• dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year 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.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I never said Starbucks owns the slave labor. But to ignore the influence they have is outstandingly naive. Like, do you think at all before replying? Are you in middle school and have any idea how the real world operates?

                • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What did I ignore? You only had one or two sentences there. I replied to it and pointed out how it’s faulty. You’ll need to help me out because I think you’re using some other form of the English language or dialogue model than the rest of those who speak the language use.

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

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

          They aren’t growin em in fuckin Seattle.

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year 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.

                • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year 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.

                • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That is what happened when starbucks started as well. Other people were larger.

                  No. It wasn’t. Starbucks was a ‘first’ in many ways. It was prior to third wave. First will always have advantages.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year 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…

              It’s so insanely more complicated than that. Not all farms are equal.

        • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

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

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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.

        • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year 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.

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

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You haven’t owned coffee places. You’ve been entirely wrong on how to source coffee plus your description of what even makes coffee. If you used to own them, you probably ran them into the ground. You’re objectively wrong on coffee production.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You seem to think to compete, you have to grow larger.

          You need to at least meet inflation, if not outpace it. Moreover, you’re not competing if you aren’t actually trying to battle. Competition breeds innovation. If you do not compete and do not get better or try to improve, society would degrade and regress. Come on. Before you respond next time, just think about what the consequence of what you’re saying is before.you actually hit the button. It saves us a lot of time.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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

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

          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.