What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee’s singing debut.
57 Comments
- MalarkeyPN, on 06/26/2009, -3/+27***** you Starbuck's, quit trying to appeal to my demographic.
- RiotHeart, on 06/27/2009, -1/+20I wonder what the ones in the slums of Detroit would look like then
- HurricaneDC, on 06/27/2009, -1/+19A few fake corpses, some chalk outlines of bodies, bullet casings super-glued to the floor, and a real live crackhead.
- bbhill, on 06/27/2009, -1/+19i like to make coffee from my apartment. The coffee is always hot, cheap, and the apartment blends in with the neighborhood perfectly. . .
- lolwatermelon, on 06/27/2009, -2/+16So you're saying you don't go to Starbucks?
- nicktomyskins, on 06/27/2009, -0/+13they don't post prices for some drinks? what is this louis vuitton
- lolwatermelon, on 06/27/2009, -1/+10It wouldn't be as offensive if it wasn't so blatant.
- cyrusaman, on 06/27/2009, -0/+7You should read George Orwell's essay "Politics of the English Language." You may end up being a less pretentious writer.
- Gr1nch, on 06/27/2009, -1/+8They don't need a union. I'm sorry, but being a Barista is not a career. If you're good enough, you should be promoted to shift supervisor or ASM/Store Manager at which point you will be making the amount of money that it does become a career and it can sustain you well enough. General cashiers and baristas don't need a union. It would ruin their stock and serve no help to them. Could you imagine if all the starbucks went on strike? They'd lose business so quick they'd never recover. I've been hearing this union BS for years now. I mean f*** me, we're not even tamping our own shots anymore. It's not a hard job $13.00/hr is well enough wage for a barista's responsibilities.
- spartan777, on 06/27/2009, -0/+5Beware of greenwashing. Most of this sort of thing is just that :(
- jhails, on 06/27/2009, -0/+4Move to Canada and go to Tim Hortons. Friendly fast service, no uppity hipster wannabees, great coffee at reasonable prices, a huge assortment of donuts and pastries and no trendy marketing speak about saving the environment.
- staystilljason, on 06/27/2009, -1/+5ghetto
- drknockrz, on 06/27/2009, -0/+3This is wrong. Most cheap goods take advantage of the fact that gas and disposal are cheap, but skilled local (I'm assuming you're American like I am) American labor is not. A cotton shirt made in Malaysia using sweatshop labor out of cotton grown in the USA using chemical fertilizers derived from fossil fuels that was shipped as cotton, shipped back as a finished product, and trucked to your local WALMART for sale will invariably be cheaper than an organic cotton shirt made in the USA. With modern bulk transportation infrastructure, production is post-Fordian, which is to say it does not require a fixed supply chain and manufacturing can be done wherever it is cheapest, which currently is far away. So a cheap shirt in this world economy will most likely have created a HIGHER amount of emissions than a more expensive shirt made locally. QED.
- satori3000, on 06/27/2009, -2/+5So does this mean they're going to stop choking the environment with their cups and cup cozies?
- r00fus, on 06/27/2009, -0/+3<i>To the extent that negative externalities are included in the cost of gas</i>
Not nearly enough... most "externalities" (oh like the cost of war to keep the oil flowing) are NOT calculated into the cost of gas, but distributed across all income and other taxes. - ak666jk, on 06/27/2009, -1/+3It would be foreclosed.
- MtheoryX, on 06/27/2009, -0/+2They follow the mantra of "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it."
- EvoldicA, on 06/27/2009, -0/+2Tim Hortons is yum... Now I want to travel to Canada again.. moving there is too difficult :/
- Gr1nch, on 06/27/2009, -3/+5This is a good idea. I can say as an employee the fabricated culture is rather funny. Every store looks the same You have an A B or a C layout pretty much depending on the size of your store. With the Coffee Racks and the Cups for sale that have to look "this way".
It would be nice to see if they could spend more time designing their stores in maybe a way that Apple designs their stores. Not necessarily all the glass and po-mo stuff, but just individualize them a bit more. - iamacyborg, on 06/27/2009, -1/+3Huh. I liked gist of his point; but yours is an excellent observation. I have actually read the essay you're referencing. I must agree that while Stochio has a good idea, I feel I am missing something in the phrase "to the extent that negative externalities".
- DirtyVicar, on 06/27/2009, -1/+3Don't worry, I think they'll work extra hard to put some special cream in your coffee.
- grimacebrown, on 06/27/2009, -3/+5I hope they realize 'Bio-Friendly' outlets are never going to lure in the elusive coffee-drinking hippie that they are aiming at with this...
They are still going to be hated by that group of people as long as they are a multi-national corporation and can't tout free-trade practices. - iamacyborg, on 06/27/2009, -1/+3I think what you're actually saying is; "Gas and disposal cost money. Gas and disposal are negative for the environment. The greater the amount of gas and money used, the higher the price of the product. Therefore, it is the lowest priced product which uses the least quantity of gas and disposal, therefore it is the lowest price product that is the most environmentally friendly."
There are problems with this point. Such as:
1.) Adding gas and disposal costs to a product in isolation would indeed directly increase both the cost and environmental impact of the product, however - you're comparing two instances of a product produced using different methods not a single consistent baseline.
2.) There are many other factors which can contribute to a high priced product. For example, sawing lumber by hand as opposed to using a lumber mill would be more "environmental" but much, much higher priced.
3.) There are many things which can detract from the "environmentalism" of a product but don't add to the price. For example, there could be a very environmentally damaging method for manufacturing plastics which is nonetheless much cheaper than the alternative.
I'm not disputing your conclusion that local is not always more environmentally friendly, but I think that your reasoning is invalid. - m0n0kr0m3, on 06/27/2009, -0/+2I believe that's called that misdirection.
- spanknrankn, on 06/27/2009, -0/+2Bio friendly? maybe. Wallet friendly? not a chance.
- breached, on 06/27/2009, -1/+3Canucks and their Tim Hortons. Yawn. So off topic. Unless you can tell us what Tim Horton's is doing to be more green???
- JakeBC, on 06/27/2009, -1/+3I have 10 Starbucks within a 10 block radius of my apartment. I refer to them as 'urban dandelions'. They all look the same to me...except for the one that blew up. That one was awesome...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jakeinvan/2262813974/ - breached, on 06/27/2009, -0/+2And why are we pissed off that Starbucks is doing something environmentally progressive? We should be applauding them for seeking LEED certification of their stores. If you don't like their coffee, don't drink it. But recognize when someone is doing some green.
- jgubbe, on 06/27/2009, -0/+1..flavored coffee....
- jotatmo, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1What about the coffee itself?
- Stochio, on 08/15/2009, -0/+1I know a bit of time has gone by but.....
This isn't actually the case quite often. Tom Standage goes through this analysis in an Edible History of Humanity.
As for as my language, yeah, I probably could have written more clearly. However, my point withstands the arguments being thrown at it. Everyone seems to be saying that gas or exotic plastics can pollute a lot and therefore I'm wrong. That's why I said "to the extent that". This language was included with purpose. If I removed it my point is incorrect. - kinseyincanada, on 06/27/2009, -0/+1hey i live in that neighborhood!
- Stochio, on 08/15/2009, -0/+1Yes, I think you get the main thrust of my point. I'd disagree with point #2. You need to consider that there is competition for lumber. So although the cost to produce may be higher, it may not be purchased. Even if we eliminate competition and just focus on the environmentalism of it, you need to expand the analysis. Cutting lumber by hand is not without any additional pollution. For your comparison to be fair, you need to compare the inputs required to get to the same about of output (lumber). The workers will have to saw for several days to produce the same amount of lumber. And to do that they will have to drive to and from work a lot more. And they will injure themselves more. And they'll have to go to the hospital more. And that will require more resources which will be worse for the environment.
So I am not sure that my original point is wrong. When you put the cost to the environment into the cost of the harmful product, you solve the problem. That's all negative externality means. - jgubbe, on 06/27/2009, -1/+2Being a member of Local 86 Ironworkers I completely agree. Some unions are diluting the idea of unionizing. Some demand more than they deserve or fail to recognise that many workplace protections have already been put in place to their advantage by real hard working men and women who risk their lives for their jobs.
My union was founded to make the employers pay for funeral costs of workers who died on the job, rather than burden the wives and families of the deciest. We still carry the same tradition today by only demanding a living wage.
Unionizing is a greatway to demand basic rights and needs but should have no place for greed. Work for your money.
And sorry for the spelling and grammer mistakes for I am to busy to learn because I am busy bulding the schools. - jgubbe, on 06/27/2009, -1/+2Starbucks FAIL!
I find it very interesting that I see more littered starbucks cups than other.
Starbucks regular = Douchbag
What about the waste caused by putting local bussiness under. If they really cared they would help existing coffee shops out by spreading greener techniques and methods. - cplusplus, on 06/27/2009, -0/+1Or you could just go to that cafe in your neighborhood that's owned and run by a guy how lives there.
- S2ThaNizzle, on 06/27/2009, -0/+1Oh please, friendly is the last word I would describe them. Not to mention that I can't forgive Timmy's for misusing the word "cappucino" in both hot and cold forms, and misleading everyone to think an "Iced Cappucino" is a coffee-mixture slushie.
- NecroSexy, on 06/27/2009, -0/+1In other words, cheaper infrastructure.
- Majora26, on 06/27/2009, -2/+2How about my small cup of coffee isn't 5 bucks first?
- iamacyborg, on 06/27/2009, -3/+3How does artificially increasing the cost of labor above the marginal productivity of that labor help anyone? All you're doing is decreasing the number of employees the company can afford to hire therefore depriving people who would otherwise be employed of jobs.
A barista just is not that productive. You have to work a latte machine, it really isn't a very productive job which warrants a high rate of pay. Maybe if someone invented a super-coffee machine that can produce 10 drinks in a minute, you could afford to pay the operator a lot more but barring that, no. - canadabluesfan, on 06/27/2009, -0/+0Tim Hortons is amazing. their coffee is good, their donuts are good, and their actual food is decent.
an iced capp+ a chicken salad sandwich+ a boston cream donut = a helluve a meal - mr5150, on 06/27/2009, -1/+1whatever starbucks does will not make up for the putrid/***** stuff they pass off for coffee.
i do not like starbucks 'coffee' is blows chunks and its patron have no concept of coffee if starbucks is their measure. - MtheoryX, on 06/27/2009, -1/+1It would have to be staffed by lazy union workers bitching about foreign competitors and rubbing their benefits in the faces of people who actually work for a living.
Yeah, I said it. - etx313, on 06/27/2009, -2/+2Uglier, more creative, and more talented than you.
- jjamminjon, on 06/27/2009, -3/+3I feel so organic....
- mickeydawn02, on 06/28/2009, -0/+0I agree - going green usually requires an up-front investment. (For example, switching from gasoline to hybrid/electric vehicles). Sure they're doing it to appeal to consumers, but I think it's great that we have a population that wants to be more environmental, and that we as a ppopulace are able to influence corporations through our purchases and the businesses we chose to frequent.
- lipocs, on 06/27/2009, -6/+5starbucks is disgusting.
- diggsthis, on 06/27/2009, -2/+0i got an insane idea for starbucks..... how about you guys quit worrying about dumb ***** that people dont give a damn about, like say, bio-friendly neighborhood-tailored cafes... and concentrate on making your coffee cheaper
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is