riveting developments
Since no one read that last gargantuan post, I will summarize as brutally as possible: I believe Starbucks is somewhat on the evil scale and my writings on it started a minor fist fight between Starbucks representatives and myself (including help from Mr. Stone) within the confines of the student-run paper at Virginia Tech.
But I realized I had no conclusion to my own views presented. Particularly - being the self-proclaimed coffee aficionado that I am, what am I to do if nothing is available but Starbucks (or the B&N equivalent)? Good question. To contrast my verbiage that is now behind us, let me be short in the matter.
Yes, I own several Starbucks mugs and the majority of my espresso-making apparatus is Starbucks-labelled. The mugs are some of the finer pieces I have around and the espresso tools are the best I’ve found available (specifically the scoop/tamper which is wonderfully designed). But my writings focused on one thing specifically - that, as coffee consumers, we have a choice of where to supply ourselves a fix. In Blacksburg, there are myriad coffee shops and I target my eyes towards Bollo’s for many reasons, apart from the better tasting coffee. The world is controlled by capital and while I care only so much for casting a political ballot, I have realized that the most powerful vote I can make is how I spend my dollar.
If you want to take the fast food industry apart at the seams, stop eating fast food and encourage others to do the same (but not for belligerent or militant reasons). If you want to make a difference, start things yourself. So, when I have choices available to me, as I do in the Bburg, I avoid Starbucks entirely, cold turkey.
To make this even more complicated, I tend to get gift cards to Starbucks, for holidays or special occasions, since people know I enjoy a good cup of coffee often… umm.. I mean.. at least once a day. But, the money has already been deposited and I won’t refuse stopping in their yuppie doors to grab a bagel and drink if I have some cash on a gift card. It’s a frustrating experience for me, very much equivalent to someone giving me a gas/fuel gift card ::shudder::, but I brush it off and do what I can, continually reminding myself of my position so as to not fall prey to that attractive fertility goddess.
The holidays are simply full of guilty pleasures. That’s why it is a holiday, I would guess - a designated time to indulge in all of the things we tell ourselves are distasteful the other days of the year. I think I’m ready to immerse myself back into the routine of school; there are truly too many frustrating things going on in the world. Or, maybe, maybe, I consider them too much. Or maybe not.
Maybe I didn’t get enough coffee today. (Thanks, Melanie, for the gingerbread latte).
January 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pm
This is a very interesting sequence. I’m impressed that you got a response from a Starbucks vice president! Here are my 2 cents.
Framework
—————-
1. In a capitalist system, the ultimate responsibility of a company is to make money.
This makes capitalism cruel, but it is also what makes capitalism work. Socialism is nice to everybody, but it doesn’t work. Socialism is based on the assumption that people are fundamentally good, while capitalism assumes that people are fundamentally greedy. Which assumption is correct?
Captialism is the worst economic system, except for all the others.
2. A company can afford to be ethical only to the degree to which ethics are profitable.
Otherwise, the company is shirking its ultimate responsibility: to make money. (Again, this is cruel, but there are no viable alternatives to capitalism.)
There are several reasons that ethics increase profitability: government regulation, employee pressure, and consumer pressure. If you cheat on your taxes, you get arrested. If you treat your workers badly, they quit. If you use child labor, you get boycotted.
Government regulation is impossible to do right. Unskilled employees don’t have much power. That leaves consumer pressure.
3. A company will never be more ethical than its customers.
To fulfill its ultimate responsibility (to make money), a company must pay its workers as little as possible, as long as it’s legal and it doesn’t bother consumers. So what you said about casting your economic vote is right on.
4. A company can deceive consumers.
It’s not actually ethics themselves that are profitable, it’s the _appearance_ of ethics. If a company can save $2 million by using child labor, and then cover it up by spending $1 million on public relations, then it’s profitable, so the company must do it.
The only thing that keeps this from happening is the morality of the people making decisions in the company. This is (I believe) capitalism’s most significant weakness as an economic system.
Final thoughts
——————–
Many people try to attack companies at points 1 and 2, saying that a company is evil because it’s greedy. This attack will never get anywhere, because there is no (known) viable alternative to capitalism.
Points 3 and 4 are the things to really kick and scream about, but not many people realize it.
I contend that, assuming Starbucks obeys labor laws and is honest with consumers about its dealings, if consumers buy Starbucks anyway, then any evil you see in Starbucks is actually coming from its customers.
January 1st, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Well done! One thing I realize that I never mentioned in my two pieces about Starbucks (and even left it out of my op-ed pieces, I think) was that Starbucks is not inherently evil for desiring success. As you mentioned yourself, the ultimate goal in a capitalist free-market is profit and profit increase. So by succeeding, as Starbucks is, they cannot just be blamed for beating out competition. However, I believe, and believe others would agree, that Starbucks has used several unethical practices for achieving their success stateside. This is based on ethics, yes, so the only way they can be reprimanded for this practice is for consumer action, since they are doing nothing illegal by their targeted success.
But, fantastic points! Thanks for the input, very much.