As we move to more of an internet economy we are able to purchase more and more products on line, this has had a negative impact on the viability of many retail outlets. Will the same thing happen if we shift to online purchase of groceries?
The problem is that within the US and Canada there exists neighbourhoods where there is no viable option to purchase food some don't even have the option to junk or fast food either; these are what is referred to as food deserts. Loss of more retail outlets will further exasperate the problem. Online groceries are also limited to those who process credit many working poor do not.
Should the government step in to end this practise ahead of its spread or should we just continue the march to the new feudalism?
I think that online shopping may be for the rich and upper middle class but the majority of Americans will still shop in retail outlets, especially for freshness and lower cost.
I have family members who have disabilities. Online grocery shopping would be a big help to them.
I think this will be decided by whether or not there is a demand for it.
However, Kroger (a company that owns several major grocery store chains) wants to gradually move to a future where people shop for groceries online, and just go to the store to pick up orders, or pay extra to have them delivered. They7 already plan to convert 400 stores to self check out only, in ordr to not have to pay people to work the check out counters.
There is so much to do in this earth and so little time to do it. I don’t mind outsourcing chores, that’s why I use a dishwasher instead of cleaning them all myself. Plus you cannot stop the progression of technology, people have tried it before and failed. All you can do is direct it’s develop and making sure people have access to healthy food, not just junk food is something that can be directed. Besides not walking by the candy displays by the cash register might actually make me eat healthier.
NOt sure about government control but I won't make myself depend on it . THe food supply chain is already tenuous if you live in urban areas and if on line purchasing diminishes local stores people could get in a pinch pretty fast if the transportation grid is disrupted for what ever reason
I purchase a lot online, and ordering online was a necessity when I was the single mom of a toddler. At that time, a lot of stores around here closed around 9pm but there was an online grocery delivery service starting up (something like Peapod?) and it was cool to be able to order non-perishables that way. Perishables were prohibitively expensive which is also the problem with food deserts.
Getting fresh food to food deserts isn't really the problem. Neither is having credit (people without credit commonly buy gift/Visa cards with cash which they can use online). The problem is the price. If they had the money, they'd branch out from a diet that's rife with cheap carbs. There are people working full-time who buy milk and cut it in half with water in order to make it last longer. They dilute soups, macaroni and cheese, and oatmeal to a watery consistency. These are not people who can afford fresh produce even if it was at the corner store.
The real fix is something everyone seems to shy away from: we need to better educate/train our population and then provide them with a minimum wage they can live on. Some people make that sound like they'd be living the good life, when all it means is they can pay rent with a partner/roommate, afford basic living expenses, and possibly have enough spare cash to buy fresh greens. When that happens, I think the market will automatically start expanding into the current food deserts.
I think it should be about choice. I don't think it should be one way or the other. There is a market for both.
Then sit back and watch those options disappear, because they will.
What a good question, HeathenFarmer. I will not buy on-line food. The only thing I buy is books and that's only because all the bookstores have disappeared. Thanks, internet. I'm afraid that the few retail grocers that will be left will charge very high prices. (The High Cost of Poverty. Documentary). We're going down a rabbit hole unless something like more farmer's markets spring up and we do more community and urban gardening. I also refuse to use the self-check out as it takes jobs away.
You have a very good point about self checkout. Sometimes I feel forced to use it -- or be in line another 15 minutes.
I also refuse to use self checkout. I do imagine that in time I will have no choice but I'll stall as long as I can. I foresee automation taking a tremendous amount of jobs in the very near future.
Interesting point you bring up about self check however, here they are manned anyway and that person manning it is paid more than the cashiers because they are paid as security most also have a second person to bag your purchases. They have actually become something of a joke as a cost saving measure since without that security person food just walks out of the store.
All I know is that when I was too sick to move, without having a partner to help, being able to order and have the things I needed delivered was wonderful. I can't speak very much on the solutions to the problems such a service creates but I know we'll all be better off when we figure them out.
Online ordering has it's place. I use it (with store pick up; shipping costs for perishables render online too expensive) for items that only come one way (canned, frozen, etc). When I need fresh items that I need to observe to select (produce, meats), I still go to the grocery.
Since I still go and my online orders are still prepared at my brick and morter grocery, that store should continue to be viable. I do not see the flexibility and added convenience as bad things.
Please read my replies below, as well as Jack's comment you may begin to see why flexibility and convenience has a social cost that we all and especially the poor will pay.
Why? It does not matter if I order online or pick myself, the items still come from the SAME store. The sales are the same. There is no decrease in the inventory moved. If they sell the same smount of stuff, I do not see why it would close. That makes no sense.
Geee.... I got a father in law that recieves meals on wheels. I didnt know that getting groceries on line was a problem. I thought this would be great for the elderly and crippled. Even those self driving cars are helpful to take them to the dkctors.
I agree. Not everyone is able to get out and about. Also, when you live is a small rural town like I do you sometimes want something that isn't readily available at your local market.
@kiramea. Geee.... that's rough... sorry.
@kiramea , that local market will disappear altogether with online shopping and likely replaced by an over price convenience store. Picture the Wal-Mart effect for a moment, a Wally Mart opens up in a rural area and all the local retailers are gone within a few years along with those jobs they created and the economy they generated of course there were new low paying jobs in the local Wally Mart to replace them. This time any new jobs created will be in distant large centres and they will effect those jobs at Wally Mart as well.
I don't want to turn into a vegetable unable to do my own things. My work/job is not that important that I can't dedicate time to be "normal" and risk be around normal people doing normal tasks.
I am very aware of this problem and it was a topic of much discussion when I was on the advisory council for a city park. Some deemed this another example of social injustice. However, in reality I see this as an overpopulation and sprawl issue to me. A big part of one's quality of life should include being able to pick the food one eats through actual manipulating the food before purchasing it. That will be gone with online retailing. The only real and sustainable solution is to redirect our economy away from constant growth and start practicing family planning and keep our numbers in check. Sustainable growth is an oxymoron especially on a planet with finite resources. Grocery stores are a resource!
You clearly grasp the problem, but, the solutions are not about to happen until you change people's mind set an extremely difficult task at best. We are also faced with the fact that we have the cities we have, remaking them is especially difficult especially if we are to move to zero growth.
@HeathenFarmer Totally agree. ZPG said the choice we have is to recognize the problem and take action on our own or mother nature ill do it for us. This basic fact was even evident to Thomas Malthus in the late 18th century. We can only try.
@JackPedigo , the biggest thing that needs to happen is for people to become aware that there is a problem, that needs to happen even before they understand the problem. This is where the roll of government to provide a diverse and well funded public education should come into play. It is also why our new feudal lords want to shrink government and starve out program spending.
@HeathenFarmer The saying "hat you don't know won't hurt you" is dead wrong. Just because there's not enough information doesn't mean the problem ill go away. It will get worse. I have commented to people on this site who think technology will solve all our problems.
@JackPedigo , I agree totally technology is not a solution often it generates new problem and exasperates existing ones. I still feel that government is failing in its roll because ignorance is far from any form of bliss.
@HeathenFarmer What is the saying about people deserving the government they have? When you talk about overpopulation people's eyes glaze over. They don't want to talk about "doom and Gloom" and would rather go to "smile and denial". My late partner and I came up with a more reasoned approach and say "Know and Grow". I understand everything you are saying but have had 25 years of beating my head against this wall. People just don't want to hear about this. It goes against their every core of being. ZPG and the Sierra Club felt they needed more funding to get this message out. They were offered $100 million (PBS to the contrary) for funding on the condition they drop the immigration part of the message. They sold out and actually lost their voice on the population issue. BTW the formula for this is I = PAT (impact = population X activity x Technology).