[DerbyX]

Lemmy Lemmy:

DerbyX DerbyX:

The bottom line is that liquor privatization in Alberta has led to higher consumer prices, more stores (but less genuine selection), marginalized workers, a host of social problems, and (in real terms) decreasing government revenues. All in all, given Alberta's experience in privatizing liquor, British Columbians might want to give the idea some sober second thought.

The "higher consumer prices" aregument is a two-fold half truth. Since there are more high end products availaible, average price, of course, will rise. Adjusting for inflation, prices have stayed the same. Less "genuine selection"? Nonesense. There's no such thing as "genuine selection". The product is either available or it isn't. It's no different than buying groceries. I know if I want sushi rice, wasabi paste and nori sheet I have to drive to the Japanese grocery instead of the Zehr's.

Telling an employee who was making an inflated wage that he/she will now be making a fair market wage is not "marginalizing" workers. It's cutting wasteful government.

Social problems may be more prevelent as alcohol is easier to come by, but the same is true of host of other products that government doesn't retail. I've already cited reference to the fact that government did not lose revenue as a result of privatization.

The article is saying this, not me and you'll have to argue against the authors research.

The "walmart argument" of marginalized workers is a fair one. To often private companies make profits at the expense of its workers, ie the pitiful wages earned by said employees.

Its not as if LCBO employees are raking in the dough.

[DerbyX]

Lemmy Lemmy:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Again, I disagree cited my article. Even if I agree that prices will fall, there are other penalties to pay for that, namely social. It does border in "nanny-state" territory though but I don't find alcohol is expensive at all.

And I cited my article. Mine's more credible, IMPO.

This one is newer and is credible as well. In the end though it boils down to our opinion and currently it differs.

[bootlegga]

I think privatizing liquor stores is a good thing. I don't know about in Ablerta, but I remember the days when the ALCB ran things. Liquor stores were open like banks, from 10 am to 4pm, and closed for 2 hours during lunch (maybe I exaggerate a little). Open weekends...nah, those union guys wanted to sleep in and drink like the rest of us. If you wanted a beer after ALCB closed, you went to a bar and paid a fortune to drink inside or to buy 'off-sales', which were a fair bit more expensive than the ALCB.

Privatizing liquor stores simply meant that stores were suddenly allowed to open on whatever days they wanted, with any hours they wanted. I believe the Alberta government still controls the distribution (and hence still makes money from alcohol) and legislates the industry to a certain amount. For example, here people were worried that big corporations would swoop in and kill off smaller stores, but the legislation here prevented companies like Superstore, Costco and Safeway from building tons of stores and wiping out the competition. One bit of good legislation was that liquor still cant be sold in grocery stores, so Safeway, Superstore, etc have had to build separate buildings to sell booze. And because you have to apply to open a liqour store, not every large grocery store has a liqour store next to it.

I think privatization was a good thing for the liquor industry.

Lotto on the other hand, I worry about letting a private company run any sort of gambling operation.

[bootlegga]

Proculation Proculation:

I don't really know the LCBO but with the SAQ (Quebec's LCBO), the government is not doing a good job at all. It's a monopoly and the same bottle can be 20% less expensive in Ontario and even 50% less in the USA. That's pure stealing.

The difference there is same when any comparison of prices in booze between Canada and the US takes place - it's all taxes (just like gas prices). Governments here charge more taxes on booze, cigarettes and gas plain and simple.

The choice is one between cheap booze and smokes or a social safety net. I prefer the Canadian option.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

Well that's true. I've always said "first the govt run liquor stores, then the gulag."

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Telling an employee who was making an inflated wage that he/she will now be making a fair market wage is not "marginalizing" workers. It's cutting wasteful government.

Yep, where would the rest of us be without all those $8 wage slaves to service us.

[kenmore]

Wonderful... now every corner mom and pop will be able to screw the public more often!

[Lemmy]

kenmore kenmore:

Wonderful... now every corner mom and pop will be able to screw the public more often!

They'll only be able to "screw" those who want to be "screwed". At least that screwing won't happen at the hands of a government agency, between the hours of 10am and 6pm, Monday through Saturday.

[Proculation]

andyt andyt:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Telling an employee who was making an inflated wage that he/she will now be making a fair market wage is not "marginalizing" workers. It's cutting wasteful government.

Yep, where would the rest of us be without all those $8 wage slaves to service us.

Minimum wages are in a big majority, students. Those are jobs that doesn't worth more money. The student knows that and he also knows that by studying he will have a much better wage.

You cannot really live with minimum wages. They are transitional jobs. Even at Wal Mart you earn more than the minimum wage after a short time.

An exception would be the restaurant businesses but they have the tip to earn more.

[andyt]

Proculation Proculation:

You cannot really live with minimum wages. They are transitional jobs. Even at Wal Mart you earn more than the minimum wage after a short time.

An exception would be the restaurant businesses but they have the tip to earn more.

Pardon me. Where would be we without the $8.57 an hour wage slaves to service us.

This is a nice trick that the neocons always use, claiming few people work for minimum wage. But a buck more aint much better - people need to be paid a living wage and the rest of us need to be willing to pay a little more to make that happen.

[Proculation]

I'm not a neo-con at all... i'm neo-liberal !! You are mixing terms here.

But you didn't say anything against my argument tho. Only that "oh that's what the neocons do"

[Proculation]

andyt andyt:

Proculation Proculation:

You cannot really live with minimum wages. They are transitional jobs. Even at Wal Mart you earn more than the minimum wage after a short time.

An exception would be the restaurant businesses but they have the tip to earn more.

Pardon me. Where would be we without the $8.57 an hour wage slaves to service us.

This is a nice trick that the neocons always use, claiming few people work for minimum wage. But a buck more aint much better - people need to be paid a living wage and the rest of us need to be willing to pay a little more to make that happen.

But instead of giving that "heavy mass" on the employers, why not just give a guaranteed wage by govnt ? Let's say you earn 8$, the province will give you 2$ ?

That's what you don't believe in: economics.

Don't forget economics is the science that explains how people reacts with money and trade.

[saturn_656]

Proculation Proculation:

But instead of giving that "heavy mass" on the employers, why not just give a guaranteed wage by govnt ? Let's say you earn 8$, the province will give you 2$ ?

That's what you don't believe in: economics.

Don't forget economics is the science that explains how people reacts with money and trade.

No thanks, my taxes are high enough.

[Proculation]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Proculation Proculation:

But instead of giving that "heavy mass" on the employers, why not just give a guaranteed wage by govnt ? Let's say you earn 8$, the province will give you 2$ ?

That's what you don't believe in: economics.

Don't forget economics is the science that explains how people reacts with money and trade.

No thanks, my taxes are high enough.

That's not about taxes. If you let the market play, you will pay less taxes but the poor can also be helped.

But that's a big change of how we handle our treasury. Lemmy could say best then me on that. I didn't do my doctorate

[saturn_656]

Proculation Proculation:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Proculation Proculation:

But instead of giving that "heavy mass" on the employers, why not just give a guaranteed wage by govnt ? Let's say you earn 8$, the province will give you 2$ ?

That's what you don't believe in: economics.

Don't forget economics is the science that explains how people reacts with money and trade.

No thanks, my taxes are high enough.

That's not about taxes. If you let the market play, you will pay less taxes but the poor can also be helped.

But that's a big change of how we handle our treasury. Lemmy could say best then me on that. I didn't do my doctorate

I'm pretty sure if the gov't starts topping up wages from taxpayer funds, I'll be paying.