4 ms·

You used to be able to get delivery of groceries within two hours for no upgrade cost. It was called going to the local grocery store. Now that Amazon and Walma

by xrd 4y ago

You used to be able to get delivery of groceries within two hours for no upgrade cost. It was called going to the local grocery store. Now that Amazon and Walmart have eviscerated all the local stores, you can't get inexpensive delivery anywhere, neither do it yourself nor from Amazon. This should be a focal point of antitrust and the recent work by Lina Khan is encouraging.

ss108 4y ago
Going to the grocery store is still possible and is not "delivery" Lots of reasons to be a fan of Lina Khan, but I'm not sure this particular point you're trying to make works
- xrd 4y ago
  My point is that if you go to any small town outside of a major city, you will rarely find local grocery stores. I'm not speculating. That's because Amazon and Walmart destroyed any chance they had of survival, and to be honest, it was because local people decided it was in their interests to pay a dollar less at Walmart. That's the result, and Lina Khan is the first person in a modern US administration that has any power or momentum to do something about it.
  - nyx 4y ago
    > it was because local people decided it was in their interests to pay a dollar less at Walmart Well... isn't it? I'm not sure I like the implication behind how you've worded this. It's easy, as somebody fat with tech money, in the political know and with the benefit of hindsight, to call out those small-town rubes for their myopia, to say "but of course Walmart is a monopolist, of course the local grocer will suffer if you give Walmart your business; markets are zero-sum, isn't it obvious?" But I don't think that's really fair. If I get paid a few bucks an hour in middle America and every dollar counts, obviously I'm going to go for the Great Value breakfast cereal or whatever: I don't really have the luxuries that would permit me to vote with my wallet.
    - ss108 4y ago
      Well, I think his overall view is precisely that those people did not have the luxury of forestalling this problem, but they are the victims, and the government should step in to try to correct the problem. Not trying to put words in the other poster's mouth, just pointing out you guys don't necessarily disagree on this point.
    - xrd 4y ago
      You are right, my tone suggests that I think people were stupid or actively chose Walmart over their local grocery store. I don't think that and should have worded it differently. I do think it is a combination of the economic realities of people in small town communities where jobs are scarcer. And, I do think that most people, rich and poor, don't consider the impact of spending a dollar at a monopolist chain, and that most of that dollar immediately leaves their local community. If they spent it at the local grocery store, that money would recycle into the community 5,6, 7 times. I know moderately wealthy people who can't get past the poverty of their youth who are still excited that they can get milk for 75c cheaper at Walmart (despite what I consider poorer quality goods). It's an assessment I think is mistaken, and I believe was an active calculation Walmart and Amazon make on purpose. "Low prices" is a really powerful drug to almost everyone. But, IMHO, it only works when you have monopoly power like Amazon and Walmart and can afford to underprice certain goods and negotiate prices in bulk in a way that small stores cannot, and I wish more people considered this. Point taken, and thanks for your comment.
crazygringo 4y ago
I'm sorry, but I can't quite figure out what you mean. I've never heard of a local grocery store that delivered for free, nor have I ever seen one with two hour delivery. Quite often they don't deliver at all. Grocery margins are thin and grocery stores don't have extra cash lying around to pay a bunch of delivery drivers. Amazon hasn't done much of anything to local grocery stores (Fresh isn't anywhere near popular enough for that), and Walmart is a "local" grocery store that isn't all that different from other regional grocery chains of 10's-100's of stores, except it can be slightly cheaper and slightly farther away. Independently owned grocery stores were mostly bought up decades ago by regional chains, not Walmart. Inexpensive delivery isn't a thing and never has been, except for when a new company temporarily lowers prices to try to attract new customers as a promotion. Which is what Amazon did, and now it's charging something around what delivery actually costs. This is just a free lunch coming to an end, not somebody jacking up prices higher than they had been originally.

by xrd 4y ago

ss108 4y ago

Going to the grocery store is still possible and is not "delivery" Lots of reasons to be a fan of Lina Khan, but I'm not sure this particular point you're trying to make works

xrd 4y ago
My point is that if you go to any small town outside of a major city, you will rarely find local grocery stores. I'm not speculating. That's because Amazon and Walmart destroyed any chance they had of survival, and to be honest, it was because local people decided it was in their interests to pay a dollar less at Walmart. That's the result, and Lina Khan is the first person in a modern US administration that has any power or momentum to do something about it.
- nyx 4y ago
  > it was because local people decided it was in their interests to pay a dollar less at Walmart Well... isn't it? I'm not sure I like the implication behind how you've worded this. It's easy, as somebody fat with tech money, in the political know and with the benefit of hindsight, to call out those small-town rubes for their myopia, to say "but of course Walmart is a monopolist, of course the local grocer will suffer if you give Walmart your business; markets are zero-sum, isn't it obvious?" But I don't think that's really fair. If I get paid a few bucks an hour in middle America and every dollar counts, obviously I'm going to go for the Great Value breakfast cereal or whatever: I don't really have the luxuries that would permit me to vote with my wallet.
  - ss108 4y ago
    Well, I think his overall view is precisely that those people did not have the luxury of forestalling this problem, but they are the victims, and the government should step in to try to correct the problem. Not trying to put words in the other poster's mouth, just pointing out you guys don't necessarily disagree on this point.
  - xrd 4y ago
    You are right, my tone suggests that I think people were stupid or actively chose Walmart over their local grocery store. I don't think that and should have worded it differently. I do think it is a combination of the economic realities of people in small town communities where jobs are scarcer. And, I do think that most people, rich and poor, don't consider the impact of spending a dollar at a monopolist chain, and that most of that dollar immediately leaves their local community. If they spent it at the local grocery store, that money would recycle into the community 5,6, 7 times. I know moderately wealthy people who can't get past the poverty of their youth who are still excited that they can get milk for 75c cheaper at Walmart (despite what I consider poorer quality goods). It's an assessment I think is mistaken, and I believe was an active calculation Walmart and Amazon make on purpose. "Low prices" is a really powerful drug to almost everyone. But, IMHO, it only works when you have monopoly power like Amazon and Walmart and can afford to underprice certain goods and negotiate prices in bulk in a way that small stores cannot, and I wish more people considered this. Point taken, and thanks for your comment.

crazygringo 4y ago

I'm sorry, but I can't quite figure out what you mean. I've never heard of a local grocery store that delivered for free, nor have I ever seen one with two hour delivery. Quite often they don't deliver at all. Grocery margins are thin and grocery stores don't have extra cash lying around to pay a bunch of delivery drivers. Amazon hasn't done much of anything to local grocery stores (Fresh isn't anywhere near popular enough for that), and Walmart is a "local" grocery store that isn't all that different from other regional grocery chains of 10's-100's of stores, except it can be slightly cheaper and slightly farther away. Independently owned grocery stores were mostly bought up decades ago by regional chains, not Walmart. Inexpensive delivery isn't a thing and never has been, except for when a new company temporarily lowers prices to try to attract new customers as a promotion. Which is what Amazon did, and now it's charging something around what delivery actually costs. This is just a free lunch coming to an end, not somebody jacking up prices higher than they had been originally.