Orin Smith has been CEO of Starbucks for four years. He's announced he's retiring next March 31. I've read that in those four years, Starbucks has gone from 2500 to 8500 locations. That's 4.5 new locations every day! Mr. Smith is apparently incredibly effective and his retirement is undoubtedly well-deserved. Congratulations to him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yay to multinational corporate expansion! I'm sure the countless personally owned small coffeeshops and non-fair trade coffee bean farmers that do not have the fincial base to compete are very happy for his hard work at centralizing the market. May the millions he has made comfort him well. We will undoubtedly be thinking of Mr. Smith when we eventually retire some many, many years later.
Ian
Hmmmm. That's 6,000 * 5 (pure guess) = 30,000 new jobs (coffee servers, aka baristas), plus 6,000 managers = 36,000 workers. On the one hand, that's a lot of people employed. On the other hand, most are at minimum wage. Hand A says, that's really good. Hand B says, yuk, or something equally negative. If it is true that 20% of jobs in America earn less than the poverty threshold, then this adds to the lower earning group. Still, it is -- arguably -- better than nothing.
From my experience going to coffee sellers, baristas turn over at a very high rate. I see few of the people over a long period of time. Still, that may only mean that they graduate from college or somehow get better paying jobs. That means there is an opportunity for people to earn an income in a temporary setting. That, to me, is a good thing. It is better than no opportunity.
We live in a market economy in which people work for what they can earn. If you don't like the offer don't accept the job. If you can't hire workers, raise your offer. The market determines the rate. The alternative is some kind of regulated pay rate which, one presumes, is fairly insensative to individual merit. You get to choose, today, which economic model you prefer. Where do you choose to live? Choose the market economy and suffer a wage comparable to your skills or choose the planned economy and accept whatever the planners determine your worth to be.
I don't like the idea that 20% of us are working but living below the poverty line. On the other hand, I don't like the idea that some bureaucracy determines my worth in the market. And ... no, I don't really have an answer. Sorry about that. Really.
So where do we come down? Do we applaud this guy for his business acumen and his creation of jobs, or do we condem him for exploiting the workers? Folks, I don't know. I think I have to come down on the side of applause. He is living within the system of his country and doing a good job within the constraints of his economy. Maybe he could do a good -- or better -- job in another context, but this is the context in which he lives and works.
I don't know what the ideal model might be. I know that the market economy, which values return to investors, has problems of moral ideals. I know that the planned economies, such as communism, have problems with motivation and development. Socialism, which lies somewher in between, has problems with definition and balance. In other words, as we all know, none of these systems is perfect.
What an intersting topic. If I had an answer I would be rich or famous. (Given the choice, I would prefer rich and you can have famous.)
the Papa
Post a Comment