I have a terrible Starbucks habit. It’s so intense that I have figured out the calorie counts for the "cheapest" (in terms of calories) Frappacino that I can still enjoy, and carefully calculated those calories into my daily fuel economy.
[It's the grande, sugar-free caramel coffee Frappacino, no whipped cream.]
Little things, like when they got sugar free syrups, are big events in my life. For example, life got better when I could switch from sugar-free hazelnut to caramel. Not that I hated hazelnut, but I have always coveted caramel, but was unwilling to spend the calories before it became sugar-free.
Spend is the operative word. Recently, Starbucks once again raised its prices. It does that every once in a while, but this time it drove my daily drink to over $4.00, depending on where I order it ( at airports, it has been over $4.00 for a while, because I’m a trapped customer there).
Four times 30 is one twenty, says my grade school math. I am spending $120 per month, $1440 a year, on Starbucks. On sugar and caffeine. Maybe more, because every once in a while when I go in there I also buy a bottle of $2.00 water.
That’s enough to Christmas shop for my ten (step)grandchildren and my three foster kids.
Starbucks foot traffic is down and their shares are declining. No wonder! If the middle class is declining, can Starbucks be far behind?
Update: My friend Howard Lindzon has just called the stock a "biiitch," and a "piiiig." So I guess I am not so wrong.
More from Stealthmode
- Are You Leaking Money the Way I Am?
- Artists in the Park
- The United Nations
- Outside the community center
- Tim Russert Knows the Outcome Now
Stealthmode Recommends
- Observations from a recent Mac convert: The Good, the Weird and the Ugly (scrollinondubs)
- lifehack: Cracking the Starbucks Green Tea Code (scrollinondubs)
- The Next Bachelor (almost) (scrollinondubs)
