I have become a fan of stay-at-home travel.
To the dismay of the travel-dependent companies: cruise lines, airlines, hotels, restaurants etc. the new word for travel is “staycation.” The Americans have coined it. No one more than Americans have reacted so vigourously to the economic downturn. They have pulled back their discretionary spending to the point that many travel organization s are offering to-good=to=-miss bargains. In a similar way, companies like Remax TV commercials claiming you need a kick in the pants not to invest in the current real estate market.
Everywhere, those who are still standing are looking for bargains. Hence the “staycation.” Between the worst recessions since 1929 and the fear of travel to countries that appear to be anti-American, a nation of travelers has reduced their travel. Not only have trips abroad tumbled, but even the distances traveled within their own country, have been reduced. Stay at home or staycation has become popular.
It is true that it is far less expensive to “discover” your own backyard, than to fly off to exotic places. For the past two weeks my wife and I have sallied forth into our own Ontario countryside. Two weeks ago we did one overnight in the Elora region. I had forgotten how beautiful the rolling lush farmland north of Kitchener could be. (If we were driving through Tuscany we would marvel at the beautiful view.) We don’t have to. An afternoon in tourist-favourite St. Jacobs included a visit to the shoppes at The Silo where we gawked and bought. A new hall carpet and asset of table place mats. Then off to a glassmaker where we did it again, adding to our collection of art glass. In Elora, we visited the scène of our previous glass purchase. My wife cautioned me against more spending. I reacted with: “If something jumps off the shelf and says “buy me,” how can I resist. We didn’t buy this time, but the young woman operating the shop advised us to head across the road for dinner. (The shop person has, by the way, a Masters in History and is working on a doctorate in Library Science.) The restaurant was “Whispers” and a surprisingly good one it was, comparable to any chic big city eatery.
So pleased were we that we did it again the following week. This time to “discover” the new “Art and Wine Trail” that begins at Wooler road at the 401 highway west of Belleville and winds its way along the Loyalist Parkway to Picton.
It was out of season so some of the wineries were not open for tasting and buying. We found two that were, located in and around Hillier. The Chardonnay is exquisite, with an undertaste of apples and pears. The red lack some maturity but time alone is on the side of a vineyard, and soon the reds will compete.
The Loyalist Trail takes us through Wellington, once a thriving fishing village, now home to at least a dozen fine galleries. Yes, we did it again: more are glass “jumped” off the shelf.
The buying spree continued at the “Maker’s Hand” craft show in Picton. Mark Armstrong, the glassmaker from Wellington was there and we spent more money. This spending “spree” may seem to be the height of prodigality, but you have to remember that there is no airfare to pay, and no high priced resort hotels, which is what a Staycation is all about.
Maybe the best in newly-chic Picton was Currah’s restaurant. You simply don’t expect this level of gourmet quality in a small town, even though the tourists abound. The dinner was spectacular. My pickerel was superb and topped with a magic chutney sauce which included tender capers. The waiter would not divulge the other ingredients.
Neither of us are big fans of touring when the crowds are at their peak. We prefer the off-season times when most of the facilities are still up and running, and access is easier.
Having extolled the virtues of close-to-home travel, I am embarrassed to report that come next spring we will be spending (via exchange) four months in Paris. But even that will be a staycation. We also exchange cars so our French visitors can cruise Ontario, and we can drive to Provence. The only expense in air fare. And I’m hoping the French Healthy Care system will embrace me.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
STIMULUS OR STAGNATION
It doesn’t seem to be working. rOBERT rEICH, former Labour Secretary in the Clinton administration, claims that the real unemployment figure is closer to 20%! Wow.
There is a paradox here. If the “engine” of recovery is the private sector, why has the stimulus not been reflected in more jobs? Simple. Companies in a down market can only hope to improve their financial bottom line by instituting economies and the major cost in running any company is labour cost – from, the over-paid CEO to the hard-working serf at the bottom of the feeding chart.
It is no surprise that productivity is up. “Productivity” is a code word for getting more work from fewer people. In the long run the policy is self-destructive because it erodes the energy and ambition of the people working under close to sweat shop conditions.
I don’t blame business for this. They’re in business to do business. They’re in business to show a profit. That’s at the heart of the capitalist system, which is not all bad, in spite of the greed of Wall Street. I’m waiting to see the movie sequel to “greed is good” as Hollywood gives us Gecko (played by Michael Douglas) recreated in the age of economic chaos.
Governments are not making the best use of their stimulus programs. The principal objective is to improve corporate balance sheets and in the “rising-tide-lifts-all-boats philosophy, the stimulus will filter down to the unemployed.
There is a better idea. Instead of increasing Employment Insurance, or increasing the length of time it can be paid, present employers with an opportunity to help return us to full employment. Critics of job-sharing suggest that cutting back on payroll lets the best workers thrive and the others fall by the wayside. (Of course, in a unionized situation, there is to merit clause in the laying off or rehiring of employees.)
To make the economy work; to revive retail sales; to create new consumer confidence, the jobless numbers must go down. Stimulus as it plays out does not do the job. If we can increase the number of people working, we can recover. You have already guessed where I’m heading. Government, instead of paying out billions to the unemployed, uses that money to supplement incomes. It would be a confidence-booster. By reducing the size of each worker’s work week, and replacing those lost hours with work for someone who has been laid off, will cause us to return to optimistic prosperity. I haven’t done the math, but it would seem to me that the same money paid as unemployment insurance used instead to ramp up reduced income would keep more people working and not cost government any more money that is already being spent to support the unemployed.
The hitch is of course, that it takes employment policy out of the hands of the corporations and gives it to government. So here we go again with critics of the "nanny” state bellowing their protests.
The truth is that we need government. Who else will do it?
There is a paradox here. If the “engine” of recovery is the private sector, why has the stimulus not been reflected in more jobs? Simple. Companies in a down market can only hope to improve their financial bottom line by instituting economies and the major cost in running any company is labour cost – from, the over-paid CEO to the hard-working serf at the bottom of the feeding chart.
It is no surprise that productivity is up. “Productivity” is a code word for getting more work from fewer people. In the long run the policy is self-destructive because it erodes the energy and ambition of the people working under close to sweat shop conditions.
I don’t blame business for this. They’re in business to do business. They’re in business to show a profit. That’s at the heart of the capitalist system, which is not all bad, in spite of the greed of Wall Street. I’m waiting to see the movie sequel to “greed is good” as Hollywood gives us Gecko (played by Michael Douglas) recreated in the age of economic chaos.
Governments are not making the best use of their stimulus programs. The principal objective is to improve corporate balance sheets and in the “rising-tide-lifts-all-boats philosophy, the stimulus will filter down to the unemployed.
There is a better idea. Instead of increasing Employment Insurance, or increasing the length of time it can be paid, present employers with an opportunity to help return us to full employment. Critics of job-sharing suggest that cutting back on payroll lets the best workers thrive and the others fall by the wayside. (Of course, in a unionized situation, there is to merit clause in the laying off or rehiring of employees.)
To make the economy work; to revive retail sales; to create new consumer confidence, the jobless numbers must go down. Stimulus as it plays out does not do the job. If we can increase the number of people working, we can recover. You have already guessed where I’m heading. Government, instead of paying out billions to the unemployed, uses that money to supplement incomes. It would be a confidence-booster. By reducing the size of each worker’s work week, and replacing those lost hours with work for someone who has been laid off, will cause us to return to optimistic prosperity. I haven’t done the math, but it would seem to me that the same money paid as unemployment insurance used instead to ramp up reduced income would keep more people working and not cost government any more money that is already being spent to support the unemployed.
The hitch is of course, that it takes employment policy out of the hands of the corporations and gives it to government. So here we go again with critics of the "nanny” state bellowing their protests.
The truth is that we need government. Who else will do it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)