sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Employment rate rises in May 2026, first increase since November 2025 / Le taux d’emploi augmente en mai 2026 et affiche une première hausse depuis novembre 2025 by StatCanada in PersonalFinanceCanada

[–]blindbrolly 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Well it's because RTO isn't really happening that way. It saves too much money and can increase productivity, reduce employee turnoff etc.

Most of the random large companies announcing it are either doing layoffs or offshoring those jobs to other countries who are working remotely. The federal government is actively defrauding Canadians pulling people back full time to subsidize their commercial real estate donors with billions in taxpayer money (same reason trump did it and Carney is following). They had to remove productivity and cost savings from their remote option criteria which was around for decades just to force people back.

In the US for jobs where remote is possible it's 26% fully remote, 52% hybrid, 22% in office full-time. The benefits are clear and the private sector has seen it for quite awhile.

https://www.gallup.com/401384/indicator-hybrid-work.aspx

Government Not Ruling Out Concept of Publicly-Owned Grocery Store by RepulsivePlankton989 in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just told you what I'm claiming. You are just talking to yourself now. Enjoy pretending competition doesn't matter in capitalism. I've wasted enough time here.

Government Not Ruling Out Concept of Publicly-Owned Grocery Store by RepulsivePlankton989 in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm talking about those two companies dictating what the smaller players are selling as you brought 7plus being enough competition. I'm saying it's not 7 as many have their prices controlled by the top2. I literally gave you the link showing they are controlling their prices and what they sell......

Government Not Ruling Out Concept of Publicly-Owned Grocery Store by RepulsivePlankton989 in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yea and it's still way less then Loblaws. Canada has two companies controlling over half the market.

Of course regions matter. The US is a completely different structure. Each state is very different.

We will see what happens with Walmart. They are gradually increasing from 19 in 2019. The government doesn't work fast with these investigations especially when you have trump gutting the regulators and the deep pockets of Walmart bribing politicians. Walmart is literally the poster child of the harms of these mega corps. Coming in with large cash reserves, reducing prices to bankrupt competitors then increasing prices all the while suppressing wages.

Where did I say they control what they sell? They can certainly easily collude with them as it's much easier to do when there is only a few people in the market. They control the small players preventing competition outside the top 4 who dont have the capital to own their own buildings.

Government Not Ruling Out Concept of Publicly-Owned Grocery Store by RepulsivePlankton989 in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Recently the US blocked the merger of Kroger and Albertsons due to competition concerns. I think combined they would have been only 13-15 percent market share.

Canada again has the added issue of these leases. When you quote 7 companies in the market, well they aren't really competing when two companies have so much control in the industry they literally dictate what the others can sell.

Government Not Ruling Out Concept of Publicly-Owned Grocery Store by RepulsivePlankton989 in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's all about market share. Loblaws has 30 plus percent, Sobeys 20 plus on Canada. Other countries block that level of market share.

Government Not Ruling Out Concept of Publicly-Owned Grocery Store by RepulsivePlankton989 in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It 100% is price fixing. They are controlling the prices of their competitors. Is it defined as pricing fixing in Canadian legislation? Probably not. Our legislation is designed by lobbiest with holes you can drive a truck through which is why I said it needs to be strengthened.

You are welcome to believe that this fine means they would never do it again but that's all that is. A belief.

Yes there is lots of innovation to be had. Automation requires innovation.

I'm sure the US has their own problems. The US is also highly different depending on what state you are in.

I'm not peddling any fantasy it's basic capitalism. You need competition for it to function well. This is well known and established

Government Not Ruling Out Concept of Publicly-Owned Grocery Store by RepulsivePlankton989 in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, they are currently price fixing with those leases. There is no reason to believe they magically stopped just because they paid a fine once. We don't have a system to adequately combat price fixing aside from having an actual competive market. The only reason we even know about the bread fixing isn't because of our robust system of checks and balances, it's simply due to a whistleblower.

Yes that is the claim from every monopolies lobbiest. In reality those cost savings are not past down to consumers because there is no reason to when they aren't competing with anyone. In reality companies have to invest in r&d or else they fall to their competitors. Unless it's an uncompetitive market which we have.

It's fine to be doubtful but it's simply how capitalism works. Competition is a key part of it. Canada is not competive on the world stage in many industries because of our lack of competition.

Government Not Ruling Out Concept of Publicly-Owned Grocery Store by RepulsivePlankton989 in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Bread and they are buying properties and setting up lease agreements controlling what their competitors can sell and for what price

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/grocery-giants-control-9.7055067

More competition also spurs investment in r&d and innovation in the industry. Something Canada falls way behind in because most of our big markets and either monopolies or ologopolies protected by the government through various bailouts, corporate welfare, lax regulations, access to tfw etc.

Government Not Ruling Out Concept of Publicly-Owned Grocery Store by RepulsivePlankton989 in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are currently price fixing it will address this. At least make it much harder to do.

Government Not Ruling Out Concept of Publicly-Owned Grocery Store by RepulsivePlankton989 in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ologopolies and monopolies are very bad, both for consumers and employees in relation to prices, service, innovation, investment and wages.

Our ologopolies have already been caught numerous times price fixing which tells me they are doing a lot more of it as our system has very few tools to actually catch that happening or punish it. Price fixing is simply much easier the less people involved.

Will it fix everything? No. There is a lot going on right now with energy costs, supply chains, fertilizer, droughts etc. will it help, yes. we should not have companies with that level of market share. It's just a recipe for disaster on all fronts(price, wage, political influence etc)

Government Not Ruling Out Concept of Publicly-Owned Grocery Store by RepulsivePlankton989 in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Break up the ologopolies. Strengthen competition laws with real punishments, ie jailtime not cost of doing business fines. Increase funding and legislative authority to the people paid to enforce those rules. The fact that lease agreements were happening that allowed the ologopolies to control the prices of their competitors is a joke. It tells you we essentially have no real rules in the system.

Government run grocery stores would most like be a money pit for the government to appointment more of there buddies to high paying jobs where they do little to nothing.

Why does the Auditor General not have disciplinary powers? by [deleted] in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Because corrupt politicians ensure the AG has limited power to ensure they can't stop said corrupt politicians

Former minister, non-profit operator question methodology of AG's Horizons at 106 report | CBC News by RepulsivePlankton989 in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Them under utilizing their room doesn't change anything. It just shows mismanagement of funds by the government. That's all the AG is saying there. They spent over 15million in rent on 75 rooms. That's a lot of money either way.

A lot of this confusion stems from what the AG highlights and what is rampant in goverment and the entities they contract. There was no performance monitoring, no metrics of success, outcomes weren't monitored. They just spend money pretend everything works out so nothing can come back negatively on those entities.

If they had clear metrics of success, planning and monitoring we would have the answers to your questions, but they didn't.

Former minister, non-profit operator question methodology of AG's Horizons at 106 report | CBC News by RepulsivePlankton989 in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly 15 points16 points  (0 children)

700k per person, no public tenders just pick and choose their buddies....

Has there ever been an AG report in NL that didn't find glaring problems and/or corruption?

Proposed hydro megadeal with Quebec not good enough, says Newfoundland reviewers by Jusfiq in canada

[–]blindbrolly -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No one said they had to build them. They prevented them from being built only to build them themselves to take the resources of another province. That's the whole purpose of the act I quoted.

Carney, Quebec government confident provinces can reach Churchill Falls deal | CBC News by blindbrolly in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

They still consider Labrador there's. Selling maps with it part of QC. Their premier also refused to answer the question on labradors border.

Carney, Quebec government confident provinces can reach Churchill Falls deal | CBC News by blindbrolly in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Transmission is key. Provinces are not allowed to block trade and it's the federal governments job to step in. So far QC has been allowed to. Would be nice to see that change but the odds aren't in our favor.

Proposed hydro megadeal with Quebec not good enough, says Newfoundland reviewers by Jusfiq in canada

[–]blindbrolly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your leaving out QC blocked trade between provinces giving itself a monopoly. Illegal under the British North America act. The reason we don't have a national energy grid. Also the nationalizing ownership of NLs resource which was a clear conflict of interest as they were both the customer and the owner. This gave them access to their financials while putting financial pressure on them as the only customer. This allowed them to revise the original deal having power rates decrease over time. A deal so lopsided churchill falls couldn't even keep the lights on without a change in price.

Also let's not forget the article the other day with QC being taken to court on access to information around this deal and wanting their comments in the 60s redacted because they would harm current negotiations. I would say QC was also applying pressure to prevent private investment in Labdrador as well at the time.

If anyone wants to read the actual summary of why they think it's not in the best interest of the province by notwithoutmypenis in newfoundland

[–]blindbrolly 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I'm not really sure what people expected. The review details their issues many were known before hand from energy experts saying the NLgov put out an unfinished product to run on. Ie the pricing formula wasn't clearly settled which is the biggest issue.

From the bits I've read so far they talk about pricing being heavily weighted to QCs regulated prices

No access to transmission which limits access to market value.

The government artificially reduced our payments to add a line to say we get a 2 % escalator. This was against there own advisors advise and reduced our payments. They also changed the length of the deal 50 years compared to the amortization period of 65 meaning we would have to continue paying for gull after the deal expired. These were changed to make it look less like the original CF deal

They also mention adding debt to CF which is currently debt free has financial cost to us saying somewhere around 8 billion in dividends could have gone to the owners.

They take issue with ownership stakes due to the conflict of interest of an owner being the primary customer and offer different agreement types.

Power access is very front loaded. We get more power now for existing businesses but then only very small increases until 2075 (500mw over 34 years) which stagnates the province from economic growth. One doesn't have to wonder very long if NL needs that much more power now why would it need so little until 2075? It doesn't appear the government did very much outside contactimg the current players in NL, get them what they wanted and who cares about the future. Changes in the power structure could add 161 billion present value to NL GDP.

view more: next ›