psfc_produce_08_08.jpg
Despite the low-pitched groan that emanates from the Park Slope Food Co-op due to compulsory work slots, the impending Fort Greene co-op has chosen to follow Park Slope’s model. The Brooklyn Paper reports that every member of the Greene Hill Co-op will work a shift in exchange for discounted organic groceries, though they’re in favor of a less strict policy than Park Slope’s, which has members work two shifts if they miss one. Can’t have community unless all folks participate, they decided. Now they just need to find a space.
Workers of the Co-op Unite [Brooklyn Paper]
PSFC Produce. Photo by bluesage.


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. “Given that their stated primary motivation was economic, I examined it from this point of view.”

    I can see my using analogies is going nowhere. I will state this is simple terms.

    11217 & Goldie decide they want to reduce their food costs. They join the Co-op and work x hrs and gain thereby an economic benefit of $y. You say their hourly wages, being well above y/x, they are short-changing themselves.

    But the question is, if they did NOT work at the Co-op those hours, what would they be doing? If they took time off from work to do so, your argument has validity. If it’s any other time, what *economic* difference can it make?

  2. The space issues (rent) are becoming a real problem in Brooklyn. Maybe not in bed Stuy yet but we heard all about those ridiculous Court St. rents for froyo shops.

    Anyone with an idea for a business needs to secure a 10-15 year lease or they will find themselves without a business after only a few short years on a lesser lease.

    They were smart to buy the property. We are trying to secure a property or a lease for a market in bed Stuy and the problems there are different

  3. Daveinbedtuy

    I would say they have outgrown their space, but there are few options these days. I’ve suggested Gowanus, but no one i’ve met there likes that idea. They own their property free and clear and it is pretty valuable, although probably more so as a development site.

    Btw, the borrowing has a limit. They really just do it to maintain cash reserves. I think the most you can lend to them is a grand or two. Still, it’s a good deal and it’s better than them going to a bank.

  4. Value can be a very subjective thing. Lawyers can make $350 an hour. Teachers don’t but IMHO teachers are more valuable. To the coop, no one’s time is more valuable than any other member’s. It’s not just the savings, it’s the value of belonging and I think the point Goldie, Polemicist,cmu and others are making is just that. It’s difficult to assess in dollars and cents the real value or savings because based on what members have said, the coop also operates as a social center, fulfills a philosophical mission, emphasizes the spirit of cooperation and supports small agricultural suppliers, perhaps fosters a more green approach to food supply- a lot of pluses.

  5. goldie:

    If you don’t understand why working is mandatory, sit in on an orientation meeting again or better yet – ask Joe Holtz or one of the other founders. They’ll be happy to tell you the story.

    One of the great questions of modernity is how to reconcile people’s need for immediate gratification with long term planning. People invariably operate in their own self interest, whether consciously or not. Try Skinner’s Walden Two. We see this all the time in other co-ops around the nation. We have seen it with the NIMBY phenomenon, where communities demand a particular public service but don’t want the population density that makes it economically viable. It’s a huge issue with environmental concerns. We see it on this site every day where people resist the optimum level of density despite its environmental benefits.

    Some would argue the social trap is simply a psychological label for the tendency towards decadence of humanity as a whole. Many throughout the centuries have argued this kind of behavior is what leads to social collapse.

    cmu:

    Contrary to my reputation, I’ve consistently advocated what I believe promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

  6. 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.

  7. Second you, cobblehiller, I’m astounded to be in agreement with Polemicist. Well, there’s hope for diversity after all.

    Benson: “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.”

    Eh? What, in your estimation is the basis? I think it’s a co-operatively run store that gives good value for members helping out (I’m becoming leery of “work,” since to you that implies a monetary value.) What did I not read in your posts?

    It’s the imputed monetary value I’m objecting to. You have not answered my objection: what’s different about being at the coop 2.75hrs/month (ok every 4 weeks) and going to a movie, coaching at Little League, or wasting time responding to inane blog posts?

1 2 3 4 5 10