America is wooing foreign tourists for the first time
economist.com
economist.com
(This is not a knock on the USA, it's a knock on the immigration/border control process. Which sucks. Horribly.)
Also, I'm surprised France is the most visited country - what do they have besides the Eiffel tower and bad roads :-)?
And, outside Paris, some very pleasant people.
Luxembourg is also rather overlooked as a tourist destination, very nice walking countryside and you are never very far from somewhere to eat/drink/sleep.
No offense to the locals, but I can't wait to get out of here - the weather is pretty bad, most residents are old, everyone is slooow (even in the rain :-), shops close at 6pm, banks close at 3pm and Everything's closed all day on Sunday, HSPA 3G here means 1 Mbit on a good day (usually ~500-700 kbit - oh, and you pay $20 for 1 GB), 4 Mbit DSL actually means 1.5 Mbit, and you pay $700 for a teeny-tiny 1 bedroom apartment (then again, it is a resort city). I nicknamed it Lazy Town :-).
The only saving grace is the port nearby (~6km in Zeebrugge) - there's a bustling shipping and logistics industry here, and there's plenty of work and opportunities.
Overall, for a first-timer in Belgium, I'd recommend going to Brussels or Antwerp - bigger cities, more active, although still very laid back compared to even Paris...
All states' tourism situations have been ailing, starting with the reaction to 9/11. The ESTA fees are unpleasant but given that there is now a recipient of those fees with a vested interest in increasing visitation, there may be tangible benefits for future visitors.
The $10 fee transforms visitors from a drain of security resources into profit-generating customers, which obviously can lead to a sea change in the way visitors are treated and the processes they are subjected to by the TSA. It will take time for that to occur, though.
Disclosure: I work for what could be considered a state-level analogue of Brand USA.
Most importantly, while private companies have a market incentive to treat customers better when they pay more, governments don't. This is because governments both have a monopoly and so don't face outside competition, and because they don't face bankruptcy if they don't draw in the $200M in funds that you mentioned.
Instead, all that the federal government is saying to the TSA/other ESTA recipients is that "we made a tax which generates $200M, so we expect you to step up your services with the funding". It works only partially, because the only motivation that ESTA recipients (especially the TSA) have to improve is the word of god, and not any meaningful amounts of hard cash profit. The TSA is the worst of all with this, because unlike state marketing authorities, the TSA has no theoretical benefit from increased tourism. The smaller and more local the agencies you are analyzing get, the more like businesses they are, and so the more effective an ESTA would be.
So having an ESTA to make the TSA better is essentially just the same as increasing the TSA's funding from tax dollars and telling it to be better. Then you might as well do the latter, so as not to discourage tourists since tourists are much more likely to stop coming to the country than US citizens are to stop paying taxes because the income tax went up 0.01% to fund the $200M.
And even increasing taxes isn't ideal, because theoretically, if the TSA experience being better is worth the money, tourism will increase proportionately, and tourism's benefit to the economy will drive up tax revenues automatically without a tax.
Most ideal of all would be to find a way to privatize the TSA in a way that's safe and efficient, because then the new TSA corporation(s) would snap to market equilibrium.
The tourists probably had about 20-30 minutes before getting out of the terminal, which is bad enough, but the US citizens were in a Disney World-esque line that was long enough that I missed a connecting flight scheduled an hour and a half after we arrived from Brazil.
That was bad enough that I sure won't be flying out of the country for anything less than at least a couple days worth of stuff. I feel bad for anyone coming through who isn't a citizen or can't speak perfect English. The immigration building had these massive screens overhead showing serene farmland scenes and images from across the country, while two or three thousand passengers are stuck in a line desperately waiting to get home or to their hotels at 1 AM. It's all very dystopian.
Getting in and out of China (to pick one example out of the places I've visited) as a visitor was way less of a hassle than getting back into the US as a citizen. It's ridiculous.
Exactly! I've heard of that US Embassy mistreatment, I've read opinions on forums and yet I thought to give it a chance - I didn't knew how much credit should I put in opinions which probably were not posted mainly by those who got visas, in a time when USA was loosing popularity. And... dear God! I'm glad I was given the chance to stop before I was too much involved into it. The same day, applied on-line for Australian eVisitor visa. The difference - day and night! "Ailing US tourism industry" - really? :)
MIA, ATL, BWI are the worst.
The worst I've encountered so far is Gatwick in London for the terminal that handles Asian flights. 2+ hours in the queue waiting to get through immigration, torture! I'm sure the UK is worse than the US.
I think Puerto Rico is one of the "softest" to come through if you have a questionable visa -- the worst by far are land border crossings, especially smaller ones with Canada, since there's little cost to turning you away, and not as much on-site appeal or supervision -- an angry or racist ICE guy could ruin your day. The staff in SEA/PDX/SFO are all incredibly polite (at least in my experience).
It'd be nice if someone put together a site in every language that rates ICE at each port of entry so people can avoid the airports where ICE is most unpleasant. At the end of the day, airports are businesses and if they see revenue dropping because nobody wants to travel through them then there may be some change.
They also are one of the 4 airports Clear covers, so you can bypass the lines, too. ($180/yr, but I got 3 free months through Regus BusinessWorld Gold (also free, somehow, for being a clear member; I was able to get both starting from having a free Clear membership from starwood before Clear shut down the first time; trying to find a way to get Clear for free after 3mo.)
It's great that they want to share their landmarks, friendly people, and history. The problem is the gatekeepers AKA the TSA and border police. A quick google search on TSA will give you all the information you need to make an educated choice on where not to spend your holidays.
Until this is fixed, I cannot see how the USA can beat places like Taiwan, China, anywhere in Europe (except maybe Germany), Australia, or Iceland for the image of "welcoming tourists." It's purely anecdotal as it's an opinion, of course. Take it or leave it :)
1. The internet is cheaper here than anywhere else in part because everyone else pays to connect to the US; and
2. The university endowment system combined with some of the greatest research institutions on the planet created the tech VC system that fuelled the growth of Silicon Valley.
Manufacturing has already left the US (and most of the developed world). While the barriers are higher for skilled labour, it's not impossible. Many countries have a sufficiently stable political system and sufficient infrastructure to create tech businesses.
My point is that the US is outright hostile to those seeking to enter the United States, be they as tourists, residents or temporary workers, and to those who choose to come here and put up with a level of invasiveness that rivals third-world dictatorships and the old Iron Curtain countries.
Now some of the post-9/11 measures I don't have a problem with. I see no issue with fingerprinting those entering the United States.
On the other hand, as a foreign worker I need to report every foreign bank account I own (separately or jointly), have a financial interest in or signatory authority over whether or not that money was ever earned in or otherwise entered the United States. This includes retirement accounts. Or does it? No one can really say because the rules aren't clear.
Failure to comply can result in civil penalties as high as 300% of the balance of that account and criminal penalties including years in jail.
When it comes time to renew my visa I have to leave the country to do it.
Should I want to leave my job and start a business here I don't believe I have any legal recourse to reside lawfully in the United States so I have to go somewhere else.
I'm actually encouraged by stories like this one just because I'm optimistic that the US is finally figuring out that it needs tourists. Maybe someday soon it'll figure out it needs foreign workers and entrepreneurs too. Hopefully before it's too late.
It saddens me actually because the fate of the US is the same as that of many companies. Early-stage companies are innovators. Eventually they get so large that they live in constant fear that their success will go away or something will kill the golden goose. Instead of innovating they simply play a game of defense and interference. This is Microsoft of today with its Windows/Office cash cow.
The US was formed my immigrants coming to escape the rigid structure and persecution of the Old World. In a mere century the US turned from an agrarian backwater of 2 million (in 1800) to an industrial superpower of 50 million, thanks largely to migrants. The US shut its doors at the outbreak of World War One has been building increasingly larger walls ever since.
What disturbs me most is the presumption of (criminal) guilt that seems to pervade state institutions, particularly when it applies to confusing, complex, special-interest bought rules like the IRS code. In no other country I've been have I felt fear that I'd be locked up even when trying to do what I believe is the right thing. This doesn't just apply to foreigners either. The US seems just as hostile to its own citizens too.
EDIT: regarding Internet speed, so as to be clear there's a difference between Internet end-user cost (consumers and businesses) and service provider cost.
End user cost is indeed expensive, which seems largely due to the regional monopolies that exist in the US, meaning cable companies. That is however irrelevant (for the purpose of my argument).
I'm interested in the cost of a Facebook, Google, Ebay or Amazon providing their service in resource terms. Of course there's a latency component to this as well (the US being disproportionately represented in customer terms) but ultimately it has been cheaper and I believe that to still be the case, especially if you get to the scale whereby peering is possible and viable.
2. True but a bit irrelevant.
The reason the US is the capital of the tech world is 110% due to the success of the VC industry. It is so flush with cash (from its previous successes) that it can reinvest in whole rafts of companies to create tomorrow's successes. It's very much self perpetuating.
> 2. True but a bit irrelevant.
> [...] US is the capital of the tech world is 110% due to the success of the VC industry.
Are you disagreeing just to disagree? How is the thing you're giving "110%" of the credit irrelevant?
Access to money doesn't create success and without success that money would just go somewhere else. You can't seriously give it "110%" of the credit without looking at the reasons for the VC system and the underlying factors of the success.
It's because of (a) money and (b) willingness of VCs to take chances and invest in companies with 23 year old CEOs and vague business plans. That sort of thing just doesn't happen anywhere else.
Being far from the servers makes a difference for gaming and maybe everyday browsing. But for streaming bandwidth is what is important.
Also most sites use CDNs e.g. Akamai, Cloudfront which have content cached pretty close to the user.
Also, citation needed for your last point. Most sites? I'd be surprised if it was 1%.
He's talking about prices ISPs pay, not prices consumers pay.
Just out of curiosity, why is that? If it matters, I live in Eastern Europe (and grew up under an oppressive regime as a kid), and I had this same discussion (about the US fingerprinting innocent people) with some of my friends way back in 2007. At the time I thought this was crazy, I still do.
Also, there's the usual concerns about any state entity (particularly a foreign one, which the US is far as foreigners are concerned), amassing large amounts of biometric data. It's a black box which you can't see into, have no assurances how that data will be used, who can access it, etc.
Actually, why not mandate a video camera in every home? That way, the government could know about and stop any crimes you were planning. They could also give you sex tips to ensure that the next generation is numerous enough for the conquering we need to start doing!
Do you see where I'm going with this?
One significant advantage for the US is that you have 300m customers to hand, while European citizens will have a 'only' a home market 60-100m. To move above that, you have to deal with multiple languages, legal systems and tax issues etc.
So where would you start? Not to mention it is also the richest country, low tax (especially if you are choosing your state), and seems to have no other major issues (decent education system). The VCs multiply the advantage, as does the community that arises because it is attractive in the first place.
Do not make the mistake of conflating manufacturing jobs with manufacturing. US manufacturing is almost entirely high-end and very automated, not the kind of thing you can do with minimum wage labor.
The United States will never employ millions of workers making cheap clothing. However, it will employee thousands of highly paid engineers to design the machines that make cheap clothing.
30 seconds on youtube and you'll find this UK targeted ad than was uploaded 4 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkcYTVfXn74
I'm sure there have been hundreds of ad campaigns in hundreds of countries.