• Neuromancer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

      • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        What third word slaves make your coffee at Starbucks? It’s normally some teeny something green haired person making your coffee.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

        • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          What do you think coffee is? Do you think people with colored hair just magically conjure coffee out of the ether?

          • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            You just said a lot of something that made zero sense.

            You think the people working at Starbucks are slaves?

            • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              You clearly don’t understand what coffee is or how many hands it has to pass through before it even gets to the barista.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          You do realize that coffee beans grow in the tropics… right?

          They aren’t growin em in fuckin Seattle.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            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…

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              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.

              • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

                • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  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.

                  • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      but the workers could do it if they wanted

      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.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Typically they will want collateral such as your home for a large loan.

      You know the great majority of people don’t have any such collateral, right? Holy privilege, dude