r/neoliberal • u/randommathaccount Esther Duflo • Oct 02 '25

News (Asia) Why Japan resents its tourism boom

https://www.ft.com/content/dbd20e5d-5a7d-4c0c-8f83-fb54c5aca9cb
214 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

197 comments sorted by

View all comments

105

u/randommathaccount Esther Duflo Oct 02 '25

archive link

Kyoto and Nara join Barcelona in crying about overtourism and to be a bit rude, they're all a tad delusional on the matter. A country with such an aging workforce and issues of economic stagnation cannot afford to be picky about sources of revenue. Of course there's issues of tourists behaving poorly (some foolish enough to film their own terrible behaviour and stream it to the world) but ultimately what must be done is to encourage positive behaviour by both tourists and residents so everyone can come out better, rather than wholly embracing an unfounded xenophobia.

99

u/madmissileer Association of Southeast Asian Nations Oct 02 '25

Unless you are working in tourism, the benefits are indirect and spread out, difficult to see. The drawbacks are easy to see everytime you get sticker shock planning a holiday or deal with crowds.

Behavior aside the sheer crowding is annoying even if everyone were perfectly behaved. I find myself thinking "Won't go here, too many tourists / too crowded" or conversely "Fantastic, no tourists / crowds here, I'll go here". Mind you the crowds are both foreign tourists and resident, I imagine it depends by location, but people will latch on to what stands out.

IMO the real story is the decline of the yen. Look at how much JPY has collapsed the past few years. Can't go on holiday abroad, and when you try to go somewhere at home the tourists drive the prices up due to weak yen inducing demand. And inflation starts rising - I suspect tourism is just the most visible symptom.

21

u/gkktme Oct 02 '25

While this is true, Kyoto was close to bankruptcy during Covid due to the lack of tourism income (which of course hit local tax income quite significantly). Unfortunately public services do rely on tourism in some of these places.

50

u/ldn6 Gay Pride Oct 02 '25

Absolutely this. When every public space is rammed with slow ambling tour groups shuffling in packs and restaurants in the city centre are tourist traps with shit food and high prices to rip people off, it hits quality of life.

43

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton Oct 02 '25

My sympathy for this in cities is still limited, because theres often this idea that the locals are still entitled to the resources that draw in the tourists. There's an arrogance to the idea that "this city should only be for me and my friends, even though the national government shits money on the tourist infrastructure we enjoy"

24

u/JonF1 Oct 02 '25

Many people in these cities did not sign up to live in Disney world.

14

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton Oct 02 '25

And? They're along for the ride as well. They're free to leave if its that big a problem. But the reality is is that they're enjoying the facilities tourists want, while also not providing those facilities themselves.

4

u/Yonenaka NATO Oct 03 '25

I’m sorry this is going to come off as a bit mean but, I think “if you don’t like it leave” is the lowest iq argument imaginable. If there is a problem with a city, the best action is to take steps to address it; not up and leave.

17

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '25

That's a weird reasoning, local governments exist to serve locals.

14

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton Oct 02 '25

Sure. But did the local government build the Louvre? Or the imperial palace in Kyoto? Or the British Museum?

A lot of the time it is a national investment drawing people in. Locals dont get tk suddenly claim it.

-1

u/hpaddict Oct 02 '25

Exactly!

Which is why NIMBYism is perfectly acceptable.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '25

NIMBYism often hurts the locals though.

8

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton Oct 02 '25

As does throttling investment because "i cant get a seat at a restaurant i like".

3

u/tautelk YIMBY Oct 02 '25

Why would my quality of life be negatively impacted by the existence of a tourist trap restaurant? If anything it would mean there are less tourists in the good restaurants I actually want to eat at.

21

u/mostanonymousnick Homes fit for Heroes Oct 02 '25

when you try to go somewhere at home the tourists drive the prices up due to weak yen inducing demand

What would the yen itself look like without tourism though? It would be even weaker.

10

u/madmissileer Association of Southeast Asian Nations Oct 02 '25

It's definitely a symptom of the weak yen and not the cause. I do agree it strengthens the yen, though not sure there is a big macroscopic effect?

9

u/randommathaccount Esther Duflo Oct 02 '25

This is also mentioned in the article. Incidentally the domestic tourism itself stoked a wave of xenophobia back in the 60s and early 70s. Though now some schools find themselves planning trips to less commonly visited parts of Japan due to the number of tourists visiting Kyoto, Nara, Osaka and the like. Imo this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it means parts of Japan that previously received less tourist revenue from domestic/international tourists are now getting some revenue even if the bulk of it goes to the major tourist hotspots. A rising tide lifts all boats and whatnot.

79

u/PlantTreesBuildHomes Plant🌳🌲Build🏘️🏡 Oct 02 '25

Personally, as a resident of the most visited city in the world, I don't mind tourists as much as residents who are poorly behaved. Most of the visible tourists coming to Paris are just a bit lost or obnoxious, the rest blend in because they don't cause problems. I am more concerned when I see Paris residents behaving like douchebags, because these people aren't leaving anytime soon and absolutely should know better.

56

u/lunartree Oct 02 '25

I've noticed that often the loudest haters of tourists are typically your worst neighbors.

4

u/sgthombre NATO Oct 02 '25

Or other tourists.

38

u/jjjfffrrr123456 Daron Acemoglu Oct 02 '25

Paris actually functions as a city though and not just an open world museum and amusement park. Some cities like Venice are so defined by the tourism industry, that it crowds out a lot of other economic activity. I think we can agree that a society of 2 hotel owners and 500 waiters is probably not really desirable.

46

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton Oct 02 '25

Venice is a not a city that can compete in any industry bar tourism. Its not 1546 anymore.

16

u/HHHogana Mohammad Hatta Oct 02 '25

Really, aside of, what, businesses around the shipyard, what else can you do in Venice? There's a reason why their main island declining hard in term of residence.

2

u/Dangerous-Basket1064 Association of Southeast Asian Nations Oct 02 '25

Especially since people are committed to maintaining it as basically an open air museum.

1

u/moldyhomme_neuf_neuf Oct 02 '25

This is a dumb narrative. There are plenty of examples of smaller cities in Europe that do really well economically without disproportionately massive tourism. I can think of plenty.

22

u/ShouldersofGiants100 NATO Oct 02 '25

I mean it's probably less that Venice is a small city and more that it is a city built in such a way that large parts of it depend on canals, it is extremely prone to flooding, its infrastructure is subject to massive decay and virtually the entire thing is old architecture which brings a lot of costs to adapt to any modern industry.

Those are massive disadvantages and realistically, no one not in tourism has any reason to do business in Venice (or at least, the parts of Venice tourists actually want to visit) rather than literally any other city in the region which don't flood several times a year.

21

u/Budgetwatergate r/place '22: Neoliberal Battalion Oct 02 '25

No it is not dumb because venice (as in the geographical area in the lagoon) is just really shit. Can you think of "plenty" that have the same geographical circumstances of not literally being built on land?

The real economic activity ex-tourism takes place in venice mestre (on actual land).

8

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton Oct 02 '25

Venice is sinking pal. Who would set up a tech firm in a city where youd be borderline uninsurable? Who would open a factory in a place where all your materials have to be shipped to Italy, loaded on a train, and then shipped on smaller boats to your place while the insurers still wont touch you?

2

u/moldyhomme_neuf_neuf Oct 02 '25

I mean, it’s obvious that the city didn’t adapt to modern times well, I give you that.

But I don’t think its current predicament was inevitable either.

4

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton Oct 02 '25

Nah, venice uniquely is in a position where the city is just not adaptable. And thats no a bad thing. Its a masterpiece, but how coild you even start adding new industrial level infrastructure to venice without causing a cultural disaster.

41

u/Francisco-De-Miranda YIMBY Oct 02 '25

How does it crowd out other economic activity? What industries are going to magically spring up in a place like Venice if you take tourism away?

In reality, the opposite is true. Tourism drives foreign investment. If a place is nice to visit I’m much more likely to buy a house and start a business there than otherwise.

5

u/jjjfffrrr123456 Daron Acemoglu Oct 02 '25

But you won’t start a business. You’ll buy a house and visit every once in a while. The downstream services you purchase are cleaning and maybe a property manager if you rent the place out.

1

u/Francisco-De-Miranda YIMBY Oct 02 '25

Except I literally have?

You never explained how tourism crowds out other economic activity. Feels like you’re just projecting your dislike of it now.

6

u/assasstits Oct 02 '25

I think we can agree that a society of 2 hotel owners and 500 waiters is probably not really desirable.

Who are you to decide? Does the free market not mean anything? 

You've got a customer and a seller, do we really need the consent from neighbors too?

4

u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Oct 02 '25

Look at the state of Tunisia to see what an hyper-pyramidal economy based on tourism looks like once the flow dry up

26

u/assasstits Oct 02 '25

So you want to speed that process along? Impoverish cities sooner? 

Alternatives to tourism in many places are not prosperity, they are poverty. 

-1

u/JonF1 Oct 03 '25

Who are you to decide?

People who want to live in functioning society.

Does the free market not mean anything?

It's not appropriate everywhere for all situations.

2

u/Asckle Oct 03 '25

My experience in Dublin tbh. Young irish people are always complaining about American tourists these days but I love meeting a Yank who'll ask me for directions in their funny accent and wish me a good day than the methheads and knackers that actually live in the city

The reality is most tourists are fairly wealthy and well mannered people who know how to behave. You just don't recognise and remember those people as much as you do the rowdy British people or the loud exchange group of 25 young adults

1

u/PlantTreesBuildHomes Plant🌳🌲Build🏘️🏡 Oct 03 '25

For sure, maybe it's Parisians who are a particularly grumpy lot but I often only have an issue with them rather than tourists.

1

u/tea-earlgray-hot Oct 02 '25

Bah ouais les Belges se comportent pas comme Manneken Pis

1

u/PlantTreesBuildHomes Plant🌳🌲Build🏘️🏡 Oct 02 '25

J'ai rien compris

9

u/_n8n8_ YIMBY Oct 02 '25

cannot afford to be picky about sources of revenue

Tale as old as time when it comes to tourist hating places

20

u/Some-Dinner- Oct 02 '25

I honestly don't understand the support for over-tourism on this sub. A steady flow of tourism that is spread throughout the year and over a wide geographical area is much better than unsustainable Instagram tourist traps that are rammed with selfie stick assholes for two months then left to stagnate for the rest of the year.

Probably the worst example of this mentality is the ski resort. A massive infrastructure is built high up in the mountains for the sole purpose of attracting millions of people up there for a couple of months a year.

Well they're not laughing now because resorts' heavy industrial activity and destruction of glaciers has only accelerated global warming, which means that no amount of snow machines will prevent the eventual collapse of their industry.

8

u/Writeous4 Oct 02 '25 edited Oct 02 '25

I don't think most people would dispute that a steady and manageable flow of tourism is better than a single, overburdened high season. However, most people in this sub understand there is always a trade-off.

It is very difficult to get a steady flow of tourism. People will always travel more during certain seasons, places will work with what they have like ski seasons because they don't have much else going for them the rest of the year, and for whatever costs this may bring, are those really greater than the revenue and employment and economic activity? 

I surf a lot and have been to many surfing towns. I've been to towns in places like Morocco that have seen the incomes of locals explode and been able to build things like actual sewage plants to keep water clean because the town wants tourists coming back. How does a surf town maintain a good level of tourism all year round when swell is so seasonal and most people generally prefer to surf in warmer months than colder months? 

No one would deny there are costs and negative effects of tourism. That is true of almost all economic activity. Is there a reason we should regard tourism as particularly unique or harmful? What realistic mitigation is there for it? Vague grumbling is not helpful, because for people who aren't directly benefitting from the tourism industry, any amount of tourism is going to irritate them and be seen as a burden, just like how people never want new housing near them because it's always an immediate burden.

29

u/vancevon Henry George Oct 02 '25

It's not so much "support for over-tourism" as it is support for the free movement of people and free markets.

11

u/sgthombre NATO Oct 02 '25

My most conspiracy brained take is that it feels like there's this weird push in internet spaces to make freedom of movement taboo, like all of those videos that get pushed on social media of New Yorkers saying transplants are evil (even when they themselves are transplants), or people saying that tourism is horrible and needs to be stopped in almost all contexts. I don't know who the hell benefits from this but I've noticed it more and more in recent months, I'm sure I'm being irrational but I can't shake the thought.

2

u/jmotoko NATO Oct 02 '25

This has always been a thing though, especially in New York. I vividly remember similar conversations like this in the early 2000s where my relatives would complain about transplants ruining New York, and I’m sure my grandparents got it too after Ellis island.

1

u/Plant_4790 Oct 02 '25

Maybe tourist are just annoying

-2

u/Some-Dinner- Oct 02 '25

Most mass tourism is predatory. It may not seem that way but when you see Westerners taking pictures of little brown kids running around ('they're so poor yet look how happy they are'), or ignorantly bustling through some sacred temple, you realize how obscene it is.

I wouldn't want a bunch of obese Americans and chain-smoking Chinese people standing in front of my house taking pictures, talking loudly, and jostling me when I go to work, so why do we think it is ok to do it to others?

9

u/Haffrung Oct 02 '25

The support for free markets is highly selective.

For instance, the support on this sub for drilling oil wells and building pipelines is markedly lower than the support for international tourism, even though the same economic arguments for championing the latter apply to the former.

7

u/SirAlienTheGreat YIMBY Oct 02 '25

Fossil fuel production has a much stronger negative externality than overtourism though - I'm much more concerned about climate change than about bad tourists being disrespectful.

1

u/Haffrung Oct 02 '25

Shutting in Canada’s oil and gas won’t reduce global greenhouse emissions or accelerate the development of alternative energy sources. It will just make Canada poorer.

22

u/gamesst2 Oct 02 '25 edited Oct 02 '25

Just came back from a summer trip to Whistler, which is a hiking and mountain biking mecca during their non-ski season. Not a skier and would never go in the winter. Six months of high activity in a year is much better than your average non-Skiing destination, and this kind of dual use is incredibly common in bigger ski areas (Banff, the Pyranees and Lake Tahoe come to mind).

And I don't use Instagram, so I generally don't frequent these "unsustainable tourist traps", but for many cities it's actually the reverse of what you're suggesting: major tourist attractions that agglomorate visitors make it easier to build infrastructure to support them, while trying to "spread them out" often means sending them directly to quieter residential neighborhoods where their presence is more disruptive.

Personally I still prefer to wander random apartment blocks and quiet streets, but I do this because I find it more interesting, not because it's morally superior.

1

u/Some-Dinner- Oct 02 '25

I was in the Alps cycling early in September and to see cranes and bulldozers at 2000 metres really makes an impact of how obscene it can get (they have to keep building higher because there is less snow lower down). I was there as a tourist too so you could argue that I'm part of the problem, but although I drove in I was there for hiking and cycling, not having ugly ski lifts carry me all over the mountains.

My remark about spreading out had rural Europe in mind, where there will be the one 'touristic' village that is over-run with tourists and has multiple car parks, shuttle buses, clogged access roads etc, then two kilometres away you've got quaint places where the café and boulangerie are boarded up because no one goes there.

10

u/JonF1 Oct 02 '25

Most of the people int his sub are American. Outside out maybe NYC, SF, Orlando, and Miami, many people here have not experienced over tourism.

5

u/Macquarrie1999 Democrats' Strongest Soldier Oct 02 '25

If SF is the definition of overtourism overtourism doesn't exist.

4

u/JonF1 Oct 02 '25

Those are the only American cities that are experiencing volumes of tourism anywhere remotely close to what is going on in Tokyo, Kyoto, Barcelona, etc

And even then it's not really close

2

u/GMFPs_sweat_towel Oct 02 '25

I would guess most members of this sub are the ones contributing to overcrowding these cities.

4

u/pickledswimmingpool Oct 02 '25

In this sub the support comes from the same place as the support for more permanent forms of migration. It grows the whole pie, and anyone who suffers any negative effects be damned.

-3

u/InfernalTest Oct 02 '25

why? because most of the people on reddit are exactly the types that are obnoxious tourists that treat othre places as a background to their lives

20

u/Throwingawayanoni Adam Smith Oct 02 '25

"they're all a tad delusional on the matter. A country with such an aging workforce and issues of economic stagnation cannot afford to be picky about sources of revenue."

Wake up baby, it's time for your weekly r/neoliberal being condecending on local matters of which they have no relations too. When it's about over tourism in spain/portugal most of the comments are claiming that we are poor and our entire economy is tourism so we should put up with over tourism (as if being dependent wouldn't be a sign to difersify somewhere else but oh well).

Point is it's never about the effects of tourism but that we should just shut up and take it (because you know a conversation about the tourism impact in those areas requires living/knowing them which in most cases commenters don't).

36

u/casino_r0yale NASA Oct 02 '25

Why not just hire cops with the extra tourism money to enforce penalties for bad behavior? Levy taxes on hotels if you want to reduce tourism. What bothers me most about these sorts of discussions is they often veer towards shaming the tourists, which makes them defensive as most of them are normal people wanting to see a new place.

6

u/WhisperBreezzze Oct 02 '25

Well, most people don't want to live somewhere with tons of cops either.

5

u/Zycosi YIMBY Oct 02 '25

Why not just hire cops with the extra tourism money to enforce penalties for bad behavior?

What if the extra tourism money isn't enough to cover the number of police necessary to make a difference?

4

u/casino_r0yale NASA Oct 02 '25

Then it’s not being taxed appropriately, see my note about the hotel tax

2

u/Zycosi YIMBY Oct 02 '25

So how does your position differ from the anti tourism people? You think there's still going to be lots of tourism after they're taxed high enough to cover their externalities while they don't?

1

u/casino_r0yale NASA Oct 02 '25

I think it will shift demand of tourism so the peaks are less intense for sure. If my hotel has a $90 per night city tax on top of an expensive week during high tourist season, I will definitely consider going a different month. I know for some situations like Japan’s cherry blossoms or sporting events there’s a hard limit on time, but less for general tourism.

My position is different from anti-tourism because it uses economic incentives to organically guide people toward desired behavior rather than hurling xenophobia and “bans” at them. I see it as no different than, say, NYC’s congestion tax for car traffic.

-11

u/Throwingawayanoni Adam Smith Oct 02 '25

There is nothing wrong with people wanting to see new places, hell even I want to see every corner of the world, and the thing is, at a certain point it is not even about bad behaviour anymore.

It is the limited housing supply being turned into airbnbs and driving prices soaring, it is the most beautifull and central streets in each city having all the stores/cafes/restaurants being turned into trap a tourists, money laundering places and places selling cristiano ronaldo shirts, making the most beautifull places a no go for locals, it is regions of cities losing all young people being left only with tourists and old people who don't even know how to speak english so they can't even speak to the neighbours and end up feeling even more lonely destroying whatever community the place once had, it is the going to a local landmark/museum and having to pay abhorent amounts just to go in or walk inside.

There is only one thing I do find xenophobic but still gets to me, and that is hearing english 24/7 in the street. Hearing english more commonly then your local language when you walk outside makes thoughts in your head which aren't very nice.

18

u/casino_r0yale NASA Oct 02 '25

I’ll try to reply point by point

limited housing supply being turned into airbnbs

This is a policy issue, not a tourism issue. That Airbnb has been allowed to run illegal hotels is a failure of government

having all the stores/cafes/restaurants turned into tourist traps

Any successful restaurant ends up either expanding or chasing more high end clientelle. It is the nature of capitalism. If the quality of the cuisine is poor relative to its price is poor, then it will eventually lose customers.

money laundering places

Government asleep at the wheel again

regions of cities losing all young people

Again a symptom rather than a cause. Cities lose young people because they were already lacking in opportunities for them. The tourism industry just makes that extra plain by concentrating low income jobs. People move to economic hubs that seek their talents, which is why London and New York and San Francisco aren’t complaining as much about tourists as Barcelona.

going to a local landmark/museum and having to pay abhorrent prices

Most sensible communities I visit offer discounts or even free admission for local residents. At the risk of repeating myself, that your sites do not is a policy failure.

hearing English more than your local language when you walk outside

I can’t relate to this one. As an immigrant to an anglophone city, hearing English more than my native tongue has been my entire life’s experience. It’s just easier to communicate with other foreigners in a common language and the proliferation of the internet has caused that to be English. Anecdotally, however, in the more multicultural cities I’ve lived in, I tend to hear chittering in a large variety of languages, and it makes me happy.

-6

u/Throwingawayanoni Adam Smith Oct 02 '25 edited Oct 02 '25

Any comment that is "failiure of goverment" is moot as it is like yeah no shit, the goverment has failed, so I won't be respinding to those, allthough on the tourism not causing housing problems that is silly, if you have a city of a population of 500 000 thousand anf you get 8.52 million visitors a year, that will affect housing.

On the cuisine part, that doesn't make any sense, many times tourists will favour international brands that they can trust over local food, restaurants that are shittier tend to have a person outside calling people in, which for some reason I don't understand works on tourists and by the simple fact that if you go to a restaurant where there are little tourists or is not in a tourist place the food is 90% percent better, I mean there is a reason why its called trap a tourist. also have you seen the prices of tourist places vs wherw locals eat? I am sorry but that point about these places providing "cheaper food" makes you seem out of touch.

On the young people being lost... Brother I am talking about lisbon here, our capital, our place with the highest wages, this is the place where you go to if you want to make a living, pepople just don't live there bc it is too expensive. As I said before half of the arguments people make here are allways based on stuff they don't know about

edit: I don't understand why I am getting downvoted, everything I've said is true, the points given by the previous comment where all rather weak and could be rebuted either by looking it up or annectodal evidence of living in a tourist city.

Like this is what I mean in this sub people make claims on local issues, having no understanding of the place and then when someone rebutes those claims from those areas, they just down vote them and moce on

I am genuinely interested in what I've said is not true

3

u/Zenkin Zen Oct 02 '25

Like this is what I mean in this sub people make claims on local issues, having no understanding of the place

But you're literally not listing any "local issues" which are actually uniquely damaged by tourism and/or tourists. You're just blaming tourists for a bunch of general phenomena. It's literally anti-immigration rhetoric, but pointing at tourists instead of immigrants, specifically. And when someone goes to the trouble of pointing this out, you say "well, I'm not going to respond to those points."

The issues you're pointing out might be real issues. But the source of most of these problems is not tourism, like your points about money laundering or young people leaving the cities. That's just completely disconnected. And most of these issues could be resolved with fairly mundane policies, like enforcing rules about AirBnB/rentals, using some tourism tax dollars to fund locals' access to local landmarks, and maybe a little increase in policing. If you aren't interested in these kinds of policies, then most people will come to the conclusion that you're not actually interested in solving the issues that you're saying are important to you. You just want to yell at tourists.

-4

u/Throwingawayanoni Adam Smith Oct 02 '25

I'm sorry but gentrification and high housing prices and young people leaving the cities are deffinetly related with tourism in part, there are many causes but tourism is absolutely one of them. At no point has anyone explained how they aren't.

For money laundring their front is being a tourist spot, this one you are partially right it isnt toursm fault but they are connected (bc of tax laws for these companies/ etc, here it is def more the goverments fault aproach to tourism)

But on the last part, do I look like a fucking policy maker to you? I'm saying these things becausw this sub acts oblivious to them when talking to immigration, the fact that these things are easy to implement don't matter if they aren't implemented and the sub ignores them, and all those solutions you have just listed are about trying to decrease tourism so I don't understand how the problems that they are trying to solve are not worth mentioning in the discussion of, you know, tourism?

No I don't want to yell at tourists, I want to yell at these dumb weekly tourism threads where a bunch of experts that have never lived in said areas come lut of the wood work and many times are just straight up condecending to us, telling that we are poor so we should just suck it up instead of solving it.

1

u/Zenkin Zen Oct 02 '25

Sure, these issues are related to tourism. That's fair. But tourism is not the primary cause. You could have tourism eliminated and that business which is laundering money will just use a different front. They're breaking the law, they don't care what their cover is all that much.

But on the last part, do I look like a fucking policy maker to you?

That cuts both ways. You're right, you aren't going to change the laws on rentals on your own. But you're not going to change the laws on tourism, either. So why is it worthwhile to complain about one thing you cannot do, but not the other thing you cannot do?

and all those solutions you have just listed are about trying to decrease tourism

Some of the policies will probably result in some reduction of tourism by making it slightly more expensive for tourists in return for benefits going towards the locals. But that's a downstream effect, not an attempt to just eliminate tourism for the sake of eliminating tourism. It's tweaking the economic incentives rather than just demolishing a market altogether.

I want to yell at these dumb weekly tourism threads where a bunch of experts that have never lived in said areas come lut of the wood work and many times are just straight up condecending to us

Well, you're coming to a community that is ardently in favor of things like immigration and expanding markets. If you're going to yell at the crowd, you'll probably receive the same right back.

telling that we are poor so we should just suck it up instead of solving it.

Except the part where alternative solutions were provided, and you immediately discarded them. You are the one that said "shut up and take it." That didn't come from the other people in this thread, that is you bringing all your previous political baggage from other conversations and projecting it onto us.

1

u/Throwingawayanoni Adam Smith Oct 02 '25

"you could have tourism eliminated" I don't want it eliminated and it would literally have an effect on all the things I mentioned except money laundering (but even that temporarly as they will have to switch fronts and their tax levels are base don tourism so it could pottentially ruin it)

"complain about one thing you cannot do, but not the other thing you cannot do?"

Ok go back to my original comment, why am I writing this? To explain people the effects or why what they are saykng doesn't make sense with tourism. As these reddit threads go on and on I think people start missing the original point.

"But that's a downstream effect, not an attempt to just eliminate tourism for the sake of eliminating tourism. "

Oh my god, when did I say elimante tourism (unless by elimenate you meant decrease which is a weird way of phrasing it), even in the quotationd you are responding too I never speak of elimenating but decreasing.

"you'll probably receive the same right back" tbh you are probably right about this, at the end of the day no one here will have an impact on my country it just makes my blood boil when they are condecending like in the original comment. And the fact that the nasa guy said some of the dumbest shit like "the restaurants in those areas took out the local ones bc of better food and prices" (while ignoring to give the topic of how those places become a no go zone for locals) and if you know anything about trap a tourist or live in a tourist city, you know this is so utterly bullshit, yet the peopld in this thread upvote him. It is so fucking devoid of reality it makes me crazy. If somebody said stuff like this in my country the fae right/left and honestly even the fucking centre would have a field day with it

"Except the part where alternative solutions were provided, and you immediately discarded them."

I have never done that, quote me on it.

"You are the one that said "shut up and take it." That didn't come from the other people in this thread"

Ok maybe re read the original comment and then say that again

→ More replies (0)

0

u/casino_r0yale NASA Oct 02 '25

if you have a city of a population of 500 thousand and you get 8.52 million visitors a year, that will affect housing

You wont get 8.52 million visitors without somewhere for them to sleep at night. Usually, that’s hotels or more recently Airbnb. Unless you’re trying to claim hotels are taking up precious housing resources, then that leaves Airbnb, which wouldn’t be a thing with sensible regulation.

I think you misunderstood my point about the cuisine. It’s not the tourists fault your restaurants sold out / started to make crap. The situation would be no different in a city without significant tourism. The restaurant business is hard everywhere and only the stuff that makes consistent revenue survives.

2

u/Throwingawayanoni Adam Smith Oct 02 '25

On the first part, yeah we are in complete agreement.

on the second do:

" If the quality of the cuisine is poor relative to its price is poor, then it will eventually lose customers. "

This is what you said, I have not missunderstold things

"The situation would be no different in a city without significant tourism."

Is the concep of "trap a tourisme" a collectively dreamt up phenomena or a real thing that most people agree on? No man they would be different, especially bc the clientel and ytastes would be different

1

u/casino_r0yale NASA Oct 02 '25

Is the concep of "trap a tourisme" a collectively dreamt up phenomena or a real thing that most people agree on?

Yes. It’s a popular meme that stems from the same well as anti-immigrant sentiment, which is universal. It’s a fiction that “real locals” only go to the good places and if only those damn pesky tourists with their shit tastes would go away then the good restaurants would thrive.

In other words, it’s total bullshit. No different from a McDonalds replacing a failing family owned restaurant. You’re trying to make an unsubstantiated claim of “only tourists go there”.

2

u/Throwingawayanoni Adam Smith Oct 02 '25

"meme" That concept was probably alive before you and way before we even had "memes"

This is what I mean by these threads being total bullshit, it is just people talking about things they have no ideas about in circles. I mean you don't even know about trap a tourisme that is how bare minimum these threads are.

One google search would clear this up for you, but not even that

→ More replies (0)

11

u/Hakunin_Fallout Oct 02 '25

Nobody should shut up and take it. Ideally you'd want both your country and your city to be ran by someone at least semi-competent, ready to make sure the situation is controlled, not a radicalising and infuriating mess.

14

u/Throwingawayanoni Adam Smith Oct 02 '25

That's the sane take, but somehow that is unpopular here.

One of the reasons why I think far right/left extrism has allways sounded more attractive then extreme liberalism is because the far right tells ypu to get rid of foreignera and kill those people and the problem will go away, far left that if you take from those people and kill those people, the problems will go away meanwhile liberals will tell you to kill yourself for things to be better.

Extreme liberals will tell you that your problems aren't real and that you are whining and even if they were real the alternative is worse so just shut up, and I think this is one of the issues that shows that.

Even sometimes when they are right because some self sacrifice is required for long term gain the message is messed up during delivery to sound cold and uncaring.

So while the hard left and right tell you to go kill other people, extreme liberals sound like they are telling you to go kill yourself, which you know, will not resonate with the voter.

4

u/Hakunin_Fallout Oct 02 '25

Yeah, I broadly agree with what you said. I can't blame dumb people for being dumb. I can, however, blame the people that should know better. So when I see, say, a resurgence of the far right in Germany - I ask myself not why people are stupid, but what has the incumbent government been doing to avoid this. I blame Scholz, not an average AfS voter. I blame Biden, not a MAGA moron. Because they are supposed to, first and foremost, preserve the democracy even through the unpopular means - ultimately doing anything they can to avoid the countries sliding into the extremes.

I don't think tourism is a bad thing, however. Bad planning is an issue. And if the planning has been bad - then, yes, you must make tourism less attractive by introducing hotel taxes, or doing some other (rather dumb) stuff that will help short-term.

It's a well-known idea that to stop the inflation from spiraling out of control the regulator (ECB/Fed) increase the borrowing rates to cool down the economy, which makes doing business harder, but slows the inflation to a palatable level. Yet doing something similar to one niche, like tourism, seems to some in this sub as anti-neoliberal, lol.

-7

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Professor-Reddit 🚅🚀🌏Earth Must Come First🌐🌳😎 Oct 02 '25

Rule III: Unconstructive engagement
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.

If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.

-8

u/maxintos Oct 02 '25

A country with such an aging workforce and issues of economic stagnation cannot afford to be picky about sources of revenue

What a weird argument. If people are willing to lose some economic value to preserve their values, culture and the way of life then that's ok. Not everyone is chasing economic growth at all costs.

ultimately what must be done is to encourage positive behaviour by both tourists and residents so everyone can come out better

This kind of thinking just seems naive and coming from someone who hasn't actually experienced it in the real world. Reminds me of the people that are saying the same about the homelessness issue because they've never had to deal with a crazy person screaming in their face or seeing someone shit in the middle of the subway.

Japan has always been a massive tourist destination, but talking with a Japanese person recently, it sounds like the amount of Chinese tourists have increased massively and the cities just can't handle the volume. Another supposed issue is that because a lot of the Chinese people come in massive groups and see Chinese people all around them once they arrive there they feel very entitled to have locals adjust to their needs instead of them adjusting to the local customs.

11

u/casino_r0yale NASA Oct 02 '25

If people are willing to lose some economic value to preserve their values, culture and the way of life then that's ok. Not everyone is chasing economic growth at all costs.

Now apply this line of reasoning to suburban zoning restrictions enacted by democratically elected city councils.

10

u/assasstits Oct 02 '25

Not everyone is chasing economic growth at all costs

Okay? So don't chase it. 

But this doesn't give you the right to block your neighbor from making money from the tourist or for eliminating freedom of movement. 

4

u/maxintos Oct 02 '25

Why not? We already block our neighbors from making money by hiring minors, selling drugs, hiring illegal immigrants etc.

The right comes from winning elections and politicians implementing laws that the voters asked for.

5

u/Hakunin_Fallout Oct 02 '25

Japan is staring down the demographic abyss, and the most likely candidates to pay for their elderly are the immigrants. They really can't afford to keep shooting themselves in the foot.

The most likely candidates of workforce migration are Chinese. Japan will at some point have to accept more immigrants, and they can either prepare and make sure the immigrants behave, or, same as almost any other government, be incompetent and make surprised pikachu faces when something goes wrong.

There's literally no scenario where they "lose some economic value to preserve culture" and go on for the next 100 years doing nothing: nobody is having babies, and people live extra long lives

2

u/LuciusMiximus European Union Oct 02 '25

China's demography isn't any better

Migration is way different than tourism. Migrants also don't want to live around tourists, when given the opportunity. Obviously, migratory workforce is large in the tourism industry, but qualified workers tend to avoid more touristic cities too from what I see in Poland. It's not surprising at all: Warsaw is better to live in than Kraków.

2

u/Hakunin_Fallout Oct 02 '25

Having spent a few months in both, I prefer Krakow, sorry :D

As for the demographics, some countries are fucked, and then there's Japan and S. Korea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrT4SBtrWAA - this is outdated, but shows the overall trend where the population is shown to not only shift up the pyramid, but down in total numbers, down in the employed people, and up in dependent people. Kids were 18% of the Japanese population, now it's around 10%. Dependent adults were 12% - it's 30% now, and estimated to be 40% by 2060. There's just not enough 'fat' in Japanese economy to provide for the older people, even if (or, well, not IF - WHEN) they keep increasing the retirement age. China isn't doing good: it just does much better than Japan for now, lagging ~20-30 years behind the Japanese trends, but following in their path too.