5 ms·
Anecdotally, 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,
by _bxg1 7y ago
Anecdotally, 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 agoIntentions are not motivations. They may have great intentions, but Starbucks is absolutely acting in their own self-interest when they decided to come out with this policy. It has everything to do with changing the narrative following the incident in Philadelphia, referenced in the article.
- chance_state 7y ago>It's dystopian, of course, that the provision of basic needs like these falls to a private coffee chain [...] I live in a major metro city like Austin. The homeless can easily get three hot meals a day, a warm bed every night, and all the hygiene necessities they need for free. I don't think you should assume they're in Starbucks because the resources aren't available elsewhere.
- lazyasciiart 7y agoI live in a world informed about homelessness and resources available to them. You're wrong.
- dang 7y agoOk, but in that case a good HN comment should share some of what you know so that fair-minded readers can learn. "You're wrong" doesn't teach us anything. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lazyasciiart 7y agoI really didn't think anyone needed to learn that homeless people aren't swanning around every major city dining on hot meals three times a day and overwhelmed with choices on shelter and resources. In my experience literate people who argue otherwise are deeply committed to a false worldview and information is no more going to change their minds than a high school science course might change the Westboro Baptist Church.
- _bxg1 7y agoAustin at least has a massive shortage of homeless shelters. I don't think it's a rare case.
- pjc50 7y agoI find this very hard to believe, and if it's true, someone should tell San Francisco.
- 7y ago
- Scoundreller 7y agoAnd while it's hard to measure, a lot of people do "support" Starbucks with their wallet because of that. Some don't, but on average, it can be a net positive. It's the kind of thing you need a scientific study with randomization to tease out. You can control for all the confounders you want, but you can never control for unknown/difficult to estimate confounders, like human emotion.
- _bxg1 7y ago> you need a scientific study Or just... the fact that the company is still doing it. That's the other thing that's weird to me about this study: surely Starbucks itself has already studied and worked out the calculus that the PR effect is a net positive?
- HenryBemis 7y agoI bet SBUX can easily issue a report with the traffic pre & post policy change. They measure everything from sales, identify unique customers (debit/credit cards), WiFi connections, etc. It would be easy to show a report how this policy change lead to which results for each store/city/state. And they also have the analytics capabilities to also layer this by richness/poverty levels for each point of sale.
- Scoundreller 7y agoThe interesting aspect of the study is that they compared Starbucks to nearby cafes/restaurants. So nearby locations could have had a 10% increase while Starbucks had a 3% increase. While SBUX has all that data, they would only see their own data.
- 29083011397778 7y agoThe linked paper (even just the abstract) states there's ~7% less attendance, and ~4% less time spent at most Starbucks locations. Even if people vote with their wallets, it doesn't seem to be making up the difference as others avoid Starbucks in response to this policy.
- 7y ago
- c0nsilienc3 7y agoAs you said, it's an anecdote. And it's nice that it works out in that one location. Alternatively, I've seen how this has affected Starbucks in the nicer parts of San Francisco and the East Bay. Some Starbucks locations smell horrible, some of the restrooms are trashed and there is toilet paper everywhere. In one Starbucks on Market Street, a homeless person decided to hole up in the restroom and take a nap on the nice, cool floor with the a/c going. I can never support forcing a private business into offering a public utility.
- _bxg1 7y ago> forcing a private business into offering a public utility But this was decided by Starbucks itself? I totally agree that the public sector needs to step up and offer its own solution. But in the absence of that, this is better than nothing.
- c0nsilienc3 7y agoAh you are correct. It was Starbucks' decision after the following incident: >"In April, two African American males were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks after one asked to use the restroom but was told only paying customers could use them. After he sat down with his friend while waiting to be joined by a business associate for a meeting, the police came and arrested both, sparking national outrage. Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson subsequently apologized to the victims and reached an undisclosed financial settlement."
- PierceJoy 7y ago> I can never support forcing a private business into offering a public utility. So I suppose you support increase taxation to fund these public utilities? Also, Starbucks wasn't forced to do this. They chose to.
- jjeaff 7y agoOr maybe they support decreased military spending or other waste to pay for it.
- kova12 7y agoWait until one of them snags your iphone