The tip jar is a joke.
I don’t know why I bite down so hard on Internet Libertarian trolls, but here goes:
Yes, well, in the world of opinion, which this is, when something you don’t like proliferates, that’s called “bad.” As to whether “homogenization of culture” is bad or not, that’s a separate argument, isn’t it? They’re saying it’s bad; you’re saying it’s not. BTW, I label you a “libertarian troll,” which is worse than a nitwit.
According to this logic, nothing is ever overpriced. Brilliant.
I think the hidden premise is that, were people more knowledgeable about coffee, they wouldn’t tolerate the prices that Starbucks charges. A further hidden premise could be that Starbucks is violating the trust of the customer by saying to him/her directly or indirectly, through powerful marketing media, that the coffee is excellent when in fact it isn’t.
Well, you’re a regular Bertrand Russell. I think the people who don’t like Starbucks feel that the masses are being duped.
That’s the only reason–are you completely sure? One other poster mentioned that Starbucks had gotten a smaller place tossed out of its building by Starbucks, which outbidded them for the lease but then didn’t use the space.
I don’t get the impression that you have actually considered what that might mean.
What a nice example of your ignorance and fundamental callousness: comparing someone purchasing a luxury good to a subsistence farmer subjected to the vagaries of volatile commodity pricing. Perhaps a little study of the matter will inform you of how these poor farmers have been utterly f*ct by the market and the indiffernce of large buyers (Proctor and Gamble, etc.) utterly indifferent to their fate.
No, a large portion of the world’s ills is also due to pathetic intellectual midgets like yourself, pawns of those evil corporations.
You have confused classy with pretentious. Except for the Vogue and Esquire part 
If you really want to parse this thing and get philosophical–although I doubt the topic really deserves it–I think there are a number of things that are bugging people about Starbucks, and these things are not necessarily related to each other, nor to the fact that Starbucks is a big, overly marketed brand.
Certainly, not every Starbucks product represents an attempt to provide “fine coffee” or fine anything. To me, the frappachinos and other candy drinks have only the most peripheral relationship to coffee. But they’re not necessarily less worthy of existing than something from Dairy Queen.
So I think some people are not satisfied by the overall product package.
Some people just can’t get into big brands but instead identify with a perceived underdog or non-brand. This feeling may have some justification, but it needs to be separated from a knee-jerk against anything above a certain size. If Starbucks is using unfair practices to put competitor’s out of the game, then that deserves condemnation. But let’s avoid the David vs. Goliath script unless that truly and factually accurate.
Part of the script is the “independent” as David, the noble and worthy provider of true quality. I’ve frequented several coffee houses in NJ, and a couple I went to almost every night in the summer of '99. At grad school in the Midwest, I went to the place on campus often for food and coffee.
They were all fine, but they were not cheap, nor did they give me the impression that they were going after some transcendental level of quality. The products were sometimes not what they should have been.
I have found Starbucks generally to be fine, and I have been to at least one in Indy where the guys working there were cool and truly understood what coffee is about (e.g., a capp is not a late, etc.).
But across the board, Starbucks is mediocre, does not provide coffee with the requisite attention to detail (espresso drinks), and I do not care for their faux atmosphere. Still, SB can be a dependable convenience, as when you have a job interview somewhere, and they’re in strip mall, and you know you can have coffee there and kill time.
The best espresso I ever had was at the Four Seasons in NY. The best capp I ever had was at a hotel in Stamford, England. In either case, luck was probably on their/my side–coffee can be quite variable in quality despite attention to detail.
Actually, I usually drink tea, but never in a restaurant–I brew my own.
I agree that their size names are stupid, and I refuse to use them. But I’ve never had a Starbuck’s server so much as blink when I asked for a “small” or “large”. They know the names are dumb, and they know what you mean by “large” or whatever. That’s been my experience, at any rate.
And thanks to Neurotik for his post debunking the “Starbucks drives out small-timers” idea. I read a similar study somewhere recently that having a Starbucks nearby actually helps independent stores. But I couldn’t remember where I read it, and I knew I’d likely get asked for a cite, which I’m too lazy to dig for right now.
On that subject though, I may have some anecdotal evidence soon: A new independent coffee shop just opened up on the same block as my local Starbucks. They must have some reason to believe they’ll make money. We’ll see how they do.
Anyway, in spite of all that, I’m not really a fan of Starbucks either. For the same reasons as most in this thread: the coffee is too expensive and not very good quality. And here in Portland at least, good coffee is everywhere—they’ve got espresso at gas stations—so there are always alternatives that are cheaper and at least as good.
One thing that they did really annoyed me though. On 9/11 it was reported that a New York Starbucks manager had the nerve to charge rescue workers for bottled water. Some firefighters had to pay out of their own pockets, something like $35 for a case of bottled water for victims. Of course, that was the fault of one manager who may not have been thinking too clearly (who was, that day?) and not a corporate decision. But it really made them look bad, and was pretty much the final nail in the coffin for them as far as I was concerned. (I never did hear if the company HQ made a statement about that. I bet they wish the manager had given the water away.)
I don’t like the taste. It gets me that they are so popular since I think their product is not all that good, and IMHO pales compaired to Dunkin Donuts coffee. But Coffee is suppose to be Starbucks bag, and a donut shop beats them (again IMHO) hands down.
This causes a bit of a mystry, why do people find them so popular, the obvoius answer is that they are idiots, and only like the coffee becasue it is suppose to be good. Starbucks drinkers are just sheep following the heard, while the real thinkers are wondering why they have to stand behind people hand picking a dozen donuts to get a cup (or box) of joe.
I sometimes venture into a stabucks, for the reason that at least I know what I’m getting in some cases (while traveling and no other known coffee is in site), or to enjoy their living room setup, or for that matter becasue of a $20 free card (but on that last one I was choking the last few cups down - just couldn’t resist a free cup though)
I also suspect that their beens are really not all that high quality, but something is done during the processing (such as adding some flavor) to give it a unique flavor which people mistake as high quality, and make it impossible to duplicate.
I don’t hate Starbucks, I just don’t have any reason to go there.
It used to be that the closest Starbucks was about 2 hours away, in Sydney. I always though, ‘yeah, I’ll try it out next time I’m there,’ but every time I was in Sydney, there just seemed to be no point. Coffee is everywhere, and good coffee is everywhere. Why would I go to Starbucks when I can go down to the harbour and have a good cup of coffee for about $2?
Then a while ago, a Starbucks opened in a mall just near where I live. I finally tried it out.
It wasn’t terrible. The coffee was ok while hot. Pretty awful towards the end. But not great. I just didn’t see the point in getting ok coffee from Starbucks when there was a billion other places in the mall where I could get better coffee for cheaper.
Not to mention the oddness of Starbucks in a mall. It’s right near the food court, so off to the side of the vast forest of chairs and tables exists this weird, carpeted corner where you sit on a couch and watch the fluorescent-lit skanks pass by.
It wasn’t, ‘Starbucks is evil,’ just ‘what’s the point?’
So what exactly is a panic attack, cos I was under the impression it was when you got a sudden feeling of panic, usually caused by being in a large crowd of people. But from reading this thread I’m wondering if it means when you shit yourself. Can someone clear this up for me?
Idiot.
I’m afraid you’ve brought a knife to a gunfight, son. Because I’m in a charitable mood, I’ll indulge you a bit. Here goes:
I’ve been around a while, dude. I’m not a troll.
Right, but many anti-starbucks people don’t just hold the opinion that cultural homogenization is bad, they also seem to think that it’s harmful to society and should be stopped. Combine this with the lefties’ love of big government and you can hear the call for legislation lurking just under the surface. Therefore, my objection to this argument is different from a mere difference of opinion on whether cultural homogenization is bad. (And no, I’m not suggesting that these people really think Starbucks should be outlawed; I’m just using their usual stance on how the world should work to inform me about what they mean on this issue)
Ouch, that’s gonna leave a mark.
Thanks, but I really can’t take credit.
Also, you’re missing the point a little bit. My point is that nothing is ever overpriced for long because if it is priced higher than people are willing to pay, then either the seller of the product will drop the price or go out of business. Because Starbucks has been around for a while and has lots of stores and makes lots of money, you can be sure that it does not charge more for its coffee than the market is willing to bear. Notice that the price YOU are willing to bear may be lower than the price Starbucks charges, but you aren’t the whole market.
Both of these “hidden premises” are blatantly ridiculous. MAYBE you wold have a hint of a fraction of a point if we were talking about complicated consumer goods (computers, flat-screen TVs, etc.), but the points you bring up don’t apply to coffee.
You’re telling me that people can’t tell whether they like the taste of something they put in their very own mouths? That they will buy something whether or not they think it tastes good because of powerful marketing? Also, just how “powerful” IS starbucks’ marketing? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a TV commercial or heard a radio commercial.
Another flaw in your bullshit is that you act like the state of “being excellent” is an objective thing, which is just tripe of the lowest order.
Also your reference to the “trust of the customer” shows how off-base and anti-humanitarian you are, you Ellsworth Toohey scumbag.
Right, and the people who feel this way are bad, bad people. Just because a whole lot of people like something that you don’t happen to like doesn’t mean that they are being duped. You just have a difference of opinion with them. See your first point above.
Also, you’re again trotting out the one of the worst lines of bullshit from the U.S. left, the one about the “poor consumers who don’t know any better.” Bullshit. People buy starbucks coffee because they like how it tastes and they like the experience of going into a starbucks. If they didn’t like either of those, they wouldn’t go. The “masses” as you call them are people just like you and me with a brain that can tell them whether they like how something tastes or not.
If you didn’t get the Ellsworth Toohey reference above, it’s from The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, which you should read to learn more about the different view of people you and I have.
I’m seriously tearing up a little here because I find your attitude on this point so blatantly wrong and harmful. The “masses” don’t need your sorry ass to take care of them, goddammit.
Let me check–yep, completely sure.
Re: the lease thing: 1) Yes, one poster “mentioned” it. We haven’t even seen a link to a news story about it. Maybe the coffee shop was going to go out of business when its lease was up anyway, and starbucks leased the space so a new coffee shop wouldn’t open.
-
It really only helps to prove my point. If starbucks can afford to pay for rent on two locations with only the income from one, it just shows how much money a starbucks is able to make.
-
Once the old tenant’s lease was up, the lessor was free to rent to whomever the lessor chose. Starbucks apparently outbid the other place. Tough luck. If they wanted to stay in business, they should have bid higher than starbucks for the space.
Let’s go back to economics 101, dude. The only reason anyone ever exchanges property they own for property they don’t own is that they would rather have the property they own more than the property they don’t own. It’s really that simple. Therefore, a fair price for property you want is whathever it takes to get the person who has the property you want to trade it for the property you have.
So, the fact that the coffee growers actually do sell the coffee to starbucks shows that the growers believe that the price they get for the coffee is fair. Go ahead and scream at me and bring up some bullshit theories you lefties like to trot out, but it really is that simple.
And it’s rich that you call me “fundamentally callous” when through your post you show your disregard for humanity. You think the American consumer is a mindless dolt who walks zombie-like into starbucks and plunks down their hard-earned money on the counter even though they really don’t like what they they get. You think coffee growers are just completely stupid and just roll over and sell their products for any pittance that anyone is willing to throw at them.
Screw that. Up with people.
Come to Denver. If I step outside my office, there’s one to the north, another to the East, and one more to the west, all less than a block away, and all charging $2+ for a cup of joe.
Standing ovation to TaxGuy and the grasp of economic laws in general.
I never thought anyone actually believed Starbucks was “duping the masses.” My lord…
I’m not too keen on those in this thread that are suggesting that those who support Starbucks are on the right and those who hate it are leftist hippies.
I’m pretty liberal. And I like Starbucks. Now, to those of you who simply don’t like how their coffee tastes, fine. I myself rarely get just plain old coffee from anywhere but 24-hour diners (breakfast anytime), so this whole issue of it being “burnt” hasn’t really come into play for me. I get mochas and, in the summer, mocha frappuccinos. And, when really really tired, a triple grande mocha.
What’s interesting is that, when it comes to frappuccinos, I can’t count on it tasting the same at every Starbucks. Some barristas use too much ice and the product is more coffee slushie than creamy blended coffee drink. And in my experience, whenever I get the equivalent of a frappuccino at an independent, it’s always got ice chunks and is never smooth to drink. Yuck. At least the Starbucks have about an 80 percent success rate there.
I also don’t really factor in atmosphere when I’m at Starbucks, as I never “hang out” there. I hang out with my friends at bars. That said, Starbucks often has comfortable furniture.
I boycott Walmart but not Starbucks and I have several reasons. First, I find Walmart stores wherever I go to be sloppy, disorganized messes with kids running around everywhere. It’s an unpleasant experience. Starbucks is bourgeois, but when I’m just trying to get my coffee before work, maybe that’s exactly what I want. I’m not exactly running on all cylinders when I’m there, so I don’t need mental stimulation, usually.
Second, Walmart really does run independent retailers out of town by offering absurdly low prices (which then slide upward after the independents are gone). Starbucks, on the other hand, costs the same, if not more, than the independent stores I’ve done too. They aren’t overpriced. If they were, no one would buy their coffee and they’d go out of business.
Third, Walmart treats its employees like shit. It’s well documented that they get screwed on overtime, and we all remember the imbroglio about illegal workers. On the other hand, Starbucks treats its employees like gold. Even the part-timers get great benefits. No wonder they’re always so happy (and that’s important… not only are they happy but they have never gotten my order wrong.). I cannot fault a company that treats its employees well.
Fourth, Starbucks really does strive for some community involvement. They’re a pretty ethical corporation, as far as I can see, and they do go beyond their store walls in helping people out.
As for the silly size names… saying “triple grande mocha” rolls off the tongue a lot better than “large mocha with an extra shot of espresso.” Learning their lingo is not being a sheep; it’s speeding the process up. Remember, I’m just there to get my drink and head out.
So I obviously take issue with some of the complaints about Starbucks. The only one I don’t is, simply, “I don’t like their coffee.” Fair enough on that one. And I also don’t like how they don’t realize what a real caramel macchiato is, but I never order that, so why would I care?
I almost hate to say this, but I think Taxguy nailed it.
I don’t think that SB is duping the masses, but I really dislike them, generally because of the cultural homogeneity issue.
On that note, TaxGuy, I’m sure that even though you don’t convey it, not so deep down you understand that “lefties’ love of big government” is a fucking idiotic comment. I really wish that people would stop trying to project ideologies onto a left/right axis. But that’s not to get off topic. I’m a confirmed lefty, though I don’t like “big government”. I don’t think SB should be legislated into the ground, nor do I think Wal-Mart should, even though I truly hate them to the core.
I’m just disappointed in people’s readiness to give up on a culture of originality so easily. But it’s not new, it’s not going to stop, and it’s a mentality that is ironically deep-set into North American culture.
Yes, yes, yes, the entire left wing - everyone from the pinkos to the anarcho-communists, from the limousine liberals to the bleeding heart queers - we all want big government! That’s our goal in life!
sigh Typical right-wing rhetoric.
Hard to parse this sentence; work on your writing skills. What I think you’re saying is that no, us lefties don’t want the government to shut Starbucks down, but really we do, because we want the government to stop all business from occuring?
Damn. Never heard my own thoughts layed out so well!
Fascinating. I don’t have my cite in my hands, but just yesterday I was reading an article about nutrition. Researchers proved that people fed the exact same meal, under one of two names - a simple descriptor like “Grilled Chicken” or a typical-sounding menuism like “Tuscan Sun-Kissed Fire Roasted Chicken” - reported that they liked it much better under the fancier name.
Unfortunately, just about every economic theory is fundamentally based upon a person making a rational decision and being able to understand and quantify their preferences. Economics is thus limited because people don’t really know their own mind. The same article mentioned that people given bowls of jellybeans - jellybeans that all tasted the same - ate more if there were six different colors rather than four. People perceive a variety that doesn’t exist and eat more as a result!
Huh. I guess people do respond to “powerful marketing”.
Why, it flows like something Ayn Rand herself might have written! You’ve certainly got an excellent grasp of objectivism: first make blanket statements based on tired decades-old right-wing rhetoric, then use childish insults to drive the point home! Or, as Ayn Rand herself wrote, “A is A, you doody-head jerkface meany!”
Damn, us lefties are never gonna hold our own in this debate!
But isn’t anyone who holds a different opinion a scumbag of some kind? Or is that only if their opinion differs from yours?
You say it, but as I point out above, the science kinda shows it ain’t so. Taste is highly subjective for most people; in fact, the ability to taste and compare on fairly objective terms can earn you a good income - that’s why the top wine critics are so well-respected.
And as I remarked above, you really took Ayn Rand’s philosophy to heart: insult anyone who disagrees. If your point is in contrast with reality (like your claims above about people knowing what they like) then just repeat it over and over. And only losers use comprehensible syntax in their writing!
(An aside: Ayn Rand, though her worldview was almost the polar opposite of mine, was in actuality a genius and an immensely skilled writer. Please don’t take my sarcasm or TaxGuy’s semi-comprehensible rantings as any reflection on Ayn Rand. She would probably be insulted that this guy is comparing himself to her.)
My liberal heart bleeds for you. I never knew you objectivists were so fragile!
Not the case, but I don’t have any cites because I’m not aware of any news stories about it. It’s fine if you wish to ignore me, but the broader point of large corporations leveraging unfair power against smaller competitors has been well-documented in other areas.
Well, not really. Starbucks draws its cash from its many hundreds of locations. While spending a lot of cash just to defend one location may not sound economically rational at first blush, it’s presumably part of their long-term marketing scheme; Starbucks is after ubiquity and losing a few bucks here and there is considered a small price to pay if it leads to eventual complete control of the market.
They follow a similar strategy when they open two locations on opposite sides of a street - but most people are familiar with that by now.
Besides, not even Milton Friedman defends “large corporations making lots of money” as the goal of economics, though this seems to be your philosophy. No matter how much money Starbucks may be making, if their actions lead to a reduction in surplus (more economics 101 vocabulary here!) then the economy is suffering as a result.
But, not having thousands of other locations on several continents to draw cash from, the family (immigrants from somewhere in Asia) didn’t have the money to compete. Kinda like when Sears used to move into a town, price their goods so cheaply that they were losing money on every sale, and drive smaller businesses out. These are anti-competitive business practices familiar to anyone who has studied the actions of large corporations.
But of course, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman will both claim that, overall, large businesses succeed only because they’re providing a product people want. I guess reality is sometimes at odds with economic theory. But then, I guess you objectivists don’t need to look at reality. After all, you’ve got “A=A”, whatever the hell that means.
No argument here. Starbucks can change a penny or a hundred bucks for their coffee; I don’t care. Of course, once they’ve killed every other café through their anti-competitive business practices, it’ll start to matter more. Or did you miss a few days in economics 101? Monopoly is a form of “market failure” - when the free market can’t allocate goods efficiently. The rich will still buy coffee, Starbucks will rake in the cash, and the rest of us will just do without. In a very real economic sense, monopolies inevitably result in a good being overpriced, since the goal of economics is to maximize surplus, and market failures guarantee that this can’t occur.
But it seems like all my hard-core capitalist friends must’ve slept through that part of economics class.
I guess you don’t know much about subsistence farming. Are you familiar with the fact that most coffee-growing regions have a high poverty rate? Brazil, Columbia, Indonesia - why, none of them have a standard of living comparable to that of the United States! (No, really, TaxGuy, just look in your almanac!)
So these growers may be desperate for whatever money they can get - and then they sell it at a price that’s artificially low (this time due to cartel behavior - it’s similar to the economics lesson on monopolies above.) This when those of us buying the stuff find our coffee prices continually rising.
Of course, that ignores the fact that very little coffee is grown on small family plots. The above applies to those families who are lucky enough to be working for themselves. In most cases, workers with no alternative to working for agribusiness companies end up being exploited by the growers, who in fact tend to be raking it again. Perhaps you haven’t read about the barbarities of the coffee industry - workers being murdered by plantation owners, women being raped. But then, they’re rational, economically sophisticated people just like the rest of us! Why, they must like being subject to random violence - or they would get a job elsewhere. Right, TaxGuy? After all, they wouldn’t provide the service of coffee-picking if the compensation weren’t worth it, would they? Too bad they’re all suffering from malnutrition. But I guess they must like that, too. Otherwise, they’d be starting businesses of their own! Capitalism gives everyone a fair shot!
(Note that economic theory is on my side here. For the market to work, alternatives are needed, and TaxGuy’s simplistic analysis doesn’t note the fact that in many of these cases, no alternative exists. But real economic theory has always been elusive to the right wing.)
Nope, as I stated above, coffee pickers like random violence, and they deserve what they get. And American consumers like paying extra at restaurants - it’s worth it to hear a name like “Fire-Braised Breast of Chicken in a Light Asian-Style Sesame Sauce”. Because no one is ever, ever manipulated by commercials or marketing.
I guess the only puzzle is why companies pay for commercials in the first place then. Hmm. No, I guess TaxGuy’s explanation of the economy gleaned from six lines of Ayn Rand and his economics 101 class must not be fully describing the situation. How strange!
Oh well. He may not understand economics, but at least he’s eloquent!
I don’t have a problem with their prices. I don’t have a problem with their decor. I don’t have a problem with their pretentiousness. I don’t have a problem with their weird size labels. I don’t have a problem that their stores are ubiquitous. I don’t hate them. I don’t think they’re evil.
But, I won’t patronize them because I don’t like their coffee.
It is too bitter for my taste. I’ve told people that I think they over-roast their beans but I made those claims with absolutely no knowledge. The bitterness could just as well be from the bean varieties they select. It matters not. I just don’t like their coffee.
Anyone else think the mochas have a grainy burnt taste as well? Maybe I just burn my tongue every time I have one I dunno…
Provide a cite that this happens, because I’ve already provided one that says that your little theory has no bearing on reality in the case of Starbucks.
Just trying to fight your ignorance here.
You’re a seasoned troll–what’s wrong with that?
Hey, watch whom you’re calling “lefty”–I’m just a socialist. At any rate, people have the right to campaign against or for anything they want–so do you.
And you’re missing my point: people are saying that Starbucks is overpriced in a different sense.
I have no argument with this, nor do I personally think that Starbucks is excessively expensive. Still, I was suggesting that people were saying it’s overpriced because the price does not match its quality.
Yes, this is what I’m telling you. Not just marketing but the perception of society. We eat things here in Japan as delicacies that would cause some Americans to puke just looking at them. This relates to Starbucks in that a certain perceptual tradition has been built up about what “fine coffee” is supposed to be. People are saying that Starbucks is making a claim to that tradition (either directly or indirectly) but is not fulfilling it. I don’t necessarily agree that Starbucks coffee tastes bad or burnt, but I myself feel that Starbucks does not take Euro coffee traditions seriously, as when their “cappucino” is a cup of hot milk with a shot of espresso in it.
The four P’s of marketing are product, price, place, and promotion. Starbuck’s marketing is indeed strong in the “place,” or distribution, P. Further, the stores themselves are filled with promotional messages, not to mention actual people promoting the products. The primo locations SB chooses themselves serve as excellent promotions. SB’s marketing = big and strong.
Quite the opposite. I recognize that “excellence” has both objective and subjective components, as per the comment above.
You don’t agree that there can be different degree to which consumers can be informed, and that this level of information can affect their purchasing decisions?
Or, perhaps if they knew what a real cappucino tastes like, they would stop ordering capps at SB, and SB’s sales would suffer to a degree.
Sure, there’s no one “masses”–there are people with varying levels of expertise about a number of things. I know Japanese food, so no one’s going to fool me with bad tempura. But your Average American might be fooled. Likewise, I might be fooled about Indonesian food, etc.
You’re really playing this Libertarian thing to the hilt, aren’t you?
It’s called an “unfair” trade practice. If Starbucks can pay thugs with bats to stand menacingly outside my coffee shot to reduce its custom, is that OK? It’s not, I’m sure you agree. Then we can agree that some types of trade practices are wrong and unfair, though we may differ on the specifics.
They might not have been “free”–for all I know, this may have been illegal.
In your little world, perhaps. People also exchange property out of fear or outright violence.
No, you are not at liberty, libertarian, to reduce “fair” to such a childish and simplistic usage. The concept of “fair” also involves some concept of justice and both sides dealing with equal information. If I come into your house and notice a Van Gogh sitting on your wall, and I say, “Hey, I’ll take that ragged painting off you for 5 bucks”; even though you may agree with me (out of ignorance) at that point, once you find out what’s what you will sue me and definitely win. Just an example.
From what institution did you receive your Doctor of Sophistry? Whether the growers feel that they got a fair deal, is a question separate from that of whether they made a deal.
What a foulmouthed ignorant little man you are. There are people literally starving in Guatemala, whole villages are going under, and all you can offer is the above specious logic? Pathetic. What isn’t fair is the economic structure that allows such human suffering to occur in the first place. Try to understand this.
Huh? I’m concerned whether people or dying or not, not so much whether they are enjoying their coffee or not.
Such was not my claim.
Yes, this IS my claim, since all they’re being offered is a pittance, and they’ll definitely die if they don’t take it.