It’s a good question.

“Five people have just lost their lives and to start talking about insurance, all the rescue efforts and the cost can seem pretty heartless — but the thing is, at the end of the day, there are costs,” said Arun Upneja, dean of Boston University’s School of Hospitality Administration and a researcher on tourism.

“There are many people who are going to say, ‘Why should the society spend money on the rescue effort if (these people) are wealthy enough to be able to … engage in these risky activities?’”

 

That question is gaining attention as very wealthy travelers in search of singular adventures spend big to scale peaks, sail across oceans and blast off for space.

 

The U.S. Coast Guard declined Friday to provide a cost estimate for its efforts to locate the Titan, the submersible investigators say imploded not far from the world’s most famous shipwreck. The five people lost included a billionaire British businessman and a father and son from one of Pakistan’s most prominent families. The operator charged passengers $250,000 each to participate in the voyage.

 

“We cannot attribute a monetary value to Search and Rescue cases, as the Coast Guard does not associate cost with saving a life,” the agency said.

 

While the Coast Guard’s cost for the mission is likely to run into the millions of dollars, it is generally prohibited by federal law from collecting reimbursement related to any search or rescue service, said Stephen Koerting, a U.S. attorney in Maine who specializes in maritime law.

 

But that does not resolve the larger issue of whether wealthy travelers or companies should bear responsibility to the public and governments for exposing themselves to such risk.

I rather agree with the Coast Guard’s stance. The vast majority of their rescues are not for wealthy adventurers, but for normal people who find themselves in distress – perhaps due to some negligence, but often due to unfortunate circumstances. All of their work is supported by tax dollars for the general good. I don’t really want our government to get in the habit of rendering vital services based on the ability of the recipient to reimburse. While some might get frustrated with the expensive rescue of wealthy people who take extraordinary risks, the action of forcing reimbursement would likely have the opposite of the desired effect. If the Coast Guard can get paid for rescuing rich people, who is to say that they won’t allocate more resources to that effort than rescuing less affluent people? Does not a public university (another taxpayer funded institution) lavish more access and resources on their wealthy students than on middle class ones?

Whenever money changes hands, an incentive is created. I don’t think we want our Cast Guard to be incentivized to allocate scare resources based on the recipients’ ability to pay instead of their risk of life.

Can’t win, eh. This is why I prefer companies that just keep their noses out of activism in any form. Sure, sell the merchandise targeted at the LGBTQ community, but just sell it like all of the other products. When you make a point of getting into activism, it cuts both ways.

Heather Hester told Fox Digital that Target’s reaction confirmed that the organization was ‘in this just for the money,’ and that the company’s recent actions are a ‘huge betrayal’ to the LGBTQ community.

 

‘Rainbow capitalism is essentially, you know, selling Pride products for profit and not necessarily standing behind the community with support,’ said Hester. ‘That’s what happened, right? There are a lot of things that go into that, but that is what happened at the end of the day.’

 

Target has lost market value since it viral videos showed its LGBTQ clothing – including ‘tuck-friendly’ gear – on sale in stores.

For the life of me, I don’t understand why companies think that it is their responsibility to use the workplace to correct society’s ills. They should certainly keep bigotry and hate out of the workplace (we call that “professionalism”), but why does Uber and other companies feel like they need to use their time and resources to address societal or cultural issues? Not only is it not their job, it is fraught with professional and market peril – like we see in this story.

CNN — 

Uber’s diversity chief is on leave from the company after criticism from some employees related to an internal panel called “Don’t Call Me Karen.”

Bo Young Lee, Uber’s chief diversity and inclusion officer, is on a leave of absence, Noah Edwardsen, an Uber spokesperson, confirmed to CNN on Monday.

Lee oversaw a series of sessions called “Moving Forward” at Uber that focused on issues around race, gender identity and class. One of the more recent sessions was titled, “Don’t Call Me Karen,” and focused on the experiences of a handful of women leaders, a person familiar with the matter told CNN. “Karen” is a slang term that usually refers to a middle-aged white woman with a strong sense of entitlement, often at the expense of people of color.

[…]

According to the New York Times, which was first to report the news, Black and Hispanic workers at Uber first felt that organizers of the event were focusing more on the harms caused by using the moniker “Karen” than the harms white people can inflict on people of color.

In a follow-up listening session, the Times reported, some employees felt their concerns weren’t being heard and that instead of a chance to provide feedback or have a dialogue, they were lectured by Lee about their response to the initial “Don’t Call Me Karen” event.