3 ms·

World Travel & Tourism Council Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2017 United States "Visitor exports generated USD 212.3bn, 9.5% of total exports in 2016. This

World Travel & Tourism Council Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2017 United States "Visitor exports generated USD 212.3bn, 9.5% of total exports in 2016. This is forecast to fall by 0.6% in 2017, and grow by 3.9% pa, from 2017-2027, to USD 309.7bn in 2027, 9.3% of total." [0] US GDP in 2016 was USD 18624bn. [1] So I suppose it's only 1.1% of GDP. What's USD 212.3bn between frenemies huh? ;-) [0] https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic-impact-research/countries-2017/unitedstates2017.pdf https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic-impact-r... [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?location...

kylec 9y ago
Exactly. The complete loss of international tourism (and realistically there wouldn’t ever be a complete loss unless we closed the border) would result in a 1% loss for the US GDP/economy. Not nothing, but certainly not devastating.
- piva00 9y ago
  You do understand there's also a downward spiral for tourism, right? Tourism generated 1% of the GDP but you don't know the impact on other industries, you haven't seen figures on lost of tax revenue from jobs lost, cost of retraining people to find new jobs, burden on society from unemployment, etc. I don't think that tourism will cease in the US but any downturn on it has larger effects than just the GDP figure brought by the industry itself. Of course, if you only care about numbers the dollar figure won't look much, if you care about the lives affected by idiotic policies then you have to look deeper.
  - CaptainZapp 9y ago
    I never understood why US airports never implemented the transit concept. Theoretically it could be extremely convenient to use the US as a transit point if your final destination is, for example, a country in Latin America. But when you connect via any US airport you need to deal with imigration, pick up your luggage, deal with customs hassle, re-check your luggage and proceed through the entire TSA song and dance. Depending on the airport not even 3 hours may be sufficient to make the connection and the hassle you experience is just not worth it. For comparison: Some European airports have legal connection times of 30 minutes (Vienna). Longer than 90 minutes is almost unheard of. Just about any international airport gets that concept, even in massively underdeveloped countries. The US just doesn't seem to get it. It must cost US carriers dozen -, if not hundreds of millions in yearly lost revenues.
    - gergles 9y ago
      Because statistically nobody transits through the US. Almost everyone ending up in the US is staying. A lengthy flight across the Atlantic/Pacific to then take another lengthy flight across the other ocean is just not something many people do.
jimnotgym 9y ago
OK, but what if I stopped buying US goods and US services? What if I pulled my investments from US equities? What if I added a tariff on services provided by US companies, because they had benefited from an un-competitively low corporation tax rate? The US is not the first empire. You might want to read up on how the others failed.

kylec 9y ago

Exactly. The complete loss of international tourism (and realistically there wouldn’t ever be a complete loss unless we closed the border) would result in a 1% loss for the US GDP/economy. Not nothing, but certainly not devastating.

piva00 9y ago
You do understand there's also a downward spiral for tourism, right? Tourism generated 1% of the GDP but you don't know the impact on other industries, you haven't seen figures on lost of tax revenue from jobs lost, cost of retraining people to find new jobs, burden on society from unemployment, etc. I don't think that tourism will cease in the US but any downturn on it has larger effects than just the GDP figure brought by the industry itself. Of course, if you only care about numbers the dollar figure won't look much, if you care about the lives affected by idiotic policies then you have to look deeper.
- CaptainZapp 9y ago
  I never understood why US airports never implemented the transit concept. Theoretically it could be extremely convenient to use the US as a transit point if your final destination is, for example, a country in Latin America. But when you connect via any US airport you need to deal with imigration, pick up your luggage, deal with customs hassle, re-check your luggage and proceed through the entire TSA song and dance. Depending on the airport not even 3 hours may be sufficient to make the connection and the hassle you experience is just not worth it. For comparison: Some European airports have legal connection times of 30 minutes (Vienna). Longer than 90 minutes is almost unheard of. Just about any international airport gets that concept, even in massively underdeveloped countries. The US just doesn't seem to get it. It must cost US carriers dozen -, if not hundreds of millions in yearly lost revenues.
  - gergles 9y ago
    Because statistically nobody transits through the US. Almost everyone ending up in the US is staying. A lengthy flight across the Atlantic/Pacific to then take another lengthy flight across the other ocean is just not something many people do.

jimnotgym 9y ago

OK, but what if I stopped buying US goods and US services? What if I pulled my investments from US equities? What if I added a tariff on services provided by US companies, because they had benefited from an un-competitively low corporation tax rate? The US is not the first empire. You might want to read up on how the others failed.