Technically legal to remove grocery carts...

[iris lily]

...from the owner.

Ok, here's that thread.

Alan, I am going to have to slap you around because clearly you cannot see the utility of employing people, possibly even illegal immigrants, to drive around looking for those grocery carts.

It's a win/win situation: take the stuff, someone else gets paid to retrieve it.

Hope you get it now.

[Alan]

LOL, I get it. That's one of the things I love about this forum, you just never know what's gonna be presented as the most natural thing in the world until someone comes along and makes it illegal, as if it were not illegal all along.

Of course, I've never understood the entitlement mindset, wherein someone believes they're entitled to the use of, or benefit from, someone else's property, be that shopping carts or the monetary fruits of their labor. I've gotta admit I'd never in my wildest dreams think it was OK to take a shopping cart from a grocery store home with me and leave it on the sidewalk outside, with the expectation that it's owner would hire people to come to my house to retrieve it.

The whole concept reminds me of Frederic Bastiat's "Parable of the Broken Window" wherein the glazier's economic activity is increased in neighborhoods where vandals break windows. When expanded, some people have observed that the burning of an entire city would provide an economic boon for the workers formerly living there.

Frankly, it's beyond my ability to comprehend.

[gimmethesimplelife]

LOL, I get it. That's one of the things I love about this forum, you just never know what's gonna be presented as the most natural thing in the world until someone comes along and makes it illegal, as if it were not illegal all along.

Of course, I've never understood the entitlement mindset, wherein someone believes they're entitled to the use of, or benefit from, someone else's property, be that shopping carts or the monetary fruits of their labor. I've gotta admit I'd never in my wildest dreams think it was OK to take a shopping cart from a grocery store home with me and leave it on the sidewalk outside, with the expectation that it's owner would hire people to come to my house to retrieve it.

The whole concept reminds me of Frederic Bastiat's "Parable of the Broken Window" wherein the glazier's economic activity is increased in neighborhoods where vandals break windows. When expanded, some people have observed that the burning of an entire city would provide an economic boon for the workers formerly living there.

Frankly, it's beyond my ability to comprehend.As much as you can not comprehend my take, I am unable to comprehend yours. This had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with an entitlement mindset. This whole issue came about as a business decision by area supermarkets in areas with high number of illegal aliens here in Phoenix, to look the other way as they realized their main clientele was without cars for the most part and could use the shopping carts to get their groceries home easier. I'm sure numbers were crunched and margins were analyzed before allowing this. I am an exception to the rule being Anglo and legal and without a car and was able to take advantage of this situation for awhile to get Salvation Army finds home quickly and easily and independently for a spread of years - is that such a huge deal? Ouch and wow is all I can say on this one, ouch and wow.

Now that the laws have changed, of course all parties have made adjustments. I bet it won't surprise you to state that some years now after the fact i very rarely will shop at grocery stores that did not allow this practice during the boom in illegal immigration.....Rob

[Alan]

Rob, just a couple of quick questions if I may. If the area supermarkets made a collective business decision to allow customers to take their carts home with them, with no expectation that they would be immediately returned by the borrower, what prompted local government to make it illegal?

Could it be that it was always illegal to convert someone else's property for personal use and that as violations increased, it became necessary to step up enforcement in an effort put an end to it?

That seems much more likely to me, although I'm not a resident of the area and can't say for sure.

[bae]

Perhaps there could be some sort of government program to distribute carts to those who lack them?

[gimmethesimplelife]

Rob, just a couple of quick questions if I may. If the area supermarkets made a collective business decision to allow customers to take their carts home with them, with no expectation that they would be immediately returned by the borrower, what prompted local government to make it illegal?

Could it be that it was always illegal to convert someone else's property for personal use and that as violations increased, it became necessary to step up enforcement in an effort put an end to it?

That seems much more likely to me, although I'm not a resident of the area and can't say for sure.What happened is that the economy started getting bad in 2007 and illegal aliens suddenly found themselves much less welcome in Arizona, and they started buying less at supermarkets and also started leaving the state either for Mexico to return home or for states with friendier policies overall. Under these circumstances, area supermarket chains were no longer willing to pay for cart round up and stepped up to the plate to have laws changed making leaving a supermarket's property with a cart illegal - also many chains put locking mechanisms on their carts, too, rendering them useless for the prior purposes mentioned above.

Also, starting in 2007 homelessness increased in Arizona and more homeless people begin swiping carts to base themselves out of I guess you could say. Prior to 2007, this was not very common in Arizona - this has always been a low wage state but if you were willing to work cheap prior to 2007 you could get by as Arizona was booming in low paying jobs. Not anymore - that was a different economy then. At any rate, the point is that I'm sure increasing homelessness played into the supermarket chains getting the laws passed, too. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Perhaps there could be some sort of government program to distribute carts to those who lack them?Ummmm.....please read above, Bae. This was a business decision on the part of area supermarket chains here in Arizona to look the other way and let this behavior as to the shopping carts continue. A business decision -the exact opposite of a government entitlement program. Just sayin'. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Just adding something else here. During the years 2000 - 2004 or so when gas started getting more expensive, there was a supermarket chain here in Phoenix - Ranch Markets - that catered to an almost exclusive Hispanic clientele. I love this market as entering it is akin to entering a village in Mexico in some ways - but I digress here. This chain used to give you a ride home if you lived within 3 miles of the market and had spent at least $25 during your visit. Seriously. No entitlement program here but a supermarket chain making a business decision to endear itself to it's bread and butter clientele. To me this shows a great deal of common sense. This program no longer exists, however, as the clientele base has changed - more Anglos now shopping the killer loss leaders there and more Hispanics either returned to Mexico or fled to friendlier states - and gasoline of course is much more expensive now. The dynamics have been altered I guess you could say. Rob

PS They used to have free money orders, too, and I miss that, too. Before I went to online payment of almost everything, I saved a few dollars every month just by picking up my money orders at this chain.

[Alan]

Also, starting in 2007 homelessness increased in Arizona and more homeless people begin swiping carts to base themselves out of I guess you could say. Prior to 2007, this was not very common in Arizona - this has always been a low wage state but if you were willing to work cheap prior to 2007 you could get by as Arizona was booming in low paying jobs. Not anymore - that was a different economy then. At any rate, the point is that I'm sure increasing homelessness played into the supermarket chains getting the laws passed, too. Rob
I'm not sure what all the illegal alien rhetoric has to do with it and I can't quite wrap my head around the difference between homeless people swiping the carts, with no intention of returning them, and customers or neighborhood residents taking them home (effectively swiping them) with no intention of returning them.

I guess the point I'm trying to get to is that I don't understand your assertion that it was legal to swipe supermarket carts up until around 2006 or so when it suddenly became illegal. Also, I'm not understanding the explanation that the decrease of illegal aliens in the area prompted the sudden illegality.

And, as long as I'm thinking about elements of this story which don't make sense to me, I'm wondering if your earlier assertion that the local supermarkets price markups made it feasible to pay people to roam around the city collecting stolen carts wasn't reversing cause and effect since it's much more likely that markups were necessary to offset the expense of people stealing the carts. Of course, that's more of a what came first, the chicken or the egg, question.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Something that I don't think is very clear here is that people were not really stealing the carts per se - they took them home with their grocery purchases and part of the deal was that you would leave the cart on the sidewalk outside of where you lived. Cart round up trucks as they were called drove by several times a week picking up the carts and returning them to the stores. As far as markups, I can attest that the stores involved charged noticeably less for food than Safeway or Albertons, pretty much ruining any desire on my part to shop in a non ethnic supermarket chain again as I've learned I can get nicer, cleaner aisles there or pay less for my food elsewhere....guess what? Cheaper food wins out. By far. But I digress. I also think part of this is that if certain posters had lived here during this time, they might much more likely understand. Central Phoenix at the time in some areas really was more like a large city in Mexico - at least as far as population and language at the time went. Illegals were BIG BUSINESS and represented BIG DOLLARS. It is only natural to some degree that US businesses would kiss their ass a bit - in this case supermarket chains making their lives a little easier. It really amazes me there are people here who don't understand this, but it is true that those persons are not posting from a majority Hispanic area and therefore did not live through this experience in illegal immigration as I did.

Also, let me make it clear once more that these carts WERE intended to be returned - this is why they went out on the sidewalk overnight and why they were rounded up by cart round up businesses. Rob

Came back to add what really changed for illegals in Arizona was that when the economy tanked, it tanked here among the first and amongst the worst. Google the recent history of Phoenix real estate prices and jobs to get an idea of how bad 2007 to 2012 was here. Illegals of course served as a scapegoat and were made to quickly feel unwelcome here. Hence anything that made their lives easier was taken away - no great surprise there. I personally, from living in a neighborhood and meeting and getting to know so many such people, can not figure out how I will ever forgive America for just brutally casting them aside as the economy tanked. It's bad enough that they were allowed in in the first place to keep wage pressures down, but having accepted that, how does anyone forgive America for then brutally casting such people aside? I find I am unable to forgive this myself. Rob

[flowerseverywhere]

This could qualify as one of the craziest things I have ever read. Actually thinking it is OK steal a shopping cart. Amazing.

[Alan]

This could qualify as one of the craziest things I have ever read.
I thought so too, which prompted me to question the premise on the other thread.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I have to say I am utterly amazed to have received such a response to this issue. Seriously. Wow. Just wow. Something that was arranged by local businesses to make the lives of customers a tad easier - looked down on in this way? Wow. Seriously. Wow. Just wow. I am utterly floored. And embarrassed that it should ever have been an issue to begin with. Wow. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

This could qualify as one of the craziest things I have ever read. Actually thinking it is OK steal a shopping cart. Amazing.So when the supermarket chains made a business decision to look the other way and allow this to happen this was ok then, but it is not OK that I was down with it? I'm not following you here, sorry. Rob

[Yossarian]

I'm with Rob on this one. The stores didn't make those carts. Other people who may have gone to public schools might have made them and they were probably shipped on public roads to get to the stores. So I would just tell the stores - hey, you didn't build those so quit trying to act like you own them. They are clearly fair game for public appropriation.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I find it strange as I've never seen it, but then at the same time I also fully expect there to be some regional differences in the country and for some parts of the country to have customs we don't have 'round here, even when it's fairly homegenous, it's the little things, and even more so in ethnic neighborhoods which often have their own distinctive customs.

It's known that the homeless take carts, the homelessness issue was probably always worse here. It's not in any sense something that started in 2007-2008 here. Of course there is more now. And yea a lot of them have carts as always.

[bae]

I bet in Mexico, they hand you free carts at the border!

[sweetana3]

After reading the responses, I think we are talking about competing cultures here even though all in the good old USA. Issues in Arizona, Central Phoenix, etc. are so very different seen by people living in the Midwest.

Our downtown grocery stores have resorted to locks that freeze the wheels at the edges of the parking lots. There are major chains with carts all over town, often at bus stops. They are in our canal, in the roads, etc. I wish we had someone we could call and notify so they could pick them up.

[CathyA]

Aren't we talking about businesses deciding what would make them the most money.........and it included allowing people to "borrow" the carts to get their food home, since they didn't have cars?
Sounds to me that if you're going to find this totally objectionable, you should be finding fault with the grocery stores (who were trying to make money any way they could......cause isn't that the bottom line in America?).
Now the problem might have arisen that people were taking advantage of this and not putting their carts in the right place, for roundup.

Even though it sounds like it was a big problem with illegals, wasn't this just companies trying to work around people not having cars, but still being able to buy food.....and the companies still making money?

How would you others (Alan, IL, Bae) have handled this problem? Give me some alternatives.

[Kestra]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Some stores here have senior buses. Is it wrong to make it easier for people to shop at their store? Or for the seniors to take the bus even if they could get their food some other way?

[Packy]

I am VERY obsessed with hoarding. I plan to BUY an entire island in San Juan County,Wa., and use it to store the 1000's and 1000's of grocery carts I've "borrowed" over the years. Maybe I can build some "Grocery Cart Sculpture", and make the island a Tourist attraction. How about the "National Grocery-Cart Museum"? I could do that, too. Hey--If you don't like it, find something else to worry about. There are more than enough really serious issues to go around. :confused:

[CathyA]

It's not like the taxpayers were paying for the round-up vehicle. And if they did have to raise food prices to cover those expenses, then that was their choice.......and it came back on the people buying the food and using the carts. If people didn't like it, then they could complain to the management or shop somewhere else. And isn't this the free enterprise that some of you guys are insisting is the best way to go? I think the objection to this was really some older issues that irritated some folks.
I'm really surprised it was handled fairly rudely.
If it became illegal, it was no doubt because some people were keeping the carts. Just like alot of other things..........something that might be working really well turns sour because some people don't play by the "rules".

[iris lily]

... Is it wrong to make it easier for people to shop at their store?

You know that's not what's in question.

I would like to see evidence that store management did not mind, and even encouraged removal of grocery carts from their property to be completely on board with this idea.

But I do also agree with sweetana that there is likely a cultural issue here. I lived in New Mexico. The "manana" culture influenced the "gringo" culture, that's for sure. I can see liking a more "relaxed" approach to some things.

[Alan]

I'm with Rob on this one. The stores didn't make those carts. Other people who may have gone to public schools might have made them and they were probably shipped on public roads to get to the stores. So I would just tell the stores - hey, you didn't build those so quit trying to act like you own them. They are clearly fair game for public appropriation.
Yoss, I'm guessing you're preparing for the upcoming Elizabeth Warren campaign of collectivism.

[Alan]

....Even though it sounds like it was a big problem with illegals, wasn't this just companies trying to work around people not having cars, but still being able to buy food.....and the companies still making money?

How would you others (Alan, IL, Bae) have handled this problem? Give me some alternatives.
I think the problem handled itself as a reaction to abuse. My only commentary on the subject stems from the assertion that it was "legal" to convert someone else's property for personal use right up until the time it was suddenly "illegal". From a sociological perspective, I'm fascinated by the apparent belief that it was ever "legal" to do so.

If a business want's to extend the use of its property to its customers, who am I to object? I would suspect that they found they could no longer extend the courtesy once it started being abused by non-customers who somehow assumed that it was "legal" to convert that property to personal use, and it became necessary to enforce the universal law against conversion of private property. I find the justification of the abuse to be interesting.

I'm also intrigued by the continuing assertions that "illegal immigrants" or "the homeless" had much to do with the problem as opposed to the idea that these businesses were attempting to respond to the needs of a poor neighborhood, regardless of the label some may place on the residents.

[iris lily]

This discussion reminds me of the saga of increased theft and vandalism in my iris 'n lily garden that sits on a big corner lot in a near-ghetto neighborhood.

Each year, a plant or two is stolen from my huge garden. Someone digs them up and takes them away. I accept that this will happen here, I consider this the "cost of doing business" for getting this lot free from the city. Most amusing, the theft this year was an iris that I love BUT have entirely too much of and the thing had to be thinned anyway. Last year someone stole a lily that I truly disliked, and I say Good Riddance to it.

So this low level thieving goes on and it's something I accepted, not a big deal. But last year, a new family with lots of small children allowed their children to play in my lot. The kids mowed down hundreds of plants. They were hugely destructive. Neighbors thought we should call the cops about this. I was sort of on the fence about bringing in authorities because I knew that this troublesome family would move on by next spring, that's the MO of families like this. But after seeing another section of iris ruined for the year, I did call a city bureaucrat who suggested that we first put up "No Trespassing" signs before taking further action. So we did.

And a year later (long after the errant family got kicked out of their apartment) those ugly, unfriendly signs stand in my garden. DH doesn't want to take them down now because he is a law and order type of guy. I'm hoping that they will soon rot.

My point is that a little theft now and then is accepted, but I never encouraged it. When destruction became rife, I had to take a hard line of "no more."

[gimmethesimplelife]

You know that's not what's in question.

I would like to see evidence that store management did not mind, and even encouraged removal of grocery carts from their property to be completely on board with this idea.

But I do also agree with sweetana that there is likely a cultural issue here. I lived in New Mexico. The "manana" culture influenced the "gringo" culture, that's for sure. I can see liking a more "relaxed" approach to some things.I'm starting to see New Mexico as a bump up actually.....part of it due to the slower life available there, and part of it due to their expansion of Medicaid - a really big deal in a state with such high poverty rates - and also due to same sex marriage now being legal there. For many years I had considered New Mexico hopelessly backwards but no more.....You do get things in return for what you give up by living there.

And something else about it - it's like the mentality in Tucson - you don't go there to make money. Those who do find themselves leaving fast as that is not what it is about for most people there. It's a very different mentality for many Americans to grasp but to me it makes more and more sense as the standard of living plunges and opportunities leaves us. It seems like very current and up to minute thinking to me these days. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

It's not like the taxpayers were paying for the round-up vehicle. And if they did have to raise food prices to cover those expenses, then that was their choice.......and it came back on the people buying the food and using the carts. If people didn't like it, then they could complain to the management or shop somewhere else. And isn't this the free enterprise that some of you guys are insisting is the best way to go? I think the objection to this was really some older issues that irritated some folks.
I'm really surprised it was handled fairly rudely.
If it became illegal, it was no doubt because some people were keeping the carts. Just like alot of other things..........something that might be working really well turns sour because some people don't play by the "rules".Cathy, Thank You for seeing that this was handled rudely. No big deal really but I have to say I am a bit surprised, I really am. Rob

[ApatheticNoMore]

I would like to see evidence that store management did not mind, and even encouraged removal of grocery carts from their property to be completely on board with this idea.

Isn't lack of enforcement by ITSELF the evidence? Just like the grocery store was hiring someone to collect the carts, the grocery store could have instead puts locks on carts, hire security to monitor carts etc. (look near everyone has private security these days), done video monitoring of carts etc.. Did they even put up a sign (in spanish): "Please don't take carts" But all that cost more than hiring someone to round them up? I have no idea, but if so isn't that a business decision then? And maybe strict enforcement loses them too many paying (for the food, not the carts) customers and the carts are mostly not actually being stolen for good (or people could hide them in their dwellings and not leave them lying around to be collected again) but borrowed and it was a better idea to collect them? Again a business decision. But the cops should spend their time chasing down cart theives (the pettiest of priorities as even car thefts are seldom pursued). Um yea sure because the main role of cops is to subsidize business. Ok sometimes it is but it shouldn't be.

[Alan]

Cathy, Thank You for seeing that this was handled rudely. No big deal really but I have to say I am a bit surprised, I really am. Rob
Rob, I'm sorry you take this line of discussion as being rude, as it was not intended that way. I take it more as an attempt to understand how the misappropriation of private property was ever considered legal, as I'm not aware of any tenant of law allowing people to convert someone else's property for private use.

My comment about the entitlement mentality had more to do with the idea that private property could be treated as communal, with a nod to an increasingly popular ideology that no one could really own anything because "you didn't build that", which some in the far left espouse, including a high profile freshman Senator from MA and our sitting President. I think the eventual enforcement of the rights to private ownership that you referred to as "becoming illegal" is the natural response to that ideology in practice.

As I noted earlier, I find the entire discussion fascinating. I'm sorry you feel picked on.

[ApatheticNoMore]

The cultural assumption is defining as "theft" what other cultures might see as "borrowing" - and borrowing IS a perfectly valid term as the carts were not kept for good or even for long - they were used, rounded up, and reused (but they should have paid a fee to "rent" the carts in order to pay for the roundup? Shrug - I suppose the store could have tried to have done that too, either based on an honor system (donation at checkout) or not. Not based on an honor system might be to pay to get carts in the first place, I have no idea if that is legal. But it's probably bad for business - as you'd tend to buy only what you can carry to avoid a cart fee). Maybe they just decided a slight increase in cost to offset was better (they do it to subsidize credit card use afterall). Is the great crime the business at that time didn't have absolute market power and had to make some concessions to the culture they operated in? Talk about entitlement. Maybe they did it because they knew they would lose business to other stores that did allow it if they didn't. I know such actual market competition is anathema to oligarchical capitalism but ...

And did people overreact to Rob? Uh we have a whole thread on what is admittedly to me an odd custom (ie not exactly how they do things in California - which is of course how everyone should do things. Where would the world be without provincial jingoism afterall and knowing ones customs were the one true way), based on an offhand comment wistful for the good 'ol days (I bet there were better finds at thrift stores then too - now they're pretty picked over).

[bae]

This is why we can't have nice things...

[iris lily]

Isn't lack of enforcement by ITSELF the evidence?

I can only relate to my iris garden. My lack of enforcement of stealing iris and lilies doesn't mean that I do not mind theft. It means that I don't mind it as much as I would mind the effort to combat it effectively.

What I'd really like to happen is that gardeners who admire certain plants stop by when I'm outside working and ask if I'll be dividing plants. Right then I would likely dig whatever iris they want because I could control what plant goes and how much of it goes.

If I were the owner of that Hispanic grocery store I would mind the carts leaving and the effort it takes to collect them back. What I would really like is for customers to take carts if they don't have a car, and then return them on their own effort. That would be ok with me. Why couldn't the takers return them? Good exercise, and for families with children it's a good task to assign to the kids.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I can only relate to my iris garden. My lack of enforcement of stealing iris and lilies doesn't mean that I do not mind theft. It means that I don't mind it as much as I would mind the effort to combat it effectively.

What I'd really like to happen is that gardeners who admire certain plants stop by when I'm outside working and ask if I'll be dividing plants. Right then I would likely dig whatever iris they want because I could control what plant goes and how much of it goes.

If I were the owner of that Hispanic grocery store I would mind the carts leaving and the effort it takes to collect them back. What I would really like is for customers to take carts if they don't have a car, and then return them on their own effort. That would be ok with me. Why couldn't the takers return them? Good exercise, and for families with children it's a good task to assign to the kids.I.L., you raise an interesting point here and a bit of a compromise. I can't say your idea is a bad one - why couldn't the customers have brought the carts back on their own? Good exersize, they'd get to burrow the carts for a short time, and there would be less costs involved in recovering the carts. I don't have an answer for you of how this all came to be, this situation just evolved as the neighborhood/area filled up will illegals sin autos. I do support the idea of folks bringing the carts back on their own, and I would have been willing to myself had there not been the knowledge that if I left the cart on the sidewalk, it would be rounded up within twelve or so hours. Rob

PS No criticism here, ok? This situation did not just pertain to one Hispanic grocery store but rather a few chains of grocery stores, mostly Hispanic in nature. My point is that there were numerous locations of stores at which this was taking place during those years.

[JaneV2.0]

I have to say I am utterly amazed to have received such a response to this issue. Seriously. Wow. Just wow. Something that was arranged by local businesses to make the lives of customers a tad easier - looked down on in this way? Wow. Seriously. Wow. Just wow. I am utterly floored. And embarrassed that it should ever have been an issue to begin with. Wow. Rob

I should think you'd be used to being pummeled by now. That's what we do here. !thumbsup!

[gimmethesimplelife]

Rob, I'm sorry you take this line of discussion as being rude, as it was not intended that way. I take it more as an attempt to understand how the misappropriation of private property was ever considered legal, as I'm not aware of any tenant of law allowing people to convert someone else's property for private use.

My comment about the entitlement mentality had more to do with the idea that private property could be treated as communal, with a nod to an increasingly popular ideology that no one could really own anything because "you didn't build that", which some in the far left espouse, including a high profile freshman Senator from MA and our sitting President. I think the eventual enforcement of the rights to private ownership that you referred to as "becoming illegal" is the natural response to that ideology in practice.

As I noted earlier, I find the entire discussion fascinating. I'm sorry you feel picked on.Alan, thank you for your post here. Just to clarify, I did not feel picked on per se - just utterly flabbergasted that what I considered a humane action by local supermarket chains could be such an issue to others. I will admit that over the years of living in this neighborhood I have become a bit of an activist and have the tendency to stand up for those I consider downtrodden at the drop of a hat - I have had experiences and met people I never would have if I lived say a few miles north of here in a "better" neighborhood. Living here has been priceless to me - I have seen a whole different take on so many issues that are a big deal in Arizona. At any rate, no hard feelings. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

I should think you'd be used to being pummeled by now. That's what we do here. !thumbsup!Pummel me personally, fine. I have thick skin, I can deal. This one went further, as it pummeled an entire class of people to me and even included pummeling for profit businesses. That's a new one for me. Rob

PS Came back to clarify - pummeling for profit businesses here is not new - there at one time were threads about Wal Mart, for example, that were not exactly complementary. My point is that those doing the pummeling this time were those who stand for free enterprise, capitalism, the free market yada yada yada. Very surprising to see such posters question a free market decision made by for-profit business.

[Alan]

Pummel me personally, fine. I have thick skin, I can deal. This one went further, as it pummeled an entire class of people to me and even included pummeling for profit businesses. That's a new one for me. Rob

PS Came back to clarify - pummeling for profit businesses here is not new - there at one time were threads about Wal Mart, for example, that were not exactly complementary. My point is that those doing the pummeling this time were those who stand for free enterprise, capitalism, the free market yada yada yada. Very surprising to see such posters question a free market decision made by for-profit business.
Where did anyone pummel a free market decision other than your claim that the grocery chains had a law enacted for their benefit? If anything, I think a careful re-reading of the thread would show a reasonable questioning of the perceived right to remove a private businesses property from their premises with no intention of returning it.

[iris lilies]

Here's another cost that grocery store owners in Phoenix are able to add to their expenditures: when customers remove carts from store premises and dump them, the city picks them up and then charges the store owner.

This just gets better and better:

http://phoenix.gov/nsd/programs/shopcart/


(http://phoenix.gov/nsd/programs/shopcart/)http://azstarnet.com/business/carting-those-shopping-carts-back-to-the-grocery-store-it/article_1142330e-92d2-5fca-85f5-d96d2a0b74d5.html


http://icma.org/en/icma/knowledge_network/documents/kn/Document/100290/The_City_of_Phoenixs_Shopping_Cart_Retrieval_Progr am


(http://icma.org/en/icma/knowledge_network/documents/kn/Document/100290/The_City_of_Phoenixs_Shopping_Cart_Retrieval_Progr am)

[bae]

It all eventually just gets folded back into the cost of the products sold at the store. So the people "borrowing" the carts are paying for them anyways, or at least, the people shopping at the store are. Sort of a virtuous circle.

http://thefoodtrust.org/uploads/media_items/grocerygap.original.pdf

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/04/04/food-deserts-where-have-all-the-inner-city-grocery-stores-gone/

[ApatheticNoMore]

Did the business even post signs (yes in Spanish) something like: "you may transport goods home in carts but please return the carts immediately after". Or was everyone just supposed to MIND READ that that's what they want? (just because something is a custom where you are and thus everyone implicitly knows what is expected, doesn't mean it's a custom everywhere). In which case their lack of communication is not other people's problem.

But just posting a sign doesn't mean it will be obeyed? Well come on: DUH! Voluntary cooperation depends on a whole intersection of things, culture and what people are used to, whether the people consider the market part of their community (because most people are generally cooperative when they perceive that - heck chimpanzees are cooperative that way) or an alien force etc.. But if that had failed they could have taken greater security measures. There's maybe a dozen different (all imperfect) solutions to the "cart problem" and for awhile they choose one of them. That laws were passed to benefit business sure, but Rob says business conditions were also changing, so if your market is no longer 90% carless people but only 10% carless people for example, then such a law makes more sense (a lot more trouble to go to to collect carts to service 10% than 90% of your business). The sellers may also have changed (less small retailers, more big box, but only Rob can speak to that in his neighborhood). Also of course the law may have had some anti-immigrant sentiment, though I'm quite sure not everyone in AZ is racist either, the state government did become kind of infamous for it's "papers please" laws etc..

[ApatheticNoMore]

It all eventually just gets folded back into the cost of the products sold at the store. So the people "borrowing" the carts are paying for them anyways, or at least, the people shopping at the store are. Sort of a virtuous circle.

Yes, in the same way cash buyers indirectly subsidize credit card users. Now I could rant on the "theft" involved in swiping a credit card at the supermarket and how aweful it is that I have to pay for them as prices are raised on everyone to cover the credit card fees and I almost always use the green stuff myself (and in a strict sense it's actually NOT fair) but ... pick your battles :) Credit card externalities aren't anything.

In places where plastic and paper bags aren't outlawed and fee-ed BY LAW, someone who brings their own bags could be said to subsidize those who don't. Some companies deal with that by giving a discount for bringing a bag. And some don't.

[flowerseverywhere]

Interesting Article IL.

Where I used to live the grocery chain shut down the store that was in the poorest neighborhood. There was an uproar and community leaders demanded an explanation as to why the decision was made, as it was the only store that many in the neighborhood could walk to. Multiple letters dissing the chain were published in the newspapers

the store had many reasons, one of which was this store had a much higher rate of theft of groceries, and they had to continually replace carts people took. They also had a practice of giving baked goods to the local food pantry and people would be given the food, which they then tried to return to the store for cash. The community leaders tried to get them to stay, but they explained they could not operate unless they could generate money. Because they are a business. They need money to buy goods, pay salaries, keep the store up to date and make the profit they were entitled to. The local culture did not see it that way.

So if people "borrow" a cart, but try to return it ASAP in the same condition, I can see the store looking the other way. But having to incur more costs and the hassle of finding the carts and returning them back to the store (or being charged by the city) is unreasonable. I have been very poor but never thought I was entitled to free anything.

There is a saying "there is no free lunch". There is also no free cart.

And by by the way, it is not being rude to disagree with someone. This is a "discussion forum" and I have every right to say I do not agree with the way others think. Just as others have the right to say they disagree with me. And I still do not think it is OK remove something from a business and not return it regardless of the local culture. If you think it is OK I wish you all the luck in the world getting businesses to stay in your area.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Where did anyone pummel a free market decision other than your claim that the grocery chains had a law enacted for their benefit? If anything, I think a careful re-reading of the thread would show a reasonable questioning of the perceived right to remove a private businesses property from their premises with no intention of returning it.Alan, come again? Huh? When did I claim grocery stores had a law enacted for their benefit? Excuse me? That aside, I never once stated that people using these carts had no intention of returning them and I more than once explained how cart retrieval worked during these years. Somehow, somewhere, someway, there is a gap here between what I stated vs. how you are perceiving it. If I can make any of this clearer at this point, let me know. Rob

[iris lilies]

Alan, come again? Huh? When did I claim grocery stores had a law enacted for their benefit? Excuse me? That aside, I never once stated that people using these carts had no intention of returning them and I more than once explained how cart retrieval worked during these years. Somehow, somewhere, someway, there is a gap here between what I stated vs. how you are perceiving it. If I can make any of this clearer at this point, let me know. Rob

This discussion is becoming extremely funny! I am laughing here. Really, Rob, your sentence below is the core of the problem in my adopting your point of view:

"I never once stated that people using these carts had no intention of returning them..."

You equate taking carts home and setting them in your front yard as being one and the same as returning the cart. I think that logic is silly.

Clearly, the "borrowers" of the carts or the not-really-thieves-per-se are expending no resources of their own to return the goods. My friend, that is not the same as "borrowing." It's stealing.

[ApatheticNoMore]

And I still do not think it is OK remove something from a business and not return it regardless of the local culture. If you think it is OK I wish you all the luck in the world getting businesses to stay in your area.

but the businesses apparently did stay in the area, so so much for that theory (and it's quite pointless to argue whether it could succeed everywhere, since it seems kind of an unusual culturally specific practice that occurred for a period of time in a very specific area anyway)

[iris lilies]

... Sort of a virtuous circle.

And when store owners don't pick them up, the taxpayers of the City of Phoenix get to pay for a city bureaucracy to manage stray carts. It's priceless, more wins. The rich taxpayer subsidizing food shoppers without cars.

It's really only right, when you think about it.

[catherine]

I agree with both Alan and Rob and I think it all comes down to social agreements

--If the supermarket does not intend for carts to be carried away but they are anyway, that is a breakdown in the agreement between the store and the customer. Not only that, the carts might be unsightly and even dangerous. However, if the supermarket agrees to go around and collect the carts, to me that's an implied agreement that they will support people taking the carts (because there is no other transport for example).

--But I do agree with Rob that there appears to be a gap or an unmet need in terms of people buying their food and being able to get them home. So if the supermarket looks the other way, that is maybe against the letter of the law but certainly true to the spirit of the law of servicing customers well.

People who do not have means often do what they must to survive. if that means "borrowing" a shopping cart, how do we deal with that? Do we condemn them with our middle class morality, or help to fill the unmet need? Just wondering.

[ApatheticNoMore]

And when store owners don't pick them up, the taxpayers of the City of Phoenix get to pay for a city bureaucracy to manage stray carts. It's priceless, more wins. The rich taxpayer subsidizing food shoppers without cars.

well if people take carts even after very explicit measures to get them not to (which we don't even know even happened here) what choices are there? Security or OTHER MEASURES the supermarket pays for. Security paid for by tax dollars (cops enforcing cart theft). Or the city rounding up the carts. But cart collection for the city is probably cheaper than cops on the cart beat! I guess it is in some sense taxpayers subsidizing what is really a cost of doing business. Or we could lecture people on not stealing carts (though I don't know about AZ but pretty much the ONLY people that steal carts around here are the homeless - because it's how they cart their worldly possessions around - so you'd mostly be lecturing homeless not to use the only convenient means available to hold their stuff - good luck with that indeed)

I DEFINITELY favor policies of subsidizing people without cars!!! Infernal combustion machines being the source of nearly endless problems for the world. But I never figured supermarket carts would come in ... but hey if it really truly reduces car use that's not nothing.

[iris lilies]

People who do not have means often do what they must to survive. if that means "borrowing" a shopping cart, how do we deal with that? Do we condemn them with our middle class morality, or help to fill the unmet need? Just wondering.


Neither.

We say "hey buddy, if you need to take the cart home full of your groceries, then turn around immediately and bring it back."

I assume someone who is able bodied enough to push it home can also push it back to the store. It's lighter on the return trip.

[Alan]

Alan, come again? Huh? When did I claim grocery stores had a law enacted for their benefit? Excuse me? Rob
You implied it in the post quoted below:

Under these circumstances, area supermarket chains were no longer willing to pay for cart round up and stepped up to the plate to have laws changed making leaving a supermarket's property with a cart illegal - also many chains put locking mechanisms on their carts, too, rendering them useless for the prior purposes mentioned above.


Somehow, somewhere, someway, there is a gap here between what I stated vs. how you are perceiving it. If I can make any of this clearer at this point, let me know.
I agree that we're typing a lot of words yet not communicating. I'll step aside at this point rather than contribute to more misunderstanding.

[iris lilies]

I wonder if The Grocery Cart will become as strong a symbol of this website as The Salad Spinner is, haha.

[catherine]

Neither.

We say "hey buddy, if you need to take the cart home full of your groceries, then turn around immediately and bring it back."

I assume someone who is able bodied enough to push it home can also push it back to the store. It's lighter on the return trip.

Gee, that sounds so reasonable it just might work! :)

[gimmethesimplelife]

I wonder if The Grocery Cart will become as strong a symbol of this website as The Salad Spinner is, haha.IL, I have to admit something here.....I have never understood what the deal with the salad spinner is on this site....care to explain? I seem to have missed something somewhere along the way. Rob

[iris lilies]

IL, I have to admit something here.....I have never understood what the deal with the salad spinner is on this site....care to explain? I seem to have missed something somewhere along the way. Rob

Some people find salad spinners a useless, stupid implement and may even view it as a symbol of consumerist excess.
those who feel this way may prefer the wash and shake method of preparing lettuce, or they might even throw wet lettuce into a clean pillowcase and shake it around. Others try a passive approach to salad preparation and they wash but then let the greens sit and drain on their own.

Me, I like dry lettuce because dressing doesn't properly adhere to damp greens. So you can guess which camp I am in. :)

[gimmethesimplelife]

I agree with both Alan and Rob and I think it all comes down to social agreements

--If the supermarket does not intend for carts to be carried away but they are anyway, that is a breakdown in the agreement between the store and the customer. Not only that, the carts might be unsightly and even dangerous. However, if the supermarket agrees to go around and collect the carts, to me that's an implied agreement that they will support people taking the carts (because there is no other transport for example).

--But I do agree with Rob that there appears to be a gap or an unmet need in terms of people buying their food and being able to get them home. So if the supermarket looks the other way, that is maybe against the letter of the law but certainly true to the spirit of the law of servicing customers well.

People who do not have means often do what they must to survive. if that means "borrowing" a shopping cart, how do we deal with that? Do we condemn them with our middle class morality, or help to fill the unmet need? Just wondering.Catherine, I am utterly intrigued by what you have posted here. I mean this sincerely. To me the question begs - is much of what has been posted here against the people burrowing the carts and the supermarket chains paying to have the carts retrieved - is this middle class morality? I don't mean this question with the slightest tinge of sarcasm - I mean it with great interest as I have only been middle class for very brief periods of my life. To me this may explain why I don't seem to get the majority view here? Alan said earlier he found this discussion interesting - now my interest is peaked. Is this indeed middle class morality? Such would seem, if this is indeed the case, to play right into my view that much of America is about social class - I sure don't understand the majority view here, but then again I have spent little of my life being middle class. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

This discussion is becoming extremely funny! I am laughing here. Really, Rob, your sentence below is the core of the problem in my adopting your point of view:

"I never once stated that people using these carts had no intention of returning them..."

You equate taking carts home and setting them in your front yard as being one and the same as returning the cart. I think that logic is silly.

Clearly, the "borrowers" of the carts or the not-really-thieves-per-se are expending no resources of their own to return the goods. My friend, that is not the same as "borrowing." It's stealing.I still stand by my earlier posts that using the carts in such a way does not mean that they were not returned, as the mechanism for their return for some years was paid for by the supermarket chains in question. This one we'll just have to agree to disagree on, IL. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Some people find salad spinners a useless, stupid implement and may even view it as a symbol of consumerist excess.
those who feel this way may prefer the wash and shake method of preparing lettuce, or they might even throw wet lettuce into a clean pillowcase and shake it around. Others try a passive approach to salad preparation and they wash but then let the greens sit and drain on their own.

Me, I like dry lettuce because dressing doesn't properly adhere to damp greens. So you can guess which camp I am in. :)Thanks for the explanation IL. LOL all these years whenever someone posted about the salad spinner thing I would often shake my head and go huh? Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Neither.

We say "hey buddy, if you need to take the cart home full of your groceries, then turn around immediately and bring it back."

I assume someone who is able bodied enough to push it home can also push it back to the store. It's lighter on the return trip.If you'll look a few posts back, you'll see I did agree with your point here to some degree - it is not unreasonable that people pushed the carts back. Surprise! I agree with you. The only reason I never did it is because I knew that the cart would be picked up and brought back to the store if I left it out on the sidewalk overnight. Rob

[ApatheticNoMore]

I mostly would attribute it to failure to grok regional and cultural differences (although the U.S. is multicultural enough it should come easy). Not all cultural practices are desirable but um we're talking about grocery carts that a market paid to collect and was able to for awhile - live and let live a little already. I am plenty middle class (I've spend the entire of my life being middle class - but there are days I think I must flee it or go mad :)), though middle class white collar employee middle class - not mid-management "middle class". There's some definite conventions to the class. They would be difficult to list explicitly but I know them when I see them - though sense of entitlement might be one (entitled to be middle class). But I'm not sure strong feelings on borrowing grocery carts either way is one of them, but it's not normal here to do so, so we don't (cept the homeless - and very few people even condemn them for it since they are a fairly pity inducing lot afterall).

[catherine]

Middle class morality was pretty much defined by George Bernard Shaw in his play Pygmalion (the musical version is My Fair Lady). To me it means that it's easier for middle class people, who have all their basic needs met, to adhere to a framework of ethics than it is for the underclass who sometimes are forced to make compromises with the "letter of the law" in order to survive.

So, in this example, we can all agree that stealing is wrong. Most of us don't steal, and most of us don't feel entitled to things that aren't ours. Maybe your mother and father raised you with those exact same ethical principles: do not steal because it is wrong. But then you find yourself in a position where it's not that easy to comply 100% with certain values. So, because your survival instincts are on alert mode, you might not admit it when the cashier makes a mistake in your favor, or you might "borrow" a shopping cart and then you can't return it because your kids fell asleep and your boyfriend didn't come home when he was supposed to. It's easy for the middle class to judge but the poor are often in an ethical netherland--sometime because they are unethical and fine with that, but other times because they simply have no choice.

In this video, you see Alfred P. Doolittle, a "common dustman" (note the name Shaw gave this working class guy--"do little"--a statement on prejudices about the lower classes). In an earlier scene, he confronted the respectable Henry Higgins to weazle some money out of him.. when Higgins offers him 10 pounds, Doolittle insists on the amount he asked for--5 pounds--because 10 would make him feel "prudent-like." That early scene in Pygmalion/My Fair Lady is really great and it sets up the scene in this video, in which all of a sudden Alfred P. Doolittle, champion of the underclass, has been thrust into the middle class.. and he's not all that happy about it..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ozSNCqGP3yU

[peggy]

Rob, I'm sorry you take this line of discussion as being rude, as it was not intended that way. I take it more as an attempt to understand how the misappropriation of private property was ever considered legal, as I'm not aware of any tenant of law allowing people to convert someone else's property for private use.

My comment about the entitlement mentality had more to do with the idea that private property could be treated as communal, with a nod to an increasingly popular ideology that no one could really own anything because "you didn't build that", which some in the far left espouse, including a high profile freshman Senator from MA and our sitting President. I think the eventual enforcement of the rights to private ownership that you referred to as "becoming illegal" is the natural response to that ideology in practice.

As I noted earlier, I find the entire discussion fascinating. I'm sorry you feel picked on.

This philosophy of yours is good to know Alan. Thankfully someone on the right is against the eminent domain attempt for the keystone pipeline! :thankyou:

As far as the shopping cart thing goes, I guess I missed the thread. However, whether the grocery stores 'looked' the other way or not, the shopping carts really are their property, period. If they 'allowed' it before and don't now, well, that's tough I guess. their call really, and folks can't really complain. If someone disagrees, they can register their displeasure with the store and shop somewhere else. Vote with your dollars.

[thinkgreen]

Wow! Quite the discussion.

Where I lived in the 1970's people took the shopping carts home with their groceries all the time. The grocery store did employ someone with a pick up truck to find their carts and bring them back. That person also did shopping cart repairs and maintenance. This was in a big city multi building apartment complex where most people didn't have cars and the grocery store was on the main floor of the one of the apartment buildings. Nobody I knew considered it stealing. It was common practice at the time in those oldie goldie days.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Middle class morality was pretty much defined by George Bernard Shaw in his play Pygmalion (the musical version is My Fair Lady). To me it means that it's easier for middle class people, who have all their basic needs met, to adhere to a framework of ethics than it is for the underclass who sometimes are forced to make compromises with the "letter of the law" in order to survive.

But there's ethics and there's ethics. Armed robbery and justifying it on poverty grounds (maybe but uh you held someone up with a gun with the potential of worse). Petty theft (actual theft where you even keep the item) from say Walmart and justifying it cause your broke (well hey, if it's Wallmart I won't say anything ;) ). And then there's borrowing grocery carts with what seems like the tacit approval and understanding of the store.

I don't believe the middle and the upper class are more ethical even on surface things. They're really too "go along to get along" in their lives to really be ethical, they are not supposed to ask for instance if their work is ethical or not (though it seems important to me). Of course great crimes by the elite are the daily fare of the news - another pension fund got stolen by a fraudster, another company poisoned a community etc.. The state of the world enough utterly condemns the morality of those with power (and those aren't the poor).


Nobody I knew considered it stealing. It was common practice at the time in those oldie goldie days.

Yea it's kind of like once upon a time they delivered milk to people's doors. Once upon a time the banks gave out a toaster. Things change, cultures change.

What probably is a middle class trait is how clueless they can be dealing outside their class, always a bull in a china shop, even when they mean very well.

[gimmethesimplelife]

But there's ethics and there's ethics. Armed robbery and justifying it on poverty grounds (maybe but uh you held someone up with a gun with the potential of worse). Petty theft (actual theft where you even keep the item) from say Walmart and justifying it cause your broke (well hey, if it's Wallmart I won't say anything ;) ). And then there's borrowing grocery carts with what seems like the tacit approval and understanding of the store. I don't believe the middle and the upper class are more ethical even on surface things. They're really too "go along to get along" in their lives to really be ethical, they are not supposed to ask for instance if their work is ethical or not (though it seems important to me). Of course great crimes by the elite are the daily fare of the news - another pension fund got stolen by a fraudster, another company poisoned a community etc.. The state of the world enough utterly condemns the morality of those with power (and those aren't the poor).



Yea it's kind of like once upon a time they delivered milk to people's doors. Once upon a time the banks gave out a toaster. Things change, cultures change.

What probably is a middle class trait is how clueless they can be dealing outside their class, always a bull in a china shop, even when they mean very well.I really like your last sentence here ANM.....there have been times in my life when I have dealt with people from more stable backgrounds than I and I have really had to zip my lip as I have been so floored as some of what they claim to believe or how they have expressed their reality. I've learned over time when I run across this to automatically just tell myself to be grateful I see a level or two beyond this thinking.....which isn't to say that I'm always right by any means. It's just that reality is different based on social class. I really believe if I were to win the lottery tomorrow, my thinking would not really change. Even with the grand luck I've had the past year to have most of my debts paid off - I still don't see things the way one would expect a college graduate to, nor do I befriend the types of people one would expect me to given a sketch of background, at least as far as education and travel. I'm glad - very glad - I don't see things the way one would expect - I've learned to cherish this about myself. I've also learned to cherish my upbringing which I realize was not exactly conventional. Rob

[catherine]

But there's ethics and there's ethics. Armed robbery and justifying it on poverty grounds (maybe but uh you held someone up with a gun with the potential of worse). Petty theft (actual theft where you even keep the item) from say Walmart and justifying it cause your broke (well hey, if it's Wallmart I won't say anything ;) ). And then there's borrowing grocery carts with what seems like the tacit approval and understanding of the store.



I agree that there's a continuum... I think it's about compassion and trying to understand the points of view of both sides. One of my favorite movies is Trading Places--I think that's a great example of the whole idea of how values might be viewed through different prisms depending upon what end of the social strata you are on. And that's really delving into a lot deeper level than taking a shopping cart home, but some of the same principles apply.

[JaneV2.0]

...
I don't believe the middle and the upper class are more ethical even on surface things. They're really too "go along to get along" in their lives to really be ethical, they are not supposed to ask for instance if their work is ethical or not (though it seems important to me). Of course great crimes by the elite are the daily fare of the news - another pension fund got stolen by a fraudster, another company poisoned a community etc.. The state of the world enough utterly condemns the morality of those with power (and those aren't the poor).



Yea it's kind of like once upon a time they delivered milk to people's doors. Once upon a time the banks gave out a toaster. Things change, cultures change.

What probably is a middle class trait is how clueless they can be dealing outside their class, always a bull in a china shop, even when they mean very well.

This conversation has suddenly taken for the better. There are criminals in all classes, but only the rich get a free pass--and if not, a tap on the wrist and a comfortable berth in a federal prison.

[iris lilies]

Wow! Quite the discussion.

Where I lived in the 1970's people took the shopping carts home with their groceries all the time. The grocery store did employ someone with a pick up truck to find their carts and bring them back. That person also did shopping cart repairs and maintenance. This was in a big city multi building apartment complex where most people didn't have cars and the grocery store was on the main floor of the one of the apartment buildings. Nobody I knew considered it stealing. It was common practice at the time in those oldie goldie days.

I always had the impression that people in big cities, who did not drive, had their own fold up basket-on-wheels.

[JaneV2.0]

I don't remember those from back in the day, but they're available now. Maybe poor people could chip in and split the cost among a few famiiies. That would be a solution--or a red wagon, used or new.

[thinkgreen]

Iris Lilies, I don't remember anyone having their own fold up cart back then. Or should I say waaayyy back then in those oldie goldie days.

[thinkgreen]

ApatheticNoMore, you are so right. Once upon a time there was also milk delivery, etc. The times have certainly changed.

[Yarrow]

Iris Lilies, I don't remember anyone having their own fold up cart back then. Or should I say waaayyy back then in those oldie goldie days.

Back in the day, visiting my Grandmother when I was a little kid, few in her neighborhood had cars - most everyone walked to the grocery store, brought home their groceries in the shopping cart, then took it back to the store when they needed groceries again. This was the norm then and it was certainly not considered stealing. No one had their own fold up carts, although I did see an occasional little red wagon filled with groceries being pulled by kids following along behind their Mom, Dad, or older sibling pushing the full shopping cart.

[catherine]

ApatheticNoMore, you are so right. Once upon a time there was also milk delivery, etc. The times have certainly changed.

Back in those days there was usually only one car per family--and the dad used it to get to work, leaving the mom pretty housebound, especially if she was in suburban or rural areas..hence the need for regular local delivery of some staples.

I am still working on the business model for my company, Exit 9, which was created to be a local food delivery system. My test market with my local poultry producer failed last year. But I'm not ready to give up. I still see a need, and I'm considering going into the city nearby and starting by testing waters by providing free food delivery to the people there. There is a large Hispanic, poor, community there and I know from working our church's food distribution program that they don't have cars. Of course I don't expect to make money delivering food to these communities--I'm just trying to assess overall viability and tap into the right business model: weekly delivery? On-demand delivery? Text orders? Online only? Basically I have no expectation for building a retirement nest egg with this venture. My goal is to experiment with the gift economy and with alternative, sustainable business models ....

Hmm.. you guys have given me food for thought here...

[Yossarian]

When I lived in NYC I just carried my groceries. My grandmother used to have something like this:

http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/07/63/32/39/0007633239490_500X500.jpg

[ApatheticNoMore]

Yea my dad had one of those for the farmer's market.

[jp1]

I wonder if The Grocery Cart will become as strong a symbol of this website as The Salad Spinner is, haha.

I LOVE my salad spinner. The only thing that would make it better is is I had the jumbo one, not the small one. I think I'll start a new thread about them!

[ApatheticNoMore]

The only people really against salad spinners are those who haven't yet tried them :~)

[iris lily]

I heard that at our local vegetarian food coop you could take a salad spinner home and try it out, and then leave it on your sidewalk for a service to come by and pick it up. That way they are converting more people to eating salad greens, win/win. This is just what I heard, mind you. :~)

[JaneV2.0]

Iris Lily, you're a scamp.

[razz]

Interesting discussion about carts. I can see that an unwritten understanding about taking carts home and returning them on the next trip or by prearranged pickup can turn into a problem when the mindset of the one or more 0f the parties to the understanding changes. As far as I can see, that is all that happened. No general sense of theft or entitlement or abuse unless one chooses to have that mindset.

What bothers me more is the number of people who borrow the carts and leave them in the parking lots to interfere with parking, rather than taking a few steps to park them in the handy storage areas. These are the people who have good vehicles, good mobility and a questionable sense of responsibility. They feel entitled to simple empty the carts and leave.

[Teacher Terry]

Yossarian, the pic you posted is exactly what you see many people in big cities using. They are about $20 at Walmart so people should buy & use those instead. They are lightweight & can be easily folded & carried when not being used.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Wanting to see the latest trends in homeless attire, on my last walk I saw one homeless person with one of those carts (in the pic) and one with a regular grocery cart. Not everyone is up on fashion apparently. (Of about 5 or 6 homeless resting on the high school front yard - though I think schools over for the year, so I guess they have the place all to themselves). I also saw further on in my walk an abondoned one of those carts (as in the pic) in front of an apartment building by the street, half broken,abandoned, probably of little use, though none can deny free.

[Yarrow]

Yossarian, the pic you posted is exactly what you see many people in big cities using. They are about $20 at Walmart so people should buy & use those instead. They are lightweight & can be easily folded & carried when not being used.

A large majority of those that need a shopping cart to get their food home do not have the means to spend $20 on a folding cart, much less even have a Walmart nearby. People forget about those that are so poor that they are struggling from day to day just to survive. Buying a cart is most likely not on their list.... :(

[iris lilies]

A large majority of those that need a shopping cart to get their food home do not have the means to spend $20 on a folding cart, much less even have a Walmart nearby. People forget about those that are so poor that they are struggling from day to day just to survive. Buying a cart is most likely not on their list.... :(
What do you suppose they are paying in mark-up of groceries for the carts they roll home? Likely there is a connection.

[gimmethesimplelife]

What do you suppose they are paying in mark-up of groceries for the carts they roll home? Likely there is a connection.Obviously, I don't set the prices at these grocery chains in question. But when people were allowed to burrow carts in the past, I can however vouch for the fact that the prices at these chains were lower than at Albertsons and Safeway. The difference was so noticeable - and remains so noticeable - that I am embarrassed to shop at a chain that is non-ethnic now, other than for a few things at Trader Joes and a rare visit to Whole Foods to gawk at the overpriced merchandise. So if there is indeed a markup, it's still less than shopping at more upscale places, which is my point. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

A large majority of those that need a shopping cart to get their food home do not have the means to spend $20 on a folding cart, much less even have a Walmart nearby. People forget about those that are so poor that they are struggling from day to day just to survive. Buying a cart is most likely not on their list.... :(Agreed 100%. You hit this one dead on in my book. Rob

[Alan]

Obviously, I don't set the prices at these grocery chains in question. But when people were allowed to burrow carts in the past, I can however vouch for the fact that the prices at these chains were lower than at Albertsons and Safeway. The difference was so noticeable - and remains so noticeable - that I am embarrassed to shop at a chain that is non-ethnic now, other than for a few things at Trader Joes and a rare visit to Whole Foods to gawk at the overpriced merchandise. So if there is indeed a markup, it's still less than shopping at more upscale places, which is my point. Rob
Earlier in this thread you asserted that this whole "technically legal" to take carts from grocery stores without returning them concept was a "business decision" made by the retailers after their "numbers were crunched and margins analyzed before allowing it". If taken at face value, that would lead me to believe that margins were high enough to compensate for the shrinkage expense associated with maintaining carts although I wonder how they were able to keep their prices so low. It seems a mystery to me.

I'm also still flabbergasted by the idea that it was ever "technically legal" to remove the property of a private business without returning it. What if the business didn't approve? Was it still "technically legal"?

The only way any of this makes sense to me is to assume that some of the neighborhood markets looked the other way as their customers removed store property in the hopes that the customers would promptly return the carts and continue doing business with them. Also that the "cart return" business wasn't really a neighborhood benefit, but rather a desperate business owners attempt to reclaim their property after people began abusing their willingness to look the other way. Then it makes perfect sense that the business owners "had laws enacted" to put a stop to the practice.

Yes, I think the entire premise that the taking of carts was "technically legal" was incorrect. That's the one point that has bothered me about this entire discussion but now I feel better after pointing out what seems to me to be obvious. Now I can let it go.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Earlier in this thread you asserted that this whole "technically legal" to take carts from grocery stores without returning them concept was a "business decision" made by the retailers after their "numbers were crunched and margins analyzed before allowing it". If taken at face value, that would lead me to believe that margins were high enough to compensate for the shrinkage expense associated with maintaining carts although I wonder how they were able to keep their prices so low. It seems a mystery to me.

Well most stores figure a margin of shrinkage, often don't even prosecute it and some maintain low prices (even Walmart operates on that model, they don't even go after petty theft). So their prices are probably determined by other factors like the costs they get from suppliers etc. (maybe even high loyalty from customers due to cart convenience - that saves a lot of advertising costs which are also an expense that is tacked on to the price of everything). What are the margins of supermarkets anyway, very low (near costs) or not so? I suppose someone could do a business study on why were they able to maintain lower prices than Albertsons but other than we're speculating. I'm not sure why one needs to assume it cost them that much to round up the carts. Well maybe it did. Or maybe the person who rounded them up was themselves an illegal and paid under the table.


The only way any of this makes sense to me is to assume that some of the neighborhood markets looked the other way as their customers removed store property in the hopes that the customers would promptly return the carts and continue doing business with them.

or maybe just continue to do business with them, loyal customers are worth something (in dollars and sense terms). Looking the other way is what everyone else on this thread who doesn't see any great problem with the set up is assuming they did afterall!


Also that the "cart return" business wasn't really a neighborhood benefit, but rather a desperate business owners attempt to reclaim their property after people began abusing their willingness to look the other way.

Well maybe not a neighborhood benefit but a benefit to their customers. There is a neighborhood benefit in reducing car use I suppose though it isn't what drives the business or consumers (it SHOULD drive city hall's decisions, of course, but that's not the actors we're talking about mostly)


Then it makes perfect sense that the business owners "had laws enacted" to put a stop to the practice.

it can make perfect sense for a lot of reasons, such as once there were enough people who didn't have cars to make it worthwhile and now there aren't. Or maybe it's Albertsons and the like and not those stores that actually pushed the laws (actually makes a lot of sense to me, chains have a lot more access to legislators than mom and pops afterall, so it may not even being the businesses in question who even wanted the laws) as THEY hated having to compete with the store down the road letting people borrow carts! As noone here has actually researched who backed that law either ... Any reasonable sounding speculation is as good as any other pretty much since we're just making up stories afterall. We don't know who backed the law and why, we don't know how much of a percentage of anything metric it costs the business to pay for cart round up, we don't know how the business model has changed, we don't know the other costs of the business, we don't know how these costs compare to a bigger chain stores. We really don't know much of anything pretty much.

[Spartana]

...from the owner.

Ok, here's that thread.

Alan, I am going to have to slap you around because clearly you cannot see the utility of employing people, possibly even illegal immigrants, to drive around looking for those grocery carts.

It's a win/win situation: take the stuff, someone else gets paid to retrieve it.

Hope you get it now.a nine page thread on shopping carts??!! My Oh My!

Well I haven't read them all yet but here in my immigrant 'hood (Vietnamese) shopping carts are a huge problem. The city has even set up a shopping cart hotline that they contract with a company to pick up carts. They also made it illegal for stores with more than 10 shopping carts to have those carts leave the stores parking lot (links to all below). Basically they have become a blight in the 'hood and it sometimes takes days or even weeks before they are picked up. Even if the store owners allow them (and most don't because it's not only against the law but costs them a huge amount of money to either collect them or buy new ones) the users just leave them abandoned at the end of the street in the cul-de-sac (where my house is) for days on end waiting for the owner to send out people to collect them. It's a huge problem so most stores as well as the city made it illegal to take shopping carts from a stores premises (and most stores installed sensors that lock out the shopping carts wheels if someone tries to take it out of the parking lot) and the city makes it illegal to abandon them in front of homes or on streets. Again, it might be OK with the shop owner, and it might make things easier for the people to shop and bring home their purchases, but it can cause a huge blight problem on the streets and in front of the homes when the carts sit there. Which is why the city established both it's laws as well as it's hotline (and tax payer dollars to pay for the enforcement). So I'm against it for those reasons alone. However if the store owner is OK with lending a cart to someone, and if the shopper wants to return the cart to the store asap and not put it out on the street waiting a days-later pick up, then that is a different scenario and I would have no problem with that.
http://www.cartretrieval.net/
http://www.westminster-ca.gov/depts/police/code/shopcarts.asp
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/carts-126222-shopping-store.html