In These Times: The rise of Starbucks reveals how we really live, and it ain’t pretty

[marmar]

from In These Times:



Our Coffee, Ourselves
The rise of Starbucks reveals how we really live, and it ain’t pretty.

By Richard Greenwald


When Bryant Simon’s book, Everything but the Coffee: Learning about America from Starbucks (University of California Press, 2009) arrived in my mail, I thought, great, just what we need: another book by an academic that attempts to understand the world through a simplistic lens, like salt, sushi or coffee. That this genre sells well probably motivated Simon’s publisher. But Simon’s book is better and more honest than most of the genre in recognizing the limitations of both author and subject. He peeks into the inner life of American culture, but thankfully refrains from offering a unified theory that explains all.

Part history, part ethnography, part marketing theory and part coffee memoir, Everything but the Coffee places Starbucks at the center of the hypocrisy of the American middle class. Simon has to stretch a great deal here, as he explores why, for a time, the American middle class saw Starbucks is central to its identity.

Simon shows us how we really live, and it ain’t pretty. There was a time, not so long ago, Simon reminds us, that many of us wondered why people would pay so much money for a cup of coffee—even as we were edging closer in line to place our own order. Starbucks, writes Simon, “had little to do with coffee, and everything to do with style, status, identity and aspiration. … Starbucks delivered more than a stiff shot of caffeine. It pinpointed, packaged, and made easily available, if only through smoke and mirrors, the things that the broad American middle class wanted and thought it needed to make its public and private lives better.” Starbucks fed our emotional needs for status. It became our little “self-gift,” an emotional pick-me-up. It allowed us to feel successful.

It also provided a safe, clean “third space” between home and work, those big chairs and couches becoming our new public sphere. It brought us exotic places and sounds, exposed us to an underground in the safety of a cushy seat: teaching us about places where our coffee came from, and new music and literary voices. It tried to be our cultural guide and helped us feel good about our environmental footprint through its green campaigns and aid to farmers, even if Starbucks did little and we did nothing but buy coffee. It did so consciously, purposefully manipulating our desires, hopes and aspirations, all the while making us feel good about ordering up a venti soy latte. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5311/our_coffee_ourselves

[Laelth]

1. Interesting. Thanks for posting. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Echo In Light]

2. There isn't one aspect to America's mainstream culture that isn't 100% rooted in commerce

K&R

[marmar]

3. Very true.....Noam Chomsky summed it up nicely:

"The goal for the corporations is to maximise profit and
market share. And they also have a goal for their target, namely
the population. They have to be turned into completely mindless
consumers of goods that they do not want. You have to develop what
are called "Created Wants". So you have to create wants. You have
to impose on people whats called a Philosophy of Futility. You
have to focus them on the insignificant things of life, like
fashionable consumption. Im just basically quoting business
literature. And it makes perfect sense. The ideal is to have
individuals who are totally disassociated from one another. Whose
conception of themselves, the sense of value is just, "how many
created wants can I satisfy?" We have huge industries, public
relations industry, monstrous industry, advertising and so on,
which are designed from infancy to mold people into this desired
pattern."

[Echo In Light]

6. Post a poll here re that and you'll be amazed at how many will downplay or disavow....

... the reality of "imposed wants/needs" as being a far reaching conspiracy theory lol ...that's how locked in the public mind is: defend the systems they're imprisoned by, and either ignore or lash out at those who offer critical, albeit unfavorable analysis. Ugh...

[dmallind]

8. That's because it's rarely a conspiracy.

Marketers only work together for commodities. The Beef Board and so on "conspire" to increase the need for beef because few of us know or care whose beef we are buying, and so increased purchases of beef help a wide range of beef producers. But BMW sure as hell doesn't conspire to create an imposed want for Lexus or MB competitors. Instead they go out of their way to differentiate their own imposed need from that of the other marques even when they are closely equivalent, and DEcrease the want for other options.

Companies using similar marketing techniques (because they work, because we let them) is no more a conspiracy than there is a conspiracy to run wildcat plays in the NFL. It's each team using similar tactics to help themselves and nobody else - in fact to harm competitors if possible.

Incidentally do you think progressive organizations pushing progressive goals don't use these same techniques?

[Echo In Light]

21. Common marketing techniques among a wide range of subjects doesn't nullify how the corp/state nexus

... benefits from a populace largely conditioned to frame 'reality' within the products they purchase. This reminds me of the view which perceives the corporate, mainstream media apparatus as being in 'only for the $,' which safely glosses over the recurring aspects of how and why certain topics/stories/incidents, etc are routinely distorted for consumption. And really, what you allude to re 'conspiracy' is accurate, in as much as much of what's occurred within the public mind in the corporate culture isn't so much a 'plot' of sorts by any one nefarious group, but psychologically manipulative in nature - something many corps spend a great deal of $ on for their marketing depts - which is an essential component of social control via The Big Lie, as opposed to The Big Stick. I'd recommend (to anyone) reading Herbert Marcuse's book, One-Dimensional Man, as it offers an early insight into how people are controlled within a consumer culture.

http://igw.tuwien.ac.at/christian/marcuse/odm.html

[omega minimo]

63. It's also why the synergized corporate news media keeps the public in a constant state of panic.

Fear and need. Unsettled. Loss. Drama. Puppy lost. Boat accident. Must buy chips.

[Echo In Light]

122. Consumer/Fear/Consumer/Fear

Lather, rinse, and repeat

[omega minimo]

62. Beef pushers used Vampire imagery in the campaigns in the 80's -- for those who say "subliminal"

doesn't exist, even today.



"It's each team using similar tactics to help themselves and nobody else - in fact to harm competitors if possible."

Progressive orgs use similar techniques, not necessarily "the same."

[marmar]

29. Some of the posts later down in this thread prove your point vividly

nt

[Silent3]

42. No conspiracy needed. I think our commercialism is a pretty natural social dynamic.

To suggest that commercialism is conspiratorially imposed on us, indoctrinated into us, is to assume that in the absence of such conspiracies and indoctrination that our fundamental nature would be different.

This is not to say that there aren't groups of people working hard at figuring out how to manipulate other people as effectively as they can through advertising and propaganda. But that's hardly conspiratorial. No, it's not a shining example of the best of human nature either, but it doesn't require great conspiracies for people to seek out and apply such methods of manipulation.

If you could wave a magic wand and eliminate everything now known about how to influence the public, you wouldn't need the Illuminati or the Bilderbergers, you wouldn't need deep conspiracies of government and business to recreate that knowledge all over again. Individually and separately we'd figure out the basics of manipulation again in a few weeks, get pretty good at it in a few years, and reach the current level of refinement in a few decades.

Because everyone from the neighborhood baker to the woman next door running for city council wants to figure out the best way to get others to buy what they're selling.

I hardly think it's basic human nature merely waiting to be revealed, if you can imagine some utopia of maximum personal freedom and minimal corporate power, for every person to strive to live deep, meaningful lives of altruism, intellectual and spiritual development, for everyone to cherish unique local experiences, unconcerned about image or status.

Do you disagree with any of the following?

• It is NOT basic human nature to always put the good of others ahead of one's own needs and desires. Making sure that all of the hungry are fed, the homeless sheltered, and the sick cared for is NOT a natural state of affairs, therefore the fact that we don't take care of these things first and foremost is not, in and of itself, a sign of conspiratorial manipulation.
  
• Given the above lack of perfect altruism redirecting economic effort to take care of all of the "have nots", even in the current bad economy we produce a far greater wealth of goods and services than most of the "haves" need to meet basic their needs.
  
• The majority of human being are NOT latent philosophers and philanthropists merely waiting for evil corporate culture to get out of the way of their full flowering of intellect and individuality. Humanity is full of people looking for comfort, social status, looking for groups to belong to, symbols to identify with, reasons to feel superior to their fellow human beings, new ways to impress potential sexual partners, etc.

Put all of that together, and it's hard to see how a fairly open society with our current level of technology and industrial capacity doesn't turn out looking a lot like what we've got right now. It would take a higher degree of manipulation and intrusion into our lives and individual choices to dispel consumerism and commercialism than is put into manipulating the commercial and political choices we currently make.

[Echo In Light]

50. As stated, I agree, consumerism wasn't an initially imposed "conspiracy."

Here's some background data on the subject via a cursory Google search:

Review - Psychology and Consumer Culture:

"The overall argument of the book is that we are inundated with messages to buy things, to own things, and to consume things. Such messages are not benign; they manipulate our desires and beliefs in order to promote purchasing and accrue profits to businesses and corporations. Many people internalize the message that material goods can provide happiness (it's hard not to!) and thus absorb materialist values and beliefs. But materialist values and beliefs are psychologically damaging both in adulthood and child development. They are also destructive to the environment and to underdeveloped economies. Psychologists can (and should) take an active role in reorienting people's values and in changing trends in media, education, advertising and other production sites of cultural ideology."

http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=2112&cn=396

Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies
by Noam Chomsky

"Putting it in plain terms, the general public must be reduced to its traditional apathy and obedience, and driven from the arena of political debate and action, if democracy is to survive."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/Necessary_Illusions.html

Viewing Consumer Culture Through the Lens of Addiction:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-shaw/viewing-consumer-culture_b_105750.html

Consumer Culture is a Threat to Progressive Change:
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/consumer-culture-is-a-threat-to-progressive-change-522353.html

[Silent3]

55. I'm not arguing against the negative effects of excessive consumerism...

...nor would I argue against the existence of ordinary, run-of-the-mill corruption out there helping corporations exploit people as consumers more effectively.

I'm not even arguing against the existence of plenty of small-c conspiracy in this world, which is after all just what most corruption and abuse of power is.

What I'm arguing against is Capital-C Conspiracy, Grand Conspiracy, that our current consumer culture can only be explained by and perpetuated by some powerful "Them", unified in purpose and capable of molding our very nature to fit into some grand scheme They have for exploiting us. I see that kind of conspiratorial thinking as paranoia in the face of a negative but very natural and organic outgrowth of human behavior that only needs greedy individuals seeking to maximize their wealth in a world where tremendous industrial power is in play.

[Echo In Light]

76. Well, the entire Corp culture is a media/marketed-saturated, man-made weather system

So if people aren't raised knowing what to be wary of - in fact, just the opposite generally occurs throughout most of the dominant institutions people grow up in - than they're hardly capable of knowing how to accurately identify and label, making it far more likely that by the time they've reached a certain age, many will simply dismiss such data as boring, or too "conspiratorial" (funny how people here are conditioned to obediently dismiss anything along those lines) since they're coming up through the ranks of learning/training institutions that gear people's mindset toward reinforcing what the Corp culture offers and sells.

[Silent3]

86. Is your logic basically...

...there is a Conspiracy, and if you don't think there is one, that's because The Conspiracy has programmed you to dismiss it's own existence?

That kind of thinking is a paranoid trap. It reminds me of a quote from William S. Burroughs, "The name of the game is 'Find Your Adversary'. Your adversary's game plan is to convince you he does not exist." If paranoia can have a beautiful, jewel-like quality, that quote certainly achieves that. :)

You are right to say that we should be teaching our children how advertising and propaganda work, how to recognize demagoguery and appeals to vanity, insecurity, and prejudice. None of that kind of learned resistance to manipulation, however, requires thinking that there's a unified Conspiracy behind all such manipulation.

[Echo In Light]

118. I've repeatedly stated that it's *not* all an overt 'conspiracy'

... yet, some persist with, so, you think it's all a big conspiracy. lol

I suspect some, when confronted w/the ideas we're speaking to, prefer to frame analysis they find unfavorable as a "conspiracy" stemming from someone who is "paranoid," since doing so allows them to smugly dismiss a view they can't agree with, which leaves them safely within their own belief system which they basically arrived at vis a vis their own indoctrination - and usually those types likewise perceive their belief system is the predominant one shared by a majority. That sort of framework is often very important indeed to such people. However, the views I've put forth aren't of that nature in a black and white sense.

Also, anyone who claims "my logic," as in, they cast it as being soly unique to themselves, is mistaken. People get many of their thoughts, views, ideas and values from a wide range of external sources, each w/it's own agenda. Yet many deny this fact vehemently, for to acknowledge it opens the door to the reality that people aren't as rugged and independent minded as they fancy themselves as being. I think that macho factor does have a substantial hand in the American 'cowboy' mindset, which in part explains the hostile, reactionary position many take when confronted w/the notion of mass conspiracy: it lessens their illusion of control, dampens their ego's want of oneupmanship, and their sense of nobody can fool ME!

When one considers the multitude of institutions and vested interests there are throughout society that play a substantial role in shaping the public mind, there are of course 'conspiracies' within the broad web of that...but that's not really what I'm addressing re thought control within democratic societies.

Much of that occurs naturally, so to say, in how people choose careers as social managers of sorts - and those take many shapes and forms - and this of course is institutionally and culturally imposed on the worker bees, and broadly throughout the Corp culture, its daily background comprising the routine, familiar elements that, if enough people give it power via their acceptance, becomes "reality" for them. From there it's obvious what happens when confronted w/a dissenting, heterodox view: scorn

Here's a little accurate 'paranoia' from Burroughs:

"Narcotics have been systematically scapegoated and demonized ... I predict in the near future, RWers will use drug hysteria as a pretext to set up an international police apparatus."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnjiZ58WgXU

[Ron Green]

53. Whether manipulation and intrusion into our lives and individual choices

would be required to dispel consumerism raises the issue of how to balance what you correctly identify as the search for comfort and status with what you also must recognize as the spark of humanity and care for our fellow mortals.

I suggest that the "basic human nature" we're talking about is fear-based, in that we sometimes feel we don't have enough, or that we're not OK as people, or that some "Other" is going to take away what we've got. The Free Market is rooted in this fear, and depends upon a sense of lacking or want in order to sell goods and services. Nothing wrong with that, unless it's way out of whack - which it certainly is and has been in the U.S. for quite some time.

I also suggest that "basic human nature" contains the altruistic, or love-based, component, but that only in a fairly open and productive society can it flourish, and then only with care and feeding by a not-for-profit sector which can gain equal footing, along with corporate players, in the halls of lawmaking. This is the hope for media literacy, decentralization of propaganda, civics education, nutritional awareness policy, and on and on.

To abandon human nature to its fear-based definition is to serve the corporate masters who DO exist (although I agree they don't constitute quite as vast a conspiracy as some claim), thereby weakening efforts by those in public and private life who fight the good fight every day.

[Silent3]

59. I certainly don't recommend giving up and giving in...

...to the worst of human nature. Far from it. We should work to make the world a better place for more people, and try to tame consumerism and marketing (marketing of both products and politics) where they have become obstacles to the goal of making the world a better place.

One doesn't have to completely give in the the negative side of human nature, however, to simply recognize that it exists, and to realize that any functional society has to recognize that aspect of human nature, and, at least to some extent, accommodate it.

I myself am no paragon of civic or social virtue. I give to charities, but I could certainly afford to give more than I do, a lot more if I decided to greatly downscale my personal comfort. I'm just not, however, that saintly or generous. I've volunteered to work in political campaigns, but not frequently and not sacrificing a great deal of my personal time. Part of that is laziness, not wanting to give up time for relaxation and recreation, and part of it is that I'm not a very gregarious person, so I don't get the same fulfillment out of being more personally involved in political or charitable causes that other people get out that kind of activity.

The three most important things I'd say that come from abandoning Grand Conspiracy as an explanation for excessive consumerism and other societal problem are these: (1) realizing that we aren't facing a single nearly all-powerful foe, (2) realizing how much we have to change about ourselves to make the world a better place, that we can't foist all of the blame of on Them, and (3) realizing that corporate power is not unified, that there are disparate elements with different and often conflicting goals, and that played the right way even corporate power can be used to improve the human condition.

[Ron Green]

65. Fragmentation of the message

is what we've got, I think, in the case of your item #2. Our own change as individuals can be supported both by the Free Market (as in the accountability required to prepare for a successful career or the open-eyed decision about which goods and services have worth) and by an educational system that values citizenship and humanity over consumerism. My concern is that, while we've got an entrenched and highly-evolved central propaganda system for consumerism, our messages for mind and spirit, once carried by the Church, are now broken and scattered over a century or more of comfort, convenience, and increasing alienation. My great hope was that Obama as President would articulate the important things that need to be said firmly in opposition to standard American consumption, even as he sounded a clear call about militarism, fearmongering, the environment and all the other alarming issues in which the U.S. can and must lead.

Will decentralized messages carry the new burden of virtue? Will the Internet provide the vehicle for renewal? I don't know, but I sure wish there was even a little bit of real journalism left.

[Silent3]

68. "I sure wish there was even a little bit of real journalism left"

I'm with you on that. Or more to the point, more exposure and better funding for the real journalism and journalists who are out there but unable to reach large audiences. I just wish I had a good idea about what to do about the problem.

[omega minimo]

60. and will defend that choices they make without taking responsibility for them -- or consequences

The consumerist machine convincing its audience that it is captive.

[Echo In Light]

77. ...or being capable of realizing 'their' thoughts/beliefs stem from external, agenda-setting sources

That's where many hit the big 'conspiracy theory' stumbling block bug-a-boo...they'd prefer to cast themselves as so independent that everything, every bit of knowledge, etc within their own consciousness somehow was created within a social vacuum.

[omega minimo]

83. Have you read Tom Frank?

"Commodify Your Dissent" or "The Commodification of Cool"? He coined a term I love: "radical soda pop."

I wonder if one part of the demarcation of attitudes on this is, those who grew up after brands became plastered all over everything and those who grew up before. The latter weren't subjected to the same constant barrage that wall papered younger folks brains with logos from childhood on.

[Echo In Light]

93. I've always been an oddball, and those who find themselves in that position tend to perceive ....

... many of the nuts n bolts variables within the social landscape quite differently than those who assimilate into its prevailing views w/o any noted conflict.

So that more than anything has shaped my views. However, the authors/books/social critics who made a lasting impression on me are:

Herbert Marcuse's One Dimensional Man (1964)
http://igw.tuwien.ac.at/christian/marcuse/odm.html

Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions:Thought Control in Democratic Societies, and Understanding Power
http://books.google.com/books?id=gpuMrU3houQC&dq=chomsky+necessary+illusions&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=fof8i4InRM&sig=EeAxZkI1AeWUZt9waaHsDWSftCo&hl=en&ei=JZc7S_iXIY_gnAeov7X3CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://www.understandingpower.com/

And much of the material of Harlan Ellison (Repent, Harlequin! Said the Ticktockman), Philip K Dick, Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, various authors whose work was posthumously deemed existential (Kierkegaard) , and comics George Carlin, and Bill Hicks.

[omega minimo]

96. I love it

when you talk dirty.

The Baffler kept this oddball sane during the 90's, when no one wanted to listen to the Very Clear Warnings about the corporate government that too many now yawn at.......

http://tcfrank.com/

[snagglepuss]

24. Interesting. Thanks for posting this. nt

[Skidmore]

35. Some of those corporations have now developed "Created Needs,"

[raccoon]

40. Great quote---can you tell me which book/article it's from? nt

[marmar]

41. It's actually from the film "The Corporation"

nt

[Greyhound]

141. Do you have a source for this other than from the film "The Corporation"?

I'd like to use this elsewhere but prefer a direct source.

Thanks.
:hi:

[cali]

4. sounds like a fascinating read. thanks for posting.

[marmar]

5. De nada.

nt

[KharmaTrain]

7. Freedom...

To some this means the ability to spend what they want and where they want...and in some cases spend what they don't have. Over the past century this country has rated its progress based on its consumerism. It initially meant getting consumer goods such as a teevee or car and the moved to the type of products...such as when basic transportation wasn't good enough, people wanted Camaeros or Hummers. The brand became as important as the product itself. Starbucks represents the "elitism" of our corporate culture...it's not just the coffee, but the "atmosphere" and status that is perceived.

While it appears assinine for someone to spend so much money for a cup of coffee (and I proudly admit I have only been in a Starbucks a handful of times) but it's the name and the "freedom" to spend more for what is perceived as something "better". The same can be applied to those who buy bottled water...why bother to pour from a tap when you can sport something "better"...and through purchasing power (freedom) you have the right and ability to do so.

[zippy890]

10. and this, sadly, is why communism ultimately fails

the aspirations of the middle class to get more, be more 'trendy' and upscale by the consumption and amassing of way more things than they possibly need. This is an unstoppable force, or attraction it seems, looking back over the last 100 years in our culture.

that 'freedom' to spend more for what is perceived as something 'better'- as you aptly put it- is at the heart of american culture, some would argue human nature.

But it will all come to an end at some point in some manner, as the earth has only so much in resources and other countries scramble for more. I fear that only then will we learn the lessons of over-consumption, and adapt in a positive way for all people.

[KharmaTrain]

11. The Real Failure Of Communism = Human Nature

The Communists weren't the defenders of the "middle class" but claimed to be for the working class...a difference.

It can be said that there's never been a true socialistic or communistic state (some will say the Kibbutzism in Israel are the rare example) where the wealth and labor was distributed "equally" among all. It's a great theory but never worked that way in reality. The Soviet system was just as rife with capitalism (black market) and class as any society. The party leaders lived in nice dachas and shopped at well stocked stores while the "average Ivan" stood in long lines to buy toilet paper.

Alas, I doubt humans will ever learn the lessons of over consumption. In many ways this argument goes to the heart of the global warming deniers...as putting restraints on the natural resources we exploit means having to curb "freedoms" and thus easier to deny and drill baby drill than make sacrafices that may crimp one's "style" or status.

Cheers...

[malaise]

9. Wow I've never bought a cup

of Starbucks. Clearly they haven't penetrated my brain.

[lastliberalintexas]

13. Glad I'm not the only one

I've never bought a Starbucks coffee, though I did buy one of their fruit drinks for my son while we were at Barnes & Noble on a couple of occasions. Otherwise, I've never even been inside a Starbucks. :hi:

[malaise]

15. Same here

I've been at Barnes and Noble with my flask of Blue Mountain that I made at my sister's before heading for the bookstore. I have bought the odd muffin at B&N, but I haven't been in a Starbucks anywhere.
The most expensive coffee I have bought is at the Norman Manley Airport in Kingston and that's pure Blue Mountain (our only obsession) and we think we're worked hard enough to enjoy Jamaica's best coffee. :D
Happy New Year.

[Neecy]

61. Blue Mountain is awesome

I roast my own coffee and a couple of times a year I'll treat myself and order some green (unroasted) Blue Mountain. It's the cleanest, most balanced coffee in the world. Also one of the most expensive, but it's worth it.

[dysfunctional press]

89. blue mountain coffee is expensive and can be hard to get, because japan buys most of the crop.

http://aco.ca/featurepages/premium_jamaican_coffee/index.html

...Jamaica exports roughly 65% of its total production and of the part 95% is exported to Japan. The remaining 5% is shipped to the United States and Europe, which much smaller quantities going to Australia, Argentina and other emerging markets.

[dmr]

94. Where do you get your Blue Mountain?

When I lived in Miami there was always someone going to Jamaica who would bring me back Blue Mountain. Oh, those were the days. It's hard to describe how delicious Blue Mountain is to drink.

Speaking of Miami, I dearly miss Cuban Coffee. Oh, that aroma. Buy a colada and people come out of the woodwork for a shot. Mmmm, good. (FYI: http://www.miami.com/cuban-coffee-101-article)

As far as Starbucks, I've never been in a Starbucks in my life.

My son stops at the local Speedway every now and then a picks up their Columbian coffee, which is tasty.

[Neecy]

104. I order it here

http://www.bluemountaincoffee.com/OrderCoffee.cfm

[dmr]

106. Thanks, Neecy

I've been to this site before, but never ordered. But I will!

:hi:

[Neecy]

107. Stay thirsty, my friend

:)

[postulater]

18. I went to one in an airport once.

I asked for a regular coffee. They didn't know what I meant. They only had weird named sizes.

So I asked for a coca-mocha-loca-frappucino-late-grande. Then they understood.

It wasn't any better than a regular coffee.

[marmar]

19. There's a comedian who does a stand up about that....I can't remember his name, but...

He talks about going to a coffee house and asking for coffee, and they ask him what flavor coffee he wants.
Frustrated, he says, "COFFEE-FLAVORED COFFEE !!!!" :)

[MadrasT]

52. Denis Leary n/t

[TransitJohn]

103. You got yer capucinno, frappucinno, al pacinno...n/t

n/t

[dysfunctional press]

88. in my 49 years, i've consumed less than 1/4 cup of coffee, total.

and i've never purchased anything from starbucks. i was only in a starbucks once- and i had to leave quickly, as the smell of coffee makes me nauseous.

[NashVegas]

12. Starbucks "Olive Gardened" the Cafe Scene

In the 1980s I'd been to cafes in SF and Boston where you could go in, get a cup and a scone, read a book and enjoy the scenery, in some cases, in a backyard garden. Each place had its own unique identity and was usually frequented by college students and young bohemian types.

Starbucks created a cafe scene for people who wanted to go to an environment that was bohemian-like, but where they wouldn't have to feel like they were out of place in business suits and Izod shirts. Where they could feel like they were unique adventurers, while in reality sipping in spoon-fed, corporate-approved culture designed by marketing executives.

I always thought it was pretty funny, when I went to Seattle, to go all weekend without seeing a Starbucks anywhere.

[juajen]

25. Uh, there is one on every corner. When did you visit? NT

[NashVegas]

51. 4-5 Years Ago

Maybe I was just in the wrong parts of town. What I did see all over the place was Seattle's Finest.

[quiller4]

57. I can't imagine how you toured Seattle 4 years ago without seeing

Starbucks everywhere. Downtown, Ballard, Capital Hill, University Place, SoDo--they are everywhere..

[rufus dog]

66. and some across the street from each other

Louis Black did a great youtube skit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlXGotl6TvM

[Hannah Bell]

84. seattle since gates & starbucks = hell.

the old "last exit on brooklyn" was an actual coffeeshop, not some virtual reality mass produced yuppie space.

i loved that place. i loved old working-class seattle.

[NashVegas]

81. Just Lucky, I Guess

[Lost Jaguar]

14. Up here in Bangor, Maine...

...the Starbucks is my refuge. For better or worse, it's my island of Hip in an ocean of Square. I buy the New York Times, prop my feet up, read the rag, then get to work writing on my laptop. Bourgeois? Perhaps. All things are relative. I am at peace with my Gold Card. One could do far worse.

[marmar]

16. Umm...okay.

Que diable s'est-il passé?


:wtf:

[juajen]

23. Thanks for taking up for Starbucks!

More and more, I see threads critical of Starbucks. IMHO, this very BLUE corporation has been a boon for hardworking young and not-so-young people. I have a child who has been treated very well by them and gets benefits unheard of in our "right to work" state; such as good health insurance after six months with options for life, dental and vision insurance at a very reasonable price. New employees also earn stock from the moment of employment. Did I mention they can contribute to a 401K also. They have also have paid vacation pay, personal days, and sick leave and bereavement pay. Honestly, criticism of Starbucks on the DU seems highly hypocritical. We are for all of these things, we just don't want to pay for them?

BTW, Starbucks also pays a fair price to the farmers who produce their very excellent coffee. So There!!!!

Support your local Starbucks and save a job for college and non-college workers, not to mention that in some stores you even see some middle age and senior workers.

[earth mom]

37. OMG, I think I want to move to Maine if it's NOT the trendy place to be!

We moved to the PNW to get away from the trendy fake crap that has ruined So Cal but it's starting to follow us up here and those people are beginning to wreck this place.

I will add that I do hit the drive thru Starbucks on cold wintery days simply because I want to warm up, but I loathe going inside! :yoiks:

[TwilightGardener]

46. You could move to Nebraska. No danger of trendiness here.

[earth mom]

74. Well, I did like Nebraska when I passed through about 15 or 16 years ago.

Actually, we are partial to the PNW, I was just tempted for a minute by Maine.

If we don't retire to Canada or maybe Europe, we might just become full time RVers and then we can try out Nebraska AND Maine.

[ReverendDeuce]

112. As much contempt as I have for Ben Nelson...

I recently lived in California, in the San Francisco area, and moved back to Nebraska. I can't speak for the rest of the state, but Omaha is actually a good city. And yes, we have lots and lots of Starbucks.

[TwilightGardener]

137. It is a good city. I live closer to Lincoln, which also is a nice town.

We've lived in different parts of the country, and really like it here. Edit to add: my favorite parts of the state are the Sandhills and the panhandle--gorgeous and isolated.

[Lost Jaguar]

47. My right-wing relatives...

...think of Starbucks as a locus of sandal-wearing, elitist, vegetarians who fritter away their money on expensive coffee. In reality, the clientele is very diverse. I've seen a gathering of middle-aged, born-again men there more than once, discussing the impact of Christ on their lives. Often I see men or women in uniform, as the airport featured in the documentary, "The Way We Get By," is near. Lots of service people come through. Twice now, I've paid for their drinks.

I suspect that politically, the customers tend to be slightly left-of-cneter. Very slightly. This is Maine, the land of pragmatism and moderation. I probably am among those who skew the politics further leftward. One of the baristas is an evangelical minister, with whom I had an interesting dicussion about the various Bibles and the merits of each. He is of Portugese ethnicity, resembles a Middle-Easterner, and sadly, has twice been the victim of racist remarks by customers in the drive-thru.

Ultimately, it's just folks having quality coffee in a pleasant atmosphere. Bangor, with its struggling downtown, has few small coffee houses to compete, although there are some in other Maine towns.

[earth mom]

73. I'm agnostic, so maybe I wouldn't fit in so well, even though I'm tempted by Maine's beauty.

Actually, as I replied to someone else, Canada or maybe Europe is probably where we will retire if all goes as planned, though that's close to 10 years from now.

Thanks for letting me know what's what-I do plan to visit Maine one of these days-hopefully before retirement!

[mainer]

98. Maine is one of the least-religious states in the country. You'll be ok.

Of the churches we have, most seem to be of the liberal-protestant variety.

[Lost Jaguar]

110. Don't get the wrong impression...

...from my post referring to the gathering of Christian men and the ministering barista. As the previous post indicates, Maine is not an enclave of fundies. Although it is the most caucasian state in the country, it is otherwise fairly diverse. The Bangor Starbucks sees a lot of college kids, tourists, and would-be hipster geezers like me.

[philly_bob]

17. Just remember how FEW coffee shops there were in the fifties...

I welcome the fact that there are dozens of places where I can hang out over a cup of coffee -- often with my computer connected to free WIFI.

Starbucks is my least favorite, but it'll do in a pinch.

[kctim]

20. Drinking

overpriced coffee and typing on personal laptops while complaining about how nobody does anything for the poor or healthcare. Waiting for SOMEBODY ELSE to do something about them.
THAT is how we really live, and while it is not pretty, it is to be expected from a ME society that becomes dependent on its govt.

The problem is with individuals, not Starbucks.

[marmar]

22. "that becomes dependent on its govt."

Thanks for playing today's edition of BULLSHIT RIGHT-WING MEMES......

:eyes:

[kctim]

33. The truth is the truth

doesn't matter if it comes from the left or the right.

[marmar]

34. It's only the truth viewed through a right-wing lense.

N'est-ce pas?

[kctim]

43. Nope

the truth is the truth no matter how you look at it.

Believing one should help others instead of waiting for somebody else to help them, is NOT viewing the situation through a "right-wing lense." Saying that people who preach about helping others should buy 20 cups of coffee for 20 people instead of one cup of Starbucks for themselves, is NOT right-wing blather. It is called being human and caring for others and to be quite frank about the matter, dismissing it as some sort of right-wing meme is no different than saying "I got mine, ef them."

But, I am very openminded, so maybe I will change my view if you can explain why spending on oneself and bitching about others is more affective than using that money for others and helping others?

[marmar]

44. Spending on oneself? .... What does that have to do with your statement....

.... about becoming dependent on one's government?


At this point, I have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

[kctim]

49. You should read the statement

rather than picking out part of it so that you can disagree.

"it is to be expected from a ME society that becomes dependent on its govt"

In our "ME" society, we have become dependent on govt to take care of things for us so that we may spend on ourselves. It is easier to do this by voting for our govt to take from all so that we as individuals do not have to give our all.

[ieoeja]

71. What's wrong with that?

You think Chicago should have a volunteer fire department? And how are the people we pay to take care of things not part of us? Do you not work for a living? Is not your job part of the fabric of our society? Should we all quit our jobs because we don't want somebody paying us to do what they can/will not do themselves?

[kctim]

79. Ah, the "ME" group speaks

and you're own words highlight the problem I was speaking of. Tell me, why do you consider your fellow human as "things" which you pay somebody else to take care of for you? Is it because the more people who are forced to help means you pay less which in turn means you have more to spend on yourself? ME ME ME. I got mine, ef them. I can spend $7 on a cup of coffee for myself and sit around and complain how nobody cares about the poor to give them coffee and not be a hypocrite.

And, fwiw, comparing working a job to helping your fellow man, is ridiculous.

[ieoeja]

80. I am the one who sees all of us as part of society.

You are the one who sees us as mere individuals. So you can wear your fucking "ME" shit.

A Republican calling *us* selfish. :eyeroll:

[kctim]

82. Really?

How are we all part of society if we expect others to help others for us so that we can have more for ourselves? We can't, but apparently the hypocrisy is something you cannot face so you ignore questions and resort to derailing because of that.

People need help and like it or not, the govt cannot handle the job for you. IF you truly give a damn about helping people, you would put your money where your mouth is and help them instead of complaining about govt not being able to the impossible.

FYI: Republicans call for individuals helping themselves where as I am saying we need to help govt help others. That can be through "sacrificing" a $7 cup of Starbucks coffee and using that money to help others as one "says" should be done or even by going out and helping them yourself.
But no, its much easier to pay $7 for a cup of Starbucks and complain how OTHERS do not care as much as you do.

One doesn't have to be a Republican to call you selfish, one just has to look at your actions to determine that.

[ieoeja]

87. What actions of mine are you looking at?

The guy living for free in my basement? The ex-wife with MS and ex-motherinlaw with polio whose roof I am putting over their heads? Her 10 year old child whom I took into my home when she couldn't cope?

I have a job. I spend a good deal of my free time taking care of the people in my life. And my job provides the money that helps me take care of them. For the rest of the world that I can't possibly take care of...? I pay my taxes so the government CAN.


So what fucking actions of mine make you call me selfish? Oh, that's right. You don't FUCKING KNOW ME. So you don't know of a single action I have ever taken in my life except for those I just mentioned in this post. But you ignorantly attacked me anyway.

Fuck you, Randian jerk.

[kctim]

90. Typical

of those who refuse to answer because they do not like the answer. Ignore what is really being said, name call and then go off on emotional rants.

You do realize that I never said we should not pay taxes so that govt can help those who need it, right?
You do realize that I never said that those who need help should not be helped or that it is their own fault, right?
In fact, I stated quite the opposite of your assumptions, so you're "Republican" and "Randian" slights are not the least bit valid.

What I did say is that we the individual should be doing all we can to help our govt care for those who are in need, instead of for ourselves. That rather than spending $7 on a cup of coffee for ourself and bitching about nobody helping others who need coffee, we could make do with a fifty cent cup for ourself and use the rest for others.
Why spend $7 and bitch about govt only being able to give a hundred people coffee, when we as an individual can help give a hundred and twelve people coffee? Combine by that millions of individuals and you have tens of millions having coffee.
Nowhere did I say no govt or taxes, and if you believe what I said are Republican or Libertarian views, then I am afraid you have no clue as to what they believe.

So what makes me call you selfish? You're defense of those who spend $7 and bitch.

[ieoeja]

91. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people spoiling themselves a little. (nt)

[kctim]

100. Of course there isn't

but I still have more respect for the person who drinks $7 coffee and says who cares, than I do the person who drinks $7 coffee and "says" they care.

[ieoeja]

101. You actually prefer the Bushes over the Kennedys?

Both live elaborate lifestyles, but the Bushes admit they don't care about people while the Kennedays "say" they care.

[kctim]

102. Wrong

BOTH families "say" they care and BOTH families have foundations and charities etc...
So, seeing how BOTH families "say" they care, I guess they just don't care enough to do everything they can.
BOTH are hypocrites.

[muriel_volestrangler]

109. No, you did criticise the concept of paying taxes

You said in reply #43:

"In our "ME" society, we have become dependent on govt to take care of things for us so that we may spend on ourselves. It is easier to do this by voting for our govt to take from all so that we as individuals do not have to give our all."

You are clearly supporting the idea that help for others should be done through individual charity rather than via government. The government 'taking from all' is taxation, and you're opposing it.

[ieoeja]

124. He believes anybody who says they care, but do not devote their whole life to charity is a hypocrite

In his latest post he cites the Kennedys as hypocrites because, while they have foundations and charities, and have spent their lifes working in politics for the public good, they could have done more. Apparently the fact that they have not donated their entire fortunes to charity makes them bad people.

I've encountered this type of post before. Usually from communists.

It's the combination of "nobody should be rich" and "we shouldn't tax the rich" that has made this a long, drawn-out conversation. I've never encountered that combination before and am more than ready to toss in the towel trying to understand him. I worry I might do myself serious drain bamage understanding this.

[Gwendolyn]

125. I think what he's saying is that morally we shouldn't *have to tax the rich.

We should all *want to give our all. By allowing government to take over how much a person should give, it's an excuse to cop out of our responsibility to give everything we can. Fits in perfectly with the idealist communist/Jesus-y mindset.

[kctim]

129. Quite the opposite

First, I am an atheist so I'm not sure I quite fall into the Jesus-y mindset thing.
Second, I do not believe in pushing morals onto anybody, so I did not say "morally we shouldn't" to anything.
Third, I did not say we should not have to tax the rich.

Now, what I did say is that in this "ME" society we now live in, people believe giving govt money to take care of things for them is all that is required of them. They believe this in order to justify buying themselves a $7 cup of coffee, a laptop etc... instead of living modestly and using their resources to help govt help those they "say" they care about.

I do not care if we all "want to give our all," but if you complain how nobody cares about giving the needy coffee while you are sipping on a $7 cup of coffee, you are full of it. If you complain about how nobody cares about the homeless while you own a mansion or even mansionS, you are full of it.

Govt should NOT determine how much a person should give and it does not do that. It determines what taxes are needed in order for it to function. It is the individual who gives, but sadly that no longer applies.

We don't have to give all we have, but it sure as hell wouldn't hurt for us to give more than we do.

[Gwendolyn]

133. No, I basically got what you said. You may not like my using the word morals...

so maybe ethics would have been better. Being an atheist has nothing to do with having a Jesus-y mindset. I know he didn't really exist either, but his name evokes an image of the goodness/giving that you're espousing.

What you're saying in this post is totally what I got from your earlier ones but here you're clarifying a little better.

[kctim]

128. It is impossible to be both rich and a liberal

It is not that you do not understand, you refuse to understand, because the facts do not support your point of view. You believe you care for others because you are willing to give govt money to do your work for you so that you can have more time and money for yourself. That is no different than those who believe they should be able to give their church money to help others for them, instead of govt.

Yes, it has been drawn out, due to you reading what is not there.

[muriel_volestrangler]

139. You're not making sense

This sentence holds a contradiction:

"You believe you care for others because you are willing to give govt money to do your work for you so that you can have more time and money for yourself."

If you give government money, you do not have more money for yourself. You have less. This is the problem - you think that people pay taxes and end up with more money for themselves. So you think that willingly paying taxes is part of being selfish. But that isn't how money (or anything physical) works. You may get more time for yourself if you support a government welfare system, but not more money.

[kctim]

140. Our govt

requires us to pay taxes. There is no way around that so you do not include that money when budgeting for yourself, that is a given.

If you clear a hundred dollars after taxes and buy 14 needy people a fifty cent coffee, you have $93 to spend on yourself. You have less money for yourself, but you have helped 14 people you say you care about.
If you clear a hundred dollars after taxes and do nothing, you have a hundred dollars to spend on yourself. You have more money for yourself and have a cup of seven dollar coffee, but you have not helped even one of those you "say" you care about.

This isn't about the needy, our govt or taxes. This is about how we have become dependent on govt to care for our fellow humans for us.

[muriel_volestrangler]

143. Now you're getting Jesusy again

If it's not about the needy (I'm assuming you're using coffee as a metaphor, by the way, since no-one needs coffee), then you're saying it's good for the person to sacrifice something in a personal way, whether or not that's the best method of helping the needy. You seem, again, to be saying that charity is better than a welfare society.

In your example, you're ignoring that the taxes your hypothetical person has already paid have helped someone. And someone who works for a government that helps more people is helping them too. The amount of your income that goes in taxes is not a 'given'. You can vote for a government that will take more and use it wisely, eg healthcare.

[kctim]

144. Its not about the needy

This all started with wasting money on overpriced coffee, so yes it is a metaphor.

I am not saying anyone has to sacrifice anything in a personal way or that charity is better than a welfare society. I am saying that IF someone really cares about what they "say" they care about, then they should be willing to spend less on their coffee and work WITH govt to help more people. Seriously, IF a person really cares, it is not a sacrifice to drink regular coffee instead of overpriced coffee they feel they are entitled to.

I am not ignoring the taxes already paid or how they have helped someone either. I have stated over and over that people who say they care should work with govt to help, instead of complaining that govt doesn't help enough people.

Paying taxes IS a given and no matter how much you vote for govt to take or not take, more needy people are helped when individuals step up to the plate and support what they "say" they believe in.
If paying taxes so that govt will take care of everything for you works so well, then why are they so many who need help? We HAVE to work with our govt to care for each other. Paying seven dollars for a cup of coffee or having three TVs is for oneself. Fine for those who don't care, hypocritical for those who say they do care.

[kctim]

126. If you read through the discussion

it is clear that this "ME" society I am referring to is those with the attitude that they do not have to do anything because they pay govt to do it for them.
I also stated we should help govt care for those in need and I never alluded to anything like "rather than govt." Kind of hard to be oppossed to taxation when one believes it is the duty of govt, through taxes, AND the individual, to help others.

[juajen]

27. Please check out my post above.

Starbucks does do a lot for the poor. It gives them good, secure employment with steady increases in their wages, plus benefits.

[marmar]

36. Starbucks: A History of Union Busting ..... from The Nation

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090601/starbucks_video

[kctim]

38. Wasn't talking about Starbucks

was talking about the hypocrisy of many of its customers.
While I do not have anything against Starbucks, I do not go there. I find actually helping the poor to be much more affective than paying for over priced coffee and bitching about how nobody helps the poor.

We have needy people who actually have to depend on govt in order to survive and we have people who depend on govt to take care of them so they do not have to. I care about the former and help any way I possibly can. I have no tolerance for the latter.

[Dappleganger]

48. Good post, +1.

Starbucks just created a place for those individuals to congregate.

I happen to be one of the few people who still invites friends out for coffee to MY house. :D

[phasma ex machina]

26. For fairness sake they need to research (project) the hidden motivators behind Houlihan's clientele.

:rofl:

[WorseBeforeBetter]

85. Nothing hidden -- the spinach salad with hot bacon and honey mustard dressing tastes good.

Although the last time I set foot in a Houlihan's was over 20 years ago.

[treestar]

28. Meh, it's just coffee

I go to locals though, as long as they last. It's a nice atmosphere. One of ours has books and games and internet there. They even have a meeting room - once I heard a bunch of fundies praying in there.

[cbdo2007]

30. I much prefer some of the other coffee shops out there - Caribou or Scooters or Panera

The article is right in some spots I'm sure.

Personally, I just like to get out of the house once in awhile (because I work from home) so take the laptop up to the coffee shop to work where it's nice and quiet :)

[goldcanyonaz]

31. My favorite and best priced beverage from Starbucks is an iced Americano ($2.64)

It's 5 shots of espresso over ice with a splash of water.

I have it a few times a week.

[Mari333]

32. I make my own coffee

I bought a little turkish coffee grinder and make my own coffee. Its delicious. After one makes the coffee, one sits by the window with the sun streaming in, at an oak table in one's own home, whilst the cats purr around one's feet, and sip slowly the delicious brew, a good book or newspaper beside you.
who needs Starbucks?

Its more fun to create your own personal atmosphere.

[polly7]

39. Actually .......... the BEST coffee

is a steaming hot double-double extra large for $1.25 from the drive-thru at Tim Horton's when it's -35C and you actually enjoy having a scalding few drops spilled on your lap.

[WT Fuheck]

45. death to the bourgeoisie!

Enemies of the proletariat!


they are damned by their own aspirations, seeking of status, and need to feel superior to the *real* workers!

(Our wealthy owner-oppressors love this class warfare shit. Sans the occasional revolution, they always win.)

[Igel]

54. Some people crave status.

You can watch it here, on DU. Any group that forms or is formed winds up formulating criteria that implies high or low status, confers high or low status. That produces motivation for trying to achieve high status.

In most Internet groups, the extreme, those who can shout that they're "pure," wind up dominating the criteria-setting discussions because they can call those who aren't into their personal criteria "sell-outs," "hypocrites," or at the very least inconsistent. I note Lakoff's take on moderates and independents as a prime example.

Of course, each social group sets its own standards for status. Here it's having the right politics and saying the correct nasty things about others. On another forum it would be a differents of politics and nasty things about a different set of others. In school it might be being a jock, having the right dealer, expressing the right attitude--whatever (any and all of these things, plus some). At work it's getting a bonus or leading the unionization drive. Depends on your cohort.

Oddly, one thing that most people would adamantly deny is also at play: For males, at least, it's testosterone. Widely credited for contributing to aggression, it apparently doesn't lead to aggression per se. Aggression can be a way of acquiring status in some cohorts. Alternatively, we could keep the "aggression" analysis and expand aggression to any competitiveness in status-seeking, making those most adamantly pacifist in pacifist circles suddenly guilty of unseemly aggression (I'll let others work out this conundrum). Depends if you crave keeping the derogation in the word "aggression" or not. Ahem.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=testosterone-bumps-up-status-seekin-2009-12-08

It even extends to mismatches between status and testosterone: People who are low-test followers deal badly with high status, those who are hi-test and crave status do badly without it:

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/josephs/pdf_documents/mismatch.pdf

On edit:

Ah, my point. The point is simple: Most advertising, commercial and political and social and religious, manipulates the definition of status. If you buy my product, vote for me, adopt my views or worship my god, then you've got status. Otherwise you're a loser.

[Generator]

72. That's true about status

but I just have to laugh seeing that about Starbucks. Starbucks has become the epitome of bland middle America that maybe once thought going there was hip. But once you are everywhere on earth it becomes not quite about status. True status if your hip is not about buying what's popular.

I think their coffee is not the best, is overpriced, and frankly the people that go there are older and boring. But now I am older and boring and don't go to the cute local coffee shops which I always preferred over Starbucks. I miss MAD COW in southeast portland among others. All the wonderful coffee shops I spent time in in NYC 30 years ago. Sigh.

Going to Starbucks is like going to any chain store it's the antithesis of hip. Yet, certainly I understand the need for refuge like the fellow in Bangor. If it's the only choice in town or much closer-having a place to get out of the house that's still much cheaper than paying for a meal is very nice.

[MindPilot]

56. The whole coffee shop thing simply never appealed to me.

If I want a cup of coffee, I'll go to a donut shop or a diner where I can get "coffee, black" and it will be $1.50.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

70. You can get the same thing at Starbucks for $1.75 where the ...

.... employees get benefits and the place is always clean. Heck, they might even have a fireplace.

[omega minimo]

58. Who's "We"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQKdEdzHnfU

[la_chupa]

64. sometimes coffee is just coffee

There is a Starbucks at Snowshoe in WVa. Ah nothing better than to take a break from skiing than to plop down in a Starbucks and swill down a cafe mocha.

I usually have an iced carmel whateveritscalled when I'm at an airport. I only get them there at a treat because I do so hate to fly.

[murdoch]

115. Yes

When I used to make more money, and was overworked and tired in the morning, I used to start every morning with Starbucks coffee from a shop downstairs from my office. If it had been a regular old coffee shop I'd have ordered one every morning anyway.

Also - if it is cold out like now, and I am going to sit down and talk with a friend and not stay at home or eat a meal, the normal destination that comes to my mind is a bar. If you don't want to be downing beers for whatever reason, somewhere like Starbucks makes sense. It is not a cafe on Bleecker Street or the Champs-Élysées, but it will do.

[rufus dog]

67. In the whole scheme of things ... I have to say I don't give it much thought

To me Starbucks are a bit too crowded and local independents do a better job of creating an atmosphere. Creating a place where people can get together and talk for an hour and only dropping $5.00 is all and all a positive.

[That Is Quite Enough]

69. Fascinating read. Thank you.

[RobinA]

75. Sounds Like

a lot of overdetermined blah, blah, blah to me. Starbucks did not create the need for a non-bar place to go hang. The "third space" need as always been there, and has been filled in many ways. Bars, for one, but they frown on people who drop by and only spend 2 bucks and they don't like you there if you aren't consuming. Diners for another, and there are damn few of them left. The malt shop, which I never lived during, and countless others. Too many other "third space" places discourage lingering. Starbucks does not, with its stuffed chairs and music. What's the damn problem? No one goes to Starbucks because of the free trade coffee!

[ecstatic]

78. I don't drink coffee, but as usual, someone really overthought things

From what I've heard, the coffee at Starbucks tastes good. End of story. We are a fat society and we pay big bucks for things that taste good.

[Tailormyst]

92. I hate Starbucks- I much prefer Dunkins or Honey Dew.

[MilesColtrane]

95. Or, some people got tired of drinking shitty fast food coffee.

[marmar]

114. And they'd rather have shitty $3 coffee instead....

Starbucks really isn't very good, unless you love over-roasted dirt water.

[jakefrep]

131. McDonald's coffee isn't too bad...

...but the fast-food atmosphere leaves much to be desired.

[mainer]

97. Before Starbucks, try finding a good espresso or cappuccino in podunk.

as much as we may want to vilify the chain, at least they were the first to bring espresso to middle America, which was still drinking horrible, bitter American swill.

Because of Starbucks, Americans learned to look at coffee differently. They paved the way for other coffee shops, for a general awakening of America to what coffee could really taste like.

When I'm in a strange city and I crave a double-shot cappuccino, at least I know I can get it from Starbucks.

[marmar]

113. You consider Starbucks' cappuccino good?

There really must not be a good coffee house where you are.

[mainer]

119. best cappuccino is made at my own house

but before Starbucks, what was there for most Americans outside of big cities? Nothing but plain old Mr. Coffee-type stuff. Starbucks introduced the whole concept of variety and got Americans thinking that there were alternatives. For that reason alone, I think Starbucks was good for America.

And if you ask for a tall double-shot at Starbucks, it'll do in a pinch at the airport.

[mainer]

99. So espresso is OK in Italy, but hoity toity in the US?

Why is it considered "status-seeking" to enjoy a treat that's just the cultural norm in Europe? Are Americans that suspicious of everything that comes from Europe?

[dugaresa]

105. i only go to Starbucks when the company pays for it

typically when I travel i look for places where i can get wifi access and Starbucks and Panera are two that normally are clean and pleasant enough to spend an hour or two.

I will buy a coffee and scone and get to work.

when i travel with coworkers it is typically where we gravitate.

once we lucked out and found a great museum cafe that was cheaper and had free wifi that was a bonus.

[JI7]

108. Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf is a lot better than Starbucks

when it comes to taste.

[mcablue]

111. Starbucks has to do with "status, identity and aspirations"

Bingo.

[mainer]

120. No. It has to do with coffee. In Europe it's not about "status"

20 years ago, those of us who traveled extensively in Europe bemoaned the fact that you couldn't find ANY espresso or cappuccino in many American cities. We love coffee, and we longed for it to be available here.

So now it is, and Americans consider it a "status" item? It's not. It's just coffee. And the fact anyone considers it "status" is just being "anti-elitist" because they think that anything European is elitist.

That sounds a lot like right-wing conservative "America is best" talk. By the same people who hate anyone who eats sushi or drives a Volvo or eats Brie cheese.

[Gwendolyn]

127. Hanging at Starbucks in the US is like going to Europe and staying at a Moevenpick.

You know what you're going to get, it's all homogenous, no surprises. Coffee houses in Europe each have their own personalities, from the food on the menu to the wait people that serve you. It's hard to have a "favorite" Starbucks in the US as they're all the same.

[mainer]

135. But try finding any espresso at all BEFORE Starbucks existed.

That's my point. They were the first here. And in some towns, they're the only place to get espresso at all.

On this subject, folks here knock Starbucks by either saying: "Oh, forget Starbucks. The only decent stuff is in Europe."

Or it's folks saying "wanting Starbucks espresso is so elite and status-hungry."

[Gwendolyn]

136. Yeah, I know. Some of us are lucky to have always lived where there are neighborhood cafes.

I know in my travels that there are pockets of the country where you can't get fresh garlic at the grocery store, and the basic ingredient in tomato sauce is ketchup. I imagine Starbucks was a godsend to many.

What's strange is living in a city like NY where you can find a zillion cafes with personality, yet people still line up at Starbucks. That's all about some weird notion of homogenous scheeple following the crowd + status.

[Le Taz Hot]

116. I could never understand the fascination with Starbucks

Through circumstances beyond my control, a few weeks back I DESPERATELY needed a cup of coffee and the only place open was a Starbucks so I was forced to go into Yuppie Central. I got my overpriced coffee and it tasted burnt. I think I took maybe 3 sips and threw it away. I make better coffee at my house (San Francisco Bay Coffee beans and a Cuisinart coffee maker) and it's a hell of a lot cheaper ($12.99 for 2 pounds of beans). Plus, they had the water running non-stop and in drought-stricken California, that got under my skin.

[bedazzled]

117. it does taste burnt, doesn't it? never go there because i make better coffee at home

and i can't afford it anyway

someone gave me a gift card recently so i gave it
another try. yep, still burnt!

[Kalyke]

121. I've never understood the attraction to Starbucks.

Overly-priced, overly-trendy, overly-overly.

I make better coffee for less at home.

And, as the mother of two children, I'm more on the cutting edge than gimmickry (I'm also in marketing, which makes me a more leery target for these campaigns).

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

123. What's frickin' uppity about a frickin' espresso????

Gosh, I'm Italian and it's all Italians drink, poor or rich or anything in between. Same goes with cappuccino and caffe` latte.

Before Starbucks, I had a little Italian-style coffe maker but could not for the life of me find any decent ground coffee to brew here in NC (not everyone lives in NYC or LA).

Only after Starbucks arrived here could you see a change in what is offered in supermarkets and Starbucks is actually quite good in my opinion.

I don't see nothing wrong with Starbucks making... bucks. No one is putting a gun on anyone's temple requiring him or her to grab a coffee at Starbucks.

[many a good man]

130. I agree!

I'm overjoyed that Starbucks helped popularize and make available REAL coffee - espresso!

[mainer]

134. Absolutely yes!

I'm pretty irritated by all the folks here who think that drinking espresso makes you "elite and status-hungry". Whether or not one likes Starbucks coffee, at least the chain made it possible to find espresso in the US at all.

[marshall]

132. I'm shocked at how much money people blow on Starbucks coffee

When we put a Starbucks coffee shop in my university library I was against it because I thought it was too expensive for students on a tight budget. Boy was I wrong! It's nothing for the students to spend four bucks a day on a cup of coffee. It's the librarians and staff who are schleping in cans of coffee from from the dollar store to make their ten cent cups of coffee.

But it's all being paid with student loans, so it's all good.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

138. I am thrilled to say --

that I have only twice darkened the doors of a Starbucks, both because the family member I was with wanted a beverage. Coming from a city full of genuine coffee houses, everything about a Starbucks felt 100% wrong.

"Style, status, identity and aspiration" -- that is what it has always looked like to me -- and one of the reasons I have avoided the place like the plaque.

[Greyhound]

142. *Whoosh*

I think that was the point flying right out of the thread.
:kick: & R