Because I have a cottage at Minaki, Ontario and am originally from Manitoba, I’m on a newly formed members-only Facebook group of Manitobans with cottages in northwestern Ontario. (I confessed to the organizer that I’m now a Californian and he said that was alright.)
Why such a group? Because Doug Ford, the Premier of Ontario, has taken measures against freedom of movement that make my governor, Governor Newsom, look positively libertarian by comparison. Ontario has its own provincial police force, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). Ford has set up road blocks to stop people entering Ontario from Quebec in the east and Manitoba in the west. The OPP asks people with Manitoba license plates the purpose of their visit and often turns them away, even if they say, and show evidence that, they are doing needed maintenance on their cottages. And evidence of vaccination? Fuggedaboutit.
Probably thousands of Manitobans have cottages in and around Minaki and Kenora. The Canadian summer is short. So people typically want to start their season with some maintenance and setup on the Victoria Day weekend (people now call it “May long”), the weekend before the Memorial Day weekend, and start going more and more in June. Most Manitobans now cannot do so. Robbing Canadians of their summer cottage time is a very big deal.
So this group has gotten together and had conversations like “I got through the border by telling the cops this;” “Hmm, that didn’t work for me;” “Were you hauling lumber in a truck? That might help.”
There was a different conversation on the site today. The organizer asked people to name retail stores and other businesses in northwestern Ontario that welcomed of people with Manitoba license plates. After a short pause, many people gave many examples.
One funny one: “The owner of the [deleted by DRH] even posted on her personal page that she was organizing a group to go steal the Ontario sign and move it east of Kenora.”
I told my wife, who’s from New Jersey, about this this morning. My wife is not an economist but she’s lived with one for 39 years. She said, “Of course they would be welcoming. These stores depend on Manitobans. They would be crazy to turn them away.” There’s Gary Becker’s The Economics of Discrimination in three sentences.
I did point out, however, one example of a store that was the opposite of welcoming. Here’s what one of the commenters said:
LCBO in Keewatin have been asking people for there postal code prior to shopping… Under the guise of a survey. When you don’t have a Ont. Postal code they tell you you’re not welcome here.
Does anyone know what LCBO stands for? And who runs it? Gary Becker strikes again.
For the short version of Becker’s thesis that’s longer than 3 sentences, see Linda Gorman, “Discrimination” in David R. Henderson, ed. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. It explains the behavior of those for-profit stores and of the LCBO.
Note: The above picture if of my dock, taken in 2013. I hope it’s still there.
READER COMMENTS
Hana
Jun 1 2021 at 7:28pm
Isn’t that Provincial Liquor Stores in Ontario? (Maybe Liquor Control Board Ontario)? I know there were beer stores and liquor stores in Ontario
Jon Murphy
Jun 2 2021 at 7:45am
I have been listening to a fascinating podcast by the Institute for Justice on the 14th Amendment, Bound by Oath. One of the things they discuss is the infamous Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson where the Court ruled that discrimination was legal as long as quality was roughly equal.
Well, one of the things they pointed out is businesses throughout the South opposed Jim Crow and other legislation because they hurt their profits. To accommodate the Jim Crow laws, businesses had to either spend lots of money segregating their businesses (in the case of Plessy, the Louisiana Railroad Company helped fight the legislation because the Jim Crow legislation forced them to purchase more rail cars) or lose customers.
Thus, even if the employers existed in a heavily racist society, the profit motive still encouraged them to fight discrimination!
To apply the reasoning to David’s Canadian case, even if these business owners support the travel bans, and their neighbors do too, the profit motive encourages them to oppose it.
John P Palmer
Jun 2 2021 at 8:37am
LCBO does indeed stand for “Liquor Control Board of Ontario”. The lack of variety available in Ontario (compared with Alberta, where liquor stores are private) is notorious.
Vincent P
Jun 2 2021 at 4:57pm
I have a relative from Ontario who was telling me that the selection at the LBCO was pretty respectable. I took him to the Total Wines & More here in Southern California when he was visiting, and it just about blew his mind.
MarkW
Jun 2 2021 at 9:28am
When our kids were young, we spent a number of vacations sailing in the North Channel of Lake Huron (a spectacular place and apparently completely unknown to most Americans — how many people are aware we have a freshwater version of the Maine coast in the middle of the continent?) But we quickly learned it that it was wise to be well stocked for the week before we crossed the border to avoid having to shop at the LCBO.
David S
Jun 2 2021 at 12:05pm
Have you considered the case of a vocal minority of discriminators? For example, if 5% of the population is extremely discriminatory against 4% of society (as in, will not participate in mixed commerce) and the rest of society is apathetic. In this case, profit will be maximized by discriminating against the 4%, right?
So the profit motive’s ability to decrease discrimination would seem to be dependent on society’s proportions for and against.
Philo
Jun 2 2021 at 1:12pm
Your numbers (5%, 4%) might be insufficient. Discrimination is inherently costly; it requires, at the least, judgment and exclusionary behavior that are not required for non-discrimination.
In any case, in the situation you put forward, the likely result is that some businesses will discriminate (capturing the patronage of the 5% bigots and some of the 91% indifferents) and some will not (capturing the 4% minority and some of the 91%). Discrimination will be present, but mitigated.
Philo
Jun 2 2021 at 1:16pm
Also, a more realistic model might include–besides the minority, the bigots, and the indifferents–a segment of the non-minority population that was actively anti-discrimination.
David S
Jun 2 2021 at 2:00pm
Good points – though the case of Twitter discriminating against conservatives (or Trump supporters, if you prefer) seems to show it still will happen occasionally. A viable conservative Twitter clone has not appeared, and there have been no visible financial consequences for the discrimination.
Probably because the people that desire the discrimination and the company’s client base are particularly well aligned? I’m not sure.
Comments are closed.