I-1100/1105 ... the costs! but your thoughs? (Seattle: find a job, high school, community college)

[Xanathos]

Originally Posted by WillynillyTalc

I have a question about both of these initiatives. People keep saying that they will kill competition and we will soon only be able to purchase Budweiser and the like. How?

They claim that it will make it impossible for mom and pop liquor stores to compete with Costco and Fred Meyer (conveniently overlooking that Fred Meyer is run by Kroger, and Kroger's has a policy of not carrying hard liquor in any of their stores). The idea behind it is that Costco will be able to buy so much liquor in bulk - and thus, sell it cheaper than anyone else - to where everyone will buy their liquor from them. Which is a load of crap. Texas is completely de-regulated, and the most popular liquor store in town is a place called Spec's, which is anything but a huge multiregional corporation. Then they go and claim that companies like A-B will flood the market with Bud to the point that it will kill the microbreweries somehow. Conveniently overlooking that the market is *already* flooded with A-B products, and the microbrews still do just fine.

It's nothing but scare tactics. I'm pretty sure I'm not unusual in that when I need a bottle of the hard stuff for whatever reason, I just go to the liquor store that's closest to me - I don't go out of my way to save 3 dollars, because it's such an infrequent purchase.

[AlohaHuey]

Originally Posted by WillynillyTalc

I have a question about both of these initiatives. People keep saying that they will kill competition and we will soon only be able to purchase Budweiser and the like. How?

I think the argument of the smaller beverage makers is that state stores are larger than the smaller venues and thus can carry more selection. A small store is unlikely to carry more than a few brands of any given product. People may opt for the convenience of a smaller store and may not be able to find and try a more obscure brand name. Sometimes I'll try a new brand in a certain price range if there is a promotion.

The top selling brands will have their product carried in more locations, which makes them happy.

People may have to find different locations to buy the smaller or less popular brands, but I would think demand would be such that nobody would lose too much in the way of selection. Perhaps the opposite.

[AlohaHuey]

You read my stuff three times at least. You are a fan. Admit it.

[WillynillyTalc]

Wouldn't deregulation (or whatever it's called) allow for mom and pop specialty stores, like we have with beer? 56th Street Pipe and Tobacco sells nothing but micro brew and import beers. They do just fine. Neither of these initiatives would prevent them from doing business. Would they?

I would love to see a specialty shop dedicated to whiskey.

[AlohaHuey]

Originally Posted by WillynillyTalc

Wouldn't deregulation (or whatever it's called) allow for mom and pop specialty stores, like we have with beer? 56th Street Pipe and Tobacco sells nothing but micro brew and import beers. They do just fine. Neither of these initiatives would prevent them from doing business. Would they?

I would love to see a specialty shop dedicated to whiskey.

I believe it would allow a specialty store like you describe, yes. Whiskey and cigar store. See you there!

[eskercurve]

After 5 pages of some good points and some asinine arguments, nothing has really convinced me that the vast vast majority of public sector employees are overpaid (OK if you live in the boonies and earn $65k a year THAT would be rolling in it, but in Seattle, you're slightly above poverty). If anything I think that I've changed my opinion on a few things:

1) Mom and pop shops wouldn't be too hard hit. If anything, people who enjoy smaller brews will continue to eschew the larger brands and it would actually allow the creation of small time hard liquor houses. I know a guy who makes whiskey and it is delicious, slightly smoky, and very easy on the throat.

2) Public sector employees stand to lose the most from this initiative. I don't care how you wrap up the argument they're overpaid - they aren't. Period. 65k a year ain't doing very well in Seattle. If anything, pay scales should be progressive as you go into the cities to account for cost of living increases. Of course this should be backed by data - highest cost of living areas should get paid the highest, etc.

3) Despite what we may do, the Legislature will still find a way to tax it the same amount to recoup the cost. They did it with candy and pop, they can do it with booze.

So, in all, I voted against both initiatives simply because I don't think they were completely thought out. Is there a way we can save the jobs that would be lost by passing this and have a progressive structure to the tax and payment of public sector employees? I don't know, but this initiative doesn't come close to convincing me it does enough to prevent a sock to the jaw to the state when we're in the middle of a recession.

I'm all for deregulation if it can be proved it will increase quality and increase the number of jobs while being progressive in the revenue lost, either through stimulus of more spending or more consumption or increased competition through exports. This bill and none of the scenarios I canthink of actually does this, so I voted against it.

[Xanathos]

Originally Posted by eskercurve

nothing has really convinced me that the vast vast majority of public sector employees are overpaid (OK if you live in the boonies and earn $65k a year THAT would be rolling in it, but in Seattle, you're slightly above poverty).

2) Public sector employees stand to lose the most from this initiative. I don't care how you wrap up the argument they're overpaid - they aren't. Period. 65k a year ain't doing very well in Seattle. If anything, pay scales should be progressive as you go into the cities to account for cost of living increases. Of course this should be backed by data - highest cost of living areas should get paid the highest, etc.

.

From our very own site here:

http://www.city-data.com/income/inco...ashington.html

Median household income in this city is 61,000. So, if you have a house consisting of 2 bus drivers @ 65,000 a year, they're coming in at over double the median family income. When your lowest skill-level workers (aside from the liquor store clerks) are individually pulling in more than the median household income for the area, they A) are not living just above poverty and B) are indeed overpaid. Unless you're of the belief that half this city lives in squalor, which would be an interesting argument to hear for humor purposes, indeed. These 2 points are relevant as it pertains to these initiatives because it's logical to assume that there are a great many state employees we're shelling out 6 figure salaries to for what amounts to mid-level makework employment that private sector counterparts successfully fill for half that, without taxpayer expense. Those of us who talk the talk about fiscal responsibility have an obligation to advocate walking the walk, and these are jobs that we simply can't afford to leave on our dime - they're best left to the private sector.

[AlohaHuey]

Originally Posted by Xanathos

From our very own site here:

http://www.city-data.com/income/inco...ashington.html

Median household income in this city is 61,000. So, if you have a house consisting of 2 bus drivers @ 65,000 a year, they're coming in at over double the median family income. When your lowest skill-level workers (aside from the liquor store clerks) are individually pulling in more than the median household income for the area, they A) are not living just above poverty and B) are indeed overpaid. Unless you're of the belief that half this city lives in squalor, which would be an interesting argument to hear for humor purposes, indeed. These 2 points are relevant as it pertains to these initiatives because it's logical to assume that there are a great many state employees we're shelling out 6 figure salaries to for what amounts to mid-level makework employment that private sector counterparts successfully fill for half that, without taxpayer expense. Those of us who talk the talk about fiscal responsibility have an obligation to advocate walking the walk, and these are jobs that we simply can't afford to leave on our dime - they're best left to the private sector.

Your outrage at the middle class is interesting. Perhaps it's a case of you not wanting a lowly public sector worker to make a salary higher than yours for doing something as menial as driving a bus?

[Xanathos]

Sorry dude, but I've got news for you: I make a damn sight more than most.

[AlohaHuey]

Originally Posted by Xanathos

Sorry dude, but I've got news for you: I make a damn sight more than most.

"Dude"?? LMAO!

Let's examine your numbers again, because they are often flimsy.

Two state workers making 65K each is your point of outrage.

First, let's rule out all the non-Beaver Cleaver households, with the current divorce rates, that's about 40% right there where there is one parent in the HH.

To gain that kind of income, you pretty much rule out kids. Take a sizeable chunk out of that percentage.

Then you have the households where only one adult is working. Slice off a few more.

Then you have the chances of BOTH adults, no kids, working for the state, not in the private sector...big chunk off that.

Then we have the HH where one adult works part time, slice off more out of the pool.

So, we're down to about 28 couples who both work for the state, and can expect about a 37K pension for a lifetime of service while making 65K each a year.

Yeah, that's the real problem with Washington.