Here's An Idea To Get 30% Cheaper Groceries In New York Without Taxpayer Subsidies: Allow Walmart!

During his campaign for office last fall, our new Mayor Zohran Mamdani promised to make groceries “affordable” for New Yorkers; but he provided few specifics. Some specifics then emerged in late July, when Mamdani issued a big press release on his proposed public grocery store project. We learned that there are plans for five municipally-owned stores — one in each borough of the City — and that the groceries these stores will sell, or at least a “core basket” of them, will be “30% cheaper.” We know that the groceries will be “30% cheaper” because the Mayor’s press release says so multiple times:

Today [July 28], Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani, Deputy Mayor for Economic Justice Julie Su and New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) announced that a core basket of everyday groceries will be 30 percent cheaper at the five new municipal grocery stores. . . . “A trip to the grocery store shouldn’t spell dread for New Yorkers [said Mayor Mamdani]. That’s why we are guaranteeing a 30% discount on the most common and most critical groceries. . . .”

Well OK, 30% cheaper than what? Remarkably, the Mayor’s press release never says what benchmark will be used to measure the claim of “30% cheaper.” As most everyone (other than our economically illiterate Mayor and Deputy Mayor for “Economic Justice”) knows, basic groceries can sell for remarkably different prices at different stores. Price differentials between stores of 30%, and even much more, are common.

It happens that back a few months ago in February 2026, Consumer Reports commissioned a big study from something called the Strategic Resource Group to compare prices between and among all the big grocery store chains in the U.S. The results of the study are reported in a February 20 article headlined “Most and Least Expensive Supermarkets.” CR says this about the methodology:

Price comparisons were conducted for CR by the Strategic Resource Group, a consultancy in New York. Prices were collected in person from store shelves in late summer 2025. Within metro areas, all prices were collected within a 48-hour period. The amounts shown reflect sale prices and discounts available to shoppers using free store loyalty cards but don’t reflect manufacturer coupons or savings available only through smartphone apps.

To be fair, the study was conducted in six metropolitan areas, and New York was not among them. The areas sampled were Boston, Chicago, Dallas/FW, Denver, LA/Southern California, and Virginia Beach. However, the price differentials between the most and least expensive chains were in the same range in each of the six regions, so there is no reason to think that New York would be much different.

[T]he difference between the highest- and lowest-priced in each city was more than 33 percent. . . .

The article contains a chart listing all the major national chains, each compared against the largest, Walmart, as the benchmark.

There are some 34 major chains in CR’s chart. Most of the chains have some regional emphasis, and are not present in every city. Here in lower Manhattan, of the chains on the list, the two with the biggest local presence are Whole Foods (a subsidiary of Amazon) and Trader Joe’s (a subsidiary of the Germany-based Aldi). According to CR’s chart, Whole Foods’ average prices were some 39.7% higher than Walmart’s for the same basket of goods, and Trader Joe’s prices were some 24.6% higher.

So then, why don’t we New Yorkers get our groceries for about 30% off just by shopping at the local Walmart? That’s because there is not one single Walmart in New York City. And it’s not like Walmart hasn’t tried. But despite repeated efforts over the years, Walmart has been completely and effectively prevented from opening any stores in the City. There isn’t actually any specific statute that bans or targets Walmart by name. It’s just that every time Walmart has picked a site and tried to get a project going, local activists rise up and protest, and get the local politicians on their side, until Walmart backs down. In the most recent years, Walmart has mostly given up trying. But here is an article from from NPR back in 2011 describing the process, headline “New York City Officials To Walmart: Keep Out.” The article describes a City Council hearing held at that time with respect to a very preliminary Walmart plan to develop a store in the (low income) East New York neighborhood in Brooklyn. Excerpt:

And so the flogging began — with testimony from professors about how Walmart can drive smaller stores out of business, and impassioned pleas from small-business owners worried about the competition, and unions concerned about the low wages.

And thus the politicians in New York City, who now suddenly claim to be all about “affordability,” have been completely responsible for forcing their constituents to pay price premiums of easily 30%, by being more responsive to the pleas of special interests like small store owners and labor unions than to the needs of the people for inexpensive groceries. And the 30% may well be understating the premium, because there isn’t a Whole Foods or a Trader Joe’s on every corner, and many people end up shopping at local groceries and bodegas that could easily charge yet an additional 20-30% premium.

The interesting question is how it comes to be that Walmart charging 30% less than other stores is unfair and evil, but the City itself doing the same thing is “social justice,” or something like that. Walmart, through the magic of various kinds of innovations like bulk buying and expert inventory management and logistics can somehow manage to charge 30% less and still make a profit and pay taxes. The City grocery stores are likely to cost a few hundred million taxpayer dollars to get off the ground, and then lose multiple millions of taxpayer dollars per year each. In what world is this a good tradeoff? Once again, I find myself completely unable to comprehend the logic of the Left.

A final point: One of the main opponents of Walmart entering New York City has been the United Food & Commercial Workers labor union, which is the main union for supermarket workers. It’s easy to see how that union could be upset, because Walmart is almost entirely non-union, and could threaten the jobs of their members. However, New York City has very high local minimum wage requirements, which Walmart would be required to comply with. Walmart underprices the competing chains in other cities, like Chicago and LA, that also have high local premium minimum wage requirements. And the other big chains mentioned here, Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s, are also almost entirely non-union. So the argument that keeping Walmart out is needed to protect laborers does not hold up.

So I say to Mayor Mamdani, just end the crazy opposition to Walmart in New York City, and you can get your 30% discount groceries without really having to lift a finger. You can devote your time to other things like collecting the garbage or cleaning up the parks.

Message from Jim Robinson:

Dear FRiends,

We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.

If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you,

Jim

Just for the record, you were a cc: there. Look who I was responding to. I wasn’t disagreeing with you.

I wish FR had an explicit cc: function.

“””””About 10% of its revenue is from food stamp purchases.”””””

If food stamps ended those people wouldn’t still be buying their groceries at Walmart and Walmart sales would drop by 10%?

“”””Not saying that everyone who shops at Walmart is of a criminal element, but the criminal element “shops” at Walmart at high rates.””””

Lower prices for daily living will always attract the lower income people along with everyone else who doesn’t like wasting money.

Where else does the criminal element shop, Home Depot instead of Ace Hardware? HEB instead of Whole Foods?

You erroneously attribute lower income people with a criminal element.

Criminals are often low income because they are criminals. It doesn’t follow visa versa. We were very poor growing up and didn’t steal or otherwise break laws.

That said, I don’t know what it is about Walmart. It is just a magnet for crime. And not just for theft.

“””””A plurality of its employees are on Medicaid and other taxpayer subsidies.”””””

I’ve read that they are a very good place for part time work and being flexible on your scheduling, something that can be very important for low income families where the wife needs to balance kids and a job.

Is your complaint similar to the one the left claims that rich people use some mystical, invisible, “tax loopholes” rather than just simply following the tax laws.

“”””You erroneously attribute lower income people with a criminal element.””””

That isn’t an error, the lower level impulsive crime that we are talking about is done by people more prone to being forever outside the world of career, persistence, showing up everyday and living a life of steady work, promotions, pay raises, savings, investments, home ownership, and pensions.

The people we are talking about are the impulsive, instant gratification, short attention span, lower IQ, low education and acting out without thinking people who remain poor and shop for bargain prices when they shop.

The fancy stock broker type criminals and the more refined white collar type criminals are well-heeled, smart, and probably prefer Whole Foods and Albertsons because they worry less about price.

I’m just going to throw out there for all the “hate Walmart” people, did you know this:

“Through its Live Better U program, Walmart covers 100% of tuition and books for eligible associates — no reimbursement, no out-of-pocket cost, no obligation to stay at Walmart after graduating.”

My brother got an associates degree through Walmart and it didn’t cost him a penny. Anyone who works at Walmart for $15-21 an hour can improve their situation, if they are motivated.

Walmart in Shanghai has sports complex for kids. I think in the US, it would get trashed.

https://youtube.com/shorts/d-couoezcPw?is=DmA5KXI9S84gt_bO

“ Is your complaint similar to the one the left claims that rich people use some mystical, invisible, “tax loopholes” rather than just simply following the tax laws”

I have no “complaint”. It’s an observation that we already have government subsidized store in the form of Walmart.

To the extent I have a complaint, it’s that the entitlements exist. If they did not, the market would adjust, wages would necessarily rise, and prices would rise, albeit less than the taxes now paid.

Part time employees being eligible for government programs, something that most of the employees that do it would plan for and plan how many hours they want or will accept to keep their qualification, isn’t unique to Walmart, and isn’t about Walmart, anymore than some lefty pointing out one of your “tax loopholes” and you correcting them that they don’t exist, it is just tax law.

I’m still trying to figure out your complaint that some of their customer base uses food stamps to buy groceries, which is the same for ALL groceries stores, and thinking that those same groceries would not be sold without food stamps.

“I’m still trying to figure out your complaint that some of their customer base uses food stamps to buy groceries, which is the same for ALL groceries stores, and thinking that those same groceries would not be sold without food stamps.”

You’re not trying to figure it out too hard.

The TTR literally said “To the extent I have a complaint, it’s that the entitlements exist. If they did not, the market would adjust, wages would necessarily rise, and prices would rise, albeit less than the taxes now paid.”

I have the same complaint. Entitlements should not exist.

“ I’m still trying to figure out your complaint that some of their customer base uses food stamps to buy groceries, which is the same for ALL groceries stores”

I’ll just repeat what I said:

I have no “complaint”. It’s an observation that we already have government subsidized store in the form of Walmart.

“and thinking that those same groceries would not be sold without food stamps.”

I never said anything like that. To the contrary, the same groceries would be sold at a higher, non-subsidized, price, albeit without stealing from taxpayers unfairly to do so.

I fully concur with the other poster.

To put the scale of the subsidy in rough proportion, about 25% of welfare handouts are spent at Walmart.

Entitlements (all in) are 50% of the budget.

Counting wage subsidies and Medicaid, something approaching $0.12 of every tax dollar collected go to Walmart.

That math is very inaccurate, in that there are lots of other entitlements (section 8 housing, etc) but I don’t have time to limit to snap and Walmart employees, but it’s big enough to be a full percentage,

It’s easily the biggest indirect beneficiary of taxpayer largess in the world.

Now, Walmart is not alone. The entire food ecosystem is subsidized this way.

So it is unfair to pick on just Walmart.

All of the entitlements need to go.

“”””Nor do they want to hear that Walmart takes in 25% of all SNAP payments made by our nation.
It would literally go broke but for keeping its costs down due to welfare subsidies of its employees—””and the welfare money it takes in.”—””””

That sure sounds like you think that 25% of their grocery sales would disappear and they would go broke.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.