It is important for the tourism industry that we import our tourists because many in the US cannot afford or work too many hours to enjoy long vacations. :idunno:

It is important for the tourism industry that we import our tourists because many in the US cannot afford or work too many hours to enjoy long vacations. :idunno:

 

So confused....how does this apply? Are you opposed to expanding efforts in foreign tourism because Americans work too many hours and/or cannot afford to go on long vacations? I've worked in the industry for over 20 years and have only taken 1 vacation. There were times it was a time issue, others a money issue, and sometimes both. But my time was available to me to use however I wanted, and had I made it a priority, the funds could have been saved (at least post-minimum wage era for me).

I'm not opposed to the federal government being involved but I think it should be more on the states and the specific tourism industries to foot the bulk of the cost. Task forces are holes where our tax dollars go to die and I believe many of the stated goals will create costs that the taxpayers should not bear. For instance, "Ensuring that 80% of non-immigrant visa applicants are interviewed within three weeks of receipt of application." Does anyone NOT think that is going to cost some taxpayer dollars?

Come on folks. I realize this is a wacky partisan forum, but come on. President Obama's efforts to stimulate tourism in the Unites States (particularly by foreigners) is a good thing. Almost anything the federal govt can do to bring foreign money into our economy should be lauded; not attacked. I feel the same about President Obama's past efforts to stimulate exporting by US manufacturers. Think of the US as being a big bucket filled with dollars. If we don't replenish the bucket with foreign money to compensate for all the domestic money leaving the bucket to purchase foreign products (oil, electronics, etc.) the dollars in the bucket get much fewer. Every Renminbi, every Deutchemark, every Franc, etc that gets spent in the US helps the US economy significantly. If tourism by foreigners can be increased without increasing the ease that terrorists slip into the US, I'm all for it (and you should be too). While I generally feel the federal govt should played a very narrow role in the economy, I realize that during very tough economies, the federal govt needs to play a more active role. This is one of those times in my opinion.

Come on folks. I realize this is a wacky partisan forum, but come on. President Obama's efforts to stimulate tourism in the Unites States (particularly by foreigners) is a good thing. Almost anything the federal govt can do to bring foreign money into our economy should be lauded; not attacked. I feel the same about President Obama's past efforts to stimulate exporting by US manufacturers. Think of the US as being a big bucket filled with dollars. If we don't replenish the bucket with foreign money to compensate for all the domestic money leaving the bucket to purchase foreign products (oil, electronics, etc.) the dollars in the bucket get much fewer. Every Renminbi, every Deutchemark, every Franc, etc that gets spent in the US helps the US economy significantly. If tourism by foreigners can be increased without increasing the ease that terrorists slip into the US, I'm all for it (and you should be too). While I generally feel the federal govt should played a very narrow role in the economy, I realize that during very tough economies, the federal govt needs to play a more active role. This is one of those times in my opinion.

 

I agree.

 

On another thread somewhere there was discussion of the fall of some of the world's empire. As a teacher of World History (only a survey course, I claim to be no expert in all things "worldly") I noticed that one common theme among many of the falls was the trade deficit. Too much money leaving the country to purchase cheaper foreign goods. At some point the money in your "bucket" is gone. Not only does it cause a money issue, but it reduces mfg. in this country and as a result fewer jobs and thus we begin the cycle.

I agree.

 

On another thread somewhere there was discussion of the fall of some of the world's empire. As a teacher of World History (only a survey course, I claim to be no expert in all things "worldly") I noticed that one common theme among many of the falls was the trade deficit. Too much money leaving the country to purchase cheaper foreign goods. At some point the money in your "bucket" is gone. Not only does it cause a money issue, but it reduces mfg. in this country and as a result fewer jobs and thus we begin the cycle.

 

Satan just put on a wool hat and mittens. LOL.

Satan just put on a wool hat and mittens. LOL.

 

Yep....it's a rare day when you agree with me, it's a rare day when you agree with acemona...it's the rarest of all days when you agree with both of us....and in the same thread, no less.

The Apocalypse is officially upon us.

So, is it OK to go to Vegas now?

Where Have you been lately !!? missed seeing your posts .

Where Have you been lately !!? missed seeing your posts .

Actually...... Vegas. :lol: That and I've had tons to do around the house.

So confused....how does this apply? Are you opposed to expanding efforts in foreign tourism because Americans work too many hours and/or cannot afford to go on long vacations? I've worked in the industry for over 20 years and have only taken 1 vacation. There were times it was a time issue, others a money issue, and sometimes both. But my time was available to me to use however I wanted, and had I made it a priority, the funds could have been saved (at least post-minimum wage era for me).

 

Read my statement 10 times if you need then tell me where any where in the statement it even hints at opposing promoting tourism!! However it is a statement regarding our own economic situation which remains poor. I don't like people twisting statements!

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by rockmom
fixed quote

So confused....how does this apply? Are you opposed to expanding efforts in foreign tourism because Americans work too many hours and/or cannot afford to go on long vacations? I've worked in the industry for over 20 years and have only taken 1 vacation. There were times it was a time issue, others a money issue, and sometimes both. But my time was available to me to use however I wanted, and had I made it a priority, the funds could have been saved (at least post-minimum wage era for me).

 

Read my statement 10 times if you need then tell me where any where in the statement it even hints at opposing promoting tourism!! However it is a statement regarding our own economic situation which remains poor. I don't like people twisting statements!

 

I'm simply asking for clarification, friend. You're more than welcome to expound on your comment so others can fully understand your intent. If you notice my response, I posed a question, then related a personal experience.

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by rockmom

I'm simply asking for clarification, friend. You're more than welcome to expound on your comment so others can fully understand your intent. If you notice my response, I posed a question, then related a personal experience.

 

You are right....I will answer your question - I am not opposed to promoting tourism. I believe our administrations nationally and in Kentucky should expend their influence to promote manufacturing and technology which will put more money in OUR hands to spend on tourism too.

You are right....I will answer your question - I am not opposed to promoting tourism. I believe our administrations nationally and in Kentucky should expend their influence to promote manufacturing and technology which will put more money in OUR hands to spend on tourism too.

 

Fair enough. I admittedly work in the hospitality/tourism industry. I bring this to the table, because for the first time in 20+ years there is a bigger focus on the value of tourism as an integral part of our economy than just through individual state/local efforts. I don't think people know how many people are employed by the industry directly, or by the vendors that serve them. I believe that increasing occupancies in our hotels, attendance at our attractions, conferences in our convention facilities will also spin-off additional jobs in exactly the areas you mention. If occupancies/revenues become more in line with pre-2008/2009 figures, there will be new-build, renovations, increased need for supplies, etc. Thus, more people employed in areas not thought of as the tourism industry. I just saw a study that business travel and confereces is expected to increase in 2012 & 2013. However, they are still very cost-consious. While leisure travel (the target of this initiative) is budget consious, they're more likely to spend a much greater amount in local areas, not only the attractions and hotels. They buy gas, eat in restaurants, shop.....Everything a tourist spend dollars on is supplied and manufactured by someone. Increasing the sales increases the demands on suppliers and manufacturers. That increased demand drives increasing employment. Now, whether those manufacturers employ US citizens is a great conundrum.

 

As to the wage issue, the tourism industry is extremely low-wage, compared to the manufacturing industry, for instance. The disparity is staggering if you look accross the different disciplines. I don't know that if America is to recover manufacturing jobs, that we'll ever return to the union hey-day wage/benefit system.

Fair enough. I admittedly work in the hospitality/tourism industry. I bring this to the table, because for the first time in 20+ years there is a bigger focus on the value of tourism as an integral part of our economy than just through individual state/local efforts. I don't think people know how many people are employed by the industry directly, or by the vendors that serve them. I believe that increasing occupancies in our hotels, attendance at our attractions, conferences in our convention facilities will also spin-off additional jobs in exactly the areas you mention. If occupancies/revenues become more in line with pre-2008/2009 figures, there will be new-build, renovations, increased need for supplies, etc. Thus, more people employed in areas not thought of as the tourism industry. I just saw a study that business travel and confereces is expected to increase in 2012 & 2013. However, they are still very cost-consious. While leisure travel (the target of this initiative) is budget consious, they're more likely to spend a much greater amount in local areas, not only the attractions and hotels. They buy gas, eat in restaurants, shop.....Everything a tourist spend dollars on is supplied and manufactured by someone. Increasing the sales increases the demands on suppliers and manufacturers. That increased demand drives increasing employment. Now, whether those manufacturers employ US citizens is a great conundrum.

 

As to the wage issue, the tourism industry is extremely low-wage, compared to the manufacturing industry, for instance. The disparity is staggering if you look accross the different disciplines. I don't know that if America is to recover manufacturing jobs, that we'll ever return to the union hey-day wage/benefit system.

 

 

Good points...sorry if abrupt earlier, but I had just watched the Maxine Waters video. Agreed US manufacturing has to be competitive...and that is why we have to break the union mentality and make the state and country "right-to-work". The federal and state governments already have enough laws to protect workers that were not in existence when unions were created. Definitely Kentucky has been penalized for its adherance to old traditions regarding the unions.