-
Yes, and the two issues (luxury/lifestyles of the rich and famous) and 'desirability' of travel are closely linked. If you're a (n international) celebrity, supposedly representing the best of society, part of that will always involve popping up in all sorts of places, whether you're on an international concert tour or going to all the glitziest parties in New York City, London, Paris, LA ... so if you jack up the price without changing people's fundamental idea that 'travelling' makes them more virtuous, you're not going to get very far (people might just go into more debt, starve their children of food, etc. to fulfil their 'dream').
Another important thing is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's clearly something good about mobility, and despite the evils of hypermobility, shared out quite unequally, there are still many people for whom 'you're in your place, and you know where you are' is an inescapable reality. Likewise, there is clearly something good about travelling. There is nothing wrong, of course, with the general idea that it's beneficial to see a bit of the world when you're young (quite on the contrary), but much of the 'travelling' from tourist trap to tourist trap, or fragile historical sights/sites, obviously doesn't correspond.
However, building a consensus about the appropriate mean is extremely difficult when your departure point (pun intended) is such rampant injustice as today.
You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Oliver Schick
miro_o
But I'd like to get away from seeing it just as a pricing/markets issue - which effectively makes travel a luxury good (prices go up, poor can no longer afford it...) and in addition change people's attitudes to travel. You can enrich your lives without going to the other side of the world and it would be great to see that view encouraged.