bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

438

Joined

2 yr. ago

Hand waiving something away isn't addressing it, but fair enough.

Additional space isn't an overhead rolling operating cost, and per unit is probably infestisimal. Additional man hours is a weird objection, do starbucks even track for "reaching for a carton slightly further away"? I imagine the time savings for moving a carton 4" closer are measured in the thousandths of seconds

Either they added a new refrigerator or made room in an existing refrigerator. To make room something needs to be removed, less room for regular milk means more trips to a walk-in to restock. More SKUs means more time on ordering and inventory. If they added a refrigerator then there's added electricity costs.

oat milk has a longer shelf life (6 months)

I meant once opened, which is more like a week. Which means they likely all need day dots put on them. More man hours (or minutes, or seconds)

The price doesn't have to strike you as reasonable or not because we are discussing whether we think starbucks are making a profit on oat milk or not.

They're a business, I assume they make a profit on everything. Oat milk lattes would seem to be a strange loss leader.

Ok what evidence do you have the DPRK is not a democracy and it’s more authoritarian than any other state on Earth?

Literally everything ever written on the subject. Bad troll!

So in one comment you've gone from less than a cent to possibly 10 cents. And the price increase isn't a dollar, it's 70 cents.

Your calculations don't seem to include increased refrigerated space required, additional man hours, increased inefficiencies, and possible increased spoilage. The price increase does not strike me as unreasonable given the circumstances.

They don’t have access to western media... You think a country should allow in straight up propaganda from countries that want to destroy them? Does that make any sense?

Yes, it's called freedom, and no one is trying to destroy them.

And most of those “democracy” lists are absolutely bullshit! The US is always at the top, and it’s one of the least democratic countries in the world.

It's amazing how everything that doesn't agree with you is bullshit or CIA propaganda. I have never seen the US at the top of any of those lists. The two I quickly pulled up had the US at 29th and 36th. Congratulations on consistently being wrong and spewing un-informed nonsense.

And why are you being so defensive about the idea North Korea might not be the devil or hell on earth?

I never said either of those. In fact, what I said was that they have democratic republic in their name but that they are objectively authoritarian. You're making statements that are false and incredibly dishonest. The DPRK is not a democracy, it is an incredibly repressive authoritarian state. Why are you so intent on giving cover to authoritarian despots?

Have you actually read anything on how the government works in the DPRK? Do you know how their elections work?

Have you read anything at all about the DPRK?

Or all you know are CIA propaganda talking points from Radio Free Asia, about how there is a “forced crying day”, or how you are forbidden from having the same haircut as Kim Jong Un, or that you are actually obligated to cut your hair just like him etc. etc..?

Every kernel of information about North Korea is CIA propaganda? Is the CIA that competent?

But to answer your question, I don't know any of those things. I do know that there is no freedom of movement, no open Internet access, and laws against accessing external media. You know, the way free societies do.

Is it so hard to believe what is “common knowledge” about the DPRK is mostly bullshit?

Yes! Every rank of functioning democracies has North Korea at the bottom, not necessarily last, but never far from it. They are an authoritarian regime. Everything you're saying is ludicrously misguided.

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

the sheer size of Starbucks means they’d save on all varieties of milk (not just dairy) and I seriously doubt they pay 50 cents more per cup for alternative milks.

You literally have no idea though, unless you work in supply chain for Starbucks. You're guessing. Do they do their purchasing as a single corporation from one dairy farm, I doubt it. Plus you ignore the additional hours and need for refrigerated space. There's more to consider than just cost per unit. Also if you use less there's a greater chance of spoilage.

Open a grocery app. Search for oat milk, dairy milk, almond milk, soy milk. Alternative milks don’t really cost more than dairy anymore.

Does Starbucks shop at grocery stores? They likely buy non-consumer packaged milk, think 5 gallon plastic sacks, and cases of consumer packaged milk alternatives. Not to mention extra man-hours and extra refrigerated space.

There are a lot of folks advocating communism who seem to lack any historical context.

Do you have a historical context? Are you comparing the economic system of communism against capitalism? Or are you comparing nations who claimed to be communist but were actually authoritarian governments against democratic republics? Remember, North Korea calls themselves a Democratic Republic, names don't mean a lot.

Do we have any historical context for a democratic republic with a communist economic system?

Here's part of the Wikipedia definition of communism:

A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state (or nation state).

I'm unaware of a society like that.

Because the ingredients cost maybe less than a cent more and they change nearly a dollar for it.

Can you show your work on milk alternatives costing Starbucks less than a cent more?

No. They cannot. They cannot charge for tap water. They cannot charge for using the bathroom. They can't lock you in the Cafe and charge you to leave. They can't advertise for one price and sell another. They can't charge half price for milk that's gone rotten etc. There are lots of things they can't do. This is another.

Quite the specious analogy, but I fail to see how kidnapping is equivalent to charging a different price for a different product.

Can’t believe so many people here are arguing in Starbucks favour here.

I think it is the principle that a business should be able to charge to recoup their costs. Milk alternatives are undoubtedly more expensive for Starbucks, based not only on the quantity of purchasing, but the additional refrigerated space required, and the additional man-hours necessary to stock and use alternatives.

Sad state of affairs that people go out to defend them for such a simple easy thing to change.

It's simple and easy because you're not the business owner who has to comply. Please understand that if Starbucks needs to comply under the ADA, then so does every other coffee shop, restaurant , and drink stand. This either ends in a loss for the Plaintiffs or an increase in all drinks to the most expensive milk alternative price.

Yeah of course, that's so unfair to tell business people that they can't overcharge people

Can you demonstrate that they are overcharging? Have you calculated the costs? Did you include the extra refrigeration space required, the wholesale cost of bulk milk in non-consumer packaging versus milk alternatives likely purchased by the case in consumer packaging? Do their distributors charge more for milk alternatives because they represent a lower volume than traditional milk.

What's absurd is thinking that this argument makes logical sense. Do you think Starbucks buys milk at the grocery store? What do you think the ratio of milk to each milk alternative is? 100:1? 1000:1? The scale at which the purchase each would greatly affect the price.

When I worked at a restaurant that used a lot of milk it came in a 3 or 5 gallon plastic sack that went into a dispensing machine. Milk alternatives are likely purchased by the case in consumer packaging. The cost is entirely different.

Those non-cow milks costs them more.

so? it's starbucks. they'll be fine.

Great logic, but that means every coffee shop everywhere would have to cover the additional costs of being "compliant".

I have no clue how to resolve this

I think the first step needs to be asking why we do this and what we want. We have women's sports because (cis) women generally cannot compete sufficiently with (cis) men. But what are we trying to accomplish? I would say in middle school and high school our goal should be inclusivity. So trans men and women should be able to compete in their identified genders.

On the other hand in college and the Olympics inclusivity is probably not as important for adults competing at some of the highest levels. So I am more willing to accept some limits, but I'm certainly not well versed enough to know where to draw that line.

Please stop with this narrative that the uncontrolled gender pay gap is meaningless. It is not.

It very much is useless.

The uncontrolled gender pay gap is hence an extremely succinct number at summarizing all forms of economic disparity.

Succinct, as all good statistical analysis should be. It gives you no actionable information.

Yes, controlling for factors such as education and job titles - but the controlled pay gap is meaningless in a post equal pay for equal work environment.

What? Then stop talking about pay equity if you're not interested in that issue.

The problem is now that women do not receive the same levels of access to education and higher level job titles, a phenomenon which is captured very well by the uncontrolled gap.

But access to education and higher level job titles are not the sole factors that are controlled for. Several studies have noted that women have different priorities in the workforce, and some women choose to be the primary caregiver to children or elderly parents.

So why would you use a statistic that doesn't control for several variables, which I just mentioned, to better understand access to education or higher level job titles?

There are already statistics that deal with educational attainment by sex. If that's your focus, why would you ignore a data set that directly addresses your area of study to instead focus on the effect caused by what you want to study? That would be analogous to studying covid by looking at a data set regarding fevers, while ignoring data sets specifically tailored to covid. Sure, undoubtedly some of those fevers were caused by covid, but many were not.

Also, if women's access to education is caused by, or heavily correlated with, the uncontrolled gender pay gap, then why do more women than men have a bachelor's degree or higher? Isn't that antithetical to the uncontrolled gender pay gap that tells us that women make nearly 20% less than men?

In 2022, 39.0% of women age 25 and older, and 36.2% of men in the same age range, had completed a bachelor's degree or more...

Census.gov

A contract, as has already been mentioned, but be sure to address all terms. Are you selling him the clothes or is it a consignment situation? You then need to determine either the price, if a sale, or the split of proceeds if it is a consignment. What price are you authorizing him to sell them, $5 per, $25, $100? Can you request their return if he hasn't sold them, and at what point? Who pays to ship the items each way? Risk of loss, during shipment there, during consignment, during possible return shipping?

It is essential to determine every possible outcome that you can imagine.

Gender wage gap persists in 2023: Women are paid roughly 22% less than men on average

Can we stop with this already? These numbers are less than meaningless. What information do you glean from comparing the mean wages of men and women?

The adjusted pay gap is about .99 to every $1.00. You can hope to make meaningful change unless you understand the problem.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/03/14/equal-pay-day-myth-truth-income-women/11464213002/

I just asked who has been barred from the ballot as a result. I'm aware of Republican candidates raising the issue in TX, only to be informed that it's unconstitutional. To my knowledge, no one has ever been barred since that case. If you have different information please let me know.

If someone were barred, they would sue in federal district court and immediately receive an injunction. Federal courts cannot ignore precedent from SCOTUS.