Global tourism is booming. These people would rather it wasn't | Hacker News Reader

Global tourism is booming. These people would rather it wasn't

bbc.com

47 pointsonemoresoop118 comments

I’d say about the most interesting difference between me and everyone else on this subject is that I have never been upset by other people enjoying things that once only I had access to.

It seems quite common that people want to “keep their spot”. People in San Francisco want “transplants to leave”. People in the UK want “no more immigrants”. People in Mallorca want “no more tourists”. “Cupertino is full”.

And all my life I have enjoyed seeing other people enjoy the things I’ve liked. There’s fun in discovering something new. And a long hike in Patagonia without seeing someone is a lot harder now than it used to be. But it’s just more people experiencing the things I like.

Things like “it’s too crowded there” seem more like just a property of the Universe as a location approaches the equilibrium crowd that it can support.

My sleepy home village now has tall towers to house people. The home I grew up in and played with animals is gone. But it feels better that it is this way, with homes for humans. Denser rather than sprawled. This isn’t even a rational position I’ve brought myself to. I just don’t have a negative emotional reaction to it.

I wonder what factors place one on this side and what factors place one on the other side. And which one is adaptive. Them or me.

Am I unbelievably unique? Or is it that folks like us just keep quiet?

By far the major issue is that an influx of tourists generally includes (at least some) people who don’t have the same respect for places as the locals, and they trash it. And you end up with nobody being able to enjoy it anymore.

During covid, we still had to have a townsite cleanup event to pick up the year's trash. We blame tourists for not having respect but the locals are often just as bad. There's both respectful and disrespectful folks in both groups...

What’s your age?

Late thirties. Though I spoke to my parents and they seem to have the same view, late sixties.

Unfortunately the hype for some locations is so strong that I can't imagine it being at all interesting. I don't want to bitch about tourists while being a tourist, but it's definitely the case of it's better to zig when everyone zags. I also hope that with time we move away from going places so that you can take a picture and say I was there, which let's face it is what a lot of people do. In a way it's getting worse - I spent a day with some friends visiting Berlin and they had a big list of things they want to do. We wanted to eat, but they wanted to eat the best burger in town (according to TripAdvisor or whatever), that was half an hour away. I managed to convince them to eat at a small local place - it was fine!

It's only going to get worse with AI. "Recommend me a place to visit" - "how about xxxxx" (times million for everyone else asking the same question.

For what it's worth my nicest family vacation in recent years was in Sweden of all places. The sea was cold, but the nature was nice, the weather was pleasant and everything was very relaxing. Also on topic this year is the first time ever going to Majorca - sorry locals!!

If it’s popular on the gram or someone has mentioned it to me, I will not go.

The best stuff is not popular yet.

The World Economic Forum thinks these are the top countries for travel and tourism: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/05/tourism-travel-pandem...

US, Spain, Japan, France, Australia.

As someone who aggressively believes UBI is terrible idea it seems like a good choice for tourism based economies. A big tax on, say, restaurants for non citizen ID holders would help raise prices in a collusive way and reduce the volume of tourists in a way that free market competition makes very difficult.

This is not unlike saying people in the country would be better off if we taxed exports. That might well be the case or it might not but as a general matter the only countries that do that are both rich and willing to concede that it's not doing much good.

I can’t parse what you’re trying to say

Taxing tourists is equivalent to taxing exports.

This would only work for the biggest tourist destinations. I much prefer the race to the bottom with things like tax free shopping for tourists.

What you prefer as a tourist is not much a concern

“Biggest” is not particularly relevant either. The question is simply whether it’s overcrowded by tourists or not.

The answer to it being overcrowded is for prices to increase, which happens naturally over time. Things get less crowded and more profitable, more places can open up which pushes prices back down, which increases tourism, etc. etc. Eventually you find an equilibrium.

Great for the rich tourists for which the destination is a choice, not so great for the people that actually live there. It is exactly this dynamic that causes so many locals to be anti-tourists.

Raising prices in a competitive market with many players is a prisoners dilemma and is not easy to do. The market has little pressure to solve for overcrowding.

A few countries do this kind of thing already.

In Bolivia, for example, if you have foreign plates on your car you pay more than double for gas and diesel.

Can’t tell if that’s a good thing or a bad thing for Bolivia.

Kind of exists already as tourist traps and is preferable to me than another tax.

This is not correct. In, say, Aspen locals are priced out. If there was a two tiered pricing system this could alleviate some major concerns. Haven’t thought about unintended consequences of this. Just wanted to point out that what you said is not correct in my opinion.

Haven’t been to Aspen, what I’ve seen in Europe though is that the locals either own the establishments, work there or are friends with owners and typically either earn in line with the high prices or get preferential treatment from the owners. No need for the complexity of a tax and intervention when people can figure it out themselves.

Unfortunately this is neither true for the island of Sylt and it's not true for the city of Berlin, either. Locals do get priced out, apart from the lucky few who—most of the time—own property that they can either survive in or profit from (your own apartment w/o rent hikes and/or your 2nd apartment that you do hike the rent of). The workforce is mostly sourced from younger, cheaper, more mobile folks who can better put up with more work, more shared living spaces that are further away or more expensive and so on. When owners get old and property prices are constantly rising they will likely sell at some point to start over somewhere else or retire, and when that happens, it's as a matter of course, more or less over for the local folks because then the egregious property price as to be amortized by driving up rents no matter what.

After WW2 the population of Sylt was predominantly 'indigenous' (families who've been living there forever). Today, almost nobody who was born on the island still lives there, and nobody who lives there (for a few weeks per year) as any relation to the island (except using it to hang out every now and then). In Berlin it's not quite that bad but the satirical person in me wants to add, in an optimistic fashion, "we're getting there!"

Or you know do what lots of places already do and charge hotels/rentals a nightly fee for each tourist.

I mean, sure, that’s another example of a tourist tax. But the spending side was the bit I was interested in

Appropriate enforcement of regulation of short term rentals is key. This happens in the US as well.

> But why does there suddenly seem to be such a strong sense of grievance in places where for decades large numbers of tourists have been the norm? > The answer, it would seem, is complicated

I think there's a simple explanation; there's just too goddamn many tourists in comparison to before.

There are noticeably more people living where I grew up than when I was say 10. I'd estimate somewhere between 2.5 and 3 times more. If there are also about 2.5 times more tourists, that's unbearable.

I now live somewhere where tourists like to visit, for some reason. During the day (almost all year round) it feels like there are more tourists than locals. The town is now self-designing itself for them, and now the people who live here. It's more than a little frustrating living here now.

> The town is now self-designing itself for them, and now the people who live here.

Town that self-designs itself for tourists attracts more tourists. Shocking.

Short term rentals have really made the housing crisis worse. I have boycotted them entirely, but it's a drop in the ocean.

Most of the people who relocated recently that I personally know are on "short-term rentals".

I put that in quotes because it's always the same: they stay for six months in one place, two months in another, but in the end they stay in those units for years until they find a real apartment.

The units are small, overpriced, sometimes illegal sublets, furnished with cheap Ikea and dressed as vacation rentals to avoid legal issues. They are incredibly easy to rent, showing that there are units available in the market, just not for long-term rental.

Make of that what you will, but it doesn't feel like a healthy market for me.

It’s extremely easy, cheap and stress-free to travel nowadays due to smartphones.

The untapped market potential in western countries is still crazy.

I’d say 80% of the people I know live stuck within their immediate home area or region, they don’t realize a taxi to the local international airport and 5-10 hours on a plane would change their entire world view.

> change their entire world view

Kind of a tangent, but this is a more nuanced topic than people usually imagine, and not necessarily always a good thing. Widening your perspective sounds great, and often it is, but it also tends to isolate you from other people in ways that can't be undone.

You won't get this effect from being a tourist abroad a few times a year, but it's something that comes with territory after you've traveled extensively, kind of a more literal version of the "you can't go home again" proverb. I expect lots of digital nomads are probably familiar with this, but it's not something they talk about.

Life is a process of stacking up experiences that others are increasingly unlikely to be able relate to. But someone who leaves a small rural community for college in the big city is losing a large number of people who can relate to them, and gaining a new community of people that can. Same story for most radical perspective-widening experiences, like how soldiers may struggle with aspects of civilian life, but at least can enjoy new solidarity/understanding with their brothers in arms. Usually with these things, one door opens and another closes.

The situation is very different for some types of expat or diaspora populations, or just your dedicated wanderer. Those who are earnestly involved or experienced in multiple cultures may find that they can relate to everyone, but never feel understood themselves.

As someone who moved a lot growing up and for my career, not being in one place long enough to really bond with people may be the cause of feeling isolated/not understood, maybe even more so than having more experience with different places and cultures...

That is a very insightful comment, thanks.

Isn't the entire tourist industry essentially based off the Grand Tour[1]? That is, an idea that became in vogue among the wealthy European aristocrats that your children must tour the grand cities of Europe to become worldly and "enlightened". It became a sort of right of passage and a signal of how wealthy your family is and how worldly and well-traveled your children are.

Businesses, liking money, noticed that if they could sell the masses on this idea it would be immensely profitable. You too - merely wealthy or even middle class person - can be enlightened like the aristocrats! A trip could change your world view! Show the world you're not a dumb, ignorant, small-minded serf-child by traveling!

And sure, I'm being overly cynical, but for a mere library fee you can probably expand your world view even more than through consumerist behaviour.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Tour_(disambiguation)

> but for a mere library fee you can probably expand your world view even more than through consumerist behaviour.

My view is that learning a new concept is a lot like traveling. To me it feels the same. I like to do both a lot.

There is an exception with traveling that is hard to find in books (directly, indirectly it is also available in books). One can form social relationships with people from another country. In many cases, the relationship that forms is with another tourist. It seems to be one of the few times that people are genuinely open to meet other people. There are other ways to go about this, but this way of truly meeting potential new international friends is hard to beat. Though, another way of doing it is university.

I think traveling has little that is unique, but so does everything else. There are always other ways that one can go about to meeting their needs. It just so happens that traveling is a pretty good and convenient way to do it with, but by far not the only way.

Convince me otherwise: I don't travel because I see it as the pinnacle of vapid consumerist excess.

People who regale me with tales of their travels will recount the great food, the nice people, the architecture, the views. You burned all that fuel, money, and time to travel halfway around the world just to eat someone else's food and shit in someone else's toilet? To walk someone else's streets? Why? If you think this experience has enhanced your worldview, I think you're a fool who was marketed to. I think travel has been productized and hawked to you as a "world-view enhancing" high-status marker by the tourism industry.

The higher status attributed to "one who has toured" is particularly abhorrent. Oh, sorry, I'm just stupider with a meeker worldview because I didn't go hiking in the Alps or eat authentic Italian food or something. It's unwarranted elitism.

I think it's a superficial outlet for consumerism and a misguided attempt to attain some ostensible "worldliness" status.

My ideal is to dwell in and steward for my own village. Why do I need to go around visiting other people's villages?

Here's an ideal, from the Tao Te Ching, chapter 80:

Let the country be small,

And the inhabitants few.

Although there are weapons

For tens and hundreds of soldiers,

They will not be used.

Let people take death seriously,

And not travel far.

Although they have boats and carriages,

There's no occasion to use them.

Although they have armor and weapons,

There's no occasion to wear them.

Let people return to making knots on ropes,

Instead of writing.

Their food will be tasty.

Their clothes will be comfortable.

Their homes will be tranquil.

They will rejoice in their daily life.

They can see their neighbors.

Roosters and dogs can be heard from there.

Still, they will age and die

Without visiting one another.

> You burned all that fuel, money, and time to travel halfway around the world just to eat someone else's food and shit in someone else's toilet? To walk someone else's streets? Why? If you think this experience has enhanced your worldview, I think you're a fool who was marketed to

We are all fools marketed to in different ways.

That said, I don't really remember in much detail things I did in 2016. I remember still in vivid detail the things I experienced in the 3 weeks I spent in Japan. Including, ironically enough, the toilets I shat at.

So you haven’t traveled yet think it is vapid and useless. You’re like the child who refuses to take a bite of a new food because you’re certain it will be terrible. I can’t speak for anyone else but when I travel I meet people of different cultures and I appreciate them. I see interesting sights the world has to offer increasing my awe and wonder. The new foods I taste give me an appreciation of different cultures and help me recognize that mine is not the only perspective, the only way, the only right answer.

But sure, maybe that’s all vapid consumerist nonsense. I’m sure you would know, small village expert on the state of the world. Actually that’s pretty harsh. I’m sure you have a lovely perspective from your little village. It’s a shame you’ve revoked my invitation and I can’t come learn it from you.

You say you don't travel, but have you travelled before? Have you attempted to answer your own question experientially, rather than rely on rhetoric?

Because you could make the same arguments for basically any activity: would you reduce playing a sport or learning a craft as mere marketing by their respective industries, and make judgements on them based on philosophy, rather than just try out playing the sport or doing the craft for a while to see for yourself what it's like? Philosophy only goes so far, it's practice that allows you to become embodied in the activity and gain insight.

I've never traveled far, but I would imagine the most remarkable thing about it is that it's simply good fun, like sports. I just don't buy the notion that one's worldview is necessarily constrained without physically touring different places around the world.

If you go deeply enough into a sport or craft, it will also change your worldview profoundly, you will look at things in different ways, due to both the activity itself, your relationship to the activity in both mind and body, and also the people you meet and places you go due to the activity. Same goes for travel - you can travel far, and never expand your worldview - the average person in my country (UK) frequently holiday in Spain, but stick to British-centred resort packages where they never stray from the hotel complex and eat British food and drink British lager. I wouldn't say that's worldview-expanding travel. But that's like engaging with a craft at a hobby level, you're (probably) not gonna get your mind blown occasionally doodling a stick man with a pencil either.

But ultimately the point I wanted to make is that if you've never done the thing you're making assumptions on, that people who have done the thing say has a certain effect, you denying that effect is exactly what you said: your imagination.

I think you are right. Depth of experience has always seemed more rewarding than breadth of experience.

I think there is value to vacation and travel for relaxation purposes. But you are definitely right that "world-view enhancing" is travel industry propaganda.

Maybe if you live somewhere for a year and integrate with the culture there is something to be gained. But a week in Italy is just for fun, I think it's silly when people claim otherwise.

Building a community and established roots seems much more meaningful than travelling to many different places, at least to me.

I feel like I would miss out more if I wasn't there to experience the daily changes here. I do travel sometimes, but when asked about my dream destination, that's where I am now. We do get so pulled into traveling to other places that we forget to appreciate and explore the one we come from/are in.

I would rather live in another country for 1 year, than to visit 52 countries for 1 week, I think.

If I can make a friend in another country, all the better.

There is a lot of value in experiencing other cultures, especially away from tourists. If nothing else, it's easy to say "bomb Sanaa" because Houthis attacked a US ship, but a lot harder once you've been waiting for a while on the side of a Yemeni road and locals brought you food and tea because you must have been hot and hungry.

I don't have a big house or fancy car. I don't dine in fancy restaurants or stay in fancy hotels; sometimes I sleep on the ground. I never pay for more than coach. But I do need to go places and see things. Sometimes that's out in the forest or the mountains or the coast. Sometimes it's local. Sometimes it's very distant.

The world! The people! It is amazing! I stand agape at the scope of it all. I'm sorry I will not be able to experience every single bit of it.

But that's just me. I don't intend or expect you to be convinced it is right for you. Likewise, you can't tell me what has or has not enhanced my world view. :)

> You burned all that fuel, money, and time to travel halfway around the world just to eat someone else's food and shit in someone else's toilet? To walk someone else's streets?

You're gonna eat anyway. Might as well be stuff you've never tried before in some exotic location.

You're gonna shit anyway. Who cares where the toilet used is located?

If you get outside at all, why not walk some streets / take a path you've never taken before?

So it all comes down to the cost of actually getting there. If not far from home, that cost can be low to zero. If further away: there's expensive destinations / ways to travel, and cheap(er) ones. Going on a single long vacation may be better value than a weekend back-and-forth every year.

I've taken the taxi, and the flights, and unless you work at it, most international flights land in parts of the world that kind of just look like America but they speak funny.

You have to actually dig and get outside the "tourist" areas to really start to get something different, and you can do that in the USA, too.

This is a good point too. Areas that are really touristy start to converge on a shared "vibe". I don't know if this is always how it's been and I finally realized it, or if it's a consequence of the more recent boom in travel.

I think it's somewhat both, but mainly the latter.

Decades ago, even touristy places were very "native" for lack of a better term.

But now, things like McDonalds and Starbucks and other American chains have expanded all over the world, the locals like them for various reasons, and you find them in the richer areas (which are often clustered around tourist-attractive areas, too).

However, if you stay in an area for a week or two, and/or get outside the cities, you quickly realize just how different places are.

All those things cost quite a bit of money that most people can't afford.

Seems quite out of touch with reality assuming that people don't travel because they don't want to.

It's a lot cheaper than you'd probably realize thanks to decades of competition.

It's unlike necessities like a roof over your head, education and healthcare. These are all increasingly unaffordable thanks to a war on the working class driven by the financialization of essentials.

My family is fortunate enough to be able to take a European vacation later this year.

It's going to cost over $10k, and most of that is going to flights (economy) and hotels (decent, but not stellar).

A very large percentage of Americans wouldn't even be able to afford the ~$1k/person to fly to Europe, let alone any of the other costs involved.

If you think that every American (or even nearly so) would be able to afford an overseas vacation if they just did the research, then I'm sorry, you really are out of touch with reality. Hell, a depressing number of Americans don't even have enough paid days off to be able to afford to take a road-trip-and-camping vacation within the country for any significant length of time.

It's a lot cheaper than you'd probably realize

International travel has gotten a lot more expensive over the past few years. I'm literally paying double for the same flight and hotel compared to 5-6 years ago.

It’s interesting how the thread starts off by expanding your worldview and then ignores the fact that international travel is often a luxury for the well off.

It's interesting how many people who engage in expensive luxury travel are unaware of the cheaper world of hostels, etc. exist.

They belong to a privileged class. They might be able to afford vastly more expensive luxuries like a roof over their head that belongs to them and healthcare too.

The flight alone is unaffordable or very expensive for most people in the United States.

If you amortize the cost of the flight across a month or so in a LCOL region it can be cheaper than staying home.

Staying at home is also increasingly unaffordable for a lot of people in the United States, of course.

Yes, but most of the cost of staying home is

1) rent/mortgage

2) food

And you still have to pay both of those if you're on vacation. Unless you're suggesting that people pack up everything they own, move out of their house, and go on vacation for a month?

I know tons of people who worked minimum wage jobs who saved up and packed up and went on vacation for a month somewhere where the basics are much cheaper than back home - e.g. a hostel in Thailand while living off street food.

I did it too.

If youre the kind of person who flits between luxury airbnbs and cruises then yeah, "travel is a luxury".

There seem to be a fair few of those here.

There's people that rent out their house a la AirBnB, while out on a month+ stay in a LCOL country. And in some cases come out ahead doing so, while having a vacation.

Of course it varies from household to household whether it's practical (or wise) to do this.

I have previously rented my house out on AirBnB, and it's not a switch you can just flip when you feel like taking a vacation; there is a lot of work you have to do to get your house ready to rent, and you have to establish (or maintain) relationships with people who can handle turnovers and other on-site services. A month would not be long enough that I'd feel like it was worth the hassle.

Can we put some numbers to this?

I think a weekend trip for two (including housing) is on the order of a months rent: roughly $1500.

For reference, renting a condo in lower-tier cities can easily be as low as $300-$400 per month in many countries

US median income is like $35k. If you've ever flown on a plane you're in the top like 0.5% of wealth globally and probably top 30% in the US.

Wait are you claiming that only 30% of Americans have flown on a plane?

Probably way more than that but they fly for essential reasons. Business travel, funerals & weddings, or once-in-a-decade relocation. Beyond that of course the majority is short-term domestic vacations that are in search of beaches or mountains, not cultural enrichment

No sorry I was writing in a hurry. I meant something else but couldn't come up with a good definition quickly.

I mean flown somewhat routinely and "recreationally" not for work, school, or emergency. I think 30% is probably about right with those constraints? Among tech people everyone has flown several times at least, but a lot of my family and social connections are inner city working class and many of them have never flown except possibly when a family member was hospitalized. Others fondly recall the single trip they took to florida or whatever decades ago.

A lot of americans don't fly ever and it's definitely for financial reasons even though tickets can be very cheap. The flight is the cheapest part of a vacation and people making $30k at hourly labor are just not taking time off work to fly to new places.

Thanks for the clarification!

I think it makes sense that there's some X% of Americans who fly "recreationally somewhat routinely" where X<100, but I'm not sure what X is. As a counterpoint to X=30, as of last Fall 48% of Americans had a passport [1] from which I think we can reasonably infer that nearly 48% of Americans have had an international trip in the last 10 years. The bar for recreationally flying in general is quite lower because it includes domestic flights. But also maybe the international trip was a once off.

[1] https://www.state.gov/return-to-pre-pandemic-passport-proces...

Right it's the thought of the opportunity cost. That money could go to paying off debt obligations instead of adding more to the pile.

Some people (probably a very low minority) are also of the thought that unnecessary consumption travel is a high impact on environment ~ something about climate change.

Well, this was tru on H.C. Andersens time.

I have travelled extensively, and my assessment (along with other people who have travelled extensively) is that you end up travelling to see people, not things or experiences.

This requires you to know people where you travel to.

In the end, it is not travelling that opens up your mind, it is knowing and interacting with people of different culture - It is being open minded that opens up your mind.

I think that you are missing the pile of money that these people stuck in their home area would need to hand over for that plane ride, accommodation, and travel expenses.

Travel is now, arguably, more of a luxury than it was precovid.

Don’t go to expensive tourist traps. Travel is not just Vegas, London or Rome.

$1500 will get you a month in a less expensive country

Here's the expense that doesn't change: That will cost me a month of vacation days. Yeah, I can afford the money, if I choose to. But the vacation days are a huge opportunity cost. For me, at the moment, that's two years of no other vacations. That's expensive.

Most people are struggling to cover their debts, rent, and food.

A lot of replies are claiming it’s money, but honestly I think there’s just a lot of people that don’t care to see the world beyond their town.

I have a friend that grew up, went to college, went to law school all within 20 miles of his hometown. As soon as he graduated law school, he got married and started talking about having kids. That was a few years ago, but he was basically 45 and settled into his suburban life at the age of 24.

I think there's a huge mix of things:

1. People who don't travel because they can't afford it 2. People who don't travel because they're intimidated by it 3. People who don't travel because they don't see it as important

These groups definitely have some overlap -- you may not be able to afford it because you don't prioritize it -- but I think most people wouldn't self-identify as being part of Group 3.

"I have a friend who didn't want to travel, therefore most people just don't want to travel."

Maybe I made it seem like I was implying that’s a universal rule.

What I meant was many people jumped to say it was only money that caused people not to travel. Everyone knows a friend like mine. I have no idea of the breakdown, but my personal experience makes me want to question the idea it’s always all money.

They don't realize it would, or they don't believe it would? Are you so confident about your assessment of what life experiences would have what effects on each of those 80% of people?

If Marie Antoinette had said ‘let them eat cake’, I imagine she would have done it with your confidence

I don't think it's that people don't care, it's that the hurdles of traveling feel high when you have no experience.

How do I plan logistics, like flights, hotels, transportation, and activities? How do I get around when I don't speak the language at all? And, of course, how can I afford this trip for my family, reaching a balance between comfort and cost?

Sure, anyone can learn to do these things, but it's definitely intimidating to do it the first time.

Oh god, 'untapped market potential' whenever I hear that it always comes from people that have the most narrow minded worldview, unfortunatly those peoples worldview wont't change no matter how far they "travel" around the world. They are like "Look at this nice little italian village no one knows about, we should send thousands of tourists there everyday. I'm sure the villagers will love it."

Lots of people travel to places that may also distort their world view though? My 2 week visit to Disneyworld taught me as much about life in the US as did my daily fix of BBC news coverage. In other words, it is distorted.

I lived in Spain for a couple of years and have a good idea of what life is like there. Many of my fellow Brits who have vacations at the same Spanish resort year after year have not one clue.

If we have 80% more air travel, that would accelerate global warming hugely.

Not "hugely", not by itself.

Air travel is responsible for 4% of warming to date[0], so an 80% growth would make aviation… responsible for 7.2% of current warming, or warming going up 3.2% compared to reality — sure, that's still bad, but it's not huge.

That said, if "80% of people aren't using aircraft" were true (I don't think it is), going from that to everyone wouldn't be "80% more air travel", it would be 400% more air travel, boosting global warming by 16%. Which is even worse, but again, not what I'd call "accelerate global warming hugely".

[0] more than you might expect from the 2.5% of global CO₂ emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions

Not everyone views themselves as being stuck and not everyone wants to spend a significant portion of their income to visit a place for a tiny fraction of their existence and gamble as to if it will have some lasting meaning.

But then you have to fly on an airplane. Having accumulated a at least a million air miles in my career I am sort of done with them except for emergencies. I just have a strong aversion to airplanes and the air travel industry these days.

Guess my horizons are already expanded anyway, been all over and find hanging out in my home region fine.

I do think everyone should do at least a little safe international travel. Visit Europe once or twice. Visit a country or two in Asia. But I mostly found it made me want to be back home. I like my house, hobbies, and friends a lot. I know that sort of travel can be transformative for many, though, which is why I encourage people to do it, but I also completely get not wanting to :)

I am so confused by the context of this. Isn’t the article saying people living in tourist cities DON’T want more people to travel?

I would guess that 80% (or more) of those 80% would rather not change their entire world view.

No, it’s more like.. they don’t realize it’s a thing you can just do.

you're forgetting about the thousands of dollars

go read about the percentage of the population that have less than $500 emergency savings and then you won't wonder why they aren't going to Greece for a week

HN SV types don't realize most people working hourly jobs don't have the concept of longish vacations...if you leave for a week your job is given to someone else

Wherever you go, there you are.

Greedy locals and corpos are taking advantage of zero regulation, but tourists are to blame, of course.

Similar to recycling. Put the onus on the individual and walk away with piles of money and zero real blame.

If you were to give the majority of the locals where I live the choice, they would get rid of every tourist here. What we do have is councils and business owners trying to make more money, though whether they're "greedy" or not is debatable.

Tourists are absolutely to blame. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads to come here. They know it's overcrowded, they know they're a nuisance, they have no respect for people trying to actually _live_ here, and yet they still come, in their hordes.

> If you were to give the majority of the locals where I live the choice, they would get rid of every tourist here. What we do have is councils and business owners trying to make more money, though whether they're "greedy" or not is debatable.

And that's of course tourists fault.

> Tourists are absolutely to blame. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads to come here. They know it's overcrowded, they know they're a nuisance, they have no respect for people trying to actually _live_ here, and yet they still come, in their hordes.

Have you ever thought that maybe your place attracts wrong crowd?

For sure some locals love it, cash walking into town. If you own a shop or one of the two little hotels, minting money

Foreigners buying property are not tourists. I would say that's a way bigger issue than tourism.

Yes, and IMO this needs to be regulated everywhere (even in non touristic places). Prevent companies from buying residential type of estate. And only allow individuals to buy one property if non-citizen or two (main and secondary) if a citizen.

Tourists sleep in spaces that could be houses for residents.

Said tourists still pay the local residents money for that. So the locals make money. Which in my opinion is a good thing.

Probably the vast majority of local residents aren't landlords making money on tourist housing...

Which was my main point from the get go

I don't really understand your point... that the problem is non-local people making money on housing?

Even if it was only local people making money on housing this would be a net negative to local residents. Housing that exists is placed on the "global" market rather than the local one. Unavailable to anyone but tourists.

They are saying foreigners consuming for private use/cleaning money and taking them off the market entirely is a separate and greater issue. Not for rental.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/upshot/when-the-empty-apa...

Foreigners buying property are not tourists.

Not all of them, but certainly many are. Plus they're often also buying to rent out to tourists.

By definition they are not.

By what definition? If I own an apartment in Spain and pop down there a few weeks each year to relax and chill, how am I not a tourist.

Because you live there, pay taxes there which funds local services, and own property there.

I'm not talking about people moving to the country, I'm talking about people who buy a holiday home there. And on the tax front I suspect people staying at hotels and eating at restaurants pay every bit as much tax as people staying in their holiday homes.

Instagram is the worst thing that happened to travel.

Sounds like the entire problem is Airbnb. Which is a shave because I personally prefer Airbnb.

The cleanest solution I’ve seen is cities enacting a local rule that the shortest duration rental is 30d. Tourists go back to hotels, locals can afford to live, landlords make slightly less money.

I prefer camping.

Years ago I used to really thumb my nose at the National Park permit system, now I love it.

especially camping in a foreign country!

Many rentals are not used by tourists, but people who come and stay for couple of months or years. Europe has open borders, and it is perfectly ethical to retire on Canary Islands.

Locals should demand better salary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com