The I in IP stands for intelectual; AKA, the clever things they reached with their thoughts. The artificial limitations are not IP, simply mechanisms they included exclusivity. They needn’t be clever. if (!apple) { rejectApp(); hideDocs() } is not IP.
Didn’t they have some of the biggest house prices to income ratios? And wasn’t private tutoring out of control in there? And weren’t they fighting with almost every single neighbor they have?
So, instead of fixing the cesspool we just designate a place for them? Why not just going after the ones committing crimes and state that big public groups must have moderation for basic shit? (Like no death threats and that kind of “moderation”, not a "I don’t like your opinions)
What you are trying to point is that in the United States of America (and maybe Canada) you people have coffee that’s so expensive that two of them pay for YT premium. You’re only missing out on most of the internet (eg. Not the US).
Starbucks is notoriously expensive and nobody refers to it as coffee round here. Starbucks in my first world country is considered something for hipster digital nomads. You can’t find them outside areas with tourists as everyone else is happy with “regular” coffee that’s literally 10 times cheaper.
Saying that two coffees equate to YouTube premium while using Starbucks as a metric is like saying that a car only costs a watch or two while using a Rolex as the reference watch. If you consider a Rolex to be your reference watch, cool, you’re a privileged minority.
Well, to begin with, both the watcher and the creator are clients of the platform. Both sides feel bound to it, even if both dislike it.
Then, YouTube premium is literally 20 machine coffees a month in my first world country. 15 if they’re done by someone. You seem to be speaking “privileged minority”.
Did you even consider that your formula doesn’t even work for 90% of people? 6 figure salaries are a US thing, everywhere else you get taxes to pay for irrelevant shit like health. Part of those taxes are for retirement. Those are not optional and scale with the salary from like 10% if you’re poor to like 70% if you’re rich.
At whatever age retirement is, you get a payout that’s (not linearly) proportional to how much you paid in taxes. That’s the whole of Europe. Probably more complicated or anarchic elsewhere.
Even with a top 5% salary, you’re not going to pile up all that much.
The problem is not this scheme. Is that there are not enough young people to support the elderly.
Also a curiosity about Portugal: A lot of people are starting to lie about not having a degree when they do so that they can get shit jobs more easily. Too many degrees around. (Most people go to college, even if they fail)
Freedom of movement never was and never will be a thing outside of countries with similar standings in economy and policy.
There’s the obvious problem #1) People rushing to whoever maximizes their welfare. There’s this fine reason why plenty of illegal economic migrants do not settle for some first-world country that accepts them and keep going until they hit something like Germany.
Then you have #2) Societies do not exist without a place and no society should be forced to accept people that undermines it. France is secular and yet it allowed in plenty of people that are not. I’m not saying you must be secular to exist; I’m saying that you should not be going to a society you fundamentally disagree with and much less start imposing. And yet we both know what would happen if borders were open.
You also have #3) rich people can just buy out the nicest places and chop chop people the fuck out. A state putting up some barriers severely slows this process (which is happening anyway)
A bunch more reasons like paperwork, criminal record, ecology, yadda yadda.
With this said, if you fulfil stuff, you should definitely be able to get wherever you want. Ethnicity, social status ou whatever made up stuff should not be roadblocks. Even if it takes a year or two of screening and some sort of integration procedure.
There are plenty of legal things that are condemnable.
Going to a place that you know upfront that is suffering like this, where you know that you’re contributing a teeny bitsy to get someone homeless, jobless and cultureless might be legal but it isn’t moral.
One might argue that most tourists do not know that. They simply look up some “top 17 best places to go in summer 2024” and off they go. They think that they are going to ride in a lovely tram through lovely streets and then some paradisiac beach when reality is smelling sweaty butts through crowds all the way.
But how to you convince dumb tourists to be smart and moral tourists when there are plenty of good places they can go to that aren’t overcrowding (even in these same countries)? I personally dunno. And since you think that individuals should not be concerned then you probably prefer some other route.
We can have quotas, but then you get gentrification. Whoever is the richest gets in and the others do not.That’s also terrible. Plus you’d get a black market with illegal renting due to market pressures.
What solution do you propose exactly?
That’s Algarve for you. It just straight away stopped having Portuguese people. The entire south coast of Portugal is now a British colony.
Except the retirees, people only go there in the summer so, by May, “business” owners need to hire like 50k persons willing to do crap jobs and by September they all get fired. Ofc that people aren’t really willing to do that so we get the added bonus of bosses going to journals to complain that “there isn’t a shortage of jobs, it is the Portuguese that do not want to work”. What a dream job, to live in a cardboard box to appease Brits looking for the cheapest nice-place.
Whatever happened there that was Portuguese is no more.
Aren’t you figuring that we’d rather not have that? That money is mostly not reaching anyone but landlords, restaurant owners and rickshaws. We get poorer with tourism money.
The jobs that pay us more than 860€ (the minimum salary) disappear with mass tourism because 1) land values get too expensive 2) a lot of highly qualified people just emigrated away after being unable to pay rent.
People who attended STEM fields know that the way to get proper jobs is to leave the country, which is bloody unfair because we used to have them. Instead of 3k/mo white-collar jobs we get 860€/mo whipping simulators dealing with entitled tourists.
Ofc that not every job disappeared but since the economy is highly uncompetitive with it’s tourism focus, you get the worst possible scenario for everything else.
Plenty of movements went on due to public pressure through protests. iIRC the Dutch pro-livable cities movement started that way, with protests against cars, half a century ago.
Also, you’re giving to tourists a right while stripping it from ourselves. You forget that in a crowd you’re going to have some that are going to break into private property, halt streets and do all kinds of dumb shit in the name of an Instagram picture.
Touristing and handling garbage can be seen the same way. You can think a bit about what bin to use and that takes some extra effort or you can just throw everything in the general because it is easier.
You’re touristing in another countries for like 1 week a year. That means that the ratio of time you’re touristing to the time you’re not is like 53:1, assuming that everyone does the same (which is def not the case). So, a perfectly balanced town in this hypothetical reality has 1 person touristing for each 53 not doing it. In some parts of these cities the opposite happens. It is so massive that you get many times more tourists than locals and that is enough to get everything malfunctioning.
Barcelona just had to remove bus lines from Google Maps to let locals have a chance to ride them. How is this fair? And this is the authorities doing something as you just advocated for. They got called out for that as xenophobic and whatnot. So, tell me, if I live in a place with a nice environment, how to I go to work? And how do I keep a house and a job given the rent increases sponsored by the millions that want to prop up their Instagram? If we can’t forbid them from coming, what exactly should we do that is not going to be called xenophobic? Tax it to reduce their numbers? That’s also condemned by plenty as gentrification. What is the good solution exactly?
Most “beautiful” bits people visit are at least a century old, plenty of them like 5+ centuries old. I don’t think that people back then were considering tourists.
I’m either case, weather and natural features play a big role for southern Europe. We didn’t decide to have these.
Also, IIRC, we also didn’t ask half of Europe to unbuild itself in this last century. WW2, cities for cars and fucking up nature were not decisions we had a say on.
It is silly AF to have a German/Brit/French/American/Chinese fuck their country up trough some industrialization and pro-productivity-but-anti-quality-of-life policies, get rich doing it and then proceed to go to a country that has opted to stay out if it to enjoy what they could have at home but decided not to.
When did locals consent to have their city taken over?
When the purchasing power disparity is too big, you create this imbalance where you can’t just refuse them while at the same time you know that long term it fucks everything up badly.
Businesses will accept them given that they can now charge triple rate for everything. Politicians get extra tax revenue and benefit from bits of corruption here and there. Meanwhile the commoner has to figure another place to live.
The entire south of Portugal (so, not all that far from Barcelona) is now devoid of locals. If you go there in the winter you get to see almost-empty-towns that used to be major cities. Everyone moved to Lisbon. And now that Lisbon also happens to have grown to be an hot spot as well? You guessed it, people mass moving as well, this time for another countries.
A few years back, our PM literally told us to emigrate; that’s how bad things got in here.
As for political parties that “want” to “solve this”, it is basically a single party show; the far right.
Then you’re not paying attention. Plenty of such protests-with-thousands in a few major places that were overwhelmed. Barcelona, Maiorca, Lisbon, Algarve, probably most of Greece, Italy, Southern France, etc…
It is not false that the government has blame, however, there’s plenty of preverse incentive in here. Land prices skyrocketed and a lot of very well positioned individuals got very well in life.
At the end of the day, being a decent human being doesn’t require laws. If you know you’re competing with locals whose rents already are higher than their salaries, with their businesses that now can’t support rents any longer and generally browsing fake-local-crap (and I assure you that most mass tourism is), then you’re just making yourself unwelcome.
Even the “tourists are injecting money in the local economy” argument is in a good part bullshit. Ofc that some of it loops to everyone else, but the gains are generally very poorly distributed and many times negative as that money destroys homes and jobs.
If you go to some parts of Lisbon, you’re not going to be able to hear one single word of Portuguese. Just yday I heard about a guy complaining that tourists attempted to forbid him from going into a waterfall near his home because… It ruins their photos and they waited in line to have them while the guy just “skipped the queue”. Mass-tourists can’t just figure that it is a country where people live and not a theme park, the “we paid to come here, we have rights” argument is heard plenty of times.
Nope. At least in Lisbon (which is probably just the same as Barcelona) the vast majority of them go straight at the tourist traps. They barely get any contact with the culture beyond having some foreigner guide pretend he knows about the city point at things while driving their rickshaw in the most annoying possible way. At the end of the day they end up eating whatever sounds foreign while listening to foreign music. This is an actual common complaint people have in Lisbon, that it is not Lisbon, it has been pretending it is Disneyland for the last 10-15 years.
There are places where people do that kind of tourism you’re describing. Barcelona, Lisbon and a few more popular places, for the vast majority of tourists, is not.
As for the “support” argument, they mostly support low-wage low-qualification boss-owns-50-other-places businesses while, collaterally, raising the expenses of every other business, prompting those to just close the doors and move elsewhere. If you are qualified in basically anything, the job market in Lisbon is a mess. Plenty of people do lie about their qualifications to state them as lower than they are, just in order to get these crap jobs. The purchasing power fell, locals are actually much poorer since the mass tourism wave that started when the world rebound from 2008. The median salary in Lisbon is like 1000€ while a rent for a cube starts at like 800-1200€.
As for the “yell at the government”, I don’t know about the situation in Barcelona, but in Portugal, the far-right just received 20% of the votes because they are the only ones addressing those problems (in a very “close the doors” kind of way). Some municipalities straight up started not giving a damn at as they cash in more from the tourists than from the local’s taxes. Oeiras and Cascais, two kind of famous tourist destinations next to Lisbon straight up are renaming official stuff to English in order to appease their real clients (eg. Not the people who live there).
So, if you want to have any sense of a service respecting you, it should be hosted on a server you can control?
No difference at all between the server of the world’s biggest advertiser and a server by a company that opens itself for audits and is in a country whole laws require no bullshit? Are you sure those two are the same? All or nothing?
I don’t think you’re envisioning physics in many of these situations. Might not be the case in Barcelona which is pretty big and growable but let me give you another example to point out why that generalization doesn’t stick. I’m from nearby Sesimbra, a 5k pop village in a very very cool-looking place.
If I had to bet, Sesimbra receives like 50k tourists a month, many of which want to stay in hotels and tents and illegal caravans. If one expands Sesimbra, the beauty of the place gets destroyed for everyone. If one does not, the fisherman (yes, it is a fishing village) are now competing with 50k other fellas for land, in a village that can’t sustain any other industry.
Even if you tax the hell of tourists and only a fifth keeps going, that is already too many. It literally is destroying both the nature and the livelihood of people that were there for centuries.
I get the idea that people want to see fancy places and we don’t have that many Sesimbras in the world, but this massification is basically forbidding people from living anywhere that happens to be pretty and has a good weather. The richer tourists stay in the hotels (which lay on top of bulldozed homes) and the locals are now 20km away because physics couldn’t care less. 50k ain’t gonna stay in that tiny valley, people do not fit.
We have huge chunks of the coastal dunes destroyed (and those take a long time to recover) because of such misuse and overuse. Everyone wants to go to the beach and everyone wants to have resorts or whatever, and yet the places and the populations are taking very hard beatings. No amount of policy making solves some of those situations given that you can’t just have quotas of people allowed to visit a city within the EU. The entire region of Algarve is a disaster.
And yes, there are airports with tourist taxes, but Portugal doesn’t have all that many airports. These villages (Sesimbra, Sintra, Ericeira…) are serviced by the same airport as Lisbon. Can’t hit tourists with a tax without hitting businesses and others.
You just happen to be conflating hard limitations of a physical substance with arbitrary soft limitations. Of course you cant replace chips with sand despite both having a % of silicon. Those are entirely different things.
Wine and gasoline aren’t the same thing at all, they just happen to have one common element in their composition.
The iPad and a computer ARE the same thing. The label is something the brand puts on, it is not an hard limitation of the universe.
I personally don’t care if IKEA says that their bedroom furniture is for the bedroom. If I decide to use it as living room furniture I can and IKEA should not have a say, however they probably would if they could.
Brands like to have that weird control when they can, generally not in worries we’re doing something weird with stuff but for some strategic benefit, such as not cannibalising sales of something else.
If IKEA could bind pieces of furniture to types of room, you’d be more likely to have to buy more furniture over your lifetime. It would also maybe prevent them from having to comply with some regulation with the “our furniture is not furniture, is an… habitational support”! argument.
They partially solve the fuel and the bad air problems. In exchange they damage roads way more (I recall reading that the damage is proportional to the vehicle weight to the fourth power, probably with some more nuance) and that also creates substantially more rubber micro particle pollution. They also happen to be more dangerous in the event of a crash. Plus the additional challenges with grid load, which some people dismiss with silly ideas like having said cars act like load balancers (that would be a mess to scale).
In most cases, EVs are not a solution to mobility, they are a solution to save the car industry from real solutions to climate change, namely spamming trams, trains and buses (in sparse locations) all over the place.
Hello. I have 4 years of private sector experience. Living with someone else who also does. Both STEM and paid above average for the place we live in (Portugal). Rent is half our bills.
Living alone outside not in a cube and in any place that resembles a city is but impossible. 40 years ago we’d be higher middle class.