Vox Nova

21 Responses to “Reason #564 why Christians shouldn’t drink Starbucks coffee”

1. Christopher says:

   November 16, 2007 at 6:37 am

   Go local or brew your own! =)
2. Dustin says:

   November 16, 2007 at 9:08 am

   A question, Katerina: To which other organizations does Starbucks match employee contributions? I could understand how this might be controversial if Planned Parenthood were being favorably singled out for support, but is that the case? What does the literature from Starbucks say about employee’s charitable donations?

   As an aside, it’s been a long time since I read anything on WorldNetDaily. I went to the article linked above, and regretted doing so immediately. For archconservative paranoia, anti-intellectualism and fear-mongering, there’s no better place.
3. Dustin says:

   November 16, 2007 at 9:48 am

   I meant to say: I understand how this might be controversial for some . . .
4. Michael Iafrate says:

   November 16, 2007 at 12:16 pm

   It’s a shame that the writer of that article did not also include reasons #1-563 for why she should not drink Starbucks coffee, which all involve the injustice done to coffee farmers and independent coffee houses. But that wouldn’t have gone over well at WorldNetDaily. Nevertheless, thanks for reason #564!
5. Andy says:

   November 16, 2007 at 2:19 pm

   How about the fact that it is a ridiculous waste of money to spend $4.00 on a cup of coffee? Make your own, and take the $3.50 you overpaid for it and give it to your favorite charity!
6. Dustin says:

   November 16, 2007 at 3:02 pm

   Andy, my typical order, a tall-size regular coffee, is less than $2. Choose more wisely, I suggest. Even a tall latte is less than $4.

   Michael, you may know that Starbucks takes its relationship with its growers very seriously. They’re leading the domestic market in “fair trade” coffees, and, as the biggest coffeehouse chain out there, this certainly influences the rest of the market to follow suit, either to remain competitive or in an anti-corporate spirit. As for injustice to independent coffeehouses, I really don’t know what you mean. It’s a free market. Sink or swim, Michael.
7. Michael J. Iafrate says:

   November 16, 2007 at 3:11 pm

   Dustin, Starbucks has not always dealt in fair trade coffee, and indeed was pressured to do so. Now they offer one or two fair trade coffees out of their entire selection. They brag that they have fair trade coffee (“all you have to do is ask”) but this means that they will sell you a bag of fair trade coffee. They usually do not have brewed fair trade coffee for you to purchase.

   The only reason they “lead the market” on fair trade coffee is due to the sheer number of their stores. That’s like bragging that Wal-Mart leads the market on sales of organic products. Who cares? It’s because of their size.

   Starbucks has not influenced the rest of the market by providing one or two fair trade options. The rest of the ethically-minded coffee world has influenced Starbucks.

   “Injustice to independent coffeehouses” is in reference to Starbucks’ well known practice of putting independent places out of business.

   “It’s a free market, sink or swim”? That’s an ideology I oppose.
8. DarwinCatholic says:

   November 16, 2007 at 3:27 pm

   I don’t normally buy Starbucks — they don’t have the best coffee, and they are one of those places that uses trendiness as an excuse to pay their workers less (Starbucks pays its employees _less_ than most fast food places.)

   However, the PlannedParenthood issue may not be open and shut. I don’t see the large corporation I work for listed on the PlannedParenthood site linked to, but I do know that they will match any employee donation there. However, they will match employee donations to _any_ non profit that we agree to donate to, so I figure the Catholic thing to do is try to balance out all the giving that the corporate charities office does to PP and gay advocacy groups and so on. I’ve got them donating to the diocese, our parish, Food for the Poor, Clear Creek Monastery, etc. All you have to do is be willing to give your own money, and they’ll match it dollar-for-dollar with theirs.

   So if Starbucks has something like this, I would say it’s probably a good thing. But if they only match causes like PlannedParenthood, that’s clearly a problem.
9. Henry Karlson says:

   November 16, 2007 at 3:30 pm

   I have to say I do not like Starbucks methodology of closing out other forms of coffee shops, but since I often need coffee while at CUA, I take what is available. And I follow through with the principle put forward in the new voter guide: just because I vote to get the coffee which I need, does not mean I am giving any support for the causes which the coffee shop may or may not donate to…

   But I would have preferred CUA staying with their older coffee supplier; I find giving its nod to Starbucks disturbing.
10. Michael Enright says:

    November 16, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    I have to say that I’m not sure what to think about all of this talk of injustice to cofee growers and independant coffehouses. I am probably conflicted. I do tend to think that the free market (properly understood) is probably the best and most efficient system. I am however, moving in mutualist tendencies, and can understand how there may be exploitaiton involved in many so-called free market situations.

    If Starbucks can outcompete independant coffeehouses, I think that is a prima facie case to think that they desirve to go out of business. It means that more people like Starbucks, they have better prices, or they run a more efficient operation. While I do not want financial harm to the people who work at independant coffehouses, I see no reason to say that the survival of the houses is so paramount that being outcompeted in the market is a bad thing.

    Now a number of stories can be told that may be persuasive evidence that injustice is being done, but those stories usually revolve around unjust practices that may have created Starbuck’s success, not simply that they have outcompeted other people in the market. I see no reason to protect inefficient, unpopular, or costly businesses at society’s expense. In that case, the free market “sink or swim” is a good idea. Its not that as a society we do not have a duty to help the individuals who are sinking, but businesses who are sinking should sink.

    As far as coffee farmers go, I don’t really know enough about it.
11. Michael J. Iafrate says:

    November 16, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    Michael E. –

    While I do not want financial harm to the people who work at independant coffehouses, I see no reason to say that the survival of the houses is so paramount that being outcompeted in the market is a bad thing.

    The problem is not competition as such, but when our lives become dominated by corporations. It’s all in the name of “choice” but what choice is there, really, when your only options are to shop at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc.?

    Also, take five minutes and Google “fair trade coffee” and learn something about coffee farmers and how they are exploited. You should know something about it.
12. Dustin says:

    November 16, 2007 at 3:49 pm

    Michael, just to be clear, are you opposed to an absolutist notion of “sink or swim,” or categorically opposed to the idea of a free market?
13. jonathanjones02 says:

    November 16, 2007 at 3:49 pm

    IMO if Starbucks supports Planned Parenthood, it is unacceptable to support them with your business.

    thanks for making me aware.
14. Michael J. Iafrate says:

    November 16, 2007 at 3:57 pm

    Dustin, “Sink or swim” is merely an image with no real content. But, yes, I am opposed to capitalism as it exists.
15. Dustin says:

    November 16, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    It wasn’t meant to be an imagistic depiction. It’s a metaphor, and a fairly common one, for economic competition.

    Now, perhaps this could be considered a further threadjack, but could I ask you to explain your use of the qualifier “as it exists?” Perhaps I’m confused, reading this through the prism of my own quasi-libertarianism, with a sympathy for Rothbard’s notion that “capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism.”
16. JPF says:

    November 16, 2007 at 5:03 pm

    Quite frankly Starbucks is not the only company that contributes either through matching funds or donations through its foundations to Planned Parenthood and other organizations that I would find personally objectionable. I believe Target also donates through it community foundation to PP and many of Bill Gates pet projects are directly related population control (and I’m certain many of you are using MS products and there are other options). There are very few business that I would patronize if I started to discriminate based upon their corporate giving practices. So, unless they are really in my face about promoting PP, abortion, gay lifestyles, etc., I don’t plan on boycotting them for that reason alone.

    I probably go to Starbucks once per day. Do I like paying $4+ for a cup of coffee – No. But I find it to be a consistent quality product and it’s generaly a nice place to hang out. Part of the cost of the coffee is due to the fact that they provide all of their employees who work 20+ hours per week with COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH BENEFITS and profit sharing.
    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_47/b3909098.htm

    A lot of you on this board also complain about workers who lack health benefits and the need of the federal government to do something about it, but then prefer to go to your Mom and Pop coffee house down the street where you can get your cup of coffee at half the price and where Mom and Pop run a sweat shop where employees are lucky to make minimum wage much less get any health benefits or bonuses. Put your money where your mouth is.
17. Michael J. Iafrate says:

    November 16, 2007 at 5:34 pm

    I suppose I wrote “as it exists” because I don’t think there is any one thing called capitalism, just as there is no one thing called socialism, i.e. there are various types of each kind.

    Perhaps I’m confused, reading this through the prism of my own quasi-libertarianism, with a sympathy for Rothbard’s notion that “capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism.”

    Yeah I don’t go for the libertarian version of “anarchism.” It’s not real anarchism in my opinion. Actually, most anarchism is not true anarchism. Only Christianity is the true anarchism. :)
18. Jonathan says:

    November 17, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    Starbucks also provides excellent benefits (especially considering the wage scale) for its employees. If one were of the mind that one ought to weigh good and bad when purchasing a Starbucks coffee (which in itself is morally neutral, so remote consequences must be considered), then one should consider those benefits in any calculus.
19. Katerina Ivanovna says:

    November 18, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    Even if other companies do donate to PP, including Microsoft, that’s why this is reason #564 and not the ONLY reason why we shouldn’t drink at Starbucks
20. Policraticus says:

    November 19, 2007 at 1:08 am

    There are very few business that I would patronize if I started to discriminate based upon their corporate giving practices. So, unless they are really in my face about promoting PP, abortion, gay lifestyles, etc., I don’t plan on boycotting them for that reason alone.

    Could you clarify:

    1. Whatever your value judgment may be in terms of the quantity of businesses one patronizes;

    2. Is verbal/market support for Planned Parenthood more morally problematic than financial support?
21. CG says:

    February 13, 2008 at 6:55 am

    Instead of complaining about large corporations do something about them. The large companies like Wal-Mart exist because consumers demand lower prices. If everyone was willing to pay huge prices Wal-Mart would be out of business.

    The simple fact of the matter is that Starbucks are sucessful despite the the high prices because they make a fantastic product for which there is demand. They have great controls in place to make sure that their product is the best it can be.