Just spit-balling here, but maybe it would help make food more affordable if the federal government stopped mass deportations of people working in the agriculture and food sectors.
A real-estate Quant, reflecting on the forests-carbon proposition, stated "This changes everything."
So it is here. At least in California! Forests-carbon economics supports distributed biomass use, typically in a combined power and thermal services (CPTS) to extract the most value from the combusted forests hydrocarbons.
Here in Further West Sagebrushistan, efficient biomass facilities, downhill from the trees, are also good places for the processing of non-feedlot (Grass-fed) beef and lamb. Cheap cooling! Jobs when the woods are full of snow!
Local countervail to meatpacking concentration!
As for the concentration in the retail space, I shop at Winco, which has way better avocados than Safeway at a lower price. Funny Winco is not investor-owned.
The OBBB reduced SNAP benefits by 22% over 10 years. That reduces a $90 billion/year program to $70 bn/year. SNAP feeds 1 of 8 U.S. citizens daily, and it's being reduced to $70 bn/year (reduced by 22%). So, the daily stipend per meal shrinks, and per week also. What was a $290/week stipend becomes $226/week or $2.43/meal. But -- a big but -- the Urban Institute published a study showing SNAP benefits were inadequate, they did not cover the basic meal expenses by about 50 cents per meal. In large print they said: "A modestly priced meal cost $3.41 in the last quarter of 2024 (or $317/month), 20% more than the maximum SNAP benefit." Therefore this modest meal times 93/month costs SNAP $317/month.
That would mean the maximum SNAP benefit is $2.73/meal and $254/month -- and that is being cut by 22% to about $200/month.
The exact prices are shifting around, but basically SNAP benefits will pay about 2/3rds the cost of the needed amount, and I suppose the beneficiary will have to find the additional 1/3.
Are we the richest nation per capita in the world?
Or are we the cheapest most cold-hearted nation in the world?
We create 1 in 8 who qualify for SNAP. Therefore, we have a broken system that does not pay workers sufficiently, and we are cheapskates who won't provide for the poorest. Many studies show that over 40% of U.S. adults live with economic hardship and insecurity. 41.5% live with incomes below 200% the OPL, official poverty level (Supplemental Poverty Measure stat from USCensus). And that level does not pay the bills of a survival budget. ------ I'm not a negative person, per se. I see the greatness of the U.S., but let's be real.
I'm not really clear about what problem is being solved here. Yes, food affordability, but it seems there is a big question mark about why food inflation has not receded to prior levels. Jared mentions supply chain related issues but why don't these same issues persist in other sectors? A long term solution needs to address whatever is keeping food inflation high. Maybe I missed something, but these solutions seem to be solving an undefined problem
Another thing that's needed: Immigration Reform to allow more workers in to work the farms, food processing (meat-packing, canning, etc.). US Citizens (both natural born and naturalized) won't take those jobs. We also need to look at supporting other industries, such as construction, that are highly dependent on immigrants. We need to expand the H-2A visa program, among other things.
It would be good to also push investment in the cultivated meat industry. Meat represents a large cost in Americans’ basket of groceries typically bough, and also is important nutritionally (albeit needs to be balanced with other food groups). The technology has great scaling and efficiency potential, and also allows for disruption of some of the concentrated markets. I would like to see Tyson’s and its factory farms face new competition from ethical and climate-forward newcomers.
Trump’s nominee for chair of the Fed has said the Fed needs to pay less attention to global climate change. Recent study found that 75% of the world’s coffee supply is threatened by rising temperatures. Hard to imagine that trends like this contribute to food security. Are economists giving enough weight to climate change in their inflation projections?
Hmmm. An opportunity for me, a non-expert (I'm not an economist) to chime in on an economics matter that I have no expertise in.
I'll take it!
Seriously,
1) Off the top, I see a forcing of people getting the swipe fees to forego money, as opposed to the alternative of the government paying that cost.
That is, precisely, I believe a "hidden tax", making the governments tax collections seem lower than the actual cost of government programs. I believe some people have identified that "hidden taxes" add up a considerable fraction of the revenue actually collected in taxes.
(On the topic, anyone unaware of it should note that employer and individual health insurance plans substantially subsidize Medicare and Medicaid, through lower government-mandated reimbursement rates for those two programs.
I tried to take a stab at the dollar magnitude of the effects on employer and individual premiums here:
The important thing to note is that this practice is so deeply embedded that there's no way to change that (the hidden tax or hidden subsidy) quickly without bringing down the whole U.S. healthcare system. So, the informed voter will just want to know that it is there, and plays a role in policy and policy changes.)
2) We're adding laws and complexity to an already extremely complex set of laws in the country, keeping our excessive proportion of lawyers compared to other countries employed. but really, there is a cost and friction from adding this kind of thing. Let us bear this in mind!
3) As you indicated, supermarket margins are low. I can see that, if there is true competition, they will at least pass on the savings from the reduced credit and debit card fees to the consumer.
I don't know how the food producers would be made to lower their prices, however. It's thus very hard to see much affect. (Maybe someone can supply a mechanism for that as a reply.)
4) My cynicism, which has been especially validated as I have lived longer and longer, and observed, now comes to the fore.
Before even seeing this:
"If you talk to a policymaker about affordability, they’ll start by asking what ideas you have for grocery prices."
I suspected the impetus for a program is from the political side, to either appear that the Democrats had a solution to this impossible-to-solve-quickly problem, and, as well, if prices go down by themselves or for whatever reason, to claim they caused the lowering.
(This is the political reality, I am afraid! Not an accusation against Mr. Bernstein! I have been lashing out at Republicans lately for doing this illusion of acting to fix a problem they are actually only making worse with the ten or so ridiculous health plans they have come up with in the past several months.)
5) I have to confess, I read the Wa Po thing, but only now see the analysis of Mexico, so I need to read that!
--
Confessing to be a complete amateur, I'd love any helpful assent or dissent from economists and such in the comments.
When I look at Food at Home CPI, I see low inflation since 2023. That isn't the perception-- historical anchoring I guess. In which case, maintaining the current grocery price level isn't going to be a political win.
I'll offer an alternative. For the past few years affordability has been driven by non-discretionary bills: auto insurance, home insurance, electric utility, gas utility. These are big bills to begin with, and they have much higher recent inflation rates. Which means there's not much left over for retail purchases, so consumers are stressed. They don't see the price of insurance every week like they do for hamburger meat, but in terms of $$$'s, the price of insurance and utilities is much more important.
Here's the thing, the price of insurance and utilities is set by state regulators. With political pressure, they may not lower the price, but regulators would be less likely to pass through costs in the future. Most households are also adamantly against paying for AI energy.
Eventually, probably very soon, the rental prices in the CPI are going to flatten, causing aggregate CPI inflation to be near zero. That's going to cause a lot of frustration and suspicion by households who still feel really stressed. Particularly from a politician who repeatedly insists that gasoline costs $2 per gallon.
Households will feel like there's always something new that keeps them from getting ahead. Every targeted price policy will seem out of date. The long-term, politically salient point isn't the cost of living; it is the distribution between labor and capital, as can be seen by the trade-off of wages to profits in GDI. Efficiency improvements from AI will only make it worse.
From April through November I purchase my fruits/veggies at a farm .... the same family for many generations. I asked them about rising prices - their answer: everything is more expensive, from fertilizer to seeds to $$ to attract workers and the impact of weather.
The Mom and Pop groceries are long gone. too many neighborhoods are food deserts, the quality, choice in the mega stores varies, really varies. Farms are increasingly mechanized, and AI is also impacting farms, fewer workers, Look on the bright side, the increases in beef prices may chase consumers to the vegetarians side ... and I like tofu
Just spit-balling here, but maybe it would help make food more affordable if the federal government stopped mass deportations of people working in the agriculture and food sectors.
What is the impact on food prices of changes in the agriculture work force caused by federal immigration enforcement polices and actions?
We must revive anti trust to restore competition to the food industry starting with meat packers and giant retailers.
A real-estate Quant, reflecting on the forests-carbon proposition, stated "This changes everything."
So it is here. At least in California! Forests-carbon economics supports distributed biomass use, typically in a combined power and thermal services (CPTS) to extract the most value from the combusted forests hydrocarbons.
Here in Further West Sagebrushistan, efficient biomass facilities, downhill from the trees, are also good places for the processing of non-feedlot (Grass-fed) beef and lamb. Cheap cooling! Jobs when the woods are full of snow!
Local countervail to meatpacking concentration!
As for the concentration in the retail space, I shop at Winco, which has way better avocados than Safeway at a lower price. Funny Winco is not investor-owned.
The OBBB reduced SNAP benefits by 22% over 10 years. That reduces a $90 billion/year program to $70 bn/year. SNAP feeds 1 of 8 U.S. citizens daily, and it's being reduced to $70 bn/year (reduced by 22%). So, the daily stipend per meal shrinks, and per week also. What was a $290/week stipend becomes $226/week or $2.43/meal. But -- a big but -- the Urban Institute published a study showing SNAP benefits were inadequate, they did not cover the basic meal expenses by about 50 cents per meal. In large print they said: "A modestly priced meal cost $3.41 in the last quarter of 2024 (or $317/month), 20% more than the maximum SNAP benefit." Therefore this modest meal times 93/month costs SNAP $317/month.
That would mean the maximum SNAP benefit is $2.73/meal and $254/month -- and that is being cut by 22% to about $200/month.
The exact prices are shifting around, but basically SNAP benefits will pay about 2/3rds the cost of the needed amount, and I suppose the beneficiary will have to find the additional 1/3.
Are we the richest nation per capita in the world?
Or are we the cheapest most cold-hearted nation in the world?
We create 1 in 8 who qualify for SNAP. Therefore, we have a broken system that does not pay workers sufficiently, and we are cheapskates who won't provide for the poorest. Many studies show that over 40% of U.S. adults live with economic hardship and insecurity. 41.5% live with incomes below 200% the OPL, official poverty level (Supplemental Poverty Measure stat from USCensus). And that level does not pay the bills of a survival budget. ------ I'm not a negative person, per se. I see the greatness of the U.S., but let's be real.
I'm not really clear about what problem is being solved here. Yes, food affordability, but it seems there is a big question mark about why food inflation has not receded to prior levels. Jared mentions supply chain related issues but why don't these same issues persist in other sectors? A long term solution needs to address whatever is keeping food inflation high. Maybe I missed something, but these solutions seem to be solving an undefined problem
I wonder how much is just price gouging by big ag and grocery stores.
Another thing that's needed: Immigration Reform to allow more workers in to work the farms, food processing (meat-packing, canning, etc.). US Citizens (both natural born and naturalized) won't take those jobs. We also need to look at supporting other industries, such as construction, that are highly dependent on immigrants. We need to expand the H-2A visa program, among other things.
https://nfwm.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Updated-Immigration-FW-Timeline.pdf
https://www.ncfh.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/facts_about_farmworkers_fact_sheet_1.10.23-1.pdf
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/08/02/dolores-huerta-farm-raids-immigration-labor-interview-00489203
https://ufw.org/farm-workers-welcome-reintroduction-of-farm-workforce-modernization-act/
https://www.ncfh.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/facts_about_farmworkers_fact_sheet_1.10.23-1.pdf
https://www.agdaily.com/insights/perspective-future-of-farm-labor-in-us-we-just-dont-know/
Points two and three are very ambitious. Funny that the first one is so controversial, since it’s just meant as a temporary measure.
It would be good to also push investment in the cultivated meat industry. Meat represents a large cost in Americans’ basket of groceries typically bough, and also is important nutritionally (albeit needs to be balanced with other food groups). The technology has great scaling and efficiency potential, and also allows for disruption of some of the concentrated markets. I would like to see Tyson’s and its factory farms face new competition from ethical and climate-forward newcomers.
Trump’s nominee for chair of the Fed has said the Fed needs to pay less attention to global climate change. Recent study found that 75% of the world’s coffee supply is threatened by rising temperatures. Hard to imagine that trends like this contribute to food security. Are economists giving enough weight to climate change in their inflation projections?
Hmmm. An opportunity for me, a non-expert (I'm not an economist) to chime in on an economics matter that I have no expertise in.
I'll take it!
Seriously,
1) Off the top, I see a forcing of people getting the swipe fees to forego money, as opposed to the alternative of the government paying that cost.
That is, precisely, I believe a "hidden tax", making the governments tax collections seem lower than the actual cost of government programs. I believe some people have identified that "hidden taxes" add up a considerable fraction of the revenue actually collected in taxes.
(On the topic, anyone unaware of it should note that employer and individual health insurance plans substantially subsidize Medicare and Medicaid, through lower government-mandated reimbursement rates for those two programs.
I tried to take a stab at the dollar magnitude of the effects on employer and individual premiums here:
https://normspier828307.substack.com/p/understanding-the-lower-medicare
if anyone is interested.
The important thing to note is that this practice is so deeply embedded that there's no way to change that (the hidden tax or hidden subsidy) quickly without bringing down the whole U.S. healthcare system. So, the informed voter will just want to know that it is there, and plays a role in policy and policy changes.)
2) We're adding laws and complexity to an already extremely complex set of laws in the country, keeping our excessive proportion of lawyers compared to other countries employed. but really, there is a cost and friction from adding this kind of thing. Let us bear this in mind!
3) As you indicated, supermarket margins are low. I can see that, if there is true competition, they will at least pass on the savings from the reduced credit and debit card fees to the consumer.
I don't know how the food producers would be made to lower their prices, however. It's thus very hard to see much affect. (Maybe someone can supply a mechanism for that as a reply.)
4) My cynicism, which has been especially validated as I have lived longer and longer, and observed, now comes to the fore.
Before even seeing this:
"If you talk to a policymaker about affordability, they’ll start by asking what ideas you have for grocery prices."
I suspected the impetus for a program is from the political side, to either appear that the Democrats had a solution to this impossible-to-solve-quickly problem, and, as well, if prices go down by themselves or for whatever reason, to claim they caused the lowering.
(This is the political reality, I am afraid! Not an accusation against Mr. Bernstein! I have been lashing out at Republicans lately for doing this illusion of acting to fix a problem they are actually only making worse with the ten or so ridiculous health plans they have come up with in the past several months.)
5) I have to confess, I read the Wa Po thing, but only now see the analysis of Mexico, so I need to read that!
--
Confessing to be a complete amateur, I'd love any helpful assent or dissent from economists and such in the comments.
When I look at Food at Home CPI, I see low inflation since 2023. That isn't the perception-- historical anchoring I guess. In which case, maintaining the current grocery price level isn't going to be a political win.
I'll offer an alternative. For the past few years affordability has been driven by non-discretionary bills: auto insurance, home insurance, electric utility, gas utility. These are big bills to begin with, and they have much higher recent inflation rates. Which means there's not much left over for retail purchases, so consumers are stressed. They don't see the price of insurance every week like they do for hamburger meat, but in terms of $$$'s, the price of insurance and utilities is much more important.
Here's the thing, the price of insurance and utilities is set by state regulators. With political pressure, they may not lower the price, but regulators would be less likely to pass through costs in the future. Most households are also adamantly against paying for AI energy.
Eventually, probably very soon, the rental prices in the CPI are going to flatten, causing aggregate CPI inflation to be near zero. That's going to cause a lot of frustration and suspicion by households who still feel really stressed. Particularly from a politician who repeatedly insists that gasoline costs $2 per gallon.
Households will feel like there's always something new that keeps them from getting ahead. Every targeted price policy will seem out of date. The long-term, politically salient point isn't the cost of living; it is the distribution between labor and capital, as can be seen by the trade-off of wages to profits in GDI. Efficiency improvements from AI will only make it worse.
From April through November I purchase my fruits/veggies at a farm .... the same family for many generations. I asked them about rising prices - their answer: everything is more expensive, from fertilizer to seeds to $$ to attract workers and the impact of weather.
The Mom and Pop groceries are long gone. too many neighborhoods are food deserts, the quality, choice in the mega stores varies, really varies. Farms are increasingly mechanized, and AI is also impacting farms, fewer workers, Look on the bright side, the increases in beef prices may chase consumers to the vegetarians side ... and I like tofu