Yule Heibel's Library tagged income_disparity →  View Popular

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.