Quite often you see people saying “tourists need to go home” or “we need less tourists” and there are some valid issues with how people can be, but overall, having tourists is a good thing. It shows that the middle class actually has means of traveling. It also tends to stimulate a local economy with additional revenue and can offset taxes for locals through hotel and other tourism fees. Those that do travel also tend to develop a broader world view then being in their own little sphere.
A reduction in tourism means that only the rich will end up traveling, and everyone else will be stuck only in the place they’re born, relegated mainly to pictures and videos “of a far off land” and will foster deeper divides of “well that’s just them over there” instead of getting to experience it firsthand.
You must log in or register to comment.
You seem to be conflating two unrelated points. When people say “tourists need to go home” or “we need less tourists,” they aren’t referring to some philosophical argument for the existence of tourism as a gauge of economic health for the middle class.
These phrases are almost exclusively speaking in regards to tourism’s negative effects on the local environment and population. Heavy tourism has a tendency to cannibalize an areas resources and then alienate or push out the native population.
Also tourism shows that the middle class elsewhere can afford to travel. You don’t hear people complain about Indonesian tourists in Europe, for example. But Bali on tge other hand is truly suffering the consequences of Western tourism.
The problem is usually that the tourism economy isn’t a great economy to be a part of.
Most tourist economies rely on a large staff of low wage workers to provide services. This may be a worse economic deal than other economies, even if the other industries in the area are in decline. Most locals who make money when tourism takes off are usually land owners.
You also run into a problem where local amenities end up getting used more by tourists instead of locals. So, while costs of living rise, locals experience a degredation of service.
Tourists are good for the country and for tourist based commerce, but overtourism hurt the local residents. Overcrowding, traffic jams, “normal” shops fade out for tourist shops, food prices goes up, housing is unaffordable for the local population all because tourists pay more. Increase on tourism related job which usually pay less for their workers. These workers can’t live in that area because it is too expensive and used by tourists.
I wasn’t aware that tourism was unpopular as an industry. I know that tourists can be annoying in large quantities because they tend to not follow local customs, treat the place as disposable, expect to be treated with privilege, and can be careless with how their behaviors affect others. This happens particularly in tourist hotspots where the tourists have certain expectations based on what they’ve heard and then become upset when those expectations are not met. It also happens in tourist hotspots where the purpose is to party since people behave without concern for how their behaviors will affect their long-term reputation.
However, tourism in general allows us to have different experiences and immerse ourselves in other cultures to gain new perspectives and relate to others. I, myself, have been a tourist many times, traveling throughout my home country and the world. I’ve been to 15 countries and over half of US states. I really value those experiences because I get to see what is universal versus local. I also get to see the world from other perspectives that help me have a clearer understanding of what the heck is going on since nothing ever makes sense to me lol.
I like tourists but im near a big city and that is where they are drawn to when they come here and it can easily accomodate them.
Tourism is part of capitalism. You are correct.
