This is totally absurd. It is hard to argue with twisted logic like this.
Let me modify it a little. If you could have a vacation in Cancun without private jet or a yacht, but enabling your emplyoyees to have some modest vacation, would you make this sacrifice? If you did not, would you feel guilty?
Please explain what is so twisted about it? Is is twisted to watch your employees suffer, if they suffer, while they mind the shop for you to have your vacation? It is not twisted for a few employers I have known who paid their employees a living wage and never took vacations. I've seen that, too, but it is uncommon because usually the spouse of the employer, if he/she is able to keep their marriage intact, wants their share of the good life. After all, they've earned it even if they don't work because they are married to a winner and not a loser. Winners deserve all the perks that come with the good life. Losers are, well losers, and are good for nothing except for what they can do for you on the cheap and are fortunate if you don't abuse them in the process.
I was talking to my granddaughter about people who have to drag out in the cold early in the morning to work at McDonald's. A lot of people are demanding and abusive towards them she says. She works at the mall and doesn't want to work at McDonalds or Wal Mart. She takes abuse at the mall sometimes, too. She says she has to buy at Wal Mart because it is so cheap. I told her that is ok. I don't try to dissuade people from shopping there if they choose to. I'll tackle it from another angle.
Some of the arguments about Wal Mart are rather silly because you can find the same or better-quality merchandise on sale locally at another store or get better deals on the internet if you know how to work it. Wal Mart is convenient because it is one-stop shopping for busy people, and their groceries are cheap, but there are other economical food markets that are just as cheap or cheaper, but you might have to go to a higher-crime area to shop there.