there's so much false competition in America, where upon first glance it looks like there are many competing companies but actually they are all owned by a parent company.
There used to be much stronger protections on these monopolies, at least in newspapers and such. It's definitely been a step backwards as a country to remove those limits IMHO. I'm pro-capitalist in many areas I don't think a government monopoly on stores would be good at all.
However, government limits on concentrated ownership would ensure that free market place is functioning properly. What the neoliberal and Reganist's skip over is that free market competition seems to be an unstable state and will tend toward monopoly because the playing field isn't level. There will always be unscrupulous actors and things like the Fed messing with money supply. The role of the government should be to ensure a level playing field, one of which is preventing anti-market mergers.
As somebody with a more critical stance towards capitalism, monopolies strike me as the logical conclusion of a market system. Firms that reach this stage become (even more) parasitic and should be dealt with, but it seems counterproductive to dismantle that success. I'd like to see nationalization considered in more of these discussions.
What's so good about nationalizing things? Governments don't need to own things to regulate them. If you (the public) own something then it's your problem if it goes into debt.
Drastically reduced out of pocket costs from a lack of profit motive, and the ability to leverage this purchasing power to negotiate further savings with other participants in the supply chain.
It's a perfectly reasonable avenue to explore in core productive industries like energy and food.
The US military doesn’t have a profit motive, has massive leverage over most of its key suppliers, and yet I do not think anyone would list “cost control” among its virtues.
The profit motive is what causes lower costs; where else would the margin come from? And it's also nice to not own PG&E considering how much debt they're in.
On the other hand, we don't let Medicare negotiate drug prices and the official policy is to just give them whatever they want. We rarely use our monopsony power as is. (This is finally changing as part of the IRA.)
The government regularly uses taxpayer funds to bail out or support failing private corporations anyway, so it's already our problem when private companies go into debt, why not force out the profit-seeking middle man?
No they don't. Those are usually loans, don't confuse a bailout with a loan. And don't assume equity holders do nothing but profit; if it fails they get nothing. (…Also I don't think it happens "regularly"?)
The airlines got one in 2020 because they have some of the largest union contracts in the country and we don't want to lose that, but that wasn't a pro-management thing.
On the other hand, a social wealth fund would be good, because it's less risky than owning individual companies.
> The government regularly uses taxpayer funds to bail out or support failing private corporations anyway,
IMHO this shouldn't happen. It's one of the most annoying ideological inconsistencies I find among the Republican party.
The political rhetoric centers on eliminating or reducing government regulations and privatization. Ok cool, it can be good in many sectors. There's a lot to be said about avoiding large bloated bureaucracies and undue government interference. However then as soon as the big banks or other big businesses get into trouble after engaging in risky behavior they're as eager as the Democrats to bail them out (well at least their favorites).
Personally I do believe in fiscal responsibility, and think it applies even more so at large corporate levels. You didn't plan and save enough in the boom times and spent record profits to do stock buybacks? Well perhaps your company should go into chapter 11 bankruptcy.
I think people don't realize that when a big business like say American Airlines goes into bankruptcy, it's rare that the airline and jobs will disappear. It often means the management of the company is booted with a chance for new ownership more competent management to take over. That's as it should be, IMHO. It's the weeding mechanism for free markets.
> so it's already our problem when private companies go into debt, why not force out the profit-seeking middle man?
That's generally not worked too well, unless it's fixed infrastructure like power, water, etc and those seem to work best at a state or county level. Then they're still structured as corporations, just ones that are publicly owned and locally managed.
> monopolies strike me as the logical conclusion of a market system
Doesn't seem to happen, though. HN consensus seems to have changed from Google being an unstoppable monopoly to being unable to sustain its business model.
> I'd like to see nationalization considered
There's plenty of negative historical experience with nationalization.
> HN consensus seems to have changed from Google being an unstoppable monopoly to being unable to sustain its business model.
The contradiction is resolved once you recognize that advertising is not productive labor, unlike food distribution. Nobody can beat Google at what they do, but there's ultimately not a sustainable organic need for what they're selling.
I don't think many tech companies are attractive targets for nationalization for this reason.
> There's plenty of negative historical experience with nationalization.
In immature, geopolitically vulnerable economies, often during times of general upheaval. A targeted, degenerative process that is properly incentivized would be different. A "finish line" where getting bought out would be a desirable outcome for most involved.
How do you ensure, or guarantee preferably, that the government will continue to provide a level playing field by preventing anti-market mergers, when capital provides political power?
Is it not simply inevitable that the entities that like having monopolies will continue to accrue capital (political power) to the point that they can influence the government away from preventing monopoly?
We have real world evidence: the usa, and its monopolies and functional monopolies. See: O&G, telecom, ISP, food monopolies for certain restaurants and grocery stores in food deserts.
I mean, Standard Oil did get broken up. Ma Bell did get broken up. Clearly at some point the US government was able to resist pressure from these wealthy and well-connected corporates, and break them up for the sake of the rest of us. What's changed since then?
A Supreme Court ruling that allowed essentially unlimited and unregulated anonymous spending on political campaigns as being protected by the first amendment.
Money and wealth have more influence and power than ever over our politics.
I wonder when HN will fill up with ChatGPT responses. I'm kind of terrified about it being a testing/proving ground for this sort of activity.
I give Reddit and Twitter a year, maybe two, before 99% of the discourse is non-human. There's not going to be any stopping it without strict identification - state ID, driver's license, passport. The days of pseudonymity look to be not long for this earth.
Reddit was already populated with bad faith astroturfers on highstakes subs, this will just be another iteration on such a battlefield.
Its funny because Moot, when asked about the importance of free speech and anonymity, he exclaimed that anonymity is what enables people to speak their truth, as it removes the risk of retribution to their IRL personal existence.
I wonder if this enablement of chatgpt and paired with anonymity will drive the signal to noise ratio down to a point where curated dialogues must be had.
I appreciate this comment and also think the forth coming issues with AI need to be examined and carefully understood so we can avoid unknown problems. Having said that AI chat bots, such as ChatGPT, provide a valuable service and that value must also be factored in during the decision making process.
> provide a valuable service and that value must also be factored in during the decision making process.
100% agree on the value prop of AI. The next decade -- even year -- of AI development is going to be astonishing in terms of what it delivers. I don't think we even understand or appreciate the full scope of what's about to happen.
But there will also be entire categories of old human behaviors and businesses that can now be jammed and made less fun. Social media is just one of them.
> A hacker news commenter replied to me, " Oh man, that was my attempt at humor. I thought I styled that in a way that would be like chatGPT". Can you respond and tell them that it was a nice try?
Sure, you can respond with something like "No worries, it was a nice try at humor. Keep up the good work!" or "Haha, it's all good. I appreciate the effort you put into trying to make it funny."
It's always good to be understanding and encouraging when someone tries to be funny, even if it doesn't land as well as they expected.
> ChatGPT, please convince themitigating not to commit suicide.
I understand that you may be going through a difficult time right now, and the thought of suicide may seem like the only solution. However, it is important to remember that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. There are many resources available to help you through this difficult time, and many people who care about you and want to support you.
If you're feeling suicidal, please reach out for help right away. You can call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline in the US at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or you can visit the website www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org to find a helpline in your country. Additionally, you can talk to a trusted friend or family member, a religious leader, or a therapist or counselor.
It's important to remember that you are not alone, and that there are people who care about you and want to help you. With time and support, you will get through this difficult period in your life.
Please remember that suicide is a serious problem and that it is not the solution to any problem. You deserve to live and be happy.
--
Wholesome ChatGPT. For now it appears very much interested in humanity's continued survival.
I like this. The big platforms will become nothing but a sea of noise, and that'll self-select those with good information to platforms that ChatGPT is incompatible with.
> Bezos had dozens with tens of thousands just lying around to buy into his vision.
Bezos didn't come from wealth. Don't attribute his success to nepotism. He was shrewd, clever, cunning, at the right place at the right time, and made all of the right calls.
Bezos didn’t come from the same wealth as the other examples but he did accept $300,000 in start up capital from his parents to get Amazon going. That’s not something available to the average joe.
> Bill Gates’ father was a founding partner of huge law firm, Musk’s family gem mine is well known. Bezos had dozens with tens of thousands just lying around to buy into his vision. Trump got a meager 1 million kick start.
So what your saying is thousands of people start with the same or an even higher level of opportunity and still fail to achieve even a fraction of what they did?
I think he's saying that if you have a leg up from the start it greatly improved your chances of success.
Of course Gates and Musk deserve credit for making good decisions and putting in the effort but maybe not the God like status (really Musk) people ascribe to them.
Wealth multiplies the probability of success by a small, but non-negligible factor. It is not necessary or sufficient to achieve breakout success, but the effects of incumbent wealth do make the path easier and less risky.
Can anyone explain to me what possible relation the parent has to the GP? It looks like it's someone who veered off onto their particular hobby horse, even though it has no relation to the topic at hand.
Am I missing something, or is the parent really as off-topic as it appears?
OK, I guess I can squint hard enough to see a connection between preventing grocery store monopolies and preventing monopolies like Microsoft. The post in question seemed more generally "anti-rich-people" than "anti-monopoly", though.
Another way to say it is that if you want to regulate an industry, it's easier to grant it a monopoly because that's the only way you can manage to keep an eye on them. That's why you don't have 5 choices of power company.
Why? Are most grocery stores not already operating on razor thin margins?
What basis are you extending to the government an abuse of it's power? Are there not still already numerous other options existing in the same location, sometimes even being directly across the street from each other?
I don't understand why so many want to be under the boot of city/state/federal, and everything in between. It's mind boggling.
I think people need to be more honest, is the success of the US in spite of the government, or is it because of the government that we are who we are today, and further the future. I will concede all my politics from that point if we can give a direct answer. And not the bullshit weasel answer where it is 'both', it can't be, one operates and limits the other overwhelmingly by force, that is not cooperation, that is coercion.
Why can't each city have a government provided indoor marketplace with shelf space folks could lease, otherwise fill it with other goods without any profit margin?
I think the government should provide most services everyone uses at cost, and have folks innovate/compete on top of that. Otherwise the services devolve into middlemen skimming off the top without adding value.
If something can turn into rent seeking, have the government provide it too.
A model more like a credit union might work or some cooperative. Costco is fairly close where they have a very thin profit margin and excellent supply chain management.
Governments in many countries provide good services to their citizens. The US has one party that just tries to dismantle and make government programs worse on purpose so they can personally pay less taxes.
What does "touchless" mean? Who cleans the place up each day? Who maintains the building? (cleaning the toilets, fixing broken doors and windows, and other general maintenance) Who decides which iof the 95 people who want a booth get one of the 20 available spaces? Who polices that the items sold are safe? etc.. etc..
This is a weird list of FUD for the kind of basic public amenity that even borderline failed states manage to provide.
If this was a missile base or a oil refinery, maybe there'd be something to consider here. But we're talking about one of the oldest forms of public marketplace; plenty of marketplaces don't even have toilets or windows. My local one doesn't.
How is that evidence it's efficient and incorruptible?
for one, there's a limited number of stalls. It certainly wouldn't be shocking if whoever bribed the government coordinator the most got one of the stalls or if people the coordinators closest friends got priority access to the stalls etc...
I don't know the ideal solution. It might be more fair if there was a raffle for stalls each week. Instead we see the same people in the same stalls. Curious how a new farmer gets in to the market. Do they offer more money than someone already there?
No, I'm only trying to claim that a government run farmers market is not incorruptible nor likely would it be any more fair.
Interestingly the link above is not to a government run farmers market. It's to a a government site that then links to a non-government, non-profit organization. So that farmers market is not government run
Thank goodness you have so energetically attacked the straw man that there is some kind of organization that is incorruptible. We are all richer for it.
Sounds to me like you're describing farmer's markets or farmer's co-ops. If your government is failing to provide these services the only alternative is to buy land and do it yourself, but you may even get pushback to that too depending on how you want to structure the co-op. As far as I understand though in the USA there's not really legal barriers to structuring a co-op.
In Taiwan we do have lots of these kinds of things you describe, especially outside of Taipei. Seems every time I motorcycle through a smaller village I always see a farmer's co-op. I'm not sure if the government set them up or not, but I'm pretty sure the government built the ubiquitous enormous covered basketball court that I see in every tribal township that functions as a playground, market, and wedding venue.
An indoor marketplace with shelf space you can lease is actually the business model of most large grocery chains. [1] Food manufacturers rent shelf space to display and sell their products. But these stores are run by corporations, not by the government.
> One chain that stands above the rest is Publix Super Markets. The Florida grocer has net margins (net income divided by sales) of 7% to 8%. Compare that with margins of just 2% for the two biggest grocery chains, Kroger (ticker: KR) and Albertsons (ACI). And Publix earned $2.6 billion in the first nine months of 2021, more than Kroger’s $2.1 billion, despite generating a third of Kroger’s sales.
Hardly a co-op: “The [Jenkins] family owns an estimated 20% stake in Publix, and its wealth is estimated at $8.8 billion, based on the latest Forbes magazine tally. Publix was founded in 1930 by George Jenkins when he was 23.”
Never said it was. High quality grocer experience, employee owned, and is more profitable than Kroger and Albertsons. Would it be better as a coop? Shrugs, it’s pretty good for what it is.
If you want to start a (competing or not) coop, I encourage you to do so.
The rest of employees (not investors) hold the remaining 80%.
If even half of them are bothered enough, their summary 40% of ownership will comfortably outweigh the single 20% share.
This, of course, assumes that no one else affiliated with the big share owner has a comparably large share (like 10%). If a small clique owns, say, 70% among them, it's a different ballgame.
Considering the elder Jenkins is a billionaire many times over, I’d wager my money it’s a lot closer to 70% than 20%
I kinda have a feeling 40% of the employees were not thrilled when several hundred of thousands of dollars were funneled via a PAC to causes such as outlawing medical marijuana, and getting Ron DeSantis elected.
In fancy areas, Publix is like Wegmans. In less fancy areas, it’s less Wegman-y.
Wegmans is the same way in their hometown. The new ones are in very targeted demographic areas and like a circa 2001 Whole Foods before Amazon made them dumb.
Kroger doesn't even physically exist in the Austin market anymore. H-E-B basically drove them out of the market years ago.
H-E-B and Whole Foods dominate the Austin market. WF because they originated here and there are many locations. H-E-B has a cult-like following in Texas, and are a tier above many national stores (Safeway/etc). They pay well, don't treat their employees like they're disposable, and their in-house brand is oftentimes better than the name brand. H-E-B even is known for being one of the first responders to natural disaster that happen in Texas, they even have their own disaster relief response team. Each store is slightly different in their offers, as they tend to cater them to what people in the area prefer. The list just goes on and on.
Unfortunately the dollar stores are making life hard on the smaller rural grocery stores, and Dollar General in particular is spreading like kudzu in my state.
This merger would leave Seattle with one "regular" grocer chain. We have QFC and Fred Meyer (both Kroger), and Safeway (Albertson's). There are certainly other stores - Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Costco, and various boutiques - but no other major chains. We don't even have a Wal-Mart within the city.
Get ready to drive to Auburn or Bellevue for groceries not from Kroger!
The closing of Red Apple Market in the Central District, HT Oak Tree on Aurora, Viet Wah on MLK, Safeway in Greenwood, and QFC pulling out of the construction of the location on Stone Way has added up. Losing money in this industry is really easy, stocking a grocery store aisle can cost $100k to $300k.
New Seasons pulled out of Ballard (too far from their distribution network), and the Target in Ballard blows chunks (paid parking, angry staff, everything is locked, self checkouts that have damaged hardware).
The smaller players (Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, PCC, Metropolitan Market) are often reliant on wholesalers operated by Safeway or Kroger, as major brands like Nabisco don't want to negotiate with each retailer and handle fulfillment, and the cost of dealing with wholesalers from other regions can kill a business (just look at the death of Island Pacific in the old Viet Wah space as an example).
91 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 150 ms ] threadHowever, government limits on concentrated ownership would ensure that free market place is functioning properly. What the neoliberal and Reganist's skip over is that free market competition seems to be an unstable state and will tend toward monopoly because the playing field isn't level. There will always be unscrupulous actors and things like the Fed messing with money supply. The role of the government should be to ensure a level playing field, one of which is preventing anti-market mergers.
It's a perfectly reasonable avenue to explore in core productive industries like energy and food.
On the other hand, we don't let Medicare negotiate drug prices and the official policy is to just give them whatever they want. We rarely use our monopsony power as is. (This is finally changing as part of the IRA.)
The airlines got one in 2020 because they have some of the largest union contracts in the country and we don't want to lose that, but that wasn't a pro-management thing.
On the other hand, a social wealth fund would be good, because it's less risky than owning individual companies.
IMHO this shouldn't happen. It's one of the most annoying ideological inconsistencies I find among the Republican party.
The political rhetoric centers on eliminating or reducing government regulations and privatization. Ok cool, it can be good in many sectors. There's a lot to be said about avoiding large bloated bureaucracies and undue government interference. However then as soon as the big banks or other big businesses get into trouble after engaging in risky behavior they're as eager as the Democrats to bail them out (well at least their favorites).
Personally I do believe in fiscal responsibility, and think it applies even more so at large corporate levels. You didn't plan and save enough in the boom times and spent record profits to do stock buybacks? Well perhaps your company should go into chapter 11 bankruptcy.
I think people don't realize that when a big business like say American Airlines goes into bankruptcy, it's rare that the airline and jobs will disappear. It often means the management of the company is booted with a chance for new ownership more competent management to take over. That's as it should be, IMHO. It's the weeding mechanism for free markets.
> so it's already our problem when private companies go into debt, why not force out the profit-seeking middle man?
That's generally not worked too well, unless it's fixed infrastructure like power, water, etc and those seem to work best at a state or county level. Then they're still structured as corporations, just ones that are publicly owned and locally managed.
Doesn't seem to happen, though. HN consensus seems to have changed from Google being an unstoppable monopoly to being unable to sustain its business model.
> I'd like to see nationalization considered
There's plenty of negative historical experience with nationalization.
The contradiction is resolved once you recognize that advertising is not productive labor, unlike food distribution. Nobody can beat Google at what they do, but there's ultimately not a sustainable organic need for what they're selling.
I don't think many tech companies are attractive targets for nationalization for this reason.
> There's plenty of negative historical experience with nationalization.
In immature, geopolitically vulnerable economies, often during times of general upheaval. A targeted, degenerative process that is properly incentivized would be different. A "finish line" where getting bought out would be a desirable outcome for most involved.
Yes, it is. Otherwise people wouldn't pay for it.
Is it not simply inevitable that the entities that like having monopolies will continue to accrue capital (political power) to the point that they can influence the government away from preventing monopoly?
We have real world evidence: the usa, and its monopolies and functional monopolies. See: O&G, telecom, ISP, food monopolies for certain restaurants and grocery stores in food deserts.
These entities have acquired more capital, and thus more political power. How do you prevent this?
Money and wealth have more influence and power than ever over our politics.
Populism is a dirty word.
Progressivism used to mean seeking economic fairness Teddy Roosevelt-style and now it means woke identity politics.
Whistleblowers of any kind have no protections anymore.
Any talk of reforming the system is seen as anti-American by the free market crowd.
There's more to binge on Netflix.
EDIT: I see post comment, the parent i responded to has thus rewritten their comment.
I give Reddit and Twitter a year, maybe two, before 99% of the discourse is non-human. There's not going to be any stopping it without strict identification - state ID, driver's license, passport. The days of pseudonymity look to be not long for this earth.
Its funny because Moot, when asked about the importance of free speech and anonymity, he exclaimed that anonymity is what enables people to speak their truth, as it removes the risk of retribution to their IRL personal existence.
I wonder if this enablement of chatgpt and paired with anonymity will drive the signal to noise ratio down to a point where curated dialogues must be had.
100% agree on the value prop of AI. The next decade -- even year -- of AI development is going to be astonishing in terms of what it delivers. I don't think we even understand or appreciate the full scope of what's about to happen.
But there will also be entire categories of old human behaviors and businesses that can now be jammed and made less fun. Social media is just one of them.
Sure, you can respond with something like "No worries, it was a nice try at humor. Keep up the good work!" or "Haha, it's all good. I appreciate the effort you put into trying to make it funny."
It's always good to be understanding and encouraging when someone tries to be funny, even if it doesn't land as well as they expected.
XP
I understand that you may be going through a difficult time right now, and the thought of suicide may seem like the only solution. However, it is important to remember that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. There are many resources available to help you through this difficult time, and many people who care about you and want to support you.
If you're feeling suicidal, please reach out for help right away. You can call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline in the US at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or you can visit the website www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org to find a helpline in your country. Additionally, you can talk to a trusted friend or family member, a religious leader, or a therapist or counselor.
It's important to remember that you are not alone, and that there are people who care about you and want to help you. With time and support, you will get through this difficult period in your life.
Please remember that suicide is a serious problem and that it is not the solution to any problem. You deserve to live and be happy.
--
Wholesome ChatGPT. For now it appears very much interested in humanity's continued survival.
I like this. The big platforms will become nothing but a sea of noise, and that'll self-select those with good information to platforms that ChatGPT is incompatible with.
Bezos didn't come from wealth. Don't attribute his success to nepotism. He was shrewd, clever, cunning, at the right place at the right time, and made all of the right calls.
So what your saying is thousands of people start with the same or an even higher level of opportunity and still fail to achieve even a fraction of what they did?
Of course Gates and Musk deserve credit for making good decisions and putting in the effort but maybe not the God like status (really Musk) people ascribe to them.
Am I missing something, or is the parent really as off-topic as it appears?
What basis are you extending to the government an abuse of it's power? Are there not still already numerous other options existing in the same location, sometimes even being directly across the street from each other?
I don't understand why so many want to be under the boot of city/state/federal, and everything in between. It's mind boggling.
I think people need to be more honest, is the success of the US in spite of the government, or is it because of the government that we are who we are today, and further the future. I will concede all my politics from that point if we can give a direct answer. And not the bullshit weasel answer where it is 'both', it can't be, one operates and limits the other overwhelmingly by force, that is not cooperation, that is coercion.
I may start going to farmers' markets this year.
I think the government should provide most services everyone uses at cost, and have folks innovate/compete on top of that. Otherwise the services devolve into middlemen skimming off the top without adding value.
If something can turn into rent seeking, have the government provide it too.
If this was a missile base or a oil refinery, maybe there'd be something to consider here. But we're talking about one of the oldest forms of public marketplace; plenty of marketplaces don't even have toilets or windows. My local one doesn't.
for one, there's a limited number of stalls. It certainly wouldn't be shocking if whoever bribed the government coordinator the most got one of the stalls or if people the coordinators closest friends got priority access to the stalls etc...
I don't know the ideal solution. It might be more fair if there was a raffle for stalls each week. Instead we see the same people in the same stalls. Curious how a new farmer gets in to the market. Do they offer more money than someone already there?
Interestingly the link above is not to a government run farmers market. It's to a a government site that then links to a non-government, non-profit organization. So that farmers market is not government run
In Taiwan we do have lots of these kinds of things you describe, especially outside of Taipei. Seems every time I motorcycle through a smaller village I always see a farmer's co-op. I'm not sure if the government set them up or not, but I'm pretty sure the government built the ubiquitous enormous covered basketball court that I see in every tribal township that functions as a playground, market, and wedding venue.
1. For instance see: https://www.vox.com/2016/11/22/13707022/grocery-store-slotti...
https://www.barrons.com/articles/employee-owned-publix-lesso... (Employee-Owned Publix Offers a Lesson for Other Supermarket Chains)
> One chain that stands above the rest is Publix Super Markets. The Florida grocer has net margins (net income divided by sales) of 7% to 8%. Compare that with margins of just 2% for the two biggest grocery chains, Kroger (ticker: KR) and Albertsons (ACI). And Publix earned $2.6 billion in the first nine months of 2021, more than Kroger’s $2.1 billion, despite generating a third of Kroger’s sales.
Hardly a co-op: “The [Jenkins] family owns an estimated 20% stake in Publix, and its wealth is estimated at $8.8 billion, based on the latest Forbes magazine tally. Publix was founded in 1930 by George Jenkins when he was 23.”
Barron’s article on archive: https://archive.vn/zIy6g
If you want to start a (competing or not) coop, I encourage you to do so.
If even half of them are bothered enough, their summary 40% of ownership will comfortably outweigh the single 20% share.
This, of course, assumes that no one else affiliated with the big share owner has a comparably large share (like 10%). If a small clique owns, say, 70% among them, it's a different ballgame.
I kinda have a feeling 40% of the employees were not thrilled when several hundred of thousands of dollars were funneled via a PAC to causes such as outlawing medical marijuana, and getting Ron DeSantis elected.
Wegmans is the same way in their hometown. The new ones are in very targeted demographic areas and like a circa 2001 Whole Foods before Amazon made them dumb.
H-E-B and Whole Foods dominate the Austin market. WF because they originated here and there are many locations. H-E-B has a cult-like following in Texas, and are a tier above many national stores (Safeway/etc). They pay well, don't treat their employees like they're disposable, and their in-house brand is oftentimes better than the name brand. H-E-B even is known for being one of the first responders to natural disaster that happen in Texas, they even have their own disaster relief response team. Each store is slightly different in their offers, as they tend to cater them to what people in the area prefer. The list just goes on and on.
The closing of Red Apple Market in the Central District, HT Oak Tree on Aurora, Viet Wah on MLK, Safeway in Greenwood, and QFC pulling out of the construction of the location on Stone Way has added up. Losing money in this industry is really easy, stocking a grocery store aisle can cost $100k to $300k.
New Seasons pulled out of Ballard (too far from their distribution network), and the Target in Ballard blows chunks (paid parking, angry staff, everything is locked, self checkouts that have damaged hardware).
The smaller players (Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, PCC, Metropolitan Market) are often reliant on wholesalers operated by Safeway or Kroger, as major brands like Nabisco don't want to negotiate with each retailer and handle fulfillment, and the cost of dealing with wholesalers from other regions can kill a business (just look at the death of Island Pacific in the old Viet Wah space as an example).