|
|
|
|||||
|
Dear Mr. Loper, Thank you so much for the opportunity to have open dialogue on important issues in our community. I would like to reply to the letter by Mr. Campbell regarding the acts of "terrorism" taking place in front of the Marriott, which he complains are disrupting his Friday afternoons. Before I proceed to the more important issue (and the one that is consistently missed), I would first like to clear up just one minor point. Mr. Campbell states that his organization (the UVa Medical Alumni Association) sends a lot of business to the Marriott and "the only time that they (the Marriott) are able to get $119 a night is for special events...... more likely the rate is $89 or $99 a night." The day after Mr. Campbell's letter appeared, I called the Marriott and asked about room availability and rates. I was quoted $119 + tax for two double beds (double or single occupancy) and $129 + tax for a king size bed (double or single occupancy). If the Medical Alumni Association seldom pays more than $89 - 99 per night, then it is highly possible that the Marriott is offering them a special rate, which is not available to the rest of us ordinary folk. Perhaps Mr. Campbell should be spending some of his Friday afternoons checking his facts instead of worrying about the "terrorists" out on the street. Now, on to the bigger issue. Mr. Campbell stated that "If (a) higher wage is paid, then room rates (will) go up which will lead to potential lay-offs of these very same employees." This threat is inevitably used whenever there is a discussion of raising the wages of the poorest in our nation. Someone will raise the red flag of: "If wages are raised, we'll have to pay more for our hamburgers, tacos, rooms, toasters, running shoes, etc., etc. And we'll have to FIRE workers, too, to maintain company profits." This is not really necessary. Simply stated, the top CEO's and executives just don't have to continue to receive the enormous (and skyrocketing) salaries and bonuses that they currently receive (J.W. Marriott, Jr., received $2,166,000* in direct compensation in 2000 - this does not include his stock options). Surely just a small share of the profits could go to reward the labor of the lowest paid in our society. After all, the salaries and compensation for the wealthiest in our country continue to grow at alarming rates. According to a study by the Congressional Budget Office reported in the Washington Post on 5/31/01, from 1979-1997, the average after-tax income of the wealthiest 1% of Americans grew from $264,000 to $678,000, a 137% increase; the after-tax income of the average taxpayer grew from $34,000 to $37,000, a 10% increase, and the income of the lowest one-fifth of the population dropped. At this rate, we are going to rival the wealth discrepancies of third world countries. But what am I saying--we already have obscene discrepancies. Tell me, does that top 1% really need a new personal jet or a seventh new house or another new Jaguar at the expense of those who create the wealth? They are making their millions off the hard labor of workers just trying to make ends meet--and at a stagnant $8.00 an hour, poverty-level wage, this gets harder all the time. In response to those who cry that this is "wealth redistribution," I would reply that we already have wealth redistribution. It just happens to be distributed by those at the top. It's wealth redistribution up, instead of down. So, while Mr. Campbell "looks for more ways to patronize this hotel," I will go out of my way to pass by his office and honk my horn in support of the "terrorists." Sincerely, Patricia A. Taylor (electronic mail, June 5, 2001)
|
