808
submitted 8 months ago by negativenull@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 115 points 8 months ago
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Unicode13051@lemmyf.uk 98 points 8 months ago

Two of the major chains in my area merged a while back and they were required to close down a few of their stores to prevent having a monopoly.

So of course they closed the stores that were under-performing, which just means they closed the ones in poor neighborhoods.

They still owned or kept the leases to the buildings and sub-leased them out with the stipulation that any business taking them over could not carry groceries.

Not only are the people in those areas having to drive a lot further (or spend more time on public transit), but a lot the surrounding businesses to the stores that closed down ended up going out of business themselves.

There's at least one nearly abandoned mini-small, shopping plaza in town due to this.

[-] deft@lemmy.wtf 19 points 8 months ago

Wow never realized it but same. Clemens and Acme went under, then Superfresh. All those shopping centers are still empty or near barren and that was like well over a decade for those to go under

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

that seems like anti competitive behavior, I wonder if those kinds of stipulations could be made illegal. Also a commercial vacancy tax probably wouldn't hurt.

[-] massacre@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

They are legal. This is/was Walmart's M.O. for anticompetitive behavior when one of their stores closed. Any competitors couldn't lease, other businesses failed when they moved and didn't have the traffic, and so you are left with both an unoccupied eye sore as well as a food / product desert....

Good idea on the vacancy and potentially changing the law to prevent anti-competitive stipulations like that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kushia@lemmy.ml 69 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

As an Australian who has to deal with the duopoly of our grocery stores after we let them all merge years ago, it absolutely will drive higher prices and nobody who isn't a shareholder should want this.

They basically "collude" to fix and raise prices here and have whole teams of people who's job it is to monitor and extract as much money out of us as possible. They also force growers to accept shitty deals or they reject their produce due to "not meeting their quality standards" and there's basically nowhere else for them to sell it in the quantities they need to.

Nobody wins in grocery store mergers except the shareholders.

[-] zipzoopaboop@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

In Canada we have multiple chains and they collude anyway

[-] Kushia@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Australia is super concentrated, the duopoly own 70% of the grocery store market as well as others like 60% of the alcohol market. The rest is made up of convenience stores (mostly one company, IGA) and Aldi, the latter having single digit percent.

You basically sell and buy groceries though these two or you don't exist. The CEO of one of them got so cocky during a recent interview he was forced to resign over it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] negativenull@lemmy.world 53 points 8 months ago
[-] KnightontheSun@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago
[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 49 points 8 months ago

Albertsons has been buying up competitors for a while.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertsons

Kroger has a few too:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kroger#Chains

They turned Pavilions from a nice store to another dingy grocery. I can’t imagine this going through would be good for consumers. Many neighborhoods only have access to 2 stores at best, and I suspect most are already owned by the same parent. A merger would further turn this into a monopoly.

[-] STOMPYI@lemmy.world 28 points 8 months ago

FTC is a captured agency with revolving door administration between what businesses they regulate and people responsible for regulation.

https://therevolvingdoorproject.org/revolving-door-project-sends-chair-khan-letter-on-ftc-ethics/#:~:text=

[-] pandapoo@sh.itjust.works 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You're not wrong, but the appointment of Lina Khan to head the FTC is easily one of the only good things Biden has done while in office.

So, at least she'll go down kicking and screaming before they finally snuff her out, metaphorically speaking.

[-] magikarpet@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

Honestly, i dislike his age, his stance on Israel and some other general things but overall I think Biden has accomplished a lot of good things as president.

Some examples:

  • rejoined Paris Agreement
  • rejoined WHO
  • ends federal private prison contracts
  • 130+ billion in student loan forgiveness
  • Russia sanctions
  • national registry for police fired for misconduct
  • executive order protecting travel for abortion
  • gas prices down (not all in his control but still)
  • inflation reduction act
  • Arguably the best post-pandemic economy in the world
[-] force@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Wait he did ALL that? I had absolutely 0 idea, it's way more than I thought. Although I will add the one other thing I do know that he did:

  • took major steps to removing medical debt from credit scores, including rolling out regulations prohibiting medical debt from being included on credit reports and creating standards for property owners to not consider medical debt for potential renters
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago

Hell I'm in Seattle and my walkable area (about 2 mile radius for me) would be reduced to this mega corp, Amazon, and a couple Asian marts. I've got two corner stores nearby but their produce is usually not great and mostly they have snacks and microwavables. I suspect smaller towns or less bustling neighborhoods could easily be reduced to just this super chain and nowhere else

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 45 points 8 months ago

Bold of them to believe they'll stop price gouging regardless.

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 41 points 8 months ago

My main takeaway from this article is that Walmart controls nearly twice the market share of Kroger and Albertsons combined - and needs to be broken up.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@kbin.social 35 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Hmmm….
Kroger: 2,750 stores in 35 states and the District of Columbia
Albertsons: 2,273 stores in 34 states
Total: 5,023 stores. Presumably some would close due to proximity after the merger.

Walmart: 5,214 stores in the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico

I smell a break up!!!

[-] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 26 points 8 months ago

I'd love to see it but this isn't the best comparison. The total number of stores aren't what makes a company a monopoly, it's the ratio of one company's market share versus its competitors.

[-] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@kbin.social 11 points 8 months ago

Fair point.

Luckily, digging through OP’s article, I have found the data!

Together, Kroger and Albertsons would control around 13% of the U.S. grocery market; Walmart controls 22%, according to J.P. Morgan analyst Ken Goldman.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 34 points 8 months ago

Shittier services and higher prices/more fees, every merger ever.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] morphballganon@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago

Didn't Albertson's already merge with Safeway?

[-] negativenull@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago
[-] morphballganon@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

People are talking about combining the names. If Albertson's and Safeway didn't, I suspect it will be the same with Kroger.

[-] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 8 months ago

Best to keep the names separate to create the illusion of choice.

This has been silently happening in every industry for years.

[-] massacre@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Yep! This reminds me of the infographic where almost every major food brand in the world is covered by 10 parent brands. https://www.good.is/Business/food-brands-owners-rp

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] negativenull@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

Illusion of choice

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] penquin@lemm.ee 27 points 8 months ago

Capitalism, where a couple of fucking dudes can make or break a whole country.

[-] ceenote@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

And where being poorly suited for wielding that kind of power responsibly makes you more likely to be one of those fucking dudes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 23 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Kroger has promised to invest $500 million to lower prices as soon as the deal closes.

Kroger made 1.8 billion last year after expenses, so investing 500 million is a good gesture of faith but, I think that it should be required to be repeated yearly if they wish to make it as a condition of the merger, 500 million while likely wouldn't do much prices wise, wouldn't even be helpful if they aren't doing it past the first year anyway

[-] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

It's such a backwards way of doing it though. If they're going to invest that much, that means they need to make a lot of money to cover for it, so they'll have to keep prices where they are until they get the money, then they'll make a show of spending it to lower prices, which really means they're paying the salaries of business analysts who will come up with ideas. Once they've spent $500m coming up with ideas, their obligation will be fulfilled, and they won't have to actually act on any of those price-lowering ideas.

Instead they could just make $500m less in revenue by directly lowering prices immediately.

But then they can't brag about all the good money they spent and will instead whine about how hard up they are, so we'll be stuck with high prices and no relief.

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 17 points 8 months ago

Surely this merger is different from all the other ones where corporations lied their asses off then jacked up prices after the merger went through, right?

[-] olympicyes@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

I’ve got three grocery stores near my house. One is owned by Kroger and two by Albertsons. I hate to think what would happen if there were zero effective competition.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 16 points 8 months ago

I hope the lawsuit is successful. This would make them the only viable store in many areas.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Gork@lemm.ee 14 points 8 months ago

What will the new celebrity name be?

Krogertsons?

Albertger?

[-] comador@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago
[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 months ago

Hope this goes better than when they tried to stop MS from buying up Activision Blizzard.

[-] ansiz@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

It's interesting living in a partof the USA where I couldn't even tell you where a Kroger or Albertsons is. Maybe they don't tend to overlap with Food Lion's?

[-] scoobford@lemmy.zip 15 points 8 months ago

Iirc they own many subbrands that cover most of the country. Here is a list:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kroger

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertsons

[-] ohlaph@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

Prices are already outrageous. We don't need more of that.

[-] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Having a non-nationalized monopoly is stupid and bad.

But being champions of free market economics, and then being shocked pikachu when the free market does free market things is even stupider. Especially when nothing is done to reign in this free market crap.

The US wants to be socialist so bad, but can't get their populous to vote for it because of scary words they don't understand. Instead it's done as a random patchwork that of course doesn't work and corporate lobbying just makes it appear as an illusion of choice.

Next time you're out shopping in Walmart or Kroger or whatever look at the aisle you're in and the choices. Let's say cereal. 200 different choices of flavour. 50 different "brands". In reality it's all 1 company. There may be a couple outliers but it's all the same company selling the same sugary processed crap giving you the illusion of choice.

[-] Psythik@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Kroger and Albertsons are the two major chains in my city (known as Fry's and Safeway here). If they merge, their only real competition left is Walmart.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't secretly merged decades ago already. Their products, prices, and branding are nearly identical. Even the commercials they play over the store speakers are the same.

[-] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
808 points (99.9% liked)

News

23287 readers
4439 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS