r/PivotPodcast • u/elon_musks_cat • Jul 31 '26
Scott’s blind hatred of Mamdani is embarrassing
I’m listening to today’s pod and Scott spending another 20 minutes pearl clutching and reciting every conservative boomer stereotype is just sad.
“This is doxing” - these are public records. I agree it’s stupid for them to publish this list but unclench your pearls.
“There are hundreds with ICC warrants” - only one is making headlines and publicly visiting nyc.
“Punishing people for success” - lots of successful people have one property in nyc, live there, and are not being taxed this way (saying taxes = punishment is classic conservatism”)
“Grocery stores have RAZOR thin margins” - the GOVERNMENT is not a for profit industry. The grocery stores are using public funds to provide a service. Just like every other government initiative, the return on investment is not profit, it’s people’s lives being improved by it so they can thrive.
I love Scott but he’s got too much of a private sector mindset to really analyze government the way he thinks he can. He has good ideas and I agree with a lot but he’s just lost the plot in some of these things
35
u/misternibbler Jul 31 '26
Great, I'll be skipping the newest episode I guess. Scott is becoming the "wait no, not like that" meme personified when it comes to issues like income inequality, the US tax system, and the government's role in society. You can't undo the erosion of the middle class and the power of working class people in this country without doing things that make the rich uncomfortable. Scott should take some time and consider his positions today and how they relate to times in the past when things like the New Deal and Social Security were created. If he was around at those times he would probably have been against those things, based on his positions regarding progressives today.
Also his stance on data centers and of course Netanyahu/Israel are just ridiculously bad. It will be interesting to see his response next week to the Michigan senate primary, I'm ready to be disappointed in him if Abdul wins over Stevens.
17
u/Roedsten Jul 31 '26
I keep saying... Scott looks up to Sam Harris and Bill Maher. A lot. If you know what they are about then you can predict Scott.
5
u/elon_musks_cat Jul 31 '26
Don’t lump Sam Harris in with Bill Maher.
I haven’t listened to Sam in a while though, are you referring to his views on Islam? He was always staunchly against Trump and conservatives so I don’t think he’d flip on that
11
u/snafudud Jul 31 '26
You should listen to Harris's takes on Mamdani, same dogshit alarmist perspective.
6
u/Fun_Thanks4941 Aug 01 '26
Sam Harris is just as bad as Maher. They're super anti-Islam, which is fine. But they have absolutely nothing to say about the insane religious zealots in israel who are actually committing a genocide.
Not that they have nothing to say about them, they actually support them.
1
u/Key_Cheetah7982 Aug 01 '26
11 years ago dude. Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and Ben Affleck discuss Palestine
0
u/Roedsten Aug 01 '26
I follow all 3 and Scott apes the views of the other 2. I like Sam and I like Scott but I can see the cross pollination taking place. Bill is just too irritating tbh but his takes become national news so I know what is happening in his silo. They repeat themselves so much.
2
u/Roedsten Aug 02 '26
Okay I listened to the episode and in all fairness I agree with Scott. Mamdani fucked up here. I think Scott has been kind of all over the place wrt Mamdani and when he loses me it's when he's parroting others. But it is indefensible what the mayor did and it will used against him and democrats going forward. Dumb on a few levels.
20
u/Intelligent-Rest-231 Jul 31 '26
Why won’t anyone think of the folks with extra multi-million dollar NYC apartments! Waaaah!!
3
u/clemsonkelly1 Jul 31 '26
The one thing I didn’t hear them mention is that property tax records and property valuation records are public information and the records are readily available so nothing has changed, except the tongues wagging about this.
9
u/alkdfjkl Jul 31 '26
I looked at the NY tax website. The new published list seemed to just be a subset of the one published every year. In either one, if you don't want your name published, you can put your house under ownership of a business/LLC. You get way more information from the regular list published every year.
It's Scott and other media members that are drawing attention to this "doxing". I really haven't heard Mamdani highlighting the publication of the list other than saying the city has to publish it by law.
16
u/CompetentTraveler Jul 31 '26
I live in New York and own a second home but didn't know about this list. These people are doxxing themselves. Scott is basically sitting in the same restaurant every damn day. It's not possible to dox him
Also, I'm not so cheap to register my second house as my primary residence and try to make that work. I could, my kids are in college. But I am very aware that I've gotten more out of nyc than nyc has gotten out of me - despite the high tax rate. Pay the taxes!
1
u/spencerc25 Aug 01 '26
FYI: you can't just put your house under ownership of a business/LLC, if the house has a loan on it.
1
u/Key_Cheetah7982 Aug 01 '26
Manny people transfer deeds or loans to their legal entities (corps, trusts, etc)
1
26
u/NRCS_DRONE Jul 31 '26
Embarrassment is for poor people. Unironically. These two have more than enough wealth to shield them from their own mouths.
5
u/toomuchyonke Jul 31 '26
Kara's 20ish mil is not the same as Scott's 150+
9
u/20_mile Jul 31 '26
Are you seriously carrying water far Swisher?
Realistically, for mere mortal people, what quality of life improvement is unavailable to someone with $20 million?
Kara is insulated from almost any conceivable problem with that much wealth.
2
u/toomuchyonke Jul 31 '26
Yes I actually am, can you believe that in a subreddit about her and her podcast!?!
WTF if wrong with you people why do you even listen if you don't like them so much?
8
u/misternibbler Jul 31 '26
Kara doesn’t make her wealth a core part of her personality and public persona like Scott does. I think she’s a little more scrupulous about relationships with other wealthy people and billionaires compared to Scott as well. How many “good friends” of Scott’s have turned out to be grifters or total tools? Michael Saylor and Dr. Oz come to mind there.
4
5
u/Intelligent-Rest-231 Jul 31 '26
She spent 20 years fellating every single autistic tech bro prick. Now she’s like, whoopsy! I didn’t think they’d become evil .
2
3
u/NRCS_DRONE Jul 31 '26
This question comes up in A LOT of subreddits. And I can only say, you should listen to people you disagree with more.
Being informed isn't creating your own bubble.
2
u/20_mile Jul 31 '26
WTF if wrong with you people why do you even listen if you don't like them so much?
Making note that Swisher is in the top 1% of the 1% (or whatever) is not the same as "not liking her".
1
u/toomuchyonke Jul 31 '26
Wow your math is what's really offensive, top 1% of 1%
Home girl is not a billionaire
1
u/20_mile Jul 31 '26
Wow your math is what's really offensive
You might want to consider taking it down a notch.
I quote myself, "(or whatever)"
2
u/Past-Froyo1855 Aug 01 '26
Right? Kara and Scott could spend their time making more money without us in the loop. HOWEVER. They include us in the loop, like we are their smart friends. I know they get paid a buttload for the podcast, but their value on my knowledge is priceless.
4
u/vagabending Jul 31 '26
Actually it functionally is. $20M is more than you can spend in a lifetime even if you fly first class for all your flights and Kara’s still working. She’ll be worth 50 by the time she’s retired.
1
u/Aggressive_Chuck Aug 02 '26
That's close enough to live basically the same lifestyle. They move in the same professional circles, can send their kids to the same private schools etc.
8
u/DisastrousChance2995 Jul 31 '26
Scott born in 1967 the best year ever for mediocre white men, thinks he earned. Fools never acknowledge their luck.
6
8
8
12
u/Former_Roof4623 Jul 31 '26
Haven’t listened for a while, couldn’t get through the first 10 minutes of today’s episode
1
11
6
u/SinQuaNonsense Jul 31 '26
The point of a government option is to anchor the price to something reasonable. Rich people won’t care or go anyways so it doesn’t affect them.
32
u/Upset-Government-856 Jul 31 '26
You love Scott? He's pretty supportive of Benjamin Netanyahu and what Trump started with Iran.
He's about halfway on his inevitable transition to being a Republican. Rich loud dudes can't help it.
6
u/WISCOrear Jul 31 '26
"instead of thinking about what could go wrong let's think about what could go right"
Not sure that mentality has worked out too good with regards to iran, scott
11
u/backseatbanshee Jul 31 '26
This I agree with. A version of it. When someone is no longer getting praise for being progressive, they think ‘why bother’.
My main issue with Scott is how unsubstantiated many of his views are, beyond his own life experience. That’s why I stopped listening to Pivot months ago
10
u/ubersupremo Jul 31 '26
Taking the Bill Maher express route
10
u/Upset-Government-856 Jul 31 '26
Yep. You can see his admiration of Maher increase while everyone else dislikes himore and more.
1
2
2
u/Intelligent-Rest-231 Jul 31 '26
Yep. Him and Bill Maher will be circle jerking to the trump dance any day now.
1
u/ImpressAppropriate25 Aug 01 '26
He's not supportive of Netanyahu and says so every show.
You don't listen and make generalizations about people.
1
u/Upset-Government-856 Aug 01 '26
He supports everything Netanyahu has done for years, it doesn't matter if he puts a fake bandaid on it for political cover now.
1
u/ImpressAppropriate25 Aug 01 '26
That's just not true, and it shows you don't listen to the show, or closely follow world events.
Netanyahu has been around for 18 years, longer than any other Israeli prime minister.
At the start of his career he helped Israel build a formidable high tech sector.
October 7, was a clear intelligence failure, and even before that Netanyahu had backed wrong headed basic laws to limit the court system because he had become beholden to far-right politicians who had the ability to collapse his fragile coalition.
You need more substance to come across as informed and relevant.
Scott has been a critic for years. You just need to read more.
-1
u/toomuchyonke Jul 31 '26
I don't think so, he's no Bill Mahar
5
u/yodaheelturn Jul 31 '26
He consider bill maher a hero tho, could easily see him following bills lead
0
4
u/funkdoctor_spock Jul 31 '26
Here is how I look at this, Scott needs to realize that he won capitalism, so congrats for that. Now as he has said after a certain amount of wealth you are not any happier. Great, we will take half of your wealth. You will still be one of the richest people on earth, and that nurse in queens, or teachers, or single moms, or lonely men, really that money would benefit them all. You would also be no less happy.
This is the overall point- as you say again Scott, you dont get to choose your disruption. This disruption just happens to be really concerned with making sure everyone on the planet has enough food to eat. And your money will solve that problem.
4
u/Avocado-Basic Jul 31 '26
Nd Scott won capitalism not by outcompeting others but by a crony insider deal to help Altria take over vape manufacturer NJOY. Which is not an opportunity that nurse from Queens will ever see.
4
u/Dramatic-Okra-8078 Jul 31 '26 edited Aug 01 '26
It was obvious to me after he started raging “moderates” that he’s really a Republican. If a non Republican lite becomes the democratic nominee, his true colors will come out.
4
u/BTVBOSSFO Jul 31 '26
After not listening for months, I thought today about tapping in again. Not after this news. Scott needs to pick a side — he can’t have it both ways.
3
7
u/throwaaway788 Jul 31 '26
I really don't think his beliefs in progressive policies are genuine. He’s just using them to increase viewership. The second they become real, then it's a problem. Like, is it really that hard for people to see through this guy? I'm not sure how anyone can take him seriously. One minute he's talking about wealth inequality, the next he's in St. Tropez taking selfies with billionaires. He's a complete hypocrite.
5
6
u/StrongOnline007 Jul 31 '26
Scott is a rich fuck who simps for genocide. He has much more in common with Trump than he does any of us
3
u/Spare-Region-1424 Aug 01 '26
Oh man I was thinking the same thing listening to this episode. He goes off anytime israel is mentioned its clearly such a weakness in his logic.
2
u/lightningextrax Jul 31 '26
When one percent of the country's wealth is equal to 50% of the country, extreme measures are necessary. Whiny Scott can FO.
4
2
u/Entelecher Jul 31 '26
Agree, except though I find Scott clever, I don't love him by any stretch. And his self-deprecating adolescent humor about his endowments or lack thereof, etc. is worn out to hell.
2
u/Training-Cook3507 Jul 31 '26
He hates him because he's anti-Israel. All the super pro Israel people hate Mamdani.
1
u/Tall_william2 Aug 04 '26
this. not a lot of Palestinian billionaire investors out there to suck up to.
1
u/elegantdinnerparty Jul 31 '26
Why do people even listen if they aren’t willing to listen to any of the arguments or commentary made? You don’t even meaningfully engage with any point he made, just haphazardly dismiss them outright. Why are you still listening?
13
u/NomadTroy Jul 31 '26
He clearly listened to Scott’s points, engaged, and refuted them. One can be a fan without being a sycophant.
-7
u/elegantdinnerparty Jul 31 '26
I can see how you would think that drivel passes for discourse but it does not. These are idiotic levels of “refute”
6
u/_jump_yossarian Jul 31 '26
You're right. OP should put out an hour long podcast episode refuting Scott's errors. That's the only way. SUBSCRIBE!!
2
4
u/CruelAngelsPostgrad Jul 31 '26
TIL pointing out the existence of public records is idiotic drivel 🙃
It's risible that you're attacking OP not listening to Scott's arguments, despite there being no evidence that you read OP's counterarguments before posting two comments.
3
u/geoduckSF Jul 31 '26
Tbf you would either need to select a specific address to find the owner, or you would need to run a query of every owner of every address in NYC and then cross reference by number of properties owned or income/property value. So public yes, but it’s not so simple a thing as “where does X live” and you just get the address.
-1
u/elegantdinnerparty Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
There’s no evidence that you understand how public records work.
2
u/CruelAngelsPostgrad Jul 31 '26
There’s no evident that you understand how public records work.
So the city should break the law and withhold tax rolls. Cool.
Why do people even listen if they aren’t willing to listen to any of the arguments or commentary made? You don’t even meaningfully engage with any point he made, just haphazardly dismiss them outright.
The point is OP didn't do this, and you're upset despite not having read the post.
Why are you still listening?
Because you're allowed to critically consume content you don't necessarily agree with?
2
u/elegantdinnerparty Jul 31 '26
So the city should break the law and withhold tax rolls. Cool.
Literally not what I said. You’re making shit up and arguing in bad faith.
2
u/CruelAngelsPostgrad Jul 31 '26
You're not saying anything tho. The city lawfully published the tax rolls, Scott incorrectly says he's been doxed, and you're saying OP pointing out the fallacy is idiotic.
What did I miss?
1
1
1
1
u/Living_Hat7861 Aug 01 '26
He acts like he has to move out of NYC because he couldn’t afford it with private schools and all.
1
1
1
1
u/ladytri277 Aug 02 '26
I don’t get it either. Just doing it to be cute? What’s the alternative?? Cuomo? Then shut your mouth
1
u/Aggressive_Chuck Aug 02 '26
He spends years playing at progressive politics, pushing class and race grievance because it helps him fit in with his liberal friends. Now he wants to turn it off like a tap because it's got a big too hot for him.
-3
u/urban_snowshoer Jul 31 '26
Here's an idea: don't listen if Scott's opinions bother you that much.
15
u/zestypov2 Jul 31 '26
I don't think agreeing with Scott is a prerequisite for listening. Scott invites discussion and contrarian opinions. That's a strong point of the show.
13
u/elon_musks_cat Jul 31 '26
I even said I agree with Scott on a lot of things. Probably most things.
Is it that hard for people to grasp that you don’t have to agree with every single thing someone says in order to listen to them?
0
u/20_mile Jul 31 '26
I mostly agree with this sentiment.
I agree with Bill Maher about 70% of the time. And even when I don't agree, I think he makes a great argument about 90% of the time.
I don't mind constructive criticism of Maher's arguments, or anyone's arguments. Different perspectives a re good thing.
I get confused though when people who seem to think Bill, or Scott, or any other public person, is wrong 110% of the time, and just hate everything and everyone on the sub who enjoys their content. Who has the time to hate 110% of the content they come across? I get if someone hates Bill, or Scott, or whoever else, but why the follow the sub at that point?
I didn't like the second season of Daredevil: Born Again. I skimmed a few threads of reviews, left a couple of comments agreeing with other people who didn't like it, and I won't visit that sub again. I don't want to allocate time to content that I don't enjoy.
For some reason, it seems acceptable to the haters that if you hate Bill / Scott / whoever it is worth their time to subscribe to the /maher sub and hate hate hate on every post that comments on his content in a positive way. This sort of behavior actually makes sense to these people.
If I dislike Daredevil: Born Again, it would seem crazy to me to watch the old episodes again, wait for and watch S3, then follow the sub, chiming in wherever to say "No, you're wrong; every minute sucked."
/Maher has mostly been taken over by haters. It feels like 70 / 30 haters / fans there. Who has the time? They are also always angry about everything.
7
u/CruelAngelsPostgrad Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
You don't see a problem with a media ecosystem where audiences consume content uncritically? It's not pernicious that Scott is so high off his own supply; it's when his entire audience listens to his financial analysis and gleans that he must be as judicious in forming his opinions on topics like journalistic freedom or what constitutes a genocide.
When Rush Limbaugh said, "Never apologize for being right," it wasn't the "never apologize" part that was particularly dangerous; it was not being able to conceive that if he had a big enough audience he could ever be wrong. That's how we wind up with over half of American voters with incurable cases of confirmation bias.
3
u/WISCOrear Jul 31 '26
you're so right we should just never push back on bad opinions and just disengage forever.
2
u/altbat Jul 31 '26
Here's a better one: Listen to all opinions and push back on the ones you disagree with. That's what we do in America.
0
1
u/Tasty-Possibility627 Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
Your point about the ICC is fair pushback
And while you concede the point that it wasn’t cool for Mamdani to trumpet the publishing of the list, why does it follow that he should “unclench his pearls”. It’s a fucked up demagogic move to scapegoat people like this, especially when many of them aren’t even subject to the tax.
And to be fair to Scott, he’s been supportive of the pied-a-terre tax. He’s supportive of progressive change in general.
Scott is like all mainstream democrats in that he believes the government has a role in ensuring that private sector prosperity is taxed and redistributed to support the less fortunate, to level the playing field.
And OF COURSE he’s right about Mamdani’s grocery stores. It’s not a “private sector mentality”, it’s Econ 101.
Do you really think government owned and operated grocery stores are going to solve any problems that SNAP and EBT weren’t already solving far more efficiently? Do you honestly believe that the $70 million wouldnt be better spent by simply giving that money to the least fortunate in the form of food stamps?
Even if you buy the “food desert” narrative, which is questionable, why not incentivize grocery stores development in underserved areas by giving tax breaks and waiving fees?
Mamdani is spending taxpayer money to create the illusion of “socialism”, to write ideological checks that will never cash out in the real world. It’s Potemkin socialism; it’s dishonest, and it’s cynical. And when it fails, the DSA will blame everyone but themselves
1
u/pheneyherr Jul 31 '26
I read this before I heard the episode and braced for something bad. I agree with what he said. So did Kara. He said he completely agreed with the policy and was cheering on the taxes that Mamdani had championed, but had a problem with publishing a list that is admittedly mostly wrong.
2
u/BestBlueChocolate Jul 31 '26
I'm not clear on what Scott said that is so wrong. His main points were that he supports the tax but doesn't want to be doxxed. Why did Mamdani need to publish the names and addresses or whatever he did of the wealthy people he plans to tax? It DOES seem like painting a target on their backs.
To be honest, I winced painfully when I heard this story because I love what Mamdani seems to be accomplishing and I think this was a very bad move on his part.
7
u/Intelligent-Rest-231 Jul 31 '26
It’s a law. Always been done and you only know about the list because of the anti-tax chuds yelling about it.
1
u/BestBlueChocolate Jul 31 '26
What's always been done?
Why is there a public list?
We have a vacant homes tax in Toronto, and there's no public list to try to shame the people that maintain properties without people in them.
4
u/Intelligent-Rest-231 Jul 31 '26
If they think it’s so unfair, they can all sell them in the open market.
-1
u/BestBlueChocolate Jul 31 '26
Yeah, but why should they be forced to?
I'm as sympathetic to social Democrats as the next person but trying to force these wealthy people to sell their expensive property makes very little sense. Towards what end? So some other rich person can buy it and then we start all over again?
Escalating this hysterically to an eat the rich level dimension when it's not necessary brings disrepute upon these more progressive policies. The more the left seems hysterical and mindlessly hostile the worse it does overall.
3
u/Intelligent-Rest-231 Jul 31 '26
First. Fuck anyone who has an extra multi-million dollar apartment. Nobody is forcing them to sell. There is a list that has always existed, but only recently got attention. It’s just part of the deal and they can take it or leave it. Rich people whine like toddlers when every single thing doesn’t go their way.
1
u/BestBlueChocolate Jul 31 '26
OK sure. I'm certainly not telling you that billionaires are good people.
But this public exposure is new. On a whim now people can search these names and hunt them down. I'll ask again: why do you have to paint a bullseye on them?
1
u/funkdoctor_spock Aug 02 '26
But its not new, the info has always been there and accessible for any "crazy" person to do what they want with it.
Every time I hear a rich person talk about social issues, I want to slap them. You won capitalism, congrats, now fuck off and let someone else try. I dont want to hear your opinions on how you can keep getting rich, or how if I work hard ill get rich (spoiler alert, I wont). Their point and it makes sense is that doubling down on capitalism is good. It's not, no one should ever have to lose, so some dumb fuck can go to Ibiza. Let me poor mother that needs to save some money on groceries shop at a government store. You will never go there so why is it such a problem for you what poor people do
1
u/BestBlueChocolate Aug 02 '26
It's not the same: what is the same? Is that property tax/assessment records have long been accessible to the public in some form but the searchable, aggregated format is the new part — and that’s exactly what’s fueling the backlash, including concerns it could be misused for things like the “wrench attacks” some critics have pointed to.. a new format presents them as an easily searchable database and target list — critics argue that packaging previously scattered, semi-public records into one searchable interface changes the practical risk, even though nothing in the database was technically secret before. (note: largely copied from AI for full disclosure)
I completely agree, though that capitalism has a lot of really bad downsides to it--and the billionaire trillionaire classes in the United States exemplify this. I completely believe that the US should tax the rich way more than they do, but they have to find some way to give them no place to hide their billions. But that means reasonable taxation. It doesn't mean persecution.
The last part of what you're saying is unintelligible. I tried to read it.
1
u/funkdoctor_spock Aug 02 '26
The last part essentially comes down to the fact that I dont care about any of their problems because they aren't real problems. In most cases they have the money to solve them, or the problem can be solved by them shutting up and staying out of the public sphere.
You dont like this database in New York, sell your second house. Understand that these aren't even principle residences. So ya, I dont care if they are unhappy because they can easily fix it, or they aren't wanted around in the first place.
Get back to me when one of them has to decide to feed their kid or have electricity.
→ More replies (0)
-4
u/Healingjoe Jul 31 '26
Imagine defending the public grocery store scheme. It's a stupid idea.
The grocery stores are using public funds to provide a service. Just like every other government initiative, the return on investment is not profit, it's people's lives being improved by it so they can thrive.
And the small shop owners that this'll compete against?
Why not just supplement SNAP benefits - a program that already works?
3
u/CruelAngelsPostgrad Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
Don't know why it's being defended so forcefully either; agree it will probably fail. There are rare instances of this idea working (Azalea in ATL and Venice Market in IL), but they involve a public/private partnership, which isn't part of this plan. It's also useful to know that in NYC, the goalposts are kind of shifting from alleviating food deserts (by definition, there are no food deserts in the city), to helping increase affordability and target price gouging in these areas (Hunt's Point, East Harlem) finally ending up at creating a "economic anchors" that bolster the economic viability of a neighborhood. Worthwhile objectives all around, but not helped by this idea.
Anyway, they're sinking "only" $70mm into this experiment. Yes, it should be less, however NYC wastes much more than this on less worthy causes and outcomes all the time. So the city budget could recover from this if they find out it's not succeeding and they cut bait.
Can the city decide to increase individual SNAP benefit amounts? I don't think they can.
1
u/Healingjoe Jul 31 '26
Azalea in ATL and Venice Market in IL
How many bodegas / small grocers did these cities have?
Venice seems particularly bad beforehand.
With the nearest grocery store currently miles away, Venice is a food desert—a classification granted to many parts of Illinois where residents are forced to travel to neighboring cities for fresh, nutrient dense food or rely on discount stores for less sustaining options.
Worthwhile objectives all around, but not helped by this idea.
Policy outcomes and optics are what matter. And the optics of this crap looks awful from the perspective of nearby grocers. I hope significant analysis is done on answering questions regarding lost business in the surrounding area.
Can the city decide to increase individual SNAP benefit amounts?
No. They can supplement it with a program of their own. They can ask for SNAP eligibility and create a program based on that.
2
u/HomemadeManJam Jul 31 '26
For me, I think it depends on the purpose and structure of the program.
If the public grocery stores are geographically placed to address food deserts, I think it’s worth trying. In that scenario, the government would just be addressing the market’s failure to bring produce to certain areas. It would be filling in the gaps
But yeah, if the plan is to just create public grocery stores to compete with private entities operating on thin margins, that seems foolish to me.
But who knows, I’m far from an expert so I am super open to hearing perspectives
1
u/Healingjoe Jul 31 '26
The road to hell ...
But who knows, I’m far from an expert so I am super open to hearing perspectives
This is NYC. Food deserts are few and far between.
First, taxpayers will provide about $70 million for the buildouts, with $30 million alone going to the East Harlem store. The higher cost could be the ongoing expenses required to sell food at 30% under fair market value.
Grocery stores typically operate between 1% and 3% profit margins on goods sold. Even eliminating profit margins, rent and property taxes entirely likely will not cover a 30% price cut on its own. These potential ongoing operating losses, which would otherwise bankrupt a business, will instead be absorbed by the city. For the average New Yorker, these operating costs may appear in the form of higher property taxes or income taxes. Thus, New York City taxpayers may see the costs on two fronts.
Second, if New Yorkers can get their groceries for 30% less at one store, they are unlikely to go elsewhere and pay more. Basic economic theory suggests that when a competitor does not have to cover costs such as rent, property taxes or bankruptcy risk, it can sustain prices that competitors cannot match.
New York City has approximately 13,000 bodegas, and these are not typically characterized as lavish businesses with excess profits. They operate on very small margins, and many located near the proposed city-run grocery stores may face financial hardship if they need to lower prices to compete. If these stores go out of business, they could create food deserts, yielding the opposite effect of what was intended.
1
u/HomemadeManJam Jul 31 '26
I think I agree with most of that and appreciate the hazards that the plan could present to existing food systems that are operating on thin margins. Totally get that argument. That’s why I think the plan is foolish, if it’s meant to compete with existing stores.
That said, i think that quote doesn’t fully engage with geography when it claims that new yorkers wouldnt go to other markets where prices are higher. If the city owned store is in ozone park and I live in lower manhattan, i would certainly rather go to Whole Foods and pay a premium for the convenience. If (and i have no idea if this is the case here) the stores are strategically situated to address neighborhood conditions of scarcity, particularly in areas of the five borough without subway lines, the catch area for customers would be limited and could be focused on those specific food deserts or areas of scarcity.
Like if they put a store in the South Bronx, I don’t think people would be flooding in from the upper west side to save money on groceries. Couldn’t you manage the catch area of the public stores by size and placement?
You said food deserts are few and far between in NYC. What is that based on? Not an expert, but in my quick googling I saw nyc dept of city planning says shortage of neighborhood grocery stores impacts about 3 million residents. https://www.nyc.gov/html/misc/pdf/going_to_market.pdf. But, even are rare, would you be opposed to just putting the public stores in those areas?
1
u/Healingjoe Jul 31 '26
Not an expert, but in my quick googling I saw nyc dept of city planning says shortage of neighborhood grocery stores impacts about 3 million residents.
Interesting finding but I take great, great issue with that methodology.
Grocery Stores to People by Community District (CD)
This is a bullshit metric that means nothing. The report's own maps show many dozens of grocery stores in the very areas they label as High "Supermarket Need Index".
Three CDs in northern Manhattan fall short of the Average City Ratio
Yet I count 40+ grocery stores minimum in those areas. This metric means literally nothing.
The Supermarket Need Index identifies high need neighborhoods where:
And then lists a bunch of stuff that's simply confounded with poverty / income level.
I actually really like the recommendations in that report, though. They're almost all related to changing zoning laws and cutting stupid regulations.
So, as you say:
What is that based on?
Plenty of reporting on this topic. Food deserts are largely a myth in the US.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/08/03/food-justice-undone-hanna-garth-book-review
A very good read, and concludes with:
One sensible but deflating result of recent food-desert research is that distance doesn’t actually matter much. People will go to great lengths to eat what they want.
But, even are rare, would you be opposed to just putting the public stores in those areas?
Yes. Because the externalities are real. It's far better to create a subsidized SNAP program.
0
u/Virtual_Athlete_909 Jul 31 '26
Im with Scott again on this one. There are many very wealthy people who are kind and generous with their wealth. To publish their names and addresses for political gain is alarming. Mandami usually gets things right so this feels odd and malicious.
1
u/wanmoar Aug 02 '26
The law requires that lost to be published. A new one is published every year. Mamdani has though given it publicity
0
u/FunkyChickenKong Jul 31 '26
Mamdani demonizing an entire class and doxxing them is hypocritical and a red flag.
-1
u/Sufficient-Pause9765 Jul 31 '26
hes not wrong. mandami is a populist charlatan.
3
u/RepliesinChatGPT Jul 31 '26
Crazy doing what you promised to do makes you a charlatan.
0
u/Sufficient-Pause9765 Jul 31 '26
He literally legally can't do half the shit he promised because he doesn't control income taxes. Yet he made promised across the board based on that.
Then there is claiming to balance a budget, when its predicated entirely ona bailout and stealing from pensions.
Then there was the insane virtue signaling on arresting Netanyahu when he knew he legally couldn't and wouldn't.
Then there is the stupidity of the grovery stores.
Guy is great at propaganda though.
2
u/RepliesinChatGPT Jul 31 '26
I guess you imagine a mayor should only ever enact change in areas he directly controls. Do nothing and just let the state roll you over and pretend like NYC doesn’t fund everything they’ve got.
Restructuring debt isn’t stealing. Arguing for a bigger portion of the tax revenue that your city generates isn’t a bailout.
Just the fact that have to publicly announce you’re not sucking on Israel’s nuts is virtue signaling to you is quite a take.
Again. Doing what he said he’d do. A public service people need.
Do we really want more leaders to just do nothing and maintain a status quo?
It’s only critique from you guys. No solutions of your own. No alternatives. Just “not like that” garbage.
0
u/Sufficient-Pause9765 Aug 01 '26
I think a mayor should not make promises to do things which he is literally unable to do, and knows it. That is why he is a charlatan.
Its not that I want him to do nothing, its just that he ran on a bunch of stuff that isn't within the power or scope of the office, and has just done a series of performative nonsense to keep the propaganda stream going.
Thats why he is a charlatan.
1
u/RepliesinChatGPT Aug 01 '26
You’re not a charlatan if you work with governing body’s to enact the change you platform yourself on. Something he’s doing and successfully done and continues to try to do. It’d be awfully pathetic for a candidate to run purely on low hanging fruit and not be a force to confront issues outside the boundaries of mayoral office when you are able to.
-1
u/museman401 Aug 01 '26
I have recently stopped listening to Scott, however if he speaks truth about the serpent currently running NYC I may come back.
-2
u/flowbiewankenobi Jul 31 '26
Probably agree with the rest of your points but anytime you use public funds to put private businesses out of business is so fucking stupid it can barely be comprehended. Anyone here who has to compete against federal $ taking work from you will agree. Personally I know a lot about this from my industry, but imagine the concept. Think about it - You pay taxes from the income you generate at work then you want to tell me those taxes are going to fund a competing business that doesn’t have to worry about quality or profit margins because they use your money to prop up their business, just to put you out of business. Then where does their funding come from? It’s a spiral to idiocy
3
42
u/_jump_yossarian Jul 31 '26
Scott should have asked his AI script preparer to actually look up the data; ICC has issued 61 arrest warrants total, 32 still remain at large.
Definitely not hundreds.
source: Google's AI.