Here in Central Florida we say we have a tourism economy.
That means theme park giants, hotels, restaurants, and county coffers blossom from the rich fertilizer of the tourist trade.
It also means that the props by which the profitables succeed work two or more jobs at low wage in herculean efforts to stay afloat. They place you on rides; entertain you by walking around with big, heavy, and hot character heads; serve you food; clean the toilets in your carefully maintained hotel suite, deal with your abuse.
When the economy goes bad, either from recession or virus, the well-off have a difficult time, but survive. The others may be forced to join the ranks of the homeless. Unemployment figures soar.
Many decry this situation. The problem, they say, is the “tourism economy,” that machine of fantasy that makes our area known internationally.
What a Utopia it would be, they say, if we could wean ourselves from it. Attract companies with high paying jobs in STEM related fields. This would be a boon to the construction industry and tax revenue. It would protect us from the deep pits of recessions or health crises. What a rosy picture is painted if only we could diversify our economy.
The proponents are like prophets, predicting a brilliant future. A recent op-ed in my local paper made the above points. I suspect all the arguments are correct. Average income in our area would rise. Unemployment figures would be lower during hard times. It’s clearly something we should do.
There is the question of just how we should attract such businesses, but that’s for another day.
Today I want to concentrate on just why the average wage would increase. It’s because big numbers averaged with small numbers produce something in between. Let’s look at a simple example. The average wage of three people each earning $15,000 per year is $15,000. But the average wage of those same three people and one other making $60,000 is
($15,000 + $15,000 + $15,000 + $60,000) / 4 = $26,250.
Sure, the average has increased, close to double in this simple example. Local government can take the figures and announce average income has risen.
The trouble is there still are those three people earning $15,000. The same number as before. They are still struggling even in the best of times. They remain fighting for affordable housing. They still need to work two jobs or more. They are the first to be let go during hard times. For them, nothing has changed.
Neither the op-ed nor any other proponents of diversification mention these negatives.
As I said, there is no question about the benefits of going beyond the wonders of tourism. But we shouldn’t get so taken with it that we forget those left behind. After all, the theme parks or hotels or restaurants dependent on them aren’t going away. The non-glamorous jobs will still be required.
What we need is a parallel effort: attracting new businesses and also raising prospects for the basic workers.
In all fairness, I should report my county is making efforts. There are task forces in place to deal with the issue. Of course, talk is cheap while solutions are expensive. My county is trying to help, using Covid funds whenever possible. And nonprofits have redoubled their efforts.
Florida recently passed a constitutional amendment to raise the minimum raise to $15 by 2026. Of course, who knows what that will be worth by then. Or what legislators, who hate the idea, will do to water it down. They have a long history of doing just that with amendments approved by the people.
What I hope is that, as we properly attempt to diversify the economy, a large portion of the resultant extra revenue is devoted to that essential group whose economy has, by the changes, improved little if at all.
That means theme park giants, hotels, restaurants, and county coffers blossom from the rich fertilizer of the tourist trade.
It also means that the props by which the profitables succeed work two or more jobs at low wage in herculean efforts to stay afloat. They place you on rides; entertain you by walking around with big, heavy, and hot character heads; serve you food; clean the toilets in your carefully maintained hotel suite, deal with your abuse.
When the economy goes bad, either from recession or virus, the well-off have a difficult time, but survive. The others may be forced to join the ranks of the homeless. Unemployment figures soar.
Many decry this situation. The problem, they say, is the “tourism economy,” that machine of fantasy that makes our area known internationally.
What a Utopia it would be, they say, if we could wean ourselves from it. Attract companies with high paying jobs in STEM related fields. This would be a boon to the construction industry and tax revenue. It would protect us from the deep pits of recessions or health crises. What a rosy picture is painted if only we could diversify our economy.
The proponents are like prophets, predicting a brilliant future. A recent op-ed in my local paper made the above points. I suspect all the arguments are correct. Average income in our area would rise. Unemployment figures would be lower during hard times. It’s clearly something we should do.
There is the question of just how we should attract such businesses, but that’s for another day.
Today I want to concentrate on just why the average wage would increase. It’s because big numbers averaged with small numbers produce something in between. Let’s look at a simple example. The average wage of three people each earning $15,000 per year is $15,000. But the average wage of those same three people and one other making $60,000 is
($15,000 + $15,000 + $15,000 + $60,000) / 4 = $26,250.
Sure, the average has increased, close to double in this simple example. Local government can take the figures and announce average income has risen.
The trouble is there still are those three people earning $15,000. The same number as before. They are still struggling even in the best of times. They remain fighting for affordable housing. They still need to work two jobs or more. They are the first to be let go during hard times. For them, nothing has changed.
Neither the op-ed nor any other proponents of diversification mention these negatives.
As I said, there is no question about the benefits of going beyond the wonders of tourism. But we shouldn’t get so taken with it that we forget those left behind. After all, the theme parks or hotels or restaurants dependent on them aren’t going away. The non-glamorous jobs will still be required.
What we need is a parallel effort: attracting new businesses and also raising prospects for the basic workers.
In all fairness, I should report my county is making efforts. There are task forces in place to deal with the issue. Of course, talk is cheap while solutions are expensive. My county is trying to help, using Covid funds whenever possible. And nonprofits have redoubled their efforts.
Florida recently passed a constitutional amendment to raise the minimum raise to $15 by 2026. Of course, who knows what that will be worth by then. Or what legislators, who hate the idea, will do to water it down. They have a long history of doing just that with amendments approved by the people.
What I hope is that, as we properly attempt to diversify the economy, a large portion of the resultant extra revenue is devoted to that essential group whose economy has, by the changes, improved little if at all.
RSS Feed