6 ms·

It’s extremely easy, cheap and stress-free to travel nowadays due to smartphones. The untapped market potential in western countries is still crazy. I’d say 8

• spacemadness 2y ago
  I am so confused by the context of this. Isn’t the article saying people living in tourist cities DON’T want more people to travel?
• jonnycat 2y ago
  I would guess that 80% (or more) of those 80% would rather not change their entire world view.
  • ieie3366 2y ago
    No, it’s more like.. they don’t realize it’s a thing you can just do.
    • oldpersonintx 2y ago
      you're forgetting about the thousands of dollars go read about the percentage of the population that have less than $500 emergency savings and then you won't wonder why they aren't going to Greece for a week HN SV types don't realize most people working hourly jobs don't have the concept of longish vacations...if you leave for a week your job is given to someone else
• happytoexplain 2y ago
  They don't realize it would, or they don't believe it would? Are you so confident about your assessment of what life experiences would have what effects on each of those 80% of people?
• tossandthrow 2y ago
  Well, this was tru on H.C. Andersens time. I have travelled extensively, and my assessment (along with other people who have travelled extensively) is that you end up travelling to see people, not things or experiences. This requires you to know people where you travel to. In the end, it is not travelling that opens up your mind, it is knowing and interacting with people of different culture - It is being open minded that opens up your mind.
• ActionHank 2y ago
  I think that you are missing the pile of money that these people stuck in their home area would need to hand over for that plane ride, accommodation, and travel expenses. Travel is now, arguably, more of a luxury than it was precovid.
  • ieie3366 2y ago
    Don’t go to expensive tourist traps. Travel is not just Vegas, London or Rome. $1500 will get you a month in a less expensive country
    • ActionHank 2y ago
      Most people are struggling to cover their debts, rent, and food.
    • AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Here's the expense that doesn't change: That will cost me a month of vacation days. Yeah, I can afford the money, if I choose to. But the vacation days are a huge opportunity cost. For me, at the moment, that's two years of no other vacations. That's expensive.
• silvanocerza 2y ago
  All those things cost quite a bit of money that most people can't afford. Seems quite out of touch with reality assuming that people don't travel because they don't want to.
  • pydry 2y ago
    It's a lot cheaper than you'd probably realize thanks to decades of competition. It's unlike necessities like a roof over your head, education and healthcare. These are all increasingly unaffordable thanks to a war on the working class driven by the financialization of essentials.
    • JohnnyMarcone 2y ago
      The flight alone is unaffordable or very expensive for most people in the United States.
      • pydry 2y ago
        If you amortize the cost of the flight across a month or so in a LCOL region it can be cheaper than staying home. Staying at home is also increasingly unaffordable for a lot of people in the United States, of course.
        • danaris 2y ago
          Yes, but most of the cost of staying home is 1) rent/mortgage 2) food And you still have to pay both of those if you're on vacation. Unless you're suggesting that people pack up everything they own, move out of their house, and go on vacation for a month?
          • RetroTechie 2y ago
            There's people that rent out their house a la AirBnB, while out on a month+ stay in a LCOL country. And in some cases come out ahead doing so, while having a vacation. Of course it varies from household to household whether it's practical (or wise) to do this.
• notachatbot1234 2y ago
  If we have 80% more air travel, that would accelerate global warming hugely.
  • ben_w 2y ago
    Not "hugely", not by itself. Air travel is responsible for 4% of warming to date[0], so an 80% growth would make aviation… responsible for 7.2% of current warming, or warming going up 3.2% compared to reality — sure, that's still bad, but it's not huge. That said, if "80% of people aren't using aircraft" were true (I don't think it is), going from that to everyone wouldn't be "80% more air travel", it would be 400% more air travel, boosting global warming by 16%. Which is even worse, but again, not what I'd call "accelerate global warming hugely". [0] more than you might expect from the 2.5% of global CO₂ emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
• bombcar 2y ago
  I've taken the taxi, and the flights, and unless you work at it, most international flights land in parts of the world that kind of just look like America but they speak funny. You have to actually dig and get outside the "tourist" areas to really start to get something different, and you can do that in the USA, too.
  • dividefuel 2y ago
    This is a good point too. Areas that are really touristy start to converge on a shared "vibe". I don't know if this is always how it's been and I finally realized it, or if it's a consequence of the more recent boom in travel.
    • bombcar 2y ago
      I think it's somewhat both, but mainly the latter. Decades ago, even touristy places were very "native" for lack of a better term. But now, things like McDonalds and Starbucks and other American chains have expanded all over the world, the locals like them for various reasons, and you find them in the richer areas (which are often clustered around tourist-attractive areas, too). However, if you stay in an area for a week or two, and/or get outside the cities, you quickly realize just how different places are.
• tenpies 2y ago
  Isn't the entire tourist industry essentially based off the Grand Tour[1]? That is, an idea that became in vogue among the wealthy European aristocrats that your children must tour the grand cities of Europe to become worldly and "enlightened". It became a sort of right of passage and a signal of how wealthy your family is and how worldly and well-traveled your children are. Businesses, liking money, noticed that if they could sell the masses on this idea it would be immensely profitable. You too - merely wealthy or even middle class person - can be enlightened like the aristocrats! A trip could change your world view! Show the world you're not a dumb, ignorant, small-minded serf-child by traveling! And sure, I'm being overly cynical, but for a mere library fee you can probably expand your world view even more than through consumerist behaviour. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Tour_(disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Tour_(disambiguation)
  • mettamage 2y ago
    > but for a mere library fee you can probably expand your world view even more than through consumerist behaviour. My view is that learning a new concept is a lot like traveling. To me it feels the same. I like to do both a lot. There is an exception with traveling that is hard to find in books (directly, indirectly it is also available in books). One can form social relationships with people from another country. In many cases, the relationship that forms is with another tourist. It seems to be one of the few times that people are genuinely open to meet other people. There are other ways to go about this, but this way of truly meeting potential new international friends is hard to beat. Though, another way of doing it is university. I think traveling has little that is unique, but so does everything else. There are always other ways that one can go about to meeting their needs. It just so happens that traveling is a pretty good and convenient way to do it with, but by far not the only way.
• bitexploder 2y ago
  But then you have to fly on an airplane. Having accumulated a at least a million air miles in my career I am sort of done with them except for emergencies. I just have a strong aversion to airplanes and the air travel industry these days. Guess my horizons are already expanded anyway, been all over and find hanging out in my home region fine. I do think everyone should do at least a little safe international travel. Visit Europe once or twice. Visit a country or two in Asia. But I mostly found it made me want to be back home. I like my house, hobbies, and friends a lot. I know that sort of travel can be transformative for many, though, which is why I encourage people to do it, but I also completely get not wanting to :)
• VoodooJuJu 2y ago
  Convince me otherwise: I don't travel because I see it as the pinnacle of vapid consumerist excess. People who regale me with tales of their travels will recount the great food, the nice people, the architecture, the views. You burned all that fuel, money, and time to travel halfway around the world just to eat someone else's food and shit in someone else's toilet? To walk someone else's streets? Why? If you think this experience has enhanced your worldview, I think you're a fool who was marketed to. I think travel has been productized and hawked to you as a "world-view enhancing" high-status marker by the tourism industry. The higher status attributed to "one who has toured" is particularly abhorrent. Oh, sorry, I'm just stupider with a meeker worldview because I didn't go hiking in the Alps or eat authentic Italian food or something. It's unwarranted elitism. I think it's a superficial outlet for consumerism and a misguided attempt to attain some ostensible "worldliness" status. My ideal is to dwell in and steward for my own village. Why do I need to go around visiting other people's villages? Here's an ideal, from the Tao Te Ching, chapter 80: Let the country be small, And the inhabitants few. Although there are weapons For tens and hundreds of soldiers, They will not be used. Let people take death seriously, And not travel far. Although they have boats and carriages, There's no occasion to use them. Although they have armor and weapons, There's no occasion to wear them. Let people return to making knots on ropes, Instead of writing. Their food will be tasty. Their clothes will be comfortable. Their homes will be tranquil. They will rejoice in their daily life. They can see their neighbors. Roosters and dogs can be heard from there. Still, they will age and die Without visiting one another.
  • beej71 2y ago
    I don't have a big house or fancy car. I don't dine in fancy restaurants or stay in fancy hotels; sometimes I sleep on the ground. I never pay for more than coach. But I do need to go places and see things. Sometimes that's out in the forest or the mountains or the coast. Sometimes it's local. Sometimes it's very distant. The world! The people! It is amazing! I stand agape at the scope of it all. I'm sorry I will not be able to experience every single bit of it. But that's just me. I don't intend or expect you to be convinced it is right for you. Likewise, you can't tell me what has or has not enhanced my world view. :)
  • lewispollard 2y ago
• mr_00ff00 2y ago
  A lot of replies are claiming it’s money, but honestly I think there’s just a lot of people that don’t care to see the world beyond their town. I have a friend that grew up, went to college, went to law school all within 20 miles of his hometown. As soon as he graduated law school, he got married and started talking about having kids. That was a few years ago, but he was basically 45 and settled into his suburban life at the age of 24.
  • antifa 2y ago
    "I have a friend who didn't want to travel, therefore most people just don't want to travel."
    • mr_00ff00 2y ago
      Maybe I made it seem like I was implying that’s a universal rule. What I meant was many people jumped to say it was only money that caused people not to travel. Everyone knows a friend like mine. I have no idea of the breakdown, but my personal experience makes me want to question the idea it’s always all money.
  • dividefuel 2y ago
    I think there's a huge mix of things: 1. People who don't travel because they can't afford it 2. People who don't travel because they're intimidated by it 3. People who don't travel because they don't see it as important These groups definitely have some overlap -- you may not be able to afford it because you don't prioritize it -- but I think most people wouldn't self-identify as being part of Group 3.
• simmerup 2y ago
  If Marie Antoinette had said ‘let them eat cake’, I imagine she would have done it with your confidence
• dazc 2y ago
  Lots of people travel to places that may also distort their world view though? My 2 week visit to Disneyworld taught me as much about life in the US as did my daily fix of BBC news coverage. In other words, it is distorted. I lived in Spain for a couple of years and have a good idea of what life is like there. Many of my fellow Brits who have vacations at the same Spanish resort year after year have not one clue.
• newzisforsukas 2y ago
  Not everyone views themselves as being stuck and not everyone wants to spend a significant portion of their income to visit a place for a tiny fraction of their existence and gamble as to if it will have some lasting meaning.
• mikub 2y ago
  Oh god, 'untapped market potential' whenever I hear that it always comes from people that have the most narrow minded worldview, unfortunatly those peoples worldview wont't change no matter how far they "travel" around the world. They are like "Look at this nice little italian village no one knows about, we should send thousands of tourists there everyday. I'm sure the villagers will love it."
• dividefuel 2y ago
  I don't think it's that people don't care, it's that the hurdles of traveling feel high when you have no experience. How do I plan logistics, like flights, hotels, transportation, and activities? How do I get around when I don't speak the language at all? And, of course, how can I afford this trip for my family, reaching a balance between comfort and cost? Sure, anyone can learn to do these things, but it's definitely intimidating to do it the first time.
• photonthug 2y ago
  > change their entire world view Kind of a tangent, but this is a more nuanced topic than people usually imagine, and not necessarily always a good thing. Widening your perspective sounds great, and often it is, but it also tends to isolate you from other people in ways that can't be undone. You won't get this effect from being a tourist abroad a few times a year, but it's something that comes with territory after you've traveled extensively, kind of a more literal version of the "you can't go home again" proverb. I expect lots of digital nomads are probably familiar with this, but it's not something they talk about. Life is a process of stacking up experiences that others are increasingly unlikely to be able relate to. But someone who leaves a small rural community for college in the big city is losing a large number of people who can relate to them, and gaining a new community of people that can. Same story for most radical perspective-widening experiences, like how soldiers may struggle with aspects of civilian life, but at least can enjoy new solidarity/understanding with their brothers in arms. Usually with these things, one door opens and another closes. The situation is very different for some types of expat or diaspora populations, or just your dedicated wanderer. Those who are earnestly involved or experienced in multiple cultures may find that they can relate to everyone, but never feel understood themselves.
  • lores 2y ago
    That is a very insightful comment, thanks.
  • BehindBlueEyes 2y ago
    As someone who moved a lot growing up and for my career, not being in one place long enough to really bond with people may be the cause of feeling isolated/not understood, maybe even more so than having more experience with different places and cultures...
• antisthenes 2y ago
  Wherever you go, there you are.