Image via Wikipedia
I read several Personal Finance blogs, one of which being Consumerist. I have to admit, lately I haven’t been as focused on reading all the blogs in my reader feed as I normally am, but this particular post caught my eye. Apparently, Katie Couric interviewed Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz, on CBS Sunday Morning. In her interview she asked him questions about the price of Starbucks’ coffee drinks, and implied that the CEO and the company have, acted irresponsibly by continuing to offer expensive coffee drinks, when people could no longer afford to pay $5 for a latte.
First, I am not a coffee drinker, so I don’t typically spend any money in places like Starbucks. Also, I tend to only go to Starbucks when I have a gift card. So, for me, Starbucks falls into my “luxury” category of spending. This means, it is not something I NEED to spend money on, but sometimes a hot chocolate makes me feel good so it’s a treat. Dining out, going to movies (and getting snacks at the movie theater,) shoe shopping all fall into that category for me typically. What I’ve learned, especially in regard to money, is life is full of choices. Ultimately, it is the consumer’s choice to pay $5 for a coffee.  If you can’t afford the coffee, don’t buy it, there are plenty of less expensive options available to people. I do not hold Starbucks responsible for a person’s inability to pay for a coffee. The same way that I do not hold Christian Loubiton responsible for making gorgeous shoes I can not afford. In my mind, any coffee made not at home, or that has flavors added to it is in essence, a “designer,” coffee, and with “designer” labels comes cost. If you can not pay the cost, you shouldn’t be purchasing the items. I believe that attempting to scapegoat the company is simply trying to shif the level of responsibility off the individuals. It’s your money, people! Starbucks isn’t forcing you to shop there!
In the comment section of the post at Consumerist, one person brought up a great point. This particular commenter stated that he continues to go to places like Starbucks because he enjoys the atmosphere, but also because he knows the higher cost of the coffee goes into better paying salaries and benefits for the employees of the company. By patronizing Starbucks he is voting with his dollar for a company that treats its employees well and offeres competitive benefits. This was interesting to me because the reasoning was similar to friends I have who WON”T shop at places like Wal-Mart. They don’t agree with many of the corporate policies, so they choose not to shop there. Do you vote with your dollars?
The fact that this was even an argument seemed ridiculous to me. Why should Starbucks change their pricing if their sales are still strong?Â
What do you think? Has Starbucks acted irresponsibly in the face of the recent financial crisis?
