Fort Greene Co-Op Chooses Toiling

Goldie;

Rather than throwing insults at Polemecist, let's try to debate this on an economic level.

You state that you are satisfied with working for the COOP in that it eliminates some of the labor overhead, thereby reducing the mark-up in your food costs. In making this statement, have you considered the value of your time? I cannot see how you have done so, and still reach this conclusion.

Given that Park Slope is generally an affluent area, I cannot see how the Food Coop makes sense. What you are advocating is that the cost of lower-paid workers be eliminated, and instead, you are making use of folks whose time is worth more. Moreover, given that the COOP mandates this high-cost labor, it is not used wisely. I cringe every time I see a COOP "escort" wheeling groceries with a shopper through the streets of Park Slope. It is a waste of human capital, all for the sake of some romantic notion of a non-profit Coop.

There are instances where a Food Coop makes sense. If it is done on a small scale,it can result in real savings. In a low-income area where labor is more plentiful and low cost, it also makes sense. In an area like Park Slope, it makes no economic sense. If folks want to join for other reasons, well, live and let live.

Posted by: benson at August 20, 2008 10:50 AM

11217;

The answer depends upon a person's income. Let's take the case of a lawyer for example, plenty of whom can bill at $350/hour or more. Their COOP effort, at 2 hours and 45 minutes per month, is equivalent to almost $1000 of their labor (and I'm not including possible "opportunity costs"). If they believe that they are saving $1000 off the price of their food each month, it is worth their time. Somehow, I doubt that they are saving this much money on their food bill.

I wonder about your last statement. Is it your philosophy that a concept's popularity makes it beyond the reach of critical analysis? I would caution against such thinking, for it is precisely this philosphy that leads to bubble mentalities.

Posted by: benson at August 20, 2008 11:07 AM

11217;

Obviously, as I said,it depends upon what a person feels that their time is worth. Please note,however, that it is not free, leisure time, as you stated. Those who join the COOP should be clear about what they are doing: they are working to save money off their food costs, and in doing so, they should account for the value of their labor. That was my original point to Goldie, and it seems to me that she made no account of the value of her time.

Sorry, but I don't buy the quality argument at all. With Fairway here, Trader Joe's coming and the preponderance of Green Markets, I don't see how the COOP has special access any longer to quality products. If anything,it seems to me that Fairway and Trader Joe's,with their huge buying power,would have the upper leg.

Posted by: benson at August 20, 2008 11:28 AM

Z;

One other point, to add to what DIBS said. If you are talking about a person for whom $100/hour (post tax) is attractive, that person will not likely be taxed at a marginal rate of 50%, as you assumed in your analysis. The marginal rate of 50% applies for folks making about $200K or over,and for a person of such means, the COOP makes no economic sense.

Posted by: benson at August 20, 2008 11:36 AM

Z;

Correct you are! My mistake.

Posted by: benson at August 20, 2008 12:17 PM

CMU;

Did you even read what I had written? Working is the COOP is NOT leisure time. If it were, it would not be mandatory. Working in the COOP is WORK, and the principal reason is to cut down on your food costs, as Goldie and others have acknowleged.

I can respect Goldie's point of view, and those of others who are going in with their eyes wide open, have done their own personal calculation, and decided that it is worth their time. I can also respect 11217's POV that there are other benefits they receive for their effort, in terms of socializing, being part of a community effort, etc. I do not respect your post, because you do not even acknowledge the very basis of the COOP, and you do not even take the time to think about what others have posted. You want to paint this issue in black and white. Find a real issue to get worked up about.

Posted by: benson at August 20, 2008 1:50 PM

CMU;

I'm wasting my time, as you are being disingenuous, but I'll give it one more try.

Going to a movie or coaching a Little League are voluntary, leisure activities that have benefits that are non-monetary. No one enters into these arrangements with the expectations of any reduction in their cost of living, or some type of monetary compenation.

I responded to a number of people on this post (Goldie and 11217, to name just two) who stated that their primary reason for joining the COOP is economic, specifically, a reduction in their food bill. THEY, as members or would-be members, stated that this was their justification, not I. Given that their stated primary motivation was economic, I examined it from this point of view.

This is the first time I've run into you on this blog. However, judging from what other folks have written about you above, I can see that trying to engage you on economics is futile, so this will be the last time I waste my time on you.

Posted by: benson at August 20, 2008 4:36 PM

East River;

I can respect what you are saying, if that is what you believe. If one you believe that there is real non-monetary value in belonging to the COOP, well great for you. Please see what I wrote above: "Live and let live". My issue with the COOP is strictly from an economic point-of-view.

CMU;

Now you are finally framing the issue in a realistic way. There is no general answer to this question, as it depends upon each person's marginal earning capability. Some people (such as lawyers) surely can work an extra 2.75 (or 2.5 hours, whichever it is) a month at their specialized profession, and make lots more money than the cost savings they will realize at the COOP. Others will not. I believe that what can be said safely is that the higher one's marginal earning capability, the less economical the COOP becomes.

I can see from these posts that some folks have a real attachment to the COOP. Once again, great for them. All I'm suggesting is that folks carefully examine what they are really getting out of the deal.

Posted by: benson at August 20, 2008 7:01 PM

East River;

You raise a good question, and I think I need to take my point a step further, after seeing 11225's post.

I myself am involved in several activities, for which I am not paid. One of these activities is a charitable/fraternal organization. When I work for this organization, I do not look at the time I contribute in terms of its economic worth. I am dedicated to our charitable goals, and am happy to contribute my time. Moreover, in addition to the larger goal of the charity, there are social benefits to me (it is a fraternal organization), which I value.

What I don't get about the COOP is this larger goal. Where is the "greater good" in organizing a COOP for the basic economic function of procuring one's food? I don't see it. To me, it just comes down to a way of organizing the economics of procuring food, and, as I've tried to show above, I don't think it does a very good job of it, when one calculates all the free labor they receive.

It seems to me to be misplaced idealism. Procuring food is near the bottom of the economic ladder in an advanced society like ours, and in an affluent area, consumes a few percent of the average family budget. Why are folks contributing free labor to taking the profit out of this small part of the economic ladder? I don't understand it. It would seem to be that this volunteer labor could be directed towards much loftier goals.

That's just my opinion. However, the idea of the COOP doesn't bother me. I believe in liberty, and if folks think its is worthwhile, well, it's worthwhile.

Posted by: benson at August 20, 2008 10:27 PM

Montrose;

I don't get the point of your e-mail.

Surely I agree that it is a good thing for all of us to get our hands dirty from time to time, to keep some perspective in life. For instance, I still paint my own place, even though, from an economic POV, it is probably not efficient.

It is still my point, however, that the COOP does not do this. Do people farm in the COOP? No. Do they get their hands dirty? Some do, but others don't. Where is the "hand dirtying" in escorting a wagon of food to a person's home? I still maintain that the primary purpose of the COOP is economic, and in that mission, it does poorly. I still believe that it is wasted human capital to supply so much free labor to such a base goal, rather than more loftier ambitions.

Let's take this one step further. Should we open up mines in NYC, so that I can appreciate the hard work of miners? How about opening up a cement quarry right next to Prospect Park? By the logic of your argument, why shouldn't we do this?

Finally, you misunderstood my comment about food procurement being on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. This statement was not meant as a sign of disrepsect towards farmers or food distribution workers. Rather, it is an economic fact of life that if a society wants to evolve, one of the first steps it must take is to reduce the amount of resources necessary to feed its population. If you look at the poor countries of the world, it is those who still have an overwhelmingly agricultural economy. Is this what you are advocating? Moreover, it is to the benefit of farmers that this trend happens. Those farmers left in the sector tend to do better, as the oversupply is reduced, and efficiency of scale comes into play.

I've spent my career, first as an engineer and later in sales, in the manufacturing sector. You want to talk about distressed sectors? You want to talk about diminishing prospects, as I've seen factory after factory close here? However, I do not stare at my navel. I understand the forces that are shaping this development, and I do not demand that folks open up an inefficient factory in Fort Greene so that they can understand the stress that those of us left in this sector are undergoing.

Posted by: benson at August 21, 2008 9:56 AM

Montrose and East River;

I think we have actually reached a point of agreement, in a roundabout sort of way.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread really argue that the COOP is economically effective. Indeed, Montrose seems to readily acknowledge that it is, in fact, not efficient.

What it comes down to, therefore, are the intangible benefits and values: the sense of community, the benefits of "toiling in the field of the COOP", etc.

I am not here to disparage anyone who is seeking those benefits and values. I acknowledge that there is idealism that fuels it, though I still believe that it might be "misplaced idealism", as I stated above. Having said that, if folks believe otherwise,I have no problem with it. Hence, we have reached a point of agreement.

Have a great day!

Posted by: benson at August 21, 2008 11:41 AM