Hacker News Reader

Comment by iflywithbook | Hacker News Reader

It's interesting to see countries work so hard to developing the tourism and than reaching a point where they can't stop it

I lived in Amsterdam for a year and you can't walk in the city center without drunk/high people around you

I was completely fine with it, but I know that many people who live in the heart of amsterdam that their life changed once they tourist raised

What people should realize is that when the tourist is high in a city/country it doesn't mean that all the people of the country benefit from it.

Only the owners of shops and services around the tourist industry and in many cases it's a pretty centralised industry

View on HN

I live in a city that has had an explosion of tourism in the last 10 years. I don't benefit from it financially (if anything, the rents have shoot up considerably because of it), but it looks to me like it has been the main reason why the city doesn't feel empty and dead after 21h. I'm not sure I would be living here were it not for the side-effects of tourism.

dont you think you benefit from the fact your city's government has more money to spend due to all the taxes collected from tourists' consumption/visits?

Theoretically, it would be possible. But there are several reasons why I don't think of it as financially beneficial:

1) Rent and all cafes/bars/restaurants are significantly more expensive.

2) Most of the consumption is taxed via VAT, which goes directly to national government.

3) Both local city government and national government are corrupt hellholes which are certain to misuse any funds that come their way.

Edit: To be clear, I mean financially beneficial from "live in this particular city" perspective. On national level, tourism is such a high percentage of GDP that it's the only thing keeping the country alive. And we're in for a hell of ride if we stop being a desirable destination.

It's not just a matter of "oops we touristed our city", global wealth has skyrocketed in the last few decades, with a skewed distribution that vastly increased the number of people that can afford to travel.

(when I say skyrocketed, I mean it. Per household wealth has more than doubled even as the population has increased)

buffet makes money in the sodas , and countries make money from tourists with overpriced souvenirs, overpriced hotels and over hyped landmarks. Ever wondered how all these world heritage org people get their funding. If all of a sudden people just want to roam around the country side and instagram everything than how the hell will the country make money , not to mention you might become a strain on the well fare system (low water electricity bill) just by virtue of staying there for more than the required time.

Maybe if the source countries of the tourists could realize that if they liberalized their own country, their citizens wouldn’t dream of leaving so much just to walk around high.

But I have my doubts.

> Maybe if the source countries of the tourists could realize that if they liberalized their own country, their citizens wouldn’t dream of leaving so much just to walk around high.

Are you implying that no tourists visit Amsterdam from such liberal places, or that the only reason people go to Amsterdam is for drug tourism? Or something else?

California has legalized marijuana but if you visit Amsterdam you’ll see hella Californians. I think, in general, folks visit Amsterdam for lots of reasons. It’s kind of a well known city, and once one of the big cities of a massive empire.

Where did I said “no” or “only”?

Point is, if a city has a reputation for having a high proportion of its tourists roaming around visibly high, they’re inexperienced (or got higher than they could at home ).

Experienced high-quality marijuana users blend in a lot better.

> Experienced high-quality marijuana users blend in a lot better.

Ah I think your point was originally lost on me but now it has landed. Visibly high == inexperienced, more inexperienced points to the notion that people come to the place in order to experience it (possibly among other things). I can see that and agree in that light.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com