I'm not sure relying on that will be a very effective strategy for companies in service industries. They need their labor to mostly be near where their customers are. It was effective with heavy manufacturing like automobiles, because you could move (or threaten to move) factories to right-to-work states, and supply the whole U.S from a small number of factories. But that model doesn't really apply to Starbucks.
Well in stories like this I am reminded of the Viral Video of the Starbucks worker having a meltdown because they were asked to work gaaassssppp a 8hr shift, with only 5 other co-workers to help them........
I know the working conditions, and pay package offered by Starbucks, no one is suffering from systemic abuse there, they have more than enough benefits, and frankly their benefits priced Starbucks out for me, because I am not paying $7 for sugar water...
I have actually worked at starbucks and it's a far more difficult and degrading job, for far far less money, than the programming work I do now. I don't see what you gain by having contempt rather than solidarity for any workers.
Coming to think of it Starbucks is a great example to argue over since so many people have been college baristas or at least have a coffee addiction to defend.
I have also worked at a Starbucks and I disagree.
I never felt degraded. Their shift scheduling was and probably still is crazy inconsistent by default which is the only problem with them. For me it wasn’t that bad since as a student I simultaneously had lots of time on my hands, while also needed flexibility to not be at work whenever something school related comes up.
This would have been a big deal, had I a family to feed or if I required a set amount of money instead of just extra income. Starbucks isn’t really employment, it’s more like a gig like working an Uber.
The value of work is not tied to the physical effort involved in the work, this idea that if one "works harder" that means they should be paid more is naive and ignorant of modern society.
I have never contempt nor solidarity for any workers. I reject all forms of collectivism on principle and support forms of Voluntarism (philosophy), and Individualism.
I do have contempt of lazy, or entitled people that believe just because they were born they are entitled to things and should not have to work for food, housing, etc. That "necessities" should just be provided as if by magic.
No it isn't. If it were actually more difficult and degrading then Starbucks workers would be paid more than programmers and/or Starbucks wouldn't exist.
Working in a Starbucks is extremely easy compared to programming. You may find you enjoy programming and many of us are lucky to enjoy work that is in fact quite difficult, but take 100 people at random off the street and you will find that 100 of them can work in Starbucks given a few days training, no problem. The only ones who will be able to do any programming after a few days training are the ones who were already programmers.
Judging by your comments upthread, you’ll be happy to pay $7 for sugar water, as long as that money stays out of the middle class. What, you though they’d lower prices when they automated?
No offense, I've had the misfortune of being inside several Starbucks in my life, yes an employee had a piercing or dyed hair or something, but you come across as the entitled person having a meltdown right now.
I go to a store for their products, not because of or in spite of the workers, and I assume most people do as well, otherwise there wouldn't be the amount of people who shop at Walmart as there are.
Walmart is the largest employer in 21 states[0]. How would they exit operations in a state and still earn income from their brick and mortar stores in that state? Sure, they could move some centralized distribution centers if they're already kind of close to a convenient border, but for the most part they need the employees they have in each state because they're fundamentally a last-mile organization.
That said, NLRB/FTC/FCC/CFPB/etc regulatory rules are typically quickly reversed after presidents from opposing political parties take office. They are extremely weak on moderate timescales, compared to statutory legislation, which tends to stick around more often between shifts in power between parties.
1. Automation.. More Self Checkouts, more Kiosks, etc
2. Reduce local services. Many of them would become unprofitable anyway. This would be Deli, Custom Meat cutting, Fresh Meals, etc etc. This would be either outsourced or replaced with Regional Service servicing many stores to reduce head count
3. More Outsourcing. Manufacturers will stock their products on the shelfs not Walmart employees, Contractors will clean the stores not Walmart employee's, etc etc. Walmart will quickly become not the largest employer, and 100's of new small businesses that are likely under the threashold to be covered under these new laws will popup up to supply walmart with labor.
Some of this is already happening today as labor costs raise in the market, increase unionization will accelerate this.
> Sell a store to an independent operator who in turn hires workers, then sell goods to the independent operator, something like that.
NLRB has recently ruled that in these cases you're still _employee of the parent company_ when it comes to companies using this as an anti-union tactic. It's very obvious to anyone when a company is actively using this as an anti-union tactic.
Maybe it is when they turn the store they're "closing" into an "independent" store "owned" by the previous store manager who then enters into an exclusive purchasing contracts with the previous owner. But then they'll do the nearest thing which is less obvious.
How does a rule like that even work? If an independent store makes wholesale purchases from both Walmart and Target, are its employees supposed to be employees of Walmart or employees of Target?
In this hypothetical, communities would see the same effects as if Walmart chose not to exit. They would just shop and work at "Not-Walmart", same as the old Walmart.
Some might argue prices might increase due to an additional corporate layer, but then the question I would have is why wouldn't Walmart just raise the prices themselves and take those extra available profits for themselves? I'd assume Walmart is already doing what they can to maximize net profit.
> In this hypothetical, communities would see the same effects as if Walmart chose not to exit. They would just shop and work at "Not-Walmart", same as the old Walmart.
Not-Walmart is a different company that doesn't have a union, and if they should get one, actual Walmart can start selling goods to some different Not-Walmart who doesn't. Then Not-Walmart #2 drives Not-Walmart #1 out of business by offering lower prices if the union manages to increase Not-Walmart #1's labor costs.
After people have seen this happen they realize the union can't actually secure them more than the wages available in the free market without causing them to lose their jobs, so when they take a job at Not-Walmart #2 they wonder why they would want to spend time organizing another union and paying dues.
> Some might argue prices might increase due to an additional corporate layer, but then the question I would have is why wouldn't Walmart just raise the prices themselves and take those extra available profits for themselves?
These kinds of operations often have minimal overhead. Existing Walmart pays a salary to a store manager. Not-Walmart is owned by the person who would have been the store manager and makes "profit" equal to what Walmart would have had to pay in salary.
A lot of the online chatter in the trades revolves around pay and working conditions. Right to work states pay way less (that’s the point) and have worse conditions.
Politics are rarely mentioned, but everyone knows there’s better work “up north”.
How is there "better" work when almost all of the new factories are opening in (or relocating to) right to work states? TSMC is opening the chip factories in Phoenix in a state that has right to work laws. Intel is opening one in Ohio, another right to work state. Samsung is opening their factory in Texas.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of heavy industry vs. commercial vs. residential for tradespeople. Despite that I've worked extensively in manufacturing facilities for oil and gas / chemicals industries throughout the southern US, most of the electricians I know personally work in residential and commercial so I'm not sure they care where those new factories are being installed, as they won't be taking those contracts. All the ironworkers I know personally work on government contracts and commercial skyscrapers. At the same time, 100% of the union pipefitters and welders I know work in chemical plants.
I follow quite a few of the subreddits for trades (r/trades, r/electricians, etc) and I can say that GP's comment rings true there. But I work primarily in TX/Louisiana/Mississippi, and the sentiment among tradespeople here is highly variable. There's a lot keeping people where their families and friends are, and there's a great amount of distrust for any information which leads to a decision they don't want to make.
Generally in TX I've had better experiences in the Union facilities, but in Louisiana I've had better experiences in the non-union facilities. I haven't interacted with union labor at all in Mississippi.
Perpetual labor shortages due to structural demographics and the decline of conservatism due to the 55+ death rate means this will only work so long [1] [2].
Tariffs are an option as demographics tilt to the Left politically to encourage domestic workforce investment [1]. Capital and economic systems should serve humans, not make it straightforward exploitation for a few folks with big numbers in rows in a database [2].
China is rapidly decelerating economically because it got old so fast [3], and most of the world outside of India and Africa isn't far behind [4] [5]. TLDR Capitalism is running out of young productivity to squeeze for profits.
It's quite ironic that you say that "economic systems should serve humans" but then support "tariffs" which will significantly increase the cost of living for the aforementioned humans.