IMO it's not that travel is to cheap, it's that social media has created "hot spots" around the globe.
Take a random example: 5 cute coffee shops around Paris, all of them have that Parisian vibe that tourists are looking for but one of them had an influencer walk in and make some content. Now that one shop is all over the internet and tourists are flocking to it, creating huge lines and overwhelming the business, while the other 4 shops sit at roughly the same level of popularity as they did before.
The problem I see isn't that travel is democratized, it's that people are lazy at planning their trips and just go on social media and find these "hot spots" instead of actually doing their homework or heck even a little exploring around the city.
And I get it, planning a trip and actually doing your homework is hard, it's much easier to get on TikTok and have the entire itinerary planned in one afternoon than spending weeks researching spots on your own.
> The problem I see isn't that travel is democratized, it's that people are lazy at planning their trips and just go on social media and find these "hot spots" instead of actually doing their homework or heck even a little exploring around the city.
The problem is people are shallow. People are _actively_ seeking the queue. I know because I know people that are like this.
They want to be part of the queue because...I am not sure why. To take a quick picture at a very specific angle to avoid the crowd? To make their followers think they are doing something great? To make them jealous?
It is as if beauty have to be told and highlighted to them. They need a signboard that says "this is pretty, take a picture here!". They are not able to appreciate the minutiae of life.
Of course, I am sounding mighty superior here, but I don't think I am wrong.
The same reasons why folks prefer buying things on Amazon (or Walmart). It is renown and you know that it will have what you need and qualities are reasonably guaranteed.
Yeah I argue with my wife about this.
She lives her lists, and trawls her social media feeds for stuff.
I prefer to have a loose agenda of which neighborhoods are interesting, pick one and wander it for an afternoon. Odds are we will find lots of interesting things.
We usually meet in the middle and do a mix. More and more she admits in retrospect to having stressed herself out with building and following an agenda.
I think the more interesting story here wouldn’t be the “over tourism” of the globally desirable internet-famous locations— It’s all the little regional resort towns and tourism destinations that are now ignored.
All over the US are locations that used to be the place where a people would go for a three day weekend or summer getaway. But now they are ghost towns because the cost of travel and the algorithm have reframed travel as global and not regional.
Like… Niagara Falls used to be “the” honeymoon destination for couples in the northeast. Now it seems like every honeymoon is in a beachy tropical location and the falls have been gutted economically
And quite possibly also because UK beach towns are generally sad and cold (except for Cornwall and Devon for two weeks per year), compared to Spain’s?
Signed, someone living in the UK.
This is something that I feel doesn't get discussed in a lot of these sorts of discussions (overtourism, local food, etc.). Reducing your carbon/social footprint by consuming locally is MUCH more enjoyable in some locations than in others.
people insist that they need "the BEST", so they hop on a plane to get the picture-perfect locale that they see online at the expense of hollowing out anything that is merely "pretty good".
Isn't this what pricing is for? The "best" places can raise prices because of the high demand. Then the "pretty good" places in comparison wind up being a good value option.
> All over the US are locations that used to be the place where a people would go for a three day weekend or summer getaway. But now they are ghost towns because the cost of travel and the algorithm have reframed travel as global and not regional.
I find that local travelling within the US is often more expensive for the quality they offer and travelling outside the US may cost the same but give you a better experience, or at least novel.
A lot of those tiny locations all over the US are in red states. Lots of people aren't going to want to go to locations where public infrastructure has been hollowed out and discrimination is legal.
Do you have proof of these red states re-legalizing discrimination, or repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and/or Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)?
I failed to find anything about this supposed upheaval of established legal statute after a quick google search.
I think the point of is that every state had its decent share of local tourists going to local attractions. It's one thing if the blue state travelers who were traveling in the first place are now traveling somewhere else, but it's also an impact that there are also less local tourists in these states than there have been historically, because even the local tourists are now traveling elsewhere.
Either I get "Southern Hospitality" AKA decently outwardly friendly people (if you're white) and people who actually donate to charity or I get good infrastructure and legal weed, but people who are anti-social and would piss on the homeless if it were legal.
You can't win. This is why folks travel in the first place.
Yeah travel should be a privilege reserved for the ultra rich so the lower classes can focus on working until their body is used up and then they can crawl in a hole and die.
'Globe trotting' has been 'democraticized' only for the top income earners from the high-income countries. The rest of the world is not able to globe trot. Combined with digital nomadism, golden visas et al, this 'democratization' is a new form of colonization in which the high CoL countries' people can literally buy out poorer countries' most desirable regions or set themselves up as an aristocratic elite on top of the locals.
It used to be the case, now the majority of the people in high-income countries and the high earners of medium-income countries can globe trot, it is a massive increase.
As for the "colonial" aspect, Japan is not exactly a poor country. It is, in fact, a rather expensive destination (a bit less now because the Yen is cheap) and you will certainly not be seen as an aristocratic elite. You will be respected as a guest because that's how Japan works, but there is a line and it will become very clear if you ever attempt to cross it.
I think that "colonial style" tourism is on the decline, simply because the world is developing and what used to be poor countries now do very well by themselves. They will still accept your money though.
> It used to be the case, now the majority of the people in high-income countries and the high earners of medium-income countries can globe trot, it is a massive increase.
Except that is still a ~20% minority at the top. And worse, they can only trot by gentrifying cheaper locations - they can't trot in central London, Ottawa, or Japan, bar a few who are much richer.
> As for the "colonial" aspect, Japan is not exactly a poor country
This new colonization phenomenon doesnt have much to do with those. Foreigners who earn more than their peers of equivalent level come into a country and they eventually push those, even including the white collars, out of their own cities by gentrifying them through long term or short term rentals, and especially through buying properties to live in or for 'investment' (speculation, really). This happened in Lisbon, Barcelona, Madrid, and is now happening in Valencia. It will inevitably happen in Japan. The only reason it has not happened yet is that Japan's digital nomad visa is just 6 months. If it starts giving out a year or more, you will see how fast the colonization will happen. It took only 2 years for Spain. Japan would likely be a more popular destination, so it could happen faster.
Or also for the "middle" class but as an expensive treat that would have been chosen over something else, like it used to be. After all the environmental cost of a 20€ EasyJet ticket isn't nothing.
Well, problem here is that airlines are under control of national regulatory agencies while flying internationally. Sure, a mandate of say, drastically improving comfort levels by making something like an old-style business class seat (38" pitch recliner, 4 abreast in a narrowbody) the absolute allowed minimum - could work: it will make passengers happier, reduce air rage, and lift prices to the level that somewhat curbs overtourism. But it's impossible to introduce because if one nation does so it will simply make their airlines uncompetitive abroad.
That’s a fair counter point, but I’m just saying that it did have negative consequences and we might want to consider it. It’s kinda crazy you can sometimes fly 6000 km for less than a few round trip train tickets between London and Edinburgh.
I wonder if Americans’ pitifully short vacation allowance paired with high incomes is an issue. If you’re going to Japan for a week you’re likely to only hit a few top attractions, I imagine.
Perhaps it would help to frame the problem as domestic travel being too expensive as opposed to international travel being too cheap. By the way, overtourism is not a "there's too many Americans/Europeans who can afford vacations" problem, most tourists in Japan are from nearby East Asian countries. In fact, the share of tourists to Japan who come from the US and Europe has declined in recent years.
