4 ms·

Having jets contrary to many believes it's not a bad thing, using it for stupid thing is. If you need to travel, for instance to expect a new remote production

by kkfx 2y ago

Having jets contrary to many believes it's not a bad thing, using it for stupid thing is. If you need to travel, for instance to expect a new remote production site, a potential acquisition, getting to know well something up somewhere where you have interests, it's not wrong at all. Travel just to show up in the office, like a religious act, a ritual probably to justify RTO policies needed by the company to stay alive not because they need people in the office but because they live on cities and with WFH as the default, having already lost industries with '80s globalization, cities are simply dead with their Barnum circus including therein Starbucks that have no substantial reason to exist in business without the "ritual, polite, city-stile suit and tie/tailleur" way of living. This act means a thing: Starbucks is a no future company, desperately attached to a past model that can't exists anymore, so having no substantial reason they switch to rituals, imposing them on their own, chiefs included, to trying keeping up.

firesteelrain 2y ago
We don’t know how often he will use this corporate jet. They are going to stand up a remote office with his own assistant. He could very well be in Seattle once a week and everything else handled via Zoom.
- depr 2y ago
  We do know. He is expected to be in Seattle at least three days a week.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    Okay then seems reasonable to travel. I know plenty of execs that commute once a week
    - kkfx 2y ago
      That's not the point, is not a matter of frequency, how many miles or so, it's a matter of WHY showing up in a office if your work could be done from remote, even in the company jet, reading their news? Why having an office at all, if that's not needed in modern time, since we haven't paper anymore and so we do not need a unique physical place to work and keep a paper archive? My unproven response is that's simply a ritual because Starbucks will die without modern cities, or will die without mid/high income office workers with a certain mindset who like being in places like Starbuks. A cohort of people who will change mindset if WFH. Did you see the impact of the "covid" switch on airlines, hotels NOT due to the lack of tourist but due to the change in working travelers, with conferences moved to remote meeting, business trips much reduced due to remote meetings and so on? That's the point: could Starbucks live without the office, not it's own office, but the office model, or the modern city model, since most factories are not in cities anymore and in modern city the economy, at least in the west is essentially driven by the tertiary sector and could such modern city model live? My personal take it's a double no. I expect cities slowly evolve in ghetto's for poor and desperate people, a cohort not likely to buy Starbucks, and so despite the substantial ritual of "being in an office at least some days per week", their business model is doomed IMVHO, not tomorrow morning, things do change slowly, but in not much years in the future anyways, rituals do work only a bit, if the economy underneath is flawed they can keep things up for a bit more, but not save the game.
      - firesteelrain 2y ago
        “ could Starbucks live without the office, not it's own office, but the office model, or the modern city model, since most factories are not in cities anymore and in modern city the economy, at least in the west is essentially driven by the tertiary sector and could such modern city model live?” Plenty of people go to Starbucks that don’t live in big cities. Lots of rural people love SB and those who live in towns of 20-30k or less even. “ Did you see the impact of the "covid" switch on airlines, hotels NOT due to the lack of tourist but due to the change in working travelers, with conferences moved to remote meeting, business trips much reduced due to remote meetings and so on?” Yes and it was a shame because we never should have shutdown. “ A cohort of people who will change mindset if WFH.” People still went to Starbucks during the shutdown.
        kkfx 2y ago
        > Plenty of people go to Starbucks that don’t live in big cities. Lots of rural people love SB and those who live in towns of 20-30k or less even. People in small or medium cities I do not know, but rural people I doubt for a simple reason: where is SB outside cities? To sustain their costs they need a certain size, not available in spread area, while the small Old Joe pub perfectly can. > Yes and it was a shame because we never should have shutdown. I agree about the shutdown, but I'm not talking about it but SINCE it or the fact many realize that there is no damn need to meet in person for countless of activities from the till today simply decide there is no sense doing in-person conferences and so on. That's the impact I'm talking about, of course airlines for cargoes have compensate much of the loss because we still need to move goods for a distance that a cargo is the cheapest not only the fastest option, tourism still exists (and that's perfectly fine) but no need to move for many business activities. > People still went to Starbucks during the shutdown. No doubt, but when you decide to leave the city, perhaps a very expensive and even very small apartment for a home in a nice place with plenty of nature, a nice garden, a nice veranda depending on the climate, why going to a luxury bar when you can have it at home, without the need to dress and with anything you like done as you like? Restaurants it's another thing, you go to eat something you do not typically cook at home, but a bar? I'm Italian, living in France, my cappuccino is definitively better than a SB one, I do not need to register myself, I only need the good roasted coffee and some sufficiently fat milk. Why bother to get dressed and go somewhere if I can just open a door and have a better alternative? In a dense city, full of noise, things are different but in nature with plenty of space I can have friends at home, outside, inside, in both in total comfort.

by kkfx 2y ago

firesteelrain 2y ago

We don’t know how often he will use this corporate jet. They are going to stand up a remote office with his own assistant. He could very well be in Seattle once a week and everything else handled via Zoom.

depr 2y ago
We do know. He is expected to be in Seattle at least three days a week.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  Okay then seems reasonable to travel. I know plenty of execs that commute once a week
  - kkfx 2y ago
    That's not the point, is not a matter of frequency, how many miles or so, it's a matter of WHY showing up in a office if your work could be done from remote, even in the company jet, reading their news? Why having an office at all, if that's not needed in modern time, since we haven't paper anymore and so we do not need a unique physical place to work and keep a paper archive? My unproven response is that's simply a ritual because Starbucks will die without modern cities, or will die without mid/high income office workers with a certain mindset who like being in places like Starbuks. A cohort of people who will change mindset if WFH. Did you see the impact of the "covid" switch on airlines, hotels NOT due to the lack of tourist but due to the change in working travelers, with conferences moved to remote meeting, business trips much reduced due to remote meetings and so on? That's the point: could Starbucks live without the office, not it's own office, but the office model, or the modern city model, since most factories are not in cities anymore and in modern city the economy, at least in the west is essentially driven by the tertiary sector and could such modern city model live? My personal take it's a double no. I expect cities slowly evolve in ghetto's for poor and desperate people, a cohort not likely to buy Starbucks, and so despite the substantial ritual of "being in an office at least some days per week", their business model is doomed IMVHO, not tomorrow morning, things do change slowly, but in not much years in the future anyways, rituals do work only a bit, if the economy underneath is flawed they can keep things up for a bit more, but not save the game.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      “ could Starbucks live without the office, not it's own office, but the office model, or the modern city model, since most factories are not in cities anymore and in modern city the economy, at least in the west is essentially driven by the tertiary sector and could such modern city model live?” Plenty of people go to Starbucks that don’t live in big cities. Lots of rural people love SB and those who live in towns of 20-30k or less even. “ Did you see the impact of the "covid" switch on airlines, hotels NOT due to the lack of tourist but due to the change in working travelers, with conferences moved to remote meeting, business trips much reduced due to remote meetings and so on?” Yes and it was a shame because we never should have shutdown. “ A cohort of people who will change mindset if WFH.” People still went to Starbucks during the shutdown.
      - kkfx 2y ago
        > Plenty of people go to Starbucks that don’t live in big cities. Lots of rural people love SB and those who live in towns of 20-30k or less even. People in small or medium cities I do not know, but rural people I doubt for a simple reason: where is SB outside cities? To sustain their costs they need a certain size, not available in spread area, while the small Old Joe pub perfectly can. > Yes and it was a shame because we never should have shutdown. I agree about the shutdown, but I'm not talking about it but SINCE it or the fact many realize that there is no damn need to meet in person for countless of activities from the till today simply decide there is no sense doing in-person conferences and so on. That's the impact I'm talking about, of course airlines for cargoes have compensate much of the loss because we still need to move goods for a distance that a cargo is the cheapest not only the fastest option, tourism still exists (and that's perfectly fine) but no need to move for many business activities. > People still went to Starbucks during the shutdown. No doubt, but when you decide to leave the city, perhaps a very expensive and even very small apartment for a home in a nice place with plenty of nature, a nice garden, a nice veranda depending on the climate, why going to a luxury bar when you can have it at home, without the need to dress and with anything you like done as you like? Restaurants it's another thing, you go to eat something you do not typically cook at home, but a bar? I'm Italian, living in France, my cappuccino is definitively better than a SB one, I do not need to register myself, I only need the good roasted coffee and some sufficiently fat milk. Why bother to get dressed and go somewhere if I can just open a door and have a better alternative? In a dense city, full of noise, things are different but in nature with plenty of space I can have friends at home, outside, inside, in both in total comfort.