infernal machines posted:

My mother was one of those in the late 80s, early 90s, and her mother was one in the 50s.

You make a good point about programs that are actually rebates, because they only work if you already have the money in hand to afford the thing to begin with, just like tax rebates only help if you have taxable income. They do help a lot of people, and yet they way they're structured ensures that the people they don't help are already in dire straits.

Bleck posted:

And, again, the success of a program that reduces the costs of child care services has no reasonable bearing on the reality of why child care is so expensive, or even, really, even necessary

ZShakespeare posted:

The most charitable read, and the one that I think is correct and I agree with is that both parents shouldn’t be forced to work in order to make ends meet thus making child care a necessity rather than an option.

ZShakespeare posted:

Well that's how I read it. If you want to put those words in their mouth, it seems like a you problem.

Bleck posted:

Yeah, and then they spend the entirety of their tenure, at best, doing nothing to help women. Who cares?

ZShakespeare posted:

The most charitable read, and the one that I think is correct and I agree with is that both parents shouldn’t be forced to work in order to make ends meet thus making child care a necessity rather than an option.

bunnyofdoom posted:

Yup. You speak Bleck so tell me how I misinterpreted this one

Bleck posted:

Yeah, and then they spend the entirety of their tenure, at best, doing nothing to help women. Who cares?

Bleck posted:

I'm glad to hear it's working for some people, too.

Keyword being some - not all child care centers have chosen to opt into the program, and the ones who have don't necessarily have the space and/or staff to accommodate more kids. I don't know how the program enables the daycares to lower their costs, but it, ostensibly, is not something that all daycare centers have decided is for them.

And, again, the success of a program that reduces the costs of child care services has no reasonable bearing on the reality of why child care is so expensive, or even, really, even necessary - I don't consider it a success for the Libs to slightly ease the pain of the economic systems that they otherwise overwhelmingly support, for some people.

Also frankly I'm one of many adults I know that's so hosed for money that I gave up on dreams of having kids because I knew I just plain wouldn't be able to afford it, so whenever someone with some cushy job comes in and is like "oh thank god I don't have to pay thousands of dollars a month for daycare for my kids while I'm at my benefits-package job where I count string all day or whatever" it's like, yeah! That's a good thing, it really is! But also, gently caress off, you know? It's hard to see "people were helped" as a victory when you feel deep down that the people that benefited were probably often people who didn't, like... need it...?

kaom posted:

Okay I’ve also simmered down and reread the last page and will redirect my complaint here:

Bleck what do you mean you don’t think childcare services should be necessary? (I am of the opinion they should be a widely available public service and also free, for the record.)

bunnyofdoom posted:

Ok yes
But that clearly isn't what Bleck is arguing. Their argument to me seems to boil down to "The libs did it so it's automatically bad because they hate women(according to me)"

flashy_mcflash posted:

What does a world where childcare isn't necessary look like? I think even in a household with means, the parent(s) will necessarily want to either work or have something else to fill their days besides wrangling or educating kids. And if we're being realistic even in that world it's not going to be men that give up their talents, ambitions, and interests.

quote:

In another particularly comical example of economic naivete, blogTO ran a story and accompanying social media video earlier this month, with breaking news that — brace yourselves — food tends to cost more at small urban pharmacies than large suburban big box stores.

“Customers are shocked by the price difference on the same items at various different Loblaw stores in Canada,” laments the host of the video. He goes on to quote the difference in the price of potato chips at Shoppers Drug Mart and Real Canadian Superstore and suggests this is an example of “price gouging,” apparently unaware that economies of scale affect how companies set prices at different locations.

Precambrian Video Games posted:

Where's that list of Canadian business success stories from a decade ago when you need it?

Anyway the article is too braindead to post so I leave only this tantalizing tidbit explaining how economies of scale lead to higher prices at different branded stores less than 1km apart:

Kraftwerk posted:

lol

It all probably comes from the same distribution centres! What economies of scale. I work in distribution. I know how this works. There’s no way loblaws and shoppers have separate purchasing accounts with frito-lay. The company negotiated that volume for all their stories and jacked up the price at shoppers to take advantage of impulse buyers who were there for other reasons or because it might’ve been closer or more convenient than going to a superstore.

infernal machines posted:

I really hope they break down the economy of scale that dictates 100%+ price increases on some items (but not all) in high density urban markets.

They are a Canadian success story in that they have been wildly successful at extracting the maximum amount of value the market will bear.

But also a hearty lol at the notion that Justin Trudeau wants to destroy Loblaws. I know it's an NP op-ed but the hyperbole is overwhelming.

e: lol. No byline either. loving cowards.

RBC posted:

I really can't think of a less innovative company than loving Loblaws.

They put more chocolate chips in cookies??

ZShakespeare posted:

The most charitable read, and the one that I think is correct and I agree with is that both parents shouldn’t be forced to work in order to make ends meet thus making child care a necessity rather than an option.

Wistful of Dollars posted:

trudeau will win if he campaigns on 'I will destroy galen Weston'

kaom posted:

I think I misinterpreted Bleck’s post actually, due to the ambiguous wording - “childcare services existing should not be necessary” vs “use of childcare services should not be necessary” which are totally different.

Furnaceface posted:

I know this was made in jest but I could legit see it happening. Weston and Loblaws are in a very very bad place in the public opinion right now. Even The Coward Douglas Ford has slowed down on his associating with them.

e: Say youre going to break up the Weston, Rogers, and Irving companies because of their monopolies and you might end up with the largest victory in Canadian history.

Precambrian Video Games posted:

Fidelitious posted:

So is the headline saying that Justin is cackling in his cottage because he just loves destroying successful things? That's a stupid attack line to try and take.

I also don't see how any of our grocery store are a "success story" really. They sell commodity goods that people need to survive. There's nothing unique or innovative about them. They succeeded because they were the best at monopolizing and acquiring which isn't a very exciting trait.

A success story in grocery probably looks more like Trader Joe's if you really must have one.

flakeloaf posted:

Also, the consumer goods company exercises significant editorial control over the outlet spreading the message. Harnessing the genuine despair of people in hopeless financial situations by bringing them all together for a two minutes' hate against immigrants, people on benefits and lgbtq+ people is monstrous in its effectiveness, and our only hope is that the shrieking hordes somehow figure out on their own (because they won't be told) they've been lied to.

Those trucker assholes were a horrifying portent that went far beyond the threats to the personal safety of the marginalized people living nearby.