Here's how long you have to work to afford a cup of coffee in Arizona
The report, published by Coffeeness, a coffee blog known for reviews and brewing tips, compared the average price of a basic black coffee in every state, excluding specialty drinks and boutique roasters, with each state's average hourly wage to find out where coffee is most affordable in the U.S.
The result? Arizona ranks among the worst states for coffee affordability.
According to the data, Arizonans must spend about 10.2% of their average hourly wage — or work 6.1 minutes — to afford a standard cup of coffee. That's the fourth-longest time in the country and 13% higher than the national average. Opting for a Starbucks brew stretches that time to 9 minutes, making your morning ritual a bit more of an investment here than in most states.
Arizona also ranks low in coffee consumption per capita, but Phoenix locals still enjoy a strong and diverse coffee scene — whether you're looking to sip in a cozy nook, work remotely or just grab a drink on the go.
Here's a breakdown of where coffee is most and least affordable across the country — plus a few great spots in Phoenix to enjoy your next cup, no matter your budget.
Life in the Valley: You can buy cacti and coffee at this quirky Phoenix plant shop
According to Coffeeness, these five states require the most work time per cup:
Hawaii
New Mexico
Lousiana
Arizona
Nevada
For a Starbucks cup of black coffee, these are the five states where workers have to put in more effort:
Arkansas
Mississippi
New Mexico
Wyoming
South Dakota
These five states are best to sip in a cozy cup without breaking the bank:
Nebraska
Minnesota
North Dakota
Montana
Wisconsin
This is where Starbucks coffee is most affordable:
District of Columbia
Massachusetts
Washington
Connecticut
Colorado
Phoenix is home to plenty of creative and welcoming coffee shops that cater to all kinds of tastes, vibes — and wallets. Here are a few standout spots recommended by Arizona Republic food and dining reporter Endia Fontanez:
Best for: Co-working with friends.
Food: Sandwiches, bagels and locally sourced pastries.
Parking: Paid street parking.
Seating: Plenty of seating at large shared tables.
Hours: 7 a.m.-6 p.m. daily.
Details: 214 E. Roosevelt St., Suite 2, Phoenix. 602-283-4062, drinkkahvi.com.
Best for: A classy date spot with mood lighting and photogenic drinks.
Food: Large menu of sandwiches, breakfast items and more.
Parking: Large parking lot.
Seating: Plenty of space inside and even more on the patio.
Hours: 6 a.m.-2 p.m. Monday-Friday; 8 a.m.-2 p.m. Saturday; closed Sunday.
Details: 901 S. Seventh St., Phoenix. 602-904-7550, thecoffeebuilders.com.
Best for: Art and community.
Food: Limited pastry options.
Parking: Large parking lot around the corner at 15th and Grand avenues.
Seating: Limited seating inside and outside.
Hours: 8 a.m.-6 p.m. daily.
Details: 1301 Grand Ave., Suite 6, Phoenix. @_aftermarket on Instagram.
Best for: Chatting with friends on a leisurely weekend morning.
Food: A few pastries.
Parking: Street parking near Dig It Gardens.
Seating: A small number of chairs around the garden.
Hours: 9 a.m.-1 p.m. Saturday-Sunday.
Details: 3015 N. 16th St., Phoenix. @yumis.coffee on Instagram.
Best for: A quiet, cozy spot to work with few distractions.
Food: Sweet and savory house-made crepes.
Parking: Dedicated parking lot.
Seating: Plenty of space both inside and outside.
Hours: 7 a.m.-9 p.m. Monday-Saturday. Closed Sundays.
Details: 2315 N. Seventh St., Phoenix. colados.com.
Coffeeness analyzed the average cost of a regular coffee and a Starbucks coffee in each U.S. state. Using average hourly wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, they calculated the percentage of a worker's income needed to buy one cup of coffee a day. That number was then converted into minutes of work required for the purchase.
So while Arizona may not be the most wallet-friendly state for your daily coffee fix, Phoenix still offers plenty of spots worth the extra minutes on the clock.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Here's how long you have to work to afford a cup of coffee
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Starbucks' problems may be too big to fix
In its early days, Starbucks' approach was unique. Unlike rivals like Dunkin', Tim Hortons, and breakfast diners, its mission wasn't to provide one coffee for everyone as fast as possible. Instead, it treated making coffee like a craftsman makes fine furniture, focusing on the highest quality product regardless of how long it takes. That approach helped Starbucks grow from a single store in Seattle, Washington, to a coffee powerhouse with 32,000 stores located in just about every nook and cranny of the globe, including: Over 18,000 stores in North 2,800 stores in than 6,500 stores in 1,300 stores in the Middle East and North Africa. 1,800 locations in Latin America, including more than 70 in Colombia, putting Starbucks about as close to the coffee's origins as possible. With that kind of growth, and plenty of shareholders eager for ever-increasing profits, it's pretty unsurprising that Starbucks has dealt with growing pains. The company has faced controversies over worker pay (and what they wear), and customer complaints over inconsistent drink tastes, food freshness, and, more generally, the rise of a less-relaxed cafe vibe, too focused on boosting transactions and profit margin. The situation has left many scratching their heads, wondering if Starbucks' new CEO, Brian Niccol, can get things back on track. Long-time hedge fund manager Doug Kass is among the doubters. He recently sent a particularly harsh message about Starbucks, suggesting Niccol's strategy to get Starbucks back to its roots is unlikely to pan out. Image source: Goodney/Bloomberg via Getty Images Starbucks' (SBUX) stock price financed a good chunk of the company's global expansion. Investors eagerly bought shares early in the company's growth phase to profit from the opportunity for its customer-first approach to dislodge market share from rivals like Tim Hortons and Dunkin'. Long-time shareholders have been handsomely rewarded, given that Starbucks shares have surged since its IPO in 1992. A $10,000 investment then would be worth over $3 million today. Related: Starbucks abandons key strategy to embrace its past However, many investors' love affair with Starbucks has faded since the company has mostly saturated major US markets like New York and California, reducing chances for sales growth. Its share price is up just 15% over the past five years, while the S&P 500 has climbed 89%. In 2025, Starbucks' stock price has fallen nearly 5%. With Starbucks stores seemingly everywhere, long-time hedge fund manager Doug Kass suggests the company's strategy nowadays is less about reimaging coffee houses and more about milking as much money out of existing locations as possible. Such an approach can boost earnings in the short term, but it poses a significant long-term risk to Starbucks' brand. "[Starbucks] morphed into overpriced purveyors of food/coffee - while the quality of their product offering has deteriorated and the selling cost of the product has risen," wrote Doug Kass in a post to investors on TheStreet Pro. It's not just the coffee, either. While many may think Starbucks bakes its treats on site, many are previously frozen. "I couldn't create a danish as unappealing," said Kass, who has managed money professionally for about 50 years. Some Starbucks employees agree that the company's mission has lost its way. It was once highly recognized as a pioneer in employee pay, offering solid wages and a "partner" approach to its workers. Employees, however, have increasingly explored unionization in recent years, saying the faster-paced environment is taking a heavy toll on its once-lauded baristas, and pay hasn't kept pace. Starbucks' response to unionization has drawn fire from worker advocates who suggest management has engaged in union-busting decisions. For example, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has accused the company of firing or disciplining workers, including the high-profile case involving the "Memphis 7," seven workers terminated after advocating unionization. That case went to the Supreme Court, where an earlier court decision to grant an injunction supporting the workers was reversed in Starbucks' favor, and the case was sent back to the lower courts. The first corporate Starbucks location to unionize was in Buffalo in 2021, led by Starbucks Workers United. As of August 2025, workers at over 600 Starbucks stores across the US have voted to unionize, according to Workers United. The company's frayed relationship with some employees isn't the only problem CEO Brian Niccol is trying to fix. Niccol joined Starbucks as CEO in 2024 after over six years at the helm of Chipotle. Shortly after Niccol took over as Starbucks' CEO, he acknowledged, "a shared sense that we have drifted from our core" and announced his "Back To Starbucks' plan to get the company back on track, focusing on a "welcoming coffeehouse where people gather and where we serve the finest coffee, handcrafted by our skilled baristas." However, those comments and Niccol's plans sound hollow to Kass. "When he got to Starbucks, Niccol started off by using fancy jargon to distract from the fact that Starbucks is losing to both value and premium brands/operators," wrote Kass. "Starbucks now faces a very expensive overhaul in its physical locations and product offerings." Starbucks' competitive advantage hasn't been lost on rivals. Big rivals like Dunkin' and McDonald's have expanded menus, including popular refreshers, while local mom-and-pop cafes have leaned hard into the artisanal coffee house vibe. Related: McDonald's to test five crazy new drinks Winning back market share from those players won't be easy. As a result, Niccol's overhaul could pressure Starbucks' profits while ultimately doing little to restore Starbucks's culture, disappointing investors. "The brand is now very weak competitively - they aren't premium (artisans, local brands, etc.) and the previous also-rans are coming in hot with smaller footprints," said Kass. "From a product standpoint, they sell more chemicals, sugar and ice - it's not coffee." Undeniably, many remain loyal Starbucks fans, but there are more choices, and with less connection to the employees, the moat of loyalty isn't nearly as strong as it was in the past. "It is the Regal Cinemas concession stand without the movies. The notion that the baristas want to hang with the customers has been lost," said Kass. "I suspect the turnaround in both companies will take a lot longer than the consensus expects." To be sure, Starbucks' challenges aren't unique. Indeed, most companies experiencing the kind of success it has experienced deal with similar issues. Still, the hyper-competitive coffee market and the challenges facing Niccol leave Kass thinking that there are better alternatives for investors. "I would not bottom fish despite the material share-price weakness," concluded Kass. Related: Why did stocks tumble this week? The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Former Treasury Secretary Says Trump Is Trying to 'Scapegoat' Jerome Powell
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers warned that President Donald Trump may be trying to "scapegoat" Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell in the event the economy slows down enough to hit a recession. "He's looking to set up a scapegoat if the economy performs badly," Summers said during an appearance on ABC News' This Week. "That's what this attacking chairman Powell is really about. It's not really about trying to change policy." Newsweek reached out to the White House by email outside of normal business hours on Sunday morning for comment. Why It Matters Trump has made tariffs the centerpiece of his economic and foreign policy plans, using trade negotiations to try and end conflicts and completely reshape the international trade landscape to more heavily favor the United States. However, many economists and business leaders have warned that Trump's plan will cause a recession as the tariffs raise prices for Americans, which could deter buying and prompt more Americans to hold onto their money. Trump has therefore urged Powell to cut the interest rate in order to spur the economy and get people to spend more money, but Powell has resisted—much to Trump's frustration. What To Know The stock market took a hit on Friday after Trump signed a series of executive orders to impose tariffs on over 90 countries, ranging from 10 to 41 percent. The July Jobs report showed that growth had slowed, showing just 73,000 new jobs—well under the projected 100,000 that the Dow Jones had estimated. Additionally, the jobs reports for May and June were hit with significant revisions that showed very weak growth across those months. Trump fired Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and accused her of manipulating the reports for "political purposes." Summers, who served in former presidents Bill Clinton's and Barack Obama's administrations, suggested on Sunday that Trump is likely also trying to line up Powell as a scapegoat should the economy continue to struggle, even though Trump appointed Powell during his first term in office. "I think that this kind of political Fed bashing is a fool's game," Summers said. "The Fed doesn't listen, so short-term interest rates aren't going to be different because of it." He continued: "The market does listen, and so longer-term rates are going to go higher, which is going to make it more expensive to buy a house. This is hurting the economy, not helping. I think the president understands that and what the president is doing is recognizing that, for all kinds of reasons, of which his policies are very important ones, the economy is at a lot of risk." Summers also expressed surprise that more people hadn't responded within the administration to McEntarfer's firing, saying that the decision to remove her "is way beyond anything that Richard Nixon ever did." When Nixon dismissed special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the Watergate Scandal, it prompted several officials to resign rather than fire Cox, causing what was known as the "Saturday Night Massacre." Trump faced a similar issue in February, which has been likened to Nixon as the "Thursday Night Massacre," when Department of Justice (DOJ) officials resigned rather than execute an order to dismiss federal corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. No one has yet resigned in response to McEntarfer's firing, but Summers indicated that he sees the firing as a scapegoating as well, saying: "These numbers are put together by teams of literally hundreds of people following detailed procedures that are in manuals." "There's no conceivable way that the head of the BLS could have manipulated this number," he added. "The numbers are in line with what we're seeing from all kinds of private sector sources." Summers remains cautious about suggesting the economy is headed for a recession. Instead, he said the economy is at "stall speed," which "could tip into recession," but that "wouldn't be my prediction right now." Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers speaks during the World Economic Summit in Washington, D.C., on April 17, 2024. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers speaks during the World Economic Summit in Washington, D.C., on April 17, 2024. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images What People Are Saying President Donald Trump in a post on Truth Social on Saturday wrote: "'Too Late' Powell should resign, just like Adriana Kugler, a Biden Appointee, resigned. She knew he was doing the wrong thing on Interest Rates. He should resign, also!" In a post from Friday, Trump wrote: "Jerome 'Too Late' Powell, a stubborn MORON, must substantially lower interest rates, NOW. IF HE CONTINUES TO REFUSE, THE BOARD SHOULD ASSUME CONTROL, AND DO WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS HAS TO BE DONE!" Ernie Tedeschi, the former head of Yale University's Budget Lab, wrote on X on Friday about McEntarfer's firing: "I've worked closely with Erika. I know of no economist who is more data-focused & devoted to truth in statistics. She never shied from speaking truth to power when the data were disappointing. Nothing would be worse for US credibility than political meddling in our economic data."
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labor market. Advertisement Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than $2 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the United States abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. Advertisement 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' The Port of Baltimore on June 30, 2025. ALYSSA SCHUKAR/NYT Trump has long fantasized about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the United States away from taxing earnings and toward taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the government collects every year. Advertisement 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Workers welded steel components together at a Thomas Built Buses plant in High Point, N.C., on July 21, 2025. TRAVIS DOVE/NYT Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recently introduced legislation to send $600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social program, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. Advertisement 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the United States, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in
