Posted on 08/12/2012 6:13:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
Something exciting just happened in San Francisco. And it should pose an intellectual challenge for those who call themselves “progressives.”
Starbucks, the Seattle-based coffee beverage giant, announced that they will soon allow mobile telephone purchases in their stores. Get the new app from San Francisco-based Square, Inc. on your smart phone, order your drinks in the store, and – presto! - pay the bill with your iPhone or Android.
Along with this new approach to sales, Starbucks is also investing $25 million in Square Inc., and Starbucks C.E.O. Howard Schultz (a bona fide “food and beverage revolutionary”) will soon join Square’s Board of Directors. This was all quite surprising news- especially the part about a coffee company buying into a tech company -but it was nonetheless a cause for celebration in the City by the Bay. Yet another local “tech start-up” appears to be on its way to big things – and this one will likely make mobile retail a mainstream phenomenon.
In the world of business and technology this is certainly progress – consumers will soon be given more choices and convenience, while retailers will have more opportunity to sell their products and generate revenues. And those who choose to invest their money in either of these companies (both the private equity partners of Square, Inc., and the Starbucks stockholders) will likely reap financial benefits as well. But despite all this additional progress – for consumers, retailers, investors, and for San Francisco’s private sector economy - one nonetheless has to ask: can we really call this development “progressive?”
Along with being an epicenter for business development and economic progress (think Apple, Twitter, Cisco Systems, Facebook – and in a bygone era, Levi Strauss and Co.), the San Francisco Bay Area is also an epicenter of political and cultural “progressivism.” And while “progressivism” began in the U.S. as a humanitarian reaction to the social ills accompanying industrialization, today it has become an anathema to human achievement and private enterprise. The result of this bizarre confluence is simply this: there are lots of self-described “progressives” in the United States who enjoy the benefits of private enterprise and human progress, but who nonetheless support some of the most regressive ideas and attitudes that exist in our society.
Consider further the relationship between Starbucks and “progressives.” Few people in the world question the ethics of Starbucks, as their corporate mission statement has always included a quest for “a balance between profitability and social conscience.” Ensuring that farmers are paid reasonably for their coffee beans, investing in the communities where they operate stores, recycling and conservation initiatives, and extraordinary compensation packages for employees (the company provides health and dental benefits to many of their part time employees) - these and other important agendas comprise the way in which Starbucks has always operated.
Starbucks remained consistent with these virtuous-yet-costly policies during the worst of the “great recession,” even as its stock value was tanking (the company is now headed upward again and many portfolio advisors once again recommend it as a “buy”). Yet when it comes to “progressive” activism, Starbucks is treated like every other for-profit, publicly traded entity – the company is simply presumed to be “greedy” and selfish because it seeks to produce a profit, and thus is vilified and maligned.
For “progressives” who believe that vandalism is appropriate (if you don’t respect people’s rights to own private property- a core tenet of capitalism-then it’s easy to justify destroying somebody else’s property) Starbucks is a prime target. Since the days of the 1999 World Trade Organization conference in Seattle when “progressives” damaged and impugned the company in its hometown, Starbucks has remained on the “progressive” activists’ hit list, and even during the past year’s “occupy” uprisings Starbucks stores were frequently the first to get trashed when violence broke-out. The humanitarian and eco-friendly efforts of Starbucks don’t matter to “progressives” of this sort – all they know is that Starbucks is a successful American corporation with a trans-national footprint, and therefore they are to be hated.
More civil-minded “progressives” likely reject this type of vandalism and violence, and some may even acknowledge and support Starbucks for its socially responsible track record. Yet they also support a President who maligns and vilifies American corporations at every turn, and who has advanced a public policy agenda that has stifled the growth of free enterprise rather than encouraging it.
Other “progressives” may support tech companies like Square, Inc., yet resent the fact that many such companies only design their products in the U.S. and have them manufactured elsewhere. A thoughtful person would at least consider how government policies may have driven labor costs upward and made manufacturing unfeasible in the U.S. – but “progressives” generally prefer to just be angry at American companies and then push for more punitive corporate taxation policies.
And do “progressive” owners of Starbucks stock have any idea what their presidential candidate of choice has in mind for their dividends? Shares of Starbucks many produce nicely over the next several months, but unless the President is stopped in November, taxes on dividend income will skyrocket in 2013.
Self-described “progressives” – in San Francisco and elsewhere – can enjoy the benefits of private enterprise like everyone else. Yet if their deeply-held attitudes and ideas prevail in America long-term, they will successfully bring about a “regression” of things that are important to all of us.
Mebbe.
But in the world of decent coffee, Starbucks sucks.
I'd rather order a cup of distilled cat do-do.
I've never drank distilled cat do-do, but I feel rather strongly that it would taste better than that swill Starbucks calls coffee.
” I’ve never drank distilled cat do-do, but I feel rather strongly that it would taste better than that swill Starbucks calls coffee. “
I tried Star’bux’ coffee once (somebody else bought it for me) and after the first sip, decided that Circle-K coffee is better, for about a quarter of the price...
I agree! IMO, Dunkin has the best coffee.
I don’t care for coffee, but most of family. that does drink coffee, seems to liks Duncan Doughnuts or McDonald’s coffee better than Starbucks.
I don’t care for coffee, but most of family. that does drink coffee, seems to like Duncan Doughnuts or McDonald’s coffee better than Starbucks.
Dunkin donuts coffee is not even coffee,It’s more like coffee flavored water.There is no body to it,no substance.Thats why I like Starbucks coffee and I’m not even a liberal.I just got tired of paying for the same diluted “Coffee” when I went to D and D.
One day I decided to try Starbucks on the way to work and now I stop there at least once a day.
Have you ever tried Illy?
Oh great.. ordering coffee with my phone. Can’t say I’m interested.. and watching others do it seems even more depressing. even better when they’re driving. This ‘revolution’ sucks.
I really enjoy Starbucks. $1.82 for a tall extra bold
I find ordering with my phone to be a great convenience. How can buying something with your phone, be depressing? It’s not any different than buying sometthing any other way.
Another huge opportunity for new income streams(or perhaps just a shift of the old ones)...with their own promise and unique set of problems will likely come out of this, creating offshoots of more jobs and other opportunities as the idea expands. That is the essence of America and American opportunity.
What needs to happen, though, is that progressivism no longer be allowed to have it both ways.....to run the rampant destruction it's caused without shouldering the blame.
That's a daunting task, but there is a new batch of leaders who cut their teeth during the Reagan era - Paul Ryan and Scott Walker among them. Reagan's sunny optimism and right minded approach of limited government and expansion of freedom are in every fiber of their being.
It's truly a a battle for the soul of America - and we have to win. What happened in Wisconsin gives me a glimmer of hope....November will tell all.
Watching the tops of everybody’s heads as they walk around glued to their phones is what I find offensive. I’m sure they are a ‘convenience’ and that’s good, but how much of it is just mindless entertainment with progressive agendas.
No!But the people who I have been known users have been committed following the use of it.
You don’t happen to be one of those,now do you?
As someone who does not care for all the exotic flavored coffees, I find that the best cup of standard American joe to be had on the road is from the Canucks at Tim Horton’s.
You must be extremely tall.
Why do you find cell phone usage offensive?
What has cell phone usage have to do with buying coffee with it? It’s just like showing a credit card.
Do you play computer games or use email? What is so wrong with mindless entertainment and how do you get progressive agendas out of cell phone usage?
Sheesh.. talk about a failure to communicate. I think I’ll just go back to my homemade coffee.
I agree. Its not about the coffee. Its about the technology. I’m thinking a call to my local Denny’s lets say. Sit down. Eat breakfast and pay with my smart phone. No waiting at the counter to pay. I’m liking it.
No!But the people who have been known users have been committed following the use of it.
You don’t happen to be one of those,now do you?
No!But the people who have been known users have been committed following the use of it.
You don’t happen to be one of those,now do you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.