Starbuks Covering College Tuition?!

[The Intransigent Faction]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/starbucks-announces-it-will-give-a-free-college-education-to-thousands-of-workers/

What exactly does Starbucks have to gain, concretely, from doing something like this?

Obviously education shouldn't be a commodity to begin with, and it is treated as such because of the capitalist system of which Starbucks is another part. Still that doesn't seem to help in explaining this kind of behaviour...

In short, is this one of those "even capitalism cannot fully erode the human instinct to recognize the importance of community" cases, or is there something more deceptive about it (does Starbucks somehow foresee a benefit to employees having bachelor's degrees?).

I suppose it doesn't really matter either way because this doesn't address, let alone solve problems endemic to capitalism, relating to education or otherwise. Still, I'm seeing some hype about this and I'm curious.

Of course I haven't slept in a little while so this might be one of those things I look at later and think "wtf was I saying?".
It's just that I'm seeing people go "look at this beneficent capitalism!" and trying to think of how I could respond.

Also, I realize the typo in the title. Meh.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Huh, good question. That baffles me too.

I am always shocked when a company does something like this and I can't figure out what's in it for them. There must be some monetary benefit, but I can't think of one.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Maybe they're trying to compete for workers.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Maybe they're trying to compete for workers.

:o True. Labour is a commodity in capitalism, after all. I just wouldn't have figured the demand was *that* high for baristas...but then the specifics of that are not something I've followed in any great detail.

I wouldn't be surprised if antitrust suits were the only reason they have to compete for workers in that industry.

[PhoenixAsh]

right. They said it right here:

“This is not about PR"

It is about PR.

They explained here: “would be accreted to our brand, our reputation and our business" (PR). . .

It is also about political favors. It is also about subsidies which probably will be claimed.


It is also about (as is already said) competing for workers: "I believe it will lower attrition (Less reqruitment costs), it’ll increase performance (< duh), it’ll attract and retain better people (work is a commodity).”


It is NOT about being nice people working for the good of the country

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think an important part of understanding this is understanding the role of the university, especially in North America. The university serves to create a caste of "workers" who are highly specialized, ideologically dedicated, and materially invested in capitalism. While Starbucks might only reap "fringe benefits" (in terms of appearing socially conscious, in terms of attracting and retaining workers, etc.) from the programme, as part of capitalism generally, they stand to benefit a great deal.
I think Starbucks is generally quite savvy in this regard, looking to their role as a relative pioneer in "ethical" mass-marketted crap.

[slum]

this has been bothering me too since starbucks is awful to employees. there's certainly no shortage of people competing for these jobs, though i can see why they want to improve retention since they do train people to an extent (you have to memorize all the crazy drinks and their code names, for one) and i'm sure they hate doing that more than they need to.

it's also revealing of how little degrees from such universities (or at all) are really worth. PR stunt, starbucks is big on the 'ethical consumer' BS

i imagine the other shoe will drop soon enough; phoenixash mentioned subsidies which if true is a feasible explanation.

[o well this is ok I guess]

the people i've known who worked at starbucks stayed around mostly cuz of the little grant they'd give you each semester (despite the fact that you could get like any other job and make way more than they'd given in a couple months). Great way to deal with high turnover rates without actually investing much, I guess.

[Creative Destruction]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/starbucks-announces-it-will-give-a-free-college-education-to-thousands-of-workers/

What exactly does Starbucks have to gain, concretely, from doing something like this?

Obviously education shouldn't be a commodity to begin with, and it is treated as such because of the capitalist system of which Starbucks is another part. Still that doesn't seem to help in explaining this kind of behaviour...

In short, is this one of those "even capitalism cannot fully erode the human instinct to recognize the importance of community" cases, or is there something more deceptive about it (does Starbucks somehow foresee a benefit to employees having bachelor's degrees?).

I suppose it doesn't really matter either way because this doesn't address, let alone solve problems endemic to capitalism, relating to education or otherwise. Still, I'm seeing some hype about this and I'm curious.

Of course I haven't slept in a little while so this might be one of those things I look at later and think "wtf was I saying?".
It's just that I'm seeing people go "look at this beneficent capitalism!" and trying to think of how I could respond.

Also, I realize the typo in the title. Meh.

A company's image is as good as currency. It can increase business, increase political goodwill -- especially with liberals who are, for some insane reason, always thought of as "anti-business" and so are, in a strange way, always trying to be courted to by businesses.

Also, just as an aside, don't doubt that there just may be some do-gooders in an organization who have motives aside from making money. Accepting that fact doesn't negate an overall criticism of the system and how it operates. It's kind of strange when people rack themselves while looking for ulterior motives where there aren't any that are obvious. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best. But they (the royal "they" here, not necessarily you specifically) act like accepting this will put a dent into their criticism. All it does is recognizes a more nuanced reality than they knew before... which is always a good thing.

[Jimmie Higgins]

People don't really like capitalism... Or at least they feel uneasy about unless they are ideologically putting their fingers in their ears like rand-items or the tea-party type libertarians. But people also have to deal with capitalism on a daily basis. Since there are no obvious and legitimate movements offering any real alternative, people get fatalistic, cynical, or (especially professionals and well paid workers) are convinced that if you can't beat capitalism or fight it, you can be "ethical" about where you work (for professionals) or how you spend (professionals and workers with some regular disposable income).

So if you need a giant-ass sub-crank substance to get you through your long speed up shift, or you always-on-the-job saleried middle class profession, then coffe chains are a good resource. Buying fair trade, organic, earth happy, "help the poors" Starbucks coffe adds a little moral satisfaction kick to the uppers rush.

It's part of their "brand" image.

[The Intransigent Faction]

it's also revealing of how little degrees from such universities (or at all) are really worth.

Yeah, I thought of degree inflation too when I made the original post.
I guess us graduates can't stay in denial...time for a Master's! :(

[The Intransigent Faction]

A company's image is as good as currency.

You make some good points, but if we're going to be nuanced about it, then I'm sure there must be some qualifications to this claim, especially given the fact that companies' purpose is to maximize a tangible bottom line. A good PR image is not quite as tangible and the actual payoff to profits relative to what is spent seems more fluid. That was more or less the point I was making. That and if certain companies actually care about PR, they aren't doing a very good job of showing they give a damn what people think (certainly there are groups whose opinions they don't care about, and students don't typically seem to rank high for them).

I did explicitly state that capitalism doesn't (indeed can't, really) fully erode everyone's sense of the importance of community, but in terms of corporate policies claiming to be humanitarian, it doesn't seem in any way wrongly simplistic to suggest that they are not "humanitarian for humanitarianism's sake", because as you said we shouldn't lose sight of how and why corporations operate.

[Dialectical_Materialist]

What's going to happen to the wage structure.

"look we'll ay for you to go to college but we'll be paying you in magic beans from now on."

Or is it TAX deductable?

[Ocean Seal]

I honestly thought that this was some kind of bad joke.