2 ms·
I agree with everything you said, but is worth mentioning that while, “There is put simply no way this experiment ends in a way that is positive for New Yorkers
by derektank 1mo ago
I agree with everything you said, but is worth mentioning that while, “There is put simply no way this experiment ends in a way that is positive for New Yorkers,” is true, the most likely outcome is that (a) the stores will open and consistently lose a small amount of money, relative to the NYC budget, (b) some small grocers or bodegas will be either priced out or receive city subsidies which incur another small cost on the city’s budget, and (c) customers will experience some kind of annoying quota or identity check system which prevents aggressive arbitrage, but which ultimately doesn’t make the stores unbearable.
This will indeed be far from Pareto optimal, and a slow drain on the city’s budget and local economy, but could be successful enough that the stores can remain in operation in perpetuity, which boosters will frame as a “win”
- voidUpdate 1mo agoIt could end up having positive effects on the population which could help with income for the city. I'm not an economist, but it seems possible to me
- mikaeluman 1mo agoEven if you support "helping struggling people" to pay their groceries. There are already programs for this such as SNAP. Basically means-tested programs that try to benefit people in need. There are many ways to do redistribution for purposes of social welfare without actually competing with retailers that actually live on slim margins. That doesn't give you as spectacular political ads or showmanship, however.
- miltonlost 1mo agoMeans testing programs are intentionally burdensome to get into, put into place by conservatives who don't want free loaders. Removing that friction is a good thing
- Obscurity4340 1mo agoConservatives dont want poor freeloaders, they are the biggest freeloaders and rich freeloaders are nowhere on their radar, besides wanting to emulate/become them