14 ms·
The Perils of Private Provision of Public Goods
- klyrs 7y agoSo, homelessness combined with a lack of public facilities is a burden on businesses with humanitarian policies? Is this the "invisible hand" correcting an overlooked externality?
- allovernow 7y agoWhat's the externality here?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- elliotec 7y agoThe point is they knew it would be bad for business and did it anyway in a rare case of corporate empathy. EDIT: Okay corporations aren't people therefore cannot have empathy. Can we say "forced empathy?" There's probably a real word here. Either way Starbucks budged under some moral compass forced or otherwise.
- Shivetya 7y agoit was grand standing trying to curry favor from the outrage brigades on twitter and other sites which have turned into nothing but means to intimidate and humiliate. they were more than willing to put their own employees at risk and their customers to score political points while they can safely hide in their headquarters any never experience the issue first hand. this is no different than government officials in city hall pontificating to the rest how the rest need to accept homeless and more all the while protected in buildings with metal detectors and guards and security patrols for most of the higher ups.
- taurath 7y agoOr maybe they felt empathy for the homeless and determined there was actually little risk to their employees? What’s the simpler reason?
- luckylion 7y ago> What’s the simpler reason? That they made a business decision. Corporations don't have empathy, and CEOs wouldn't be where they are if they did.
- PostOnce 7y agoIs it empathy, or is it the realization that the decline could be worse if they develop a Nestle-style reputation and inspire boycotts or something? I won't rule out empathy, but it's not the first thing that jumps to mind for me.
- mav3rick 7y agoDamned if they do...damned if they don't. Why don't you just appreciate the actions if you can't assume someone is acting in good faith ? Have you opened up your bathrooms for the homeless ?
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoI feel like you've gotta either be willing to give the benefit of the doubt or treat empathy as by definition inapplicable to corporations. It's always possible to come up with a story where companies doing nice things are secretly just maximizing profits.
- rolltiide 7y agoThey can also fail at maximizing profits with an idea that was indistinguishable from empathy. Which therefore fits the term altruistic, whether they intended for this or not, as other businesses have not replicated what Starbucks is doing. With all these possibilities, alongside a potentially contrived ideal of a founder to actually subsidize public bathrooms for all, doesn't that mean it is useless to debate and just accept the reality at face value of "they are providing a service and its nice"
- PaulHoule 7y agoI remember Starbucks catching a lot of hell because on 2001-09-11 they made rescue workers pay for water a downtown NYC location.
- gentleman11 7y agoHow is everyone's Nestle boycott going btw? Our household has kept most nestle products out for the last several years, but its hard because they own so many brands that we just don't realize sometimes. An example for background (incomplete list of stuff they do): https://www.zmescience.com/science/nestle-company-pollution-children/ https://www.zmescience.com/science/nestle-company-pollution-...
- jacobriis 7y agoWhen you say empathy, what do you mean? I'm not a native English speaker and I am confused when I see this word used in political conversation a lot in a way which is not clearly related to the dictionary definition.
- keiferski 7y agoIt is often used as a synonym for “sympathy.”
- EpicEng 7y agoGP meant the dictionary definition >the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
- drongoking 7y agoThe word is commonly misused. What they probably mean is sympathy, but that isn't really right either. The correct word would be compassion or altruism. But /altruism/ is a word that sometimes sets people off.
- chrisseaton 7y agoSympathy is when you feel the same as someone else is feeling. Empathy is when you only understand how someone else is feeling. Corporate Starbucks people would be empathic but not sympathetic - they have access to the bathrooms anyway.
- ekianjo 7y agoNot empathy, that's for sure - you can reasonably assume that a company as big as Starbucks looked at every possible scenario, made a risk/benefit assessment (across several areas including PR) before deciding on this policy.
- YokoZar 7y agoI appreciate the cynicism, but I find it incompatible with more typical cynicism. This could just as easily be a single executive implementing a comprehensive policy without justification based on a personal hunch.
- anm89 7y agoAs other have pointed out, they probably didn't have a bunch of executives sit around in an empathy session. They made a cost benefit analysis that this was the best course of action given the current cultural/political climate. Nothing to do with empathy.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y agoWhat is Starbucks getting on the benefit side of the equation? Fewer visits, less money spent, and less time spent in locations.
- tmpz22 7y agoPeople are assuming a cost/benefit analysis was made and the right profit-generation decision arrived on. I’m more inclined to believe they guessed and they guessed wrong - trying to calculate the relative cost of Twitter outrages is impossible and over the next few years they will correct the decision based on homeless deterrence strategies they develop in the meantime.
- anm89 7y agoI think they traded a fixed reduction in sales for removing the possibility of a massive boycott / public image blowout. This is essentially an insurance policy.
- Zenst 7y agoPR has a positive as well as a negative value and the backlash from changing this would be negative PR and impact sales, if by carrying on they gain no value and more neutral PR. Though it is bemusing as a PR example as it is a case of allowing people to Pee or else they will go aRggghh. Public Relations will never sound the same from now on.
- leetcrew 7y agoI doubt it's a case of corporate empathy. about a year before the policy change, there was a viral story about how they kicked out two black men because they hadn't (yet) bought anything. the guys ended up getting arrested, and the whole thing was a PR disaster. it's hard not to see the bathroom policy as a direct (and calculated) response.
- Lammy 7y agoEveryone here is talking like they don't remember the protest. The restroom policy change was in response to a protest alleging them of racism. The homeless had nothing to do with it. From the linked study: > In May 2018, in response to protests, Starbucks changed its policies nationwide to allow anybody to sit in their stores and use the bathroom without making a purchase. From April 2018: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/17/603093380/protests-continue-at-philadelphia-starbucks https://www.npr.org/2018/04/17/603093380/protests-continue-a... > Protests continued Monday at a Philadelphia Starbucks where two black men were arrested Saturday after an employee accused them of trespassing.
- immichaelwang 7y agoIs there a study showing how much business they lost from the backlash when they didn't let people use the bathroom? This may be the better business decision.
- _bxg1 7y agoAnd there's no way this kind of study could factor that in. Maybe people don't go as often to the stores where this is prevalent, but maybe the positive image it gives them of the chain causes them to go to other franchises more frequently.
- ct520 7y agohate to be that dude, but that is why I don't enter starbucks in the hood. If there's a drive thru I stop. But the people loitering inside and the bathrooms are cray cray. seen my share of police called to Starbucks more than a corner store. No thanks. (also thinking maybe I go to starbucks too much lol)
- bdcravens 7y agoOne of the Starbucks I frequent in downtown Houston is .... not clean.
- seieste 7y agoOne of the things that bothers me about this study is the use of SafeGraph, which provided "anonymized" data that included GPS location, race, and income.
- ekianjo 7y agoEspecially since the data collection is pretty opaque to begin with: > According to SafeGraph’s privacy policy: “We obtain information from trusted third-party data partners such as mobile application developers, through APIs and other delivery methods. The data collection and use is governed by the privacy policy and legal terms of the data collector and the website using the data; it is not governed by SafeGraph.”
- NikolaeVarius 7y agoThe article specifically claims that Safegraph only provided location pings. All other data came from correlating that data with census data. The actual BS that is going on is that this data is being collected by "numerous smartphone apps (e.g. local news, weather etc.)" More reasons to not install apps unless necessary.
- bobbyi_settv 7y ago> More reasons to not install apps unless necessary. The reason is that my data might be anonymized and used to help make academic studies more accurate? I'm not losing sleep over that
- nitrogen 7y agoThe reason is that academic studies are the smallest fraction of who might want to buy and correlate these datasets.
- wideasleep1 7y ago"Welcome my son, welcome to the machine. Where have you been? It's alright, we know where you've been." Pink Floyd
- 7y ago
- the_burning_one 7y agoThe problem here is calculating in dollars and cents doesn't take into account what costs are externalized by businesses and borne by the population.
- JordanFarmer 7y agoEveryone involved would have been better off if Starbucks just started a charity to help homeless people. Political correctness and feelings (vs logic and foresight) just cause more problems.
- anm89 7y agoUnfortunately this isn't about helping people. I think they feel pressured to do some thing related to the physical stores to avoid an optics problem. And this is the problem they are trying to solve, not poverty.
- loeg 7y agoHomeless people really need public bathrooms! Showers would be great, too. So far, even west coast cities haven't really begun to attempt to build public bathroom infrastructure at any scale (AFAIK). Not in Seattle, anyway. Here, there are public parks, but often those bathrooms (and drinking fountains) are closed in the winter.
- Blake_Emigro 7y agoThere are some of these public toilets near the high-density of homeless in Vancouver, Canada, but not nearly enough.
- S_Wolframs_Ego 7y agoI wouldn't have thought so, a charity would unlikely do anything tangible, not in practice. The "unit" cost would be too high to accommodate their needs, as they'd be exclusive. (i.e. they need a place to hang out and non-homeless people would not go there). Likely better off set against the general flow of people through SB's or wherever - not that that is a remotely complete solution.
- notlukesky 7y agoThe flaw with private companies providing a public service is inevitably the erosion of demand for public goods and standards. The public sector should be held to higher standards considering how large their budgets are and most of it is spent wastefully. Europe and other developed countries have a far superior public goods availability, service and outcomes with similar GDP going to the public sector. In the US one has to compare all taxes including federal, state and city/county levels with other countries.
- jasonmp85 7y agoOne doesn’t have to anything, and indeed, I won’t. You’re concern trolling.
- Dylan16807 7y agoWhat do you think concern trolling is? And the "have to" has an implied "to get the math right". You're being weirdly hostile to take that literally.
- virissimo 7y agoIn general, Europe may have better provision of public goods, but I’m not sure this is true in the current context. For example, it’s much easier to find a free-to-use restroom in Phoenix, Arizona than in Paris, France.
- Scoundreller 7y ago> For example, it’s much easier to find a free-to-use restroom in Phoenix, Arizona than in Paris, France. Paris has a metro for that. edit: I bet Paris has more truly public free-to-use restrooms. It did take them a while to make them free and to keep many of them open at night. https://en.parisinfo.com/practical-paris/useful-info/public-toilets https://en.parisinfo.com/practical-paris/useful-info/public-...
- Invictus0 7y ago
- baryphonic 7y agoI was surprised when I visited the Starbucks on University Avenue in Palo Alto recently: the bathrooms require a code to enter. The baristas happily gave me the code, and I wonder if homeless are also able to get it, but it did seem a bit weird. Wouldn't an easier solution be to just say that bathrooms are reserved for customers?
- ficklepickle 7y agoThere are a few advantages. You can allow access to most non-customers but refuse heavily intoxicated people. The McDonalds near me sometimes has to call an ambulance due to an overdose or medical distress in the bathroom. If there was no access control, it would be less likely to notice someone not leaving the bathroom in a timely fashion. A bathroom OD isn't great for business, but a dead body is worse.
- Scoundreller 7y agoIn many places, health code requires all bars/restaurants over a certain size to have a washroom available. Customer-only restrictions are a dead end because want we people to wash their hands before buying/touching anything.
- seemslegit 7y ago"Using a large panel of anonymized cellphone location data" Some completely normal and academically ethical practices right here.
- Blake_Emigro 7y agoThis is exactly how Google maps knows traffic conditions.
- CriticalCathed 7y agoIt's not exactly the same. You're using a google product while they harvest your data, which is different than a company or researcher buying that data from a broker. Though I suppose Google could also be buying information separately.
- Scoundreller 7y agoAnd Google provides histograms of how busy a store is at each hour of the day. Of course, the least busy hours are always my work hours.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- seemslegit 7y agoIs there an on-by-default "use my location data to push dubious pro-corporate agenda under the guise of academic research" checkbox in google maps ?
- 0x1221 7y agoIt's surprising how many companies out there are selling similar datasets.
- scarejunba 7y agoWho else did you have in mind?
- NicolasGorden 7y agoOn an anecdotal note: As someone who is self employed, I used to sit at Starbucks a lot to get work done in a different environment than my home. Getting out really helps me. However, I've started to avoid Starbucks because of the homeless issue. I'm in SoCal, and I completely relate to the struggles of the homeless. I even donate my time to a local food pantry and our shelter. The smell and crazy stares are one thing, but what really drives me away is the bathroom use. The Starbucks near me have 1-2 bathrooms, and it's happened to me that these bathrooms can be occupied by a homeless person for 30+ minutes. This is an unreasonable amount of time for me to wait when I have to go and coffee is a diuretic. Now when I want to work outside my home I drive to a library that's in an area without public transportation or nearby places for the homeless to congregate, and I can use it because of that. There's a starbucks with similar characteristics (not near public transport, no place to congregate near by), but it's too far. The library that's closer to me, the one I would prefer to go to, is completely overrun by homeless. The homeless issue is so complex. Every solution has its pros and cons. The terrible thing is that there seems to be two sides to our communities and each side seems to only see the pros or cons of any solution (depending on their ideological bend) while the other does the same. No one seems to be weighing the pros AND cons in a reasonable way, or accepting that there are no perfect solutions. The issue is so polarized, even very intelligent people seem incapable of even admitting something as simple, and I would hope obvious, as the fact that any solution will have pros and cons. It's as if there's no getting past 'the other tribe has terrible ideas' mentality.
- jimbob45 7y agoShit solution: Would it be possible to enact some sort of hygiene requirement to come to these places?
- kova12 7y agogood luck enforcing that
- vladus2000 7y agoThere is a hobby shop by me that strictly enforces it, as nerds and hygiene don't always go together. I have seen them kick multiple people out. It doesn't seem to negatively impact their business, and I prefer going there to play games over one that is closer that does not have that rule (plus the other place tend to be hot which makes it even worse).
- _bxg1 7y agoAnecdotally, the Starbucks at the very center of downtown Austin usually has a couple of homeless people in it. They'll come in, use the bathroom, get some AC, maybe even take a nap in a chair. The baristas happily refill their cups with clean water. As a customer, there's sometimes a smell, and you tend to sit where you can keep an eye out (since you never know the mental state of people in that situation), but I've never witnessed any real problems. Honestly, it's heartwarming. It's dystopian, of course, that the provision of basic needs like these falls to a private coffee chain, but regardless of that I admire what they're doing (even though it's probably PR-driven, if we're being honest). It's not unpleasant enough for me as a customer that I'd refuse to go to that location (or even walk half a dozen blocks to the next one).
- smallgovt 7y ago> even though it's probably PR-driven, if we're being honest Thank you for judging people/organizations based on their actions and not their intentions. Intentions are complex and hard to accurately determine.
- _bxg1 7y agoNot for a publicly-held, international corporation. I'm sure the baristas' enactment of the policy is genuine, but public corporations do not have "intentions" other than to make money.
- MiscIdeaMaker99 7y ago
- tomcam 7y agoFWIW My outside “office” is a local McDonald’s and I far prefer it to Starbucks. Much less noisy and crowded. If you’re on a budget you can just buy a soft drink for $1 or go crazy and spend $1.19 on a cheeseburger as well.
- foxrider 7y agoOh yes, the coffee is great as well.
- csomar 7y agoI think the guy running the place matters more than the franchise name these days. I have found McDonald's that are superior to Starbucks and have even something like small "private" tables where you can work. But also some Starbucks have great views. I think where McDo wins is that it has more places running 24/7.
- TMWNN 7y ago>I think the guy running the place matters more than the franchise name these days. More to the point, most Starbucks in the world, other than kiosk ones in larger establishments, are corporate-owned. So Seattle's decision to open all Starbucks to unlimited loitering and bathroom usage affected all of them, leading to what people are discussing here. Less than 10% of McDonald's are corporate-owned. Franchisees, whether owning one or a hundred stores, are much more focused on the bottom line and less willing to tolerate homeless people driving away paid customers.
- S_Wolframs_Ego 7y agoThey are going the McDonald's route and trying to be a community hub. I.e. when everything else is gone, they (and McDonald's) will be the only place left to go.
- ivankirigin 7y ago> This decline cannot be calculated from Starbucks’ public disclosures, which lack the comparison group of other coffee shops. What about SecondMeasure and other credit card tools used for market share?
- Blake_Emigro 7y agoIn Vancouver, Canada, this is a problem. But we also have the bigger problem that the public bus system, operated by private companies, allow the homeless to get free rides. It makes some routes unbearable and even dangerous.
- Scoundreller 7y agoWith the exception of a small shuttle system, they're all owned/operated directly or indirectly by a municipality, or Translink, which is a quasi-public government-owned corporation. Could still be dysfunctional though.
- Blake_Emigro 7y agoRight, I forgot about the government tie-in. This part of free rides is definitely dysfunctional. Bus drivers aren't obligated to do anything, for their own safety, except notify the transit police.
- Scoundreller 7y agoDo the homeless get a card or something? How do they prove their situation?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Blake_Emigro 7y agoNope. They just walk on through the front door, or sneak in the back one when someone is getting off. I just spent the last 1.5 years commuting down Vancouver's infamous Hastings Street on the bus, and there's not a day goes by where you don't see something messed up. I moved last weekend in part to get away from it.
- yitchelle 7y agoCommunity involvement by a large corporation should be applauded. I wonder if there is a study to show how Starbuck's action is impacting on the homeless community. Is it positive or negative?
- Scoundreller 7y agoProbably positive? It's too bad they'd get a tax credit if they wrote a cheque to a charity, but nada for directly providing free bathrooms and cups of water to everyone everywhere.
- zelly 7y agoStarbucks had a great run from the early 2000s. I wouldn't have guessed that this is the way they go, but already I've noticed it's becoming less and less popular. Add in the long term effects of coronavirus on people's propensity on going out for going out's sake, the economic recession causing people to stop spending, increases in demographics who do not drink coffee, and you begin to see how Starbucks will decline massively like Blockbuster, Sears, et al. It started its decline a couple years ago after that incident that caused them to let anyone stay inside without paying. I'm not sure what will replace it. Probably nothing. People will just go back to meeting at restaurants, bars or each other's homes. Long alcohol.
- jcadam 7y agoTheir coffee has become quite mediocre as well. I remember when it used to be fairly good. There are several locally owned coffee shops where I live that serve much better stuff.
- tim58 7y agoI think this is a problem with scale. Starbucks has to make sure all of their coffee in all of their stores tastes the same. That's a lot easier to do with a locally owned coffee shop than it is with an international chain.
- jcadam 7y agoThere's probably a lot of truth to this. I've heard that they have to source their beans from many different suppliers and resort to over-roasting to ensure a more consistent (albeit, burnt) flavor. Most of the smaller shops source their beans from local roasters, or even do the roasting themselves.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y agoTheir coffee was never very good, hence the "Charbucks" nickname for their tendency to vastly over-roast their beans.
- 7y ago
- throwawaysbux 7y agoStarbucks had to eat the cost because being publicly lambasted for being "racist" for having private bathrooms turned out to be a greater cost.
- hrdwdmrbl 7y agoWhile traveling I often rely on Starbucks as one of the most reliable and convenient places I can go to use a washroom.
- jcadam 7y agoI've never seen a clean restroom in a Starbucks. They're about at the same level as gas stations.
- 8bitsrule 7y agoThe cure for homelessness is a home. Doesn't have to be fancy or big. To keeps costs down even further, build community facilities. Those who can afford it can pay some rent. I don't see that as a complex issue. It's simply rational. And where it's been tried, it works.
- tim58 7y agoWho pays for the home? Where do you locate the homes? How do you qualify for a free home? People will disagree endlessly about questions like these.
- jjeaff 7y agoThen who pays to maintain the home, pay the property taxes, utilities? Who pays to unclog the plumbing? Do you keep paying if they keep destroying things? Lacking a home is actually not the problem for the majority of the homeless. It's addiction and mental illness and both are very hard to treat, especially those unwilling to be treated.
- 8bitsrule 7y agoDamn ... I never thought of it! Mental illness and addiction must be the cause! living in a homeless encampment might be the best solution for mental illness! How foolish to think that being homeless might drive someone to become addicted!
- jjeaff 7y agoWho said a homeless camp was the best solution? I just said that buying and maintaining homes would not solve anything. You have to treat the source of the problem.
- 8bitsrule 7y agoOf course they will. Because action is painful for them.
- 7y ago
- miked85 7y agoStarbucks restrooms were always essentially public; anybody was able to go in and use them. The real issue is the restrooms are now apparently open for homeless people to use drugs and sleep in. That is bad for business.
- ChuckMcM 7y agoI wonder if cities would consider a liability waiver for any business that wanted to contribute to a public bath house. There are many different homeless programs in place but there are few places where the unhomed can shower and use a toilet. That leads to a host of other problems, like the Starbucks one mentioned. When I suggested to a city council member that perhaps one or more of these businesses in town could pitch in to build a bath house they were not supportive. My impression from "reading between the lines" was that the city was both "trying to be helpful" and trying hard not to be too helpful or too good which would encourage the homeless to converge here. If that really is the underlying policy I think it sucks.
- drivingmenuts 7y agoThat business would last as long as it took for an incident to happen. The liability waiver might shield it from direct economic losses from an incident, but there is no liability against public outrage, whether it’s deserved or not.
- stOneskull 7y agoi think they could have washers, dryers, irons and ironing boards, etc too
- MarkMc 7y agoThe problem is that the bathroom policy wasn't the only change. Around the same time you had many people suddenly labeling Starbucks racist for having two black men arrested [1]. So how much in the 7.3% decline of traffic is attributable to the bathroom policy change and how much to the racism issue? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/28/coffee-shop-racism-starbucks-arrests https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/28/coffee-shop-ra...
- DoreenMichele 7y agoFor those who don't know the backstory: Two black men in Philadelphia were arrested in a Starbucks. They were waiting to meet a white guy and showed up first. One of them asked to use the bathroom and someone who worked at Starbucks called the cops. The white person they were waiting to meet showed up as they were being handcuffed. This individual told the cops "I'm the person they are waiting for." and the arrest proceeded forward. The two men sued the city of Philadelphia and Starbucks corporate office decided to announce that anyone can use their bathrooms. These two black men were not homeless. They were just victims of racist bullshit and then Starbucks made a poor choice in the aftermath concerning how to handle this. Instead of firing the racist employee and admitting this was racist bullshit and apologizing for racist bullshit, they made a nice sounding policy change of "Anyone can use our bathrooms." I spent nearly six years homeless. I often went to Starbucks while homeless to buy coffee, plug in and use their wifi. I never spent excess time in the bathrooms or trashed the bathrooms. Starbucks did no one any good by making this policy change. This does not really help homeless people and did not really address the actual issue that led to this policy: Straight up racism. In fact, it swept the racism under the carpet and tried to pretend that wasn't really a problem. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and will probably never be genuinely addressed. Instead, Starbucks will end up being hurt, not learn a fucking thing and if they go out of business, people will whine about how it's a loss to the homeless community and say nothing about "Yeah, Starbucks and its racist bullshit basically deserved to die for not taking the bull by the horns and addressing the racism in this incident." Related link to make it easier to find more info on the incident if you so desire: “The police were called because these men hadn’t ordered anything. They were waiting for a friend to show up, who did as they were taken out in handcuffs for doing nothing. All the other white ppl are wondering why it’s never happened to us when we do the same thing.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/16/arrest-of-two-black-men-at-starbucks-for-trespassing-sparks-protests https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/16/arrest-of-tw... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/05/02/african-american-men-arrested-at-starbucks-reach-1-settlement-with-the-city-secure-promise-for-200000-grant-program-for-young-entrepreneurs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/05/02/a...
- publicgood123 7y agoEnormously clever and fun paper.