Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: lokidog on October 20, 2011, 10:24:27 AMI am not saying the government should be in the liquor business, but I do not see anywhere that there will be an increase in jobs as a result of this. Stores will not need more cashiers because of people lining up to buy booze, they will simply use the current supply of labor, and if need be, the consumers can stand in longer lines. As I posted earlier in this, all I can see is a lot of local revenue, ie. employees and landlords, leaving the area and lining the pockets of corporate leaders.Now, if I had Costco stock, I'd be out on the street corner waving that vote Yes sign.Business who don't hire additional help for additional business will lose customers to those who do. People will always shop where they get the best service as long as pricing is similar. Costco knows that, Fred Meyer knows that, and every other liquor-qualified store knows that. The only people who don't know that are state employees who currently don't have to care how long I wait in line. Because competition will drive prices down and create more WA liquor sales, more people will work. It's simple economics - more business = more employees. The net change in labor will be positive. There's no way in any mathematic equation that approving this bill will result in a net loss of jobs.As far as the state liquor employees are concerned and the loss of their jobs; it's lamentable that anyone should lose their job. But, it should not be the responsibility of our government to create jobs through monopoly, stifling private enterprise and profits in a capitalist society. As well, as soon as we can put every single IRS employee out of work, we should do it without hesitation. This goes for about 1/2 of our existing state and federal governments. When you shrink government, people living off tax dollars will suffer. But in almost every case (1183 included) the net result will be a stifled government pig and a more robust private sector economy which will create more net employment.
I am not saying the government should be in the liquor business, but I do not see anywhere that there will be an increase in jobs as a result of this. Stores will not need more cashiers because of people lining up to buy booze, they will simply use the current supply of labor, and if need be, the consumers can stand in longer lines. As I posted earlier in this, all I can see is a lot of local revenue, ie. employees and landlords, leaving the area and lining the pockets of corporate leaders.Now, if I had Costco stock, I'd be out on the street corner waving that vote Yes sign.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on October 20, 2011, 10:38:54 AMQuote from: lokidog on October 20, 2011, 10:24:27 AMI am not saying the government should be in the liquor business, but I do not see anywhere that there will be an increase in jobs as a result of this. Stores will not need more cashiers because of people lining up to buy booze, they will simply use the current supply of labor, and if need be, the consumers can stand in longer lines. As I posted earlier in this, all I can see is a lot of local revenue, ie. employees and landlords, leaving the area and lining the pockets of corporate leaders.Now, if I had Costco stock, I'd be out on the street corner waving that vote Yes sign.Business who don't hire additional help for additional business will lose customers to those who do. People will always shop where they get the best service as long as pricing is similar. Costco knows that, Fred Meyer knows that, and every other liquor-qualified store knows that. The only people who don't know that are state employees who currently don't have to care how long I wait in line. Because competition will drive prices down and create more WA liquor sales, more people will work. It's simple economics - more business = more employees. The net change in labor will be positive. There's no way in any mathematic equation that approving this bill will result in a net loss of jobs.As far as the state liquor employees are concerned and the loss of their jobs; it's lamentable that anyone should lose their job. But, it should not be the responsibility of our government to create jobs through monopoly, stifling private enterprise and profits in a capitalist society. As well, as soon as we can put every single IRS employee out of work, we should do it without hesitation. This goes for about 1/2 of our existing state and federal governments. When you shrink government, people living off tax dollars will suffer. But in almost every case (1183 included) the net result will be a stifled government pig and a more robust private sector economy which will create more net employment.Spot on
I think the possibility of sale to minors is very overblown by the opponents of the bill. When I was underage, we never bought beer from mini-marts, we always had to find someone of age to get it for us.
Quote from: magnanimous_j on October 20, 2011, 12:23:05 PMI think the possibility of sale to minors is very overblown by the opponents of the bill. When I was underage, we never bought beer from mini-marts, we always had to find someone of age to get it for us.That x100. I used to party pretty hard before I was 21, I drank a LOT. When I was a minor though, I NEVER ONCE bought alcohol of any kind directly from a retailer. It was always purchased for me by someone who was over 21. In most cases someone I knew, but rarely i was able to talk strangers into buying for me if I "tipped" them well enough. Trying to say that our current system, or any system of laws for that matter prevents teens from buying liquor makes about as much sense as saying that gun registration would make criminals less likely to buy guns.
Quote from: Atroxus on October 20, 2011, 04:07:03 PMQuote from: magnanimous_j on October 20, 2011, 12:23:05 PMI think the possibility of sale to minors is very overblown by the opponents of the bill. When I was underage, we never bought beer from mini-marts, we always had to find someone of age to get it for us.That x100. I used to party pretty hard before I was 21, I drank a LOT. When I was a minor though, I NEVER ONCE bought alcohol of any kind directly from a retailer. It was always purchased for me by someone who was over 21. In most cases someone I knew, but rarely i was able to talk strangers into buying for me if I "tipped" them well enough. Trying to say that our current system, or any system of laws for that matter prevents teens from buying liquor makes about as much sense as saying that gun registration would make criminals less likely to buy guns.What I get frustrated is how much this is the "gun argument." They say, "one in four teens can buy alcohol at stores." (I'd doubt it is exactly like that.) And because of this fallicy the law abiding citizens have to be denied access to legal merchandise sold at reasonable prices? The problem is illegal activity. If it is such a problem then it should be addressed by law enforcement. Punish law breakers not those that obey the law. For whatever reason our Government will not allocate resources to do that.
Quote from: bigtex on October 19, 2011, 07:57:02 PMQuote from: Atroxus on October 19, 2011, 07:15:04 PMQuote from: bigtex on October 18, 2011, 08:30:37 PMHeres another enforcement related issue I found in the initiative:The initiative will double fines for retailers who violate laws regarding to liquor sales. So if a minor purchases beer/wine they will be fined under the present fines. If they buy liquor they would be fined under the current fine X2.However the initiative allows stores to be apart of a responsible seller program which allows them to be fined under the current fine (no doubling)! It also allows them to remain in this program if they have no more then one violation per year!So if your local QFC is apart of this program and sells liquor to a minor they would be fined under the current fine schedule. If the Safeway down the street sells and is not in this program they would get double the penalty of QFC. AND QFC could remain in the program as long as they don't get another violation in a calendar year!Never heard this in any of the "tougher penalty" commercials...So worst case if you get one violation in a year you pay the regular fine, and any subsequent violations for the year you pay double? And if you have more then 1 violation then in subsequent years you aren't eligible to get the lesser fine for the first violation and instead pay double for all violations? I don't see a problem with that.My problem is this pro-1183 campaign has been beating the drum that the initiative doubles fines, since last year's initiatives did nothing to increase enforcement. Do they really think any stores are not going to sign up for the responsible seller program? So in reality it only doubles fines for the stores that aren't smart enough to sign up for the program.They DO think stores will sign up for the program and the program is designed to decrease under age access to booze. The one time lower fine acknowledges that even a very prudent business can let one slip by, but that for most, the program will be a positive, preventative step to avoiding the sale to minors. This isn't a tactic. It's a good program that will have businesses be more alert regarding under age buying.
Quote from: Atroxus on October 19, 2011, 07:15:04 PMQuote from: bigtex on October 18, 2011, 08:30:37 PMHeres another enforcement related issue I found in the initiative:The initiative will double fines for retailers who violate laws regarding to liquor sales. So if a minor purchases beer/wine they will be fined under the present fines. If they buy liquor they would be fined under the current fine X2.However the initiative allows stores to be apart of a responsible seller program which allows them to be fined under the current fine (no doubling)! It also allows them to remain in this program if they have no more then one violation per year!So if your local QFC is apart of this program and sells liquor to a minor they would be fined under the current fine schedule. If the Safeway down the street sells and is not in this program they would get double the penalty of QFC. AND QFC could remain in the program as long as they don't get another violation in a calendar year!Never heard this in any of the "tougher penalty" commercials...So worst case if you get one violation in a year you pay the regular fine, and any subsequent violations for the year you pay double? And if you have more then 1 violation then in subsequent years you aren't eligible to get the lesser fine for the first violation and instead pay double for all violations? I don't see a problem with that.My problem is this pro-1183 campaign has been beating the drum that the initiative doubles fines, since last year's initiatives did nothing to increase enforcement. Do they really think any stores are not going to sign up for the responsible seller program? So in reality it only doubles fines for the stores that aren't smart enough to sign up for the program.
Quote from: bigtex on October 18, 2011, 08:30:37 PMHeres another enforcement related issue I found in the initiative:The initiative will double fines for retailers who violate laws regarding to liquor sales. So if a minor purchases beer/wine they will be fined under the present fines. If they buy liquor they would be fined under the current fine X2.However the initiative allows stores to be apart of a responsible seller program which allows them to be fined under the current fine (no doubling)! It also allows them to remain in this program if they have no more then one violation per year!So if your local QFC is apart of this program and sells liquor to a minor they would be fined under the current fine schedule. If the Safeway down the street sells and is not in this program they would get double the penalty of QFC. AND QFC could remain in the program as long as they don't get another violation in a calendar year!Never heard this in any of the "tougher penalty" commercials...So worst case if you get one violation in a year you pay the regular fine, and any subsequent violations for the year you pay double? And if you have more then 1 violation then in subsequent years you aren't eligible to get the lesser fine for the first violation and instead pay double for all violations? I don't see a problem with that.
Heres another enforcement related issue I found in the initiative:The initiative will double fines for retailers who violate laws regarding to liquor sales. So if a minor purchases beer/wine they will be fined under the present fines. If they buy liquor they would be fined under the current fine X2.However the initiative allows stores to be apart of a responsible seller program which allows them to be fined under the current fine (no doubling)! It also allows them to remain in this program if they have no more then one violation per year!So if your local QFC is apart of this program and sells liquor to a minor they would be fined under the current fine schedule. If the Safeway down the street sells and is not in this program they would get double the penalty of QFC. AND QFC could remain in the program as long as they don't get another violation in a calendar year!Never heard this in any of the "tougher penalty" commercials...
Old enough to go to Iraq and kill people or be killed themselves but not old enough to drink a beer. Never could quite wrap my head around that one.