You mentioned that it would hurt Granny.
But is her grocery bag pain like her beard plucking pain?
Or is her grocery bag pain more like her lumbago pain?
I have no idea what grocery prices are like out there.
I’m trying to figure out how much of an impact this actually has on folks.
How much is Granny spending on bags per $100 of groceries?
I can see it’s a real bug up your butt. But that’s not actually useful information for decisions making and judgement snapping.
A specific amount would make it easier for me to sympathize with your plight.
K if that’s correct that’s notable, and better than them getting the entire fee, but since they are putting out “nicer” (i.e. thicker) bags now, I assume they must get a percentage of it to compensate them for costs right?
Other than jurisdictions without any sales tax is there anywhere in the US where all-inclusive pricing is the norm? :dubious: I know it’s the norm in the rest of the World, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen it in the US (well other than at vending machines).
Well my mother always ended up going grocery shopping during our family vacations, but then again we always stayed at campgrounds instead of hotels. Granted it would’ve been trivial for her to keep reusable bags in the camper; she manages to keep her trunk full of them nowadays.
It’s the idea that smug liberal elite pricks such as cochrane, who explicitly admit to giving zero shits about the plight of poor people and openly mock issues that affect them, are the ones who drove many poor voters to Trump. The Democrats completely and utterly failed to send a message that they cared about them, even though in theory the Democrats are supposed to be the party that has the backs of “the common people”. Regressive “fees” like this that fuck over the poor are not helping that image.
Using your figures, that family would be out a grand total of forty-one dollars per year. Anyone whose finances are so precarious that they’re going to be driven into ruin by the loss of that little money - less than half an hour’s worth of pay at minimum wage per month - probably can’t afford to buy their own groceries in the first place.
Moreover, I don’t know if this applies in CA, but up here where we’ve had bag bans in place for a few years, the fee for paper bags is waived if you’re paying with food stamps, making the net burden on low-income shoppers zero.
Here’s the thing: it isn’t about it driving people into total ruin on its own.
Can we at least be in agreement that a few dollars a month (not sure if your figure is necessarily accurate, but whatever the real figure amounts to) is a hell of a lot more of a burden to someone trying to support their family of 4 on $25K (which is a huge number of people), than it is to a household of 2 that pulls in $200K+ between them?
Because if you agree to that, you know this policy is inherently wrong. It doesn’t matter if they can survive it. Yeah, people will adapt and people will survive. It’s still wrong.
One of my grandmothers used to have a wallet that unfolded into a cloth bag, back before stores started giving plastic bags. People would see her not carrying a basket or cart, then start giving funny looks when they saw that she was buying more than she probably could carry comfortably, then ask “where did you buy that?” after she paid, put the change into the wallet and proceeded to unfold said wallet into a very solid bag. The wallet part is red leather; the bag is made from the same kind of cloth used for umbrella covers, so it’s both light and sturdy.
It’s magic, that bag. One of my cousins has it now, having asked for it as her token inheritance. And good thing she did ask for it; otherwise the five sisters in law might have started a war.
That’s still not true though - not every poor person pays for every purchase specifically with a California Special Supplemental Food Program card, even if they’re on the program (which isn’t a given if they aren’t educated about their eligibility).
(and also, not all cashiers will even know about the waiver, nor will all consumers, and even if they do, they may be embarrassed to specifically ask for it)
Every cost, no matter the source, is a bigger deal to the folks who make drastically less money. That’s kind of what making drastically more money means.
It doesn’t seem to be anything other than a minor inconvenience.
:shrug:
I’m on Social Security and get SNAP benefits, aka food stamps. I’m not well-off by any means, but if I had to pony up a whopping 10¢ extra per (reusable) bag, I’m sure I could scrape it up from under the couch cushions.
Also, bite me. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, I’m just giving you a hard time because it’s the Pit, and I can. You’re just whining because you can’t get free bags to pick up your dog shit.
I’m genuinely puzzled about what’s going on here. Is this a post-Trump phenomenon? In the big picture everything is going to shit, so we’re going to get inexplicably angry and outraged about trivia? If this were a new poster, I would assume this was trolling, the outrage is so bizarrely disproportionate to the sums involved.
OK, so if someone forgets or neglects to bring their own bag, and if they’re getting more items than they can easily carry without a bag, and if they’re not using food stamps, then they have to pay a fee equivalent to 36 seconds of labor? And this is what you’re getting so upset about? Man, I wish that were the worst problem I had to worry about.