|
| Subject: Re: Finally, a fair and thoughtful article on Cancun in the Washington Post
|
Posted on: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:30:01 EDT
|
"Jules Siegel" wrote in message
news:1144289839.572060.231490@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
That's a point? I don't go seeking out articles on Cancun. What I do
see tends to break down into two types of stories: Cancun as a vacation and
Spring break destination or specific crimes occuring in that area.
American's deaths seem to be more significant for the media if they happen
outside of the States. The first type of article generally tends to be very
positive. The second type is just pandering to xenophobic nonsense. If your
point is to jump up and down and shout "wahoo, I found
one"--congratulations.
>
>> 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?
What I see and hear with my own senses isn't good enough without
numbers? Too funny.
>
>> 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.
Oh my, aren't we the defensive one. I talk about it as if the Mexican
government is able to respond to what they see happening on the ground and
make adjustments.
>
>> 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.
On this we agree, however Mexico has some difficult problems that will
need to be addressed for this to happen. I enjoy visiting Mexico. I've seen
more of Mexico than most Mexicans. I advocate visiting Mexico. For the
majority of Americans it is not an attractive destination because of the
dual problems of corruption and inept law enforcement. Unless and until
Mexico deals with the problem there isn't much hope of seeing the sort to
tourism growth that other countries are enjoying. The sad fact of the matter
is that one of the reasons for Cancun's success is that tourists are pretty
well insulated from the rest of Mexico there.
>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.
Stranger things have happened. But, let's get real for a minute. The
area lacks natural resources to attract industry. Almost everything there
has to be trucked in from somewhere else. There is no natural harbor to
support shipping and trading. It's well outside a direct path to Mexico's
major population centers and lacks railroad facilities. It's transportation
infrastructure is a toll road to Merida and a modern highway to Tulum, along
with a medium sized, at best, airport that is sometimes closed due to
flooding.
>
>> 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.
I guess you got so excited that you didn't read the article you're so
happy about very closely
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040201167.html?nav=rss_business/government
"For three decades, this city and the Mayan Riviera towns to the south have
been a magnet for workers throughout Mexico, now employing more than 200,000
people, many of whom opt to come here rather than go to the United States."
>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.
The 3% unemployment number that's generally cited is a wonderful
example of lying with statistics. In Mexico washing automobile windshields
at traffic lights or selling gum on the sidewalks is considered
"economically active". Everyone is "economically active" because the
alternative is starvation. 25% of Mexico's population is severely
under-employed. We're not talking about people with a college degree working
at McDonalds. We're talking about people living in extreme poverty.
>
>> 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.
Your checker is defective. Mexico's distribution of wealth is far more
skewed than the US.
>
>> 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.
Again with the numbers being the only true knowledge. I know what I
see. I don't have to go by what some bartender tells me. I don't spend a lot
of time in some cozy resort. I've visited all but a handful of states. I've
seen more of Mexico than most Mexicans. I get out and see the country
wherever I am. In the rest of Mexico the locals flock to the beach when they
can. It's a beautiful area, with a wonderful climate and you don't see that
so much there. I talk to a lot of people and get into a lot of homes. The
contrast between the poverty and the wealth is particularly stark in that
area.
>
> 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.
LOL, I've seen Cancun. My impression is such that the last time I was
there we got a rental car at the airport, took the by-pass around Cancun
toward Merida, had a lovely time in the area and returned to the airport
from down south of Playa del Carmen without ever bothering to go into
Cancun. I go to Mexico because I like Mexico. Cancun is pretty much the
opposite of what I go to Mexico for.
TB
|
|
|
| |