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

71–80 of 123 posts

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

#71

Post by ocschwar »

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.

Walmart is cheaper for the customer (modulo the expense of driving to a Walmart).

But Walmart is also a lot cheaper for Walmart. One delta is larger than the other.

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

#72

Post by llm_trw »

Arainach wrote: post #66
llm_trw wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I hope you enjoy the next 40 years, becuae they will be the same as the last 40 years with people like you making the same excuses election after election.

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

#73

Post by em-bee »

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 the suppliers were shifting their costs unduly to small retailers, then there was a market for new suppliers

where should these new suppliers come from? and how should they compete? by offering lower prices? how? farming has a cost that can only be lowered through massive scale. to get massive scale, suppliers need to sell to big chains where they face the same problems the existing suppliers already have.

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

#74

Post by em-bee »

legitster wrote: post #59
lapcat wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 suppl…

Yeah, I am saying this author does sound like they have any grocery experience or talked to anyone who does. The A&P case was from the 1930s. It goes without saying that the grocery industry is a lot different today than it was. Robinson-Patman was a pretty obscure law, and it probably wouldn't have had much effect either way on preventing the rise of the supermarket chains despite much of the conjecture in this arti…

i am skeptical. in germany, big supermarket chains squeezing suppliers is still a problem today. i see no reason why this should be any different in the US.

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

#75

Post by Arainach »

llm_trw wrote: post #72
Arainach wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hope you enjoy the next 40 years, becuae they will be the same as the last 40 years with people like you making the same excuses election after election.

What "making excuses"? The Republicans have literally stated over and over[1] that their goal is to make government not work and make Democrats look bad - not to make life better for their constituents.

Meanwhile the Democrats have to spend every term fixing the things the GOP broke, only for voters to reward them by saying "you didn't fix everything and this dude promises the magical tax fairy will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" and restoring to power the party that breaks everything and raises the deficit.

Things are NOT the same with both parties, and discussing the systemic issues both with the electoral college, the Senate - a body so undemocratic that the Supreme Court has literally ruled it unconstitutional for any state to have a legislative body with membership based on land instead of population[2], as well as the fact that it's much easier and faster to tear things down than to build them up - is not "making excuses". It's trying to educate people, despite the fact that a significant chunk of them don't want to understand how things work, they want to act on feelings.

[1]: https://www.nationaljournal.com/member/magazine/top-gop-prio...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

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

#76

Post by underseacables »

What about a zoning pair law requiring that before building a grocery store, the company must also build a store in a residential area that lacks one?

I think other factors are at play, namely crime, and the perception of crime. South Atlanta is a food desert yet a lot of people live there, people who can afford to buy at Aldi's and Lidl.

There is bias but I hesitate to name that bias because I think its a multitude of incorrect thinking.

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

#77

Post by em-bee »

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.

as the article states the problem is that the big supermarket chains dictate prices to their suppliers. that is, the suppliers can't afford to lower prices for everyone, but they are forced to to lower prices for the big chains because they also can't afford to lose the sales from the large chains. germany has the same problem.

what needs to stop is the abuse of the dominant position of the large chains.

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

#78

Post by brendoelfrendo »

Arainach wrote: post #75
llm_trw wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you enjoy the next 40 years, becuae they will be the same as the last 40 years with people like you making the same excuses election after election.

What "making excuses"? The Republicans have literally stated over and over[1] that their goal is to make government not work and make Democrats look bad - not to make life better for their constituents. Meanwhile the Democrats have to spend every term fixing the things the GOP broke, only for voters to reward them by saying "you didn't fix everything and this dude promises the magical tax fairy will build a wall and…

Here's the thing: the Dems will never be rewarded for restoring a shitty status-quo that is systematically eroded every few years. They need to embrace radical, popular change. Trump is a populist who understands that he can do all sorts of destructive, vile shit if he just promises the right people the right things.

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

#79

Post by relaxing »

hindsightbias wrote: post #26
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…

> filibuster-proof majority They had 72 Days in 2009 to fix everything! Both parties are the same! /s

And all the while they had blue dog conservatives like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson handicapping the proceedings.

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

#80

Post by relaxing »

smeej wrote: post #16
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.

The article even makes it sound like the law is still on the books, just not being enforced. Pretty sure enforcing the laws is the responsibility of the executive branch, isn't it? So it's not like any big combined majority action would be necessary, just an executive who said, "We enforce this now." I'd like to think the article left out some important context that I'm now missing, because it'd sure be a weird thing…

The article does mention it at the end. The reality is Clinton, Obama, and Biden were all corporate-friendly centrists.
Post reply on HN