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

Trader Joe's Shrugged

vvdailypress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#41

Post by ef4 »

Qworg wrote: post #20
aetherson wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could we find some nuance between "poor people are going to be wiped out by invasive rich/middle class people," and "there are no losers to gentrification, ever"? It seems clear that when a neighborhood gentrifies, some of incumbent residents will find their lives improved (perhaps because: a job is created that they get, they own property which is now more valuable, the neighborhood is safer, schools are better), wh…

Mandate that the new businesses hire only locals. I think this handily solves the problem - rents can't go up too much, otherwise the possible employees leave and the business shutters. Locals are employed, business runs, things improve in the neighbourhood and lift all boats.

That doesn't solve the problem at all.

The "lift all boats" outcome is exactly what activists are afraid of, because if that actually happens it makes the neighborhood "more desirable", and new people will start getting interested in moving in. Those people provide upward pressure on rents.

And once new people move in, they would now be "locals" and eligible for the jobs, too.

There's no logical way to satisfy these anti-gentrification groups because what they're afraid of is quite literally "the neighborhood getting nicer".

Instead of making their cause "keep the rent low by keeping the town crappy", they should make their cause "raise wages so we can afford a nicer town".

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#42

Post by brenschluss »

benched wrote: post #5
drakaal wrote: post #2

Visit the Tenderloin in SF. Twitter came in to the community brought lots of jobs. Did that make the neighborhood better? No. What happened was that the price of housing went up for a group of people who could already not afford it. Basically the "area" was developed but not the "community". Like an invasive species. There is nothing wrong with rabbits in general. I like them. But in Australia they are destroying the…

As someone who lived very close to a Walmart-centered ecosystem for several years, including working there, I'll also add that while it isn't Gucci, there's nothing really wrong with the stuff Walmart sells, from a poor person's practical point of view. It's just regular, everyday useful stuff.

I think a large past of the anger against Walmart is not about their products; it's about their poor economic practices - underpaying people, being effectively subsidized as their workers are on food stamps, and the deleterious effect they have on local neighborhood stores.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#43

Post by scotch_drinker »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #37

I got the sense while reading that blog post there had to be more to the story than what was presented there. I spent some time reading, and found out that: 1. The crux of the issue for PAALF was that increasing neighborhood desirability (and therefore rent) without ensuring either living wage guarantees or affordable housing would result in the displacement of current neighborhood residents. 2. The land was being so…

This is exactly what happens in Dallas all the time. The city gives tax benefits to the property owners and the developers so that they will build these big shiny new developments in areas that are "oppressed". The result is that none of the money ends up in the locals pocketbooks, people who had a home of some sort are forced to pick up and move to somewhere else in the city and the rich get richer. The author of that editorial falsely believes that the free market will fix everything when this is clearly not a free market decision. If it were, the developer would have to pay full price with no tax benefits and then we could talk about fairness.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#44

Post by dragonwriter »

josephschmoe wrote: post #11

The question we need to ask is: How can we make gentrification inclusive instead of exclusive?

> The question we need to ask is: How can we make gentrification inclusive instead of exclusive?

Move money to poor people rather than rich people (and the businesses that support and serve them) to currently poor neighborhoods.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#45

Post by Qworg »

ef4 wrote: post #41
Qworg wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mandate that the new businesses hire only locals. I think this handily solves the problem - rents can't go up too much, otherwise the possible employees leave and the business shutters. Locals are employed, business runs, things improve in the neighbourhood and lift all boats.

That doesn't solve the problem at all. The "lift all boats" outcome is exactly what activists are afraid of, because if that actually happens it makes the neighborhood "more desirable", and new people will start getting interested in moving in. Those people provide upward pressure on rents. And once new people move in, they would now be "locals" and eligible for the jobs, too. There's no logical way to satisfy these…

The business has to charge more in order to pay the newly increased wages that are necessary in order to hire the wealthier people who now desire to live in the improved neighbourhood.

I don't think they're afraid of "the neighbourhood getting nicer". I think they're afraid of people who don't know the local situation "helping" them out - "for their own good" of course. It is the same problems that countries face who work with the IMF/World Bank. Who wouldn't want free money?

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#46

Post by thedufer »

drakaal wrote: post #2

Visit the Tenderloin in SF. Twitter came in to the community brought lots of jobs. Did that make the neighborhood better? No. What happened was that the price of housing went up for a group of people who could already not afford it. Basically the "area" was developed but not the "community". Like an invasive species. There is nothing wrong with rabbits in general. I like them. But in Australia they are destroying the…

That's a terrible counterexample. How can we possibly draw parallels between Twitter, which has very specific high-education employment requirements, and TJs, which is exactly the opposite? TJs has no need to import labor when it opens a new store - its cheaper to hire locally. Completely different situation.

With regards to your edit: Not sure how no produce is better than produce with a short expiration. Also, anecdotally, I've never had this problem (although I largely eat their bananas, which have easy tells for how long they'll last and are amazingly cheap).

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#47

Post by lobotryas »

scotch_drinker wrote: post #36
lobotryas wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would bring new jobs but to who? It would bring quality food but for whom? It would increase tax revenues but for who? Fair questions, I'll grant you that. My question to you: is doing nothing (an empty lot) better than ambiguity about the people who will finally benefit from this economic development? If TJ moved in and somehow ended up providing only a net of 1% benefit to the local community, would that be wo…

It's hard to say. If a new development means 80% of the local population have to move somewhere farther away from jobs, then yes, an empty lot would be better. You assume the empty lot is a zero but it's just somewhere on the scale. It is easy to imagine a scenario where a development provides negative impact to the poor in that community. An empty lot isn't the floor. It's just a place to measure from.

You're absolutely right - an empty lot is not a floor, just the a point on the continuum.

It sounds like what everyone's dancing around is the concern that a TJs in that community would start the process of gentrification that would raise the cost of living and make it untenable for the current residents to continue living there.

Assuming that gentrification is a real problem (I have zero experience, so it's hard for me to judge): have you heard of any solutions to the issue besides rent control or "keeping out" the middle class?

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#48

Post by beat »

Despite the author's hysterics, gentrification is a complex issue with positives and negatives on both sides. That said, I'd like to toss in an interesting historical perspective here.

Gentrification is something that happens primarily to predominantly African-American neighborhoods in the US, and one of its effects is eventually pricing the poor black community out of the neighborhood. But here's a question... where are the middle class black families?

Historically, racial segregation happened across economic boundaries. A black doctor or a black lawyer was still black, and unwelcome in white neighborhoods. This meant that historically black neighborhoods had a rich, vibrant economic culture, with wealthy members of the community living among the poor, supporting local business and providing role models for youth.

With the success of the civil rights movement in the 1960s came a new geographic social mobility for black professionals. Those who could afford it could now move into nicer, cleaner, safer, white neighborhoods. And they did so. And the more it happened, the worse the black neighborhoods got, creating more pressure for those who could afford to leave to leave. Eventually, the historically black neighborhoods were stripped down to ghettos, dominated by gang violence and devoid of the local businesses that once served the middle class. Soon, the only opportunity for jobs and social advancement was outside the neighborhood, and poverty grew even worse. It's a terrible cycle.

This was aggravated further by the (illegal) practice of redlining, where banks colluded to deny funding to entire neighborhoods, depressing real estate prices and driving homes and businesses into foreclosure. (White) developers could then swoop in and buy land at fire-sale prices, building out the new infrastructure for a wave of gentrifying whites looking for cheap nice houses in the heart of the city.

Think about this, and you can see the resistance to gentrification. Historically, it's been nothing but trouble for the people already in a neighborhood.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#49

Post by cm2012 »

d23 wrote: post #26
scotch_drinker wrote: post #14

Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people? Are there known instances where Trader Joe's or other reasonably high end store coming into economically depressed areas and significantly improving the economic status of people in the area? This article has a lot of rage and perhaps it's justified. But it's also entirely possible that stores do this sort of thing all the time with the blessing of city councils…

> But it's also entirely possible that stores do this sort of thing all the time with the blessing of city councils and what it does is displace the existing population. Dallas (where I live near) is notorious for giving developers tax breaks to tear down lower class apartments if they agree to build something of much higher tax value. I doubt Dallas is odd man out. I'd guess that's exactly the worry here. Installing…

With that logic, we should never try to make poor places better because it would attract wealthier people. No?

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#50

Post by keppy »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #24
scotch_drinker wrote: post #14

Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people? Are there known instances where Trader Joe's or other reasonably high end store coming into economically depressed areas and significantly improving the economic status of people in the area? This article has a lot of rage and perhaps it's justified. But it's also entirely possible that stores do this sort of thing all the time with the blessing of city councils…

"Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people?" Yes. They hire locally and train and pay very well. That one store would bring 30-40 jobs paying $40,000 - $60,000 for 'grocers' that stock shelves and run the registers.

True, but many people working at Trader Joe's who pull in the higher salaries have a degree, some college education, or they have been full timers for many years. The majority make just over minimum wage (and no longer get awesome health care).

It's a pretty good job though for most people is what you're saying, and I agree. But this also means there is competition for these jobs.

Post reply on HN