Socialists don’t hate markets, they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market.
Workers owning the means of production just means the workers are doing the same work but they are in ownership of the factory and the profits. They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
Cool, what is your preferred replacement and does everyone in this thread agree? You have managed to continue criticism but not offer a replacement yet again.
Edit: “Thing bad” doesn’t broaden or deepen anything. “Thing has specific shortcomings which aren’t present in specific alternative to thing” is a useful criticism. Criticism without alternatives is just called complaining.
Not always, sometimes it’s just an acknowledgement of insurmountable facts. Pointing out the inability of a particular engine to overcome the laws of thermodynamics to output more energy than is input is not useful criticism. Pointing out the mortality of individuals is not useful criticism. Those shortcomings are specific, but unless there’s some alternative that doesn’t have those shortcomings, those aren’t useful observations, they’re pointless complaints.
Right, and Marxists are characterized by their complete lack of reasoning skills, so they have to blindly parrot everything Marx has ever said, especially the stuff that obviously doesn’t work out. This is actually core marxist thinking.
It’s very very easy to do something like have a capitalist system where business and the rich are taxed. But you aren’t on about that.
You could divide everything up today. But with change and new business ideas that system will never work. You think the people would want to invest in new automation, new ways of working, new industries. If it means growth and job losses? No never. Just look at the western car industry, or any big government owned industry. People don’t want change, even things like running a factory 24/7 instead of a nice 9-5 is difficult.
Then Japan’s comes along and does all this new stuff and puts most of the western workforce out of business.
If worker-owned workplaces still operate within a market, there will still be pressure to compete with other companies. People can still come up with new ideas to compete and change can still happen.
Do they actually trust their coworkers to run the company without tanking it almost immediatly? Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up, let alone actually having input on how the business is run.
Some of the workers may be managerial.
But the managerial workers don’t own a disproportionate amount of the company, and they’re not considered the “superior” of any other workers.
That doesn’t really change the overall point. People are stupid. It’s the single biggest sticking point in democracy, socialism, communism, really anything except dictatorship/technocracy/oligarchy/etc. Any system where you cede power to the masses runs the risk of the masses being utterly stupid.
I think it’s worth it, because stupid is better than evil, but it’s still a point worth considering.
Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up
This is a problem with the company you work for, not your coworkers. I’m sure if they were paid more, were given more agency, and received better training, they’d be better elployees
Either that or the reason they purposefully hire meth-addled freaks is because they want desperate people who won’t fight for any of those things.
Source: Friend who works in a warehouse and has coworkers who are obviously there to get a paycheck to afford their fix and then move on. It’s the company culture. They could choose to hire better people, or mentor the people who could grow, they don’t.
It’s not just about treating current employees well. It’s also about offering enough at the hiring stage to attract more good workers. Higher starting pay and a better reputation as a place to work means more people applying, means that Methface Matt can’t compete with TypeA Teresa to get hired in the first place.
People lie in their interviews all the time. The amount of conversations I’ve had with my boss regarding people he’s hired that turned out be idiots that have started with “I don’t know what happened with that dude, he seemed totally normal in the hiring process”. We’re also restricted in what questions we can ask during interviews because asking people probing questions is apparently not fair according to our HR dept which makes it pretty easy for them to BS their way in. Then we’re stuck with their dumb asses for months before HR lets us fire them.
Didn’t say they run it. The person who runs it can be simply another employee. It’s just there are no outside investors and everyone has a vote on the board. You put someone in charge you trust but everyone as a whole has a say in big picture stuff with the person at the top being day to day and being held accountable to employees and not investors.
Capitalism fundamentally changes the relationship between workers and their work. One takes the value they create and gives it to someone else. One doesn’t.
But why would this employee put in that more work than anybody else? Just to get the same amount of compensation as anybody else? I certainly wouldn’t put up with all the complications of leading a bunch of people without being paid extra.
Than I don’t really get the idea. Could you elaborate?
As far as I understood, the company’s shares belong to the employees (“everyone gets a seat on the board”) and those elect a director which in turn organises the work structure, assigns roles etc. Correct?
Can he be replaced at all times?
How is the compensation of the employees determined?
How are employees handled which are not performing their duties?
Can employees be fired?
How can employees join and leave the company?
Do they return their shares on leaving?
Can they buy and sell their shares?
How do new employees get their shares? Are they assigned or bought?
How is capital raised for large long-term investments like a new machine?
If the employees bring up the capital, do they get interest?
What if no capital can be raised? Is the company terminated?
Can some employees put in more capital than others?
Is the financial gain distributed equally between the employees?
Yes I think so, because the people running the company have no interest in listening to the positions of the workers, especially if it makes them less money.
When the people working in the company have a democratic vote, they at least have a choice and don’t have big mistakes dictated from upon high.
At least then, the workers can agree they all made a shitty mistake together. It doesn’t mean workers are infallible. All humans are fallible. All humans make mistakes. The difference is the power dynamic, nothing else.
I think they have education related to the running of a large company whereas most of my coworkers barely made it through their IT certs and have some of the stupidest takes regarding how things should be done I’ve ever heard in my life.
They can do that under capitalism. Several companies are owned by their workers. Nothing in America stops the workers from owning the factory or the profits.
So ah… What’s the issue then? You can have what you want under capitalism. Attacking the system is forcing your own on others. This is unironically what makes socialism unpopular in the context of history.
The western left doesn’t agree on one form of socialism to align around so it is both impossible to criticize with any specificity and serves as a catch-all in opposition to the current system. It breaks down when they suddenly have to align on specific policies.
That’s a good thing; socialism is a fledgling idea. It needs discoure and experimentation. The attack that lack of exact details and perfect cohesion is an empty one.
Nothing stops them! except shitty wages that are not enough to pay your absurdly high bills for housing, utility and shitty food plus competition which does not treat their eorkers fair and is therefore much more profitable and can easily destroy your worker-friendly cooperative, which they totally will do because CAPITALISM
People will donate a significant portion of their wages to ineffectual radical politicians but won’t bother to consolidate capital to support co-ops. That’s the actual system I see.
I do. I am not asking anyone to do anything. I am pointing out they are free to start their own business and compete if they think they can do better.
Nobody thought Sears could be beat and now they’re mostly gone.
Starbucks started with a small investment and now look at them.
I think people want to make excuses for everything because they don’t want to take the risk or don’t know how to run a company. It’s easier than actually going out there and doing it. Running a company is hard work. It is a risk. I have done it several times. Never made an ass load of money but I left each one to the employees when I was done. Each one they ran right into the ground.
Surprise, when there are obstacles standing in the way of your goals, people may mention those obstacles when asked about progress towards their goals.
What an absolute flaccid take.
Sure: becoming a member of a corporation costs money. You either have to pay to get it set up or buy a share to get in so those who already paid are made whole.
Unfortunately, the US as an example, our society is structured such that the majority of people here have zero savings with wages decreasing in value every year due to inflation. A person in this situation cannot produce money to buy-in; squeezing water from a stone situation.
All people are essentially born with no assets, and if they want to secure wealth, they must sell their labor to achieve it.
In other words, children of parents who own an outsized number of assets do not have to sell their labor to achieve it, because it is offset by their parents assets. This inherently produces an unequal/unbalanced system where some people simply never have to work this way. This is why extremely in-demand internships at companies in places like New York City are often unpaid, and thus generally end up going to people who already have money, access, and support systems. Because only those kind of people can afford to take on an unpaid internship to move upward in the capitalist system.
This is also the source of generational poverty, because it can be really hard to escape when generation after generation are born to no assets.
This is an area I have said needs to be taxed to hell, there is no good reason we should allow the passing of wealth without heavy penalty. I’m convinced that if we taxed all forms of wealth transfer at something like 80%, we could pretty much get rid of income tax. Income you have earned should be your entitlement, assets passed down to you should be where the taxes cut in.
So, you have to sell off 80% of your dead mother’s mementos unless you’re rich? Careful—your proposal is good in spirit, but has ugly side effects that need to be carefully avoided.
Inflation is a recent event. Historically inflation has been low. I will admit it hasn’t phased me much since I make a good income but I really noticed it today at the store. A week of groceries was 250 dollars. That is insane.
Look at the current environment in America. Look at the absence of worker co-ops besides like Winco. Why aren’t there more? What factors are at play that is seemingly preventinf the natural formation of worker co-ops if they are allowed? Are children taught they can do that? Do people getting MBAs learn this in their classes? There are a lot of questions to ask here. While we do have some examples, for whatever reason they are not common here. I do think it has something to do with the resources the average citizen has available, the current ecosystems within existing markets, and all around education of the average American citizen.
They are more common than you think. They appear to be grocery stores and engineering firms. Just do a quick google and you will find hundreds of them, many you have heard of.
Banks frequently what? I think people don’t understand the concept of capitalism. It means somebody has to inject the capital. The bank isn’t a charity. Typically they will want collateral such as your home for a large loan.
Every company has to start with some form of capital injection but the workers could do it if they wanted. If you and your friend want to compete with Starbucks, nothing is stopping you.
You clearly know nothing of the coffee industry. Don’t speak on a topic if you literally know nothing. Third wave coffee exists because of the inherent abuse of the workers who actually harvest coffee. That you’re so naive to even think that the person behind the counter is the end of who is part of Starbucks is shockingly sad considering how much you’re trying to fight for something that is dependent on you needing a much better understanding of what you’re talking about.
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.
Yeah, and a third party candidate could be voted into every seat and the presidency, but it’s so stacked against it occurring, it’s effectively impossible.
The state of the economy today is what’s stopping a vast majority of people from doing so. You can open a coffee shop and survive, but you could never compete against Starbucks. You would not even dent their bottom line. You would need hundreds of millions of dollars to realistically compete. Capitalism has brought us to a point where a majority of folks need to sell their idea to investors, further separating most workers from the value of their work.
Edit: I’m really tired of the naive and childish defenses most people put up for capitalism. “Nothing is stopping you.” Yeah and “nothing” is stopping a transgender women from becoming our next president by the same definition of “nothing”. Might as well say nothing is stopping you from passing through walls as quantum mechanics says it’s possible.
WE will never have a third party nor would I want one. We would need 6-10 parties. That is the only way this gets better.
You seem to think to compete, you have to grow larger. You don’t. If you are trying to make a living for your coop, you just need to make enough for all of you to do that.
Dutch Brothers is doing well and they’re not near the size of Starbbucks. Peets has always done well.
Dutch brothers by revenue is essentially a drive through energy drink stand, not a coffee company and Peet’s is owned by a holding company that got rich off of Nazi work camp labor.
Peet’s had 4 stores before it started changing hands, Peet’s and Starbucks famously did not compete with each other for years, and Starbucks wasn’t even selling brewed coffee before it was taken over by Shultz and venture capital.
But from my experience in the industry, your confident incorrectness is perfectly in character for a coffee shop owner.
Even if, hypothetically, 65% of people owned their homes outright, that’s still over a third of the population who can’t even consider getting a loan like you described.
And for those that COULD, they’re betting their entire life on it. People with money can afford to take risks. It’s not an even playing field, at all.
Only in the most technical of technical senses. Much like “there’s nothing stopping someone who’s born poor from becoming a millionaire”. Legally? No. Practically? Yes, there’s so freakin many barriers to such a thing happening, it’s almost statistically impossible. It’s so rare that when it happens it makes national headlines.
Poor people who became millionaires exist, but they’re a rounding error. I don’t think you’re one of them, though I bet you tell yourself that. Having daddy pay for your tuition or whatever is just conveniently left out.
Actually, I bet you’re not even a millionaire.
Whatever it is, the point is that what you’re claiming is so statistically rare, I don’t believe you. And then you’re also claiming it’s common.
Socialists don’t hate markets, they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market.
Workers owning the means of production just means the workers are doing the same work but they are in ownership of the factory and the profits. They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
So every company remodeled after REI, got it.
I, a socialist, hate markets. They are simplistic and functional artifacts of the available way to pass information.
Cool, what is your preferred replacement and does everyone in this thread agree? You have managed to continue criticism but not offer a replacement yet again.
The ole can have criticism without perfect solutions response. Cool, how useless and pointless of you.
I’m confused, isn’t criticism without alternatives itself useless and pointless?
No, it broadens and deepens understanding.
Alternatives come from that understanding. Criticism is the fundamental step towards alternatives.
How exactly do you come to that conclusion?
Edit: “Thing bad” doesn’t broaden or deepen anything. “Thing has specific shortcomings which aren’t present in specific alternative to thing” is a useful criticism. Criticism without alternatives is just called complaining.
“thing has specific shortcomings” is a useful criticism.
Not always, sometimes it’s just an acknowledgement of insurmountable facts. Pointing out the inability of a particular engine to overcome the laws of thermodynamics to output more energy than is input is not useful criticism. Pointing out the mortality of individuals is not useful criticism. Those shortcomings are specific, but unless there’s some alternative that doesn’t have those shortcomings, those aren’t useful observations, they’re pointless complaints.
So, you would never trade with someone else something you have for something they have? You want to be entirely self sufficient?
If this isn’t true, why do think markets serve no purpose?
Do you really think all exchange of goods is a market?
Yes. Do you not?
So Christmas gifts are a market?
deleted by creator
Or as normal people call it, “money”
deleted by creator
We love oversimplifying generalizations that make us look like absolute buffoons though.
At least according to trustworthy sources, i.e. your gut feeling.
/s
deleted by creator
Right, and Marxists are characterized by their complete lack of reasoning skills, so they have to blindly parrot everything Marx has ever said, especially the stuff that obviously doesn’t work out. This is actually core marxist thinking.
/s
deleted by creator
How would that even work.
It’s very very easy to do something like have a capitalist system where business and the rich are taxed. But you aren’t on about that.
You could divide everything up today. But with change and new business ideas that system will never work. You think the people would want to invest in new automation, new ways of working, new industries. If it means growth and job losses? No never. Just look at the western car industry, or any big government owned industry. People don’t want change, even things like running a factory 24/7 instead of a nice 9-5 is difficult.
Then Japan’s comes along and does all this new stuff and puts most of the western workforce out of business.
If worker-owned workplaces still operate within a market, there will still be pressure to compete with other companies. People can still come up with new ideas to compete and change can still happen.
Do they actually trust their coworkers to run the company without tanking it almost immediatly? Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up, let alone actually having input on how the business is run.
I trust my average coworker much more than the average CEO.
Highly depends on your coworkers. My current coworkers? Yeah they’re great, we have two electrical engineers on my team, buncha geniuses.
My last job? Oh man I wouldn’t trust those guys as far as I could throw em.
Some of the workers may be managerial. But the managerial workers don’t own a disproportionate amount of the company, and they’re not considered the “superior” of any other workers.
You must need a better job. I’ve had plenty of workplaces where I could count on everyone around me.
You know, the hiring manager usually has something to do with the quality of people hired. Maybe you could talk to them instead?
If I made my hiring manager worried more about quality I wouldn’t be hired
That doesn’t really change the overall point. People are stupid. It’s the single biggest sticking point in democracy, socialism, communism, really anything except dictatorship/technocracy/oligarchy/etc. Any system where you cede power to the masses runs the risk of the masses being utterly stupid.
I think it’s worth it, because stupid is better than evil, but it’s still a point worth considering.
This is a problem with the company you work for, not your coworkers. I’m sure if they were paid more, were given more agency, and received better training, they’d be better elployees
Either that or the reason they purposefully hire meth-addled freaks is because they want desperate people who won’t fight for any of those things.
Source: Friend who works in a warehouse and has coworkers who are obviously there to get a paycheck to afford their fix and then move on. It’s the company culture. They could choose to hire better people, or mentor the people who could grow, they don’t.
No, they’re just idiots. Myself and others have had the same training and responsibilities and do fine. It’s not that difficult of a job.
It’s not just about treating current employees well. It’s also about offering enough at the hiring stage to attract more good workers. Higher starting pay and a better reputation as a place to work means more people applying, means that Methface Matt can’t compete with TypeA Teresa to get hired in the first place.
People lie in their interviews all the time. The amount of conversations I’ve had with my boss regarding people he’s hired that turned out be idiots that have started with “I don’t know what happened with that dude, he seemed totally normal in the hiring process”. We’re also restricted in what questions we can ask during interviews because asking people probing questions is apparently not fair according to our HR dept which makes it pretty easy for them to BS their way in. Then we’re stuck with their dumb asses for months before HR lets us fire them.
Didn’t say they run it. The person who runs it can be simply another employee. It’s just there are no outside investors and everyone has a vote on the board. You put someone in charge you trust but everyone as a whole has a say in big picture stuff with the person at the top being day to day and being held accountable to employees and not investors.
Capitalism fundamentally changes the relationship between workers and their work. One takes the value they create and gives it to someone else. One doesn’t.
But why would this employee put in that more work than anybody else? Just to get the same amount of compensation as anybody else? I certainly wouldn’t put up with all the complications of leading a bunch of people without being paid extra.
Who said that’s the case?
Than I don’t really get the idea. Could you elaborate?
@lightnsfw @dingus
You really think the people currently running your company are any different from those other coworkers?
Yes I think so, because the people running the company have no interest in listening to the positions of the workers, especially if it makes them less money.
When the people working in the company have a democratic vote, they at least have a choice and don’t have big mistakes dictated from upon high.
At least then, the workers can agree they all made a shitty mistake together. It doesn’t mean workers are infallible. All humans are fallible. All humans make mistakes. The difference is the power dynamic, nothing else.
I think they have education related to the running of a large company whereas most of my coworkers barely made it through their IT certs and have some of the stupidest takes regarding how things should be done I’ve ever heard in my life.
Education related to the exploitation of their workers
Ftfy
You must be a joy to work with.
I’m great to work with. No one has to worry if the task they assign me is going to be done right and on time.
I guess you haven’t met many CEOs, then.
They can do that under capitalism. Several companies are owned by their workers. Nothing in America stops the workers from owning the factory or the profits.
Did… did I say they couldn’t? I think this continues to be a misunderstanding of what socialists believe.
So ah… What’s the issue then? You can have what you want under capitalism. Attacking the system is forcing your own on others. This is unironically what makes socialism unpopular in the context of history.
Did I attack the system in my comment or did I give a bare bones breakdown of what socialism is?
https://lemmy.ml/comment/2892938
https://lemmy.ml/comment/2892727
Maybe even check my other posts in this thread to get a better idea of my opinion on this instead of jumping to conclusions.
They said it in the first comment
Good luck here lol
The western left doesn’t agree on one form of socialism to align around so it is both impossible to criticize with any specificity and serves as a catch-all in opposition to the current system. It breaks down when they suddenly have to align on specific policies.
That’s a good thing; socialism is a fledgling idea. It needs discoure and experimentation. The attack that lack of exact details and perfect cohesion is an empty one.
Wanting to burn down the system without a coherent and specific approach to replace it only hurts people.
How do you feel about Bernie or AOC, they are the system and aren’t trying to burn it down. They just want to fix the system.
Nothing stops them! except shitty wages that are not enough to pay your absurdly high bills for housing, utility and shitty food plus competition which does not treat their eorkers fair and is therefore much more profitable and can easily destroy your worker-friendly cooperative, which they totally will do because CAPITALISM
Excuses… People always have an excuse for why they didn’t do something.
You’re asking people with little to no resources to take on people who have all the resources.
You don’t seem like you understand modern capitalism.
People will donate a significant portion of their wages to ineffectual radical politicians but won’t bother to consolidate capital to support co-ops. That’s the actual system I see.
What poor people do you think are donating wages to “radical politicians”? Have you ever met any poor people?
I do. I am not asking anyone to do anything. I am pointing out they are free to start their own business and compete if they think they can do better.
Nobody thought Sears could be beat and now they’re mostly gone.
Starbucks started with a small investment and now look at them.
I think people want to make excuses for everything because they don’t want to take the risk or don’t know how to run a company. It’s easier than actually going out there and doing it. Running a company is hard work. It is a risk. I have done it several times. Never made an ass load of money but I left each one to the employees when I was done. Each one they ran right into the ground.
You do not.
Wanna loan me $850,000 so I can start my own business? If it works I’ll pay you back in 20 years.
What’s the business plan?
Surprise, when there are obstacles standing in the way of your goals, people may mention those obstacles when asked about progress towards their goals. What an absolute flaccid take.
Fully stop? No, not technically. But our society makes it as close to impossible as it can be without being illegal
Give an example. That is hyperbolic as hell since there are several successful ones out there.
Sure: becoming a member of a corporation costs money. You either have to pay to get it set up or buy a share to get in so those who already paid are made whole.
Unfortunately, the US as an example, our society is structured such that the majority of people here have zero savings with wages decreasing in value every year due to inflation. A person in this situation cannot produce money to buy-in; squeezing water from a stone situation.
All people are essentially born with no assets, and if they want to secure wealth, they must sell their labor to achieve it.
In other words, children of parents who own an outsized number of assets do not have to sell their labor to achieve it, because it is offset by their parents assets. This inherently produces an unequal/unbalanced system where some people simply never have to work this way. This is why extremely in-demand internships at companies in places like New York City are often unpaid, and thus generally end up going to people who already have money, access, and support systems. Because only those kind of people can afford to take on an unpaid internship to move upward in the capitalist system.
This is also the source of generational poverty, because it can be really hard to escape when generation after generation are born to no assets.
False. The children of rich people are born rich. That’s a major part of the problem. It creates dynasties.
This is an area I have said needs to be taxed to hell, there is no good reason we should allow the passing of wealth without heavy penalty. I’m convinced that if we taxed all forms of wealth transfer at something like 80%, we could pretty much get rid of income tax. Income you have earned should be your entitlement, assets passed down to you should be where the taxes cut in.
So, you have to sell off 80% of your dead mother’s mementos unless you’re rich? Careful—your proposal is good in spirit, but has ugly side effects that need to be carefully avoided.
Inflation is a recent event. Historically inflation has been low. I will admit it hasn’t phased me much since I make a good income but I really noticed it today at the store. A week of groceries was 250 dollars. That is insane.
Look at the current environment in America. Look at the absence of worker co-ops besides like Winco. Why aren’t there more? What factors are at play that is seemingly preventinf the natural formation of worker co-ops if they are allowed? Are children taught they can do that? Do people getting MBAs learn this in their classes? There are a lot of questions to ask here. While we do have some examples, for whatever reason they are not common here. I do think it has something to do with the resources the average citizen has available, the current ecosystems within existing markets, and all around education of the average American citizen.
They are more common than you think. They appear to be grocery stores and engineering firms. Just do a quick google and you will find hundreds of them, many you have heard of.
Banks frequently do.
Banks frequently what? I think people don’t understand the concept of capitalism. It means somebody has to inject the capital. The bank isn’t a charity. Typically they will want collateral such as your home for a large loan. Every company has to start with some form of capital injection but the workers could do it if they wanted. If you and your friend want to compete with Starbucks, nothing is stopping you.
I don’t have access to the same network of third world slaves that Starbucks does.
As someone in the industry, I can say you actually do. It’s scary how easy it is to buy coffee harvested by literal or effectively slaves.
What third word slaves make your coffee at Starbucks? It’s normally some teeny something green haired person making your coffee.
You clearly know nothing of the coffee industry. Don’t speak on a topic if you literally know nothing. Third wave coffee exists because of the inherent abuse of the workers who actually harvest coffee. That you’re so naive to even think that the person behind the counter is the end of who is part of Starbucks is shockingly sad considering how much you’re trying to fight for something that is dependent on you needing a much better understanding of what you’re talking about.
Literally everything this person has said about how the coffee industry works has been wrong.
You think Starbucks owns slave labor? Otherwise, my point is solid. They do not.
You do realize that coffee beans grow in the tropics… right?
They aren’t growin em in fuckin Seattle.
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.
What do you think coffee is? Do you think people with colored hair just magically conjure coffee out of the ether?
You just said a lot of something that made zero sense.
You think the people working at Starbucks are slaves?
You clearly don’t understand what coffee is or how many hands it has to pass through before it even gets to the barista.
Yeah, and a third party candidate could be voted into every seat and the presidency, but it’s so stacked against it occurring, it’s effectively impossible.
The state of the economy today is what’s stopping a vast majority of people from doing so. You can open a coffee shop and survive, but you could never compete against Starbucks. You would not even dent their bottom line. You would need hundreds of millions of dollars to realistically compete. Capitalism has brought us to a point where a majority of folks need to sell their idea to investors, further separating most workers from the value of their work.
Edit: I’m really tired of the naive and childish defenses most people put up for capitalism. “Nothing is stopping you.” Yeah and “nothing” is stopping a transgender women from becoming our next president by the same definition of “nothing”. Might as well say nothing is stopping you from passing through walls as quantum mechanics says it’s possible.
WE will never have a third party nor would I want one. We would need 6-10 parties. That is the only way this gets better.
You seem to think to compete, you have to grow larger. You don’t. If you are trying to make a living for your coop, you just need to make enough for all of you to do that.
Dutch Brothers is doing well and they’re not near the size of Starbbucks. Peets has always done well.
Dutch brothers by revenue is essentially a drive through energy drink stand, not a coffee company and Peet’s is owned by a holding company that got rich off of Nazi work camp labor.
Peers wasn’t started by jab. They were purchased later by jab.
Both have competed with Starbucks.
Actually the guy who started Starbucks worked for Peet’s.
That’s the point. Peet’s was the Starbucks until Starbucks started.
I’ve owned a few coffee places but I focused more on the old coffeehouse experience. It’s a different model entirely.
I may do it again. I always did ok but people want quick service.
Peet’s had 4 stores before it started changing hands, Peet’s and Starbucks famously did not compete with each other for years, and Starbucks wasn’t even selling brewed coffee before it was taken over by Shultz and venture capital.
But from my experience in the industry, your confident incorrectness is perfectly in character for a coffee shop owner.
You know the great majority of people don’t have any such collateral, right? Holy privilege, dude
The majority do own homes.
65%
https://www.simplyinsurance.com/how-many-homeowners-in-the-us/#:~:text=65.8 percent of all Americans,that’s about 230 Million Americans.
Own outright? Or have a mortgage?
Even if, hypothetically, 65% of people owned their homes outright, that’s still over a third of the population who can’t even consider getting a loan like you described.
And for those that COULD, they’re betting their entire life on it. People with money can afford to take risks. It’s not an even playing field, at all.
Only in the most technical of technical senses. Much like “there’s nothing stopping someone who’s born poor from becoming a millionaire”. Legally? No. Practically? Yes, there’s so freakin many barriers to such a thing happening, it’s almost statistically impossible. It’s so rare that when it happens it makes national headlines.
Not really I grew up poor and I’m a millionaire. It’s not that hard of a bar to cross.
I think you should google how many millionaires there are in America. That number would shock you.
Ok now I know you’re a troll. And a liar.
Poor people who became millionaires exist, but they’re a rounding error. I don’t think you’re one of them, though I bet you tell yourself that. Having daddy pay for your tuition or whatever is just conveniently left out.
Actually, I bet you’re not even a millionaire.
Whatever it is, the point is that what you’re claiming is so statistically rare, I don’t believe you. And then you’re also claiming it’s common.
Ergo, troll.
I’m done talking with you.