Starbucks to Provide Free College Education to Thousands of Workers

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/starbucks-to-provide-free-college-education-to-thousands-of-workers.html?_r=0

by e15ctr0n • 12 years ago

489 194 12 years ago

danso• 12 years ago

Starbucks is, in effect, inviting its workers, from the day they join the company, to study whatever they like, and then leave whenever they like — knowing that many of them, degrees in hand, will leave for better-paying jobs.
Even if they did, their experience “would be accreted to our brand, our reputation and our business,” Howard D. Schultz, the company’s chairman and chief executive, said in an interview. “I believe it will lower attrition, it’ll increase performance, it’ll attract and retain better people.”

This is pretty good long-term thinking on Starbucks' part...On one-hand, there's the obvious cost...on the other, I imagine that a significant number of the best, too-qualified-to-be-just-a-barista baristas leave after two or so years, anyway. Now that there's an extra benefit to joining Starbucks, SB could conceivably attract a higher number of higher-quality non-careerists without a substantially greater attrition in workforce loss.

Besides the cost, another downside for Starbucks is that, OK, maybe your part-time studying baristas won't be so on-task...Maybe, but I doubt it. High-achievers stuck in mundane jobs may not perform to their potential...but these aren't people "stuck" as being bariatas. They purportedly agreed to become baristas with the expectation of getting a degree and then a "real" job...when you have that kind of open path in front of you, you're not as susceptible to low morale on the job. At least that's been in my experience, where I loved doing labor jobs in the summer between school years.

gedrap3• 12 years ago

People are a big asset for Starbucks. They are trying to make a visit to SB a personal, warm experience. And the staff is key to that, they don't want grumpy and hate-this-job-a-lot people.

Once when I was in SB, the doors to the personnel room were open and I saw bunch of hand drawn things, hand written colourful weekly goals (rather than just printed), etc. That shows their, management people, approach and goals.

So I think this decision fits in pretty well in their long term mission.

l33tbro2• 12 years ago

Nothing fuzzy here. It is an extremely well-calculated ROI move from corporate. Win hearts and minds of the bean-proles on the front lines, and you get increasesed productivity via an enhanced sense of belongining.

sbarre• 12 years ago

The semi-unspoken part of this is that given the way the economy is, Starbucks will likely never lack job applicants, so even if they help existing employees get better jobs and leave Starbucks, all they are doing creating new entry-level job openings, while raising brand awareness, and also ensuring that their departing employees are going to jobs that will help them afford 5$ coffees. ;-)

judk3• 12 years ago

Trader Joe's has hand drawn signs and Hawaiian t-shirts. They are drawn to spec to create an impression of "fun" in the customer's mind, but they are very much assembly-line product.

tootie• 12 years ago

I'm sure turnover is already fairly high, so this is just inviting motiviated, intelligent kids to come compete for jobs with them. I'm going to buy a pound of coffee now.

the_watcher4• 12 years ago

In N Out famously pays its employees far above minimum wage, even at entry level and offers fantastic benefits. All managers make >$100K annually. They have one of the lowest employee turnover rates in the food services industry, despite paying their employees more than enough to pay for an education and transition to a white collar career. I know friends from high school who started working there at 16, continued through college (and paid their way), then chose to continue on as managers at In N Out, as it was far and away a better immediate career option (with the potential to move to corporate after a few years as managers) than their others.

Schultz's comments lead me to believe that he's well aware of In N Out's model.

001sky• 12 years ago

free <online> college...

ekar45• 12 years ago

they should just learn to code! In fact, let them check out http://coderin90.com

mcphilip• 12 years ago

free* <online> college... Still, it sounds like a noble effort.

The program is open to any of the company’s 135,000 United States employees, provided they work at least 20 hours a week and have the grades and test scores to gain admission to Arizona State. For a barista with at least two years of college credit, the company will pay full tuition; for those with fewer credits it will pay part of the cost, but even for many of them, courses will be free, with government and university aid.

Zigurd• 12 years ago

Then it's a noble experiment on two different planes: Offering education to their workforce and testing whether online education can scale up to serve an SBUX-sized workforce. Good on 'em.

ASneakyFox• 12 years ago

Its not real education unless you sit through 45 minutes of an instrctor reading you powerpoint slides from the book in person.

josefresco• 12 years ago

Just like it's not real "startup school" unless you spend 3 months in Silicon Valley?

joshferg• 12 years ago

its a good start. good to see companies helping out their common man employees.

ninguem2• 12 years ago

I thought they all had degrees in English already.

falsestprophet• 12 years ago

Seventy percent of Starbucks employees don't have degrees, but want them. You are not correct.

honksillet2• 12 years ago

The fact 1/3 of Starbucks employees have university degrees is amazing.

gedrap3• 12 years ago

That wasn't his point, his point was employment of people with English, Philosophy, Business Management and similar degrees.

honksillet2• 12 years ago

I believe his comment was very tongue in cheek.

wallflower• 12 years ago

Michael Gill wrote a personal memoir about going from Corporate America to Coffee America.

A quick, good read that may show you how deep valuing the individual in Starbucks goes.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Starbucks-Saved-Life-Privilege/dp/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Starbucks_Saved_My_Life

drpgq• 12 years ago

Is the answer really everyone having a degree? People think more people going to college is the answer to the current economic malaise, but I think it just leads to more and more people fighting over the same sized piece of pie.

nightski• 12 years ago

Isn't that pretty much what an economy is? Everyone fighting over the same sized piece of the pie?

Free access to education is never a bad thing. They aren't forcing the employees to take it.

lukasm• 12 years ago

It is not. If there is a growth the pie is bigger. The problem is the correlation between better income and degree is weak.

hindsightbias• 12 years ago

One could say the answer is to grow the pie. Not sure how you do that with less education.

esturk• 12 years ago

No, but going to college is not necessarily for a BS/BA degree. Take a pharmacy technician for example. You need to at least complete community college and get a certificate.

aestra11• 12 years ago

Take a pharmacy technician for example. You need to at least complete community college and get a certificate.

That's not correct

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/pharmacy-technicians.htm

Entry-Level Education High school diploma or equivalent

I knew people who were working as a pharmacy tech as their high school job. You don't even need a certificate.

mwsherman• 12 years ago

This seems like a variation on the lump of labor fallacy.[1]

Now, the acquisition of a degree might or might not be everything we think it is, where “formal education” and “valuable learning” are perhaps-incorrectly equated. But if we assume that college is economically valuable, having more people educated seems hard to argue with.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

epoxyhockey2• 12 years ago

Focus on the part about having a more educated population. Educated persons tend to vote for candidates aligned with their best interests, spend money more wisely, and commit less crime. More educated peers and neighbors will make your life better.

ryanfreeborn• 12 years ago

Yup. Couldn't agree more with this response.

There is this growing contrarian sentiment—particularly in the HN and Reddit communities—that "college isn't for everyone". The college industrial complex aside, I cannot see how further education—particularly through programs like this one—could ever be a bad thing. After all, education is the silver bullet.

zghst9• 12 years ago

I disagree especially because the quality of everyone's education is not the same. While education may seem like the great equalizer, people have to enter school willing to learn, explore and engage with their peers, not just float through classes for grades.

There are tons of people out there with an education but not very enlightened about things. I hate analogies, but I've met several people over the course of my short life with degrees who have absolutely worthless educations. They racked up debt to work unskilled jobs, and complain why companies don't want to hire them with no experience, internships and lackluster academic records.

I know the paper makes people feel good, but at what point is our society going to start rejecting the feelgood, everybody wins attitude? You should not have to have a college education to have a good life or populace (look at America early 1900s and all the modern luxuries that exist today from that time period). Trades, entrepreneurship, etc are all alternative good paths that should be encouraged. College educations are nice, but there is a pretty long list of people who did not complete or even reach college who are successful and making contributions to society:

http://www.collegedropoutshalloffame.com

zghst9• 12 years ago

I agree with your sentiment. For instance, I have a friend who went to college but never used her degree, she is a stay at home mom. I feel that the cost of college is inflated by those who go to college just to go. Sure it's nice to have a degree, but I feel that college should be taken more seriously and not to be used as a babysitting/maturing center for 18-20somethings.

Just because one gets a college education does not mean they leave enlightened and educated OR that they will maintain their education through their life. An ASU online education, especially, will not ensure that people are education, credentialed sure, but definitely not educated, and I say this as an ASU student myself. They are always trying to get more and more people through the doors, we have a high acceptance rate but strangely enough we are a top school for recruiting.

e12e2• 12 years ago

I agree with your sentiment. For instance, I have a friend who went to college but never used her degree, she is a stay at home mom.

Is she dead? If not, how do you know she will never use her degree? (Apart from probably being a better parent by virtue of being more educated, and so probably be a better educational aid to her child (ren)).

rz2k• 12 years ago

[...seem to think] college is the answer to the current economic malaise, but I think it just leads to more and more people fighting over the same sized piece of pie

That's a pretty outrageous statement. You're still a person if you don't go to college.

Furthermore, if those who go to college earn a greater share of the pie, then it is because they are more productive. If they are more productive, then the pie gets larger by going to college.

In fact, the fundamentals of pricing theory suggest that the value to an individual, in terms of compensation for greater productivity, tends to be the floor in how much it costs employers and therefore the aggregate economy. For example, if you acquire new skills that make you produce an extra 1M per year, then your change in compensation will not exceed a $1M increase if you are negotiating with sane and informed people.

ctdonath5• 12 years ago

A related issue few address: how many are willing to do what it takes to work thru an education of whatever level is available? As a sometime professor, I was amazed that about 1/4th of students just didn't do the work (and that's of those who were in fact in the classroom, so the educational opportunity was right there).

Sending the unwilling to college doesn't work. I'd like to know what percentage of "the uncolleged" really want to go, will do what it takes, and intend to actually do something with it afterwards. Just showing up isn't enough, no amount of money will make people learn if they are not inclined to, and no range of opportunity will assure success if they don't actually work at work.

arnarbi• 12 years ago

..it just leads to more and more people fighting over the same sized piece of pie.

Wait, you say that as if its a bad thing. Giving more people the means to fight over the pie is exactly what you'd want. In particular, you'd want to disconnect "already having a large piece" from "being able to fight over more", which is exactly what free education does.

seancoleman• 12 years ago

Here is the email I received from ASU President Michael Crow today making the announcement:

I write to share an update on our evolution as a 21st century public research university. As you know, ASU is a New American University uniquely committed to the simultaneous achievement of excellence, access and impact. As we move forward, we will continue to balance scholarship, discovery and the development of real world solutions on a grand scale, while remaining true to our vision of inclusion and student success. Institutions of higher learning have a responsibility to go beyond imagining change and instead bring workable answers to fruition. ASU has demonstrated its ability to do so successfully and we will maintain that trajectory. On Monday, June 16, we introduce the world to the Starbucks College Achievement Plan.

The Starbucks College Achievement Plan is the combined vision of Arizona State University and one of the world’s most trusted, innovative and socially conscious companies. Together, we will offer leading education delivered online with world class faculty and personalized instruction to students who would like to continue their journey in higher education. This model is a unique partnership designed to increase access for more students to earn and finish a college degree, and is based on Starbucks’ and ASU’s shared values.

On June 16, we will join Starbucks as they host their first ever Partner Family Forum in the U.S. to announce the Starbucks College Achievement Plan with hundreds of their partners and family members in New York at the Times Center. Watch the webcast on June 16 beginning at 7:45 a.m. PT, 10:45 a.m. ET by visiting starbucks.com/collegeplan. I also encourage you to watch the video of what this means to Starbucks partners by visiting starbucks.asu.edu.

The Starbucks College Achievement Plan is supportive of our vision to be measured not by who we exclude, but rather by who we include and how they succeed and moves toward our goal of enrolling 100,000 online and distance education degree seeking students.

This is a program we can all be proud of, and I look forward to your support as together we continue to increase access to world class higher education.

Michael M. Crow President Arizona State University http://president.asu.edu

judk3• 12 years ago

Wow that's a quintessential college essay, padded to 3x size to reach a target word count.

nickthemagicman• 12 years ago

Theyre just trying to bring workable answers to trajectory fruition.

seizethecheese• 12 years ago

Changing font size doesn't effect word count.

novaleaf• 12 years ago

Wow, this is a profound step, and something I hope we can all applaud Starbucks for doing.

Lets hope that other large employers offer similar arrangements for their employees (be they skilled or unskilled)

karmicthreat2• 12 years ago

So at what point are we going to just going to accept that people need the equivalent of an associates coming out of high school. I don't think less education is the answer but as a bachelors equivalent becomes necessary for even a modest living, it might be worth looking at expanding what secondary education covers.

FLUX-YOU• 12 years ago

You can pretty much accept that now. That's how almost all public-facing job postings look for modest-living jobs (believe me, I've been scanning them). I'm assuming modest-living covers all standard bills allows for some amount of disposable income/savings per month in the low hundreds.

The two 'overrides' are choosing a field that allows demonstration of competency (programming, art, writing, etc.), and a network of referrals. Even with demonstrations, you may get passed up for someone with a degree.

blahedo• 12 years ago

The idea has come up:

https://chronicle.com/article/Free-Community-College-/144553...

karmicthreat2• 12 years ago

That is the thing, a free community college associates just means two more years of school. I think we need to make some progress on getting some of this compressed into the 4 years of high school as well. Plenty of people don't have the option of two additional years of school because they have no family. Or the just have to work full time or numerous part time jobs.

Its a hard problem.

nwenzel• 12 years ago

While many universities strive for exclusivity, ASU is finding ways to be more inclusive. It probably hurts us in the rankings, but it's the right thing to do.

Proud to be a Sun Devil.

From the AZ Constitution: Article 11, Section 6 http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/11/6.ht... Section 6. The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible. The legislature shall provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be established and maintained in every school district for at least six months in each year, which school shall be open to all pupils between the ages of six and twenty-one years.

Chronic282• 12 years ago

And yet I don't see Arizona contributing much to the US economy, social welfare, and/or higher education. They are contributing some, but below your average state.

Edit: Made the point more clear.

zghst9• 12 years ago

ASU is the largest university in the US, that must make some type of impact in the US economy. Also ASU has a lot of cool research

leorocky• 12 years ago

And yet I don't see Arizona contributing much to the US economy, social welfare, and/or higher education.

The University of Arizona (a different school) is one of the top public state universities in the country when it comes to research. The astronomy and anthropology programs at UA for example are among the best graduate programs in the nation. It contributes a great deal to science and the education of the population. So where ever you got your facts from are simply wrong. I'm guessing you just sat there and conjectured on it based on the kind of thing the media likes to bring up when it comes to Arizona.

Arizona is a magnificent state, and it contributes a great deal to this country and is home to a very diverse set of people. A great portion of the Navajo nation resides in Arizona, as well as Apache and other tribes. A large amount of immigration comes in from Mexico and from international students that attend at Arizona's universities and work at Arizona based companies. Arizona is also a huge state for the military and tourism. Beautiful deserts, the Grand Canyon, sweeping vistas of Sedona, and the unimaginably beautiful north eastern part of Arizona are things you shouldn't miss in this short life.

e12e2• 12 years ago

By the way, if anyone else wondered about that parenthesis on union busting, here's the union's home page:

http://starbucksunion.org/

justizin4• 12 years ago

"Right now, Starbucks baristas are on strike in Chile, where they make less per hour than the price of a cup of coffee."

richcsmith• 12 years ago

One of the longer term benefits for Starbucks that stands out to me the most is the long-term brand loyalty these folks will have. They'll be walking, talking advertisements for the greatness that is Starbucks for all the good they've done for them. I wish more companies understood that treating your people well is one of the best marketing tactics you can employ.

By and large, companies are only going to make decisions that positively impact their bottom line, and sometimes it just so happens that those decisions align with the best interest of their employees. This is definitely one of those moments. Not to say that Starbucks' intentions aren't genuine, but it's hard to ignore the obvious positive impact this is going to have for them. I always wonder about what matters more to these companies (employee welfare or their bottom line), but I guess it doesn't much matter if the employees are happier and better off for it in the end.

Goopplesoft• 12 years ago

Interesting if this becomes widespread to other companies as well. Free enterprise/big-corp solving the cost of education/college issue when our government couldn't will be a big win for the laissez-faire folks.

Are there any existing tax benefits for educating your workers? That might be the next govt involved step here.

ksrm• 12 years ago

I think Starbacks have enough tax benefits don't they? For example, "not having to pay tax".

ctdonath5• 12 years ago

Why the obsession with "they don't pay enough taxes" without any consideration of the socioeconomic good they provide? Starbucks employs about 150,000 people (that's some $2.25B the gov't doesn't have to spend on welfare etc), contributes 0.1% to the GDP (for one company, that's impressive), and (a seriously under-discussed point) contributes increased velocity of money (people being willing to spend cumulatively lots of money frequently on a whim). Starbucks also is noted for pushing a lot of other society-benefiting factors, which now includes free education to their employees. That all of this is flat-out ignored by so many with "but they don't pay [enough] taxes" belies an intent of greed over altruism.

zo19• 12 years ago

"Free enterprise/big-corp solving the cost of education/college issue when our government couldn't will be a big win for the laissez-faire folks." I'm sure you'd find quite a few Libertarians that would like the idea, and see it as a good "proof-of-concept".

On the other hand, you'll find Libertarians like me. We're pissed off because the government is taking our tax-money on the pretense of fixing these issues, and has nothing to show for it. These are all problems that we expect to be fixed using our money, and yet it's not happening. It just get's dragged along, year after year, election after election. Meanwhile, millions and billions (or whichever amount) is spent on useless endeavors such as foreign intervention/meddling, and wars.

mseebach4• 12 years ago

"Libertarians like you" will find it easier to argue that the government should stop taking your money (or at least take less of it) to provide education, the more private sector success stories there is to point to.

michaelq• 12 years ago

Starbucks is using ASU's famously developed online course infrastructure and its own massive headcount to educate all of its employees in a way that will add little marginal cost for either entity. Thought the normal ASU cost per credit is ~$500, I would be amazed if Starbucks ended up spending even a third of that.

ASU president Michael Crow is profiled positively as one of the more progressive thinkers in higher ed the 2013 book College Unbound: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0544027078/ref=as_li_tf_tl?... I wouldn't be surprised if ASU went on to work out a deal with other big retailers that employ a lot of people who haven't finished college yet. ASU's marginal costs will continue to fall as they get more students into the pipes. Walmart, McDonalds and other large employers could be next to partner with them.

avz• 12 years ago

...to educate all of its employees in a way that will add little marginal cost for either entity.

Is it somehow evil to boost education cost-effectively?

dkokelley• 12 years ago

I don't think that's the connotation of the OP's sentence.

the_watcher4• 12 years ago

> Is it somehow evil to boost education cost-effectively?

Pretty sure the OP feels that education at a low marginal cost is a fantastically positive thing.

naturalethic• 12 years ago

He forgot to think about how it might reduce marginal cost for both.

dan_bk3• 12 years ago

So Starbucks is basically doing the government's job.

lotu• 12 years ago

If Starbucks can do a better job educating students I'm not going to complain.

grecy• 12 years ago

Don't complain about starbucks, but you should absolutely be complaining about the government.

zghst9• 12 years ago

I've calculated free education, it would basically collapse our government's finances. A College education is nice, but is not the sole step to ending to our economic and societal problems.

claudius2• 12 years ago

If I understood the article correctly, a BSc costs $60k in tuition for an online course. I believe this to not cover required textbooks etc., which are likely more difficult to find in a library if you’re on the other side of the country.

In comparison, my BSc at TU Berlin cost me 6 * 240 €, which includes free access to Berlin’s public transport system. And while the financial state of Berlin is certainly far from perfect, I wouldn’t call it ‘collapsed’ (oh, and I get the impression that a college education in the US is more like a high school degree in Germany and not directly comparable to a proper university degree…any comments/similar observations?)

gambiting• 12 years ago

My country - Poland - has completely free education, on every level - primary, middle,high school and every university are free. There are private ones which are paid but they are not very good and a degree from any of them is not worth much.

And yet despite free education(and free healthcare for everyone) we managed to be the ONLY country in the entire European Union to not enter into recession - while every other country was going into negative numbers,we managed to maintain positive growth.

So, if free education in the US would collapse your finances, then there is something seriously wrong with either the cost of the education(which is seriously inflated and disproportionate for what it's offering) or your government has wrong spending priorities.

dan_bk3• 12 years ago

it would basically collapse our government's finances

My guess is, the comparatively extremely high military budget [0] is the actual culprit.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

NAFV_P• 12 years ago

I've calculated free education, it would basically collapse our government's finances.

Free, useless education is costly, but in the long run, useful education works to the benefit of governments.

justizin4• 12 years ago

Putting aside entirely the fact that the cost of education in the US is rising at an unhealthy rate, and has been for some time, largely due to profit-driven education, about half of our national budget goes to wars.

THAT is what is collapsing our government's finances. Sending young people off to die, largely protecting corporate interests, and when they return not only can they not afford education, but they have a 1+ year waiting list for basic health care.

peter-row• 12 years ago

No, the ASU (which is part of the government) is doing its job. Starbucks is forking over a few hundred dollars per worker as a perk.

Shivetya• 12 years ago

No, they are trying to keep their good employees and gain some kudos from the public and select special interest groups.

While it is good for their employees having companies pay college costs long term could turn out bad as using our health care system as an example, when the costs of something are not fully realized by the users the costs tend to increase disproportionally to inflation

What the government can do and may need to do is establish an online standardized two year degree. Something that can be done online except perhaps for final testing which would then be held at a local facility. Basically expend the funds to develop the courses, online environment, and testing, and give it away to all US citizens for free. It certainly would not cost anywhere near what was paid just for all incarnations of the ACA websites.

After the two year students could transition to paid college services, it might help weed out all those who truly don't need a specialized degree or four years of education

TL;DR Employer paid education could turn out like employer paid health care Government should create for free a standardized two year degree program for online education

blablabla123• 12 years ago

That's probably a philosophical question. You are probably right in the case of young folks. But think of people who are older and just would like to study something [else].

wyclif2• 12 years ago

It is not "the government's job" to educate people. Full stop.

jawns2• 12 years ago

I am not much of a cheerleader for public education in its current form in the U.S., but surely a case can be made that it is society's job to educate people -- because it is in society's best interest that people be educated.

And if society determines that one effective way to ensure that all people, even those of limited means, have an opportunity to receive an education, is to devote public dollars toward the effort, I see no reason why we can't say that, by proxy, it is the government's job to educate people.

(Personally, though, I would like to see the government's role as being primarily the benefactor and not the administrator or provider of education.)

As an aside, adding the words "full stop" to a statement may communicate extra intensity, but it doesn't excuse you from having to provide evidence to back up what you say.

dan_bk3• 12 years ago

Wrong. Considering that education is the single most powerful element to advance society (and create more justice), government should definitely ensure that everyone gets as much education as they can stomach and are willing to digest. And that means, it should mainly be financed via taxes.

Those, on the other hand, who want the public to remain manipulatable will continue try to limit education to the wealthier percentage.

chillingeffect• 12 years ago

You're right - it doesn't have to be the government's job to educate people...

...We could just as easily act like, say, Jamaica, in the township of Treasure Beach, where the government does not educate the children, leaving them to farm ackee, sell souvenirs on the beach and fish for a living.

However, the government is under our control, and as a group, our collective people who came before us figured out it was extremely valuable to educate people. And since then, every generation has valued education even more.

So, even if your personal values preclude the government from educating people and you prefer aristocracy and a severe gap between peasants and oligarchy, you are fortunately vastly outnumbered by others who believe in either a. a chance at equality, or b. the power of educated as a group for promoting the nation's interests.

aestra11• 12 years ago

Better start protesting in front of your local elementary school then.

grifpete• 12 years ago

Terrific.

phazmatis• 12 years ago

Great. Now recruiters will be calling me offering ping-pong, beer fridays, and college tuition.

aestra11• 12 years ago

Now recruiters will be calling me offering ping-pong, beer fridays, and college tuition.

College tuition is a very common perk in the cooperate world as long as you maintain your grades and study something related to your work.

quadrangle• 12 years ago

Good for them! Most folks today still think Capitalism has merit, so if a corporation is working out ways to do things like this, way to go.

Sure, it will help Starbucks recruit college-oriented more ambitious employees, and that's what they want. Fine.

This is no solution for society overall, but it's a good thing for what it is.

pizza2342• 12 years ago

Considering that Starbucks practices massive tax avoidance, the company is essentially using taxpayers' money for a very clever PR stunt.

xerophtye4• 12 years ago

using taxpayers' money for a very clever PR stunt.

Firstly i don't think "taxpayer's money" is an accurate description as they aren't exactly using the money we pay as tax. Instead they are deciding how their tax money is used. Not that i support tax avoidance or anything, but if a certain sum of money is being used to provide a large number of people with free college education, I don't really see how the govt can make better use of it. ok i guess there are better uses but this isn't exactly a bad spend is it?

mseebach4• 12 years ago

Starbucks' tax arrangements are specifically legal. It's not in any meaningful sense taxpayers' money, no matter how strongly you feel it should be.

dsplatonov• 12 years ago

Nice thing. Now people will have less motivation to fire from Starbucks - i believe in this case the employee will need to pay by himself. Additionally, managers will be able to push employees to work harder and therefore the amount workers, required to work in one place might be reduced. Genius!

jayantsethi• 12 years ago

See, this is what I love about some nice corporations. Get big, then return back to the society by giving them the most valuable gift : Education.

A very good initiative.

pizza2342• 12 years ago

Large business corporations today have a huge amount of power in their hands; in the context of greedy shareholders and governments which are getting proportionally weaker, there can certainly be "nice" corporation in the traditional sense, but most of the times, their niceness is synonym of good PR. In this specific case, it's important not to forget the massive amount of taxes that Starbucks avoids.

VeejayRampay2• 12 years ago

This is going to be a conundrum for ultra-liberal coffee hipsters... On the one hand, Starbucks is "The Man" and killing their precious neighbourhood artisan roasters one after another, on the other hand they're offering a chance to a good education to their workers and setting a new example for other companies to follow. Hard choices.

lugg• 12 years ago

Doubt it. Armed forces world wide have been touting the free education policy for decades. The man is still the man, man. ;)

Hipster discussion aside, mad props to Starbucks - even if I'll still never drink that flavorless milky crap again. (I think Starbucks might be different here?)

Malarkey73• 12 years ago

Theres no conundrum for me. I won't go there. 1. They make rubbish coffee. 2. They pay no tax in my country.

When they pay no tax, they have an unfair anticompetitive advantage against businesses that do. Other taxpayers have to make up the balance.

The fact they are now gifting a fraction back and looking of kudos just vexes me more.

VeejayRampay2• 12 years ago

That is actually a good point you're raising. Starbucks is known for some dodgy tax-evasion schemes, which really makes that whole education thing kind of hypocritical.

vparikh• 12 years ago

The more I read and hear about Howard Schultz the more of a hero is becoming of mine. Pure genius. I will be drinking a lot more Starbucks coffee to support this company.

dclowd99014• 12 years ago

One thing that infuriates me whenever a company decides to do this is that we'll see politicians from both sides of the aisle laud this as an important and meaningful step, all the while oblivious to the irony that at one point, it was the federal government's mandate and responsibility to provide exactly this for its citizenship. So now we're supposed to just rely on the random benevolence of companies to provide investment into social infrastructure? Let's hope that never stands in the way of their profits -_-

gmu3• 12 years ago

It's not the government's mandate nor responsibility to provide higher education in the United States. It infuriates me when citizens are so conceited they think the government should provide everything for them as if they have no agency themselves.

hughw• 12 years ago

People have agency. They just don't have money.

sjg007• 12 years ago

If we vote to provide higher education, then it is.

efuquen• 12 years ago

It infuriates me when citizens are so conceited that having the money to afford a higher education is equivalent to the merit of pursuing one. A government footing the bill for higher education isn't and wouldn't be the same as simply giving it to someone on a silver platter. You still have to earn that degree based on work and merit and it certainly isn't the same thing as a handout. The idea that money is always related to agency is idiotic. There are plenty of people who have the agency to obtain a college degree but don't have the resources, monetary or societal support, to do so.

AUmrysh• 12 years ago

It's funny, because in most other first world countries, it is the responsibility of the government to provide higher education to its citizens. Perhaps you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth or "pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps", but not all of us are so lucky to have thousands of dollars to put toward education.

aestra11• 12 years ago

What about primary education? Are you against that too? Do you think every taxpayer should foot the bill even if they don't and never will have children?

These are serious questions.

zghst9• 12 years ago

I concur

hsod• 12 years ago

...at one point, it was the federal government's mandate and responsibility to provide exactly this for its citizenship.

The US federal government? When was that?

dclowd99014• 12 years ago

After WWII, most men were provided education through the GI bill. While it wasn't an option for civilians, since so many men were involved in WWII, that influx of free college education resulted in the greatest post-war expansion in the history of the US.

the_watcher4• 12 years ago

> it was the federal government's mandate and responsibility to provide exactly this for its citizenship

The federal government's attempts to do this are the primary reason college tuition price increases have drastically outstripped inflation since the modern student loan system. When a lender will provide essentially unlimited money to unqualified borrowers to spend at a third party, the third party is incentivized to raise prices. And the horrible consequence of this is that to combat this, politicians have essentially just made those federal loan terms more onerous on borrowers, under the naive belief that most of those taking out large quantities of student loans are sophisticated enough to understand the burden they put on themselves by taking out unsecured debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy (and this should have been painfully obvious, given that credit card companies have been preying on unsophisticated college students for decades).

I was one of those unsophisticated young people, but I (luckily) got out before I spent a truly life-ruining amount of money on a degree I had no plans to use.

dclowd99014• 12 years ago

Their attempts to do this have required looping in the banking industry, which is why tuition prices have become so inflated. It's also the same reason home prices exploded and outpaced wages by such a large margin (and why the housing industry became so unstable). By requiring banks to loan to individuals despite their ability to afford the things they're getting loans for, the servicers (universities, homebuilders/owners) are able to jack up the prices on their offerings, as a much larger (and arguably dumber) population of people are able to buy things they otherwise wouldn't be able to buy.

I'm not saying everyone should get a blank check for college the moment they're born in the US, but if the only thing keeping a kid from getting to a university is their ability to afford it, that's a problem, and it sounds like a growing one.

differentView• 12 years ago

I'll have one of those vanilla bullshit degrees.

Starbucks to Provide Free College Education to Thousands of Workers

Related Stories