There's also the Market Basket for-profit regional chain, where employees and customers successfully stood up against some family business maneuvers to force out the head, and it's once again generally well-regarded AFAIK (including profit-sharing for employees). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_Basket_(New_England)#20...
I mean… Stop and Shop is literally two blocks from where Russo’s was [1] so I’m not sure what relevance Harvest or Market Basket bring to this conversation. (Edit: I’m not trying to be dismissive, but it’s not really clear why these other stores are relevant. Are you suggesting that perhaps labor is being treated better than at the big chains?)
Russo’s was definitely a high-end, premium prices place: Fancy imported cheeses, a large bakery, fresh-made pasta, and a large selection of fresh fruit and vegetables. I have no idea if the workers were paid better or treated better than anywhere else.
A co-op feels like a different beast altogether, so I’m not sure that the patrons of Russo’s will suddenly just move to shopping there en masse, especially since the market for groceries around here is well served. It really feels like the coop would mostly not be about the food.
I thought someone who's interested in new co-ops in this area would be interested in the history of a prior co-op that operated in this area.
Also, one of the things that the co-op seemed to value was treating workers well, which overlaps with one of my favorite recent stories of people banding together (a little like a co-op), to succeed. And that store is known for better prices than the others, making it more accessible while a certain premium store has been gobbling up other ones, so there's another social justice angle that might be of interest.
Given that Harvest shut down "after years of financial instability", what's the strategy for this new co-op to survive? If you can't run a successful co-op in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where can you?
Seattle area has the nations largest and oldest grocery co-op - https://www.pccmarkets.com. 16 stores and generally doing well. The answer to how to keep it going is to run it like a grocery chain with experienced leaders and good board governance. In my experience a lot of the smaller coops I've seen have a problem separating the ideology from the need to run a business, grocery is notoriously low margin so a little waste is all that is needed to sink the buisness. Check https://www.ncg.coop/find-co-op to find a co-op near you.
> The answer to how to keep it going is to run it like a grocery chain with experienced leaders and good board governance.
PCC is also known to treat employees relatively poorly, just like grocery chains. There are also complaints about an "old boys" culture, familiar to anyone that worked retail long-term.
In the Seattle area, there are better coops like Central Co-op, with similar prices and better worker treatment (since all employees are owners in addition to opt-in shoppers)
At this point, PCC is just Whole Foods with higher prices...
>> PCC is also known to treat employees relatively poorly, just like grocery chains.
I've heard this about every employer in Seattle. Forever, Costco had a great rep, now you can't mention it anywhere without people shitting on it. Starbucks used to give out benefits and was heralded, now being crapped on. Gravity Payments, lol at the founder's recent news stories.
And so forth. A lot of them are with good reason, but I'm pretty sure there's a strong sentiment in this city that "all management is bad management" even in employee-owned stores. Winco is a good example of that.
I mention that my employment at Microsoft was pretty good, despite being caught up in numbers-based layoffs, and people harshly wonder how I can speak well of a former employer who terminated my job without warning.
It's hard to take all the criticism all that seriously, to be honest.
Most places I've lived on the west coast have grocery co-ops. Often they stand out in the market by carrying high quality, locally produced, or "hippie" food.
Some folks prefer to shop there because they like the model - co-op businesses generally seem to be more invested in local communities.
Yes, you are accurately describing the Harvest Co-op which operated in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and failed to thrive. Aka "the People's Republic of Cambridge"?
I dunno, maybe it was mismanaged due to excessive ideological community involvement? Or maybe operating costs were just too high in one of the most expensive cities in the nation?
I went to the one in JP a lot before it closed. Our main issue was that the produce was often rotten / moldy and there were flies inside a lot. It's hard to justify higher fees and being "more healthy" when all your food is spoiled. We went because it was a 5 minute walk but now we use Whole Foods for everything.
Harvest's JP location was costing them an arm and a leg in maintenance and repair due to the building (an old mansion) being in very poor shape, and then Whole Foods bought up a property from a local ethnic 'super' market whose owners were done being in the grocery business.
Harvest built out a very fancy new store very close to a major subway/bus terminus that was gorgeous but everyone went to the Whole Foods which was closer to the higher population-dense areas. Location, location, location - but also WF was very stiff competition.
I never saw rotten produce. I have no idea what the other commenter is on about. Organic, locally-sourced, heirloom produce often isn't as pretty as the stuff genetically modified or bred to survive being shipped halfway around the world and stored in a warehouse for 6 months.
The co-op in Gays Mills, WI has been going strong since the 80's. All you need is a homogeneous community and some hippies. It's hard for one side to get one over on the other side when everyone shares the same corner store, pool, pub, and one-eyed barber. Love that place. You can smell the spices and herbs about 20ft from the door and it's just amazing. Like a spicy masala with a little skunk to it.
I think co-ops work in more rural areas because it's not a fad to be there, it's the smart choice. Places in Cali are competing with an entire world of food on the same 10 square miles.
That place is notoriously kind of a cult. I can see it from a place I frequent, and some of the staff at that place are co-op members. They occasionally engage in illicit gossip, any the co-op sounds awful. They also boast among their members several 60s era leftist terrorists, and weather underground hangers on.
It's not a cult. Sure, there are busybodies pushing weird issues at the general assembly meetings, but I'd compare it to Trader Joe's if it were staffed by mostly volunteers who only work every 6 weeks - bit incompetent, but very normal.
Yep you know the one. It's on the other side of the street from the barber shop and knicknack place the barber's wife owns. the one with those welded metal sculptures of people made from forks and scrap iron and stuff. You from around the area?
> If you can't run a successful co-op in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where can you?
In the UK we have two large grocery co-op chains. Waitrose is a worker owned co-op filling the Whole Foods niche while The Co-op is a consumer owned co-op with a mix of smaller grocery stores and medium sized supermarkets. In the US I think REI is the largest retail co-op, though we have at least one small food co-op in SF.
Once they reach a certain size they’re not all that different from regular public companies.
They’re perhaps more common in financial services with credit unions and mutual funds like Vanguard having customer owned structures. The U.K. used to have building societies (equivalent to US credit unions) but almost all turned into banks giving their members shares in the 80s and 90s.
In Seattle we have PCC, which is at least successful enough to have a bunch of different locations since my childhood. https://www.pccmarkets.com/about/
Here are more details are the year before harvest shutdown. Summarized to say that all the unique organic and varieties of healthy food they were once known for, can now be found at most other grocery stores. https://archive.ph/NEc4o
Vermont has a number of successful co-ops. https://nfca.coop/vt/ has a list of them.
Most food co-ops belong to co-op partnerships and many will cross honor memberships at other co-ops ie the Putney co-op will give you a member discount if you're a Brattleboro co-op member
A co-op has a lot of positive externalities: better customer experience, better benefits, pay, and job satisfaction for the employees than at non-co-op grocery stores, the community it fosters, etc. If these things matter to you, they can outweigh the premium the co-op has to charge to provide them.
I worked in the Lexington Co-op in Buffalo back in the 90s. It was a great job despite the meager pay and benefits (at the time) because I didn't feel like I was the lackey of the customers or my bosses but their friend and neighbor. I was in graduate school, which was depressing and alienating. I found the co-op a far nicer place to live my life than academia. It's been many years, but it's still one of the best jobs I've had. I met my wife there. My pay is better now, but I still shop at co-ops when I can.
I was able to figure out it's in the Boston area by the 617 area code and the name, but after spending 5 minutes looking for its actual location, I still can't find it. It doesn't seem to be on the website, and it's not on Google Maps either.
I read the article, but it is not clear what kind of co-op they want to create.
Is it a brick & mortar, delivery? Is it making deals with local farmers & homesteads, or buying from large distributors at discount?
I have participated in co-ops that were delivery only, local only. It was not always the cheapest, but for planning meals it worked out. The quality was almost always better if I just walked down to the large chain grocery store.
1. The one they're working on results in a "grocery store" when done - it's coop run and handles working with distributors, etc. It often ends up "feeling" like a Whole Foods or similar, as the "non-direct" farm products end up sourced from similar distributors.
2. The "farmer's market" type - where you end up with basically a continual farmer's market - this one can grow into being more of a "grocery store" but is often quite limited on the products available; think almost entirely local farm produce and nothing much else.
3. The "community supported agriculture" type - where you pay a flat fee and get a box every week/month/whatever, but don't really have much choice what's in the box. These can be the "closest to the farm" as you're literally getting boxes of whatever they're harvesting. However, they're often only active during harvest periods and you don't control what's in them.
The third one is the only one I've seen be consistently higher quality (and if I had to rank them it would go 3,2, 1) because the farmers pick the super ripe stuff for the CSA because they know it will be delivered and eaten in a day, not packed into a truck for travel across the country. You can also end up with strange fruits you've never heard of before, but still exist.
The coop in my city (I've been a member for over 30 years) does a very good job of bridging your first two descriptions. It is a full service grocery store, but there is an emphasis on local producers. Not all of the produce or meat is local, but much of it is, and the staff always highlights the number of local producers available on the shelves. The coop also has the largest bulk food section in the area (it puts the bulk section at Whole Foods to shame).
Bulk foods and understanding tare weight on empty containers is one place coops can really shine. Being able to restock your pantry with no packaging waste is wonderful.
We're definitely aiming towards a brick & mortar - but we are still figuring out distribution and more (and will continue to do so until we're open for business)
I have also seen co-ops where members could opt to do labour for both membership and food.
And, although co-ops on the surface sound democratic, they can never achieve full democratic votes.
I have participated with where I get to pick what I wanted from a pre-determined list that I had no immediate input to (the co-op "buyers" were), and I have also seen the list extended to "for the future".
There was one where I got what I got, and had zero choice in what was in the basket.
There was one where my "basket content" could be exchanged with anyone else within co-op, e.g. I had too much sugar beets and member X had too much kohlrabi. We wanted what the other had, bam! exchange made prior to delivery. This also helped with waste reduction.
So much enlightening info in these comments about the economics of these stores and the truth behind the sourcing of the food.
I've been a co-op member for almost 20 years; back before I had kids and lived really close to the store we used to go there almost every day. The biggest draw was always the quality of the food; the chain stores were only selling conventional and mass-produced products and if you wanted a better and/or local product, the co-op was your place. But then in the mid-2000s we got Whole Foods, Trader Joes, and and an organic/specialty aisle in all the supermarkets. Eventually the organic aisle disappeared and it was just organic products on the regular shelves. When we moved away, our new city also had a co-op but it was a 15+ minute drive from home and there was very little draw for us: it was largely the same products we could get at our local stores, but 20% more expensive. The only reason to go there is if we happen to be in the area and/or if there's something we want that we know they only sell there, but that's no different than the 3 big-chain stores in our town.
> The only reason to go there is if we happen to be in the area and/or if there's something we want that we know they only sell there, but that's no different than the 3 big-chain stores in our town.
Actually, there is a difference. The dollars spent at a co-op are far more likely to stay in the local community. On the hand, give it to the big chain, and it's far more like to make it back to HQ (and the shareholders). Not your local community.
"Local Dollars, Local Sense" by Michael Shuman was an enlightening read for me.
Yes and no. With a chain you're certain some % is going back to HQ. That's not the case with a co-op. So even if the goods are sourced outside your area - and chances are some are going to have to be in this era - the co-op still wins in terms of money "retention".
If the co-op banks with a local credit union, that's another plus. Chains likely aren't doing that either.
Again, check out the book. He had great insights and great ideas.
The one thing my local co-op does is being able to buy a random box of seasonal fruit and veg for cheap. That's ended up being cheaper than our supermarket.
I love this! Thanks for sharing the details. The world needs more co-ops.
The US needs to make it easier to incorporate co-ops. As someone who looked into building both a software co-op and a housing co-op, getting the paperwork in order was such a larger hassle than seeing up an LLC.
I abandoned Ember for React even though I liked the former a lot more because the community was tiny meaning there were few resources and it was practically impossible to hire anyone that could hit the ground running. It turned out to be a great decision. I have set up a number of LLCs over the years and it’s dead simple, but I know nothing about setting up a co op. Seems like it shouldn’t be much more difficult except for how rare it is so I’m curious to hear your pain points.
It depends a lot on the state that one resides (or incorporates) in. With LLCs they mostly all follow the same pattern and if you're the sole owner they can be done without charter, initial incorporation docs, etc. With coops, some states follow uniform common law LCA (limited cooperative association) laws and allow worker-owned coops pretty easily (although lawyers are generally less familiar as they're rarer). Other states only allow certain kinds of coops and require charters and organizational documents. Basically, any time you involve more than one person, there is some paperwork (LLC or otherwise). Coops have this, plus the added difficulty of not being uniform around the US.
Last I looked, Colorado and IL had a lot of coop options to choose from, but nothing was as straight forward as an LLC where you just file 1 notice with the state and pay 100 bucks. LCA states are close, but you still have the "many people" issue.
I don't get it. It said nothing about actually providing food. At what point do people grow or get produce?
Also why does race have to be brought into everything? Why have the 8th principal? Looking at your board members all of you are white. All of your support staff is white. Why cant it be just a group of not racist people building a co-op, where all are welcome? Why does everything have to push race? Its exhausting.
Don't get me wrong, I think its great you have a goal and are building something to help your community, I just don't understand some of the choices and I mean this in a "trying not to be a jerk" way.
this article didn't seem to have anything about "race" in it except for a little box at the bottom. DEI is very important for basically any organization that doesn't want to be known as a bunch of exclusionary jerks. "Race", even though it's a only a social construct with no link to science in any way, is a big deal
because people were enslaved for 300 years based on "race". After the Civil War, "race" was still used as an explicit or implicit basis for the next 100+ years to deny rights which continues to this day. So it's been a pretty long, big deal for a huge number of people who have been systematically denied equal status in society for centuries, it's pretty hard for any new endeavor to be equitable without taking an extremely long and hard look at how the endeavor interacts with this massive legacy that US society is only just beginning to attempt to extricate from. For sure it's exhausting. Think how exhausting it must be to be part of a group that's been systematically oppressed and terrorized for hundreds of years. You can choose not to give a shit because it's too "exhausting" to care, but that's not how food coops roll.
> DEI is very important for basically any organization that doesn't want to be known as a bunch of exclusionary jerks.
But the first principle this co-op claims to adhere to already denounces discrimination (including, but not limited to, race), recognizes fundamental human rights, and calls for open access to any person who wants to join[1]. They already can't be exclusionary jerks.
If there is some kind of belief that they are lying about standing by the first principle, what reason is there to believe they will adhere to the eight principle? The redundancy seems pointless.
>"Race", even though it's a only a social construct with no link to science in any way,
Can you flesh out this thought a little more? My first reading of this makes me think your trying to say race has no basis in scientific fact but that doesn't make any sense to me. What do you mean?
"DEI is very important for basically any organization that doesn't want to be known as a bunch of exclusionary jerks"
exactly my point, now you have to push it or you have to be worried about being automatically labeled racist. How condescending and insulting.
"it's pretty hard for any new endeavor to be equitable without taking an extremely long and hard look at how the endeavor interacts with this massive legacy"
No, its not. Just welcome all, you don't have to say anything, just be good people.
I hear what you are saying but I don't think the answer is to constantly harp on it and I would think make it awkward for people of that race. Hey welcome to the coop, we really support Black people here. Sure they're black but they are people first and I have to think its tiresome from their point of view to constantly be reminded that white people see them as other. Its a superior point of view, look how noble we are, protecting the minorities with our power. I am sure the intent is good but I don't think it has the result that is intended. I have to take 4+ hours of classes this month at my employer to be told that I have to treat minorities well when much like this co-op 95% of leadership is white. Its condescending and I don't just mean to me. Just don't be racist and treat people like people. I guarantee just saying this has as much impact as the 4 hours of classes I have to take and their "8th principal"
One of my classes I had to take at a very, very large company told me that if I help out a minority and they get offended to not argue back, but "sit there in my shame". Its reached insanity levels and I think having the opposite effect. At what point does it start driving people that are generally center based politically further to the right. I was surprised as a generally life long liberal when it started to do that to me. I'm not voting for Trump but for the first time in my life I'm likely voting for a Republican governor primarily because of this sort of stuff.
Apologies for my rant, I guess it had been on my mind.
throughout your "rant" as you call it, and your concerns and personal experiences, one theme stands out that you are very concerned and fixated about how all of this is making you feel. I would propose that likely the first step in understanding anti-racist practices and attitudes is learning to think about how others feel about their experiences. "dont be racist" is not really the core of the problem, it's "listen to other people and their experiences". because you can't really, on your own, determine how to "not be racist" without listening to what the victims of actual racism have to say.
I hear what you are saying but again, being "anti-racist" is not a concern of mine. I am not a racist and generally treat everyone I meet the same. I don't have any intention of making "Anti-racism" a part of my personality or understanding it because it is very low on my list of concerns. People are people. They get hired to do a job, I chat with them superficially about what they did during the weekend and that's it. Nothing else really matters. Heck for the most part everyone is just a white name on a black box on zoom now anyway.
"because you can't really, on your own, determine how to "not be racist"" I would argue that I very much can decide on my own. I don't need anyone telling me how to do it. Respectfully, the fact you think you do is a statement about you, not me.
You might want to tell that to among others Jeffrey Goldberg, who thinks Jews have the exclusive right to define what anti-Semitism is - Google “neocon puppet masters”
Why do I have to do that? Does Goldberg represent all Jews? Do you think we Jews have each other on speed dial? He's just a dude expressing his opinion. If one jew says something can you just point to him and be like "well the Jews think this"? Much like one black person or even thousands of them shouldn't be able to decide that most people are racist and require everyone to take hours of courses, neither should Jews or anyone else.
I’m not holding you liable for him, I’m just saying this seems to be a non-negligible school of thought and an assertion that is not easy to respond to as a non-Jew. Goldberg certainly thinks he seems to speak for more than himself.
So he's a narcissist. No one should get to tell someone else how not to be a racist beyond "hey it's expected that to work here you treat everyone equally and with respect". Telling someone they are potentially a racist or anti-x because they don't follow 15 steps provides in a training that you don't have to follow for anyone else is wrong.
==I have to think its tiresome from their point of view to constantly be reminded that white people see them as other.==
It’s interesting how you read DEI and immediately think it only applies to black people. Have you actually asked a black person what they think about it? If so, what did they say? If not, maybe you should.
What are the DEI policies that you support from the Republican candidate? I’ve never heard of that type of one-issue voter.
> It’s interesting how you read DEI and immediately think it only applies to black people.
Right, nobody said it did. That's the predominant content in the USA though so it's what's at issue here. Even you talk about it as if it does.
> Have you actually asked a black person what they think about it? If so, what did they say?
"For [Justice Thomas], white benevolence denies black people the pride of achievement. By contrast, if one is black and overcomes the barriers of Jim Crow, one can be assured that the accomplishment is real. Thomas often invokes the example of his grandparents, who, despite segregation, managed to acquire property and support their family. Though they 'had to work twice as hard to get half as far,' they knew, however far they got, that the distance was theirs. When black people succeed in the shadow of white benefactors, that certainty is lost."
> If not, maybe you should.
Indeed.
> You asked why there was an eighth principle and that is because it was adopted by credit unions [1].
Right, but why? The other principles are things that define credit unions.
> What are the DEI policies that you support from the Republican candidate?
Laws that make it illegal to discriminate against people for "racial" reasons. We just want the laws to make it clear that all racism is racism, even anti-racism.
No I did not. I echoed OP's comments and tried to follow their reasoning.
=="For [Justice Thomas], white benevolence denies black people the pride of achievement.....=
How is this related to DEI?
"As CUNA board chair, Smith had appointed a Diversity and Inclusion Ad Hoc Working Group and tasked its members with looking at the issue. In February, he wrote that their findings and his 40 years in the credit union movement told him the time had come to “officially recognize diversity and inclusion as part of the credit union philosophy.”
==Right, but why? The other principles are things that define credit unions.==
It's not a secret. Credit Unions (and co-ops) also employ people, so it makes sens from that angle, as well.
“Credit unions were established to serve specific – typically underserved – communities, making a place for those who had none. And today, our mission continues to be to provide opportunity and access for all."
And the future community is one that will include more minorities. Almost all growth in the U.S. population is coming from Hispanics, blacks, Asians and other minorities. The Census Bureau forecasts that non-Hispanic whites will be a minority of those ages 18 to 28 by 2028, and a minority of the total U.S. population by 2045.
“If we want to be more relevant to the communities we’re trying to serve, then focusing on becoming more diverse in our workforces really does matter,” Hansing said.” [1]
Re-read your quote, those weren’t Justice Thomas’s words. They are the words of a New Yorker writer. It’s not his quote. Also, DEI is not only about black people. Affirmative Action is not the same as DEI.
== By that rule everything such as encouraging eating more vegetables should be in there.==
Credit Unions, the ones who wrote the principles, don’t have anything to do with eating vegetables. They believe DEI to be topical for their business. Have you run a Credit Union?
I like how you dismiss their opinion on their business practices, while embracing one person’s view of affirmative action as the definitive statement on DEI. It’s quite a stretch.
No, but I've been part of co-ops and other community run groups for decades.
> Credit Unions, the ones who wrote the principles, don’t have anything to do with eating vegetables
Right, and they also don't have anything to do with race quotas. Or religion quotas or climate change or justice for the Armenian genocide.
> They believe DEI to be topical for their business.
The employees are certainly free to feel that these are the main issues in the world and to direct their charity work towards them but the organization itself should remain focused on the reasons the co-op was founded.
> you dismiss their opinion on their business practices, while embracing one person’s view of affirmative action as the definitive statement on DEI
Right. I've been there in the business practices but I've never been a type-A black man trying to succeed against all odds in a racist nation.
> Re-read your quote, those weren’t Justice Thomas’s words.
I do think his actual quotes support the authors view but you're right.
> DEI is not only about black people. Affirmative Action is not the same as DEI.
Affirmative Action is a tactic, DEI is a framework that encompasses it and many other things.
== Right. I've been there in the business practices but I've never been a type-A black man trying to succeed against all odds in a racist nation. ==
This is exhausting. In your mind, one 75-year-old black man can speak for all of DEI, but actual Credit Union experts have no idea how to run Credit Unions. Meanwhile, the head of the CUs is a black man and also an expert in CUs. He succeeded against all odds in a racist nation, but you have completely de-valued his thoughts/experience because you dug in so deep.
== Right, and they also don't have anything to do with race quotas.==
Who mentioned quotas? This is the tactic you've shown over-and-over again in this discussion, continually throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. You move the conversation away from the actual topic to go down some rabbit hole.
The article specifically mentions black people.
" It’s a bit shocking that this is still an open question for the co-op movement, especially given that the national groups are just now starting to recognize the work done by African-Americans in co-ops throughout our country’s history."
"What are the DEI policies that you support from the Republican candidate? I’ve never heard of that type of one-issue voter."
I am a father to 2 white optimally straight (downvote me if you like but I would prefer my kids be straight, if they are not then I love them the same) boys. I find the school systems and corporate worlds constant focus on the rights of everyone except them tiresome and worrisome. I live in Florida so going to vote for Desantis. I don't like him at all but I respect his stance on this. I am going to vote for him based on this single issue.
You asked why there was an eighth principle and that is because it was adopted by credit unions [1]. It doesn’t only apply to black people.
So you haven’t actually asked a black person if they are offended by it. It is in fact you who are offended by it. Makes much more sense.
What exactly is DeSantis’s “stance on this”? I know he championed a bunch of laws on what teachers can do/say, and which books are acceptable to read (i.e. regulations). I’m a father to two white boys. The world seems to be treating them just fine. They don’t seem like victims, to me.
Of course its me that's offended by it, I don't think I was hiding it. With that said, I'm jewish, we've kind of had our own rough go of it. Good part of my family died in the holocaust and the Russian Pogroms. I had stones thrown at me as a child on 2 occasions because I was Jewish. In elementary school I had to sit outside in the open hallway rain or shine while the christian kids prayed (I'm not from America originally). I would never work for a company that singled Jews out beneficially and taught classes that said be polite to the Jews and don't discriminate against them. It means they are specifically saying I am different and that my coworkers are potentially anti-Semites. That's pretty awkward.
Desantis' stance is essentially telling teachers don't talk about Gay/Trans issues in the classroom and don't teach in such a way as to make children of a specific race feel bad or guilty for being of that race. You can argue it goes further than this and perhaps it does but that's my main takeaway and the reason for my vote. I'll still vote Biden for president though. I'm leaning towards voting Dem for federal positions and Republican on a state level.
My kids are also Jewish, from my wife’s side. It is interesting to hear the comments of people when they have no idea.
Voting for split representation is a perfectly reasonable approach. I personally think DeSantis is pro-power, not pro-freedom. His stunt with asylum-seeking migrants is a great example. Also the fact that Florida doesn’t have things like legal weed, legal sports betting, legal abortion, and more.
I for the most part agree with all your points on Desantis. Medical marijuana in Florida is a joke, I'm pro legalization. Not a fan of gambling personally but to each their own. On a personal level I think he's a Jerk. So with all that said as someone in my 40s that has only voted Democrat before, the fact that I am voting for Desantis shows how concerned I am with the social engineering going on in the country.
I think DeSantis is the one engaging in social engineering, you just happen to agree with his policies. He is simply leaning into the culture wars which leads us to continued division without any actual solutions for the very real problems in our states/country.
I haven’t seen any evidence that being “anti-woke” improves K-9 test scores, lowers infant fatality rates, reduces mass shootings, improves quality of life, increases earnings, or any other actual benefit to citizens. It’s a distraction meant to prey on your emotions and hide the lack of actual policies.
Maybe true, but I'm not looking for solutions to those things. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have solved them. California still has all the same issues. I specifically don't want to be treated as a racist in training by taking a million anti discrimination classes or be insulted by a class telling me to "sit in my shame". In addition I don't want schools to have the power to treat kids as different genders and not alert the parents. Nor do I want teachers to be able to promote transgenderism or homosexuality as a viable option for kids. If the child is gay or transgender on their own, so be it. School should not be the realm to promote it or suggest it.
> I specifically don't want to be treated as a racist in training by taking a million anti discrimination classes or be insulted by a class telling me to "sit in my shame".
it seems like this class your job had you take is a real source of trauma for you. While I think I know what someone would have meant by "sit in your shame" (they meant, if someone tells you something you said/did was offensive, just drop it, don't fight them on it), it's certainly not something you can expect white people who have never thought about any of this stuff to just nod their heads in agreement. it seems like the people doing the class are probably not well trained in how to do this kind of thing because if it leaves the students more hostile than when you started, that is likely counterproductive. But bigger picture, that you had a bad diversity class at your job is not the main issue as far as racism is concerned, it's the ongoing institutional racism itself that has a much more harmful effect on the actual victims. Like, someone told you to "sit in your shame", they didn't kneel on your neck until you were dead because they felt like it, or send you to prison for 12 years for filling out a form incorrectly. There's some proportionality to be considered here.
> In addition I don't want schools to have the power to treat kids as different genders and not alert the parents.
FOX News propaganda. this is not a thing
> Nor do I want teachers to be able to promote transgenderism or homosexuality as a viable option for kids.
transgenderism and homosexuality are not "options". you can't "decide" to be trans or gay. you are born that way. Surely, as someone who claims they have been a "liberal Democrat", you accept.... gay rights at least?
> School should not be the realm to promote it or suggest it.
FOX News propaganda. not a thing. Saying that "gay people exist" is not equivalent to "promoting it". If OTOH you think kids should be raised in complete ignorance that some people marry others of the same gender or wish to live their lives as other genders, then again, the "liberal Democrat" label really doesn't apply, that's a homophobic and bigoted opinion.
I'm pro gay marriage and want trans people to be able to transition if they want. What I have no interest in is anyone presenting either as an acceptable option to my kids. If they end up gay, so be it ill love them the same but no one should be putting those thoughts in their heads.
I'm white but also a jew, as I said in another comment, I have had stones thrown at me as a kid for it. I would never want my coworkers to have to take classes on anti semitism because it assumes they are potential anti semites. That is insulting. I have had calm informative conversations over beers with open anti semites, I'm fine. It did not bother me in the least because I'm not fragile. People are entitled to their opinions, right or wrong.
Every one is entitled to live their lives and raise their kids as they see fit barring some rigidly defined abuse. Parents not some teacher making 35k a year are the ultimate decider in kids lives; to push for anything else is insane and gives government and random people with teaching certificates an unholy amount of power. You seem to want to police people's minds and demand that every one adhere to your world view or they are terrible people. Most people just want to live their lives and be left alone. We don't care about movements or reparations for things we had nothing to do with. Raise your kids how you want and everyone else can do the same.
This is not Iran, we don't need a morality police. America is and will continue to be the greatest country on earth because of individual freedom and our at least historical ability to agree to disagree with each other.
No examples from Florida, the state being discussed. The two "articles" you did provide are sourced from the same author at the same publication "The National Desk" (owned by Sinclair Broadcasting). One the sources they use is The Epoch Times, which is not a reputable publication. Interesting source material for a self-proclaimed "Democratic party voter".
==What I have no interest in is anyone presenting either as an acceptable option to my kids.==
The alternatives are (1) pretending it doesn't exist or (2) presenting is as an unacceptable option. Do you prefer to pretend it doesn't exist?
==I would never want my coworkers to have to take classes on anti semitism because it assumes they are potential anti semites. ==
I don't follow. Everyone is a potential anti-Semite. If you aren't then the class shouldn't bother you. It's the same as the "shame" exercise. If you have no shame about your actions, why would it bother you?
==You seem to want to police people's minds and demand that every one adhere to your world view or they are terrible people.==
By banning books and outlawing what teachers can teach?
==This is not Iran, we don't need a morality police.==
And yet, we have Ron DeSantis, your guy, saving us from things that weren't being taught to kids in the first place. I couldn't think of a better example of morality police.
Why would I need examples in florida, the entire reason I stated I am voting for Desantis is to prevent there being florida examples. What does them being from the same source matter? Are you saying they are invalid? If your chosen media outlet does not cover certain news is it not news?
"I don't follow. Everyone is a potential anti-Semite. If you aren't then the class shouldn't bother you. It's the same as the "shame" exercise. If you have no shame about your actions, why would it bother you?"
Your argument is basically "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear"
I assume you are a proponent of stop and frisk. Everyone is a potential criminal, if they have nothing to hide then they should have nothing to fear from getting searched right?
The fact that you would defend being treated like a potential racist or antisemite is strange to me. Whats next? Everyone is a potential pedophile so everyone's web traffic should be monitored? You are on a slippery slope to 1984 but you think the people from the book in control are the good guys.
Banning books? Are there certain books that Desantis has made illegal to possess in Florida? Or are you just spouting nonsense to make removing certain books from schools seem nefarious? Can I stock the local elementary school with penthouse magazines? If you are answering no, then you are banning books. Of course teachers should not be able to teach whatever they want, to argue otherwise is insane. Are you good with teachers teaching the holocaust never happened or the bell curve? There is a curriculum for a reason.
You are parroting talking points you see on social media without exploring the topics any further.
Funny thing is I bet we follow a lot of the same left leaning people on twitter but the things they say have driven me to the right while you agree with them. I think most of the right wing social and traditional media personalities are idiots. My shift to the right has almost entirely been driven by the content of liberal twitter accounts and DEI classes I have had to take.
I have openly stated I think Desantis is a jerk and I disagree with many of his stances. On the points that are driving my vote I agree with him.
1. Not teaching homosexuality and transexuality as an option to school kids. This is not a topic for school.
2. Not treating white people as racist by default.
3. Not discriminating in anything by race
4. Not punishing people for the content of their minds
5. Parents are the ultimate deciders for their kids, the school has no say on what is best for them if it conflicts with the Parents wishes
This thread has gone on far to long, so calling the game. Lets agree, I'll vote however I want and treat everyone as if they are good by default and you vote for whoever you want and treat everyone as if they are suspected racists and anti-semites by default.
All the best to you and yours. I wish you a long and happy life.
== You are parroting talking points you see on social media without exploring the topics any further. Funny thing is I bet we follow a lot of the same left leaning people on twitter but the things they say have driven me to the right while you agree with them. I think most of the right wing social and traditional media personalities are idiots. My shift to the right has almost entirely been driven by the content of liberal twitter accounts and DEI classes I have had to take.==
I’m not on Twitter or any social media (besides HN). Must be nice to know everything about everyone without even having to bother with asking.
You gave me a whole profile of myself based on your mistaken beliefs. Then try to claim I am the one who judges people. Maybe time to take a break from social media.
We weren't talking about California, the topic was Florida. That said, California's Governor is trying to solve those issues through policy, Florida's Governor is focused on being "anti-woke". Meanwhile, California has a Maternal Mortality Rate of 4/100k, Florida's is 22/100k [1]. One out of every 4,500 Florida women forced to carry a baby to term will die.
Interestingly, the 7 best states for K-12 education are all pretty "woke" [2]. Florida is ranked 33rd in math scores and 22nd in reading, maybe we should be looking to them for best practices rather than focusing one something completely unrelated to actually educating youth.
Edit to add: My state Illinois has much higher standard for students than Florida, which basically grades proficiency on a curve. Lowering the standards rather than the hard work of actually improving education.
"In Illinois, a student needs to earn a level of 4 or 5 to be considered proficient. In comparison, the rigor of Florida’s standards ranks 39th and 42nd, respectively, and a student only needs to earn a level 3 on the state assessment to be considered proficient." [3]
==treated as a racist in training by taking a million anti discrimination classes or be insulted by a class telling me to "sit in my shame".==
I've never had that feeling in a DEI class. I wonder why that is your reaction. It may be worth exploring why discussing equity makes you feel like you are losing something. Maybe you had a bad instructor?
==If the child is gay or transgender on their own, so be it. School should not be the realm to promote it or suggest it.==
This is the sex-ed argument all over again. If we don't mention underage sex, it doesn't exist. Talking about gay people doesn't turn someone gay. Banning books and regulating what teachers can teach/say doesn't seem like a solution to the problem you mentioned. It seems the same as mandating abstinence.
Lol, I didn't have the feeling that it wanted me to "sit in my shame", it legitimately said it on a slide.
Again all valid points. My focus though is very self centered as a parent, it's on my kids and no one else.
My kids are A students and attend gifted classes, their schooling is fine. Regarding infant mortality, again you are probably right with the numbers but they are not my focus. All of these things were my focus for a very long time, don't forget I have been a hard core Dem for 20+ years. My concern now is my kids and what I want them exposed to at school. I have been pretty focused on doing the greater good politically for a long time. In regards to the current upcoming state elections I am going to be selfish and focus only on what is best for my family for the next 4 years.
Note: I am also very aware that my change in focus and world view is significantly linked to my high income and the benefits it provides me right now. I just am fine with it, and am putting my goals and wants for my family over everything else. I worked 50-60 hours a week for years to get here. I'm not opposed to being selfish for a bit.
==I didn't have the feeling that it wanted me to "sit in my shame", it legitimately said it on a slide.==
Did you feel shame? If I was told that, and didn't feel shame, not sure I would have dwelled on it so much.
You do you. We make a very high income as well, and my politics have gone in the exact opposite direction as yours over 20 years. Over those 20 years, higher-educated and higher-earning Americans have become far more likely to vote Dem. You are actually swimming against the tide. I watched the affluent area I grew up in (DuPage County) move from bedrock Regan Republican to Democrat over my lifetime.
When Republicans failed to create a replacement for ACA after campaigning on it for ~8 years and 4 elections (2010, 2012, 2014, 2016); I realized they weren't actually interested in governing. DiSantis is the embodiment of that "bluster-over-policy" approach.
== In regards to the current upcoming state elections I am going to be selfish and focus only on what is best for my family for the next 4 years.==
I hope it works out for your family and also the many other families in Florida.
No one has the right to tell me to sit in my shame. No one has the right to make someone else feel lesser for the benefit of a specially selected other. If someone is offended by something I say or a way I act then I am willing to discuss their issue with it. At no point in time will I feel shame or sacrifice my pride. Pride is what makes someone who they are. Take away pride and you are left with a shell of a person. Look at people with no confidence, life for them is empty and grey.
> This is the sex-ed argument all over again. If we don't mention underage sex, it doesn't exist. Talking about gay people doesn't turn someone gay.
Democrats nicknamed it the "don't say gay" bill but that isn't its name, its goal, or its outcome. It's about the age appropriateness of the introduction to the topic.
The issue, to the parents who campaigned for the bill and the politicians who passed it, is gender. Unlike homosexuality (LGB), talking about gender does turn people transgender - or rather has the school hook the child up with hormones and body modification without the parent's knowledge.
Just fyi, about the news renaming and reframing things before you hear about them, Florida republicans protected women's sex-based rights by making male-bodied people play sports on men's teams and the news called it "denying transgirls their human rights to play sports".
> [To WonderWonder] Did you feel shame? If I was told that, and didn't feel shame, not sure I would have dwelled on it so much.
WonderWonder is thinking of their children, and how they'll be told they're racist - and to sit in their shame - just because of their race. That's a pretty regressive outcome so I understand them wanting to avoid it.
> Unlike homosexuality (LGB), talking about gender does turn people transgender
categorically false
> or rather has the school hook the child up with hormones and body modification without the parent's knowledge.
source? schoolteachers can prescribe medication and perform surgery? Are these teachers also MDs ? That would be unusual ? not to mention extremely illegal for teachers and doctors to treat children without the consent of their legal guardians? teachers can't even give kids a tylenol.
> WonderWonder is thinking of their children, and how they'll be told they're racist
the word "racist" in modern use refers to actions that are racist, such as voting for Ron DeSantis. It doesn't matter if in your heart you're racist or not, if you do racist things, whether you have any idea or not that those things are racist, that's what it means to "be a racist".
Sadly, true. Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria as described in Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier. It's a social contagion.
Over 95% of transgender children, left to themselves, desist. Many realize they're gay/lesbian, the others are just fine too.
> schoolteachers can prescribe medication and perform surgery? [...] extremely illegal for teachers and doctors to treat children without the consent of their legal guardians?
Look at Mermaids and Keffals. People will send you hormones and breast binders even if they know you are underage and it is expressly against your parents' wishes. Teachers and counsellors often hook children up - LibsOfTikTok has videos of people admitting to this. Legal advocacy groups are telling teachers unions that they need to help keep this a secret from parents lest the child be forced to kill themselves.
> the word "racist" in modern use refers to actions that are racist
"In modern use" means "as we redefined it to win arguments".
> if you do racist things, whether you have any idea or not that those things are racist [...] such as voting for Ron DeSantis.
> People will send you hormones and breast binders even if they know you are underage and it is expressly against your parents' wishes.
sending hormones to children without medical professionals involved is illegal. do you know of teachers doing this? call the police. problem solved.
> Teachers and counsellors often hook children up
you're being very sloppy with your wording. "hook children up" means "giving drugs to children". not happening, if it is happening, call the police.
> LibsOfTikTok has videos of people admitting to this
then those people would be arrested
> Legal advocacy groups are telling teachers unions that they need to help keep this a secret from parents lest the child be forced to kill themselves.
you are confusing "giving drugs to kids" with the practice of teachers keeping confidential when a student verbally expresses to a teacher that they might want to identify of a different gender. Certainly, the latter point is still something that can make people upset, but that's all it is - the child says words to a teacher about how they feel emotionally about something, and the teacher /school is then given leeway to determine that they might not inform the parents if it is feared that the parents will retaliate towards the children. Be mad about that if you want but this is not "transitioning" anyone or "hooking up" anyone with drugs.
> "In modern use" means "as we redefined it to win arguments".
if you are "not a racist", but then you thought it was funny to go to a halloween party wearing blackface, you just did a racist thing. It doesnt matter what you thought in your mind. This is not controversial. if you showed up to a party like that, you practiced racism. nobody cares or need be concerned what you actually think in your mind. If a Nazi throws you in an oven, are you concerned if they are actually anti-Semitic or not?
> sending hormones to children without medical professionals involved is illegal. do you know of teachers doing this? call the police. problem solved.
No, I know of the person sending the hormones. They had the police called on them but they cried to the media and ended up getting the site with the proof shut down amid a total kerfuffle. There are a lot of people like this though and reporting them does nothing.
> then those people would be arrested
Sadly, no. Often not even fired. Teachers are bringing strippers to school to dance for the kids and when parents protest they're being attacked by the school boards. The media is haranguing parents for trying to even be involved, let alone when they point at the problems.
They don't touch the drugs themselves, they simply get the kid onto the Mermaids chat or any of the others and find a groomer to help them.
> you are confusing "giving drugs to kids" with the practice of teachers keeping confidential when a student verbally expresses to a teacher that they might want to identify of a different gender
I wish. Not only do they present "gender affirming" surgery as an option for mood related problems but they don't even wait until a child says they want to identify, they often ask the kids if they want to and in some cases harass them because 'cis is boring'. And the school will definitely broker meetings with counsellors and doctors if they get a hit.
There's a case from my area where the school called the parents in after the child had many (around 10) counseling sessions and had seen a "gender surgeon" for a consultation. The parents were told by the shrink that their daughter was a son and they could recognize that or would have a suicide on their hands. The counselor delivered a suicide threat in the child's name, in front of the child. They already had the testosterone waiting (from the surgeon). When this went to court the school continued to file briefs in the case in concert with the law society and in the end the child was taken away and transitioned. Breasts cut off, poisoned with testosterone.
Had the parents known when the school, the teachers and the counsellor, convinced the child that they were trans they could have responded before she'd been fully groomed and sent off for "affirmative care".
> go to a halloween party wearing blackface
Do you recognize that womanface is just as stereotyping and harmful?
Absolutely, I agree, every black person that votes for DeSantis is 100% a racist. They are doing racist things. Or are we on board the "only white people can be racist" bus? Come on friend you are now policing peoples minds. You have labeled ~50% of the countries population as racist, a pretty serious accusation. This includes a good number of minorities. People have different priorities in life, not everything they do revolves around race. Essentially the people that cry racism the most are generally the racists feeling like they have to white knight for the poor oppressed minorities. The worst part is that they just cant see it, most openly racist people can at least acknowledge it. Black people can do just fine on their own they are not helpless children looking for a hero. And they can vote for whoever they want.
==Essentially the people that cry racism the most are generally the racists feeling like they have to white knight for the poor oppressed minorities. The worst part is that they just cant see it, most openly racist people can at least acknowledge it. Black people can do just fine on their own they are not helpless children looking for a hero.==
You are the only one who has made a claim about anyone being "helpless", but it's good to know that is immediately where your mind went. For someone who totally isn't racist, you seem to know exactly how racist people think.
Exactly, well said. I did not feel shame, I felt pretty irritated that I was being spoken to in that way and even more irritated at the thought that by the time my kids are getting their first job it could be way worse. They are essentially asking you to sacrifice your pride on the alter of being progressive.
Girls being forced to play sports against men is irrational. The most troubling aspect though is as you said, schools being able to decide that a student is of another gender and act for all intents like they are without informing the parent or getting their consent. Any actions performed on a student by a member of the school staff should only be with the express written permission of the parent.
Its my personal belief that a large percentage of the rise in transgenderism is because of kids being exposed to the concept via the media, pornography and school. If you keep the concept away from kids until they are older I am pretty sure the prevalence would fall dramatically.
I am not anti trans, I wish everyone a happy and satisfying life, I just have no interest in exposing my kids to the concept. While very low in number, the situation with schools actually allowing drag shows on campus shows how far from common sense we have strayed. Society is catering to it. Parents should have a 100% control over their kids and any decisions made on their behalf.
This opinion may be a little controversial but I'm also not a fan of thought police either where people are punished for having ideas or opinions outside of the norm. If someone does their job and treats everyone with respect at work, what they believe in their off time is their business as long as they are not a violent threat or breaking the law. I have on at least 3 occasions had calm rational conversations with open anti-semites (of the Jews rule the world and are responsible for its ills variety, not the kill them all variety) and even gone drinking with them. They knew I was a jew but we could still converse and be respectful. I would be fine working with them as long as they kept their attitudes outside of the office and again did not resort to violence or break the law. We cannot punish people for the contents of their mind.
==Democrats nicknamed it the "don't say gay" bill but that isn't its name, its goal, or its outcome.==
The actual bill language sure makes it seems like the goal, as it was written with ambiguous phrases like "age-appropriate" and "developmentally appropriate":
"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards." [1]
==It's about the age appropriateness of the introduction to the topic.==
Is it? I'm pretty sure it is grandstanding:
"one of the key reasons critics cited in saying the law was unnecessary was that teachers do not cover such subjects in early grades anyway." [2]
Lawyers disagree with you that it is only about "age appropriateness of the introduction to the topic":
"Workshops about the law that her school district’s legal team held over the summer caused confusion. Some staff said they were told teachers in kindergarten through third grade could not display pride flags or photos of their same-sex spouses." [2]
Are you sure your news didn't "rename and reframe" it?
==Florida republicans protected women's sex-based rights by making male-bodied people play sports on men's teams and the news called it "denying transgirls their human rights to play sports".==
Protecting one group's rights by denying another group's rights, similar to women and fetuses.
==rather has the school hook the child up with hormones and body modification without the parent's knowledge.==
I would love to hear more about all these cases. Can you share?
==WonderWonder is thinking of their children, and how they'll be told they're racist - and to sit in their shame - just because of their race.==
No, they were mentioning their own experience in a DEI class.
> Protecting one group's rights by denying another group's rights
How were the males involved denied their rights by the school having them play sports on the men's team? The females involved sure lose their rights when males are allowed into their sports and spaces.
> I would love to hear more about all these cases. Can you share?
Lookup "Keffals" and "Hoogland transgender".
> Some staff said they were told teachers in kindergarten through third grade could not display [...]
If you're using something as a lead-in to a forbidden topic for your class's age range, it would be forbidden. Generally teachers should be like counsellors and keep their private life private so it shouldn't be a problem.
> Are you sure your news didn't "rename and reframe" it?
Yes, because even if it was as "bad" as you say, teacher's don't have a right to tell the kids whatever they want. Teachers are already recommended to not tell kids what religion they are, and until recently, what their politics are. This is about the kids, the teachers have a job to do.
2 Canadian cases that have nothing to do with American laws.
== If you're using something as a lead-in to a forbidden topic for your class's age range, it would be forbidden.==
I don't think displaying a picture of your family is "a lead-in to a forbidden topic". Feels like quite a stretch. I remember everyone of my teachers growing up had picture on their desk or on the wall. My son's teacher has them today.
== the teachers have a job to do. ==
We should let them do the job for which they studied and were hired. They are the experts in teaching, we should let them teach. How do you feel when people who know nothing about your industry tell you how to do your job?
> Canadian cases that have nothing to do with American laws
Do a search or watch LibsOfTikTok to see what's happening in the USA.
> I don't think displaying a picture of your family is "a lead-in to a forbidden topic".
It is if you're hoping to be asked about it. Watch the LoTT videos. Some of those teachers say they're just waiting for their kids to ask about anything queer-adjacent.
> We should let them do the job for which they studied and were hired.
Many parents are/were teachers and have equivalent education. They agree that schools bypassing parental safeguarding rules is unacceptable.
> How do you feel when people who know nothing about your industry tell you how to do your job?
Lol, you've met my manager I take it? But I actually like it though because I'm a consultant at heart and explaining and guiding is more important than pedantically providing what I was asked for. If the teachers were willing to explain their PoV maybe the parents would support their teaching but secrets can't be accepted.
> They are the experts in teaching, we should let them teach.
They're experts in phalloplasties and puberty blockers which is why we should give them secret and unfettered access to children?
The same people who want trans-identified male athletes in female sports and washrooms are saying exactly the same thing about child surgical transition, "All the science supports this". It's pretty hard to take them seriously when they say William Thomas has no advantage against female swimmers since he changed his name to Lia or that chemo drugs produce a perfectly reversible delay in puberty.
DEI statements/policy are basically a 'requirement' for organizations these days. Slap on the by now boilerplate policies, do a few seminars (pay speakers in the circuit) and you should be able to more easily do business with other orgs who presumably as part of the requirement above are only allowed to do business with DEI-compliant orgs. A big old virtue signaling circle jerk and nothing important ever really changes.
I have hours of corporate anti discrimination classes I am trying to cram in before the deadline while trying to prepare for a major release. Its on my mind.
There is a local group trying to "disrupt" coops in this way: find members to shell out $$, have a steering committee, do a lot of marketing, all before the coop even has a location in mind.
Meanwhile there are actual coops (though they don't call themselves that) with skyrocketing membership who are doing, not planning, and slowly growing to encompass more than just produce. One of them now has a year-round greenhouse.
I haven't been impressed by the style of coop the author writes about. It seems like the doers are much more successful. Just this past year a new farmers market started in an urban food desert with two vendors in a church parking lot. Now they are trying to find new space because they have 20+ vendors weekly. To my knowledge, they raised zero dollars to get started.
The type of coop that is in the article will end up partnering with UNFI for sourcing of products, and will end up with worse pricing than all the other places that UNFI supplies (Whole Foods is their largest) for the same products.
The coops in my city all used the same consultants that are listed in the article and follow the exact same playbook.
There's one trying to get off the ground here, and it's a similar story - it has been more than five years and nothing has actually happened except marketing whatever it is they're doing.
Meanwhile at least two different actual grocery stores have closed, and two more changed ownership; they could have bought either of them (I daresay a fundraiser would have worked) and kept them running.
Some farmer's markets are hilarious, however, in that they don't actually involve any farmers, just people buying from the same massive supply firms that feed the grocery stores and selling it in little stalls.
Yeah, similar where I moved from about 8 years ago. We joined, they reached their numbers, and then.. nothing happened. We moved away, and it seems to be the same as when we left it. Still no store, but got a website etc.
With the loss of the community grocery store, it seems the author is working on replacing the “community”, and not yet the “grocery store”.
I too am wondering if there is a way to make incremental progress on getting groceries here, without needing to get enough momentum to build a giant store.
Maybe there are 10 most common fruits/vegetables, and the coop with the existing 400 members can bulk purchase those? CSA models ostensibly seem a viable alternative.
They're just two different ways of approaching risk. The so-called "doers" are taking on much more up-front risk than this type of grassroots attempt. Ultimately the goal is the same.
I'm not sure that's true. "Doers" by definition, are putting their effort solely into providing food for a populace. If a company becomes necessary to do that, so be it, but it's an obstacle to be overcome. "Planners" (in this case, at least) are focused on building an organization which meets the 7 + 1 coop goals linked at the end of the article and will, when complete, allow the provision of food to a populace. One is a bottom-up approach, the other is top-down. They share a goal, but they have different aims.
Do you need to create greenhouses and raise vegetables from the start? My understanding is that a coop (like any business) is a means to an end and so you can start out by leveraging what is effectively group buying to source high quality fresh produce and then, once established, gradually iterate towards total self reliance. Does that not work for this model?
Around here the "doers" (we have farmer's markets and similar) are spouses/children of actual farmers, and even though their main product may be fifty five billion bushels of ethanol wheat, the family grows some crops for personal use, and they have been "roadside standing" the excess for years; the farmers market starts as an extension of that and from there can grow.
You'll note that they already were farming for the big players.
The other half are often "hobby farm" hobbyists who may or may not grow to be an actual business (there are at least two or three honey providers that have done this around here - starting small and obviously not the primary income to being large enough to have employees).
Having seen the inside workings of a local farming co-op, I can tell you that they they also do not necessarily grow their own food. Some produce is literally sourced from major chain grocery stores in town and resold with markup by the farmers at the farmer's market. To be fair, the sellers usually do sell some of their own produce as well, if it's in season, but some of them don't hesitate to also simply resell grocery store produce to bulk out their product offerings.
(And frankly, the grocery store produce often just looks more fresh than the produce actually grown by the vendors themselves.)
One problem with the "doers" just doing is that they don't build up the same level of social capital. When times get tough (and as long as we have capitalism, and likely after that too, they will get tough), they tend to fail out much harder and faster than the more traditional style of co-op that can fall back on more solidly established local goodwill.
The local farmer's market that I patronize (not a coop) has been around for 60 years. The one nearer me (a coop, the doer kind) has grown to multiple gigantic facilities, a few satellite locations, and regional name recognition for quality.
As a kid, my family was part of a co-op. I grew up in the boonies, and there was one local grocery store that had horrible selection. The larger chains required long drives to get to, but even then they did not have the produce selections that is the norm now. Instead, each weekend a member of the co-op would visit the farmer's market in the Big City. We were no where near the size of the co-op in the TFA, but it made a big difference in the selection of produce we had. Now, that farmer's market is no longer, but now a series of condos with Farmer's Market as part of their name are there. I just never though that a co-op would be a viable thing in 21st century, so it was definitely interesting reading about how that's not the case.
Ace hardware is technically a co-op, but that would be a surviving one more than one for the 21st century. REI is also a co-op but I couldn’t explain how to save my life.
However, Organic Valley definitely is a co-op, and while they started in 1988 they didn’t seem to get serious traction until around 2000, and now they’re everywhere on the west coast, which is not bad for a Midwest company.
Interesting you mention Ace. It is truly one of my favorite places to visit in new cities. No two Ace stores are the same. One in my area focuses on homesteading, and is known as the place to get your baby chicks to start your chicken raising experiment. They also carry other items that are in this line vs just your typical selection of tools and what not. Then another Ace in Flagstaff saved my butt while on a video shoot as they had some items I had never seen in a local Ace, but were the perfect fit for the off the wall rigging I needed.
The article mentions no open food coops in central or eastern Massachusetts but there are quite a few here in western Mass. Not sure why the difference but maybe it’s due to greatly cheaper rent?
And look how much the land sold for - $36 million! In rural areas the land is basically free, and even then many of the "for-profit" grocery stores are just family owned businesses that have more in common with a coop than you might expect.
I'm not certain that's the biggest reason, I think it's more about the number of local farms, butchers, etc. Middle / upper-middle class health-conscious customers who are passionate about high quality food are a big part of it too, and there's plenty of them in Western MA and close-by NY towns.
In GB (Western MA) the co-op competes with two other cheaper supermarkets. What sets them apart is 2 day old (max) Atlantic seafood and local produce that hasn't been subjected to long distance transit (and the flavorless ripening process). Not having the "beige tiles and fluorescent lights" atmosphere is a huge plus as well.
Can anyone shed more light on why it takes 7-10 years to get to an actual store?
In my head you’d start signing up suppliers / farmers, find a suitable place to rent, get some more funding, build out the store, hire, and start it up. What makes it slower than other businesses?
Coops often find it harder to borrow and they cannot sell equity. This makes the every "get some funding" step harder than it sounds. Going over the list I see a lot of people-organizing and community-outreach efforts. These are definitely going to be more time-intensive than setting up an LLC owned by a single person and running with that.
My apologies, I can see I was not nearly specific enough.
In addition to needing to sell a lot of equity to get enough money, coops generally cannot sell equity to outside parties through general-purpose capital markets to raise funds. Living in a housing coop, you can buy shares as a resident-owner. I would guess your coop does not have many investor-owners who own shares while not living in the housing coop.
The amounts they need are high. They’re trying to get 1000 people to kick in $100 so they can get a multimillion dollar loan. Trying to get that is hard enough, getting them to kick in 3-4K each is nearly impossible, even if you can sell “shares”.
There's a long capital raising period where the co-op will need to raise a substantial amount of capital in the form or preferred shares and owner loans. The co op near me says they need a certain percentage of capital to come from owners in order to secure commercial loans, and they've recently completed raising capital after signing up owners for the last 9 years.
Most co-ops pair with local distributors and national ones (the most prominent being National Co-op Grocers - https://ncg.coop) to actually get the food, but tons of steps to do before we are ready for this!
I belong to 120 person food co-op. Its operated out of the basement of house since the 80s. We're a different model than described here, its a hybrid of a buying club and a grocery store. All of the labor is unpaid, you must be a member to shop, it has limited official open hours but everyone gets a key and can shop themselves whenever they like. Most people pay a 20% markup on goods but people that have extra responsibility pay less.
If you have not checked out a real CSA in your area I highly recommend it (Community Supported Agriculture) - its basically the convenience of a farmers market without you needing to dedicate the time to it. Plus you are getting the absolute freshest produce from a local farm directly.
Definitely avoid though the big name giant ones that claim to be a "CSA" but are a giant national org
I love the concept of a CSA. We've tried it a few times. It's such a great idea and I want these things to succeed. For us, we canceled after a few weeks each time because the ones we joined were all setup similarly: once every week or so, you get a bag of food, whatever's in season. That leaves us having to figure out what to do with all this stuff we don't normally cook and don't have recipes for, and that the kids aren't used to eating. These are all solvable problems but I guess there was too much friction in adapting our lives to it. I'm not sure if it's actually easier to make shopping lists and drive to the store to buy exactly what we need, but it's what we were used to.
That is kind of the whole point of a CSA though - you adapt each week or month or whatever. How things used to be basically before the advent of the super grocery store and global supply chain.
I end up fermenting and preserving a lot of stuff I know I will not eat - fun thing probably to do with kids too. Plus it generally makes the stuff you may not like taste way better (assuming you like pickled stuff). Pickled cauliflower or romanesco is amazing for example
My problem is they always have too much of a focus on leafy greens which go bad way too quickly - I prefer stuff like Broccoli in general which has a pretty similar nutrient profile and lasts way, way longer.
I'm kinda curious are there any protections in place to mitigate somebody (ostensibly nefarious) wresting control of the consumer-owner representatives? I know one of the aspects of Mondragon's foundation is that there is zero outside influence and all control is within the shareholders, which are exclusively workers because these sort of buyout risks have actually played out.
Co-ops themselves usually have a particular setup that's similar to a non-profit (and so they're not really "sellable" but can merge with other co-ops).
The "nefarious" entities don't care; they will control the suppliers as that's where the money is made anyway; grocery stores are cost centers.
The main protection I'd look for is avoid long-term and exclusive contracts. Anything that prohibits you from sourcing from other suppliers is highly suspect.
How do you all keep it truly democratic with (eventually) 1000+ owners? Who decides on major decisions like, where it will be built, what funding sources you'll accept, who will do what work etc.
> You can’t keep it “truly democratic” - the owners are basically there to replace the management if they go insane.
In a sense, that's true of other kinds of business, which also allow their owners to vote. The difference is that in a coop it's one person one vote, and nobody can be an owner without being a stakeholder of another kind (such as an employee or a customer), whereas in a conventional business there's no reason owners must intersect with other kinds of stakeholders (though there might still be some overlap), and votes don't necessarily have equal value.
I had never heard of this concept before seeing this article. Great to hear it's in Germany also! Would you know if there is a list of co-ops in Germany somewhere, to see if there is one closer to me than Karlsruhe?
There are two things named Cooperatives: One is a coop that is owned by those it serves, e.g. a housing coop is owned by those who live in the flats, a food coop is owned by those who buy the food. The other is the coop as a legal form of corporations where you have essentially no difference between a regular corporation, a LLC or a cooperative, and the cooperatives will usually own other entities with different legal forms for actually run the business.
ReWe is the latter, and has nothing in common but the name of the legal form with what is discussed here.
Seems reminiscent to me of the open-source ethos or the (declining?) community spirit in tech startup land. Except where organizations compete directly, collaboration makes a lot of sense.
I was also somewhat surprised to hear there weren't any grocery co-ops in Eastern/Central Mass (notwithstanding the chain that closed), but it could be the co-op niche (small store, high-quality groceries) is already filled in the area by the many small markets, delis, etc. that have been there for decades.
I live in that area and would love to start getting involved. I’ll reach out!
Anyone else who’s on the fence about getting involved: If you value building community (even aside from food in specific), your public involvement now will only snowball in impact; strike while the iron is hot!
Good question. I moved away from Jekyll/GitHub Pages a while back and onto Notion/Super.so. A good feature request, but I'll just post again here next year :)
Not to be rude, but I don't think I've seen the term "RSS" in over ten years. I'm sure there's probably a niche group of people that still use them (maybe disproportionally higher amongst HN users), but I think OP can be forgiven for not including one.
I was pretty young when RSS was "popular" and didn't really get into it back then. I started using it in the past couple of years, and I find it's one of the best ways to keep up to date with multiple things I want to follow (without being tied to a specific platform).
I would also be pretty surprised if you haven't heard of podcasts in over ten years. I feel like a "podcast" isn't really a podcast if it doesn't have an RSS feed.
My point wasn't whether or not I like RSS feeds - it was to explain why OP can be forgiven for not wanting to put the effort in creating one. I'm sure they're wonderful.
Most areas don't have co-ops because not many people are willing to do a ton of work and not get any benefits from it. This is why capitalism works so well... Entrepreneurs take a ton of risk and do a ton of work and sometimes get windfall profits from it.
The big food retail coops in the UK are in most respects supermarkets like any other. The people doing the work get paid, and they're as capitalist as any other business that doesn't list equities on a stock market.
Some related local background is that there was the Harvest Co-op chain until a few years ago: https://www.boston.com/food/food/2018/10/04/harvest-co-op-ma...
There's also the Market Basket for-profit regional chain, where employees and customers successfully stood up against some family business maneuvers to force out the head, and it's once again generally well-regarded AFAIK (including profit-sharing for employees). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_Basket_(New_England)#20...