"State liquor board experimenting with seasonal gift stores in area malls"
I've been curious how the Liquor Control Board justifies its monopoly on bottle sales of liquor -- when beer and wine are available at every grocery store and vodka by the glass can be enjoyed at every corner bar. So I recently perused the WSLCB web site. Their own documents are fascinating. The WSLCB variously claims to benefit society by (I paraphrase, but the internal contradictions are real):
a) controlling alcohol consumption
b) promoting alcohol sales in order to generate revenue for state government
c) maintaining hundreds of cushy jobs for unionized public employees (complete with unfunded pension liabilities!)
d) selling alcohol at lower prices than the public would enjoy if sales were privatized
e) regulating (artificially raising) beer and wine prices to both limit consumption and benefit distributors at the expense of retailers and customers.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 16, 2009 11:54 AM | Email ThisBrilliant!
.
The GOP needs to get serious about cutting back the duties of government.
Posted by: Lysander on October 16, 2009 12:24 PMPro: Greater accesibility, reduced government payroll, taxes would still be collected.
Con: workers would probably be given generous severance due to public employee union
Anyone have any additions?
Yes, you're probably right that the state would try to preserve the union jobs, but getting the stores into the hands of private industry would introduce market forces like supplier competition and focus on organizational efficiency - two big things the state government bureaucracy of Washington has shown no inclination for.
When vendors fight for shelfspace, retailers win and when retailers win, so do customers usually. On the efficiency front, modernization of supply chain management, focus on managing inventories and customer payment methods, etc. would all yield big results.
To put this in perspective, just about every analyst out there agrees that if Walmart employees unionized tomorrow, the company would still end up kicking the tail of their competitors because they have an incredibly efficient inventory management system in a real focus on using point-of-sale data analysis to drive inventory and pricing decisions.
Right now Washington state liquor stores do none of these things.
Even laid-back Californians would RIOT if they didn't have 24/7 access to liquor. I'm not saying it's a social good, just that the state-controlled system is bizarre and a relic.
And yes....liquor was cheaper there, even though the state taxes it plenty.
Posted by: Ex-OC'er on October 17, 2009 12:53 PMI come from California where there's an ugly liquor store on every corner. They're unsightly and magnets for crime. The stores here by contrast are invisible. I don't miss them personally because I don't drink anything stronger than beer and wine.
Are the taxes high on liquor here? Good! Tax the things you want less of. Who's in favor of promoting more drug and alcohol use? Tax it to high heaven. That means more clear heads.
Posted by: YLB on October 18, 2009 01:21 PM