Is Starbucks the "blue-state" Wal-Mart?

There's been a lot of Starbucks-McDonald's comparison talk here; maybe it's time to bring Wal-Mart into the discussion. The St. Louis Oracle blogger says the Starbucks parallels to the WalMart impact on local business are striking. "Wal-Mart is the epitome of pure red-state capitalism. Based in Arkansas, Wal-Mart executives dating back to Sam Walton himself have been big supporters of the Republican Party, as well as their conservative home-state Democrat, Bill Clinton. In contrast, Starbucks is very blue-state ... based in deep-blue Seattle, and its customer base is the young urbanites that voted heavily for John Kerry. An August, 2005 Zogby Poll disclosed that Starbucks' national dominance in consumer preference was powered by a 2-1 margin among self-described liberals and progressives." No great revelations here, but maybe it's a conversation-starter. (St. Louis Oracle)

Comments

[-m]

That has to be some of the most poorly though out dribble I've read in a really long time. Blogs are proving to one of the most annoying and useless mediums of all time.

[Lou Sussler]

I'm with -M.

The blogs are that way because of people like -M

[CuteBarista!]

oh man. how about some real news articles, Webmaster?

i'm pretty surprised that the author knew "nothing" of Starbucks healthplan or the way they treat their employee. shit, even BEFORE i worked for the Buck i knew about the health coverage. it's why i got the damn job in the first place.

but yeah, the comparison is a thin one - mostly because Wal-Mart is so huge, it dominates not only every town it comes into (i watched it happen in the small town i grew up in - now they're going on their third Wal-Fart in the area), but the fact that the chain is SO HUGE it basically monopolizes the supply chain. not good. and that's hardly what Starbucks does.

the fact that Wal-Mart carries more or less all the necessities of life and Starbucks is a luxury coffee house (sorry, it is), should have put this argument to rest before it even started.

[-m]

"The blogs are that way because of people like -M"

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the authers presence. And you are 100% correct. It is because of me that blogs are the one-dimensional, poorly written, backwards thinking crap-holes that they are...and I apologize.

[Lou Sussler]

I'm still with -M.

[Dave]

Im hoping Starbucks doesnt move into Europe as Ive read they want to do in the past. Then they would definitely be the blue Walmart. The coffee houses in Europe have so much character than Starbucks, and if Starbucks trumps themselves on every corner throughout Europe, people are really gonna get sick of the US. Thinking of Moscow as an example... their coffee houses are all different & unique and the people making the coffee know what they are doing, do it all with precision, can recommend a perfect food or dessert to go with your choice of coffee and the atmosphere is incredible. Not to mention if I feel like having a shot of Baileys in my mocha its not a prob.

[Austin K.]

Heh... I love internet logic. "WalMart puts a local retailer out of business. Starbucks puts a local coffee shop out of business. Therefore, STARBUCKS IS TEH WALMART."

Its funny watching people jump to Starbucks defense at every turn. Any criticism directed at the company is obviously eco-labor-terriorist psycho babble.

It astounds me to see people take every bit of information Starbucks puts out and see it as undeniable truth. So sayeth Howie, so sayeth the Lord.

My point and my frusteration are simply that I do not see enough critical thinking by people regarding Starbucks. I see hardline company loyalists and I see people who won't associate with me because I work for Starbucks. The middle ground doesn't exist for Starbucks the way it does Wal-Mart.

I think this particular blogger misses the point by attributing their local indie coffee shop's demise to a Starbucks opening up inside a Target nearby. I have not seen any indication of Starbucks putting small business out of business, but just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean its not happening. I'm open to someone proving me wrong.

Wal-Mart and Starbucks are similar it has nothing to do with party lines. They are both highly efficient machines with one mission: to turn a profit.

Believe it or not it is not Starbucks mission to provide clean water to people in thrid world countries. It is not Starbucks mission to rebuild New Orleans. It is not Starbucks mission to insure America's uninsured. All it has ever been about is making money and because of this Starbucks and Wal-Mart should start a club because they do it so well.

I just wish people would see all of the feel good hippie crap that Starbucks and Wal-Mart both do are designed to make us feel better as we spend our dollars. This is necessary because activists over the past few decades have forced the American consumer to recognize what they buy actually has an impact on the world. Activists made it unacceptable to do business and not do something for the community you do business in and the planet you do business on, not Howard Schultz or Sam Walton.

I think the more appropriate question that the blogger missed here is - Are there that many differences between Wal-Mart and Starbucks?

I come on this website quite a bit, I check the posts, I make some from time to time, so I know I'm about to get lambasted by company loyalists (which as company loyalists you should do if you feel so inclined). But remember, as consumers and as workers, the less we question the big guy, the less pressure we put on him - the less respect they have for what is in our best interests as consumers and workers. No company is beyond that from Starbucks to Wal-Mart to the Container Store to Whole Foods Market.

[sneetch]

"Believe it or not it is not Starbucks mission to provide clean water to people in thrid world countries. It is not Starbucks mission to rebuild New Orleans. It is not Starbucks mission to insure America's uninsured. All it has ever been about is making money and because of this Starbucks and Wal-Mart should start a club because they do it so well."

believe it or not EVERY business in America is, and will always be about "making money" no matter what their name is (Starbucks...Walmart...McDonald's...Pete's...Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf...Gap). i don't say that because i'm a "company loyalist"; i say that because i understand how America works. America is set up to allow businesses to work the way they work. if you don't like it, go live somewhere else.

Well that was very patriotic. Looks like Sean Hannity is a Starbucks fan guys. Next were going to be talking about how Starbucks betrayed "America" by going into Red Communist China.

Since it looks like immigration to a new country is in my future because I have been asked to leave by someone who "understands how the United States works," I will have to be brief.

Starbucks, Wal-Mart, the Gap, etc. do not need to be punished for making money. But when these businesses do make money everyone who is a stakeholder in that business should at least not have to suffer or have their human rights trampled on.

Of to Cuba now, gotta run!!!

[LeftyGrrrl]

Biggest difference between Starbucks and Wal-Mart?

ETHICS!

[-m]

Why is everyone trying to politicize EVERYTHING? Its just coffee for fuck sake! I don't care if my customers are ankle-biting liberals or gun-toting conservatives. Starbucks is a place to enjoy a nice cup of coffee and relax. Note the total lack of soap boxes in the lobby. Stop embarrassing yourselves.

The "red state-blue state" metaphor, weak to begin with, has become tired and worn.

Try "blue city". Cafe culture has never played in Peoria.

[Boston Starbucks Rebel]

First of all, let me tell you that saying that Starbucks necessarily indicates Democrat is not totally true. Here in Boston, Starbucks is engaged what I see as a coffee cold war against Dunkin' Donuts. It seems to me that many of the people in the city are simply divided over where they go. Some of the Dunkin' Donuts fans who go there and then to Starbucks seem to convert to Starbucks. The fact of the matter that Starbucks often times creates a better product than other places and regardless of the political affiliations, it appears that Starbucks will ultimately win. A logical fallacy posited by many is known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc. They seem to create a connection of causality without necessarily providing other premises. Just because Starbucks happens to be in "blue states" doesn't mean that it is necessarily Democratic. Remember that Starbucks is a large multinational corporation that benefits greatly from Republican economic ideology. Now if a Starbucks opens in Iraq in a few months, will Michael Moore come out with a movie about how we went to Iraq so Starbucks could open coffee shops there?

[LeftyGrrrl]

Starbucks donates 80% of it political donations to the Democratic Party. It also donates to the Green Party.

[-m]

Leftygirl, you are so full of it that your eyes are brown. Starbucks has done no such thing.

Actually -M according to buyblue.org what leftygrrrl is saying is true. Wheres she's a little of the mark is she thinks that donating to the DNC translates into ethics.

Unless leftygrrl is a Libertarian like you -M then she would be totally against Starbucks illegal union avoidance campaign in NYC, at least judging by her supposed affiliations.

Boston Starbucks Rebel hit the nail on the head with the mulitnational corporation that benefits greatly from Republican (I'd say conservative)economic ideology bit.

Starbucks and Wal-Mart by virtue of what they do to survive are the same. It has nothing to do with red or blue states.

[-m]

Wow, if you read it on a website, it must be true. Not very picky where we get our "facts" from are we?

[LeftyGrrrl]

Well, M, considering where you got this interesting 'gossip' from, you're not real picky either. I like how you're attacking me and not my 'facts.' So charmingly amateur.

Also, don't believe it? Disprove it. A companies political donations are public if it is a publicly traded/held company. Private companies do not have to divulge such info to the public, and they may even make donations through an individual instead of the company. Starbucks has publicly traded stock, and thus cannot be a private company.

Lastly, the ethics I was referring to put Starbucks in stark contrast to Wal-Mart.

Starbucks provides health benefits for their part-time employees after only 90 days of work. Further, you only have to work 20 hours a week to earn and maintain benefits. Wal-Mart requires part-time employees to work for 2 years before getting benefits, and Wal-Mart pays a lower percentage toward those benefits than Starbucks.

Starbucks doesn't lock illegal immigrants inside of its stores overnight for cleaning. Wal-Mart does.

Folgers, Maxwell House, and other such national coffee brands pay half of what Starbucks pays for the same pound of coffee. Last I checked, Wal-Mart carried both Folgers and Maxwell House. Sure, they're less expensive, but they're also cheaper.

Wal-Mart strong arms vendors. Last I checked (by looking at the vendors receipt, thank you) my store pays about 10 cents less per gallon than your average consumer. And if the grocery store is having a sale? You're paying less than my store.

But maybe it just depends on what your ethics are. By ethics, I meant treating employees fairly, having a fair and legal and ethical business model. Starbucks qualifies. Wal-Mart doesn't. And, I find it refreshing that a company as large as Starbucks donates money to someone other than the Republicans.

Of course Starbucks is running a business, of course they are making a lot of money. That doesn't mean they aren't being ethical about it.

If you want to compare Starbucks to a big box retailer, fine. But compare it to Costco, not Wal-Mart. I'm sending you an email with the article.

[shab]

If the general populus cared what the activists said, they wouldn't steer their SUV's or pickups to the nearest Tim Horton's drive-thru on their way to Wally's.

(If it wasn't for Starbucks, the brits would still be drinking freeze dried crystals!)

[Dave]

unions are overrated. onions are still good though.

I've heard unions called many things but overrated is not one of them... until now.

I'm down for cutting and edgy statements so I'm going to throw one out there. Wal-Mart may be a little underrated and I dare say, overhated.

And just to piss the general forum off I'm going to say Starbucks is overrated.

But enough with the general and politically charged statements. Lets talk about Starbucks plans to aggressively and premptively expand into Iraq!!!

[michelle]

the difference between starbucks and wal-mart

1. wal-mart pays significantly less for their products that they sell than the mom and pop stores and their competition. for example, they have a deal with johnson and johnson, therefore the products that j&j has they get at a discount b/c they buy in bulk. Starbucks pays more than the average price paid by other coffee retailers when buying coffee beans. don't believe me? check the finance reports.

2. wal-mart sells their product for less than their competitors. starbucks sells their product for more than their competitors. half of the starbucks haters complain that we sell our venti coffee for 5 dollars. the other half of you complain that we are a wal-mart like giant. if we are selling a bad cup of coffee (according to you) for five bucks why are the consumers buying it? I thought consumers wanted the cheapest product. thats not us. accordign to that theory they shouldnt shop at starbucks.

3. starbucks offers health insurance, 401K, insurance for your boyfriend/girlfriend/life partner, retirement accounts, stocks. last i heard, wal-mart employees were being sued b/c they werent getting that.

4. starbucks pays their employees more than the minimum wage. i have worked in retail, office setting, adn when you consider benefits and pay I get more from starbucks than i get from a lot of other jobs in the same category when you have to consider i go to school full-time as well. the hours are flexible at my store b/c its open 530-1230 am and its close to school.

[deusx]

The women who work for Starbucks are on average far hotter than the average female WalMart employee. Viva la difference!

The average Starbucks barista does tend to be more attractive than the average Wal-Martian. I agree with that 110%.

Wal-Mart last I checked is being sued I believe over unpaid overtime and gender discrimination. Not because their co-pays and deductibles are too high, or else we'd all be suing.

Starbucks also has class action lawsuit being filed against it for unpaid overtime - by managers of all people, go figure. Starbucks and Wal-Mart employees also share a passion for organizing labor unions. Starbucks and Wal-Mart share a passion for union busting, the illegal kind. Say what you want about unions, the law is the law and Starbucks is willing to break the law to break up any sort of organizing within its stores.

Unions are doing wonders for our auto industry.

[deusx]

Aww cmon. You mean that high school graduate pushing four buttons all day DOESN'T deserve 22 dollars an hour and paid medical benefits? You are totally a puppet of the corporate elite. Not only should we ALL be unionized, but we should get to vote for who our managers are and be paid a million dollars a year.

Central to being an American is the belief that Life, Liberty and the right to pursuit ones happiness are inalienable rights.

$22 an hour is not a high wage. $22 an hour is $880 week. If you are supporting children or an ailing parent, if your rent for a one room apartment is $1,000 a month, and food is and transportation is another $500 to $800 a month as it is in many metro areas, then $22 an hour is a minimum wage for sustaining life.

Health care is essential for sustaining life. Withholding the means of sustaining life for works no matter what they do is to alienate them from their life.

Similarly the dictatorship of the workplace alienates workers from their Liberty.

To support therefor that for any reason Life and Liberty should be alienated from humans is unconscionable and Un-American.

[deusx]

Food and transportation 800 dollars a month? Jesus christ are you 1000 pounds and rent a hemi diesel by the week to drive your fat ass to work? 3,520 dollars a month is about twice what I make and I live a fairly comfortable life. But of course, I have sense and live in an area my budget can support.

Move the fuck out of NY if you can't afford the rent you pretentious fucks. The average rent anywhere else for a one bedroom place would be about 400 dollars cheaper. Your arguement holds no water, it is no one's right to pay you enough money to live where you want to live. People should be paid what they are worth, that worth being a result of the time and effort they put into making themselves a useful, skilled workers. Just barely graduating from high school and doing dick other than joining a union doesn't entitle them to jack.

3,520 dollars a month is about twice what I make and I live a fairly comfortable life.If that is true than the union should get me 1.3 million a year b/c that would be minimum wage to support life in Beverly Hills where I want to live.

[BaristaIND]

i don't care enough to read the actual blog.. but i do think that starbucks has more pride and character than wal-mart and mc donald's. i also think its partners take more pride in the company than either. but the red state/blue state comparisions are just statistics. i work at one in the republican state of Indiana [being a Dem personally] but do i consider ours more republican?