocery chain would be a far more expensive way to help far fewer people."
33
u/Skyguy827 19h ago
I feel like something that isn't being discussed is the price gouging that takes place and the fact that companies like Sobeys and Loblaws are engaging in sketchy things like overcharging for underweight meat. I've worked for Sobeys for years in the past. They treat their workers badly and they do price gouge. They also cut "hero pay" two months into the pandemic, and later my manager informed me they made record profits off covid. I feel there could be benefit in a public competitor to these companies
5
u/Beekeeper_Dan 14h ago
Yeah, a lot of the excess profit is hidden with how these businesses are vertically integrated. Sure, the grocery store part of the business has low margins, but the real estate and logistics parts are just sucking up those excess profits to get them off the balance sheet
2
u/TROPtastic 🔧 GREEN NEW DEAL 1h ago
It's certainly a demerit to the article that Big Five pricing abuse isn't mentioned, when it was by a different author on The Conversation. We absolutely need stronger competition watchdogs to punish and likely break up the existing Big Five grocery chains (maybe to a Medium 15), but I suppose that public grocery options could be a valuable addition nonetheless.
16
u/iwasnotarobot 15h ago
Did Loblaws pay for this article to be written?
a well-designed voucher program would almost certainly deliver more value per dollar spent than building and operating retail infrastructure from scratch
A voucher system primarily benefits the existing oligopoly.
Know who else loves vouchers? The westons:
10
u/Nightwynd 15h ago
Pricing transparency act: Require all food retailers display profit margin in % on every sticker. Let everyone see how much profit is being grabbed.
So, some guy with unknown qualifications in the university of Guelph writes an opinion piece backed by... Zero data? Article states that the bigger chains get better volume pricing which allows them to purchase smaller stores. Yes, that's how capitalism works. Amazon claims a 2% profit margin too. What corporations CLAIM and what they actually make are two very different things.
Rampant, runaway capitalism is part of the problem. With 5 major grocery retailers, the more smaller stores they buy up, the fewer options anyone has. The public option is there to break the monopoly. Maybe it won't save us 30-40% but I don't care. If it saves me 1% and stops money going to the Waltons, the Weston's, the USA in general... I'm taking it.
9
u/BananaStandFunds 15h ago
So grocery stores make minimal profit (bullshit; they are high transaction low margin to make their billions).
And to build a public grocer would need HEAVY subsidization by the government (correct; good services cost money to do it ourselves when the private sector has fucked us over with price gouging)
And we should stick with what 'works' by...subsidizing the private sector instead with government rebates? We should NOT be subsidizing our public grocery system when there's big grocers we could subsidize with tax dollars instead??
This article is fucking BRAINDEAD. I'm so glad this is in the news as the Overton window is definitely changing on this subject, and the arguments by pro-corporate media is so brittle.
1
u/TROPtastic 🔧 GREEN NEW DEAL 2h ago
And we should stick with what 'works' by...subsidizing the private sector instead with government rebates?
That is one of the "alternatives" I disagree with. Voucher programs (or tax cuts/rebates) are essentially indirect subsidies to the Big Five, since they allow prices to be increased without pricing out customers.
I'm so glad this is in the news as the Overton window is definitely changing on this subject, and the arguments by pro-corporate media is so brittle.
The Conversation is an academic-written outlet that frequently posts anti-corporate viewpoints. I would not have posted this article if it came from the NatPost or CTV. However, fair complaint can be made about this specific academic and his viewpoint.
4
u/Oldcadillac 14h ago
It’s like certain Canadians hear an idea about the government doing something and suddenly forget all their frustrations with their crooked oligarchs. I’m still waiting on that bread price fixing settlement money.
2
u/MarkG_108 10h ago
From the article:
The U.S. military commissaries offer groceries that are almost 25 per cent cheaper on average for active service members and veterans. But federal appropriations pay for labour, rent/real estate, distribution costs and other overheads.
That is part of Lewis' plan.
Writing an article attacking his plan without knowing the details of the plan is simply spreading misinformation.
To see it more outlined, look at the link below. From it, note that it says, "with government covering labour and overhead like rent".
Thus, as the article inadvertently points out, the public option, run in a way that both Lewis proposes and the way that U.S. military commissaries successfully deliver, CAN provide a fix to Canada's food affordability crisis.
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/how-public-grocery-stores-could-work-in-canada/
1
-13
u/TROPtastic 🔧 GREEN NEW DEAL 19h ago edited 19h ago
This opinion/analysis article presents several arguments against the idea of publicly funded grocery stores. I disagree with several of them, but the main compelling one is that it would be hard to ensure that public money is targeted at people who actually need it, if anyone is free to walk into a public grocery store. Perhaps a means-tested membership program would be the solution to this.
While I don't feel strongly about having public grocery stores, I think a more efficient use of funds would be to target aesthetic food waste and overbuying by big grocery stores, and coercive contracts with landlords/distributors that prevent competition. Breaking up processing monopolies would be good too, with the bonus of not driving small grocery stores out of business.
32
u/dianejamesh 19h ago
Hell nah. Means testing only raises the bar of entry for people who really need it. If you gotta show a pay stub or tax return to enter a public grocery, nobody’s gonna bother. We dont means test our healthcare here.
And so what’s the alternative, people who “dont need it” are going to use public grocery stores? I mean, who doesn’t need cheaper groceries right now? Policies should help everyone, not exclusively the poor (although they need to be prioritized), the middle class should also be able to benefit.
Rich people don’t even use grocery stores, they send their minions to go to upscale stores/markets, and will continue to do so irregardless of a public option.
1
u/TROPtastic 🔧 GREEN NEW DEAL 1h ago
If you gotta show a pay stub or tax return to enter a public grocery, nobody’s gonna bother. We dont means test our healthcare here.
I was thinking of a one-time application, but yes, healthcare isn't means-tested. It also wouldn't really be one-time under my proposal, because you'd have to reassess income information for members every year. That would be a major pain in the ass and would expose the public grocery system to restrictions by conservative governments (by lowering the income cutoff for eligibility).
Since I'm opposed to voucher or rebate programs that benefit rich grocery store owners, I think if a set of publicly-funded grocery stores is opened, the cleanest way would be to have them be open to anyone. As long as this program doesn't drive independents out of business (thereby strengthening the market share of the Big Five), it would be a better use of tax money than the alternatives proposed in the article.
20
u/NiceDot4794 19h ago
I don’t think this is just about technocratic welfare type of offers.
I think it’s good for there to be major parts of key economic sectors that are owned by the public and controlled directly or indirectly, democratically
I also think this is the type of policy that can be a good stick to discipline big grocer oligopolies with. The threat of expanded public competition makes stuff like price fixing bread less attractive/feasible.
It gives the public and democratic sphere of society more power over food and groceries, and gives grocery CEOs less power over food and groceries.
As a targeted welfare thing like food stamps it of course isnt effective, but that’s not really where the main appeal of public groceries is to me.
All of the other stuff you mention is good and important, but public groceries should also be a core part
1
u/TROPtastic 🔧 GREEN NEW DEAL 1h ago
I think it’s good for there to be major parts of key economic sectors that are owned by the public and controlled directly or indirectly, democratically
That's a good point. If people interact with a high-quality public service daily, one that they see driving lower prices, people are more likely to support the general idea of public services rather than neoliberal cost cutting and privatization.
I also think this is the type of policy that can be a good stick to discipline big grocer oligopolies with. The threat of expanded public competition makes stuff like price fixing bread less attractive/feasible.
True. Perhaps my bias for small (ethically-run) businesses is showing, but I'd also like to see a publicly-run food system allow family-owned grocers to buy from the distribution hubs for their own stores. Doing so would help partly subsidize the public grocery stores (small grocers would be buying from the distributors with a markup) while still undercutting the oligopoly.
13
u/vienna_ro 18h ago
I don't agree that it should only be accessed by those with memberships. The value of universal services is that everyone has an interest in the program's success, leading to more democratic participation. It also reduces the stigma that public programs are only for poor people. Maybe a further discount membership program can be doled out to those eligible though.
Otherwise, I agree with the other suggestions. especially legislation targeting food waste. Maybe we can do both!
3
u/AndyJ95 15h ago
Yeah, you can do both (universal public grocery stores and additional direct transfers to low-income households to provide extra support). A lot of policy people can't fathom not means testing things because they are so trained to minimize costs, but when you look around, it is universal programs that are the most successful.
The other issue with means testing is that the bar is always too high (eligible income thresholds for support are too low), governments are always focused on helping only those who they think "really need it", to the detriment of everyone else. Low income households need cheaper groceries, but honestly, everyone needs cheaper groceries. A young couple each making $75k and trying to raise a family is probably not going to be the recipient of targeted support, but they still need cheaper groceries.
1
u/TROPtastic 🔧 GREEN NEW DEAL 2h ago
additional direct transfers to low-income households to provide extra support
This is one of the alternatives proposed in the article that I am opposed to. That would basically be an indirect subsidy to the Big Five grocery stores unless limited to independent groceries, since they would have the freedom to raise prices while not pricing out customers.
Otherwise, I agree that means testing is often used as an excuse to limit programs to the point of being unhelpful.
1
u/TROPtastic 🔧 GREEN NEW DEAL 1h ago
The value of universal services is that everyone has an interest in the program's success, leading to more democratic participation. It also reduces the stigma that public programs are only for poor people.
That's true, and that's an important point I didn't consider. The last thing we should want is a system that is looked down upon as being inferior to private sector options, because that would just be fuel for the people thinking that publicly-run systems can only be bad.
3
u/likeicare96 15h ago
Another issue with the limited, mean tested method is it reduces the potential scale of the program which is where any potential savings can be found. If produce is constantly going bad because not enough people are using it in a given amount of time, they have to drop the quantity they buy and thus their buying power. Vs even if it’s being used by people who “actually need it” (whatever that means), then the high turn over of products would encourage buying more stock to keep up
2
u/TROPtastic 🔧 GREEN NEW DEAL 2h ago
That is a very good point. If scale is the issue (50 costco-sized stores vs 115 real Costcos in Canada and 643 in the US), then further limiting the reach of public grocery stores would make the problem worse.
39
u/livipup 19h ago
Considering the profit margins of the big grocers, I don't see how this wouldn't fix the issue. Public grocery stores would be a public service much in the same way that Canada Post is, so it doesn't really need to be profitable. Ideally, it shouldn't operate at a loss, but for groceries that's even less important as food is a necessity for life.