Sell the LCBO now.

[Black Dog]

The market does provide choices but people do need to plan to exercise those choices. (eg education, skills training, geographic relocation). When someone takes a low-wage job because they have "no choice", they only have "no choice" in the short term. They have the choices the market offers in the long term.

Not neccisarily. Sure tehre are examples of people taking low wage work and gradually (usually thanks to other factors such as the accessability of education) work their way up. But many also get stuck in the low wage cycle, a cycle which perpetuates poverty and want. Sometiems the choices people are forced to make ultimately limit the choices.

Of course there are factors beyond anyones control which limit individual choices. I'd like to be a model, but my looks may not be good enough to allow me that choice. Eveyone has limiting factors which affect their choices. So what. We still all make choices based upon what is available. It would be hard to believe that with the vast number of choices available someone cannot find an acceptable one.

What's acceptable? Sure peopel can find acceptable jobs that pay them enough to scrape by each month, but where doe sthat leave them? Mired in a cycle of crap job after crap job with no opportunity for advancement. The free market notion that anyone with enough gumption and good ol' fashioned elbow grease can work their way up become CEO is a cruel joke.

[Renegade]

Not neccisarily. Sure tehre are examples of people taking low wage work and gradually (usually thanks to other factors such as the accessability of education) work their way up. But many also get stuck in the low wage cycle, a cycle which perpetuates poverty and want. Sometiems the choices people are forced to make ultimately limit the choices.

Do us all a favour, and next time you are at the LCBO do a poll of the clerks and see how many of them because they are "stuck in the low wage cycle, a cycle which perpetuates poverty and want.". Better still wait till they are on strike and ask them on the picket line, so the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for their time while they tell you that "sure they could have gone to college, but why bother when you can get these cushy LCBO jobs".

What's acceptable? Sure peopel can find acceptable jobs that pay them enough to scrape by each month, but where doe sthat leave them? Mired in a cycle of crap job after crap job with no opportunity for advancement. The free market notion that anyone with enough gumption and good ol' fashioned elbow grease can work their way up become CEO is a cruel joke.

Acceptable is whatever each person decides he or she will accept. People make their own tradeoffs, some decide that they prefer less stress over more wages, others will decide more workplace flexibility is better than more wages. If they decide an acceptable job is one that pays them enough to scrape by each month, who are you to call that job "crap"? Want to know why the low-wage jobs at McDonalds are filled with students? Because the jobs meet their need.

[Black Dog]

Do us all a favour, and next time you are at the LCBO do a poll of the clerks and see how many of them because they are "stuck in the low wage cycle, a cycle which perpetuates poverty and want.". Better still wait till they are on strike and ask them on the picket line, so the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for their time while they tell you that "sure they could have gone to college, but why bother when you can get these cushy LCBO jobs".

Non-sequiter. We're talking broad terms and teh LCBO, since it is govenment-owned is not suibject to the market forces we're discussing.

Acceptable is whatever each person decides he or she will accept. People make their own tradeoffs, some decide that they prefer less stress over more wages, others will decide more workplace flexibility is better than more wages. If they decide an acceptable job is one that pays them enough to scrape by each month, who are you to call that job "crap"? Want to know why the low-wage jobs at McDonalds are filled with students? Because the jobs meet their need.

You've already acknowledged that choices are limited, so why pretend then that those limitations theselves are products of choice? Also, the idea that low wage jobs are the sole domain of pimply high school students are a myth. Take a look at the folks working at WalMart and you're far more likely to see senior citizens or immigrants working for sustenance wages. As for low-wage jobs meeting individual needs, sure: low wage jobs prevent people from starving to death. that doesn't mean they wouldn't like a better gig.

[err]

I'm curious why you distinguish industries by "human necessity" and "luxury". Would not all the arguments you previously made apply to "luxury" industries?. By your argument doesn't a clerk working in the "luxury" automobile industry deserve the same "good jobs" that someone in automobile insurance does?

Huh ???

Since you have distinguished between "human necessity" and "luxury" as your criteria for if an industry should be publicly owned, I am also curious how you have come to the conclusion that the LCBO is a "human necessity"?

The LCBO has been owned and operated by the province for a long time. The original reasons for provincial ownership have passed. But does that necessarily mean that it should be thrown away ??? It generates excellent revenue for the province, gainfully employs quite a number of people. The province and its population benefit from the current arrangement, probably a lot more than it would under your proposed arrangment. Hence, I don't (and neither does our government) see your arguments as good reason to dispose of the asset.

[err]

Isn't that unecessary government interference in the free market? Surely employers, and not some bureaucrat, are in the best position to determine whether workplaces are safe and wages adequate compensation for the work performed.

Do you mean like the employers in Mexico or Indonesia are able to determine whether workplaces are safe and wages adequate ???

[cybercoma]

Do us all a favour, and next time you are at the LCBO do a poll of the clerks and see how many of them because they are "stuck in the low wage cycle, a cycle which perpetuates poverty and want.". Better still wait till they are on strike and ask them on the picket line, so the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for their time while they tell you that "sure they could have gone to college, but why bother when you can get these cushy LCBO jobs".

Non-sequiter. We're talking broad terms and teh LCBO, since it is govenment-owned is not suibject to the market forces we're discussing.

Acceptable is whatever each person decides he or she will accept. People make their own tradeoffs, some decide that they prefer less stress over more wages, others will decide more workplace flexibility is better than more wages. If they decide an acceptable job is one that pays them enough to scrape by each month, who are you to call that job "crap"? Want to know why the low-wage jobs at McDonalds are filled with students? Because the jobs meet their need.

You've already acknowledged that choices are limited, so why pretend then that those limitations theselves are products of choice? Also, the idea that low wage jobs are the sole domain of pimply high school students are a myth. Take a look at the folks working at WalMart and you're far more likely to see senior citizens or immigrants working for sustenance wages. As for low-wage jobs meeting individual needs, sure: low wage jobs prevent people from starving to death. that doesn't mean they wouldn't like a better gig.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought we were talking about the market of labour which most certainly does apply here.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Imagine the government was hard pressed to find enough people to work at the LCBO stores because not enough people hold the qualifications they're looking for, what would YOU do to try to get and retain quality employees?

Everyone is at their walmart job for a reason: most of the senior citizens that work at WalMart are there to supplement their pensions and retirement savings funds; the students because it suits their needs and the hours are flexible enough; and there are any number of reasons you'd find immigrants there. WalMart has one of the best benefits packages of any retail establishment in the world, if not THE best.

So really, do you know why all of them are at WalMart? Because they want to work there. If they don't want to work there and the job is not adequate enough for them, then they're free to quit and find better employment.

[err]

Everyone is at their walmart job for a reason: most of the senior citizens that work at WalMart are there to supplement their pensions and retirement savings funds; the students because it suits their needs and the hours are flexible enough; and there are any number of reasons you'd find immigrants there.  WalMart has one of the best benefits packages of any retail establishment in the world, if not THE best. 

How about "because they are desperate.

So really, do you know why all of them are at WalMart?  Because they want to work there. 

You have a perverse sense of humour....

[cybercoma]

People who've worked at walmart for years are "desperate"? Please...

[Renegade]

I'm curious why you distinguish industries by "human necessity" and "luxury". Would not all the arguments you previously made apply to "luxury" industries?. By your argument doesn't a clerk working in the "luxury" automobile industry deserve the same "good jobs" that someone in automobile insurance does?

Huh ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me try again. You have previously said that you think that a "necessary" industry such as automobile insurance should be publicly owned. Presumably if it were up to you, you would pay a clerk in the public automobile insurance industry the same high wages you advocate for the LCBO. My question is what about the clerks in the "luxury" industries (such as automobile). Don't they deserve the same high wages? Why not make them public too?

The LCBO has been owned and operated by the province for a long time. The original reasons for provincial ownership have passed. But does that necessarily mean that it should be thrown away ??? It generates excellent revenue for the province, gainfully employs quite a number of people. The province and its population benefit from the current arrangement, probably a lot more than it would under your proposed arrangment. Hence, I don't (and neither does our government) see your arguments as good reason to dispose of the asset.

So let me get this straight. If it wern't already public, you would be an advocate for it to stay private, but since it is public, you want it to stay that way. And if as you state, that the government doesn't see any merit in privitazation, why is it do you think that the LCBO employees are going on strike?

[Renegade]

Non-sequiter. We're talking broad terms and teh LCBO, since it is govenment-owned is not suibject to the market forces we're discussing.

Fine, you don't want to use the LCBO, show me other evidence that the majority of people in low-wage jobs cannot by their own actions improve their skills, experience, or take some measure to improve their wage situation. My experience is that many of the people in low wage situations are students, pensioners, have other priorities other than their job, or simply lack the will or desire to change their situation.

You've already acknowledged that choices are limited, so why pretend then that those limitations theselves are products of choice? Also, the idea that low wage jobs are the sole domain of pimply high school students are a myth. Take a look at the folks working at WalMart and you're far more likely to see senior citizens or immigrants working for sustenance wages. As for low-wage jobs meeting individual needs, sure: low wage jobs prevent people from starving to death. that doesn't mean they wouldn't like a better gig

Of course choices are limited. It woudl be foolish to pretend anyone can do any job in the world. There are many filters on you choices of jobs and occupations. Some you control and some you do not. The factors which are dependant on you alone far outweigh those of your social situation in terms of your power to earn.

Sure there are seniors in Walmart, how do you know they are there because they are desperate? Maybe they are there because they would be bored silly staying home. Many immigrants come to this country prepared to undertake the hardships required in order to succeed. A low-wage job is just a transitory phase for many as the gather the resources to move ahead in life. They prove my point.

If you have evidence that the majority of the low-wage population is "captive" and has no option for self-improvement, show it, for I have seen no evidence to that effect.

[err]

So let me get this straight. If it wern't already public, you would be an advocate for it to stay private, but since it is public, you want it to stay that way.  And if as you state, that the government doesn't see any merit in privitazation, why is it do you think that the LCBO employees are going on strike?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The LCBO workers are not going on strike... However, their demands were for job security, not wages. Do you blame workers for wanting security ??

[err]

People who've worked at walmart for years are "desperate"?  Please... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Having Walmart on your resume isn't exactly going to get you a fast-track path up the corporate ladder. In fact, a long stay at Walmart would make potential employers think of the candidate as a doormat.

You'd have to be desperate to stay there... A step up to Zellers is a huge one...

[cybercoma]

People who've worked at walmart for years are "desperate"?  Please... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Having Walmart on your resume isn't exactly going to get you a fast-track path up the corporate ladder. In fact, a long stay at Walmart would make potential employers think of the candidate as a doormat.

You'd have to be desperate to stay there... A step up to Zellers is a huge one...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You think the senior citizens and students that are employed there are really looking to ascend the corporate ladder? God you're thick headed. It's only be said about 3 times already that they're there for other reasons.

[Renegade]

The LCBO workers are not going on strike... However, their demands were for job security, not wages. Do you blame workers for wanting security ??

Of course they want security. Do I blame them? No not at all. It only makes sense for them to ask for it to protect overpaid jobs. Do I think that they are entitled to job guarantees at our expense? No not at all.

[Renegade]

Having Walmart on your resume isn't exactly going to get you a fast-track path up the corporate ladder.  In fact, a long stay at Walmart would make potential employers think of the candidate as a doormat. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gee, that's going to a bit of a surprise to H. Lee Scott Jr, President and CEO of Walmart who has spent 25 years at Walmart.

[err]

Having Walmart on your resume isn't exactly going to get you a fast-track path up the corporate ladder.  In fact, a long stay at Walmart would make potential employers think of the candidate as a doormat. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gee, that's going to a bit of a surprise to H. Lee Scott Jr, President and CEO of Walmart who has spent 25 years at Walmart.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's one of how many employees.... What percentage of employees don't have to wear that goofy blue top and say "How may I help you" ????

[err]

You think the senior citizens and students that are employed there (Walmart) are really looking to ascend the corporate ladder?  God you're thick headed.  It's only be said about 3 times already that they're there for other reasons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me think about it for a minute...

Do you think the just wanted to meet people, because they're bored ??? (Nah)

How about the lucrative paycheque at the end of the week ??? (Nah... unless of course they are desperate)

How about, that's one of the only places you can get a job when you little education or skills.... or don't meet employment standards because you're past retirement age of have Down's syndrome.... and they'll give you a minimum wage paycheque...??? (if you're desperate)....

P.S. Cybercoma: Despererate does not mean that you need to go pee... It means that you have very little alternative, because no-one else will hire you, and you really need some money to pay your bills... It's the basis of the "free market" or "fair market" or whatever you call it....

[cybercoma]

I'll humour you and explain it again:

1) The seniors are there to supplement their income and usually to pass the time instead of sitting at home everyday. A lot of them work just because they want to get out of the house and do something. Working part-time there with flexible hours, higher than minimum wages and corporate profit sharing to supplement their income, it's not a bad way to pass the time.

2) Students are there until they can find better once they're out of school. They make a bit of money to cover their schooling expenses and are given flexible hours to allow them to take their courses.

3) The disable get money from the government as well as the government supplementing their wages from Walmart.

Walmart has one of the most comprehensive benefits packages in the entire retail industry, that's how they've retainied workers for decades. Are you going to be rich working there? Hell no. You're in a job that anyone an do.

Now since I've humoured you, humour me and answer my question from earlier:

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Imagine the government was hard pressed to find enough people to work at the LCBO stores because not enough people hold the qualifications they're looking for, what would YOU do to try to get and retain quality employees?

And this question...

Do you think everyone should make at least 35k/year? Would you advocate the government raising minimum wage to $17/hour?

[Renegade]

I have no idea the motivations of why people work at Walmart, and frankly, err, neither do you. Everything you've posted is supposition, without any evidence.

Walmart is free to offer whatever wage it chooses, and people are free to accept or decline it based upon their individual circumstances. If Walmart is the only one that will hire them, then they have failed by not making themselves very marketable.

[err]

2) Students are there until they can find better once they're out of school.  They make a bit of money to cover their schooling expenses and are given flexible hours to allow them to take their courses.

Are they living at home ????

Walmart has one of the most comprehensive benefits packages in the entire retail industry, that's how they've retainied workers for decades.  Are you going to be rich working there?  Hell no.  You're in a job that anyone an do.

really....

Now since I've humoured you, humour me and answer my question from earlier:

(and you have)

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Imagine the government was hard pressed to find enough people to work at the LCBO stores because not enough people hold the qualifications they're looking for, what would YOU do to try to get and retain quality employees?

... raise the wages...

Do you think everyone should make at least 35k/year?  Would you advocate the government raising minimum wage to $17/hour?

I do think that $17 might be a little bit high for a general minimum wage. However, minimum wage should be high enough as an incentive for the lazier elements in our society to get off their buts and go to work...

Currently it is below $8/hour. A minimum wage that's too low is not an incentive for a lesser ambitious person to work. A significant increase in minimum wage will also help the "working poor", of which there are many, to afford something of a life...

What's more, is that this will provide a significant boost to the local economies. People who make minimum wage usually don't hide their cheques in the Cayman Islands... They spend them every week .... locally. Everyone in their local economy will benefit... Not just the recipients of the minimum wage...

[Renegade]

Currently it is below $8/hour. A minimum wage that's too low is not an incentive for a lesser ambitious person to work.

"lesser ambitious"? is that leftspeak for "lazy"? Hmm, I'll have to add that to my leftictionary.

Another way to enhance the incentive to work without raising the minimium wage, is to cut the welfare benefits!

[Guest eureka]

It costs the federal government in the US $2.5 billion annually in subsidies to Walmart employees because of their low incomes and LACK of benefits. It probably costs Canadian governments a substantial amount; possibly proportionately less healthcare.

You are subsidizing WalMart through your taxes.

Municipalities thave WalMart stores receive approximately one third less taxes than they received from the diplaced businesses and lost expansion of business that would have come in without WalMart.

You are paying increased Municipal taxes to subsidize WalMart.

There are many other losses due to WalMart but we hammered that to death on the WalMart thread.

[err]

Another way to enhance the incentive to work without raising the minimium wage, is to cut the welfare benefits!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would remove the safety net from single mothers, the elderly, and the disabled because you want to get the few lazy people off public support. Either you are ignorant of all of the people that you'd hurt, and right after reading this, will change your ways, or you're a mean-spirited, cruel, uncaring scumbag like Mike Harris...

[err]

It costs the federal government in the US $2.5 billion annually in subsidies to Walmart employees because of their low incomes and LACK of benefits. It probably costs Canadian governments a substantial amount; possibly proportionately less healthcare.

You are subsidizing WalMart through your taxes.

Municipalities thave WalMart stores receive approximately one third less taxes than they received from the diplaced businesses and lost expansion of business that would have come in without WalMart.

You are paying increased Municipal taxes to subsidize WalMart.

There are many other losses due to WalMart but we hammered that to death on the WalMart thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent reply and CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR 2000th POST!!!!!! Keep it up.

[Renegade]

You would remove the safety net from single mothers, the elderly, and the disabled because you want to get the few lazy people off public support. Either you are ignorant of all of the people that you'd hurt, and right after reading this, will change your ways, or you're a mean-spirited, cruel, uncaring scumbag like Mike Harris...

Nope. The reason I would remove public welfare is because it is just another word for charity, and as a charity it should be funded by voluntary donations. Each taxpayer earns his income and that taxpayer should be the one to decide where it is spent.

Call me all the names you want. It doesn't bother me in the least. It seems to be a pattern when you lack a cohesive argument