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

A federal policy change in the 1980s created the modern food desert

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 123 posts

Re: A federal policy change in the 1980s created the modern food desert

#41

Post by lapcat »

GeneralMayhem wrote: post #18
llm_trw wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only a democrat majority had been elected at any point in the last 40 years that could have fixed this.

Democrats have not had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate since before Reagan, and they're constantly up against the asymmetry that breaking things is a lot easier than building them. The side that wants government not to work has a huge structural advantage in any argument (even apart from their structural electoral advantages thanks to letting empty fields carry as much weight as cities) since they "win" by…

The filibuster can be abolished at any time with a simple majority vote, because it's only a Senate rule, not part of the Constitution.

The truth is that neither Democrats nor Republicans want to solve the problems of the working class and the poor, because both parties are financed by the wealthy.

Re: A federal policy change in the 1980s created the modern food desert

#42

Post by legitster »

lapcat wrote: post #35
haroldp wrote: post #22

Isn't this a roundabout way of saying that, absent government coercion, consumer preference tends to be towards buying cheaper groceries at a big consolidated store a drive away, than a more expensive nearby store? Isn't the real boogieman here rules (zoning, parking requirements, etc) and subsidies (oil industry) than mean we all live in diffuse single-use residential communities and have to have cars to get to work…

> Isn't this a roundabout way of saying that, absent government coercion, consumer preference tends to be towards buying cheaper groceries at a big consolidated store a drive away, than a more expensive nearby store? This seems to be missing the point, which has nothing to do with consumer preference. When Robinson-Patman was enforced, suppliers had to offer the same deal to all grocers, so prices were the same at th…

> When it was no longer enforced, the big chains used their market power to extract special deals from suppliers, and thus

Sentences like this make me realize nobody writing about these problems has any actual experience in the grocery industry.

Grocery store margins are insanely thin. The relationship you have is backwards - suppliers and distributors have insane leverage over grocery stores. Massive brands essentially lease the aisle space from the stores. And stores have to stock the products consumers want because if they can't find the soda they like, they might never shop at that store again.

The only leverage grocery stores offer is volume pricing. Frito Lay would much rather move a truckload of product a day through a Safeway than drive around and stock tiny bodegas.

Re: A federal policy change in the 1980s created the modern food desert

#43

Post by haroldp »

lapcat wrote: post #35
haroldp wrote: post #22

Isn't this a roundabout way of saying that, absent government coercion, consumer preference tends to be towards buying cheaper groceries at a big consolidated store a drive away, than a more expensive nearby store? Isn't the real boogieman here rules (zoning, parking requirements, etc) and subsidies (oil industry) than mean we all live in diffuse single-use residential communities and have to have cars to get to work…

> Isn't this a roundabout way of saying that, absent government coercion, consumer preference tends to be towards buying cheaper groceries at a big consolidated store a drive away, than a more expensive nearby store? This seems to be missing the point, which has nothing to do with consumer preference. When Robinson-Patman was enforced, suppliers had to offer the same deal to all grocers, so prices were the same at th…

> When Robinson-Patman was enforced, suppliers had to offer the same deal to all grocers

The law made it so no one had the position to squeeze suppliers for lower prices and as a result, consumers paid more for groceries. If the suppliers were shifting their costs unduly to small retailers, then there was a market for new suppliers. If retailers were a monopoly they would have raised prices, and that hasn't happened. The grocery market remains VERY competitive, with stores popping up and closing down all the time.

Re: A federal policy change in the 1980s created the modern food desert

#44

Post by observationist »

haroldp wrote: post #22

Isn't this a roundabout way of saying that, absent government coercion, consumer preference tends to be towards buying cheaper groceries at a big consolidated store a drive away, than a more expensive nearby store? Isn't the real boogieman here rules (zoning, parking requirements, etc) and subsidies (oil industry) than mean we all live in diffuse single-use residential communities and have to have cars to get to work…

This is false - if people have the option, they prefer the locally grown, locally owned and operated smaller stores that might cost more, or farmer's markets, or ethically sourced food. If a consumer has low income, or is in a food desert, they don't have the option, and the economics of Walmart mean that there's no way for such a small business to compete unless you're basically running it as a charity, or you're doing something (possibly) on shaky ethical grounds to make up the difference.

We could fix these things by legislating big box stores, preventing effective collusion and hostile pricing, protecting smaller businesses with tax breaks, higher taxes on megacorps, and so forth. It is, in fact, possible, for megacorps to coexist with successful small businesses and this hostile and rank antagonism from big companies doesn't have to happen. They just lose out on .005% potential profit, so it's better to lobby for (and obtain) unchecked influence and dominion over American markets.

Community management and regulation plays a part, but food deserts represent a captured audience or market, so the primary goal is to shut down any possible "competition" no matter how little they actually impinge on profit, effectively disallowing competition. Throw in Amazon's racket, and the whole idea of an American "free marketplace" is more of a sick joke than any sort of principled reality.

You will buy your mass produced stuff from China and Nestle and Coke and Walmart, and you will like it. If you don't like it, good luck, because you've been priced out of leaving unless you're willing to be broke.

Re: A federal policy change in the 1980s created the modern food desert

#45

Post by potato3732842 »

legitster wrote: post #30

> Prior to that, small towns and poor neighborhoods could generally count on having a grocery store, perhaps even several. The small, corner grocery store back in the day didn't have much selection though. Hence the takeover of super -markets. For better and worse, their role has mostly been supplanted by gas stations and dollar stores which still populate a lot of these food deserts.

A "good" dollar store isn't thaaaat much worse price wise than Walmart or a "cheap" grocery store. It's generally slightly worse across the board, but consistently better than the whatever the expensive grocery store is though the selection is way worse.

It really peeves me I didn't notice this sooner because I'm usually pretty good at identifying bullshit tropes that are really just the middle class fishing for reasons to feel superior and the idea that the poors are getting screwed at the dollar stores one just flew right by because I never shopped much at a dollar store until one opened near me.

Re: A federal policy change in the 1980s created the modern food desert

#46

Post by haroldp »

whoiscroberts wrote: post #40
haroldp wrote: post #22

Isn't this a roundabout way of saying that, absent government coercion, consumer preference tends to be towards buying cheaper groceries at a big consolidated store a drive away, than a more expensive nearby store? Isn't the real boogieman here rules (zoning, parking requirements, etc) and subsidies (oil industry) than mean we all live in diffuse single-use residential communities and have to have cars to get to work…

No, it’s a roundabout way of saying that when government bureaucrats decide to stop enforcing a law passed by congress, grocery corporations will actively work to grow larger and close stores in Black neighborhoods. Don’t retroactively assign preference to the mother who walks to the grocery store a block away only find it is closed and was forced to take a bus to Walmart, that mother was not exercising a preference.…

> grocery corporations will actively work to grow larger and close stores in Black neighborhoods

If black neighborhoods are underserved, go make a fortune in black neighborhood grocery stores or their suppliers.

Re: A federal policy change in the 1980s created the modern food desert

#47

Post by techfeathers »

legitster wrote: post #37
haroldp wrote: post #22

Isn't this a roundabout way of saying that, absent government coercion, consumer preference tends to be towards buying cheaper groceries at a big consolidated store a drive away, than a more expensive nearby store? Isn't the real boogieman here rules (zoning, parking requirements, etc) and subsidies (oil industry) than mean we all live in diffuse single-use residential communities and have to have cars to get to work…

Yes. The article even tacitly admits the solution to the food desert problem is by... making groceries more expensive. >The problem of food deserts will not be solved without the rediscovery of the Robinson-Patman Act. Requiring a level pricing playing field would restore local retailers’ ability to compete.

It doesn’t say that prices have to higher, food suppliers could meet the requirements by providing the same low prices they provide to big businesses to small retailers.

Re: A federal policy change in the 1980s created the modern food desert

#48

Post by lapcat »

legitster wrote: post #42
lapcat wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't this a roundabout way of saying that, absent government coercion, consumer preference tends to be towards buying cheaper groceries at a big consolidated store a drive away, than a more expensive nearby store? This seems to be missing the point, which has nothing to do with consumer preference. When Robinson-Patman was enforced, suppliers had to offer the same deal to all grocers, so prices were the same at th…

> When it was no longer enforced, the big chains used their market power to extract special deals from suppliers, and thus Sentences like this make me realize nobody writing about these problems has any actual experience in the grocery industry. Grocery store margins are insanely thin. The relationship you have is backwards - suppliers and distributors have insane leverage over grocery stores. Massive brands essentia…

> suppliers and distributors have insane leverage over grocery stores.

> The only leverage grocery stores offer is volume pricing.

This is directly contradicted by the article:

"Congressional hearings and a federal investigation found that A&P possessed an advantage that had nothing to do with greater efficiency, better service, or other legitimate ways of competing. Instead, A&P used its sheer size to pressure suppliers into giving it preferential treatment over smaller retailers. Fearful of losing their biggest customer, food manufacturers had no choice but to sell to A&P at substantially lower prices than they charged independent grocers—allowing A&P to further entrench its dominance."

"That move tipped the retail market in favor of the largest chains, who could once again wield their leverage over suppliers, just as A&P had done in the 1930s. Walmart was the first to fully grasp the implications of the new legal terrain. It soon became notorious for aggressively strong-arming suppliers, a strategy that fueled its rapid expansion."

Re: A federal policy change in the 1980s created the modern food desert

#49

Post by pitpatagain »

haroldp wrote: post #22

Isn't this a roundabout way of saying that, absent government coercion, consumer preference tends to be towards buying cheaper groceries at a big consolidated store a drive away, than a more expensive nearby store? Isn't the real boogieman here rules (zoning, parking requirements, etc) and subsidies (oil industry) than mean we all live in diffuse single-use residential communities and have to have cars to get to work…

The article claim is not that bigger stores used their pricing power to get cheaper deals and passed that savings along to consumers who then preferred them and their lower prices.

The claim is that the large grocery chains are able to use their pricing power to demand prices that squeeze suppliers, keeping the difference for the grocer, not for the consumer. Their ability to do this has increased the more consolidated the grocery store chains have been allowed to become, giving them much more power versus their suppliers.

Re: A federal policy change in the 1980s created the modern food desert

#50

Post by lapcat »

haroldp wrote: post #43
lapcat wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't this a roundabout way of saying that, absent government coercion, consumer preference tends to be towards buying cheaper groceries at a big consolidated store a drive away, than a more expensive nearby store? This seems to be missing the point, which has nothing to do with consumer preference. When Robinson-Patman was enforced, suppliers had to offer the same deal to all grocers, so prices were the same at th…

> When Robinson-Patman was enforced, suppliers had to offer the same deal to all grocers The law made it so no one had the position to squeeze suppliers for lower prices and as a result, consumers paid more for groceries. If the suppliers were shifting their costs unduly to small retailers, then there was a market for new suppliers. If retailers were a monopoly they would have raised prices, and that hasn't happened.…

> If retailers were a monopoly they would have raised prices, and that hasn't happened.

Huh? Where have you been the past few years?? The price of groceries has gone way up, and this might have even determined the outcome of the Presidential election.

Post reply on HN