4 ms·
> So we seem to have agreed that, yes, in areas where there's a significant influx of tourists (whether short or long-term), there are likely to be sigificant e
by lurk2 10mo ago
> So we seem to have agreed that, yes, in areas where there's a significant influx of tourists (whether short or long-term), there are likely to be sigificant economic factors that might explain the locals' antipathy?
Are you seeing these demonstrations in the resort towns or in the cities under the 3% threshold?
- mft_ 10mo agoI think you're trying to shift the goalposts, or you're just not seeing that we're stuck in circular logic. ---- You originally said there isn't an economic basis to locals' antipathy to outsiders. I provided evidence to show that an economic basis is plausible. You then use that evidence, and define any examples where it's happening as a 'resort town', and then require evidence that it's also happening in places you wouldn't define as a 'resort town'. I can't do that, because you excluded the places I can provide positive evidence for, by defining them as resort towns. ---- My basic point remains: there are plenty of places where an influx of short- or long-term tourists causes a meaningful economic shift in the cost of housing (especially) which therefore makes it logical (and not just xenophobic) that the locals might resent the tourists.