|
| Subject: Re: Finally, a fair and thoughtful article on Cancun in the Washington Post
|
Posted on: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 02:17:25 +0000 (UTC)
|
Technobarbarian wrote:
> Uh..........., soooooooooo what's your point?
My point is that this is the first article that I have seen in a major
American publication to present a reasonably accurate picture of
Cancun.
> It's obvious that Cancun is an important economic engine for Mexico, but the picture isn't nearly as rosy as your article would like to paint. I've spent a lot of time in that area and have spoken with quite a few of the locals. I met an electrician who was making $15 a day--no work-no pay, no insurance of any sort.
The issue isn't whether it's perfect, or as good as some sections in
the United States, but that it's better than any other place in Mexico.
Fifteen dollars a day in Cancun is not the same as $15 a day in the
United States, but the guy you spoke to is some kind of itinerant
worker or recent arrival. Any electrician who knows what he is doing is
making decent money in Cancun because there's so much construction
going on. If he's working for a company, he gets health insurance and
other benefits.
> I spoke with another guy who was making, and spending, good money as a bartender--seasonally.
How long is seasonally? Cancun never goes below 60% occupancy. During
the winter high season it sometimes reaches 100%
> Many of the workers in that area are migrants because the work is seasonal.
How many in numbers and percentages is "many"? You have some statistics
to back up that statement?
> The enviromental impact of rapid growth in the area is so obvious I won't even bother with that.
If it's so obvious, how about some facts? Yes, it is a large
development and a lot of natural beauty had to be sacrificed, but
despite that I defy you to show me a beach area in the United States
that is anywhere near as clean and unpolluted as Cancun. The water is
so transparent you can see the bottom from a satellite.
> Mexico has tried to repeat Cancun in other areas without much success,
None of the other Fonatur resorts have succeeded on the same scale as
Cancun, but they are all making money and employing people. The Riviera
Maya, which was developed by private industry without government
financing, is in the same league as Cancun.
> so the latest plan seems to be to repeat it in that area.
Repeat what in what area? The state of Quintana Roo is being developed
according to master plans that were created a long time ago. You talk
as if this were some kind of improvisation. It's not performance art.
> Do you think Cancun, or more Cancuns, are going to replace immigration to the US?
Tourism does have a limit, but you might be interested to know that
Spain receives more than 55 million visitors a year. Mexican receives
about 20 million, and its tourism growth has been well below the world
average. So there's still plenty of room for growth. Cancun is also
diversifying. Other industries are coming in. I can't go into all the
new trends in a newsgroup message, but as a result of recent Central
American and Caribbean trade agreements, Cancun is expected to emerge
as a major finance and trading point. It has the best communications
and transportation infrastructure in the entire area (although I would
have to check and see how it compares with Panama). The government is
acutely aware of these opportunities. Several different government
affiliated or sponsored groups are working on making them happen --
they way Cancun was made to happen.
> According to your
Not mine, the Washington Post.
> article the area employs around 200,000 people
I don't know where he got that statistic. It may refer only to tourism
or to the formal economy. There's also a very large informal sector.
The city's population is approximately 800,000. I think the article
clearly understates the number of employed people. In 2004 only 2.9% of
the economically active population was unemployed. Sixty-two percent of
the population is economically active, (more than double the national
rate of 29 percent), so approximately 480,000 people are working.
> Migration to the US accounts for many millions of Mexicans.
True, but almost a half million is still a large number, and that only
accounts for Cancun, not the Riviera Maya, nor the other tourism areas.
> Just as with the rest of Mexico the money is not being spread around evenly.
So what the distribution for the United States? The last time I checked
only France had a worse income distribution rate than the United
States.
> For the average Mexican living conditions in that area are no better than what you find in the rest of the country. In some ways they are worse.
Unfortunately for your off-the-top of your head arguments, living
conditions in Cancun are measurably better than the rest of the
country, and the difference in income between the rich and the poor is
smaller. The middle class is the largest share of any locality in
Mexico. You can't go by what some bartender tells you. You have to get
out and look around and you have to do the statistical research.
You might be interested in taking a look at some figures I pulled
together at http://cafecancun.com/marc.shtml Pay attention to the
charts in the middle of the page.
Tourism resorts like Cancun are not /the/ answer to the emigration
problem. They are one of the answers. But the basic attitude that
created Cancun in the first place is what counts. It shows a path.
Running Cancun down because it doesn't fit your idea of proper living
standards ignores that reality. You seem like a thoughtful person who
genuinely cares about what's happening here. If you give up your
preconceived ideas, I think that you will be impressed with what Cancun
really is and what it means for Mexico.
>
> TB
|
|
|
| |