Slashdot Mirror


Why Some US Cities are Fighting 'Dollar Stores' (eastbaytimes.com)

The Washington Post reports on why some U.S. cities are restricting the spread of discount "dollar stores": Residents fear the stores deter other business, especially in neighborhoods without grocers or options for healthy food. Dollar stores rarely sell fresh produce or meats, but they undercut grocery stores on prices of everyday items, often pushing them out of business...Grocery stores run on thin profit margins -- usually between 1 and 3 percent. And they employ more workers than dollar stores to keep perishable food stocked.

"It's no longer the big-box grocery store" that threatens local businesses, said David Procter, a Kansas State University professor who studies rural grocery stores. "But it's the discount retailer that's coming to town and setting up shop right across the street."

"As the stores cluster in low-income neighborhoods," the Post writes, "their critics worry they are not just a response to poverty -- but a cause."

29 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Why fight them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought this was America, where people have choice and freedom to choose what they want to eat. If they are choosing unhealthy shit, that's their choice. There will still be some supermarket if there is a demand.

    1. Re:Why fight them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apparently communities and groups of individuals have zero rights according to you. Just the single individual.

      So the communities of people who fight for municipal broadband are all wrong. Because it comes between the right for an individual to choose Comcast. (Because that's his only choice.)

      I'm libertarian myself and these 3rd grade libertarian fantasies regularly spouted embarass the fuck out of me.

    2. Re:Why fight them? by jonwil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that the unhealthy crap sold by fast food joints and convenience stores and dollar stores and the like is cheaper (thanks to farm subsidies and other factors that distort the market) than the good healthy stuff.

      So the retailers who sell the healthy stuff can't complete with the retailers selling the crap which leads to "food deserts" in these lower-class areas where there just aren't healthy options.

    3. Re:Why fight them? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought this was America, where people have choice and freedom to choose what they want to eat. If they are choosing unhealthy shit, that's their choice. There will still be some supermarket if there is a demand.

      There’s another dynamic at play as well. For some people, buying at the dollar store is a budget issue. They cannot afford to buy things like detergent at a grocery store because, even if it is cheaper on a per unit basis, the $5 spent on it means not enough left over for gas or even food. The dollar store is a better match to their cash flow than a grocery store, even if it a worse long run choice. In other cases, the dollar store is near where they live and the nearest grocery store is miles away, making the dollar store the store of choice.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:Why fight them? by gtall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yah! If the people want to choose unhealthy shit, then they have also chosen increased health costs. Of course, those costs don't show up until later years, and then they have the rest of us to pay for them. MAGA.

    5. Re:Why fight them? by colfer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And on the other end of the volume scale, Costco skims off the profitable customers who can and want to buy bulk. Costco also skims off any profitable sector it can simplify and remove from the traditional shop accoutrements around it, like tires. The Costco tire shop only does two things: sell tires and maintain tires. No other repair of any type.

      Prices are not actually that great at Costco, but quality is assured. The quality at the dollar store is typically suspect. I remember some outrageous price for a cell phone charger at a Radio Shack. The clerk told me to go next door to the dollar store. It was a hope-for-the-best situation there. The Radio Shack is out of business though.

      Both dollar stores and Costco are highly capitalized and can big-foot into new markets. They have that in common against locally owned retail. It's the scale of it that makes people nervous, not anti-capitalist ideology. No one doubts these entities give people what they want at the price/quality they more or less want, given the choices (which the companies help create).

    6. Re:Why fight them? by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are no barriers to better budgeting.

      You need to read Boots theory of socio-economic unfairness to understand why I think you are mistaken in your point of view.

      The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
      Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

      But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

      This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re:Why fight them? by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even though the story about the boots is fictional, there's a way out of that trap. You have to realize that you only need to buy a single pair of the good leather boots, to solve that particular problem for the rest of your life. After you get your first pair, you slowly save up the $50 for the next pair over the next 10 years. And then with the net money saved, you can get out of other traps.

      The reason why people fail is because they cannot hold savings long enough to buy the expensive but durable goods. Instead, they'll spend their savings on something they don't need (as much).

    8. Re:Why fight them? by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pratchett wrote comedic fantasy, not economic research. He made things up, including Sam Vimes, the relative costs of boots, and especially their durability.

      So Captain Pedantic, never in your life have you experienced cheaply made goods not lasting as long as more expensive goods?

      And yes Sam Vines is a work of fiction, but it is a work of fiction used to illustrate a genuine point - That having money increases your options for saving money. For example at some point up the socio-economic tree it becomes financially viable for a person to establish a presence in a tax haven in order to reduce/eliminate a tax burden. (Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich anyone?) Such options are out of the reach of people with lesser means.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    9. Re:Why fight them? by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even though the story about the boots is fictional, there's a way out of that trap. You have to realize that you only need to buy a single pair of the good leather boots, to solve that particular problem for the rest of your life. After you get your first pair, you slowly save up the $50 for the next pair over the next 10 years. And then with the net money saved, you can get out of other traps.

      The reason why people fail is because they cannot hold savings long enough to buy the expensive but durable goods. Instead, they'll spend their savings on something they don't need (as much).

      It's even worse today with credit. Now you can buy what you want now, and pay over time for it. What ends up happening for the undisciplined is they buy frivolous stuff on credit, then end up struggling to make the payments WITH INTEREST and that drives their eventual standard of living down. You have less to live on if you have to service that interest on your debt because that big TV you purchased on "sale" now costs you 30 months of interest too, making it cost more than the bigger TV outright. Or that new car costs you more than you can afford for 80 months and when it's 5 years old and you want to trade, you still have 20 months of payments.. But don't worry, they will roll that onto your next car's payment... It's a slippery slope and it take discipline to get off of it, lots of discipline.

      But that's really what makes the difference here, discipline and hard work. I've meet very few folks who where poor because they didn't have the ability or opportunity to not be poor. And I've meet some desperately poor people growing up in the back woods of North Carolina. Many where living this way by choice, they didn't want more, or couldn't be bothered to make it happen. It was a social thing for them. One young man who graduated high school with me, 4th in the class, had a dream of moving out of his mother's house so he could get his own address and start collecting his own welfare checks. He was a bright guy, could have gone to college for nearly free and easily pulled himself, and his family out of poverty, but that's not what he chose to do.

      Not all poor are there by choice, but unless they are unable to work though no fault of their own, they need not stay in poverty.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:Why fight them? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently communities and groups of individuals have zero rights according to you. Just the single individual.

      So the communities of people who fight for municipal broadband are all wrong. Because it comes between the right for an individual to choose Comcast. (Because that's his only choice.)

      I'm libertarian myself and these 3rd grade libertarian fantasies regularly spouted embarass the fuck out of me.

      Your are mixing a discussion about 'rights' with market principles, hence your confusion. If you are open to allowing market principles, communities are free to get together and decide not to buy from dollar stores which in the end results in their shutdown or lack of desire to expand in those communities. If enough individuals still shop there, the market will know. However, using legislation to determine who can sell in a community would not be market driven result.

      As to who has 'rights', that is defined constitutionally, and communities do have the 'right' to create such legislation, even if it does not follow market principles.

      Should communities have the 'right' to limit shopping choices for individuals in the community, some or many of who may want to shop at dollar stores?

      Striking the right balance between both can be a challenge, different people will have different opinions on to where that balance line should be.

    11. Re:Why fight them? by Entrope · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Probably everyone has experienced cheaply made goods not lasting as long as more expensive goods, but the ratio in durability is less than the ratio in price. You can find cheap jeans for $10 to $20 at a big-box, low-end store. They will seldom last as long as $220 (or much more) jeans from a high-end store, but they will last a lot more than 1/11th as long at 1/11th the price. That is why the Sam Vimes argument is bunkum.

    12. Re:Why fight them? by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First, I think you should consider that your sample space is pretty skewed. I don't think that you live in poverty, so your exposure to that population is quite low.

      Second, the working poor is a surpassingly large segment of the population. Real wages haven’t increased with inflation for years, and while things like TVs and electronics have gone down in price relative to inflation, essential goods haven't.

      There's some location dependency as well. Consider a worker in San Francisco that drives a bus or works at contracted janitorial staff. Many of them have to live far outside the city and spend enormous amounts of time commuting. It leaves very little time to do anything that might get them into a better job, and they’re spending every penny they have on rent and survival; many have low or non-existent credit (though that may be a blessing in disguise, because you're not wrong about the dangers of credit or how businesses extending credit are predatory nightmares).

      Poverty isn't just a matter of how hard you work. There are a lot of circumstances that go into how it plays out, and once you're poor, the options for getting out become more and more limited. Social mobility is getting lower by the year.

      Lastly, there are "frivolous" purchases that poor people make that bring them just a bit of joy or relief, and while it's easy to say that they shouldn't be smoking or eating a bag of chips, life is hard enough without letting yourself just have something small for yourself.

      The working poor are just that, and it can be nearly impossible for them to break out of the cycles of poverty once they're in them. Plenty of them are perfectly willing to work to get out of the mess they're in but circumstances don't always allow for it.

    13. Re:Why fight them? by dasunt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason why people fail is because they cannot hold savings long enough to buy the expensive but durable goods. Instead, they'll spend their savings on something they don't need (as much).

      Grew up poor, am doing well right now.

      My success is due to a few things. Hard work helps. Being in the right field helps. Having a partner helps.

      But so does luck. Luck in my gender, my height, even my name all have been shown to increase the chance of financial success in life. Luck in where I was born, and in what state, gave my poor family the ability to have state programs that were pretty good, and a local school that was also pretty damn good. Luck in my family, especially my mother, who didn't sabotage my life or my siblings. Luck I didn't make any irreversible mistakes in my teens and young adult hood that would have nailed me with a felony, huge debt, or a kid to support. Luck in my health, which is pretty good.

      When we criticize the poor for being poor, we do two things:

      The first is to feel better about ourselves - by believing that poverty is within our control, it shields us from it - we won't become poor because we won't make the wrong mistakes.

      The second is that we hold the poor up to a standard that we don't require of the middle class. The middle class makes a slew of financial mistakes to screw over their lives, and we don't hold them accountable for it. Why is it that we require the poor to be saints with their meager incomes, while we don't hold the middle class to the same standard. The middle class is burdened with avoidable debt, consuming a ton of crap, underfunding their retirements, and often without an emergency fund. Yet we don't criticize them for buying things they don't need, even if they are making bad financial decisions. We'll even empathize with the middle class for not having enough money to go around.

      But buy something nice for yourself as a poor person, and everyone will judge. Even own something nice as a poor person, and people will make assumptions.

      It's a double standard, and an unfair one at that.

    14. Re:Why fight them? by denzacar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Spoken like a man who never had problems affording or purchasing a good pair of boots.
      If you can't grasp a metaphor, maybe an anecdote (or two) will help?

      I'm a kinda guy who destroys footwear. High instep plus an old ankle injury... I have a funny step.
      I've worn out three pairs of army boots during less than a year of service - and I was in personnel.
      And you can bet your ass I was maintaining those boots, being a lowly conscript surrounded by officers and NCOs all day.

      Important caveat - I'm a Bosnian. But rules of the market still apply.
      Anyway... for years I would buy a pair of boots around November... wear them until the spring... then start wearing them in September-October while looking for a new pair.
      Tried out civilian versions of army boots (no worse or better than the actual thing issued to recruits), various hiking shoes/boots, supposedly fancier (2-3 times the price of the army kind) boots... all the same crap.
      One pair of hiking shoes literally fell apart as I was cleaning them for the next season - soles fell off.

      Granted... none of those boots were ever more than maybe $75 (the fancy kind). But they were all crap, regardless of price.
      Now... I could maybe shell out much more than that for a fancy pair of hiking boots... those look robust...
      But who's to say those won't fall apart in a year? They are sold in the same boutique.

      Then... I discovered work boots. Not "work boots" sold at boutiques - the real deal. Steel toecaps, heavy, hard and ugly.
      And actually cheaper than most boots cause they tend to be "ugly" and a single boot will weigh as much as a pair of fancy boots. A decent pair would be $20-30.
      Then I found the REALLY good ones.
      Italian manufacturer, high shaft, laces and zippers, all the regular trimmings, ten-year warranty...
      Sure... at around $60 a bit pricier, for that kind of footwear, but still cheaper than what I used to pay shopping for "civilian" boots.
      And I even got to test that warranty - cause thanks to my "magic feet" the leather started tearing.
      Yes, you can technically use that quick-access zipper to put them on quickly... but that may not be such a great idea.
      But hey... they were under warranty, so I replaced them, wore those for 3 seasons... and as they were starting to show quite a bit of wear and tear (still not leaking though) - I went to the same shop to buy another pair.
      They are no more.

      Thing is, those were some REALLY good boots.
      So good in fact that the manufacturer stopped making them. Thought of ordering some directly from the manufacturer - they don't make them anymore.
      You want all those features (it's the quick-release zipper) on a pair of work boots? Competition sells that for twice as much and in a wider color range.
      Clearly, not because it costs twice as much to make them or cause the manufacturer would be losing money.
      It's cause that's what "the market will bear" and the manufacturer would be losing "potential earnings".
      And to add insult to injury, I'm clearly so far out of "the market" that even should those other boots (with the same features) be worth the price, I'd have to take a 5-hour ride just to try them on.
      Ended up buying a pair of "similar but clearly not the same quality" Romanian-made boots for around $50.

      Similarly... We went shopping for a freezer a few months back.
      After digging around online, driving around local malls and shops, checking and comparing features, sizes, quality, price...
      Turns out you can either buy cheap crap, cheap crap that is too big, cheap crap which spends twice as much electricity as it should in that price-feature range - or you can buy large freezer-fridge combos, which are more expensive and for which we don't have room. And they might be crap too... didn't check.
      Buuuuut... if I check the manufacturer's website - they DO produce and sell better freezers.
      More isolation, use less electricity...
      They just don't sell them here.
      Cause they sell for about $60 more.
      Market won't bear such a high

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  2. Why stop at dollar stores? by SPopulisQR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Article is just wonderful. Stores are the reason why they are poor.... right. No no, these stores are bad because they sell stuff too cheap! Undercut prices for toilet paper, soap, coca cola and doritos! Have they considered that America is a free country and if it was profitable to sell fresh food, somebody would be selling. Further, a quick google MAP search uncovers a plenty of grocery shops all over Tulsa, OK, including northern part. The hero in the article, the politician, is clear about her background: never lived outside of town.....

    1. Re:Why stop at dollar stores? by hjf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did your analysis include historical "grocery store location", and compare the number of grocery stores over the last decade vs the number of dollar stores last decade?. Oh yeah, it didn't.

      McDonald's sells cheap food. This is the reason why, in America, "fresh food" is expensive. A "free country" where the "free market" has decided it has to be cheaper for a person to drive several miles to a mcdonald's every day and get their food is cheaper than having stuff in the pantry and cooking at home.

      Are you sure there are no "government subsidies" somewhere, skewing your "free market" theories? Because I'm all for free market, but the USA doesn't play fair with free trade. They offer you a "free trade agreement" with zero tariffs for your country. Except after the tariffs they have another layer of regulations that keep your product from being sold in the USA. For example, Argentina has been trying to sell lemons in the US. We can produce them cheaply. But we have quotas on how many we can sell and they need to be a certain size and color... I thought it was a free market and the market would solve it? Why so many regulations? Try selling corn to the USA and let me know how it goes. Ah yes, We have to subsidize these farmers, or they'll lose their jobs.

    2. Re:Why stop at dollar stores? by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      McDonald's sells cheap food. This is the reason why, in America, "fresh food" is expensive.

      I'm quite sure that people can cook a home meal for less than a McDonalds meal, especially if you have to drive there. Going to McDonalds is just less effort, and very tasty.

    3. Re:Why stop at dollar stores? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm quite sure that people can cook a home meal for less than a McDonalds meal, especially if you have to drive there. Going to McDonalds is just less effort, and very tasty.

      I'm pretty sure the difference is less than in Europe though, there's a lot of good things to say about our social democracy but it's anything but free. Here in Norway if I go to the store the staff cost is relatively small per unit sold and I pay only 15% VAT. If I go to McDonald's to eat it's a service and I pay 25% VAT, though takeaway is just 15%. But the store also have to pay employee taxes (normally 14.1%) + various employee rights, the worker has to pay social security taxes (normally 8.2%), general income tax (22%) and bracketed income tax (0-16.1%).

      The end result is that more than half my money disappears in taxes before the guy/girl on the other side of the counter gets a paycheck. For specialized services you don't really have a choice, but for something like cooking food we usually do it ourselves. Housecleaning is the same or on the black market, I have it done legit and it's near twice the price. We also bring way more packed lunches than what's normal in the rest of the world. Basically the tax burden is not very conductive to the exchange of services, it skews the market towards solving the things we can on our own.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  3. Basic Capitalism by mentil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If produce stores can't be profitable without also selling sundries, then I guess people don't want produce bad enough.
    Near where I live, there's a produce store that is always jam-packed full of people. It's like Black Friday at Walmart, all day every day. So the "produce stores can't compete" argument is BS, they just need to make prices reasonable and aim for volume. Produce sections at other grocery stores I go to don't get much traffic, though, probably because the prices are ridiculous and apparently targeted at middle-class shoppers, even the non-organic stuff.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  4. Re:Dollar store isn't a grocery store by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean, Ikea sells pizza. I don't know why anyone would expect a furniture store to sell pizza but... here we are.

    The problem with IKEA’s pizza is the damn instructions for making it. By the time you figure out how to attach the cheese, the special pepperoni connectors, etc., you’ll have starved to death.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  5. Re:Dollar store isn't a grocery store by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 5, Funny

    "They may have one isle with some canned food"

    That's a pretty big store. Where do you find decent parking near an isle?

    Here in Canada, our stores are not nearly as large as in the States apparently.

    Our stores simply use aisles.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
  6. Red Spots by jmccue · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What a dumb article, it is like saying "Red Spots on your skin is the cause of measles, so do not get red spots"

    There are many causes of poverty, Dollar Stores are a symptom. No money is the cause of Poverty. Without a living wage how can one afford to shop elsewhere

  7. Re:Blooming Nuts by markdavis · · Score: 4, Informative

    >"Now if we want a start in fixing things simply disallow all export of produce and meats from US businesses and that would push down grocery prices quite a bit."

    The economy is more complicated than that. If you cut all exports, there will be oversupply and prices will drop greatly. This is true. But THEN the free market will react and many agricultural businesses will not be able to survive on those lower prices. They will do a combination of shutting down production, raising prices, laying off workers, lowering quality, seek cheap replacement imports, etc... or go out of business. If you subsidize production more, then taxes go up and people have less money and their purchasing power goes down, which is similar to higher prices.

  8. News for Nerds? by pz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this News for Nerds?

    Is it because dollar stores sell electronic parts?

    Or they have a wide selection of computer games?

    They sell the latest laptops?

    Or they have really advanced IT?

    They compute bitcoin hashes with your body heat when you walk through the door?

    Maybe it's me, but there doesn't seem to be any relevance whatsoever.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  9. A ban on ban employee cafeterias and now? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is it with controlling people and their food?
    People want a nice safe, clean employee cafeteria and the big gov says no.
    People have the freedom to shop for food they can afford and big gov says no.
    To protect a system that has more expensive food people can afford?
    People have a sent income, let them find the food they can afford, enjoy and want to eat.
    Freedom to buy products and services that are near them and at a price they can use everyday.
    Should big gov tell a person how to shop, where to shop and that they have to support more expensive "grocery stores"?

    Will the gov say what can be sold? What the lowest cost fresh produce, meats, fruit will be in a community?
    Food shopping is now gov tracked, gov approved and with gov set prices for set food quality?
    Who sets the price, food quality and what an approved grocery stores is?
    Will the cost of all that gov approval be passed on with a new fresh produce, meats and fruit tax?
    Let the free market set food prices, store locations and what to sell.
    No gov regulation needed.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  10. Failed economic and social policies to blame by guruevi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These businesses are just capturing what the market wants or can carry. What has really failed, especially in inner cities are both economic and social policies. When it's better for tax reasons to have a single parent family, you're going to drive the poor to single families which long-term causes both economic and social instability of all sorts. When you give people thousands of dollars per month in overvalued coupons every month to buy 'food' (typically sponsored by or limited to Nestle, Kellogg's, Dole products etc) you're going to create a black market which corner shops and dollar stores are really good at fulfilling the demand for. When we were on food stamps a few years ago, the total value of the 'checks' was $2500/month but at the regular grocery stores, the products were about half the price of the value of the stamp.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  11. Re:canned goods by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's only vaguely true if you've been conned into believing that what the grocery store has is ripe, fresh food. Leafy greens aside, that isn't the case. Produce has to be picked under-ripe to even be shipped successfully, as supermarkets do it anyway. It's often gassed to force ripening (depending on product) and much of it lies around in cold storage for long periods before hitting store shelves. Most of this is a side effect of consumers demanding the same produce be on shelves all year, although some of it results from sourcing produce internationally.

    Then, as a sibling comment points out, there's the issue of toxic can liners. Cans are lined with either plastic or epoxy. Plastic liners are more resistant to breaking when cans are dented, but more likely to leach toxics into their contents. And the likelihood increases if the food involved is acidic, which it often is - even if it isn't naturally so like tomatoes, it's often made so in order to further increase shelf life.

    However, much of what they sell isn't canned at all, but it is preserved. And preserved foods are typically pounded full of sugar in order to extend their shelf life. The proliferation of HFCS isn't all involved in its use as a sweetener; processed food manufacturers use it to replace vegetable oil! It has a similar effect on food texture, but doesn't go rancid like oils do. They then cram it full of citric acid in order to cancel out the sweetness. Citric acid has health benefits in small quantities, but in large ones it threatens gut biota, both challenging digestion and also potentially contributing to a host of problems associated with poor digestive system function.

    There's plenty to object to in the limited selection of foodstuffs supplied by Dollar general and their ilk. If they successfully displace real markets, they can do real harm. And we're only talking about the food so far, and not the cheap plastic disposable bullshit that they sell, which only increases landfilling since it's such garbage.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. Oh, also and... by Texmaize · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are missing one key detail there, chief. Food deserts tend to occur in areas of high crime, which is different than poor. There are poor areas with low crime, and they have grocery stores. It turns out if treat others like shit, they don't open stores. weird.

    --
    "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.