CEOS for Cities - Conversations - CEO Blog - Travel Wishes for 2008 - The Diigo Meta page

• 01 Jan 08
  

  Yule Heibel

  "Ban further luxury hotel development until they can find enough capable people to staff them." That's a suggestion from Monocle's Travel Wishes for 2008/09 (via CEOs for Cities) -- and it's great. Here's CEOs for Cities further comment: "How can you have 'luxury' hotels without workers who can deliver a 'luxury' experience? If people are willing to pay more for luxury experiences, shouldn't some of the benefits accrue to workers equipped to deliver those experiences?" A carpenter once told me, "if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys," and monkeys aren't going to be able to build you a quality product. If you call yourself a "luxury" outfit, make sure you're not trying to get by on peanut payrolls.

  ceos_for_cities income_disparity monocle_magazine socialjustice

  • Three items from Monocle's 25 Travel Wishes for 2008/9 caught my eye.

    
    
    

    The first was this: "Suspension of the silly no-liquids rule."

    
    
    

    The second was "Suspension of the sillier take-your-shoes-off x-ray procedures."

    
    
    

    To both I say, Amen.

    
    
    

    The third, though, is less obvious. "Ban further luxury hotel development until they can find enough capable people to staff them."

    
    
    

    As our economy becomes more bifurcated, there is a sense that the fates of those at the top and bottom of the wage scale are increasingly disconnected. But their connection makes itself felt in the most unexpected ways. And this is one of them.

  • How can you have "luxury" hotels without workers who can deliver a "luxury" experience? If people are willing to pay more for luxury experiences, shouldn't some of the benefits accrue to workers equipped to deliver those experiences? If people are willing to pay for luxurious gardens, shouldn't the workers who plant them benefit more than those capable of planting only "ordinary" gardens? Isn't the same true of luxury homes, boats, clothes and cars?

    
    
    

    Without judging whether any of this is "fair," it seems that workers who can delivery luxury goods, services and experiences ought to be able to link their incomes to those who can afford those luxury items. And if that's the case, then it makes sense for some of us to aspire (financially) to serve those needs.

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.