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

61–70 of 123 posts

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

#61

Post by shadowtree »

aaomidi wrote: post #23
shadowtree wrote: post #20

Consumers vote with their wallets that they prefer the big box stores. Reagan removed bargaining restrictions on big box stores, which lowered prices. Bad or good for consumers? Does it matter if you need to drive 8 or 11 miles (non-desert vs. desert) to buy boxed cereals and processed food? CostCo rides the same dynamic, at scale. CostCo deserts? Want to fix it, HN-style? Create a startup! But more regulation? Ffs.

You’re being super disingenuous if you’re comparing it between 8 and 11 miles.

The cut off in the article is at the 10 mile radius for rural areas. 9.9 miles ...not a food desert.

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

#62

Post by [deleted] »

haroldp wrote: post #56
pitpatagain wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 consolidat…

This is very silly, and the evidence for it is in the world all around you. Walmart is cheaper for most things. If they did not in fact pass the cost on, then there is the idea for your startup business: a grocery supplier to small neighborhood retailers.

[deleted]

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

#63

Post by mindslight »

haroldp wrote: post #46
whoiscroberts wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you discovered a proof of P == NP, or are you just choosing to assert it to go on a message board commenting spree completely disconnected from the real world?

If markets worked the way you are implying, then the problem would already be solved. In reality, the inefficiencies matter a lot.

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

#64

Post by lapcat »

legitster wrote: post #60
lapcat wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was the beginning of the baby boom. Which baby boom are you talking about?

Sorry, the introduction of the baby boomers into the economy. The baby boom was 50s and 60s, so late 80s is when they started working and consuming things.

No, you're a bit off here. The Baby Boom started in the mid 40s, so Boomers started working and consuming things in the 70s. In the late 80s, GenX were reaching adulthood.

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

#65

Post by xivzgrev »

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 has nothing to do with location and everything to do with price. If large companies are allowed to flex their purchasing power then people go where the cheaper prices are.

But there are limits, people only drive so far. So once a big chain has driven everyone else out they can charge what they want or maximize profits by extracting value (see comment on Unsafeway).

Free market is good as long as monopolies can’t form. And unfortunately with local businesses that happens due to geographical constraints. We’ve seen it with groceries, next you’ll see it with plumbers (see all the massive PE roll ups going on now).

This was an eye opening article. I had no idea we already had a law on the books for this. It’s just…unenforced.

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

#66

Post by Arainach »

llm_trw wrote: post #34
GeneralMayhem wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Democrats have not had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate since before Reagan Republicans have not had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate since 1907.

That would only be a problem if Republicans had a legislative agenda. If all you want is to be able to break government, you need to be able to filibuster, not to be able to overcome one.

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

#67

Post by haroldp »

xivzgrev wrote: post #65
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 has nothing to do with location and everything to do with price. If large companies are allowed to flex their purchasing power then people go where the cheaper prices are. But there are limits, people only drive so far. So once a big chain has driven everyone else out they can charge what they want or maximize profits by extracting value (see comment on Unsafeway). Free market is good as long as monopolies can’…

Disagree. If most people lived in dense mixed-use neighborhoods where they could walk from home to 90% of the destinations they needed (work, school, groceries, restaurants, entertainment, dentist, etc) they wouldn't need to own a car, and the nominal difference in price between a small corner grocery and a distant chain mega-chain store wouldn't be enough to compel they to buy, park, fuel and maintain one.

Restrictive single-use zoning makes this type of community effectively illegal, despite it being a big consumer choice winner in places where it is allowed.

Perhaps instead of a coercive fix for a problem caused by a coercive fix, we should strike at the root and allow people to buy what they want in the first place?

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

#68

Post by haroldp »

mindslight wrote: post #63
haroldp wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Have you discovered a proof of P == NP, or are you just choosing to assert it to go on a message board commenting spree completely disconnected from the real world? If markets worked the way you are implying, then the problem would already be solved. In reality, the inefficiencies matter a lot .

> In reality, the inefficiencies matter a lot.

Which is how big stores attract customers with lower prices, provided they already have cars to get to them.

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

#69

Post by pitpatagain »

haroldp wrote: post #56
pitpatagain wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 consolidat…

This is very silly, and the evidence for it is in the world all around you. Walmart is cheaper for most things. If they did not in fact pass the cost on, then there is the idea for your startup business: a grocery supplier to small neighborhood retailers.

My comment is not whether the article's claim re this particular market inefficiency is empirically correct, only that it doesn't logically simplify to "if larger stores couldn't get preferential deals, prices for consumers would be significantly higher." That depends on a lot of things.

Grocery suppliers are, eg, agricultural producers who need to offload whole crops of perishable goods. The industry is full of well known market failures, examples of monopsony buying power, etc, so an argument from an idealized market I don't find very persuasive.

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

techfeathers wrote: post #47
legitster wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN