The problem I have with this argument is Starbucks has become so ubiquitous they stand as a meeting place within a community. What does that mean? Imagine the

The problem I have with this argument is Starbucks has become so ubiquitous they stand as a meeting place within a community. What does that mean? Imagine the contrast of meeting inside a posh restaurant and not buying anything, versus meeting at, say a 7-11 convenience store. The first one is not imaginable, but the second seems possible. (Have you ever been in a 7-11? Those workers don’t give a hoot about much of anything. Day old hot dogs on rollers). If you’re in a private business which has this ‘meeting place’ reputation I think they are more lax with the buy ‘something or leave’ norm. That’s were I find objection with this story. Of course particular owners, employees, locations, and the behavior of the non-buying guests are what makes the difference between _no harm, no foul_ and nuisance disturbance of the actual paying customers. Devil is in the details.