Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (8084)	4/18/2006 1:03:34 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

Starbucks is labour intensive and needs faithful, motivated employees who can transmit the value of a really, really expensive cuppa java. False assumption. There's no value add in what the employees there do. They're just soda jerks. One of the best ways to get them is to make working at Starbucks better quality employment than working for the competitors. Get who? Better jerks? Most folk and therefore most workers are mediocre. Other jerks are bad but some are good? To get the good ones, a company must provide higher imaginary compensation in the form of a not assessable health care? Jerks know all about health care, so they know how to judge whether SBUX's healthcare program is better than XYZ's? If you want better than mediocre workers you must make working for you more attractive than working for the competitor. Since when can prospective employees do what securities analysts have a hard time doing? Then you get to choose better than average employees. Are you saying that a company presumes the prospective employees know how to fairly evaluate their healthcare component of compensation? I'm willing to bet that not 1 in 10,000 prospects knows how to do that accurately, and further doesn't and can't know whether if given a choice of providers would get the superior one at some company allowed cost. For people who are in the wage range of coffee dispensers health care costs are a significant issue and so it may be the Starbucks example is actually an example of adaptive capitalism reaching for the best employee rather than of corporate socialism. It looks like you're a wobbly boy. Specifically, "adaptive capitalism" is socialism. The idea is that one can modify capitalism to admit social preferences. Samuelson, in the large, referred to this as "the mixed economy", and I have referred to it as the "mixed up economy". I've shown above that you're asserting bad information becomes a good criterion for making choices. That's anti-capitalistic, but it is the compromised form which puts an imagined public good over the principle that the market will resolve the problem of social needs without artificial fixes. Wobbly boys simply can't and don't trust Smith's invisible hand.