3 ms·

It seems like did change the business model - they decided to close shops in unprofitable locations.

• tchaffee 4y ago
  That's always been part of their business model. What they didn't do - because it's illegal - is close shops because they unionized.
• newswasboring 4y ago
  I hope you are joking because this is the worst take I've seen in forever on this topic. It doesn't even address my original point. If the only profitable Starbucks outlet is the ones with bad working conditions then perhaps they shouldn't exist.
  • cercatrova 4y ago
    You seem to be moralizing them, eg "then perhaps they shouldn't exist," "maybe its time to change the business model", etc. You said "then they need to be better at business" and when they changed their business model to be "better at business" by closing unprofitable stores, it's like you said, "no, not like that" as it sounds like you don't like how they took your advice. The fact is closing unprofitable branches is how many companies make money, they don't run a charity after all.
    • newswasboring 4y ago
      You again don't engage with my point. If the only profitable stores are exploitative why would society tolerate this? This is not a market issue, it is indeed a moral issue.
      • cercatrova 4y ago
        > it is indeed a moral issue. But corporations don't have morals, so they'll continue to do as they do currently. If you want to change that, you should have legislation that makes them abide by whatever you think is immoral. Don't confuse your moral standard with that of amoral corporations who are incentivized to simply make as much money as possible.