The mayor’s office says it would be the first major U.S. city to enact such a plan.

  • Rumbelows@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    188
    ·
    3 years ago

    It’s funny how the solutions for the failures of capitalism often end up looking just like socialism

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        About 3% of humans are born psychpaths (roughly: they have no empathy hence only care about themselves).

        One would naivelly expect that only caring about yourself would be a winning strategy from a genetics point of view and hence over time the whole of Manking would have become psychopaths as the ones with such a natural advantage were more successful at surviving and reproducing than the others, yet that’s not at all the case and only a small fraction of people are born psychopaths.

        My personal explanation for that is that psychopathic behaviour is only a genetic advantage if most people around are not that - or, transposed to to economic terms, being a rent-seeker only works if most people are producers and doens’t at all work when most people are rent-seekers.

        I expect that in our evolutionary past, whenever a tribe/group had too many psychopaths without some kind of mechanism to kick them out or force them into cooperative mode, it eventually collapsed and ended up removed from the genetic pool hence why in millions of years of evolution the supposed superior behaviour of caring only about yourself didn’t end up dominating the human genetic pool - the “threading of the needle” for the survival psychopathy as a behavioural trait in the gene pool was a balance between that behaviour expressing itself often enough to reproduce and remain in the gene pool and not so much that there were too many such individuals in a group causing it to collapse.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldBanned
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 years ago

          My personal explanation

          I have a degree in psych, and regret to inform you that you have no idea what you just rambled on about

          You’re just making random guesses

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 years ago

            Right. First, indeed it’s not a scientific theory, just an idea. The bit were I wrote “my personal explanation” and the context being a News community should’ve been a strong enough hint that it was to be taken as a bit of a ramble and I hoped (apparently wrongly so) it would make it obvious that’s “chewing gum for the brain” rather than “nourishment”.

            Second: unless you’re disputing the Biology side of how behavioural traits that provide reproductive advantages result in the spreading of the genes that define those to a whole population (aka Theory of Evolution), or your understanding of Statistics is outside generally accepted Mathematics, the mere presence of that part means its not made up from “random guesses”, no matter which random distribution you’re thinking of. Ditto for the Economics side of it - i.e. rent-seeking does not create wealth and if the proportion of that kind economic activity exceeds a certain proportion of the whole then actual production won’t keep up with natural consumption and natural attritional losses.

            Third: Absolutelly, even if the Biology and Economics are not, the Psychology part is mainly coming from ignorance, so if that’s wrong then the whole of it is wrong.

            What is the bit in there that is that is so deeply insulting to your domain expertise that you felt that in response to this ramble of mine here in the News forum you just had to post a comment were you pointed out your qualifications in Psychology and then proceede to describe the entirety of my post with the mathematically inaccurate expression “random guesses” without actually providing an explanation?

            (PS: I’m not asking this to dispute your knowledge on Psychology as I accept I’m pretty ignorant in the domain. I’m mainly curious if it’s on the nature-vs-nurture in psychopathy side, if it’s on my assumptions of the behaviour of people high in the psychopathy spectrum when it comes to “not caring about others” being “bollocks” - say hyper-simpistic or way off - or if I’m using the wrong terminology)

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 years ago

      Doesn’t look like socialism to me. Buiseness being city-owned isn’t enough.

      • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        3 years ago

        The stores left because of the crime

        The crime stories (yep, they made a big buzz and media ran hundreds of stories about that one shoplifter in San Francisco) wildly overstated the actual amount of crime. It’s just so interesting that corporate news oversold that story, so much so that a person that didn’t know better would think that was a pervasive thing in urban areas and cities are all hellscapes of disorder and flames.

        Meanwhile, shareholders rewarded Walgreens’ management with a boost to stock prices after they reported they’d be pulling out of ‘crime-ridden’ areas. They didn’t leave because of the crime, they left for the stock bump and told the crime story to make it look less-bad

      • yawn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        3 years ago

        By definition, if the business venture isn’t profitable, then there isn’t a market.

        REI in downtown Portland pulled out and publicly said it was because of rising crime, but it was really because the employees were trying to unionize.

      • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        3 years ago

        Is city ownership socialist though?

        Not necessarily. That would turn it into something more like a public utility than like a for-profit business.

        I mean, it’s “not socialism” when the fire department or the power utility aren’t private, for-profit corporations, but it is if the grocery store is? LOL

          • Fosheze@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 years ago

            You do get billed afterwords. At least my dad did when his house burned down 20+ years ago. However his insurance covered the bill.

            • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 years ago

              My in-laws had a housefire a couple of years ago, and they live in the boonies outside of a small farm community.

              The volunteer fire department handed them a bill afterwards and told them “give this to your insurance. We only want what your insurance will pay so don’t worry about it if they only pay part or don’t pay at all”

              Its a dystopian racket, but at least its pulling a bit of money from the haves to get it to the have-nots and helps sustain a vital service to the community

        • Pj55555@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          I know, the issue is well known. I’m sure I was down voted because the city is primarily black so to mention the fact of it’s high crime rate in a discussion that pertains to it is wrongly offensive to them, que sera sera.

          • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 years ago

            A lot of the discussion related to retail theft is heavily racially-motivated and insincere. A short comment without nuance can look indistinguishable from a scary dogwhistle news segment, even if the short comment is accurate

  • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    3 years ago

    Since the pandemic I’ve been working from home and that gives me time to take food-shopping off of my wife’s share of the household work. I noticed pretty quickly that every supermarket under the Kroger group was gouging on prices, so when they acquired Safeway I discovered there’s a WinCo in my town. (WinCo is employee owned, has the feel of a warehouse/bulk store, and it beats Kroger/Walmart/Amazon/GoodFoodHoldings stores on price, by a lot. Plus, the employees don’t have the energy of beaten animals and that matters to me for some reason.)

    Good on Chicago doing this but there are already alternatives to Walmart and Whole Foods in some places if you look.

    • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 years ago

      WinCo is legit. The bulk section alone makes going in there worth it. Need oregano? You can pay $5.99 for the jar at Kroger (in my area, Fred Meyer) or you can go to the bulk section of WinCo and pay $0.37.*

      * Numbers not exact, but it is literally that drastic a difference.

      • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 years ago

        you can go to the bulk section

        Yeah. I got a bunch of resealable/airtight bulk containers and will probably never buy spices in those little 2oz shaker-jars again. My pantry is a small store by itself now, it feels better to get like a pound of a spice for $7 than it does to buy 2 ounces at a time for $7- and all those trips I don’t have to make to get a spice I just ran out of is totally worth it- my restocking trip is… from kitchen to pantry, takes seconds.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 years ago

      Ironically, way back in the 70s Kroger successfully defeated a hostile corporate takeover, in part by issuing their employees stock

    • MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      3 years ago

      Wal-mart regularly closes stores that try to unionize.

      Whole Foods is a division of Amazon, and their store decisions generally float around hurting labor until labor gets fed up.

      But that is only the pattern that both of those employers have shown repeatedly for years now so maybe I am prejudice against companies owned by multibillionaires.

        • Che Banana@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          3 years ago

          Bullshit. Those large stores come in to an area and drive out local competition, then when they don’t make the % to keep the shareholders happy they fold up and leave. Mom and pop shops are the backbone of communities and these pricks destroy that.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldBanned
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 years ago

              It’s capitalism…

              If they admit they overreached, it will hurt stock prices and their bonuses.

              So they blame crime, knowing a significant amount of the population will go along with it because it’s victim blaming and psychologically that makes people think it can’t ever effect themselves.

              I dont know why else people would take Walmart PR as gospel

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 years ago

                Some stores are higher than 1.4%, but it’s still in the low end of single digits, not like 15%. Raising prices a couple percent to compensate wouldn’t even be noticed.

                • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  Does shrink include the cost of security, security measures, vandalism or injured employees? You have this one thing you think describes the whole thing and the reality is you’ve chosen your bad guy and you’re going to confirmation bias yourself there.

            • Enigma@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 years ago

              So I’d like to chime in here as someone who lives in a low income food desert. The food desert isn’t because of theft. In fact, many chains have tried to open up here over the decades. The city government is so hostile towards them though, that these stores don’t even get to the opening stages. The city wants to charge these stores exorbitant fees for no reason. Charge 10x as much for electricity than the town with a smaller population 15minutes away. Is this everywhere, no, but it is in more places than you’d think.

              Let me guess, your response to that would be “Well just vote those people out! It’s your fault for keeping them in there!” And my response to that is, vote them out and replace them with who? No one has run against these people since they were first elected into office in the 1960’s. Oh sure we’ve tried to get people to turn against them, but they’ve stacked the system so it’s damn near impossible. The only thing we can do is wait until they die, which doesn’t seem to be any time soon.

              You remind me of this guy I’ve debated with who had this outlandish claim that “If CEO’s are paid less, then they’d work less.” But there’s no actual proof to that, and trust me, he looked. He then went on to say he’d rather be paid in company stock than cash. Like he’d legit forego minimum wage to be paid in 100% stock.

              So I’m going to say the same thing to you that I’ve said to him. You’ve been all up and down this thread blaming theft as the reason why food deserts are a thing, can you provide nonbiased studies proving that?

    • SheeEttin@lemmy.worldBanned
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      3 years ago

      That’s not at all feasible for places with long, cold winters, or southwest areas without enough water, among others.

      And before you say “well people shouldn’t live there then”, they live in those places because of the other resources. For example, let’s say logging in Montana, or oil fields in Texas. You’re not going to get the world to stop needing those resources any time soon.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 years ago

    Main streets with Mom and Pop stores are really nice. It seems like you’d get more soul from than a government store. But I don’t know how you would incentive then sufficiently, as it’s really tough to run a small storefront when competing with online.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 years ago

      The real problem is that we fucked over main streets 75 years ago with deliberately car-dependent zoning policies and massive subsidies for car infrastructure. Now all we’re allowed by law to build are shitty stroads with big-box stores.