Yeah, I use to get my hair cut by a guy who had started numerous successful high end hair salons in a few big cities, but moved out of there to be closer to his wife's family. One time we got talking about this and he said, "The difference between a $30.00 hair cut and $100.00 hair cut is rent."

Unfortunately, I believe the 3rd wave coffee shop is still stuck to meander around the price of whatever Starbucks deems appropriate. So really can't have a good shop charge 7 to 8 bucks a coffee even if the rent would demand it. Which I guess is the whole point of the article, right?

boar_d_laze wrote:My point was that I didn't get the point and was hoping the OP would explain. BDL

I didn't do any editorializing in the original post. The feature article is fairly neutral reporting, and the gov't data surely does not have a "point." After that, posters contribute some interesting (and revealing) comments as they try to make sense of (or take "points" from) of the data.

IMO, patterns in the data reveal much more than a healthy market system that "purges itself of obsolete and poorly run or located businesses." That's quite harsh and you may be attributing to the "system" a dynamic that is more rational and inevitable than it is or needs to be.

Occasionally pondered coffee shop economics as I am sure many home baristas have. One of my favourite blogs on this topic ... http://coffeekings.blogspot.com/

Martin wrote:One take-away from the data is that baristas don't make much money. Waiting tables offers a tiny career path for wage labor that can rise above poverty-level income. Not so for that specialist serving up lattes. So tip well.

Another observation is that costs of barista labor, which are both low and uniform across markets, are less likely to determine cafe success or failure than some other market factors mentioned in this thread. So tip well and don't be mean to that kid who doesn't know which end of the button to push.

Unfortunately the Labor Dept. data lumps baristas together with steam table servers, who have little or no tip income or opportunity for advancement. A static view of barista income does not take into account the opportunities that smart and ambitious baristas have for career development.

Ryan Jensen, for example, who is the Peregrine shop owner mentioned in the article, is a former champion barista from Murky Coffee. I just left one of the very successful shops in Portland owned by barista champion Billy Wilson (which he named "Barista" in honor of his profession). Billy is a former barista from Albina Press. Actually he still works the counter alongside his employees.

I have spent this weekend at SCAA meetings surrounded by former baristas who have advanced to positions of local, regional and international responsibility. Obviously, not every community or employer offers these opportunities. But you might be surprised how many do. Certification programs are already under way (and under further development), which we hope will further the career opportunities for professional baristas.

Calling the careers of Ellie Matusczek, Billy Wilson, Ryan Jensen, and others a career path for baristas is somewhat true, but IMO, slightly rose-colored. High end coffee is currently expanding, and these are very smart and energetic people who love coffee. Being baristas placed them in the pathway of the opportunities, but being who they are is what made it happen for them.

While the education and certification programs being put into place by the BGA are terrific, it remains to be seen if they can provide a career path when the high end coffee business becomes more static. It may make baristas more like other entry level food jobs -- a place to start, but not so much a career path as a decent place from which people with the right personality and energy can spot opportunities and find backers.

On the other hand, the 20th century notion of a career, that is, a predictable path of gathering experience and getting progressively higher level jobs, is probably as extinct as a dodo in any case.

Marshall wrote: A static view of barista income does not take into account the opportunities that smart and ambitious baristas have for career development.

I pretty much agree with your post, especially the risks of extrapolating from large (but amazing!) labor dept stats. But the data do remind us that baristas are generally very low wage workers who, IMO, ought to be getting that 18-20% tip common in metro areas- - -even if we think our home shots are better.

I'm not surprised about career opportunities for baristas. But your observation teeters on a tautology By definition, the very successful baristas you encounter are smart and ambitious. It's a foundational belief of free market capitalism that the smart and ambitious are successful and therefore the successful must be smart and ambitious. Sometimes it works that way, often not. The corollary is that those who are not acclaimed baristas and on their way to becoming successful cafe owners are not smart and ambitious. And that can fit into the trope that cafes have a hard time because of slacker, unmotivated baristas (I'm speeding through the argument, but you may? get the point.)

I do appreciate the perspectives and no-BS posts you bring to HB,

As Marshall noted, and Jim replied with a more realistic clarity, being a barista isn't a pathway to ownership, just like working as a line-cook doesn't propel thousands to opening their own version of Charlie Trotter's.

Greatness, work ethic, adaptability, drive, what have you -- all have to come from within.
In the USA it's not reasonable to expect to have a career and support a family as a barista. Not on how little coffee costs to the consumers, and how relatively few shops make coffee and espresso worth paying high dollars for. Being a barista is a great stepping stone if you want it to be. It allows you to see everything from the inside, to share in the responsibility of being one of the faces of the business, but it doesn't propel one towards anything. People like Billy, Ellie, Deferio, Steven Vick, Bronwen, etc,. were driven before they wandered in all wide-eyed and full of barista spunk.

As for Certification, it looks nice on the wall, but that's about it. Being great at making drinks, and understanding espresso becomes wholly different once you are in a dynamic environment. I've known quite a few skilled home-barista who can pull shots and steam milk to rival the best out there, but once thrown into a real world environment... they're all thumbs.

When it comes to independents trying to make a name based on their coffee, lousy decisions = lousy coffee. It's no wonder why Stumptown has been breaking new ground. All decisions matter. And all decisions drive the business. And the business is coffee.

Martin wrote:The corollary is that those who are not acclaimed baristas and on their way to becoming successful cafe owners are not smart and ambitious.

You did not account for the large number of baristas who are smart, but not ambitious. It is a classic occupation for young musicians, artists and writers, some of whom are quite passionate about coffee, but not focused on coffee career advancement.

John P wrote:As for Certification, it looks nice on the wall, but that's about it. Being great at making drinks, and understanding espresso becomes wholly different once you are in a dynamic environment. I've known quite a few skilled home-barista who can pull shots and steam milk to rival the best out there, but once thrown into a real world environment... they're all thumbs.

All the BGA members (now 700+) and, to my knowledge, all the Camp Pull-a-Shot students are active, enthusiastic baristas working in "dynamic environments." The second annual Camp session (about 200 baristas) is nearly sold out. The curriculum is based on "best practices" of the "best coffee bars." Plans for an East Coast Camp Pull-a-Shot are under way.

Martin wrote:I didn't do any editorializing in the original post. The feature article is fairly neutral reporting, and the gov't data surely does not have a "point." After that, posters contribute some interesting (and revealing) comments as they try to make sense of (or take "points" from) of the data.

IMO, patterns in the data reveal much more than a healthy market system that "purges itself of obsolete and poorly run or located businesses." That's quite harsh and you may be attributing to the "system" a dynamic that is more rational and inevitable than it is or needs to be.

Thanks for the clarification. I read the article as being more about neighborhood and RE trends, but less specifically about espresso than you did.

I didn't do a good job expressing my self in my post, and apologize for creating the false impression that I'm any sort of purist market Darwinian or was promoting the outlook. At the same time, free (and I don't mean unregulated) market dynamics do play an important purgative role. When is there not enough regulation? When is there too much? These are very hard questions to answer.

I'm no great believe in system rationality either. As I said earlier, if there's one big takeaway from game theory, it's that human economic behavior and rationality don't often have much in common.

It's a shame to see any charming and loved business get pushed out of its neighborhood. No doubt it was a loss to the business, to its customers and to the neighborhood.

Personally, I found the California numbers in the D of Labor sheet to be so anomalous as to make me question the utility of the numbers from the other states. There's so much information and context the sheet doesn't provide.

But... If your bottom line is that Coffee Shop is a tough racket -- agreed. It's an interesting discussion, and I'm glad you started it.

BDL