Starbucks

[erufiku]

SafeSearchOFF: OK, capitalism is injust. By definition. Hardly any news: Marx and others made that point a long time ago. (Un)fortunately, we all live in a capitalist world, and so far nobody has come up with a feasible alternative. Which is indeed alarming seeing that the capitalist system is at it's limit as we type.

MechAnt: I will disagree with you on the Folgers. That stuff is vile. Get yourself some stuff from an italian supermarket and you'll feel like paying an extra dollar any day. Kimbo, Lavazza, it's all good. On the other hand there is Illy which is the same/worse than many other italian brands but managed to establish a name for itself and sells at a high premium (3-5x the price of other italian brands).

[MechAnt]

MechAnt: I will disagree with you on the Folgers. That stuff is vile. Get yourself some stuff from an italian supermarket and you'll feel like paying an extra dollar any day. Kimbo, Lavazza, it's all good. On the other hand there is Illy which is the same/worse than many other italian brands but managed to establish a name for itself and sells at a high premium (3-5x the price of other italian brands).

Oooh. I love coffee, so I'll definitely check out those recommendations. Folgers is just the cheap crap just for the caffine. Yet tastes like starbucks .

[gaia.plateau]

But do you believe the majority actually know that they're doing it? Mind control baby, plain n' simple

Most economists I've read or spoken with tend to argue that groupthink is an unbalancing aspect of a market economy.

Gaia: (sigh) you're right, there is always the herd's stupidity and strive for status to be considered. I guess I am living in a fairytale world where the individual has the power to make his/her own informed decisions.

To address the Oakley example, it's common of all brand-name sunglasses. Cheap, plastic frames with Cavalli written on the side go for $400... But at the same time, it's called brand name for a reason. While I agree with you on the sunglasses, I am still bent on buying designer clothes for a simple reason: they fit and look good. Again, this is coming back to the individual preferences. Sure, $20 Walmart jeans achieve the same goal as the $400 Gucci pants: they cover your ass. But some people are superficial and self-conscious, and will pay the $380 premium. Still not robbery in my eyes. It's hard to distinguish the between the individuals who walk around with their Starbucks cup because they've consciously made a choice that it does pay better vs. the ones that do it because it's cool. In either case, they made the choice to part with their cash. Same goes for designer clothes, electronic gadgets, hell, even books. You know how many people have Hawking in their library just to seem "smart"?

Edited March 17, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[SafeSearchOff]

i know hte point is old, doesnt make it invalid though =D

[gaia.plateau]

My last contribution to this thread before I get back to my stupid essay...

...as a self-proclaimed connoisseur of coffee, I highly recommend this stuff.



Indonesian/Central American grafts planted at high altitudes in the Canadian rockies... I've enjoyed thousands of coffees, the good and the bad, and the Kicking Horse "Kick Ass" blend is what I keep stocked at home. Edited March 17, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[MechAnt]

So here's another infamous MechAnt microeconomics graph!

Yea, yea I may seem to be over explaining a lot of things, but I can't stand by and let people say that firm's have an "obligation to sell at a socially acceptable level". This graph is a bit intimidating but it's rather simple. So to start, here are some definitions:

ATC = Average Total Cost (is just what it says)
AVC = Average Variable Cost (is just what it says)
MC = Marginal Cost (the cost of creating one additional unit over the one before it)
MR = Marginal Revenue (the revenue gained by selling one additional unit over the one before it)

What is shown here is the LONG RUN cost curves of a company. The MC intersects the ATC and AVC at their minimums. Where MC and ATC intersect is equilibrium (P, Q). At MR1 (Green), we see that the firm is selling at P1. The shaded green area is representative of something called supernormal profits. It's exactly that. Super. Normal. Now I can say THAT is unjust. That's called exploitation of the consumers. Anything sold above market equilibrium is unfair to the consumer.

Now, lets say that we force the firm to sell at P2 while supplying the same quantity. This means the firm is at MR2 (red). The red shaded area shows a LOSS. That loss is sustained by the firm. Good for the consumer but hurts society by reducing the exchange of money and incentives for firms to exist when there are no profits. That is socially unfair to the firm. It won't drive them out of business because their revenues are enough to cover at least AVC.

What am I trying to say with all of this? In the long run, all firms exist where MC=ATC. In short, in the long run, firms don't make a profit at all! They break even over time. There is no such thing as "socially acceptable prices" except for EQUILIBRIUM. The only way that exists is in a beautiful thing called capitalism. Equilibrium is a socially acceptable price in that firms have no advantage to exploit the consumers. It all evens out in the long run. It may seem good in the short run but everything comes out in the long run.



Keep in mind, there are MUCH more complex and more well explained forces going on here than what I can possible say over the internet with my limited knowledge. Edited March 17, 2008 by MechAnt

[MechAnt]

Hehe, Kick Ass blend. I'll DEFINITELY check that out.

It's a bit expensive. I'll have to order enmasse to make that shipping worth it. Edited March 17, 2008 by MechAnt

[erufiku]

But do you believe the majority actually know that they're doing it? Mind control baby, plain n' simple

Most economists I've read or spoken with tend to argue that groupthink is an unbalancing aspect of a market economy.

No, I don't believe that most people know what they're doing. That's why I kept writing 'herd' while refering to large groups of people. Best examples would have to come from politics methinks

As to the Kicking Horse, I saw it once and was intrigued. Definitely going to give it a try next time I spot it.

[TheScotsman]

Have never stepped foot in a Starbucks, and proud of it

I do have several friends who have worked for them, however, and I've been consistently informed that they use fair trade coffee with absolute minimum frequency to be able to say that they do, which is like one day out of every 50, or something like that.

Also, in my own personal experience talking to the owners of coffee plantations in Central America, fair trade has many drawbacks. Basically it's good because it eliminates "middle men" and tries to get better prices for farmers, but it's probably more accurate to say that it replaces the middle man, and it actually makes it worse for farmers because it only gives them a slightly higher cut (like 0.005% instead of 0.001%), while creating the impression amongst us Westerners that someone is doing something about it.

Also, Fair Trade buys all coffee at a set price by region, and in Central America the only way for coffee farmers to make any profit at all is to specialize and cultivate "premium" beans, which are worth more and cost more to produce than the average bean. So in these cases, they still have to sell to traditional coffee middle men while their competition is being subsidized.

I have never had a starbucks either... are we missing something?
Would be too long of drive for me to find one, besides, I am a wee-bit too anti-social (aye, I know it's hard to believe!!!) to make an effort to go get hosed for 5$ on coffee in a paper cup.

"Fair trade" is nothing more than an advertising scheme in the end. Much like the "responsible forestry" wood harvesting, and carbon offsets, it's just a way for companies to nail the public for more coin, even making the fools feel good for paying more.

As for rBGH, there is no test to tell if it's been used, only the word of the dairy. The methods used in bulk processing would require that ALL farms contributing to a dairy be rBGH free for the end product to be such. (unlikely) In the case of starbucks, their materials would not be sourced from a single point, but from multiple "licensed" contractors. They have little control over "in" basket. It just seems insane to use an artificial bovine hormone created using genetically modified E. coli, then not expect a bad result in the end.

[Ralleac]

i have heard that all starbucks employees are "mandatory part time workers" - less than 40 hours a week, and more htan 40 is a disciplinary offense. i also heard that you can only qualify for the companies health care if you average like 25 hours a quarter or something like that?

I'm not aware of any mandatory part-time policies. I was actually full-time when I started working a little over a year ago, but I have them cut back my hours during the school year. This past summer I had trouble making full-time hours, but mostly because the number of employees has increased. The easiest way to get around it is to search for more hours at other locations.

As far as insurance goes, I think it's around 20-25 hours to qualify (relatively common amongst jobs that pay by the hour.) I have better insurance provided by my tuition and my father's employer, so it's never really interested me. It isn't the kind of job you want to make a living off of, but that really goes for coffee chains in general. You can net over $10/hour here in Oregon after the first raise (first 3 months.) I agree that none of it is particularly great, but you aren't likely to find anything better in this line of work. It's basically just an easy and flexible job I have for spare cash while I'm trying to finish up college.

only one more question i can think of.... how many grounds (in lbs. or ounces) does it take to make one large "vat" of coffee?

5 oz. per airpot, but that depends on the brewer and airpots you're using. Some use around 10oz. An airport yields less than ten 20oz cups of coffee, but I've never really taken the time to check the exact amount. We're usually brewing coffee non-stop in the morning to keep up with orders. Edited March 17, 2008 by Ralleac

[Ralleac]

Erufiku: but do you think that people pay an extra $5 for a cup of Starbucks coffee because it tastes better, or because that little mermaid is a status symbol?

$5? No beverage costs that much at Starbucks without a few add-ons. No normal cup of coffee will run you over $1.85, although most espresso drinks reach the $3-$4 mark, but the prices are relatively competitive when compared to most other espresso bars that I've been to. It doesn't matter where you go. A 16oz latte is going to run you upwards of $3 most of the time, and extra shots are usually going to cost 40-55+ cents. I've seen a few places that are cheaper, but it's usually a matter of 10-20 cents.

The real ripoff is in the pastry and sandwiches. $1.50-$2.00+ for crap you can get much cheaper at any decent bakery or donut shop. Edited March 17, 2008 by Ralleac

[SafeSearchOff]

i have heard that all starbucks employees are "mandatory part time workers" - less than 40 hours a week, and more htan 40 is a disciplinary offense. i also heard that you can only qualify for the companies health care if you average like 25 hours a quarter or something like that?

I'm not aware of any mandatory part-time policies. I was actually full-time when I started working a little over a year ago, but I have them cut back my hours during the school year. This past summer I had trouble making full-time hours, but mostly because the number of employees has increased. The easiest way to get around it is to search for more hours at other locations.

As far as insurance goes, I think it's around 20-25 hours to qualify (relatively common amongst jobs that pay by the hour.) I have better insurance provided by my tuition and my father's employer, so it's never really interested me. It isn't the kind of job you want to make a living off of, but that really goes for coffee chains in general. You can net over $10/hour here in Oregon after the first raise (first 3 months.) I agree that none of it is particularly great, but you aren't likely to find anything better in this line of work. It's basically just an easy and flexible job I have for spare cash while I'm trying to finish up college.

only one more question i can think of.... how many grounds (in lbs. or ounces) does it take to make one large "vat" of coffee?

5 oz. per airpot, but that depends on the brewer and airpots you're using. Some use around 10oz. An airport yields less than ten 20oz cups of coffee, but I've never really taken the time to check the exact amount. We're usually brewing coffee non-stop in the morning to keep up with orders.

okay, thanks.


i think the woman i talked with at one of the locations was just an idiot. i re-listened to the tapes and she said 1.57 ounces of coffee grounds. i'll have to redo my numbers, but i assume the airport is around the same.

[Ralleac]

i think the woman i talked with at one of the locations was just an idiot. i re-listened to the tapes and she said 1.57 ounces of coffee grounds. i'll have to redo my numbers, but i assume the airport is around the same.

Whoops. Airpot.

[TheScotsman]

But do you believe the majority actually know that they're doing it? Mind control baby, plain n' simple

Most economists I've read or spoken with tend to argue that groupthink is an unbalancing aspect of a market economy.

The "flock of sheep" syndrome.

I have a hard time faulting Starbucks, Abercrombie, or anyone else that has manage to convince the sheep to part with their earnings. In essence, are not all major trade-names just an artificially inflated product, capitalizing on their investment in advertising? They are just achieving a higher return than some other labels. Traditionally it has been easier for a label to target younger adults, and teens... exactly the crowd Abercrombie, and Starbucks go for. Maybe the question should be more in the line of just why this age group is more receptive to getting hosed down for some low-quality junk... just for the image/status of wearing the label, of carrying the cup. After all, no one is forcing anyone to purchase the products, Dunkin' donuts still sells cheap coffee, there are still cheap sunglasses at the flea market for $1.00/pair.

[anathema]

Sounds like you guys smuggle soda cans into movie theaters. Some of you might even smuggle microwaveable popcorn, and a microwave.

edit grammar Edited March 18, 2008 by anathema

[Voski]

Is the only place to get kicking horse from them online? It says MINIMUM of 3 weeks for it to arrive in the US =(. I wish I knew where there was a specialty coffee shop in my area.

[jayson]

1.7 is about 1.1% of a lb if you round up.

I'm not sure if someone has corrected you already, but 1.7 ounces is about 9.5% of a pound. A pound is 16oz.

But I still agree. Starbucks is shit. It's only popular because the non-thinking sheeple have swallowed their brilliant marketing scheme hook, line and sinker.

[jayson]

(Un)fortunately, we all live in a capitalist world, and so far nobody has come up with a feasible alternative. Which is indeed alarming seeing that the capitalist system is at it's limit as we type.

Why unfortunately? What is stopping you from going out and convincing the sheep to buy a $10 cup of coffee? Nothing. Competition is a good thing. If people are too stupid to realize they are being hoodwinked... Well, we have a saying for that: "A fool and his money are soon parted".

I'm not saying that we need to allow companies to run roughshod over the population... but honestly, if people have an orgasm when the barista hands them their $10 Venti Mocha Frappe with 4 shots of espresso... then let them. But where you see a problem I see an opportunity.

[n0s]

Not sure if you're still working on the paper or if this was brought up, but I ran across this today:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/21/news/compa...dex.htm?cnn=yes

[Texico]

All I have to say is that Starbucks is some of the worst coffee I have ever had the misfortune of tasting. I always find myself coming back to the HEB brand coffee beans.

I knew someone who worked at a Starbucks in a Target for a while. She didn't like it, but it was the only job she could find at the time. She was working quite a lot of hours, but that was because no one else there knew what they were doing.

I still stand by my belief that Starbucks is crap coffee. I'd rather buy coffee at a gas station. It tastes better.