Originally Posted by
trilinearmipmap
Not to hijack the thread, but just a question. As a foreigner who has been to Hawaii, I've noticed the Kama'aina rates for hotels, as well as discounts for Kama'aina's at grocery stores etc. For example a box of cornflakes costs me $8.00 while local people pay $3.00
What grocery store were you shopping at? There are no kama'aina rates at grocery stores that I know of. Perhaps you saw a sale that required membership in the supermarket's loyalty program (e.g., Safeway Club, Foodland Maika'i program)?
Originally Posted by
trilinearmipmap
One question I have is, is this legal in your country? In Canada I would be hauled before a human rights tribunal if my business tried to discriminate against someone on the basis of nationality. No difference to my thinking from discriminating because someone is gay, or black, or female.
This form of economic discrimination is legal in the United States. Discrimination based on wealth or economics is subject to the lowest standard of scrutiny (e.g., rational basis scrutiny; and all that takes is for a single person to think the classification is rational). This is not discrimination based on nationality since those who are not a US citizen, but reside in Hawaii
can receive a State ID to qualify for kama'aina discounts at hotels.
Originally Posted by
trilinearmipmap
The other question is, is this really good business? It leaves a sour taste in my mouth to know I am being gouged because I am a foreigner. Not a good way to make a nice impression on tourists when they know they are paying up to twice as much as local people for the same goods and services.
I knew I was paying twice as much as anyone in London this past summer since I had to exchange my USDs into Euros.
That aside, it is incredible business. Do you realize how much business hotels receive from locals? We pay the price of paradise on a daily basis. You pay the price of paradise a trip every year, perhaps? Drawing in locals to fill the empty hotel rooms (remember, rooms are subject to availability) seems the most economical to me.
So per your argument, should we do away with AARP rates as well? I don't qualify for AARP rates, and I suppose it should leave a bitter taste in my mouth knowing that those who are in the AARP age range are paying a cheaper price?