Starbucks doesn’t own the farms. They buy the beans from the people growing them. The exact same thing you would do if you started a coffee chain or you would buy from a wholesaler…
I think the point the other user was trying to make is that Starbucks already has connections, and they are able to source their coffee from more shady sources if they really want to. Someone starting out new has no such connections and will pay a higher price for their beans than Starbucks, ergo, they have to find something else to compete on other than price (which I think is possible, I live near many local coffee shops, including some worker co-ops). However, you’re still dealing with Starbucks having a larger presence than you, economically, and them being able to source cheaper goods due to economies of scale. I would think you’re already familiar with this. You’re correct in asserting that you’re stuck just having to “believe” your sources don’t use slave labor, because you’re sourcing it from another country. Starbucks at least has the money to check on such things, if they so choose.
The point that I was trying to make was that Starbucks works with more than just the people at the counter, which is how you characterized it. Moving goalposts now isn’t very helpful.
That is what happened when starbucks started as well. Other people were larger. If you make a better product then people may choose to go with your product. Coffee isn’t a price sensitive product. It is a high margin product. People are not going to Starbucks because they’re cheaper.
I don’t disagree, but you characterized it differently in a previous comment. If you don’t want people jumping to conclusions, maybe leave out the hyperbole and try to focus on what you actually want to get across. Obviously “What third word slaves make your coffee at Starbucks? It’s normally some teeny something green haired person making your coffee.” is majorly hyperbolic if you’re aware of bad working conditions in other countries. You could have said as much and made the argument you’re making now.
Seriously, to others it just feels like moving goalposts.
There is no moving on the goal post. It’s silly to say starbucks uses slave labor when they buy their coffee from a third party. the same third party everyone else buys their coffee from.
That doesn’t make it ethical? “Everybody’s doing it” usually isn’t a great way to explain away anything. However, you can choose how to spend your money, and if you don’t like where they source it, it’s easy enough to… just not buy coffee. (Caffeine is an addictive, shitty drug anyway)
I think plenty of people agree that if the chain of production includes slavery, it doesn’t matter if they’re not directly employing them, they’re still using slave labor in service of getting the product to market. Once again, “everybody does it” isn’t really a good reason to keep doing it. Also, acting like it “doesn’t count” and that you didn’t move goalposts just means you’re not arguing in good faith here.
I mean, that’s the rub. If you pay someone who uses slave labor to produce a product, you are inherently financially supporting slavery, even if you don’t personally own the slaves.
Sorry, it counts, you knew about it, but tried to minimize it or act like “since everyone does it” it’s okay. I call bullshit.
Starbucks doesn’t own the farms. They buy the beans from the people growing them. The exact same thing you would do if you started a coffee chain or you would buy from a wholesaler…
It’s so insanely more complicated than that. Not all farms are equal.
Starbucks doesn’t own the farms. They buy the beans from the people growing them. The exact same thing you would do if you started a coffee chain or you would buy from a wholesaler…
I think the point the other user was trying to make is that Starbucks already has connections, and they are able to source their coffee from more shady sources if they really want to. Someone starting out new has no such connections and will pay a higher price for their beans than Starbucks, ergo, they have to find something else to compete on other than price (which I think is possible, I live near many local coffee shops, including some worker co-ops). However, you’re still dealing with Starbucks having a larger presence than you, economically, and them being able to source cheaper goods due to economies of scale. I would think you’re already familiar with this. You’re correct in asserting that you’re stuck just having to “believe” your sources don’t use slave labor, because you’re sourcing it from another country. Starbucks at least has the money to check on such things, if they so choose.
The point that I was trying to make was that Starbucks works with more than just the people at the counter, which is how you characterized it. Moving goalposts now isn’t very helpful.
That is what happened when starbucks started as well. Other people were larger. If you make a better product then people may choose to go with your product. Coffee isn’t a price sensitive product. It is a high margin product. People are not going to Starbucks because they’re cheaper.
I don’t disagree, but you characterized it differently in a previous comment. If you don’t want people jumping to conclusions, maybe leave out the hyperbole and try to focus on what you actually want to get across. Obviously “What third word slaves make your coffee at Starbucks? It’s normally some teeny something green haired person making your coffee.” is majorly hyperbolic if you’re aware of bad working conditions in other countries. You could have said as much and made the argument you’re making now.
Seriously, to others it just feels like moving goalposts.
There is no moving on the goal post. It’s silly to say starbucks uses slave labor when they buy their coffee from a third party. the same third party everyone else buys their coffee from.
That doesn’t make it ethical? “Everybody’s doing it” usually isn’t a great way to explain away anything. However, you can choose how to spend your money, and if you don’t like where they source it, it’s easy enough to… just not buy coffee. (Caffeine is an addictive, shitty drug anyway)
I think plenty of people agree that if the chain of production includes slavery, it doesn’t matter if they’re not directly employing them, they’re still using slave labor in service of getting the product to market. Once again, “everybody does it” isn’t really a good reason to keep doing it. Also, acting like it “doesn’t count” and that you didn’t move goalposts just means you’re not arguing in good faith here.
I mean, that’s the rub. If you pay someone who uses slave labor to produce a product, you are inherently financially supporting slavery, even if you don’t personally own the slaves.
Sorry, it counts, you knew about it, but tried to minimize it or act like “since everyone does it” it’s okay. I call bullshit.
No. It wasn’t. Starbucks was a ‘first’ in many ways. It was prior to third wave. First will always have advantages.
It’s so insanely more complicated than that. Not all farms are equal.