3 ms·
I mean, sure, this would annoy me to, but I don't understand the "Shame on you Starbucks" ending. Starbucks is the epitome of an optional luxury with a million
by hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I mean, sure, this would annoy me to, but I don't understand the "Shame on you Starbucks" ending. Starbucks is the epitome of an optional luxury with a million possible replacements. As the commenter said, "I am slowly turning to my Nespresso machine to make my drink now", which is exactly what should happen. Starbucks will raise their price until the point that people no longer think it's worth it.
I wrote about this in a related comment recently, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39889890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39889890. There are many "nice, but not extravagantly fancy" restaurants that I would go to when it was about ~$60 per person. Some of these same places are now $100 and above per person, and at that price I won't go.
- Gigachad 3y agoI see this so much these days. I totally get being upset about rents, utilities, and supermarket food. But Starbucks and such are entirely unnecessary, there are no ethics or shame involved here. If it’s not worth the price, don’t buy it. You don’t have to buy it.
- dylan604 3y ago> Starbucks will raise their price until the point that people no longer think it's worth it. You not it's not too expensive when people are still buying it. If it were truly too expensive, nobody would buy it. I can't remember where I first heard that, but I do remember having a hyperbole comment after that that was followed with, "just because you can't afford it doesn't make it too expensive. it just means you can't, not that others can't". sometimes, you just want to throttle pedants
- pradn 3y agoIt's probably better for society for people to frequent third-places more. More sociability, connections - the human touch. It's of course just selling overpriced sugar drinks, but there's also this aspect.