Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 337 posts

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#61

Post by magashna »

mieseratte wrote: post #17
magashna wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Red states that vote the most against social programs are the biggest beneficiaries. It's the leech screaming "Leech!" in the mirror

> Red states that vote the most against social programs are the biggest beneficiaries. It's the leech screaming "Leech!" in the mirror You're assuming in a "Red State," all those using social programs are the same ones screaming "Socialism!" This entire premise is based on your stereotype of one's politics. Perhaps you need to step back and re-examine your assertion. > Or based on what the politicians elected by thos…

You are assuming my political leanings. I'm more conservative than you think.

I'm only stating what I observe in regards to states like Kentucky and Mississippi. The people continue voting in representatives that say one thing, then work on doing the opposite.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#62

Post by minikites »

refurb wrote: post #18

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Stores like Walmart and Dollar stores opened up, and consumer made the choice to shop there rather than at local grocery stores . Sounds like they are getting exactly what they wanted? Reminds me of folks in SF who bemoan the loss of a local butcher store. Sure, they may like buying organic cuts of meat at $15/lb, but it's obviously most people don't, that's why those stores we…

Most people aren't affected by ocean acidification so that must mean the activities that cause it are okay? Sometimes the invisible hand is invisible because it's not there.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#63

Post by fzeroracer »

api wrote: post #47
fzeroracer wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A poor person can't afford a home in either Texas or California. Not unless you cherry pick living in the middle of nowhere, in which case both states are perfectly affordable. And if you get sick or injured in Texas, well, I hope you have good health insurance from your job.

Maybe not outright poor, but compare home prices vs. median income in most of Dallas (excluding the most expensive neighborhoods) vs almost anywhere in LA or SF. Ninja edit since I can't reply: no, they are not even comparable: https://www.trulia.com/TX/Dallas/ Just wow. Try finding that anywhere in SF, LA, OC, or SD. I see a lot of decent homes under $200k. I don't mean trailers. My point is about optics as much as…

If you think Austin or Dallas isn't going to go through that same reality then you would be ignorant of how things are playing out.

I live in Texas. Dallas and Austin are no different and home prices are already soaring off the backs of tech companies moving down here and the local government being unable to build infrastructure or support a growing population. This has nothing to do with 'liberalism' and everything to do with cities in America built on top of bad city design, terrible infrastructure, gentrification and unsustainable growth.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#64

Post by nitwit005 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #34
rriepe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite this consistently happening , I doubt you can name a single Republican politician who has run and been elected on this platform.

> I doubt you can name a single Republican politician who has run and been elected on this platform. A whole lot of Republican politicians since around 2000 (including George W. Bush) have run for and been elected to federal office on an overt platform of dismantling both the revenue and benefit payment sides of Social Security. Sure, the soundbite has been “saving social security”, but the concrete policy of dismant…

George W Bush pushed through Medicare Part D, which was essentially an entirely new social program, fist proposed by Bill Clinton.

You're right that they do want to undermine these programs (they certainly talk about it), but they've proven consistently happy to toss aside their beliefs and values to win elections.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#65

Post by AgloeDreams »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #36
AgloeDreams wrote: post #14

I kinda felt like this was an article that had a missing Character, like covering the 2016 election but not mentioning Bernie or Comey. The reality is that Walmart's Chinese-sourced non-food goods (including clothing, auto parts, and general household supplies) were priced 50+% cheaper than many non-food (and higher profit) items one could get from a grocery store, once you're at Walmart then, well you're at Walmart.…

It would seem the issue is with low incomes rather than with Dollar General.

Oh for sure, but stores focused on bringing high margin cheap imported goods and base minimum wage jobs into communities that formerly bought locally produced goods does not exactly help this problem. Dollar General's expansion would burn if the minimum wage were raised.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#66

Post by kaibee »

asokoloski wrote: post #43
kevin_b_er wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

One can look at it from another perspective -- when Walmart comes to town, typically they'll receive a tax break, which is an unfair advantage over a local grocery store. They'll also typically get a massive investment in terms of newly built infrastructure -- roads all around the lot, pipes, electricity, etc, compared to a local grocery store. When you compare the revenue the WalMart (or any big box store) brings in…

> This is a good way to present the issue to anyone who identifies as a free-market capitalist. Free markets require a level playing field to work properly.

If people were ideologically consistent in their views, yes.

However, look at the reaction here on HN and elsewhere to where AOC opposed such a tax-break for Amazon's NY HQ, and blamed her for Amazon deciding to not build the 2nd HQ there.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#67

Post by shantly »

hindsightbias wrote: post #41
maxerickson wrote: post #2

So the town in the article is going to be nearly completely unlivable without a vehicle and is about 20 miles from a Walmart. There will be few decent jobs that are walkable, limited medical care, etc, in a town of 1,500, it is just the way it is. Which isn't to say that these folks can't lament reduced access to food, but the literal availability of food is low there only if you ignore that other circumstances alrea…

Autonomous rural delivery growth will be huge(!) as the population ages out. Perhaps there can be a federal subsidy for that.

Better to subsidize moving these folks to rural "cities" where the stores are if you're going to be spending the money, right? Unless you're also discouraging more people from moving out into the sticks unless they can afford/are OK with the costs (actual, unsubsidized costs—so, more than it costs now) & challenges of living there, so the delivery subsidy program naturally tapers off over time.

Otherwise you're committing to indefinitely subsidizing inefficient living (again, fine if people can and want to bear those costs themselves, but IDK why we'd subsidize it, especially more than we already do)

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#68

Post by CharlesColeman »

gambiting wrote: post #25
refurb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Because this poll suggests that Republicans are pretty supportive of things like Social Security and Medicare. https://socialsecurityworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/N...

Sure, and yet somehow they are consistently voting in people who want to dismantle both.

> Sure, and yet somehow they are consistently voting in people who want to dismantle both.

I think they vote Republican mostly because of social wedge issues (and to a lesser extent, the appeal of tax cuts and associated propaganda).

I come from a farm state. They used to elect a lot of Democrats to federal office, until relatively recently. Remember Tom Daschle? I'm personally convinced that a party that's credibly socially conservative but fiscally liberal would clean up in those states.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#69

Post by pwthornton »

pnutjam wrote: post #58
wil421 wrote: post #3

Walmart and the like killed local competition. There’s a gas station I stop at from time to time in the country with a Walmart next door. It’s insanely busy. I have family in the country and they accept having to drive to get decent groceries. There are seasonal vegetable and fruit stands but you couldn’t get everything you need. A local ranch sells beef but it would be quite expensive to buy year around unless you w…

There is a lot of blame for Walmart, but let's not forget the car culture that has everyone leaving their town every day and commuting instead of living and working in a community.

This is missing from this. There aren't many small towns anymore. Those have been decimated. It's now random strip malls in random places. There is no reason that people should need a car to do everything in life, and that's not how things used to be, but that's how things are now.

In fairness to individuals, the federal government drove this with subsidizes for highway expansion and making it hard to get loans on denser building types (even something like an apartment over a store was hard to build).

The federal government basically forced this shitty sprawl on all of us and played a major role in destroying small-town America.

Re: Farm country feeds America, but try buying groceries there

#70

Post by GlenTheMachine »

"Walmart and the like killed local competition."

I disagree (kind of). I grew up in the most rural part of Virginia. There was no competition. We had a local grocery store, for sure; but it sucked. No ethnic food, not even soy sauce. No seafood. No link sausage, three kinds of salad dressing. Maybe four or five green vegetables. It was like a grocery store in some third-world countries I have visited. And there was literally no other option for almost an hour in any direction.

There were also no department stores. Nowhere you could buy a paperback, or a toy, or clothing. There was the local supermarket, the dollar store, and the auto goods/ammo store. And that was it.

Then a grocery store chain moved in. Sure enough, the locally owned grocery store went under. But not because of prices; it was because the chain had actual goods the local consumers wanted to buy. Soy sauce and Thai curry and fresh garlic and actual seafood, and a full produce section.

Then Walmart moved in, and suddenly you didn't have to drive an hour to go Christmas shopping or to pick up a pair of sneakers.

To be sure, there is a lot to dislike about Walmart. I am not arguing that they haven't put a lot of mom-and-pop places out of business. But like most things, the whole story is complicated, not least by the fact that many of those mom-and-pop places weren't great places to shop when they were in business.

Post reply on HN