Hacker News Reader

Comment by buro9 | Hacker News Reader

And then only the wealthy may have holidays.

Holidays doesn't mean "travelling to another country in a plane" or "let's take a credit to tour Italy".

Quite true but if some can and some can’t the social class implications will be picked up on very fast, whether the reason is money or political connections.

People will find a way to separate themselves into classes no matter what. And those of higher class will separate themselves from the proles using any means available.

Even in Soviet Union the running joke was that all people are equal, but some people are more equal than others.

There is another running joke "Everyone is born equal, then God sort them out".

Yes it does, "holidays" is interchangeable with "vacation" in some English speaking countries.

Vacation doesn't mean "travelling to another country in a plane" or "let's take a credit to tour Italy" either.

And poor people can go to Estonia or Sweden, or whatever other nordic nation. I think humanity might survive only rich people being able to go to Norway.

That's how it is now, from a global perspective.

This unfortunately pleases the state, the tourist service providers and the wealthy.

All three of them not being particularly known for their respect of culture, tradition and delicate (eco)systems.

Blah.

The wealthy are less well-known for their respect of culture, tradition and delicate ecosystems than the not wealthy?

You cannot limit the number of visitors and let everyone have this sort of holidays.

The most beneficial way to limit the number of visitors for local communities is to increase prices.

If they want to reserve a number of places for people to be able to visit at a low(er) cost (e.g. through a lottery) then good for them, but there is no entitlement to go on holidays to others' countries or to unique places.

>The most beneficial way to limit the number of visitors for local communities is to increase prices. //

Can you expand on that, it doesn't seem self-evident to me.

I'm assuming that the money goes to the local communities (even countries).

If it does then it seems quite obvious that more money is better than less money.

Sell me your brain?

It seems like communities can be ruined by richer tourists in ways that not so rich tourists won't. For example, in Pembrokeshire and areas of Devon some communities have been partially replaced by clusters of second-homes because rich people like to have their holidays there. Locals can no longer afford to live there because they lack the wealth to outbid incomers. Maybe that's not quite in scope for "tourism".

I can imagine other issues, like facilities being tailored to richer people (all your green spaces get turned into golf courses, or whatever, all the pubs cost a fortune); teachers, services workers and such can't afford to live locally.

Richer people maybe cause more environmental damage? 3 cars, private plane, large concreted property, ..., yes at a holiday home, as one goes further up-market?

Perhaps good if you want to work in service industries.

> 3 cars, private plane, large concreted property, ..., yes at a holiday home, as one goes further up-market?

What? We are discussing visitors on holidays, not people moving in or buying second homes.

Isn't it a progression?

Norway is already very expensive to visit

It really isn’t. Between the existence of Norwegian Airlines and the fact that the Norwegian crown is hovering at 9 to a dollar, flights are almost never over $200 one-way from New York and it’s now cheaper for an American to drink an Aperol Spritz here than in Manhattan.

in overcrowded locations that have reached their maximum capacity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com